ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
I dont pay anything towards my social security?
Only the rich do?
Chesusrice's Grater
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
Only the rich do?
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
No Chesus, you dont pay anything towards your social security. As soon as you send it in it is re-diverted to someone else receiving a social security check.
You had better pray the government convinces a bunch of schmucks to pay for you when it is your time because your money will have been long spent.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
SO you mean It's not the rich who are paying for everything
It's me?
Then I guess the rich arent paying enough.
AMIRITE??
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
What is it with these copy cat threads?
And what's with the "amirite" shit, did that word just hit Wisconsin, cause hardly anyone I know uses it anymore, right?
- On December 12th, In segment highlighting the current unemployment rate, a Fox News graphic
clearly showed the current national unemployment rate of 8.6% is HIGHER than 8.8%, and equal to 9.0%.
- On the October 6th, 2011 edition of Hannity, host Sean Hannity made the false statement that
President Ronald Reagan, “inherited a far worse economy than (President) Obama.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Are you saying that until the rich pay for everything they are not paying enough??? Yeah, that covers your world view pretty accurately. Bravo for outing yourself!!
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
why don't the rich pay 6.2% on all of their income, like all of us wage earners do?
why does your savior mitt romney get to pay almost 0% of his income to social security? the rest of us have to pay 6.2% on every dollar we earn.
maybe the rich should pay their fair share. SS tax is a regressive tax.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Maybe the government needs to spend less than 2.5 trillion dollars a year....
why don't we go with a FLAT 10% across the board for EVERYONE except those at poverty level?
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Because then you are still required to report your income to the government and it is none of their damn business...
I prefer a consumption tax replacing all other taxes. If you spend money you pay a tax. If you put money in savings or investments you do not pay any tax. The tax is paid when the money is spent. And the government can be flexible and waive all or part of the tax for things like Healthcare for example. If you are worried about people in poverty the government could send a rebate check to EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN for whatever the amount they want to cover the first X number of dollars spent.
It would eliminate the IRS from your personal life. It would end all tax filings for individuals regardless of income. The taxes would be paid to the vendor and passed on to the government with the currently existing systems so there would be relatively no cost to change over.
The dirty little secret is that the government wants more power over your life, not less so none of these ideas will ever happen.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Consumption tax. Otherwise known as the rich don't pay shit
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
consuption tax is inherently regressive. it is mathematically true.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
When a rich person buys an expensive house they pay for it. When they buy a yacht, nice car they pay for it. When they have extravagant trips, they pay for it.
When the rich buy businesses, they pay for it. When they buy equipment, they pay for it, When they buy land, they pay for it.
They pay exactly like everyone else does but they pay more because they buy more...
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
You are a mathematical retard....
Everyone paying the exact same percentage on purchases cannot be regressive.
Dr.J20
Well-Known Member
hmmm... your understanding of social contract theory is quite interesting, as is your apparent belief that wisdom has a shelf-life. A student of culture myself, I do weigh context heavily in any given matter, but, pray, do tell, why is it that Plato, Protagoras, Isocrates or even Aesop persist in western culture as teachings, if teachings from the past, by virtue of their "pastness," are inapplicable today?
Dr.J20
Well-Known Member
Factually inaccurate. using phrases like "usually" irks me as well, get a stat on that before you use it in an arg.
Dr.J20
Well-Known Member
To be fair, the welfare clause is also a major culprit for the interpretation you are against.
Dr.J20
Well-Known Member
sure it can. because if you factor in purchasing power--personal capital held--you start off with a massive differential. the mess our tax code is in was built over many many years. One simple little theory isn't going to disentangle this shit.
let me explain this a little more: it becomes regressive when looking at lifetime income.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Income should not be a factor in deciding taxes. The constitution I believe provides equal protection under the law. And yes, the welfare clause has also been twisted to mean what it did not.
Why should a person be penalized for being successful? I would argue that the tax system is one of the more unfair systems in America.
We are becoming a culture that views profit and success as evil and government handouts as charity.... Many governments have gone down this road before and it always ends the same way - war, famine disease and death...