I don’t look at it as helping them. I look at it as letting them – just like others who make less – keep more of their money they earn.
Our tax levels are at historic lows for the largest income groups. You want deficit reduction, that’s a way to do it.
And if.a politician would come out and just be straight up about that, it might be viewed differently. Unfortunately, its always presented on the premise that that money will be reinvested and trickle back down to the bottom, thus stimulating the economy and thereby, tax revenues.
Then reality sets in and we realize weve been snookered again, because none of that actually happens.
So you think those who work hard and are able to make more money deserve to be punished for it?
Its not punishment.
They use proportionally more resources than the rest of us. Asking them to pay for that increased usage is not a punishment.
How do the right use perportinaly more goverment services (aka resources). If your are talking actual resources like tree’s for lumber, fuel, ect – then why not charge more for those items in general?
Having them pay more tax is punishing them for being a success.
I don’t see how that’s being punished.
Lowering the tax rate on lower income people and raising taxes on higher income people?
Realy? You don’t see that as a punishment for sucess?
I want to keep the tax rates the same for the lower groups.
I’d like to see a single tax rate across all incomes, no credits, no deductions other than a single deduction = to 80% of federal minimum wage.[quote=“armycowboy, post:19, topic:6631, full:true”]
I don’t think any should have gone down and the top 2 should go up.
And you still are punishing the top two brackets by raising them and keeping the lower one’s the same. So again, why punish the successful?
We need the money.
But still, why punish the more sucessful?
Why not cut refundable tax credits as well?
Where did I say the right, first off? The top 1% is made up of people of all political stripes.
Secondly, they tend to use more infrastructure (roads, internet backbone, police coverage…things like that) due to business traffic. Its just the reality of things.
Typo. Right was supposed to be Rich.
Again the brackets . 10-12-22-24-32-35-37. even with the tax cut, someone making over 500k still pays 64% more tax than someone who make 150k (after deductions). Police coverage is typically paid for by local taxes (and they usually pay more property tax to help pay for that), roads – well the more you use, the more you pay in gas tax. Internet backbone – not sure that’s paid for by the government anymore.
You are certainly a cheap date.
Why do you think that? Because I think it’s great I get 36+ a month of my own money to spend how I want?
$1800 a year if you get paid weekly. Half that if you get pay biweekly.
Like I said, cheap date. And The Donald thanks you.
No I understand the value of keeping more of my money to spend how I wish. Lemme guess your in the corner of Pelosi and my $936 that I get to keep this year is peanuts?
So it’s not even $1000.
That’s not even a peanut. It’s like half a peanut.
Tax savings +utilities + insurance will be over a grand.
May be half a peanut to you, but it’s money I can use for things I want.
Glad you know YOU think $936 is nothing