^^ the numbers I could find were from
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
showing top 25% making 69% of AGI and 87% of taxes

I don't hold them in disdain, but I have to wonder why you would prefer to coddle them like they are voiceless and downtrodden. If we ever are going to get back to a balanced budget, it's going to come on the backs of these people - sorry, there's just no other way it's goign to happen. Whether you think it's "fair" or not, it's the only way possible. We've been shown time and time again over the past 40 years that lowering taxes on the well-off does not create the same or higher return in overall tax revenue from any additional economic activity it may create.

3/8/2010 9:37:55 AM

I agree, she should not get tax credits for children. We should all be treated equally, regardless of our lifestyle choices (children, mortgages, stock market, etc).
Like I said AngryOldMan, we simply disagree here. You appear to value democracy over legal equality (them's be the rules we as a society want). So be it. If you aren't the majority, then you'd better change your ways or we will sock you with unfair taxation. I just hope you are not defending the status quo because it serves your interests. You were lucky enough to have a lifestyle that takes advantage of almost all the tax credits available.

3/8/2010 9:51:37 AM

haha, sorry. I read 48%. Yeah, my bad.

Feel free to send in more to lessen the burden on others though.

At your level what were your employement taxes? for many, those are higher than their fed tax rate. Although, you prob pay a bit more in fed. But dont forget those.

[Edited on March 8, 2010 at 10:14 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on March 8, 2010 at 10:15 AM. Reason : .]

3/8/2010 10:03:10 AM

^ Good point. Unless you are earning half a million a year, 12% of your income is being taken in payroll taxes. So, add that to whatever you calculated.

3/8/2010 10:18:43 AM

All I know is none of my tax money goes towards NC roads obviously.

3/8/2010 10:46:19 AM

Quote :

"Allowing some to deduct their savings because they go into a 401k but not allowing others because their savings go into a CD is immoral."

you still have to pay taxes on it when you pull from it. do you not know how a 401k works?

3/8/2010 11:58:37 AM

Quote :

"The tea-partyers and idiots like ^"

Yes, clearly it is idiotic to oppose being forced to pay people for services that are unnecessary and destructive.

Quote :

"And so in the Libertarian world, poor people are poor because if their ignorant/dumb choices, and thus deserve no sympathy of help from society, because they chose that lot."

In the libertarian world, people deserve the freedom to choose who they show sympathy toward and how they feel they can best help those people.

3/8/2010 12:10:52 PM

Yes and no one would give to anyone

3/8/2010 12:34:52 PM

Are you saying it's your opinion that were it not for taxes, no one would ever give money to charity?

3/8/2010 1:01:39 PM

No one would give enough to support those in poverty.

Are you saying you'd personally give more than the government takes out for social programs? You already complain that's "too much," what leads me to believe you'd give the same amount if funding for those social programs didn't exist?

3/8/2010 1:03:41 PM

Quote :

"Yes and no one would give to anyone"

Are you just trolling now?

Quote :

"Are you saying you'd personally give more than the government takes out for social programs? You already complain that's "too much," what leads me to believe you'd give the same amount if funding for those social programs didn't exist?"

A fraction of the money collected actually goes towards social programs. I think you would see charitable contributions go up substantially if, say, the income tax were abolished.

[Edited on March 8, 2010 at 1:07 PM. Reason : ]

3/8/2010 1:05:31 PM

No, no they wouldn't.

None of you ever think you're "rich enough," and you'd hoard all of your money.

The rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer.

This is a horrible idea.

3/8/2010 1:11:11 PM

Quote :

"Yes and no one would give to anyone"

Pretty dumb statement. imo

3/8/2010 1:16:02 PM

Is God trolling?
No one is that dumb, right?

3/8/2010 1:16:29 PM

Answer these three questions:

What is your combined family income for the year?

What percentage of your income do you give to charitable organizations now?

What percentage would you give if you had to pay no income taxes?

3/8/2010 1:20:14 PM

If a lot of those on the left truly believe what God seems to believe, that would explain a lot of their irrational opposition to liberty.

3/8/2010 1:21:41 PM

You just don't realize that the playing field isn't nearly as equal for individuals as you'd want.

3/8/2010 1:24:08 PM

Quote :

"Answer these three questions: What is your combined family income for the year? What percentage of your income do you give to charitable organizations now? What percentage would you give if you had to pay no income taxes?"

Why don't you start?

3/8/2010 1:26:54 PM

Quote :

"Are you saying you'd personally give more than the government takes out for social programs? You already complain that's "too much," what leads me to believe you'd give the same amount if funding for those social programs didn't exist?"

It's too much because it's being forcefully taken and could be much more effectively used elsewhere if people had a choice.

I give to private charities and work at a non-profit making at least 30% less than I could easily make elsewhere because I think it is important work. So yes, I would continue to give and would give much more were I not taxed. Not to mention that most of our tax dollars go toward killing people, not helping people.

The welfare system is inefficient, wasteful, and in many cases counter-productive. There would be no need to match dollar for dollar what is currently being used for welfare. Private charities could do a much better job with half of the funds.

Besides being inefficient and wasteful, stealing is immoral. People should not be forced to give against their will. Just because the organization taking the money is called government, I don't believe that grants them some kind of special right to force people to hand over their money without their consent.

3/8/2010 1:27:19 PM

I don't think most of you understand how first world countries operate.

3/8/2010 1:29:33 PM

Quote :

"You just don't realize that the playing field isn't nearly as equal for individuals as you'd want."

No, I do. I truly wish things like patriarchy and slavery had never happened. Same with corporate monopolies and oligopolies.
But you don't level the playing field by condoning the government's stealing of people's property or by condoning government policies that treat individuals differently under the law.

The equality of the means is far more important than the equality of the ends.

Quote :

"Private charities could do a much better job with half of the funds."

Exactly. 100% true.

Quote :

"I don't think most of you understand how first world countries operate."

So, are you saying that there's one particular "way" that first world countries should operate?
What is that "way"? No... please. Tell us.

(***waiting for God's wisdom***)

[Edited on March 8, 2010 at 1:47 PM. Reason : ]

3/8/2010 1:30:12 PM

Quote :

"What percentage would you give if you had to pay no income taxes? "

Whatever I felt like. I know there would be a greater chance of me giving more money if I had more money. Seem logical to you?

3/8/2010 1:33:37 PM

I realize this thread is about those who are being taxed to death.... which I am not. Hear me out, maybe I can offer some insight.

I am in outside sales, which is currently salary+commission, but will move into straight commission starting at the beginning of July 2010. I have been in this position since July 2009. I have competition from several direct manufacturing sales reps, large distributors, and local distributors. Here are the advantages and disadvantages of each:

Direct Advantages: Immediate knowledge of new technology, no middle man mark up, one shipping bill (paid by manufacturer or buyer of goods), access to larger range of non-commodity items, control inventory, have access to many distributors that can effectively sell their goods which increases market share, and set prices of commodity they manufacture.

Direct disadvantages: Typically have 1-3 sales reps per region (i.e. southeast, mid-atlantic, northeast, etc.) limiting the number of accounts they can successfully manage/cold-call, lack physical customer service or physical technical service available to or affordable for smaller users or altogether, are sometimes not trustworthy because they will go in behind their distributors that sell their commodity to one account in large quantities (i.e. they missed a big account, and have found out about it through a distributor selling their particular product) which leads to the distributor not selling their product anymore, have too many distributors selling the product ultimately driving the set price down through deviations, possibly rely on distributors to actually sell the product, and competition from other direct sources.

Large distributor advantages: have access to other commodities that go hand in hand with other manufacturers (poor example- grocery stores sell milk as well as cereal), get direct pricing, many locations regionally or nationally easing the shipping burden of buyers with multiple locations, personal service either customer or technical, many sales reps that are able to cover a broader territory, access to multiple manufacturers of the same commodity allowing to keep prices in check, service programs that smaller companies can't offer and direct providers can't match in price or value, and experts of many many commodities as opposed to one or a few.

Large distributor disadvantages: smaller local distributors creating price wars (think Michael Scott Paper Co vs Dunder-Mifflin), direct mfg's going in behind and stealing business, limited access to all of the mfg's (you won't find Harris Teeter name brands in Food Lion and visa versa), can't truly set prices because it's based on both supply and demand, territory management, and tough growth prospects in slower economies (this is true for direct as well really)

Local distributor advantages: Typically a good ol' boy setting where the seller and the buyer know each other for years (this does happen at all levels, but mostly at the local level), local folks are right down the street and can be used in emergencies, if the local guy buys at high enough volumes then there is no shipping charge to the end user, and access to both direct mfg's and large distributors.

Local distributor disadvantages: easily beaten in price, array of commodities, array of technology, lack of trained staff, low cash flow, etc etc etc.

This is what I have noticed in my six months, I am sure there are plenty more that need mentioning. The way I am setting myself apart as a sales person is this: I go after the big accounts right now while I am new. The big accounts, if I land them, will take care of me while I am new and building a customer base. The money made off of those allows me to focus free time on smaller accounts that get me higher margins. I build up big accounts, I would like to have 5-10 of these, then get 20-30 medium accounts. If I lose 1 or 2 big accounts, the 20-30 medium accounts keep me afloat while I go after new big accounts. I don't really waste time on small accounts simply because they basically pay for breakfast or something really small.

I will say this, if you can't get a big account in the first 6-8 months (assuming you have cash flow that you can ride this long) you could be in a world of trouble. If you can get one, it will really make going after the others a lot more enjoyable and less stressful. It's simply just very exhausting wasting any time on anything other than big accounts in the very beginning. You work just as hard on the medium sized accounts and see 1/3 to 1/36 of the money in my situation.

If you have any other questions, you can PM me. I hope this helps in the slightest!

3/8/2010 2:35:06 PM

OP has an easy time making this thread.

B/c he doesn't have a real fucking job. Come on up and smell the 100k area one day and get out of the kiddy pool and this thread will never exist.

edit:

Quote :

"It was pretty close to 70k last year thanks to be unemployed for ~8 months"

im gonna assume wifey made 40k and you made 30k. is that right. if so i take it back and now i know why you have such an easy time making this thread. get back up to your 'par' 90k a year and make this same thread next year. i'll be loling at your 20%-30% taxes like the rest of us.

8 months unemployed? really?



[Edited on March 8, 2010 at 5:03 PM. Reason : 1]

3/8/2010 4:55:37 PM

Quote :

"get back up to your 'par' 90k a year and make this same thread next year. i'll be loling at your 20%-30% taxes like the rest of us"

You must not own a home or you file single or both. For 2008 our AGI was over 100k and our effective Fed rate was 11.4%.

3/8/2010 5:26:23 PM

Quote :

"im gonna assume wifey made 40k and you made 30k. is that right."

No, that isn't right.

Quote :

"We should all be treated equally, regardless of our lifestyle choices (children, mortgages, stock market, etc)"

But...I don't feel like I'm not being treated equally. I think having a credit for children is good public policy else we'll more closely mimic Japan with their aging and declining population and that can't be at all good for society. You're nirvana ideology simply can't be applied piece meal because it doesn't make any sense. Have any Libertarians anywhere proposed a plan of how to get from where we are with our bloated bureaucracy to where you'd like to be and do you really know the (unintended) consequences of that policy or are you guys mostly just content to rail on government in most forms and call it a day?

3/8/2010 6:22:46 PM

you didn't quote her salary with 15 digit precision so "its not right" lol


in actuality he probably made far less than 30k though.

3/8/2010 6:25:07 PM

In know you're just trolling, but you're wrong.

3/8/2010 6:28:21 PM

hey, if you don't think you are being taxed too much, then be a dear and pay some more so the rest of us don't have to. thx

3/8/2010 6:49:10 PM

Or you could be a dear and just not pay your taxes and not have to worry about what I do.

3/8/2010 6:50:17 PM

Which part doesn't make sense? The part where people are taxed equally?

Quote :

"Have any Libertarians anywhere proposed a plan of how to get from where we are with our bloated bureaucracy to where you'd like to be and do you really know the (unintended) consequences of that policy or are you guys mostly just content to rail on government in most forms and call it a day?"

Yes. The proposal was quite simple: elimination of the existing income tax code. At that point, everyone would pay taxes under the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) which does not recognize most tax deductions. The tax rate of the AMT would need to be raised so the books balance, and it still recognizes too many deductions, but the principle is similar.

Seriously, I can understand you not believing tax deductions to be unjust, but to suggest that a lack of them somehow makes no sense is ridiculous. Canada does not allow most of our tax deductions, and their society has not yet collapsed into anarchy. Compared to America, European tax codes are down-right simplistic. It would not be the end of the world if, with respect to personal tax deductions, we become more like the rest of the world.

3/8/2010 8:37:40 PM

Socialist?

3/8/2010 8:43:53 PM

Quote :

"get back up to your 'par' 90k a year and make this same thread next year. i'll be loling at your 20%-30% taxes like the rest of us."

read up on how the Progressive Tax System works, then recalculate your federal income tax, and report back to us (hint: just because you're in the "28% tax bracket" doesn't mean you actually pay 28% in taxes!)

3/8/2010 9:09:42 PM

Quote :

"Have any Libertarians anywhere proposed a plan of how to get from where we are with our bloated bureaucracy to where you'd like to be and do you really know the (unintended) consequences of that policy or are you guys mostly just content to rail on government in most forms and call it a day?"

Sure, there is plenty of discussion about how to best gradually reverse the trend of the ever-enlarging welfare/warfare state with minimal disturbance to those currently dependent on it. But I don't think there's much point in discussing these possibilities without first coming to an agreement that taxation in general is immoral (especially in its current form).

Obviously discussing potential steps is pointless when we have completely opposite views of a legitimate society. The bottom line is the current system is immoral and we should work to change it.

3/8/2010 10:35:23 PM

Quote :

"seems like too many people's sarcasm detectors are broken ITT"

3/8/2010 10:49:18 PM

Quote :

""Yes and no one would give to anyone""

Americans are the most charitable people on Earth. We gave Haiti millions of private charity dollars, and many of the donors probably couldn't even find Haiti on a map.

I'd also like the courtesy of deciding WHO gets my charity money. Taxes take away that option because Politicians claim to know better who deserves your money.

3/8/2010 11:24:12 PM

so lets see

we should abolish all income taxes - check
end all entitlement programs - check
whittle down the federal government to a stick - check
get rid of public schools - check
privatize nearly every government function, including national defense, schools and public safety - check

who cares if the corporations have our best interests at mind...that's what our money is for!

3/8/2010 11:43:44 PM

^ I don't think the U.S. Constitution as worded would allow for the privatization of national defense. And I suspect most state constitutions and municipal charters would not allow for the privatization of public safety. But you can keep dreaming there, buddy.

3/9/2010 1:16:47 AM

holy shit

Quote :

"seems like too many people's sarcasm detectors are broken ITT"

3/9/2010 8:05:37 AM

Quote :

"Americans are the most charitable people on Earth. We gave Haiti millions of private charity dollars, and many of the donors probably couldn't even find Haiti on a map. I'd also like the courtesy of deciding WHO gets my charity money. Taxes take away that option because Politicians claim to know better who deserves your money."

Only after a crisis, when Lil Wayne and Celine Dion make a song, and people donate to feel good about themselves.

How many people gave a shit about Haiti before the earthquake? Fucking no one. That's why it was the poorest goddamn country on earth.

How many people donated in the last week? I bet it was almost no one.

In 6 months, no one will give a shit about Haiti again. And Haitians will continue to live in the worst kind of poverty while you sip on your Latte.

So, no, we aren't the most charitable people. We're selfish assholes who live in the "out of sight, out of mind" mentality.

3/9/2010 8:58:19 AM

^Yeah people only give to St. Jude after a natural disaster. Volunteer in clinics, kitchens, etc after a disaster. Come on man.

Part of the problem is that a lot of people already feel that they are paying support for that homeless person through their taxes. One could even argue that the govt/taxes handling these programs makes one less likely to help as the burden of responsiblity is shifted from the individual to the "collective".

3/9/2010 9:05:00 AM

Hahahahha no that's not true at all.

People don't care because they don't care. It has nothing to do with taxes. No one says, "By god I would have given a dollar to that homeless man but MY INCOME TAXES *drives off in Lexus*"

3/9/2010 9:07:48 AM

Quote :

"How many people gave a shit about Haiti before the earthquake? Fucking no one. That's why it was the poorest goddamn country on earth."

Similarly, no one gave a shit about Denmark evar. Fucking no one. That's why Denmark is among the richest countries on earth?

The purpose of charity is to help you when you are down. If Charity helps you all the time then it is neither charity or help, but a way of life. There is a reason homeless shelters kick you out after awhile. And there is a reason government assistance runs out after awhile: it is the same reason private charity runs out after awhile.

To your point, it does not matter how much Americans care about Haiti. Short of military invasion and colonization (which the US has used the earthquake as an excuse to do), Haitians were going to find a way to impoverish themselves.

^ I strongly suspect charitable donations rise in absolute terms as income rises. Well, a tax cut is the same as a rise in wages, so people will give more.

[Edited on March 9, 2010 at 9:26 AM. Reason : .,.]

3/9/2010 9:24:29 AM

God you're not being very understanding.

Yes he has a Lexus, but if it wasn't for his oppressive income taxes he'd have a Bentley.

3/9/2010 9:24:38 AM

God does not get it. He is not even trying. He is basing all of this on his fear and hate.
If he wants to stick his head in the ground and scream, "We're selfish assholes! People don't care because they don't care! No one will give a shit! It has nothing to do with taxes!," until he believes it.... then there's nothing we can do. He'll remain an idiot on this subject because HE ALREADY KNOWS THAT HE'S RIGHT NO MATTER WHAT.

Besides, he never answered my question:

Quote :

"I don't think most of you understand how first world countries operate"

Quote :

"So, are you saying that there's one particular "way" that first world countries should operate? What is that "way"? No... please. Tell us."

3/9/2010 9:27:42 AM

Quote :

"Part of the problem is that a lot of people already feel that they are paying support for that homeless person through their taxes. One could even argue that the govt/taxes handling these programs makes one less likely to help as the burden of responsiblity is shifted from the individual to the "collective"."

This is true. Historically when people have been under the impression that the government is cutting back on welfare spending, charitable given has risen accordingly. Similarly when people feel that government welfare spending is increasing, charitable giving decreases. The responsibility to take care of those less fortunate is passed off to the government, who always does a shitty job at anything they try to do.

3/9/2010 9:34:51 AM

Quote :

"The responsibility to take care of those less fortunate is passed off to the government, who always does a shitty job at anything they try to do."

congrats. you've made the dumbest statement in this entire thread.

3/9/2010 9:39:21 AM

God, you do not think there are people out there that can afford a lexus dont buy one and choose to give to charities?

And in reality, its their right to choose to either donate it to charity or to buy a lexus. Its their money.

Lets take it down a notch. Have you gone out to eat in the past month? Think of all the homeless mouths you could have filled if you just would have ate in. You selfish bastard. haha

3/9/2010 9:39:28 AM

Quote :

"congrats. you've made the dumbest statement in this entire thread."

congrats. you've stated your generic opinion without saying anything of relevance at all.

3/9/2010 9:42:32 AM

the government fails at everything they try to do? seriously?

assuming you are talking about the federal government (since you didn't even qualify)...sure, i could rattle off a long list of successful federal government programs but it's too easy.

when your argument is fueled with ignorance of those epic proportions, no amount of education will sway your opinion.

3/9/2010 9:49:38 AM