---

---

Because its a percentage. If everyone payed the same amount, how would it be fair if Im giving say 30% of my income in taxes, but someone who is in a more lucrative industry is only giving 0.001% income. To them that money isnt even going to matter, but to me 30% of my income is more than my rent each month.  

 The entire way its set up is so that everyone pays the same amount out of their pocket, so it does not have a negative impact on anyone.  

 However, tax breaks and incentives completely break the system.

---

If it were set up so that people pay the same amount we wouldn't have tax brackets. You say that 30% is unfair for you why is it fair for someone that makes more money than you?

---

That was an example, I never said 30% was unfair.

And if it was unfair for both of us, why are they the ones that get the break? Why not me?

-------
Department of Redundancy Department

---

Quote: from neodymie at 5:32 pm on Sep. 4, 2008

---

---

Because its a percentage. If everyone payed the same amount, how would it be fair if Im giving say 30% of my income in taxes, but someone who is in a more lucrative industry is only giving 0.001% income. To them that money isnt even going to matter, but to me 30% of my income is more than my rent each month.

  The entire way its set up is so that everyone pays the same amount out of their pocket, so it does not have a negative impact on anyone.

  However, tax breaks and incentives completely break the system.

---

 

 If it were set up so that people pay the same amount we wouldn't have tax brackets. You say that 30% is unfair for you why is it fair for someone that makes more money than you?

---

That was an example, I never said 30% was unfair.  

And if it was unfair for both of us, why are they the ones that get the break? Why not me?

---

Because you don't pay 30% of your income in taxes.

-------
" I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel,
but I am, so that's how it comes out. " - Bill Hicks

---

Quote: from drifting at 3:05 pm on Sep. 4, 2008

---

Quote: from neodymie at 5:32 pm on Sep. 4, 2008

---

---

Because its a percentage. If everyone payed the same amount, how would it be fair if Im giving say 30% of my income in taxes, but someone who is in a more lucrative industry is only giving 0.001% income. To them that money isnt even going to matter, but to me 30% of my income is more than my rent each month.    

   The entire way its set up is so that everyone pays the same amount out of their pocket, so it does not have a negative impact on anyone.    

   However, tax breaks and incentives completely break the system.

---

 

  If it were set up so that people pay the same amount we wouldn't have tax brackets. You say that 30% is unfair for you why is it fair for someone that makes more money than you?

---

 

 That was an example, I never said 30% was unfair.  

 And if it was unfair for both of us, why are they the ones that get the break? Why not me?

---

Because you don't pay 30% of your income in taxes.

---

No, explain to me, how in the example, you think it would be fair for them to get a lower tax rate them me.

This has nothing to do with how much I actually pay in taxes, this is about the example provided.

Explain how it is fair, much less logical for them to pay less in taxes (percentage wise) because they make more.

-------
Department of Redundancy Department

---

Quote: from drifting at 3:05 pm on Sep. 4, 2008

---

Quote: from neodymie at 5:32 pm on Sep. 4, 2008

---

---

Because its a percentage. If everyone payed the same amount, how would it be fair if Im giving say 30% of my income in taxes, but someone who is in a more lucrative industry is only giving 0.001% income. To them that money isnt even going to matter, but to me 30% of my income is more than my rent each month.

 The entire way its set up is so that everyone pays the same amount out of their pocket, so it does not have a negative impact on anyone.

 However, tax breaks and incentives completely break the system.

---

   

If it were set up so that people pay the same amount we wouldn't have tax brackets. You say that 30% is unfair for you why is it fair for someone that makes more money than you?

---

That was an example, I never said 30% was unfair.    

And if it was unfair for both of us, why are they the ones that get the break? Why not me?

---

 

Because you don't pay 30% of your income in taxes.

---

Post edited at 4:51 pm on Sep. 4, 2008 by SimplisticComplexity

-------
...

---

No, explain to me, how in the example, you think it would be fair for them to get a lower tax rate them me.

This has nothing to do with how much I actually pay in taxes, this is about the example provided.

Explain how it is fair, much less logical for them to pay less in taxes (percentage wise) because they make more.

---

Their lower tax rate would still equate to more cash then you put out.

---

We don't?  They take about a third out of our paychecks for taxes, I'd say that's roughly 30%. Explain?

---

You very well may.

Ok, look.

0 - 8025 = 10%
8025 - 32550 = 15%
32550 - 78850 = 25%
78850 - 164550 = 28%
164550 - 357700 =33%
357700 - Above = 35%

Now most of this is pretty decent. However I feel it ends to early. What about the people that pull in a million a year? At these rates they'd be paying 350000 or so a year. That's ridiculous. They'd be paying more in taxes than the tax brackets even consider.

Now obviously this is a very basic example but still.

-------
" I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel,
but I am, so that's how it comes out. " - Bill Hicks

---

How is allowing the wealthy to pay a LOWER tax than the working class helping anything? Its making the wealthy more wealthy, and it provides them with an unfair advantage.

---

Hey there pathetic sack of shit, would you like to point out exactly how the federal income tax makes it to where the wealthy pay a LOWER tax than the working class?

The biggest 'tax cut for the rich' would be if they implemented a flat tax to where everyone paid the same % of their income to the federal government.

-------
whoisabs i'm not sure
Guess who's back?

If I can buy everything I want online, then you can't tax me.  I also remember them saying something about how used goods wouldn't be covered in it, and I don't think food was covered by it.

-------
whoisabs i'm not sure
Guess who's back?

---

How is allowing the wealthy to pay a LOWER tax than the working class helping anything? Its making the wealthy more wealthy, and it provides them with an unfair advantage.

---

That is all.

-------
Bring me my monocle. I want to look rich.

Of course, the whole issue of ending an innocent life comes into play with the moral aspect of it- which they certainly don't ignore. Nobody likes abortion. But most supporters of abortion see its legality as a necessary evil. Legal or not, women who want abortions will find ways to get them. It's like anything else illegal- drugs, underage drinking, etc. Does having a drinking age of 21 stop teenagers from drinking? Of course not. Better to have it done in a safe medical setting than try to get it done underground somewhere, right?

-------
Stuff I've written
*For the wretched of the earth, there a flame that never dies
Even the darkest night will end and the sun will rise*

---

I oppose the fair tax because there are too many ways to get around it.

If I can buy everything I want online, then you can't tax me. I also remember them saying something about how used goods wouldn't be covered in it, and I don't think food was covered by it.

---

Im AGAINST abortion and i'd rather be a dem than a repuke. The repukes dont like babies or kids anyway except rich babies.

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

Wouldn't the online thing only work for things like ebay? And large scale retailers are still forced to charge it.

---

Basically, though it really depends on the state and the company.  In my state, I'm charged sales tax on everything I buy from Amazon.com (although bear in mind that Amazon is also based in my state).  Basically any online retailer with a store or anything in a state can be charged sales tax for whatever residents of that state it sells to by said state.  So you have a Barnes & Noble store in New Jersey, correct?  If New Jersey really pushed it, it could force sales tax on all online transaction with Barnes & Noble to you.  For the most part, this would basically cover the bulk of all retailers in the US, and since this sales tax would be national, the retailer would only need to have something in the US.

Thing is, Abs is right - with such a huge sales tax, people will do what they can to find ways to avoid paying it.  Generally speaking, they'll most likely use Ebay and Craigslist a lot more, or they'll buy from retailers not in the US and pay the extra money to have it shipped to them, and if it's cheaper, they'll do it.