It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Economy Sinking Government Knows & Giving Bad Info

page: 17
9
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


I'll just continue repeating myself. Yet again, I have no problem with a fair tax rate. They tax us all 30%, is that fine with you? Buffet gets taxed 30%, I get taxed 30%, you get taxed 30%. OK with you? No? Want to tax the rich more to punish them? Then we're going to have to disagree.




posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


LOL ive served my sentence brother it was a very hard life growing up in the poor family not only because I missed on a lot of opportunities but it was even harder to make friends because most other kids parents would write you off as a scumbag because of who your parents are. That is what gave me the inspiration that I have today. If things dont get better Ill chill with ya on the soup line how does that sound



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 





Because while the poor do indeed take government rebates and spend it on non-essential item...


Um, cowpie. You have no evidence.



the small percent isn't enough to cause a large-scale economic impact.


Small percent of what? People who get rebate checks? The study only examines those in the 10% bracket. The poor people. You are making a comparison where no basis exists.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
reply to post by mybigunit
 


I'll just continue repeating myself. Yet again, I have no problem with a fair tax rate. They tax us all 30%, is that fine with you? Buffet gets taxed 30%, I get taxed 30%, you get taxed 30%. OK with you? No? Want to tax the rich more to punish them? Then we're going to have to disagree.


Well the consumption tax is 23% on what you buy. So if you save all your money and only buy what you need hey you dont have to pay any taxes. Its really going to cost the wealthy because they will continue to buy their 10 million dollar homes and 200k cars. Huckabees plan only makes perfect sense and you as a guy who thinks that poor people spend there way into where they are in their lives should like the plan to it encourages saving and not spending. I love the plan. Cmon light deep down you know you do too.....come Light come to the dark side



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


I have proven you to be wrong, and provided cites. Where is your evidence I am wrong? Where? I'm waiting.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


Umm I have no problem with a consumption tax, obviously. Never said I did. Although I would point out that *GASP* rich people spend a smaller percent of their total wealth on what they buy than a poor person! This means that YOUR HURTING THE POOR! I don't have a problem with it, but you should if you want to be consistent. Why not just do a flat income tax?



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 


because I dont think you should be taxed on how hard you work but how much you spend. Yes the poor do some mad spending but I think that would change by going to this taxing system.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


Then you are now taxing the poor more - I thought you wanted to help them. A poor person who makes $20k a year might spend $15k on the essentials - therefore he/she is being taxed effectively on 75% of his income. A multi-billionaire like Buffet may spend a hundred million, so you are taxing him at a very small percent (2% maybe?). So now you've got the poor being taxed at 75% of their total income and the rich being taxed at 2% of their total income.

I personally have no problem with it, but your being inconsistent at best...first you want to "protect the poor," then you want to slap them with a tax that is effectively regressive and far worse than the current system currently in place.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 


No thats not true according to Huckabee's plan this is on his site...




The FairTax will replace the Internal Revenue Code with a consumption tax, like the taxes on retail sales forty-five states and the District of Columbia have now. All of us will get a monthly rebate that will reimburse us for taxes on purchases up to the poverty line, so that we're not taxed on necessities. That means people below the poverty line won't be taxed at all. We'll be taxed on what we decide to buy, not what we happen to earn. We won't be taxed on what we choose to save or the interest those savings earn. The tax will apply only to new goods, so we can reduce our taxes further by buying a used car or computer.



Pretty good idea if you ask me. This is why something like this would never get passed light because it WILL affect the top 1% and it will change the way poor look at their money. It is in many of the elitist interests to keep people in the "poor" position and not able to fend for themselves per se. They want the people to rely on them so they can continue with their agendas....if this was not the case welfare would of been fixed along time ago and that is why something like this will NEVER get passed.

[edit on 20-1-2008 by mybigunit]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


Uhh...my point still holds true. Great, the very few people below poverty won't be taxed. Just one problem. The current poverty line is $9,363 for 1 person. I will make around $20k next year. I can tell you I spend every dime on the "essentials," but for the sake of argument we'll just claim I only spend 15k (essentials = food, rent in a bad part of town, car insurance for a beater car thats 10+ years old, cheapest cell phone plan available, no land line, cable, internet, or anything).

$15,000 - 9,363/20,000 = I am being taxed at 39% of my income. Buffet is being taxed at 2% of his income. Your are advocating a tax system far worse than the current one. The irony is interesting.

Its a horrible bad idea if you truly were interested in protecting the poor, as it'll absolutely rape them in terms of percentage of taxable income. Of course I don't think government should be saving or protecting anyone, so I have no problem with it. YOU, on the other hand, are being terribly inconsistent.

[edit on 20-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 


Its actually $10,210 but still only $600 difference but that is a good point and Ill do a little more research on his plan to see if there is anything Im missing. Mabey his plan isnt perfect mabey it needs to be raised but I still think a consumption tax is the fairest way to do taxes. BTW I want it to be known Huckabee is not who I am voting for but I do urge you go to his site and check out all the good reasons on going to this kind of system.

Oh and yes I can admit when someone has a good point.


[edit on 20-1-2008 by mybigunit]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


Eh, I was going off a older US census table I think, it is up to $10,210 now. I was using the "under 65 - 1 person" number. I personally have no problem with the fair tax - I agree with you - it sounds great to me. But it is regressive because the less money you have, the more money you are spending as a percent of your total income - and that amount is now being taxed. That up to poverty is "free" to me doesn't do much, because most people make above poverty and depending on where you live anywhere from $20 to $30k a year is spent on just the "essentials" - all of which will be taxed with the fair tax, even though its necessary to live.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 


I pay 20k a year for health insurance alone with blue cross and blue shield that that is cheaper than most out there as far as what I could find. Plus with gas going up so I pay $85 a pop to fill it up take that times 52 for 52 weeks that is around 5k a year in gas just for me not even my wife. Throw in car insurance 200 a mo $2400 a year...food $200 a week at least x52 for 52 weeks that is 10k for the year in food (I spend a lot more than that because I go out to eat a lot but this is the number for at home food family of 5) so what are we at now close to 38k for the year ok now what about energy Power/gas for the house which my average bill is $250 a mo 3k for the year.now we are over 41k a year oh and this is just for necessities. Now keep in mind there is the area where the majority of your money goes which is car and house payments. So trust me guy I know how much it costs to live remember Im the one who hasnt forgot where ive come from. In all technicality if you crunch the numbers I shouldnt even buy flat screen Tvs or nice appliances or anything like that. This is why I tell you that when people call me rich I laugh because 40 to 50 k a year goes to necessities things that people need to be "normal citizens" This is why Im mad that gas is where it is...this is why Im mad that food is going up that way that it is...this is why Im mad that I have to pay a higher % of taxes than Warren Buffet. This is why Im mad that my home power bills are going up. I make a lot of money but after taxes and "necessities" you know how much I am left for the year for car and house payments and leisure money? Well not enough now is that cause I choose to drive a nice car and live in a nice house yes. But when you come to my house you wont see a plasma TV or anything like that...as far as Im concerned I cant afford it and that is what is frustrating.

Thats why I think its good that you get my full side and that is why im disclosing very personal stuff because you seem to think that its OK gas is where it is and that it is OK that food and energy prices is where it is and you think it is OK that Buffet pays a smaller % than me because he pays more taxes than me (which is because he makes WAYYYYY more money than me) Trust me my feelings on this stuff doesnt make me a democrat it makes me a very pissed off independent who thinks If I barely make it making the money that I make how does people like lightindarkness make it only making 20k

Give me Time Light Ill bring you over to the darkside here soon ..the independent side
no dem or repub just straight up look at things from a neutral point of view.

[edit on 20-1-2008 by mybigunit]

[edit on 20-1-2008 by mybigunit]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


What? You've got to be kidding me. No, those are NOT necessities. No 20,000 A YEAR health insurance plan is a NECESSITY. Mine cost a $200 a MONTH. It cost me $40 in gas - don't drive a gas guzzler - $85 a week isn't essential. Don't drive a fancy car - $2,400 a year in car insurance is not essential. Food costs me $150 a MONTH, $200 a week is insane - eating out is not essential. I could go on and on for everything you listed.

Sure, you can get your essential spending up when you start declaring everything that is NOT essential IS essential. But it's simply not true.

But even even if all those things were necessities - AND THEY ARE NOT - Warren Buffet is still being taxed 2% of his income. And I'd be taxed 39% of mine. And I'm poor. You claim to want to protect the poor and shield them from the big bad evil corporations - the fair tax does anything but. It is completely regressive, and in that sense is far worse than the current system.


Originally posted by mybigunit
t it makes me a very pissed off independent who thinks If I barely make it making the money that I make how does people like lightindarkness make it only making 20k


I do not delve into peoples personal life, but just volunteered all that information, and then said this. So I'll only say this - I can tell you exactly how I make it. I know what is essential and what is not. What is essential: rent in a place that won't fall down on me - turning on heat/air when it either gets 88 degrees or below 50 degrees in my apartment - a 10 year old car and its minimal insurance - the cheapest cell phone plan I can get - and food staples. That's it. Nothing else is essential. Being able to eat out is a luxury. Being able to turn heat/air on at a reasonable level is a luxury. Soda is a luxury. Buying shoes before they are literally falling apart is a luxury.

What is it with you and assuming my political party. I am 100% libertarian. You are not independent, and I am neither democrat or republican. If you'd read...I don't know - anything - I've ever posted it would be very obvious.

[edit on 20-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 


I have a wife and 3 kids to feed sorry $150 a month in food doesnt cover it. which is also why my health insurance is so much. I dont drive anything fancy I drive a GMC Yukon (really living on the edge there) yes its a gas guzzler but have you tried fitting a family of 5 in a toyota prius? If you really live in those conditions then I just cannot figure out how you are disagreeing with me but hey thats the beauty of America. You just come off as some hardcore republican because a lot of the things you say is right out of Bushes text book. Im an independent because Im democrat on monetary issues except for wefare and republican on moral issues example I dont think sexual predators should get 30 days in jail. Thats why its never easy to vote but Ive always voted on morals. This year might be different though.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


Your right, a family of four should be spending $6000-7000 (could be 5000 if you didn't buy designer food) a year instead of $10,000. I could get my food down to about $75 a week but I admit I don't do coupon clippings and don't buy things on sale all the time - and that's a luxury. Yes, you can fit a family in a much smaller car. No one ever said you have to have a roomy car - roomy cars are a luxury.

I live in these "conditions" and live better than 90% of the world. Most of the world would kill to be able to even have the luxury of air conditioning. But I know what is essential and what is a luxury. If you actually spent money on what is essential only, you'd be taxed at a very low percent of your income. I can't afford much luxury, and I'm being taxed regardless at a huge portion of my income. I'm fine with that, but again, if you wanted to be consistent in your "protecting the poor" thing you wouldn't be.

I can tell you have no idea what your talking about on politics, as you somehow equate "self responsibility" with "Bush." You really need to learn that Bush is right up your alley with his big government spending. You should love him. I'm libertarian, and am politically opposite of Bush. You should know Bush's brand of conservatism - liberal fiscal policy and social conservatism - is directly opposed to libertarianism. You are liberal, from what you say here.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 


Im actually a Ron Paul kind of guy myself that thats neither here nor there. Im for being taxed fairly thats what Im for and right now the taxing system is not fair. The government does need to spend money and thats all there is to it. We need to have the best infrustructure in the world and we should considering we are the "wealthiest" in the world. We should have the best education and not have extremely high college costs. We should and have the best national defense in the world. So in a sense yeah I think we need to spend but Im not for spending millions to subsidize oil the way we do. I am for subsidizing alternative energy. Im not for giving welfare and food stamps to anyone and everyone or giving certain races money for things that I had nothing to do with. We waste more money on crap and my point is once again we have 2 choices quit spending money on all this crap or more taxes but at least tax fairly. This is my point of view. So Im neither a liberal or conservative i feel i am in the middle. Spend on what we should be spending on and nothing more and tax fairly. The liberal are for wealth distribution and I am not for that. Im not for facism either though.

Oh and I live and breath politics so theres not much out there I cant debate when it comes to that.
[edit on 20-1-2008 by mybigunit]

[edit on 20-1-2008 by mybigunit]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightinDarkness

... Warren Buffet is still being taxed 2% of his income. And I'd be taxed 39% of mine. And I'm poor. [...]



i believe W Buffett is in a higher tax bracket %
but because he has a battery of tax specialists and accountants
who exercise every possible loophole for their Boss Man...
it is understandable Warren eventually has to pay 2% of his earnings
to the gov't as taxes (as opposed to something higher)

Warren is still spending an enormous % of his 'pay' to someone...
he choses to spend his money on accountants & tax doging attorneys

rather than sending the equivelent ammount of $$$ to the IRS
without all those intermediarities taking their (earned?) 'cut',,,,

it's something like the 'Pay me now--- or pay me later' situation

It is pparent that Warren rather pay the loop-hole artists rather than the federal government..............
even though it's the same cost, it's just being paid/spent on different recipients -

i 'could' call this action "Un-American"
but i'd be 'Boo'-ed by the crowd that calls Buffett's actions good business sense.


IMHO



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:54 PM
link   
I just used the 1040EZ.

If I figure my income at $10,500 I still pay $26. Granted, it's not a huge amount, but I am still paying taxes even though I am just about on the poverty line.

If I figure my income at $25,000 I pay $2,050. I cannot take the Earned Income Credit if I made over twelve-thousand and change.

What am I missing here?



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


are you claiming dependents? If you claim 0 then they take more from your taxes but if you claim dependents then they will take very little which means you get more of your normal paycheck minus SSI and Medicaid. If you claim 0 they take a lot of your paycheck but you get it all back at the end of the year. I always recommend claiming 0. Its just like having a savings account and at the end of the year you will a nice check from uncle sam. Also you get right offs also donations certain right offs if you are in school and if you use your home space for a personal biz. Its confusing I know thats why I want to get rid of it.

[edit on 21-1-2008 by mybigunit]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join