Posted: 11/1/2004 9:38:09 PM EDT
I dont make a lot of money and I dont pay a lot of tax. I also dont begrudge others to keep the money they earn.
Why do people hate tax cuts?
But they do like to put a spin on them to make them look bad for republicans, like saying that "they are only for the rich" when actually they are only for people that "work".
Well I get taxed light I quess, last job I got hit harder. People dont like it if its not them seeing the cut, or someone might get more.
Of if your on the handout, they are taking money away from the hand that feeds you, your 4 kids and pitbull
Its my money. Mine. Its yours too.
It is just that you cant please everyone......someone gets that and the other person wants the same
Shamelessly stolen from G. Gordon Liddy's Website:
Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson in Economics.
Posted January, 2003
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh $7
The eighth $12
The ninth $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant
every day and seemed quite happy with
the arrangement, until one day, the
owner threw them a curve. "Since you
are all such good customers," he said,
"I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."
So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat free.
But what about the other six, the paying customers?
How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.
But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being "paid" to eat their meal.
So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings)
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings)
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)
The tenth now paid $49 instead $59 (16% savings)
Each of the six was better off than before.
And the first four continued to eat for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man.
"I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man.
"Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2?
The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison.
"We didn't get anything at all. The system
exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for
dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him.
But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean .
Tax cuts are only good for the poor.
Rich people who went to school, started successful businesses, and made a difference in the community by creating jobs and products need to be taxed more so the less fortunate "ambition challenged people" can get free shit.
Besides, by taxing the top 1% of the people a bit more, I'm sure we can give free health care to everyone, bankroll Social Security, pay for the war on terror, inspect every container for plastic guns, seal the borders with retina scan technology, subsidize the UN, pay off half of the deficit, and make pumpkins walk again.
Hillary: We'll take your money for 'common good'
Senator speaks to wealthy taxpayers at San Francisco fund-raiser
Posted: June 29, 2004
5:00 p.m. Eastern
Addressing a Democratic fund-raiser yesterday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., told wealthy supporters the government will need to take money away from them for the "common good."
Clinton headlined an appearance with other women Democratic senators in San Francisco, where donors gave as much as $10,000 to California Sen. Barbara Boxer's campaign.
"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Clinton said, according to the Associated Press. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you.
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Republican National Committee spokeswoman Christine Iverson told WorldNetDaily that Americans should take careful note of Clinton's remarks.
"This is John Kerry's Democratic party," she said. "Small-business owners and taxpayers all across America should be very, very concerned."
Kerry and Clinton, Iverson said, are people who "believe the government knows how to spend your own money better than you do."
Iverson acknowledged Clinton's use of the term "common good" was telling, evoking the language of Karl Marx, who envisioned a society that distributes wealth "from each according to ability, to each according to need."
In her book, "Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton," the late author Barbara Olson wrote, in Clinton's "formative years, Marxism was a very important part of her ideology."
Olson described the senator growing up as a "budding Leninist" who "understood the Leninist concept of acquiring, accumulating and maintaining political power at any cost."
The Washington, D.C.-based Americans for Tax Reform responded to Clinton's remarks, saying, "When it comes to tax policy, liberal politicians often try to hide their true colors."
"There you have it: Hillary Clinton, the soul of the Democratic Party, talking about taxpayers’ money like it's hers," said Americans for Tax Reform head Grover Norquist. "What insufferable arrogance – it's as though our taxes are hers to spend!"
And my mama needs her teeth filled with the good 24k Gold, none of that cheap 10k shit.
Only power-crazed politicians, society's leeches and brain-dead zombies dislike tax cuts.
[Edit in blue]
People hate tax cuts because of jealousy. If YOU HAVE, and THEY DONT, then you need to be punished for that.
Generally the rich have been villified by the super rich who do not pay any taxes. In general the democrats love taxes and like to suck the life out of working people so they can buy more votes with it. Unfortunately the Republicans have been using the same tactic.
The fed sets interest rates based on the "power of the economy". When the DOTCOM bubble burst a lot of fake companies left with a lot of money and the fed had to keep lowering interest rates to keep inflation in check. Taxes were too high and took too much money out of the economy and the higher taxes were a strong contributing factor to the recession.
My taxes are way too high and I do work a lot. In general I loose 25% of my pay check to taxes, but the democrats think I need to pay moe taxes so they can hand out more money to the " POOR" who are in a lot of cases stupid lazy shiftless bums, or dumb hos that like to breed so they can live off AFDC.
Many people have fallen for the line of shit, that it's the fair thing to do, of course those people don't have to do it, so it's fair for them.
I can never figure out why letting people keep more of their money is considered a "giveaway" by the Democrats.
Because the government owns all the money. They just let you hold it for a little while.
The funny thing is Hillary has a strong base in San Francisco, and when she said that I saw shock and disbelief on the faces of the women who were there to see their hero.
I found that sort of amusing.
I hate tax cuts because every time there is a cut, I wind up paying more. Tax cut announcement? OK, how much m ore is this going to cost me?
I don't think anyone hates tax cuts, the article above by Liddy illustrates how across the board tax cuts are good for everyone.
The problem is our system is full of loopholes, and many of those loopholes have a high cost of entry. The vast majority of people will never be able to take advantage of them.
Edwards, who made millions, paid a lower % of taxes than I did and lets just say I'm not quite in his tax bracket :)
because 40-50% of the people don't pay federal income taxes. They figure a tax cut would reduce their govt handouts. It's also due to jealously, class warfare. Ever notice that if you support tax cuts you're labeled greedy for wanting to have a tiny bit more of your own money? But you never hear those wanting to raise your taxes as being greedy for wanting to take more of your money.
I support the flat tax. If everyone paid the same rate starting at $0.01 of wages, you wont here any more calls for tax hikes because it'll affect everyone. The poor, socialist, leftist pukes want stuff for "free", that is make the "rich" pay for their crap govt programs.
I'm against robbing Peter to pay Paul in any form.
I'd like to see a flat tax.
It's bullsh-t that the harder I work, the more I have to hand over to .gov.
I can live with a incremental tax or a flat tax, but whichever it is needs to have no special deductions for anyone.
As long as you realize you are a socialist, that's cool.
From each according to his ability to pay (incremental taxes), to each according to his needs. (socialized welfare)
wow, you need to learn to read.
I said nothing about where the money would go.
I said I could live with the 2 most commonly proposed methods of taxation (one currently in use, the other some want to see enacted)
I then amplified my statement that the main determination for me was that whichever system we use, special deductions need to be removed.
I said nothing about where the money should go.
So kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth, thanks.
p.s. I think the government overstepped its bounds in instituting an income tax, but I highly doubt that will ever change. If you'd like to discuss how to spend taxes IM me or lets start another thread
Because they are morons who think that people who have more money than they do should "pay" for having more.
They really don't like it when I explain how somebody with a small buisness can have a reported income of 350,000 dollars and still have LESS disposable income than they do making 30,000 dollars. The tax issue is mostly about marxist proletarian resentment of the people they see as having more than they do.
I had a long and frustrating discussion about this issue with a woman yesterday. She doesn't want taxes to go down or social security to be reformed or the government programs to go away, but she is all upset that jobs are going overseas and that she doesn't have enough money to save for retirement.
When I posed the idea that MAYBE the reason companies are taking some jobs overseas is because between liablity and the cost of employing Americans they can no longer AFFORD to do buisness here and be competitive, and that MAYBE if the .gov didn't take 40% of the average family's income, and that MAYBE if she had some ownership of her own retirement money that her life would improve, and that MAYBE if we could reduce malpractice and insurance rates and stop expanding handout programs that she could afford insurance.
She didn't like the idea of any of that, because she is afraid illness and family emergencies and bad investment decisions will make her destitute overnight.
So then I asked "So you are basically telling me that it is the government's job to protect you from sickness, financial loss, and any other catastrophe in life, right?"
Her response was that she thought that was what government was supposed to do.
Sounds like they should incorporate if thats the case. Thats why so many small businesses fail, the people who run them are great at what they do, but often don't know a thing about business.
It also protects you legally if anything happens with your business.