What must be done to Unite the Country

[Serene]

At what point does it become one?

That's obviously subjective. When you're paying so much in taxes that you can't afford to live a comfortable life (commensurate to your level of income), that's obviously too much. It's much harder to live a decently comfortable life when your pay is low versus when your pay is high. Most people would rather have 75% of $10,000,000 rather than 95% of $40,000.

 

[hog88]

Because as long as Trump refuses to do so it gives license to his cult followers to resist -- sometimes violently as we have seen -- the constitutional transfer of power.

1 riot LG, just 1 riot.

 

[PointGuard]

Yes he did say that. However when his plans were evaluated the need for revenue basically cut that number in half. One of those will have to give and I'm going to guess it's the taxes not the spending

Don't know - -didn't see those evaluation findings you referenced. I'll take your word for it. So he should amend his statement to "corporations and to individuals earning more than $200,000" (IIRC when he first proposed this long ago during the campaigning (IIRC = no link) the $400,000 was a guestimate of the floor) I'm thinking $200,000 would be acceptable to most posters on this forum as "taxable income" after adjustments

 

[Serene]

It is the exact right amount? Maybe they messed up and asked for too little? Shouldnt you pay some extra if that is the case? Or to cover someone else that cant pay theirs this year?

It is also a silly way to view taxes. To think a person should give to the federal govt as long as the burden is not too much.

Well, we realistically live in a society where a government needs money in order to function. There are obviously those of the opinion that we don't need a government to function or that we can have a government that functions without taxes, but I'm not of that opinion. Neglecting those differing opinions, someone has to pay taxes, and it makes sense to me that the people who have benefited the most from living in society should have the greatest tax burden. I completely respect if your opinion differs there, but those are my beliefs.

 

[hog88]

Don't know - -didn't see those evaluation findings you referenced. I'll take your word for it. So he should amend his statement to "corporations and to individuals earning more than $200,000" (IIRC when he first proposed this long ago during the campaigning (IIRC = no link) the $400,000 was a guestimate of the floor) I'm thinking $200,000 would be acceptable to most posters on this forum as "taxable income" after adjustments

It's not acceptable in the least.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

That's obviously subjective. When you're paying so much in taxes that you can't afford to live a comfortable life (commensurate to your level of income), that's obviously too much. It's much harder to live a decently comfortable life when your pay is low versus when your pay is high. Most people would rather have 75% of $10,000,000 rather than 95% of $40,000.

That's projection.
You didn't answer the question. I would rather be able to shoot 100% from the three point line, but that is no more attainable than making $10 mill. But what right do I have to project what I think is 'fair' on someone that does? You are like your boy Oboma in that you believe they 'didn't earn that', and therefore they should just give it to the government. It's flat out mob rule and theft. A flat tax is fair. You want more money, better yourself. Get a better job or work harder. But everyone should pay the same relative to anyone else.

 

[hog88]

Well, we realistically live in a society where a government needs money in order to function. There are obviously those of the opinion that we don't need a government to function or that we can have a government that functions without taxes, but I'm not of that opinion. Neglecting those differing opinions, someone has to pay taxes, and it makes sense to me that the people who have benefited the most from living in society should have the greatest tax burden. I completely respect if your opinion differs there, but those are my beliefs.

Reducing the size, scope and authority of the federal government is the only thing that makes sense. Spending will never be reduced so we will hit a point that only 1 option will be left and that is default. Revenue collection is not our problem!

 

[ajvol01]

Quantitative easing. We can (theoretically) only do so much of it.

Wow you really bought into the BS, huh?

 

[allvol123]

Well, we realistically live in a society where a government needs money in order to function. There are obviously those of the opinion that we don't need a government to function or that we can have a government that functions without taxes, but I'm not of that opinion. Neglecting those differing opinions, someone has to pay taxes, and it makes sense to me that the people who have benefited the most from living in society should have the greatest tax burden. I completely respect if your opinion differs there, but those are my beliefs.

And reckless spending of trillions and then more trillions allows you to maintain this attitude?

Also, why is someone that "benefited" the most due to working and risking the most treated differently by our government than someone who chooses to do so much less.

 

[lawgator1]

1 riot LG, just 1 riot.

1) It was really a bit more than a riot, don't you think?
2) People died. Officers were mercilessly beaten. Trumpsters called for killing of police officers and for assassination of government officials as they were in the same building with them.
3) Since then, a significant faction of Trumpsters have made sustained and organized threats of further physical violence, both in D.C. and in state capitols.

Whatboutism on this incident does not work well.

 

[utvolpj]

Don't know - -didn't see those evaluation findings you referenced. I'll take your word for it. So he should amend his statement to "corporations and to individuals earning more than $200,000" (IIRC when he first proposed this long ago during the campaigning (IIRC = no link) the $400,000 was a guestimate of the floor) I'm thinking $200,000 would be acceptable to most posters on this forum as "taxable income" after adjustments

He won't amend it because then it starts to get closer to real incomes. It's a number that was never based on reality and people should stop repeating it.

It also assumes that he has put forth all spending plans which we should realize isn't true either. Taxes are going to increase and the cost of goods will increase once Corp taxes go up. This will really hurt the economy but in true Dem fashion it should increase dependence on the govt which is their goal

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

1) It was really a bit more than a riot, don't you think?
2) People died. Officers were mercilessly beaten. Trumpsters called for killing of police officers and for assassination of government officials as they were in the same building with them.
3) Since then, a significant faction of Trumpsters have made sustained and organized threats of further physical violence, both in D.C. and in state capitols.

Whatboutism on this incident does not work well.

Oh, you care about the cops now?

And while we are at it... 24 as of today.

BLM baby! Homicides in Chicago: A list of every victim - Chicago Sun-Times

 

[Serene]

So what if they do? Why is it fair for someone in that category to pay less percentage than someone that makes more?

Because for an individual, I don't view the value of a dollar as linear as income goes up. Obviously the nominal face value remains the same, but the economic value (i.e. benefit) of an additional dollar to a person decreases as they make more of it. $10,000 to someone who has $5,000 is a huge benefit, but $10,000 to someone who has $1,000,000 is much less so. Similarly, taking $2,000 from someone who makes $20,000 is much more of a hardship (takes away more economic value) than taking away $200,000 from someone who makes $2,000,000.

 

[utvolpj]

1) It was really a bit more than a riot, don't you think?
2) People died. Officers were mercilessly beaten. Trumpsters called for killing of police officers and for assassination of government officials as they were in the same building with them.
3) Since then, a significant faction of Trumpsters have made sustained and organized threats of further physical violence, both in D.C. and in state capitols.

Whatboutism on this incident does not work well.

All happened in the past couple years under encouragement from the left but now they're suddenly bad. Heck they even paid bail in many cases

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Because for an individual, I don't view the value of a dollar as linear as income goes up. Obviously the nominal face value remains the same, but the economic value (i.e. benefit) of an additional dollar to a person decreases as they make more of it. $10,000 to someone who has $5,000 is a huge benefit, but $10,000 to someone who has $1,000,000 is much less so. Similarly, taking $2,000 from someone who makes $20,000 is much more of a hardship (takes away more economic value) than taking away $200,000 from someone who makes $2,000,000.

Wrong. What you are doing here is telling me what is an acceptable lifestyle based on the lowest denominator.

 

[PointGuard]

Reducing the size, scope and authority of the federal government is the only thing that makes sense. Spending will never be reduced so we will hit a point that only 1 option will be left and that is default. Revenue collection is not our problem!

It's not acceptable in the least.

Would you accept $201,000?

 

[Serene]

That's projection.
You didn't answer the question. I would rather be able to shoot 100% from the three point line, but that is no more attainable than making $10 mill. But what right do I have to project what I think is 'fair' on someone that does? You are like your boy Oboma in that you believe they 'didn't earn that', and therefore they should just give it to the government. It's flat out mob rule and theft. A flat tax is fair. You want more money, better yourself. Get a better job or work harder. But everyone should pay the same relative to anyone else.

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't agree, but I've laid out my arguments and I don't think I'm going to change your mind.

 

[Serene]

Wow you really bought into the BS, huh?

That quantitative easing exists...? Can you elaborate your point?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't agree, but I've laid out my arguments and I don't think I'm going to change your mind.

That's because you are fine with government theft.

 

[Serene]

And reckless spending of trillions and then more trillions allows you to maintain this attitude?

Also, why is someone that "benefited" the most due to working and risking the most treated differently by our government than someone who chooses to do so much less.

I'm staunchly for fiscal responsibility and reducing the national debt, and I don't agree with any administration that doesn't push for a revenue surplus in good times to help reduce the debt so we can increase it strategically in bad times.

 

[hog88]

1) It was really a bit more than a riot, don't you think?
2) People died. Officers were mercilessly beaten. Trumpsters called for killing of police officers and for assassination of government officials as they were in the same building with them.
3) Since then, a significant faction of Trumpsters have made sustained and organized threats of further physical violence, both in D.C. and in state capitols.

Whatboutism on this incident does not work well.

No, it's no worse than some of the riots we saw this summer.

 

[hog88]

Would you accept $201,000?

No, no increases in anyone's taxes is acceptable. Reduce spending to meet projected revenue collection.

 

[Serene]

That's because you are fine with government theft.

If you define taxes as government theft, yes, I'm perfectly fine with that. I'm not embarrassed to say it, but good try at shaming me.

 

[PointGuard]

Yes he did say that. However when his plans were evaluated the need for revenue basically cut that number in half. One of those will have to give and I'm going to guess it's the taxes not the spending

Don't know - -didn't see those evaluation findings you referenced. I'll take your word for it. So he should amend his statement to "corporations and to individuals earning more than $200,000" (IIRC when he first proposed this long ago during the campaigning (IIRC = no link) the $400,000 was a guestimate of the floor) I'm thinking $200,000 would be acceptable to most posters on this forum as "taxable income" after adjustments

And he shouldn't.

Why not?

 

[Y9 Vol]

I'm the one person here saying that I'm fine with how much tax I pay and I'm not begging to pay less--and you're attacking me for not contributing?

I am saying that you are perfectly willing to give a huge percentage of the population, that is perfectly capable of contributing, a FREE ride. I said NOTHING about your taxes.