Post Reply
Page 3 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Why half of us don't pay income tax
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 2:12PM #21
lulu2
Posts: 454

Social Security was supposed to be in whats known as a locked box. Congress broke into that box, and commited much of its funding to other things. It wasnt set up incorrectly , as we now know,  Congress makes the rules,(laws) and then when it serves their purpose, they can make new ones, to override the old. How do you fix that? Other than men who think enough of themselves, and hold on to their good word. Especially today, when "compromise in politics" means capitulation, not principle.    

Without the Soul of Christ alive in us...we are nothing but empty shells...
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 2:12PM #22
TENAC
Posts: 25,914
What seems to be lost here is the system worked.  At its inception, it worked.   When the ratios for funding were 13-1,  that excess should have been put away.  But no.  Through our elected representatives we quickly learned how to pay ourselves through redistribution.  Thank you FDR for putting us on this road.   What  is needed, no, what has to happen is repent and repeal.
Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 2:18PM #23
SecondSonOfDavid
Posts: 3,344

Apr 27, 2012 -- 2:04PM, Cesmom wrote:


Apr 27, 2012 -- 1:50PM, Bodean wrote:


People are going to have to be forced to take a larger responsiblity for their retirement needs.  An individual account, with a mandated minimum pre-tax contribution based on what your expected needs will be.  If it looks like you need to put more in the kitty ... then you will have to make adjustments in your life NOW, to make sure your tomorrow is covered.




This results in the person who only makes $20,000 a year having to contribute a higher percentage of their income to fund their retirement, when in reality, they are trying to figure out how they are going to buy groceries this week.  That's not realistic, so someone has to make up that deficit.  Who ends up having that fall on their shoulders?  Those of us stuck in the middle class category.  


Contrary to those who would like us to believe that all poor people are lazy and lack ambition, the fact is that we've got a large chunk of the population who simply don't have the mental capacity to become successful business executives or pursue other high paying career paths, regardless of how hard they might work.  We have a lot of people whose mental capacity qualifies them to work at McDonalds, and that's about the extent of their potential.  So, of course, someone has to help pick up the slack.  Should it be the rich or the middle class?  Since I'm in the middle class, you know which one I choose...I'm sure a rich person would think differently.




Your math does not work, ma'am.   The mistakes in your ogic are many, but here are the essentials:



1. Person A is not responsible for taking care of Person B, unless person B is the child or legal dependant of Person A.  Whine and wail as you will, that fact does not change.   


2. "Rich", "Middle Class", and "Poor" are subjective labels applied to serve the demands of people who want to take what they did not earn.


3.  If every "Rich" (for argument, let's say every American earning more than $250k in a year) person were compelled to pay even triple the amount they are now in federal taxes, this would not be sufficient to balance the budget, reduce the debt by more than 15%, or convince the "poor" to accept any responsibility for their own well-being.


4.   All financial health on the national level depends on job growth.  All job growth comes from successful businesses.  All successful businesses are created and run by rich people.  Ergo, attempting to punish rich people chases them to places where they are not punished, and those countries benefit from their investment.


5.  Class warfare is immoral, stupid, and a fast road to poverty on a massive scale.




That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 2:22PM #24
k-bearsmom
Posts: 1,716

WOW and SPOT ON and A++ SSOD ! ! ! ! ! !

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 2:24PM #25
Cesmom
Posts: 4,750

Apr 27, 2012 -- 2:18PM, SecondSonOfDavid wrote:


Apr 27, 2012 -- 2:04PM, Cesmom wrote:


Apr 27, 2012 -- 1:50PM, Bodean wrote:


People are going to have to be forced to take a larger responsiblity for their retirement needs.  An individual account, with a mandated minimum pre-tax contribution based on what your expected needs will be.  If it looks like you need to put more in the kitty ... then you will have to make adjustments in your life NOW, to make sure your tomorrow is covered.




This results in the person who only makes $20,000 a year having to contribute a higher percentage of their income to fund their retirement, when in reality, they are trying to figure out how they are going to buy groceries this week.  That's not realistic, so someone has to make up that deficit.  Who ends up having that fall on their shoulders?  Those of us stuck in the middle class category.  


Contrary to those who would like us to believe that all poor people are lazy and lack ambition, the fact is that we've got a large chunk of the population who simply don't have the mental capacity to become successful business executives or pursue other high paying career paths, regardless of how hard they might work.  We have a lot of people whose mental capacity qualifies them to work at McDonalds, and that's about the extent of their potential.  So, of course, someone has to help pick up the slack.  Should it be the rich or the middle class?  Since I'm in the middle class, you know which one I choose...I'm sure a rich person would think differently.




Your math does not work, ma'am.   The mistakes in your ogic are many, but here are the essentials:



1. Person A is not responsible for taking care of Person B, unless person B is the child or legal dependant of Person A.  Whine and wail as you will, that fact does not change.   


2. "Rich", "Middle Class", and "Poor" are subjective labels applied to serve the demands of people who want to take what they did not earn.


3.  If every "Rich" (for argument, let's say every American earning more than $250k in a year) person were compelled to pay even triple the amount they are now in federal taxes, this would not be sufficient to balance the budget, reduce the debt by more than 15%, or convince the "poor" to accept any responsibility for their own well-being.


4.   All financial health on the national level depends on job growth.  All job growth comes from successful businesses.  All successful businesses are created and run by rich people.  Ergo, attempting to punish rich people chases them to places where they are not punished, and those countries benefit from their investment.


5.  Class warfare is immoral, stupid, and a fast road to poverty on a massive scale.




So, in your perfect world, the less intelligent and less talented live on the streets and eat cat food.  Sweet...I wonder where anyone ever got the idea that a conservative could be heartless?  Wow.


I never suggested punishing rich people.  Got any suggestions on how we can get the rich 'job creators' to create jobs that allow people to actually afford their rent?

Our need to learn should always outweigh our need to be right

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

More people would learn from their mistakes if they weren't so busy denying them.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 2:46PM #26
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,179

Apr 27, 2012 -- 2:24PM, Cesmom wrote:


Apr 27, 2012 -- 2:18PM, SecondSonOfDavid wrote:


Apr 27, 2012 -- 2:04PM, Cesmom wrote:


Apr 27, 2012 -- 1:50PM, Bodean wrote:


People are going to have to be forced to take a larger responsiblity for their retirement needs.  An individual account, with a mandated minimum pre-tax contribution based on what your expected needs will be.  If it looks like you need to put more in the kitty ... then you will have to make adjustments in your life NOW, to make sure your tomorrow is covered.




This results in the person who only makes $20,000 a year having to contribute a higher percentage of their income to fund their retirement, when in reality, they are trying to figure out how they are going to buy groceries this week.  That's not realistic, so someone has to make up that deficit.  Who ends up having that fall on their shoulders?  Those of us stuck in the middle class category.  


Contrary to those who would like us to believe that all poor people are lazy and lack ambition, the fact is that we've got a large chunk of the population who simply don't have the mental capacity to become successful business executives or pursue other high paying career paths, regardless of how hard they might work.  We have a lot of people whose mental capacity qualifies them to work at McDonalds, and that's about the extent of their potential.  So, of course, someone has to help pick up the slack.  Should it be the rich or the middle class?  Since I'm in the middle class, you know which one I choose...I'm sure a rich person would think differently.




Your math does not work, ma'am.   The mistakes in your ogic are many, but here are the essentials:



1. Person A is not responsible for taking care of Person B, unless person B is the child or legal dependant of Person A.  Whine and wail as you will, that fact does not change.   


2. "Rich", "Middle Class", and "Poor" are subjective labels applied to serve the demands of people who want to take what they did not earn.


3.  If every "Rich" (for argument, let's say every American earning more than $250k in a year) person were compelled to pay even triple the amount they are now in federal taxes, this would not be sufficient to balance the budget, reduce the debt by more than 15%, or convince the "poor" to accept any responsibility for their own well-being.


4.   All financial health on the national level depends on job growth.  All job growth comes from successful businesses.  All successful businesses are created and run by rich people.  Ergo, attempting to punish rich people chases them to places where they are not punished, and those countries benefit from their investment.


5.  Class warfare is immoral, stupid, and a fast road to poverty on a massive scale.




So, in your perfect world, the less intelligent and less talented live on the streets and eat cat food.  Sweet...I wonder where anyone ever got the idea that a conservative could be heartless?  Wow.


I never suggested punishing rich people.  Got any suggestions on how we can get the rich 'job creators' to create jobs that allow people to actually afford their rent?




I think the question is when does your idea become unfair and, worse, unworkable?


How long can you really demand that the people that worked hard to get where they are in life keep paying out not only for their own retirement, but for the retirement of others and expect that money to always be there?


At what point are you doing more to incentivize a person to make 249,999 instead of 250,001 so that they can avoid having more of their money taken from them?


At what point, is the person that is currently making $20k/year expected to do something on their own to change their circumstances rather than demanding that someone else cover them?


At what point are we supposed to say you get $X as a safety net, but you're expected to also save for your own needs? We don't do that now if people are getting more than they paid in.


Unless you're mentally or physically handicapped/disabled, if you spend your entire life only making $20k/year then that is your problem and it does (like it or not) denote a lack of motivation (not intelligence...those with lower intellectual capabilities can still earn more than that).

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 3:55PM #27
SecondSonOfDavid
Posts: 3,344

Apr 27, 2012 -- 2:24PM, Cesmom wrote:



So, in your perfect world, the less intelligent and less talented live on the streets and eat cat food.  Sweet...I wonder where anyone ever got the idea that a conservative could be heartless?  Wow.



Funny, for all your wailing and hate, I still don't feel guilty.


Maybe it's because in my experience, intelligence and talent do not equate to wealth.  Don't know if you ever checked, but MENSA members do not make more than most ordinary folks.


Hard work, confidence, and learning to grow are what have helped me provide for my family, and are the building blocks for every successful career I have ever heard of.




Apr 27, 2012 -- 2:24PM, Cesmom wrote:


I never suggested punishing rich people.  




Oh yes you did.  You want rich people to pay more taxes, even after knowing that people making more than 250k a year pay 90%+ of all tax revenues received from individuals.  By definition, you want to punish people for being able to make money.


At least be honest about that, you're not fooling anyone but yourself.



Apr 27, 2012 -- 2:24PM, Cesmom wrote:


Got any suggestions on how we can get the rich 'job creators' to create jobs that allow people to actually afford their rent?





What planet do you live on?  Here on planet Earth, the value of anything depends on what someone is willing to spend on it.   I grew up in a home without TV at times, with one car which my dad drove to/from work, no AC until I was 8 years old, and we never had Cable, a home computer or cell phones.  


My dad and I paid for my college, without a dime from the government to help.  I started working with absolutely no money in the bank and no friends to help me get in the door.   I found my jobs, worked my butt off to do the job right, and worked my way up.  When I earned my MBA, I paid for the degree on my own and worked full-time while going to school at night, and on weekends.  I never blamed anyone else for my situation, and I never demanded some rich man give me money just because I was in a tough spot. 


I have worked for absolutely everything I earned, and no one but me has the right to tell me what to do with my money.  I pay more taxes than 70% of Americans, I pay all of my bills on time and NEVER carry a balance.  That's what all honest Americans do.


Anyone else can do the same, and that is my expectation of anyone sound of mind and body, which  - on a legal level at least - includes you





Moderated by Girlchristian on Apr 27, 2012 - 04:26PM
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 4:50PM #28
Hatman
Posts: 9,634
The funny thing about this debate is that---unless you actually handed over gold or silver to the I.nfernal R.epresentatives of S.atan---NO ONE has actually "paid" any taxes at all, ever since the imposition of debt-notes, anyhow.

FRN's are debt-notes, evidence of the national debt, but no one can actually "pay" for anything with them.  Legally-speaking, what you can do with them is "discharge debt," to wit:

"There is a distinction between a 'debt discharged' and a debt 'paid'. When discharged, the debt still exists though divested of it's charter as a legal obligation; during the operation of the discharge, something of the original vitality of the debt continues to exist, which may be transferred, even though the transferee takes it subject to it's disability incident to the discharge."
-- Stanek vs. White, 172 Minn.390, 215 N.W. 784

But i found a few other citations which were quite relevant to this discussion, imo:

"No pecuniary consideration is more urgent, than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt: on none can delay be more injurious, or an economy of time more valuable."           
--George Washington, Message to the House of Representatives, 3 December 1793

Now, why would "father of the country" G. Washington say that, do you think?  Did he realize that ancient principle "debt = slavery," do you think?

Then there's this, too:

"Most unquestionably there is no legal tender, and there can be no legal tender, in this country, under the authority of this government or any other, but gold and silver, either the coinage of our own mints, or foreign coins, at rates regulated by congress. This is a constitutional principle, perfectly plain, and of the very highest importance. The states are expressly prohibited from making anything but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts; and although no such express prohibition is applied to congress, yet as congress has no power granted to it, in this respect, but to coin money and to regulate the value of foreign coins, it clearly has no power to substitute paper, or anything else, for coin, as a tender in payment of debts and in discharge of contracts. Congress has exercised this power, fully, in both its branches. It has coined money, and still coins it; it has regulated the value of foreign coins, and still regulates their value. The legal tender, therefore, the constitutional standard of value, is established and cannot be overthrown. To overthrow it, would shake the whole system. The constitutional tender is the thing to be preserved, and it ought to be preserved sacredly, under all circumstances."
- Daniel Webster, 1836

But now, "everyone" accepts that FRN's ARE "money," when they are but evidence of debt, and the enslavement that accompanies such debt, e.g. "The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender." ~Proverbs

With goodwill to all the People(except Oathbreakers)-

Hatman
"History records that the moneychangers have used every form of abuse, deceit, intrigue, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance."
-- James Madison(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 5:26PM #29
Jasr
Posts: 11,427

Apr 27, 2012 -- 2:18PM, SecondSonOfDavid wrote:


4.   All financial health on the national level depends on job growth.  All job growth comes from successful businesses.  All successful businesses are created and run by rich people.  Ergo, attempting to punish rich people chases them to places where they are not punished, and those countries benefit from their investment.




Bull.


My wife and I created a small business out of sweat and effort. We employed 10. We also indirectly employed many more through our purchase of materials and services in our community. We were not rich then, we were not rich while we ran it, and we certainly are not rich now. However the concern still exists, and our employees are still employed.


Some "rich people" make investments that result in the employment of Americans. But that is not the only way Americans are employed.


And plenty of rich people earn their "wealth" by moving money around, and producing nothing at all.


Some businesses...I would say many businesses...are started by people like ourselves who work for a few years out of our homes, then write a business plan and get financed. Our business was financed 100% by private investors. We paid back every penny.


In America middle class people can create jobs, either by starting their own businesses or by investing in mutual funds that aggregate their investments.


Your claim that only rich people create jobs is simplistic and condescending.


Apr 27, 2012 -- 2:18PM, SecondSonOfDavid wrote:


5.  Class warfare is immoral, stupid, and a fast road to poverty on a massive scale.




I agree...and I look forward to the day when the Republican toadies of the super-wealthy stop fighting class wars.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 5:53PM #30
TENAC
Posts: 25,914

Apr 27, 2012 -- 2:46PM, Girlchristian wrote:



I think the question is when does your idea become unfair and, worse, unworkable?


How long can you really demand that the people that worked hard to get where they are in life keep paying out not only for their own retirement, but for the retirement of others and expect that money to always be there?


At what point are you doing more to incentivize a person to make 249,999 instead of 250,001 so that they can avoid having more of their money taken from them?


At what point, is the person that is currently making $20k/year expected to do something on their own to change their circumstances rather than demanding that someone else cover them?


At what point are we supposed to say you get $X as a safety net, but you're expected to also save for your own needs? We don't do that now if people are getting more than they paid in.


Unless you're mentally or physically handicapped/disabled, if you spend your entire life only making $20k/year then that is your problem and it does (like it or not) denote a lack of motivation (not intelligence...those with lower intellectual capabilities can still earn more than that).




Ok, so this begs the question.


Unless you work for the govt, you are funding two retirements besides your own.


For a school teacher in TN, they can work all their careers and then go back to school, get their masters the last five years of their working years and retire on a Master's salary.  Funded in part or totally by taxpayers.  So I contribute to every govt worker's retirement plan plus their social security before I begin to fund my own.


I think govt workers should have to pay a double portion into social security and those of us who have never worked in government get the portion appropriated to those of us who have only worked to pay the taxes that support them.

Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook