Forum: pol
Page 3784
Subject: Holy MF shiznet. My taxes are soooo low.........


  Posted by: biliruben - [81382416] Mon, Feb 09, 2015, 09:34

As you can guess, I just finished doing my taxes. WTF!

I invite others to do this same calculation

Income Tax PAid
________________________ =

Gross Unadjusted Income

8.4%

No, I'm not part of the 1%, we are a somewhat above average married family with a kid. We don't own a business. How does our country continue to function, maintain our infrastructure, take care of our elderly, and wage expensive wars? I'm baffled, and frankly concerned that this state of affairs cannot possibly continue.

What say you? What percentage of your unadjusted gross actually goes to supporting our countries viability? Small business owners should probably deduct their business expenses.
 
1Khahan
      ID: 2134910
      Mon, Feb 09, 2015, 11:34
I don't think the problem is 1 tax (I'm assuming you are referring to federal since you talk about 'our country'). But what happens when you look at your federal income tax, then add in property tax, state tax and other local taxes? What % is it when you add up all the income based taxes?
 
2biliruben
      ID: 105572020
      Mon, Feb 09, 2015, 12:03
Uh, you pay more taxes?

Sales tax in Seattle is 9.5%, which is high. We do not have any state or local income tax tho, and I got a buttload back deducting sales tax on my federal return this year.

Property tax for our house is less than 1%, so that's a freakin bargain.

I really just don't pay very many taxes, and I'm guessing I'm close to the norm.
 
3Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Mon, Feb 09, 2015, 12:16
If you aren't paying state of local income tax, I don't think you're close to the norm!
 
4biliruben
      ID: 105572020
      Mon, Feb 09, 2015, 12:20
Well 9.5% balances that somewhat...

Tho Washington does have the most regressive tax structure in the nation.
 
5biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Mon, Feb 09, 2015, 12:44
Come on! Mardi Gras is coming up! Bare all! Show your Ti.., er Taxes!

Let me see what you really are paying without taking into account all those personal tax breaks.

Otherwise, that perpetual whine from all you fiscal conservatives about too high taxes can be safely ignored.
 
6biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Mon, Feb 09, 2015, 12:52
If you haven't yet done them, I highly recommend you get on it. Due to low tax revenue, they are laying off revenuers in droves. The IRS workforce was slashed. The irony.

If you want a return before next Christmas, get it in soon! And report your nasty hit here.
 
7Bean
      ID: 121011511
      Mon, Feb 09, 2015, 13:06
I had a huge capital gain this year (sold two rental properties), so my numbers might skew the average. I think the total was around 15%, but normal years its much lower. It's a low price to pay to keep the mongol hoards out though (they would tax me at 100%).

State taxes of all kinds is where most people spend the lion's share of their tax dollars, though income tax is generally the only tax people reflect on. For states that rely heavily on sales, gas, and property taxes for revenue, you dont notice it so much. Still other state and local governments rely heavily on lotteries and traffic citations to get the money they need. Add to that the federal subsidies to state and local governent, and you begin to understand how most of your tax dollars are spent.
 
8Frick
      ID: 17640169
      Mon, Feb 09, 2015, 14:08
This is one of my pet peeves whenever taxes are discussed. Most people think they are in a higher tax bracket than they really are, mostly because they look at the top bracket they are in, and they start adding state, local, sales, property, etc taxes.

One of the features I love about TurboTax is it shows your effective Federal tax rate on the summary.
 
9biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Mon, Feb 09, 2015, 14:46
Hey Bean - 15% even after adding the windfall profits from the sale to the denominator? Isn't the capital gains tax rate only 15% on your property?
 
10Bean
      ID: 121011511
      Mon, Feb 09, 2015, 15:46
I think the marginal rate is 18%. But recovered depreciation goes for 25%. Dont want to get the tax form out to confirm the number, was estimate off the top of my head.
 
11biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Mon, Feb 09, 2015, 15:47
Gotcha. Thanks.
 
12Khahan
      ID: 2134910
      Mon, Feb 09, 2015, 16:33
Sales tax in Seattle is 9.5%

Well since this is about income tax I wasn't even considering sales tax and taxes on gas and spirits and cigs and luxury items or any other consumption tax. Those are issues that while important would unjustly affect a discussion of income taxes.

But other taxes - yes I pay a lot of other taxes. My property tax is between 9000 and 10,500 annually. I have OPP taxes that my wife and I both pay. I actually have my pay stub right here with me and here is a list of taxes applied:
Pa unemployment tax
FICA
medfica
PA tax
North Coventry tax (township my office is in)
Fed withholding
All said and done it comes out to 22% in taxes with held. Add in taxes (school and property) that my wife and I pay each year and that number goes up to about 28-30% (its a little inaccurate since those taxes are on the household and not directly from pay. If I calculated whats withheld PLUS simply added those 2 taxes in my tax rate would be pushing 47% but i'm trying to be fair/realistic).

So no, your 8.5% income tax on federal taxes is only a piece of the picture. Just my federal tax rate is 9.69%

Honestly I'm not too upset about the 22% total state, local and federal tax. That's about the upper limit of what I find reasonable. Its the school/property taxes added on that I find outrageous in Pa. My county is horrible on this, one of the worst. 3 blocks from me are houses that are bigger than mine by 500-800 sq ft on lots that 3-4 times the size of my lot. Yet since they were built and assessed about 8 years prior they are paying less than half of what I pay in those taxes. But Berks Co refuses to do a re-assessment. And despite some very good bills introduced over the past few years to eliminate property tax Pa cannot get them passed because the coal regions property taxes are paid in the hundreds of dollars, not the thousands. So the west side of the state votes down any bill that would eliminate property tax and shift it to consumption based taxes.
 
13biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Mon, Feb 09, 2015, 16:43
Wow. Yeah, a 5 digit property tax should only levied on million dollar properties. That's crazy.

I thought about including payroll taxes, but that's more like an insurance premium and retirement savings than taxes.
 
14biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Mon, Feb 09, 2015, 16:55
Plus, withholding can be deceiving. My wife get's off on getting a huge refund, so she basically gives our country the rights to invest a fat chunk of her change every year, and withholds enough to pay both my taxes, her taxes, and fund her IRA. She's whack. I adjust my withholding to almost nothing to partially balance out her craziness.
 
15Khahan
      ID: 34072516
      Mon, Feb 09, 2015, 19:34
I'll admit I have very nice house but its far from a million dollar property. Far from even half that.

I have no problem with taxes. I'd say somewhere in the 18-22% range for total income taxes should be sufficient. If its not, there is something broken in the system. And...at least in Pa, there is something very broken in the system.

As a few others have brought them up consumption taxes are a whole other ballgame. I'd love to have my property tax eliminated and more consumption taxes used for it. Prior bills introduced have included taxing candies and sodas along with liquor, gas and cigarettes. Pa pays a pretty high tax on gas (something like .42 a gallon in taxes) but I'd be willing to add another .05 a gallon to that.
 
16biliruben
      ID: 105572020
      Mon, Feb 09, 2015, 20:06
Yeah, I can get behind the sin taxes and gas taxes. I'd bump gas taxes up a quarter nationally while gas is cheap. Better yet, just make it in indexed 1
20%.

I have no problem with property taxes. It keeps real estate moving towards best use. If grandma is living on an acre in a area that is getting more and more dense, I'd like to see multifamily replace her cotage when she moves out, and modifying zoning with a grandfathered bump in taxes would be a market based way to achieve that. Its also a more progressive tax. Sin taxes proportionally hit the poor pretty hard.
 
17biliruben
      ID: 105572020
      Mon, Feb 09, 2015, 20:48
The amount of deductions available is truly amazing as well. My taxable income was about half of my unadjusted. Poor and lower middle class get almost none of that. Thats crap.
 
18weykool
      ID: 43146920
      Mon, Feb 09, 2015, 21:46
The poor and lower middle class pay no income tax and in some cases have a negative tax rate.
 
19Seattle Zen
      ID: 576301411
      Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 00:16
I have no problem with taxes... but then there is this... I'd love to have my property tax eliminated and more consumption taxes used for it.

You have no problem with taxes, as long as someone else pays them. You are obviously not going to pay $9k to $10k in consumption taxes, no where near that.

And you know that consumption taxes hit the poor the hardest, Khahan. So you want taxes collected for government activities that you benefit from but want the poor to pay for. Great.

The absolute poorest may not pay federal income tax, weykool, but that is simply ignoring that they pay on average 10% of their very meager income on state and local taxes, twice the rate of the wealthy. Don't believe me, click on THIS, it's called a "link", you might want to try it sometime to back up the facts that you regularly pull out of... thin air.
 
20Khahan
      ID: 34072516
      Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 00:47
No SZ thats not it at all. I have no problem paying income tax. I have no problem paying consumption taxes. And you are right I wont pay nearly 9k in consumption taxes. But the people in western pa with similar houses to mine paying 500 a year in consumption taxes will help make up for it.
Until you came along this was a nice discussion but you had to start pointing fingers, putting words in people's mouths and trying to make people look bad or feel bad.

You know what else will go away with the elimination of property taxes though - government reposessing homes for not having their outrageous property tax bills paid. Guess who that hits - your precious poor who can't afford it. But I'll be damned if I feel its ok for me to pay 9-10k a year in property taxes while others in my own county much less the state as a whole with higher assessed homes pay less.

Next time SZ deal with the conversation at hand dont try to twist people's words.

Now in accordance with the forum code of conduct I think you owe me an apology for attacking me and next time try to stay on subject.
 
21Bean
      ID: 121011511
      Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 01:13
Apologies dont occur here. You are often offerred a helping hand to pull up your beltless big boy pants though (aka a wedgie). So we do have some decorum.
 
22weykool
      ID: 43146920
      Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 01:37
I dont need to post a link for things that should be common knowledge.
A family of 4 gets a standard deduction of $12,400 and 3,900 x 4 in exemptions.
Thats $28,200 of income with zero income taxes.
Maybe you could help poor Bili out with a link so he doesnt keep making the same old tired unfounded comments?
This thread is about income taxes. If you want to change the subject perhaps you should start your own thread and stop being a condescending dik in this one.
 
23biliruben
      ID: 41431323
      Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 03:14
28K with kids. That's poor, not middle class.

I've demonstrated half a dozen times how screwed the middle class who don't itemize are in our tax structure, and the mortgage interest deduction is just a gift to the upper middle class and wealthy.

Just because you chose to close your eyes, plug your ears and make up fantastical examples doesn't mean you weren't schooled.
 
24Khahan
      ID: 34072516
      Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 08:30
True Bean - apologies dont happen here. But maybe our decorum will only change when we demand it to change. Rather than SZ framing his argument in terms of me being a selfish hypocrit he could phrase it in terms of his own argument without involving other people.

I would love to come here and find more threads like how this one started - with people on either side discussing the issue at hand instead of the people involved. So forgive me if I take a moment to try and foster that environment. Now, lets see if SZ can rise to the challenge and frame his argument in a way that doesn't involve others.
 
25biliruben
      ID: 41431323
      Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 09:32
Agreed, Khahan. Thanks for trying to raise the bar.
 
26Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 09:37
I will never forget when my area's most dishonest realtor started advertising all about his honest character. You can tell their weakness by what smoke they are blowing.

Here John Judis, co-author of the book The Emerging Democratic Majority, now says in an article in National Journal that that majority has disappeared.
The original book, published in the Republican year of 2002, forecast accurately the groups that would make up the Democratic majority coalition that emerged in the 2006 and 2008 elections: blacks, Hispanics, gentry liberals, single women, young voters.

But as Judis writes now, that coalition has come apart. That's partly because of diminished support from Millennials and Hispanics, but mostly because of additional white working-class defections and erosion among suburbanites unhappy with higher government spending and taxes.
His article titled: “The Emerging Republican Advantage.” "The idea of an enduring Democratic majority was a mirage. How the GOP gained an edge in American politics—and why it’s likely to last."
At the time, some commentators, including me, hailed the onset of an enduring Democratic majority. And the arguments in defense of this view did seem to be backed by persuasive evidence. Obama and the Democrats appeared to have captured the youngest generation of voters, whereas Republicans were relying disproportionately on an aging coalition. The electorate's growing ethnic diversity also seemed likely to help the Democrats going forward.

These advantages remain partially in place for Democrats today, but they are being severely undermined by two trends that have emerged in the past few elections—one surprising, the other less so.

The less surprising trend is that Democrats have continued to hemorrhage support among white working-class voters—a group that generally works in blue-collar and lower-income service jobs and that is roughly identifiable in exit polls as those whites who have not graduated from a four-year college. These voters, and particularly those well above the poverty line, began to shift toward the GOP decades ago, but in recent years that shift has become progressively more pronounced.

The more surprising trend is that Republicans are gaining dramatically among a group that had tilted toward Democrats in 2006 and 2008: Call them middle-class Americans. These are voters who generally work in what economist Stephen Rose has called "the office economy." In exit polling, they can roughly be identified as those who have college—but not postgraduate—degrees and those whose household incomes are between $50,000 and $100,000.

Some Democrats believe that the party's support among millennial voters...[however]...the Harvard Institute of Politics has found a steady deterioration in young voters' support for Democrats since its peak in 2008. "Our recent polling," the study wrote last fall, "shows that on a wide range of issues and questions, young voters ... now look very much like the electorate at large—pessimistic, untrusting, lacking confidence in government.

Middle-class voters also tend to be less populist than white working-class voters when it comes to blaming Wall Street and the wealthy for the economy's ills. As a Washington Post poll showed last October, middle-class voters are less likely than white working-class voters or professionals to agree that America's system "favors the wealthy." Many of them work for businesses where their own success is bound up with the company's bottom line. That makes them less susceptible than white working-class voters or professionals to Democratic taunts about the "1 percent."
No bili, I won't call you dishonest...just desperately whistling Dixie past the graveyard of the 'Emerging Democratic Majority'.



 
27biliruben
      ID: 81382416
      Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 09:52
Uh, okay....

How much income tax as a percentage of your unadjusted gross did you pay this year, Boldy?
 
28weykool
      ID: 43146920
      Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 10:46
Bili:
You didnt say middle class you said poor and LOWER middle class which includes families who make $28K.
One of the problems liberals like to exploit are the shifting definitions of rich, poor, and middle class.
Do you even know what lower and upper middle class means?
The only one who has been schooled on the mortgage deduction is you.
You have never supported your claims and merely keep repeating the claim hoping that it will make it somehow become true.
Once again allow me to offer you the facts and see if you can figure it out:
1. Mortgage interest is capped at $1 million.
2. The rich are limited to 20% of ALL of their itemized deductions combined.
3. After they figure up the taxes they have to recalculate them using the alternative minimum tax.
 
29Seattle Zen
      ID: 576301411
      Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 11:30
How in the world could you even suggest that I twisted your words, Khahan? You could not be more clear, you want your property tax replaced with a consumption tax. You admit that you would not pay $9k to $10k in consumption taxes.

It doesn't take much effort to conclude that consumption taxes are regressive, they hit the poor hardest.

It's your argument, Khahan, own it.
 
30biliruben
      ID: 105572020
      Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 11:34
Dude. I ran through several VERY detailed examples to conclusively prove my point.

And its conservatives who change the defenitions far more often, though they both do it. If you claim to know an official definition, you are confused, because there isn't one.
 
31Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 11:45
#27

It was wasted, so entirely too much.
 
32biliruben
      ID: 229341622
      Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 15:25
I'm happy to hear you don't drive on roads, you have never been to an airport, you live off the grid, you shit in your bushes, you protest every war, you prefer to watch your house burn down, you are armed to the teeth and don't need the cops, you prefer the fed, IRS, the pentegon and any other government agency is shut down, and well, pretty much hate that you have to live in such a god-awful place as America.
 
33Bean
      ID: 121011511
      Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 15:48
<30>If you claim to know an official definition, you are confused, because there isn't one.

Wouldn't it be great if the words median, mean, standard deviation etc were commonly understood by laymen. If so, we could more readily explain what we were talking about. For example:

0-10 percentile = poor
10-30 percentile = working poor
30-80 percentile = middle class
80-95 percentile = upper class
95-99 percentile = rich
99+ percentile = super rich

No clue how these percentiles relate to household income. Is a household of one richer than a household of four with the same income? What about accumulated wealth vs income? Total assets with disregard to debt? Are good looking people who drive nice cars and dress well richer than ugly ones who drive beaters and wear T-shirts?

OK I give up, vague references are good enough.
 
34Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 16:11
For a guy who hates the government, he sure cheers on some of its most expensive attributes.
 
35Khahan
      ID: 301571015
      Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 16:58
29 - yes I want my property tax replaced with a consumption tax. Not because I'm against paying taxes but because I want to pay my fair share, not an exorbitant amount.

Aside from that I am simply opposed to the very idea of property tax. We don't live in feudal England. I'm not a serf beholden to the lord of the land. The very concept of property tax in this country to me is wrong.

I also don't buy into the idea of consumption taxes being unfair to those who make less. Sorry but consumption taxes are set, fixed amounts on goods and services. They are not based on income and they should not be based on income. It cannot be done. They are based on spending.

Pa has a $.42 per gallon tax on gas. It is what it is. I'm not bringing my tax returns with me to the gas pump to get a better tax rate than some and a worse than others. Because its a consumption tax. Its based on the amount of consumption.

There are also all kinds of consumption taxes - many I've mentioned such as liquor, cigarettes, gas. There are also luxury consumption taxes on boats, atvs etc.

And one thing all those consumption taxes have in common that they don't share with a property tax - if you don't pay the consumption tax you don't get evicted from your home by the sheriff and have your house and all its belongings put up for sheriff's sale. Nobody has yet to address that aspect of property tax. Its *very* real in my region. Sheriff sale purchases are almost a hobby for some people and easy to find.

So tell me which is more wrong:
losing your home and furnishings and clothing because you didn't pay a tax based on a feudal system of government
or
A tax added based on purchases made and being forced to maybe skip out on some luxury items like cigarettes or a new Xbox because you have to pay the electric bill instead.
 
36biliruben
      ID: 229341622
      Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 18:16
Conveniently:

the 20th percentile is around 20K,
the 30th percentile is around 30K,
the median is about 50K,
and the 80th percentile is around 100K.

But you will still get disagreements, and cost of living varies pretty significantly from place to place.

Weykool is looking at some definition that says a family of 4 making 28K is middle class. That's an absurd joke in my book. They couldn't afford food after paying for their 2-bedroom shoebox in Seattle.

NYC and Seattle, my salary is barely scraping by. In Buffalo, I'd live like a freakin' king.

 
37Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 18:28
The feuds didn't pay property taxes, because they didn't own property.

Nevertheless, property taxes pay for a host of municipal services such as emergency services, stormwater management, plowing and maintaining roads, etc. In many towns, it pays for sewage and water pipes, garbage pickup, and all the stuff the towns do for their citizens.

There are lots and lots of places where those property taxes are very low--typically in places that offer little to no municipal services. That's the trade.

If you think people like renters aren't already paying property taxes then you haven't throught it through, IMO. Renters pay property taxes through their rental payments.
 
38biliruben
      ID: 229341622
      Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 18:37
I can understand the desire to feel like once you have paid off your house, you are good. Property taxes definitely get in the way of that feeling. But, as PD says, municipalities need revenue to function and give you all those niggling things you don't like to think about like schools and parks and sewers. If you wanted to live deep off the grid in Alaska, I'm guessing your property taxes would be very low. But I'd also guess you wouldn't be getting your roads plowed. Or built in the first place.
 
39biliruben
      ID: 105572020
      Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 19:12
If your city offered you a deal where, for say, a 200k lump sum (maybe 20times your annual tax), you would never have to pay property taxes again, would you take it?
 
40weykool
      ID: 43146920
      Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 21:12
Weykool is looking at some definition that says a family of 4 making 28K is middle class.
I never said any such thing and to imply that I did is nothing more than a lie.
YOUR comment was LOWER middle class.
My sense is that 28K is doing a little better than the poor so it must be the lower end of the LOWER middle class.
Since you are the one who keeps making the blanket comments about the income classes perhaps you could provide a link with rock solid definitions?
Otherwise we might need to sick the Link Police on you.
 
41biliruben
      ID: 105572020
      Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 21:15
As I said, solid defs don't exist. Sorry, I assumed lower middle class was part of the middle class.
 
42Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Tue, Feb 10, 2015, 21:46
PD

I don't 'hate the government'. I just understand human nature, that man is incapable of truly wise self-rule, let alone ruling others...

...and above all else, that government is best that governs least.
 
43biliruben
      ID: 28420307
      Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 09:09
Boldy the anarchist.

I should write a poem. Maybe I will.
 
44Bean
      ID: 121011511
      Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 12:00
Here's one for the imagination:

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one


Yep, the guy's a dreamer, but a communist one, so Boldy wont go for it
 
45biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 12:08
My socialist sister pretty much sounds identical to Boldy these days. The political spectrum is actually a circle. Ultra-conservatives are linked arm and arm with the radical left. Well... at least they play footsie.

 
46Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 17:00
Remember when libs were singing "Some man's gone and tried to run my life. Don't know what he's askin'. He can't even run his own life. I'll be damned if he'll run mine"?



That was before they were in position to switch roles and be the man. Now it's a GREAT idea if someone else runs your life.
 
47biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 17:29
No. I was 4.

Who's running your life these days, Boldy? Lie on this couch, and will talk about your, uh, problems.
 
48Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 16:43
People who think I should send them my money because they can spend it better for me than I can.

People exactly like you, for instance.
 
49biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 17:27
A nation of 1, you anarchist you.

You should contact my sister. She tried to organize the anarchists in Madison.
 
50Mith
      ID: 231150292
      Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 17:31
Occupy Sunset Park in Brooklyn was possibly 20% avowed anarchists when I checked them out a couple of years ago.
 
51Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Fri, Feb 13, 2015, 22:56
I have never advocated abolishing government.

I've been praying for God's government and suffering under the one he allows atm. Which as bad as it is, is still better than anarchy.
 
52Bean
      ID: 121011511
      Sat, Feb 14, 2015, 00:27
<49> Organizing anarchists? Something oxymoronic about that.
 
53Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Sat, Feb 14, 2015, 00:33
God's government is also what ISIS is trying to establish. Better than anarchy, or indistinguishable from it?
 
54biliruben
      ID: 28420307
      Sat, Feb 14, 2015, 08:13
<52> At least someone got the joke! My sister didn't think it was odd.
 
55biliruben
      ID: 28420307
      Sat, Feb 14, 2015, 08:17
As an Atheist, I'm going with: much, much worse than Anarchy.

At least Anarchy is a level playing field. With Theocracy I'm vastly outnumbered and out-gunned.
 
56Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Sun, Feb 15, 2015, 10:54
Theocracy established by man is no theocracy at all.

And the Prince of Peace told his men to put away their sword, for those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

The true Kingdom of God is described in the Book of Daniel as a stone having been cut out without human hands, replacing human government.

Dan 2:44-45
 
57Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Sun, Feb 15, 2015, 10:59
PD#53

Even worse than anarchy as they deliberately do evil on a large scale enthusiastically with a good conscience.
 
58Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Sun, Feb 15, 2015, 13:35
As do many so-called Christians. Evil done in the name of religion is wrong. That's the simple point many of the Right reject from Obama's National Prayer Breakfast speech.
 
59Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Sun, Feb 15, 2015, 20:45
The point all you liberals choose to ignore is that Christ forbids the violence you decry and Islam literally demands.

It took centuries for the 'oppressive wolves' Jesus predicted would 'enter in among you' to arrive. It took centuries for them to introduce and overlay the concept of 'a just war' and paste them over Jesus words.

The Koran's encouragement of holy war is continuous from start to finish. It is omnipresent.

A christian has to leave the faith as originally delivered to pick up the sword.

A Muslim has to leave the faith to renounce the sword.

Don't get me wrong. I'm pleased as punch that a majority of muslims have managed to ignore the incitement to violence and the barbarity advocated in the Koran. I truly feel for the average muslim caught within the boundaries of ISIS.

Islamist terror starts at home and I expect the average muslim isn't gonna volunteer to have his throat slit when ISIS gives him the choice of following them.
 
60WiddleAvi
      ID: 506382610
      Sun, Feb 15, 2015, 20:54
The rich pay a much lower effective tax rate than the poor

So the more money you make the lower the effective tax rate. This website shows the difference in every state what the difference is at all income levels.
 
61Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Sun, Feb 15, 2015, 22:50
Interesting, Widdle. That seems to map to my understanding, but it is nice to see it fleshed out by state.
 
62sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Mon, Feb 16, 2015, 00:52
GOP logic...raise revenue, by taxng people who dont have any money

sales or consumption taxes, are a disproportionate burden upon those with lower incomes.
 
63Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Mon, Feb 16, 2015, 14:33
By all means start a groundswell of opposition to sales taxes.

You have a built in head start as the entire Tea Party to a man will back that proposal.

Welcome to the party.
 
64sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Mon, Feb 16, 2015, 23:38
And institute a properly progressive income tax, as per those in place under Eisenhower.

Welcome to reality.
 
65 taxman
      ID: 81018181
      Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 16:33
From the dark shadows of my memory and as I learned in my first course in Federal Taxation, the basis for graduated Income Tax rates as introduced in the '30's was to implement the theory of where-withall. Those with the where-withall paid more in taxes than those without the where-withall. This leveled the playing field and changed Federal Income Taxes from being regressive (damaging to the less wealthy) to being progressive. Thus at the end of the week, everyone could afford to buy milk, not just the wealthy. As tax rates have compressed in the last 40 years, Federal Income and Death taxes have again become regressive and favor the wealthy.

The Tea Party theory of reducing/eliminating taxes does not run contrary to progressive rates, but does offend the notion of wealth redistribution between the haves and the have-nots. (gawd there goes the liberal again)
 
66Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 19:23
No one...no one but a liberal politician or a RINO wants to tap a poor person on the shoulder and tell them, before you take that milk home you'll have to dance like Fred Astare you'll have to pay the taxman.

But maybe I am being too easy on liberals. Perhaps some ARE that desperate power-hungry.

Just don't call me a progressive.
 
67biliruben
      ID: 105572020
      Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 19:28
First, food is almost universally not taxed.

Second, in Washington proposal after proposal is made by liberal politicians to substitute an income tax on the wealthy and drop the sales tax. Conservatives, fight it tooth and nail and win. The kochs spent 8 million fighting the last initiative.

 
68sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 21:37
No one...no one but a liberal politician or a RINO wants to tap a poor person on the shoulder and tell them, before you take that milk home you'll have to pay the taxman.


Simply not accurate. Paul Ryan, Louis Gohmert, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Jodi Ernst, John Boehner et al, are doing PRECISELY that.
 
69Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 22:06
Show me.
 
70sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 23:12
Read something besides RWNJ blogs. Their proposals to cut SNAP, Soc Sec etc, are common place. I'm not going to spend time finding links you wont read anyway. Rather, I will challenge you to actually do a little bit of honest research yourself.
 
71Boldwin
      ID: 551311722
      Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 23:32
You can't find them backing sales taxes and you're too lazy to try.
 
72Boldwin
      ID: 551311722
      Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 23:36
I'll even do your first search for you...

Ooops, Sarge. He's like leading the charge against!!!

But you said these guys were pro sales tax!

I'm shocked...just shocked that that you were ass-backwards.
 
73sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 01:44
Shocked? You might be shocked. But you cant read.
 
74sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 01:46
Since you lack the ability to do HONEST research, here you go...a starter. Continue on from here; (oh and btw, before you claim I said So-and-so, you do understand what 'et al' means, right?)

States Consider Increasing Taxes for the Poor and Cutting Them for the Affluent
 
75weykool
      ID: 43146920
      Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 13:57
(oh and btw, before you claim I said So-and-so, you do understand what 'et al' means, right?)
Yes we all know what 'et al' means.
It means you cant back up post #68 with a link so you are going to attempt to use the lamest excuse these boards have ever seen.
 
76Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 15:15
I think you guys are looking at two different things. sarge is looking at who wants to cut benefits primarily which benefit the poor. Boldwin is looking at proposals which increase taxes on the poor.

These are, of course, two different things and mixing them up merely causes mixed up thinking.

as for consumption taxes, I have no clue about Rand Paul's tax plan outside of his budget plan (which relied on some unbelievably stupid assumptions, like unemployment dropping to 2.8% and so forth). As far as I know he's not looking for the kind of consumption tax that other GOP politicos are pushing. Others certainly are, but it is unfair, IMO, to lump those who want to slash benefits for the poor as those who want to increase taxes for the poor. Two different things.
 
77weykool
      ID: 43146920
      Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 16:21
You can make up all the lame excuses you want for Sarge, but his list was of NATIONAL republicans and then provided a link to a story about STATE republicans as his so called proof.
You wouldnt let Boldwin get away with that kind of deception but since its someone on your side of the isle you have no problem with it.
Shameful hypocrisy.
 
78Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 16:26
Uh, I'm not making up any excuses. Just pointing out that they are talking past each other.
 
79biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 16:40
If we are talking sales tax, isn't that exclusively a state issue? Or it used to be until Citizen's United allowed the Kochs to build a defacto 3rd party with a budget larger than the Republican party, which has decided to throw vast wealth and screwing with state and local tax issues.
 
80Boldwin
      ID: 101311815
      Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 16:47
Of course we are talking past each other.

I posted #63 and all he has done was deny it without being able to prove it. What did you expect he would do? Admit he was ass-backwards?

He has to talk about every other tax plan except sales taxes, because he isn't going to find pro-tax increase conservatives, not for people in any tax bracket, let alone are they seeking to soak the poor at the expense of the rich.

In fact it's the other way around. Liberals constantly harping on the 1% are just deflecting attention from the fact that they want to raise taxes on everybody and they hope you actually believe there are some people whose pockets they don't want to pick.

They want to pick everyone's pocket's clean and then make you beg for reimbursement for all your stolen opportunities in life.

Plenty of marks don't notice the sleight-of-hand and actually appreciate the phony generosity of those pick-pockets.
 
81biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 17:36
Please enlighten me as to a time in our modern history when our taxes were lower than they are now.
 
82sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 18:06
there is no such time bili.

wk, you havent seen a GOP proposal you werent ready to hop, skip and dance in support of.

PD...cutting SNAP and the like, has the exact same result as taxing the poor. The GOP at the national level wants to do that, to offset further tax cuts for the wealthy. Meanwhile, GOP leaders at the state level, are trying to raise consumption taxes. (sales tax) This then is a double whammy on the poor and further exacerbates the extreme hardships faced BY the poor.

B,...it surprises me not at all, that you are unable to see, let alone admit, this reality.
 
83Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 18:24
sarge: There is a difference between saying "has the exact same result" and "is."

When you say "is" then don't decide you are doing to give examples of things which have the same result.
 
84sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 18:44
cutting SNAP isnt called a tax, but thats precisely what it is. Particularly, when it is used to offset tax cuts for an already fortunate demographic.
 
85weykool
      ID: 43146920
      Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 20:04
Sarge:
Please stop with the lies.
You have no clue what I believe.
If you have links to support your claims then please post them.
 
86Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 20:12
If is isn't called a tax, then don't use it as an example of a tax.

I find myself in agreement with weykool here.

There are plenty of actual things not to like about the GOP. You do your side a disfavor by insisting on something which isn't true when plenty of other facts are around to demonstrate the point you want to make.
 
87Seattle Zen
      ID: 301361318
      Wed, Apr 15, 2015, 19:13
a paltry 6.9%. We don't own a home, don't itemize deductions, only one child dependent.

Cut defense spending, raise tax rates, build infrastructure, we all win and balance the budget.