Don't Get Caught Holding Dollars When The U.S. Default Arrives

[slim 1,533]

Don't pay then slim, go to jail again

I don't pay much at all. But, it is a pretty significant portion of my income and also I have better things to do with my money than feed lazy people or pay for illegal immigrants' education.

Dare I say if I got to keep all my money, it would be better for the economy as well.

You act like income tax is some alien concept.

Not at all. But, paying a federal government to do things they were never supposed to do is something that should be alien to us all.

Everyone pays, unless you are in the mafia.

The problem is we all pay too much.

To add insult to injury, the people who achieve the most pay the most. That makes no sense from any perspective and serves to do nothing but encourage doing less to pay less. Or find legal loopholes.

Organized crime has its own system of trickle-up payments.

They typically have good representation as well.

[mawilson 2,133]

The one on the right is more fair based on percentage of income. Why would someone making around $250,000 get the same tax break (or, within a few bucks) as someone making over $1,000,000? That's not fair at all!

The one on the left basically stops after $250,000. That's #######!

I have to agree, though I suspect both charts are bollocks (what plan? there are so many!)

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Seriously? Why should we pay anything at all?

Stop paying and find out.

Why would someone making around $250,000 get the same tax break (or, within a few bucks) as someone making over $1,000,000? That's not fair at all!

Progressive taxation is really not a new concept. It's a proven concept. It works. And the concept isn't limited to taxes or the government either. Private businesses do the very same thing, by the way. My employer, for example, has a progressively sliding scale for employee premiums for the company sponsored health insurance plans. If you make 25K a year, you pay less for the same coverage than your boss who makes 50K a year. That boss, in turn, still pays less than his or her boss who makes 100K a year. And it doesn't stop there either. There are other subsidies for certain benefits that employees in the lower income ranges qualify for while those above a certain threshold do not. I have yet to meet anyone here on campus whining like you right wingers about the unfairness of this arrangement. And, more importantly, I have yet to meet anyone here on campus that has ceased to make an effort to improve their pay for fear of losing some of these subsidies.

Same holds true for the progressive tax system. Nobody that has maxed out in the 15% tax bracket is going to avoid making that extra dollar because that extra dollar is now going to be taxed in the 28% tax bracket. And nobody that has an opportunity to increase their income to cross into the 35% tax bracket will turn down that opportunity because their higher end income dollars will be taxed at 35%. Nor would that be the case if the 35% bracket would revert back to the 39.6% rate that it was when we actually last had a balanced budget.

[^_^ 5,021]

Not to mention many tech vendors have different pricing scales depending on sector - one for small business, one for midsize, one for large corporate and ( ) one for federal... the cost goes up in that order.

Edited July 26, 2011 by \

[mawilson 2,133]

Progressive taxation is really not a new concept.

The "Democratic plan" (whatever it is) is not really progressive - there's no progression past the $250,000 line.

(Again, I have no idea what the chart represents - it could be made-up ####### for all I know.)

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The "Democratic plan" (whatever it is) is not really progressive - there's no progression past the $250,000 line.

The progression in the tax code already exists. If you talk about retaining certain tax cuts only up to a income threshold but not on the income thereafter, then you would have made the tax code somewhat more progressive. More progressive is what it used to be and that's what the debate is all about.

[slim 1,533]

Stop paying and find out.

I have a legal obligation to pay. It is illegal for me to stop. A crime for me to keep the money I earn.

the concept isn't limited to taxes or the government either. Private businesses do the very same thing, by the way. My employer, for example, has a progressively sliding scale for employee premiums for the company sponsored health insurance plans.

Are your coworkers required by law to participate in that scheme? Last time I checked, employee coverage for health insurance was optional.

At my place of employment I don't participate in our health coverage scam scheme because it doesn't make sense for me to do so. I have that option. However, paying federal income taxes, which also don't make sense, I cannot opt out of.

Nobody that has maxed out in the 15% tax bracket is going to avoid making that extra dollar because that extra dollar is now going to be taxed in the 28% tax bracket.

I firmly believe that. However, those who pay considerably less (like the nearly 50% or so of households that pay nothing) opt out of work on a daily basis so they don't get bumped up or worse, lose the free money they're being paid to do little to no work already.

Something is extremely wrong with that system.

Not to mention many tech vendors have different pricing scales depending on sector - one for small business, one for midsize, one for large corporate and ( ) one for federal... the cost goes up in that order.

Once again, is someone legally obligated to participate in that scheme?

[^_^ 5,021]

Are your coworkers required by law to participate in that scheme? Last time I checked, employee coverage for health insurance was optional.

At my current employer and every employer I have ever worked for (all self-insured large corps), you could only opt out of health insurance if you showed them you already had insurance somewhere else (like your spouse's employer). It's a condition of employment.

The reasons for this are obvious.

Edited July 26, 2011 by \

[Ban Hammer 13,726]

$1. You know, so they put something in.

you'll never make it on the dem ticket with that thinking.

[Ban Hammer 13,726]

Marc'ie poo, I LOVE YOU :star:

From To Change Date

Unions suck Doughnut boy Yesterday, 10:21 PM

Col. Lingus Unions suck Mar 01 2011 10:20 PM

={Rogue}= Col. Lingus Jan 12 2010 11:32 PM

CarolsMarc ={Rogue}= May 27 2008 11:25 AM

x

:blink:

Edited July 26, 2011 by charles!

[slim 1,533]

At my current employer and every employer I have ever worked for (all self-insured large corps), you could only opt out of health insurance if you showed them you already had insurance somewhere else (like your spouse's employer). It's a condition of employment.

The reasons for this are obvious.

Wow! There's no ufking way I'd work for a corporation like that!

[^_^ 5,021]

Wow! There's no ufking way I'd work for a corporation like that!

For this kind of money yes you would.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Are your coworkers required by law to participate in that scheme? Last time I checked, employee coverage for health insurance was optional.

I don't know whether we are required to carry health insurance - I don't need a requirement to act responsibly.

I have a legal obligation to pay.

Well, you answered your own question. See how easy that was?

[slim 1,533]

For this kind of money yes you would.

Possibly. You're almost leading me to believe people are motivated to make more money than they are to correct the current system of unequal taxation. It's like paying more taxes is just "part of it" if you want to make more money.

Meanwhile, those on the bottom tend to accept less money as "part of it" if they want to keep (or increase) the free money they already get.

I don't know whether we are required to carry health insurance - I don't need a requirement to act responsibly.

For someone like you it makes sense. For me, not so much. I don't need insurance. If something happens to me I can pay out of pocket or head to the VA. For my wife, she can take care of herself. We're not going to lose our house or anything like that.

For you guys, you'd absolutely need it.

But why on earth would we both be required to pay for it?

Well, you answered your own question. See how easy that was?

With that I've also established that it should be so easy to change it as well. We get a few "representatives" elected to congress and next thing you know, IRS is gone!

[^_^ 5,021]

For me, not so much. I don't need insurance. If something happens to me I can pay out of pocket or head to the VA.

If you have insurance through the VA, you wouldn't be required to pay. You would simply provide a letter saying you have insurance (insurers have a term of this letter, which escapes me at the moment) and then you opt out. No big deal.