Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is hilarious. You can see what the tax burden is on someone with 25k income right? Sales or other taxes on almost every dollar in that figure. Gasoline? Tax. Telephone? Tax. Food? Tax. Clothes? Tax. Electricity? Tax.

The spin doctors have won again by getting all the over educated DCUMers to engage on a debate about the the fictional folks who "pay no taxes."

Warren is right.

so assuming they spend almost everything they earn (fair assumption unfortunately), that still probably means there tax is 5-7%. Hardly crushing and not my 21% effective rate.

Who is that bitch Fica and why is she taking 7.65% of my income?

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anything the people who don't produce anything should be charged money to live in our society. Reward winners, fail failers!

Please tell us how to get money from people who have none.

The logic - to use the word in its loosest possible sense - is stunning.

"You have no job and not enough money to live on. Therefore we're charging you a fee to pay for all the assistance you receive."

I swear, sometimes I feel like I'm Alice down the rabbit hole. Other times, I think we should just give them what they want. Screw 'em. Let's see how these flyover state knuckleheads like it when government assistance REALLY go away. In the next election, Democrats would have veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate. Two years later, the democratic candidate would win the white house in a landslide that makes Reagan's victory over Mondale look like Bush v. Gore.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anything the people who don't produce anything should be charged money to live in our society. Reward winners, fail failers!

Please tell us how to get money from people who have none.

I agree. Considering the elite on Wall Street produce nothing and actually destroy weath for everyone but themselves, we should tax the hell out of them.

Anonymous wrote:Every wage earner should have to pay some Federal Income Tax. Our system, as it stands, provides no incentive for the lower 47% to elect officials who will be responsible with the taxpayers money.

You or someone else made this senseless statement recently.

Your non-contributing kids have no interest in how you spend the household money? If your spouse inherits $1 million, you have no incentive to see that it's spent responsibly?

Anonymous wrote:If anything the people who don't produce anything should be charged money to live in our society. Reward winners, fail failers!

Please tell us how to get money from people who have none.

Anonymous wrote:We should be taxing the poor more to make an incentive to stop being poor and do something.

Because otherwise there’s no reason not to want to be poor!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is hilarious. You can see what the tax burden is on someone with 25k income right? Sales or other taxes on almost every dollar in that figure. Gasoline? Tax. Telephone? Tax. Food? Tax. Clothes? Tax. Electricity? Tax.

The spin doctors have won again by getting all the over educated DCUMers to engage on a debate about the the fictional folks who "pay no taxes."

Warren is right.

so assuming they spend almost everything they earn (fair assumption unfortunately), that still probably means there tax is 5-7%. Hardly crushing and not my 21% effective rate.

Would you rather live on $25,000 and pay what they do in taxes, or live like you do and pay 21%?

Anonymous wrote:Every wage earner should have to pay some Federal Income Tax. Our system, as it stands, provides no incentive for the lower 47% to elect officials who will be responsible with the taxpayers money. In fact, those who pay nothing but receive the benefits have every incentive to elect those individual who act irresponsibly. As a nation, we cannot continue to spend money we do not have for programs we cannot afford. Sadly, a good portion of American lives with massive credit card debt from buying things that that wanted (and confused with needed) and therefore, think nothing of the massive spending that goes on in Washington.

If your analysis is correct, how to you explain the 2008 Congressional elections? A lot of Tea Partiers got elected with more than 53% of the vote. Were those poor wage earners that voted for them just confused or were they, in fact, not voting in they way you predict?

Every wage earner should have to pay some Federal Income Tax. Our system, as it stands, provides no incentive for the lower 47% to elect officials who will be responsible with the taxpayers money. In fact, those who pay nothing but receive the benefits have every incentive to elect those individual who act irresponsibly. As a nation, we cannot continue to spend money we do not have for programs we cannot afford. Sadly, a good portion of American lives with massive credit card debt from buying things that that wanted (and confused with needed) and therefore, think nothing of the massive spending that goes on in Washington.