who ya got?

[Deleted User 310]

Wish that was a problem i would ever need to worry about.

Me too, bro!

And yet, somehow, there are millions of working class types scraping by who are ready to argue that raising taxes on that extra 10 grand is a bad thing.

Then again, these are also the types of folks who are likely to argue things like, higher wages for working class folks such as themselves is a bad thing.

That is a matter of opinion and choice.

I want everyone to pay their fair share of taxes. What is a fair share? That is the million dollar question. I don't want a bunch of free handouts being given to people. I also don't want a bunch of free handouts being given to people in the form of tax loopholes.

Major reform is needed and it is no easy/simple task.

I don't think the rich should have to pay more than their fair share just because they are rich....but i certainly don't think they should pay less than their fair share becuase they are rich and have influenced the tax laws in ways that benefit themselves.

What if every dollar was taxed the same? Flat tax. $1 or $1,000,000. Seems more fair to me. But i know there are issues with that method as well.

[Deleted User 310]

I opined that Trump’s whole 2016 campaign was just some big publicity stunt with no real end game, or rather, that if there was some end game it was more likely to be a segue into some political talk media gig, more so than any end game of actually being potus.

I’ve always thought the same. It was a PR stunt for him, I don’t think he even wanted to win.

Agree 1000%

He didn't think he stood a chance....and then once he saw what was happening he couldn’t stop it. Now he is in WAY over his head.

[MICHHAWK]

When was the last time a candidate for president DID NOT campaign on HIGHER WAGES FOR THE WORKING CLASS FOLKS? Maybe sometime back in the 1800’s, maybe.

[Mjl]

Wish that was a problem i would ever need to worry about.

Me too, bro!

And yet, somehow, there are millions of working class types scraping by who are ready to argue that raising taxes on that extra 10 grand is a bad thing.

Then again, these are also the types of folks who are likely to argue things like, higher wages for working class folks such as themselves is a bad thing.

It's wild, right? The people opposed to the tax raise are the ones that aren't affected by it.

[Sparko]

All taxes are regressive to some extent. I like a flat tax and health care for all.

[Deleted User 310]

All taxes are regressive to some extent. I like a flat tax and health care for all.

Im in.

Pick a fair tax rate and tax it to every dollar a person earns.

[jfish26]

All taxes are regressive to some extent. I like a flat tax and health care for all.

Im in.

Pick a fair tax rate and tax it to every dollar a person earns.

That is highly prejudicial to low earners.

[Cascadia]

All taxes are regressive to some extent. I like a flat tax and health care for all.

Im in.

Pick a fair tax rate and tax it to every dollar a person earns.

That is highly prejudicial to low earners.

Illy’s too dumb to understand

[Deleted User 310]

If it is the same for everyone then it isn't prejudicial to anyone imo.

Should they (we) be entitled to keep more just because they (we) make less?

[ousdahl]

flat tax is much more of a burden on low earners.


(A higher income burden may be the difference between, say, that new hot tub at a vacation home; the lower may be the difference between, say, paying rent or buying groceries.)

I’ve long opined for a tax rate based on an exponential curve. The more you make, the more you pay, simple as that. And get rid of all the loopholes and exemptions and crap. And design it to be adjusted to actually balance a budget.

And maybe even augment it with a national sales tax of sorts, so we’re taxed not just on income, but on consumption. And sales tax rates for private jets and yachts could be higher than the rates on bread and eggs.

[Cascadia]

If it is the same for everyone then it isn't prejudicial to anyone imo.

Should they (we) be entitled to keep more just because they (we) make less?

We all know you’re too dumb to understand, you don’t have to keep proving it.

[Deleted User 310]

flat tax is much more of a burden on low earners.


(A higher income burden may be the difference between, say, that new hot tub at a vacation home; the lower may be the difference between, say, paying rent or buying groceries.)

I’ve long opined for a tax rate based on an exponential curve. The more you make, the more you pay, simple as that. And get rid of all the loopholes and exemptions and crap. And design it to be adjusted to actually balance a budget.

And maybe even augment it with a national sales tax of sorts, so we’re taxed not just on income, but on consumption. And sales tax rates for private jets and yachts could be higher than the rates on bread and eggs.

And i would say your plan is unfair.

Although i could get behind taxing things like jets/cars/yachts more than bread/eggs (especially when you think about environmental impacts), but it needs to be the same for everyone. Can't make the rich pay more tax for their eggs than the poor just because it benefits you more.

[Deleted User 310]

If it is the same for everyone then it isn't prejudicial to anyone imo.

Should they (we) be entitled to keep more just because they (we) make less?

We all know you’re too dumb to understand, you don’t have to keep proving it.

Flat tax is pretty simply to understand. We have it in IL.

[MICHHAWK]

flat tax is much more of a burden on low earners.


(A higher income burden may be the difference between, say, that new hot tub at a vacation home; the lower may be the difference between, say, paying rent or buying groceries.)

I’ve long opined for a tax rate based on an exponential curve. The more you make, the more you pay, simple as that. And get rid of all the loopholes and exemptions and crap. And design it to be adjusted to actually balance a budget.

And maybe even augment it with a national sales tax of sorts, so we’re taxed not just on income, but on consumption. And sales tax rates for private jets and yachts could be higher than the rates on bread and eggs.

You just described canada. Where a big mac costs 12 bucks. And a case of coors light costs 50. And a gallon of gas will cost you 7.

[Mjl]

If it is the same for everyone then it isn't prejudicial to anyone imo.

Should they (we) be entitled to keep more just because they (we) make less?

Yes. The first earned dollars go to bare necessities. As you earn more they go to nice-to-haves and then luxuries. So unless you want a federal sales tax that taxes items at different rates (or to have a VAT like, say, the UK), or you want tons of homelessness and starvation, you should be for a progressive income tax.

[Cascadia]

flat tax is much more of a burden on low earners.


(A higher income burden may be the difference between, say, that new hot tub at a vacation home; the lower may be the difference between, say, paying rent or buying groceries.)

I’ve long opined for a tax rate based on an exponential curve. The more you make, the more you pay, simple as that. And get rid of all the loopholes and exemptions and crap. And design it to be adjusted to actually balance a budget.

And maybe even augment it with a national sales tax of sorts, so we’re taxed not just on income, but on consumption. And sales tax rates for private jets and yachts could be higher than the rates on bread and eggs.

You just described canada. Where a big mac costs 12 bucks. And a case of coors light costs 50. And a gallon of gas will cost you 7.

A Big Mac in Canada cost $4.26 USD

[ousdahl]

flat tax is much more of a burden on low earners.


(A higher income burden may be the difference between, say, that new hot tub at a vacation home; the lower may be the difference between, say, paying rent or buying groceries.)

I’ve long opined for a tax rate based on an exponential curve. The more you make, the more you pay, simple as that. And get rid of all the loopholes and exemptions and crap. And design it to be adjusted to actually balance a budget.

And maybe even augment it with a national sales tax of sorts, so we’re taxed not just on income, but on consumption. And sales tax rates for private jets and yachts could be higher than the rates on bread and eggs.

And i would say your plan is unfair.

Although i could get behind taxing things like jets/cars/yachts more than bread/eggs (especially when you think about environmental impacts), but it needs to be the same for everyone. Can't make the rich pay more tax for their eggs than the poor just because it benefits you more.

But the problem is, in so many instances the rich pay less taxes than the poor, just cuz it benefits them more.

We’re the wealthiest nation of all time, yet we have more poverty and homelessness than most other developed anywhere.

(And I never said tax eggs different for rich folks than for poor. By that logic, we’d also have different taxes for poor people’s private jets too...and the thing is!)

[ousdahl]

flat tax is much more of a burden on low earners.


(A higher income burden may be the difference between, say, that new hot tub at a vacation home; the lower may be the difference between, say, paying rent or buying groceries.)

I’ve long opined for a tax rate based on an exponential curve. The more you make, the more you pay, simple as that. And get rid of all the loopholes and exemptions and crap. And design it to be adjusted to actually balance a budget.

And maybe even augment it with a national sales tax of sorts, so we’re taxed not just on income, but on consumption. And sales tax rates for private jets and yachts could be higher than the rates on bread and eggs.

You just described canada. Where a big mac costs 12 bucks. And a case of coors light costs 50. And a gallon of gas will cost you 7.

A Big Mac in Canada cost $4.26 USD

Oh come on bro.

Mich is far closer to Canada than he is to reality.

[Deleted User 310]

If it is the same for everyone then it isn't prejudicial to anyone imo.

Should they (we) be entitled to keep more just because they (we) make less?

Yes. The first earned dollars go to bare necessities. As you earn more they go to nice-to-haves and then luxuries. So unless you want a federal sales tax that taxes items at different rates (or to have a VAT like, say, the UK), or you want tons of homelessness and starvation, you should be for a progressive income tax.

I would maybe rather go the flat tax route and make sure all jobs meant to be full time jobs pay a livable wage so that everyone can cover their bare necessities....or keep the standard deduction or even bump it up a little if needed) and nothing else as far as loopholes/write offs go. That would protect the very poor, while being rather insignificant to the more wealthy.

I simply just don't agree that the rich should pay way more just because they are rich. And i am not rich.

I do think that right now the rich benefit from too many loopholes to the point where they don't pay their fair share. Whether that be thru personal income loopholes or from s-corp/partnership/corporation loopholes before income passes thru to their personal side.

[Deleted User 310]

But the problem is, in so many instances the rich pay less taxes than the poor, just cuz it benefits them more.

We’re the wealthiest nation of all time, yet we have more poverty and homelessness than most other developed anywhere.

We agree that the rich should have their loopholes closed, whether personal income or pass thru income from s-corps/partnerships/corporations.

Actually Israel passed us this year i think. Thanks trump!

Link to a list below...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/233 ... %20percent