|
|
|
|
Full Member
|
|
Apr 14, 2009, 10:47 AM
|
|
The tax structure explained
Some of us need to have things explained in a simple way for us to understand.
Let's liken the tax structure to a 10 story building.
The first thing is that there has to be a foundation, and then the rest of the 10 floors are built. The foundation carries ALL the load of all 10 floors and their contents.
Now let's add some heavy weight to floors 8 to 10. We won't add any weight to those floors below 8. They will remain the same. As you can see, the total load of the 10 floors will all be carried by the foundation.
Now let's build a tax structure. We start with a foundation. That is the consumer. The 10 floors above will all be supported by this foundation.
Now we will add some really heavy tax on those floors 8 and above. Guess what? The consumer will carry ALL the load. It doesn't matter which floor the load is put on.
Renters pay property tax. Drivers pay windfall profit taxes on Big Oil. It all gets passed to the bottom. The only people this doesn't apply to are those TOTALLY supported by other taxpayers.
Don't let the politicians bamboozle you.
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Apr 15, 2009, 06:41 AM
|
|
Hello gal:
It's true. Obama wants to raise taxes on the highest of wage earners to 10% BELOW what they were paying under Ronnie Raygun... That should THRILL you guys...
Besides, I thought you guys were the adult party. Don't you believe in paying your bills?
excon
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Apr 15, 2009, 07:14 AM
|
|
President Obama wants to raise the highest federal bracket to 39 percent. If that happens, Americans earning more than about $373,000 a year will give to government roughly 50 percent of all they earn. In states such as New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and California, where such an income is not all that unusual for a dual-income couple, that already happens when all taxes are accounted for.
How did it become "fair" for an American family to give to government half of its income?
Meanwhile almost 50% of Americans pay no or nearly no income tax. If I paid no income tax, I would probably not be unhappy with the current system and would favor all the extra spending on my behalf ;paid for by the fruits of other's labors.
You favor all the extra spending . I'm in favor of cutting spending . (before you say it... I know both parties are complicit)
My solution is to end automatic withholdings and let everyone cut a quarterly estimate check. That would cure some of this fervor in this country to tax and spend.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Apr 15, 2009, 07:22 AM
|
|
As I explained to ex on another post, "fair" means something like "lock in this advantage."
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Apr 15, 2009, 07:37 AM
|
|
Actually I understated the problem because I failed to mention the AMT factor .
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Apr 15, 2009, 07:48 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by galveston
It all gets passed to the bottom. The only people this doesn't apply to are those TOTALLY supported by other taxpayers.
Hello again, gal:
May I presume, then, that when you become one of those people, who ordinarily get supported by other taxpayers, that you'll send your Social Security check back and you won't take advantage of Medicare??
Nahhhh. I'm not going to presume that.
excon
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Apr 15, 2009, 08:16 AM
|
|
Since you pay for your coverage for both before you use either; I don't see how that example applies.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Apr 15, 2009, 09:07 AM
|
|
As you know, today is the day for TEA parties, which the left has dubbed " astroturf" protests. Marc Cooper opines in the LA Times today that it's a sign of insanity (perhaps I should have posted this in the VRWC post)?
The Web is buzzing with information about how to throw an anti-Obama Taxpayer Tea Party, something organizers hope will be held today from Santa Monica to South Carolina. But no need to burn up your bandwidth reading complicated instructions. Here's a simpler recipe:
Go to a hobby store. Buy a scale model of a U.N. One-World-Government Black Helicopter and a tube of glue. Toss the model kit. Sniff the entire tube of glue. You're all set for the party.
I can recall only a few outbreaks of such collective insanity as these tea parties in recent years...
I guess he missed the " Shake your Money Maker" event during the Democrat convention last year where attendees were encouraged to "Bring noise makers, energy, spells, magic,costumes, anything that gives you power" in order to levitate the Denver Mint and "shake the money out of it for the people."
I wonder how much glue was sniffed in preparation for that?
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Apr 15, 2009, 09:16 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
since you pay for your coverage for both before you use either; I don't see how that example applies.
Hello again, tom:
But, of course, you don't pay for your coverage.
These programs socialistic ponzi schemes born out of the New Deal, that your grandchildren are going to be paying for, and you'd be arguing against in any other thread.
But, these programs don't seem so socialistic when the check is made out to YOU. I understand.
excon
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Apr 15, 2009, 09:29 AM
|
|
I am compelled to participate in their plan . Do I think there is a better way ? Hell Ya !
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Apr 15, 2009, 09:31 AM
|
|
I don't see these tea parties as anti-Obama . I see them as a protest against the expanding Federal Government ;excess taxation ;excess growth in government . But if the shoe fits then Obama should wear it I guess.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Apr 15, 2009, 04:23 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
President Obama wants to raise the highest federal bracket to 39 percent. If that happens, Americans earning more than about $373,000 a year will give to government roughly 50 percent of all they earn.
I'd like to buy real estate off you Tom...
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Apr 15, 2009, 10:56 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by inthebox
I stand corrected. I didn't realise you got taxed by the state as well.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Apr 16, 2009, 06:36 AM
|
|
Also keep in mind that level of income is subject to the AMT
And that doesn't include the various local property ,municipal and sales taxes we pay .
In thanks for posting that .
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Apr 16, 2009, 06:43 AM
|
|
Hello teapartiers:
Taxes... Yeah... Evabody hates 'em... But, I don't understand your protest, cause unless you make more than a quarter of a MILLION dollars, your taxes went DOWN, starting this month... Really, they did!
I don't know. A majority surveyed by Gallop last week said their federal taxes are "too low" or "about right". So, splain again about taxes??
excon
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Apr 16, 2009, 07:57 AM
|
|
Soaking the rich is always an enticing reason and an opening to abusive taxation .
The 16th amendment originally had a cap on the total for fear that Congress would abuse the power. Of course they used class warfare to get everyone on board .The top tax rate was originally set at 7 % It applied only to people earning more than $300,000… the equivalent of $7.5 million of today's dollars.
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Apr 16, 2009, 08:03 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by excon
Hello teapartiers:
Taxes.... Yeah.... Evabody hates 'em... But, I don't understand your protest, cause unless you make more than a quarter of a MILLION dollars, your taxes went DOWN, starting this month.... Really, they did!
I dunno. A majority surveyed by Gallop last week said their federal taxes are "too low" or "about right". So, splain again about taxes?????
excon
Keep in mind that these are INCOME taxes, and TAXES for Social security and Medicare.
If you don't work for a living, you don't pay these taxes.
It is truly the rich that don't have to work for a living - they live off a trust or their investment income which is taxed at a lower rate than a married couple, both working, and jointly making over $100,000.
G&P
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Apr 16, 2009, 08:12 AM
|
|
Hello again, tom:
Taxes are bad and soaking the rich isn't cool. Besides, taxes are (somehow) unfair... I got it. That's the Republican position...
But, it's kind of a LIBERAL position, after all. Because if we don't pay our bills, we're going to have to borrow the money.
You DO like spending it, though. Oh, I know, I know, you'll tell me that you don't, and that you objected when the dufus spent like a drunken sailor, and grew the government bigger and faster than the Democrat who preceded him...
But, you guys didn't hold any tea parties then... So, I got to tell you, it just looks like you don't like Obama. Spending has nothing to do with it...
excon
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Apr 16, 2009, 08:29 AM
|
|
Spending has everything to do with it when he expotentially increases it.
|
|
Question Tools |
Search this Question |
|
|
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
1120s - explained
[ 1 Answers ]
Hello,
I need help understanding 1120s. I am trying to understand the state of a business and have past three years 1120s.
I understand its no small task, but your advice will greatly appreciated
K
Nascar explained
[ 9 Answers ]
Here's some insight into how they train to race in Nascar:
NASCAR Coach Reveals Winning Strategy: 'Drive Fast' | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
May I have my tests explained to me?
[ 8 Answers ]
Hello again, it seems that whenever I check in on a monthly basis to my beloved probation office, that I always get some office clerk that cannot answer my questions. Would it be too much to ask to speak with a knowledgeable officer. And can they refuse my request to have my pee tests explained to...
I need info in meta explained
[ 3 Answers ]
<meta name="generator" content=Adobe GoLive 5">
Can someone explain what the information in the above meta code means?
I need to build a website similar to the one where I copied this from and I wondered if this code would be relevant to what I need to do. When I typed it into...
View more questions
Search
|