You're not using that word correctly if you think Foolkiller is only against the concept because Obama is doing it rather than because it is being done.
I didn't say he's a hypocrite. I said hypocrisy in general, as in the same idea was proposed before by the same people now saying it's wrong. That is hypocritical.
Wasn't your original question asking why these socialism complaints weren't made against Clinton? I was pointing out that it was made, not what my opinion of the matter is.
EDIT: I forgot to add this.
As for Romney's healthcare plan, look around this site . When Massachusetts passed their healthcare plan I trashed it. Don't assume you know who I am based on your personal stereotypes.
Where'd you get that from in any of what I said? Never spoke about you in particular or how I know you. I even said I care less about what you do or how you make your money.
These "loopholes" are not loopholes. They are government contracts for goods for things like jet engines or incentives to encourage the market to move along the way the government wants.
Would you prefer GE just receive a check for $600 million dollars from the government and then pay $300 million in taxes so that you can say they paid taxes? Would that make you happy? It's the same in the end, but if you prefer feel good changes we can do that.
I'd rather we stop market manipulation and only purchase the things the government needs to function. Stop trying to make our businesses become green and stop blowing crap up in multiple nations and GE won't be getting more money from government than they receive.
I didn't say they were particularly 'loopholes', just used a term. You call it what you want, I call it what I like
. And what does my opinion matter to you? Like I said before, you seem to just be trying to refute what I say, what I think. In the end it doesn't matter to you because I don't share your view on every matter. So that's why I said before there's no reason for us to even discuss it. So why keep on about it?
Will it hurt? No. Is it the nature of liberty or freedom or equality? No. Taking more from the successful is unjust. Saying person A needs money/food/whatever and forcing person B to pay more so you can do that is no different than making it legal for person A to steal from person B. This is not just about welfare but all government services.
You want fair tax? Calculate how many government services each person uses and tax them based on that. That would be fair.
Big business is hardly fair. Why does big business get 'small business' breaks?
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/advisor/really-gets-uncle-sams-small-154902005.html. These are the things that need to change. Why should companies who profit billions every quarter be allowed to get away with things like this? I said before that this is my problem. I don't know about you, but talking about fair and seeing things like this makes me cringe.
You don't know me, so I'll say this only once.
I'm not a Republican, not registered, have only voted for one Republican in a general election twice in the last eight years, and I rarely watch 24 hour cable news channels. I worked in media research for seven years and had to watch them as part if my job. They all spin and deceive.
I do my research, not pay attention to news stations. I agree that all news tries to spin, it's for viewership, it's for money.
Odd, you don't care about my experience, but do care about normal people, who you describe as being like me. I said it before. I am far from rich. You would call me almost normal. I make a bit above your ~$30k, but I started my career at $24k. I worked and earned my way up.
If I didn't have money for my daughter's college put in an account with her name, emergency funds set aside to cover my medical expenses, and could add it all to my retirement investments I could be shooting for capital gains in the next five years.
I make the best of my investments while having tons of medical bills. How can Ai do it, but not others?
Question the others. Don't question me. One story doesn't equate to everyone. Not everyone knows how to play the 'tax game'. I don't care about your success story because it's just a story. Anyone and everyone has a story, be it success or not. You as an example can't be labelled for everyone. That's my point.
There is one already. Capital gains is not an income tax. Changing the income tax rate, as Obama wants to do is wanting to do and you just proposed, would not affect anything other than the guys not using "loopholes."
Like mud.
And this is why:
But a progressive tax is redistribution. Taking more from the rich and giving them less services. You redistributed their money.
Same rate tax is not progressive, which you just said you want.
I said either would be a good idea. Not one over the other.
But I agree on tricks. No more child credits, no more marriage credits, and no more earned income credits.
Some of those credits are good for low income families. But there should be a rewrite in there that you only qualify for these credits if you make below a certain amount. I believe those better off don't need credits after credits when they can afford to be without them. I don't think it's redistribution. I think it's helping society.
Get ready for a big fat lie then.
What you state is exactly wrong. There are FAR MORE loopholes available for someone making 30k per year to reduce their taxes not just to zero, but to negative numbers. Someone making 30k per year gets money back from the government rather than paying taxes... that's about as progressive as it gets. So why are we acting like they're at a tax disadvantage?
Someone like Romney, on the otherhand, pays about 15% of his income in taxes. I don't see any loopholes coming to the rescue, his tax returns are public. Feel free to look it up.
Most years I calculate the break-even point, the rough point where someone's income has gotten high enough that their tax burden should cover their portion of the government budget. Last time I calculated it was near $60k/year (for one person, not for a couple). So if you make less than that, you're not paying your fair share - in many cases you're not paying at all. If you make more than that, you're paying more than your fair share.
First Mitt paid 14.1% in 2011, and it would be even lower but for his not taking full advantage of his charitable deductions.
Another thing, paying no taxes is not entirely true. It's true that some Americans don't pay federal income tax. But virtually all Americans pay some form of tax, whether it's sales, payroll, state income, or property tax. Over 60% of those who don't pay income tax are working; they pay payroll tax, which goes to support Social Security (which is still taxed) and Medicare. Another 22% of those who don't pay income tax are the elderly; most of them don't work. In fact,
only about 8% of Americans pay neither federal income tax nor payroll tax, because they are unemployed, are students, or are disabled.
I'm done having this discussion. We can go till our fingers fall off, but lets leave it at that. Respond if you'd like. I won't reply but I will read what you have to say. 👍
