Quit Complaining -- $100K-Plus Earners Pay 72% of Federal Income Taxes

a reply to: HanzHenry

You mean the rich right? because in this nation today making over 100 K but under 200 K is just middle class nothing more and nothing else and the ones that are targeted by the government the most.

a reply to: marg6043

With all due respect to your assessment of what I do and don't understand, let's just leave it at that I have given a hell of a lot more than I've received, and never took a dang thing that belonged to someone else. I know it is much easier to question the value of a stranger than it is to grapple with the intricacies of policy governing very large systems, but that's the only kind of conversation I'm interested in.

Do you not realize that welfare paid to the working poor is the only thing maintaining a supply of minimum wage labor, and that if it disappeared that a minimum wage of at least 15 dollars would be dictated by market forces? It's corporate welfare that saves the rich a hell of a lot more than it costs them.

originally posted by: The Vagabond
a reply to: marg6043

Do you not realize that welfare paid to the working poor is the only thing maintaining a supply of minimum wage labor, and that if it disappeared that a minimum wage of at least 15 dollars would be dictated by market forces? It's corporate welfare that saves the rich a hell of a lot more than it costs them.

I think without welfare, the riots would be uncontrollable. The nation is so far past the time in which a massive labor movement was started.

But, imho, wages would go to near nothing if there was no welfare. As it stands in America there are more looking for work then there are jobs. Therefore, imagine how low wages would be if 3 people were fighting over one job, the lowest bidder gets the job at what? $1/hr?

We are on the road to that now. Supply vs Demand. All the people have is RIOT or STRIKE.. or starve.

the govt in COMPLICIT in the current economy. SS benefits are calculated on the last 10 years income. So, they can drastically reduce payouts if everyone is making less per year. think about that.
a nation of:

part time workers = very low yearly income = low SS benefits
spend a 2 years unemployed = 20% lower benefits
make less pay than 20 years ago = less benefits

this will "kick the can down the road" in reference to the year calculated as SS insolvency. SS wont go bankrupt if the calculations for payouts are significantly lowered

a reply to: The Vagabond

You are confusing my post, let me be clear, working productive class for my point of view because I and my husband fall in that range is to pay taxes and getting nothing but more taxes, productive meaning we do not depend on other tax payers in order to survive and never had, everybody works for a living and all of their work is productive, but is those that even working still depend on government assistance.

Now, second post, I agree with the second paragraph, the first I am still trying to figure out what you mean, because I do want to know why the money that we earn a portion that is a growing one have to be wasted and abused, so the government can claim that they are helping the welfare class, supporting a growing welfare nation at the expenses of a diminishing middle class is just making things worst, because the rich always find a way to get away from paying the most taxes.

Sometimes my husband and I wonder if is better to give up, live on his military retirement alone and suck up other tax payers like some are doing to us now, I think life will be a lot better, because obviously with a growing welfare nation, welfare most be good.

Still I don't think that anybody that are making between 100K and 200K should be apologizing for having a good darn job, because that is all that is, when the job is gone, is unemployment lines like anybody else.

And as corporate welfare, well we all guilty of what goes on in this nation, as those that receive welfare seems to be happy of just been in the receiving end and the government take advantage of that, while the middle class when complain about inequality are call greedy, hell I am greedy alright, I am greedy about how my hard earned money is stolen away by the government in the name of taxes.

a reply to: HanzHenry

I agree, without welfare it will be riots in the streets, sadly no middle class worker will dare to do that to complain about inequality because been afraid of losing their jobs.

As for the rich hell they just find a way to make profits if riots erupt anywhere in the nation,

Yes I been sarcastic on that last sentence.

a reply to: HanzHenry

I agree with most of what you say, however I don't believe welfare is supporting wage levels. I believe that the end of welfare would put a large percentage of the working poor out of their homes and out of meals, and there is no way they could continue to seek employment under those conditions. At the same time consumer spending would go down dramatically as a large segment of the population lost their incomes.

Demand for labor would drop somewhat, but that would be offset by a drop in the supply of labor, while other operating expenses would remain fixed, and revenues went down. The result would be a net loss to employers once the available combination of wages and wage supplements offered by the service industry dropped below the cost of food and rent.

They would either have to incarcerate the poor and transition to a thinly veiled slavery economy or they would have to pay a living wage to enough of the population to sustain a labor pool that can serve the profit-optimized level of consumption.

I used to work this part time job where after the cost of driving to work, eating lunch, and taxes I was effectively making 10 bucks for 4 hours work. I quit after the first month when there wasn't any money for car insurance. If they had tightened up to the point that all of their employees had that problem, they'd be trying to find somebody in walking distance in a very nice neighborhood willing to work for even less than me, and if they couldn't they'd fail to open and have to pay a considerable fee because of some contract arrangements.

My point is that if that particular business had made that mistake, somebody would have strong armed them into paying 500 bucks for the shift to avoid the big fine, and the very next day they would have tried to hire me back for 40 again and I would have demanded 60, and even if I didn't get it, they'd probably get jacked up a couple bucks by whoever they did find.

originally posted by: daskakik

Not just talking taxation.

Please expand.

originally posted by: daskakik
If you want to use the dictionary definition, anything not needed to survive, then just about everybody is living a life of luxury.

You don't like the word then how about "these are things that common folk have". Does that take care of the semantic block you seem to be in?

Common for some. Regardless, if people are to receive handouts, it is to be necessities. Not phones and such.

originally posted by: daskakik
Take less from those that don't have.

Say that a couple of times outloud and maybe it will click.

No, if it is to be fair and equal, all will pay the same amount or percentage. What you want to the Social Justice BS pitched by a handful of Progressives in Govt.
How about take less from all, and have the Govt go back to what it was designed for.

originally posted by: daskakik
Still doesn't mean that they look at personal files to see how much someone "can pay".

Then how does this magic happen?

originally posted by: daskakik
Why would they ever do that?

They have no reason to. The Govt has seen that they can buy votes, by providing crap to the masses at the expense of the few.

originally posted by: macman
Please expand.

I mentioned Shay's and the whiskey rebellions because the are examples of tax protests and government always having been overbearing. President Washington had no problem pointing muskets at american citizens.

Common for some. Regardless, if people are to receive handouts, it is to be necessities. Not phones and such.

That's your gripe. It doesn't change the fact that these things are widely available and not that expensive.

No, if it is to be fair and equal, all will pay the same amount or percentage. What you want to the Social Justice BS pitched by a handful of Progressives in Govt.
How about take less from all, and have the Govt go back to what it was designed for.

Government has never been fair. That is why I say that you believe in a fantasy when it comes to how things used to be.

Then how does this magic happen?

They set up the brackets and you do a jig. Haven't I been saying that all along?

They have no reason to. The Govt has seen that they can buy votes, by providing crap to the masses at the expense of the few.

Right, I just find it funny when people say "we" should do this, that or the other when it isn't "you" that is doing any of it and those who are, have no reason to stop doing it.

originally posted by: daskakik

I mentioned Shay's and the whiskey rebellions because the are examples of tax protests and government always having been overbearing. President Washington had no problem pointing muskets at american citizens.

Well, those are great examples. There is a current example, the Bundy Ranch standoff.
Having knowledge of what actually caused the LE, BLM and PMCs there to backdown, I'm not really sure as to using those past examples are applicable.

originally posted by: daskakik
That's your gripe. It doesn't change the fact that these things are widely available and not that expensive.

Just because they are common to you, doesn't mean they are common to me.
And an iPhone is still $400 without a contract as a one time payment. With contract, it works out to be more over a 2 year commitment.
Sooooo, it isn't cheap.

originally posted by: daskakik
Government has never been fair. That is why I say that you believe in a fantasy when it comes to how things used to be.

It was fairer closer to the creation of the country.

originally posted by: daskakik
They set up the brackets and you do a jig. Haven't I been saying that all along?

I guess.

originally posted by: daskakik
Right, I just find it funny when people say "we" should do this, that or the other when it isn't "you" that is doing any of it and those who are, have no reason to stop doing it.

Who says I am not doing what I state.

originally posted by: macman
Well, those are great examples. There is a current example, the Bundy Ranch standoff.
Having knowledge of what actually caused the LE, BLM and PMCs there to backdown, I'm not really sure as to using those past examples are applicable.

They are all that is applicable when talking about the past.

Just because they are common to you, doesn't mean they are common to me.
And an iPhone is still $400 without a contract as a one time payment. With contract, it works out to be more over a 2 year commitment.
Sooooo, it isn't cheap.

It isn't just iPhones and it isn't about it being common to one person or another.

Just checked verison's prices and those phones can be had for less than $20 a month. A kid mowing lawns can raise that kind of cash, so it isn't out of reach to anyone who is really set on getting one. Even if they have to sell some food stamps.

It was fairer closer to the creation of the country.

Believe what you like.

Who says I am not doing what I state.

You inflated government, removed flat tax, installed military bases all over the world and are handing out crap to people in exchange for votes?

originally posted by: daskakik

They are all that is applicable when talking about the past.

Recent past shows a change in the tide.

originally posted by: daskakik
It isn't just iPhones and it isn't about it being common to one person or another.

Just checked verison's prices and those phones can be had for less than $20 a month. A kid mowing lawns can raise that kind of cash, so it isn't out of reach to anyone who is really set on getting one. Even if they have to sell some food stamps.

$20 a month for this is still $480 for a 24 month contract. Perhaps instead of paying for this, the money should be applied for their more important things, like food.

originally posted by: daskakik
Believe what you like.

Okay then.

originally posted by: daskakik
You inflated government, removed flat tax, installed military bases all over the world and are handing out crap to people in exchange for votes?

Nope.

Recent past shows a change in the tide.

You keep referring to the creation of this country. Well, those things happened then.

$20 a month for this is still $480 for a 24 month contract. Perhaps instead of paying for this, the money should be applied for their more important things, like food.

That is up to the individual.

Nope.

Then why would you say that "you" need to stop doing that:

All the more reason to scale back the Fed Govt, go BACK to a Flat tax, remove our military installations from around the world and stop handing crap out to people to buy votes.

rupertg posted
“If you feed horses enough oats, it will pass through their digestive systems and their droppings will provide enough leftover oats to feed the sparrows.”
– John Kenneth Galbraith

originally posted by: xuenchen


LOL

Good way to put it into perspective.

Actually it would make more sense to feed the horse less and feed the sparrows directly without expecting them to pick through sh!t.

Maybe you prefer to pick through sh!t.

originally posted by: macman
reply to post by eNumbra

 

Says the Progressive.

Guess those people in poverty, with TVs, iPhones and such can indeed pay more.

No phone, soon no home phone. No cable which is ok, I soon won't have a TV, every time it's turned on it flickers and now it sometimes does that the whole time it's on. I do have a computer, over 10 years old. The only bills I have are water, electric, trash disposal, food and supplies.

If everyone got rid of their phones, cable, and tv's never to buy anymore that would send a message. They need people to buy their stuff and I'm only buying essentials.

originally posted by: daskakik
You keep referring to the creation of this country. Well, those things happened then.

What things???
Your 3-4 word replies aren't really facilitating discussion.
Are you talking about rebellions? Free crap? Govt not listening???

originally posted by: daskakik
That is up to the individual.

Not when funded by the tax payer it isn't.
Those the reason why people like myself don't do handouts. Once you receive crap from the Govt, they get to tell you what to do, as it should be. Just like the employer gets to dictate what I do to earn my pay.

originally posted by: daskakik
Then why would you say that "you" need to stop doing that:

The Govt needs to stop this crap. When did I say "daskakik" needs to stop this?

All the more reason to scale back the Fed Govt, go BACK to a Flat tax, remove our military installations from around the world and stop handing crap out to people to buy votes.

No reply to this from your post.

originally posted by: macman
What things???
Your 3-4 word replies aren't really facilitating discussion.
Are you talking about rebellions? Free crap? Govt not listening???

The purpose of responding point by point is to address things individually.

Yes, the rebellions happened then. They happened at the birth of the US. Bundy ranch did not happen right after the revolutionary war or during Washington's watch.

They are appropriate examples of how your view of a kinder gentler federal government during the birth of the US might not be all that accurate.

Not when funded by the tax payer it isn't.
Those the reason why people like myself don't do handouts. Once you receive crap from the Govt, they get to tell you what to do, as it should be. Just like the employer gets to dictate what I do to earn my pay.

Sure it is. You may not like it and wish it were different but neither one of us is going to change reality.

People find a way and that is why you see those things.

The Govt needs to stop this crap. When did I say "daskakik" needs to stop this?

It isn't that hard. You said:

All the more reason to scale back the Fed Govt, go BACK to a Flat tax, remove our military installations from around the world and stop handing crap out to people to buy votes.

And I replied:

Why would they ever do that?

You then said:

They have no reason to. The Govt has seen that they can buy votes, by providing crap to the masses at the expense of the few.

I then said:

Right, I just find it funny when people say "we" should do this, that or the other when it isn't "you" that is doing any of it and those who are, have no reason to stop doing it.

And then you came out of left field with:

Who says I am not doing what I state.

I never said that you said "daskakik" needed to stop anything.

originally posted by: daskakik
The purpose of responding point by point is to address things individually.

Yes, the rebellions happened then. They happened at the birth of the US. Bundy ranch did not happen right after the revolutionary war or during Washington's watch.

They are appropriate examples of how your view of a kinder gentler federal government during the birth of the US might not be all that accurate.

I never said kinder and gentler. I stated the rules allowed all to take care of themselves, and not force others to support those that don't have.

originally posted by: daskakik
Sure it is. You may not like it and wish it were different but neither one of us is going to change reality.

People find a way and that is why you see those things.

Things are changing. Requirements to receive Govt stuff, like drug testing is working its way through.
And just because it happens, like people getting stuff at the expense of my work, doesn't mean it will be static or that it is moral and just.
Kind of hard to take away Govt being Santa for people.

originally posted by: daskakik

The Govt needs to stop this crap. When did I say "daskakik" needs to stop this?

It isn't that hard. You said:

All the more reason to scale back the Fed Govt, go BACK to a Flat tax, remove our military installations from around the world and stop handing crap out to people to buy votes.

And I replied:

Why would they ever do that?

You then said:

They have no reason to. The Govt has seen that they can buy votes, by providing crap to the masses at the expense of the few.

I then said:

Right, I just find it funny when people say "we" should do this, that or the other when it isn't "you" that is doing any of it and those who are, have no reason to stop doing it.

And then you came out of left field with:

Who says I am not doing what I state.

I never said that you said "daskakik" needed to stop anything.

Okay then.

I never said kinder and gentler. I stated the rules allowed all to take care of themselves, and not force others to support those that don't have.

And I said that "you seem to be wishing for an america that never was". My examples support that.

You keep going back to later examples of the similar actions by the government. By the way the wiki page you linked about progressive tax says this:

In the United States,the first progressive income tax was established by the Revenue Act of 1862, which was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln and repealed the flat tax, which was short-lived Revenue Act of 1861.

A flat tax existed in the US for a single year.

Things are changing. Requirements to receive Govt stuff, like drug testing is working its way through.
And just because it happens, like people getting stuff at the expense of my work, doesn't mean it will be static or that it is moral and just.
Kind of hard to take away Govt being Santa for people.

But it is reality. You can keep wishing and others will keep looking for workarounds.

originally posted by: daskakik

And I said that "you seem to be wishing for an america that never was". My examples support that.

You keep going back to later examples of the similar actions by the government. By the way the wiki page you linked about progressive tax says this:

Don't really understand where your disconnect is.
The US was much "fairer" before welfare, and before there were several installments of the Progressive Tax system.

originally posted by: daskakik

A flat tax existed in the US for a single year.

I am well aware of that. I too read the Wiki page I put up.
And your point being what exactly?

originally posted by: daskakik
But it is reality. You can keep wishing and others will keep looking for workarounds.

It is a reality that appears to be swinging in the other direction.
Look for people responding to the actions taken by the Fed Govt. It seems that people have had enough and are standing up.

originally posted by: macman
Don't really understand where your disconnect is.
The US was much "fairer" before welfare, and before there were several installments of the Progressive Tax system.

Except that certain examples show that it really wasn't "fairer". What happened to looking at history? Why do you choose to ignore the examples which show otherwise?

And your point being what exactly?

Flat tax was never an integral part of the US. You say go back to it, like it was a long standing tradition.

It is a reality that appears to be swinging in the other direction.
Look for people responding to the actions taken by the Fed Govt. It seems that people have had enough and are standing up.

Until it does it is still moving in the same direction.

Also, people responding to certain types of government actions isn't always homologous. Just as many, if not more, people respond to increase certain government actions as those who oppose them.