Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Why would a pinch at one level be any different from a pinch at another level when the bite becomes bigger and bigger as income increases, thereby placing the majority of all income tax burden on a small group (minority) and little to none on another (majority) group? That is wealth redistribution and I don't support it.
.

There we have it. the crux of the matter. How can you not see that a pinch from someone with little is more impactful than a pinch from someone who has much?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

There we have it. the crux of the matter. How can you not see that a pinch from someone with little is more impactful than a pinch from someone who has much?

Not saying it is. But why should one person pay 50% or more of their income and another pay nothing? As I stated, I don't support wealth redistribution.

[DanaC]

But they don't pay nothing. They are proportionally harder hit with other none-income based taxes.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

But they don't pay nothing. They are proportionally harder hit with other none-income based taxes.

What does that have to do with the fact that it is wealth redistribution?

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Not saying it is. But why should one person pay 50% or more of their income and another pay nothing? As I stated, I don't support wealth redistribution.

No one pays anywhere near 50% of their income in federal income tax. The top taxpayers have an effective rate of about 20%.

As to class warfare...

Ending the 01 and 03 temporary tax cuts as intended by Bush and the Republican Congress that enacted it is class warfare, but characterizing low income working families as zero liability voters is not?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

But they don't pay nothing. They are proportionally harder hit with other none-income based on taxes.

SO, If I start off as very poor. Worked really hard. Went to school, studied hard, and eventually made a better living. Raised a family, and started to make good money, why can't I put that money where I want to put it to make my life better, give money to my kids, support them, give to charities or causes that I believe in? Why should I let a government take a larger and larger bite of my income to give it to people or causes that it thinks are worthy? When governments are inefficient and wasteful or give to causes or groups I don't support? If you don't contribute I don't think you are invested.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

No one pays anywhere near 50% of their income in federal income tax. The top taxpayers have an effective rate of about 20%.

I didn't say anyone paid near 50% of there income in federal income tax.

[Fair&Balanced]

Under your scenario.

If you start off poor and work really hard....and are taxed at (or near) the same rate as the wealthiest taxpayers, will you ever make a better living or will you be stuck at a level where your limited resources are going to taxes to the point that you are living from paycheck to paycheck or worse.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I didn't say anyone paid near 50% of there income in federal income tax.

When you say one person pays near 50% and another pays nothing, what else could you be talking about? Particularly given that the wealthy pay a much lower rate for FICA taxes than those making under $100k.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Under your scenario.

If you start off poor and work really hard....and are taxed at (or near) the same rate as the wealthiest taxpayers, will you ever make a better living or will you be stuck at a level where your limited resources are going to taxes to the point that you are living from paycheck to paycheck or worse.

How is that different from now? Most people live paycheck to paycheck. And when you say, "taxed at (or near) the same rate as the wealthiest taxpayers", where did anyone say that they should be taxed at that rate?

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

How is that different from now? Most people live paycheck to paycheck. And when you say, "taxed at (or near) the same rate as the wealthiest taxpayers", where did anyone say that they should be taxed at that rate?

It would be different from now because they dont have the added burden that you want to place on them to pay federal income tax.

And you have said on more than one occasion that you think all taxpayers should pay the same rate (maybe in one of those posts your deleted).

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

It would be different from now because they dont have the added burden that you want to place on them to pay federal income tax.

And you have said on more than one occasion that you think all taxpayers should pay the same rate (maybe in one of those posts your deleted).

You are right, and I want them to pay something into federal income tax as a percent of their income.

And when you say, "taxed at (or near) the same rate as the wealthiest taxpayers", where did anyone say that they should be taxed at that rate? On more than one occasion I said they should all pay the same rate in a flat or Fair Tax.

[Fair&Balanced]

IMO, class warfare is characterizing those working men and women who live from paycheck to paycheck as zero liability voters.

To classify a system of progressive taxation as class warfare or redistributing wealth is a bit of stretch to say the least.

I still havent seen a flat or flatter tax proposal that works w/o the middle class and working poor seeing a significant increase in their taxes which hardly contributes to personal or national economic growth by any measure.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

IMO, class warfare is characterizing those working men and women who live from paycheck to paycheck as zero liability voters.

I made no such association. Those are your words.

To classify a system of progressive taxation as class warfare or redistributing wealth is a bit of stretch to say the least.

False. Anytime you take money from one group of earners and give it to another group without giving those who made the money a say in where it goes and how it is spent to the dollar it is wealth redistribution.

I still havent seen a flat or flatter tax proposal that works w/o the middle class and working poor seeing a significant increase in their taxes which by hardly contributes to personal or national economic growth.

That is not important to me.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

...

That is not important to me.

So its not important if your tax policy actually helps working people and the economy?

Its just ideological extremism that cant be justified when applied. No surprise.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

So its not important if your tax policy actually helps working people and the economy?

No, it's just no important to me if you think you have seen one that works in any way shape or form that you think it should work, or in your attempts to shill for the Obama Administration and the Demoncratic Party.