- This topic has 36 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated March 6, 2008 at 3:15 pm by .
- March 6, 2008 at 3:15 pm #256373
Wow! You seem to have some very strong feelings about
taxes and fairness.
> I didnt say just luxury items- I said GOODS-
> Vehicles, Houses, Crap you
> buy at walmart- electronics, all the ridiculous
> items that clutter our
> homes that we think we need but don’t. The 20
> candles on your mantle,
> the collection of dvd’s sitting under your tv’s.
> I just feel certain items shouldn’t be taxed.
> Groceries- anything you eat. Fuel- you know, gas for
> your car, heat for
> your house. Those are items it is safe to say that
> are required by
> everyone. You can argue that we Have to have all the
> other items, but
> we don’t. No, You don’t have to have a new house,
> you can rent. You
> don’t have to run out and buy a new car, you buy a
> used one for sale on
> someones lawn and not pay the tax. The tax should be
> on ALL New Goods.
> If you want to be a Consumer and buy buy buy, then
> do it, but I feel
> that you should pay for your choice. If I want to
> work 100 hours a
> week, I should be able to keep my paycheck and not
> give 1/3 of it back
> to the government because I’m willing to work my
> rear off, but millions
> of others aren’t working at all.
I’m more or less sympathetic to this first part. It is
sad, however, that anyone would even consider working
a 100 hours/week in the world’s wealthiest nation.
Even 50 seems sad, when so much of Western Europe is
down to a 35 or 36 hour work week.
> >>> And for the moment anyways, taxes aren’t all
> that inequitable
> compared to many other things.<< >
> Our current tax system penalizes people that work
> for a living. The
> harder you work, the more you pay. When dh worked at
> a factory we had
> to figure out how many hours he could work overtime
> before it started
> counting against him. For example, he could work 58
> hours a week, BUT
> if he worked 60 hours- it put him in the next tax
> bracket so he
> actually LOST money working- his actual (take home)
> check working a 65
> hour week was less than if he only worked 58 hours.
> Sad, but very true.
Are you sure? The increase in taxes would only occur
on the income that pushed him into the next tax
bracket. The tax doesn’t go up on the earnings that
fell into the first tax bracket. While the take home
pay might have gone up, some of that should have been
returned when the tax return was filed.
> The point is the taxes aren’t even close to
> equitable with Millions
> and Millions of immigrants (illegals and legals) not
> paying a dime in
> this country (and many of them Collecting money for
> being here- a whole
> new issue!)
Not paying a dime? Don’t they, at minimum, pay sales
tax like everyone else? Also, check this for how they
have buffered our Social Security system.
> In a factory in Maine that my husband worked at-
> more than half of
> the workers were Legal immigrants- they not only did
> NOT have to pay
> ANY Federal OR State taxes for 7 years, they also
> received $12,000 EACH
> when they came here to get “settled”. They were here
> Legally. Explain
> to me how that tax system/ line of thinking is
> “Equitable” to those of
> us that work for a living?
This strains credulity! But even if true, most
illegals ARE not given any such resettlement sum.
Also, it sounds like this should have been brought to
the attention of the legal authorities. It sounds
blatantly illegal of the company.
> I am so tired of the poor me debate:
> 1. poor me- I’m broke I shouldn’t pay anything
> 2. poor me- I’m middle class I pay the most
> 3. poor me, I’m rich and the poor people want to
> take it all away.
How about #4? poor me – I pay the most cause of
immigration, pimps, and drug dealers
Surely if you can complain then others should be
> At least with this idea/plan EVERYONE in this
> country pays their fair
> share. Those that live by keeping up with the jones’
> just pay a little
> more than those that are happy with what they have
> or by
> recycling/Freecycling or buying used.
You consider this plan “fair”. I doubt, however, you
will ever get most people to agree with you on this.
Progressive taxation has strong roots in Western
societies, and goes back to Rouseau and the social
contract. What you endorse is a regressive tax system,
and it sounds like from what you have revealed, both
you and your husband would also take a hit from your
> The ones who are skating under the system, who will
> never be caught
> any other way- will also have to pay in. It’s a
> win/win situation for
> Well, not for all, I suppose the pimps, whores,
> drug dealers and
> illegals lose- because right now- they don’t have a
> dime to anyone for
Well, back to #4 on this.
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.