I know I have posted several times about 47% of Americans who do not pay any federal income tax. I saw this today and thought: If you don't pay federal income tax, do you have a basis to grumble about those who do not paying enough? Or, should we just make light of their opinions on tax policy.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/08/10/30-types-of-people-who-aren%E2%80%99t-allowed-to-complain/
Why do you insist on making an arbitrary distinction between income tax and other taxes that are also used as general revenue? Perhaps you should direct your obsession at the gaggle of tax cheats who complain they pay too much tax.
When 47% of American citizens don't make enough money to owe income taxes, it says much more about poverty, though you try to make it seem they're somehow shirking their obligations.
This isn't about tax payer's rights is it? If it is, I'm not interested in hearing about it.
Quote from: Ed W on May 25, 2012, 09:18:08 PM
When 47% of American citizens don't make enough money to owe income taxes, it says much more about poverty, though you try to make it seem they're somehow shirking their obligations.
Poverty in the USA is living in the lap of luxury compared to many places.
In a few more years, I expect all you young guys to support me in a manner to which I would like to become accustomed. I want a paint job on my plane and an updated instrument panel. You owe it to me because I exist.
Quote from: nathanm on May 25, 2012, 09:00:01 PM
Perhaps you should direct your obsession at the gaggle of tax cheats who complain they pay too much tax.
As compared to those who pay no income tax and complain they don't get enough benefits?
Quote from: nathanm on May 25, 2012, 09:00:01 PM
Why do you insist on making an arbitrary distinction between income tax and other taxes that are also used as general revenue? Perhaps you should direct your obsession at the gaggle of tax cheats who complain they pay too much tax.
Because I choose to. 47% do not pay the highest collected source of income for our government. Here's a link:
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/federal-revenue-sources
Now, you choose to harp on the payroll tax which I acknowledge makes its way into general revenue (Is it supposed to? Who cares). But so does the payroll taxes of those 52% also paying federal income tax. Nevertheless, I thought a discussion about tax policy, and who gets to gripe about paying income tax, would be an interesting discussion. Not another straw man.
You can draw a false distinction if you want, but it's not conducive to having a constructive conversation. Tax is tax. You can't just discount taxes some people pay because you'd rather call them moochers. You complain and complain, but the fact of the matter is that when total taxation is taken into account, rather than cherry picking the way you do, we already have a flat tax. All income cohorts end up paying a hair over 15%. You can hem and haw and grumble and moan all you want, but that's what the situation is. Continuing to ignore reality in favor of partisan myths is only going to drive us further into the ground.
RA, once again, almost everyone pays at least some tax, even the 400-500 of our finest ultra wealthy folks who pay no income tax in any given year. Usually even the corporations that report billions of dollars in profit on their 10Ks but manage to escape the corporate income tax nearly entirely.
I'll renew my recommendation of "Perfectly Legal" by David Cay Johnston if you actually want to see beyond the BS spewed by both parties on the subject of tax policy. It's available in the library. Our country is being looted by tax cheats, and it's not the folks who get audited most who are doing the looting. Whether or not you agree with current tax law, surely you agree that people should follow it.
Edited to add: I should note that FICA receipts are only slightly smaller than individual income tax receipts. Claiming that people who pay payroll tax are somehow not paying is plain ignorant.
Quote from: nathanm on May 26, 2012, 12:33:45 AM
RA, once again, almost everyone pays at least some tax, even the 400-500 of our finest ultra wealthy folks who pay no income tax in any given year. Usually even the corporations that report billions of dollars in profit on their 10Ks but manage to escape the corporate income tax nearly entirely.
Please read what I wrote. "As compared to those who pay no
income tax and complain they don't get enough benefits?"
Where did I say "people who pay no tax". Did you conveniently ignore the word "income". I don't really care if you agree with me but please be more careful.
Quote
Edited to add: I should note that FICA receipts are only slightly smaller than individual income tax receipts. Claiming that people who pay payroll tax are somehow not paying is plain ignorant.
Not recognizing that the payroll tax is prepayment for a direct benefit to the payer (or his/her dependents) rather than going only to a general fund is just plain ignorant.
A large percentage of the people that don't pay taxes are retirees that have paid in plenty over their lives, it's like almost 1/3 of the total of people not paying taxes. They often at paid at much higher rates than are paid today. Do they get a say?
Don't pay, don't gripe.
Aren't gay, don't gripe either then.
Quote from: swake on May 26, 2012, 12:09:03 PM
A large percentage of the people that don't pay taxes are retirees that have paid in plenty over their lives, it's like almost 1/3 of the total of people not paying taxes. They often at paid at much higher rates than are paid today. Do they get a say?
My mom has been on the receiving side of Social Security for quite a while. With that and a modest (in my opinion) retirement that my dad paid for during his working years, she still pays some income tax. It's not a lot but she still pays something.
Actually, almost everyone over 18 gets a say. Vote.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 26, 2012, 12:39:02 PM
Don't pay, don't gripe.
Aren't gay, don't gripe either then.
Are you saying that gay people are the only ones paying income tax? That might give some gays a reason to stay in the closet.
;D
Bicyclists don't pay taxes, either. I know that's true 'cause I read it in the comments section on the Tulsa World site.
We all seem to have drifted a bit from the original premise of this thread:
Quote
If you don't pay federal income tax, do you have a basis to grumble about those who do not paying enough?
I apologize for my contribution to the drift.
Starting over:
If you pay no
income tax, I believe you have no right to complain about the amount of
income tax others pay.
Everyone pays property tax. If you rent, it's included in your rent. It will be somewhat related to the value of the property.
Almost everyone personally pays sales tax. There are exemptions and sometimes there are rebates or deductions on other taxes for the sale tax you did pay. Farms and other businesses are sometimes exempted. (When I shop at Atwoods, they usually ask if I have a farm exemption number.)
Everyone pays fuel/gasoline tax, some of which is supposed to fund roads. Even if you don't drive, you pay fuel tax included in the transportation cost of the goods you buy.
Most of us pay SS/Payroll tax. I do care that some of it is going to the general fund and think that should be corrected. That money should be a federally guaranteed
investment in our individual financial security in our old age. I say investment since sticking it in a shoe box will not allow it to grow and become actuarially sound. Spending it as part of the general fund is not investing. It's spending. It is also somewhat like an insurance fund in that if you don't live long enough to use it, it reverts to the fund. Maybe that should be a separate subject for discussion.
Most of us have automobiles and pay registration "fees". A good portion of that goes to education in Oklahoma. If you don't have an automobile, are you paying your fair share of funding education? If you are rich, should you be required to have a number of automobiles proportional to your income?
Quote from: Ed W on May 26, 2012, 01:57:29 PM
Bicyclists don't pay taxes, either. I know that's true 'cause I read it in the comments section on the Tulsa World site.
What bicyclists don't pay is a tax specific to their bicycle and the right to use it on public roads.
Automobile owners pay an annual fee for tags.
Boat owners pay an annual fee for their boat and, if the boat is powered by an outboard motor, the motor. (Two separate stickers.)
Airplane owners pay an annual "registration" fee to OK. You also have to pay a one time "users fee" if you buy your airplane out of state. It is collected when you register your plane with the state. The price of the plane is subject to sales tax if purchased in-state. We will now also pay a fee every 3 years to re-register it with the FAA. The FAA fee is small and mostly annoying. The state fee can be quite high depending on how new and what type of aircraft you have. My plane is old enough to qualify for antique status regarding the state registration. The state fee probably leads to a lot of Delaware based corporations owning aircraft.
I would have no problem supporting a state bicycle registration fee. It wouldn't need to be much, say $10/year. I could also support a state bicycle driver's license. It could be split into young riders and adults. Young riders would be prohibited from places like Memorial Drive except to cross like where the trail crosses Memorial by the Creek Turnpike. Adults would be permitted where they are now allowed.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 26, 2012, 02:21:02 PM
If you pay no income tax, I believe you have no right to complain about the amount of income tax others pay.
I'm not quite sure why you think that just because someone doesn't pay a particular kind of tax they can't have an opinion on what rates would be appropriate. On the bright side, if we did adopt your plan, many of the richest folks in America would have no say on income tax rates because they don't pay any even when they actually earn wage or wage-like income.
I think it's more than a little disturbing that you seem to be completely OK with a tax system that transfers massive amounts of wealth from the bottom to the top. Something just seems wrong about giving welfare to the people who need it the least.
Edited to add: Do you have a Kindle, Nook, or some other eBook reader?
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 26, 2012, 02:34:31 PM
What bicyclists don't pay is a tax specific to their bicycle and the right to use it on public roads.
Automobile owners pay an annual fee for tags.
Drivers pay for the
privilege of using the public roads due to the real and potential damage they can inflict on people and property, Red. It's a public way, never intended for motorists exclusively. Pedestrians, bicyclists, equestrians, and the like can use it provided they operate within the law. There's no tax on travel.
My comment was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, though it obviously fell flat. In responding to some of the commenters on the TW site and elsewhere, I've pointed out that our roads are largely paid for though income, sales, and real estate taxes. The amount that comes from fuel taxes is minor by comparison, with the federal part going (mostly) toward interstate highways and expensive infrastructure like bridges.
If riding a bike excused us from paying taxes, we'd all be on two wheels wearing spandex, and the latter might not be a pleasant sight!
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 26, 2012, 01:13:42 PM
My mom has been on the receiving side of Social Security for quite a while. With that and a modest (in my opinion) retirement that my dad paid for during his working years, she still pays some income tax. It's not a lot but she still pays something.
Actually, almost everyone over 18 gets a say. Vote.
I know some retirees pay, but I did read that something like 29-30% of the people that don't pay taxes are retirees, I just can't find the report I read right now. Another 20% are the unemployed/underemployed that presumably did and will again pay income taxes. Another sizable group are college students that most some day will pay. The largest remaining groups that did not pay were of course the poor and lower middle class single parent homes with kids due to the Earned Income Credit. I know Guido wants the poor people to shut up, but what about the transitory unemployed, the retirees and college students? No griping from them either? Other groups interestingly were wealthy people taking capital gains losses from previous years to avoid tax or who concentrate in tax free investments.
Quote from: nathanm on May 26, 2012, 03:10:15 PM
I'm not quite sure why you think that just because someone doesn't pay a particular kind of tax they can't have an opinion on what rates would be appropriate.
I guess in some regards you are correct.
I am not particularly religious but I can complain about Evangelists, Catholics, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists. I cannot complain about Muslims because that is politically incorrect.
I am not a Democrat but I can complain about their policies, methods of trying to attain what may actually be a good goal, and general philosophy on life all I want.
I go out to eat very infrequently but I can complain about the price of restaurant food all I want. (I think you should have bought my lunch at Siegi's last December ;D)
I rarely go to sporting events (can't say never) but I can complain about the price of a hot dog there.
I can complain about the price of parking downtown even though the times I've been there have been after hours and I have parked for free on the street.
I pay (low) 5 figure Federal Income tax each year so I have the right to complain about someone's choice to have kids they cannot afford that I have to support through Earned Income Tax Credits.
I can complain that I have to pay $40/mo for a cell phone plan that I hardly use when I could get a phone for a few $ a month if I were on food stamps. (As seen on TV)
So, yes I guess anyone has the right to complain.
QuoteOn the bright side, if we did adopt your plan, many of the richest folks in America would have no say on income tax rates because they don't pay any even when they actually earn wage or wage-like income.
I'll agree that if they have wage income that is not legitimately offset by something else, they should pay tax on it.
Quote
I think it's more than a little disturbing that you seem to be completely OK with a tax system that transfers massive amounts of wealth from the bottom to the top. Something just seems wrong about giving welfare to the people who need it the least.
Let me know the next time you pay $6.2 Million in one year in Federal Income Tax. You will just have to remain disturbed. I will just have to be bewildered (I don't prefer to think of myself as disturbed.) to think that the tax system should be Robin Hood. I recently saw a clip of Will (Men in Black) Smith discussing taxes while in France. He said he should pay more US income tax. His French host told Will that in France he would be paying 75%. Will did a double take on that one.
Quote
Edited to add: Do you have a Kindle, Nook, or some other eBook reader?
No, I don't. I don't have a smart phone either. My phone is capable of connecting to the internet but I chose not to use that so I have no data plan on my cell phone and specifically told AT&T to block any data other than voice phone calls.
Quote from: Ed W on May 26, 2012, 04:27:15 PM
Drivers pay for the privilege of using the public roads due to the real and potential damage they can inflict on people and property, Red. It's a public way, never intended for motorists exclusively. Pedestrians, bicyclists, equestrians, and the like can use it provided they operate within the law. There's no tax on travel.
My comment was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, though it obviously fell flat. In responding to some of the commenters on the TW site and elsewhere, I've pointed out that our roads are largely paid for though income, sales, and real estate taxes. The amount that comes from fuel taxes is minor by comparison, with the federal part going (mostly) toward interstate highways and expensive infrastructure like bridges.
If riding a bike excused us from paying taxes, we'd all be on two wheels wearing spandex, and the latter might not be a pleasant sight!
OK, Bicyclists should pay a tax for the
privilege of using a public road; even though you call it a right in other discussions. Most of those roads would not be there without the advent of the automobile. Roads will deteriorate with age even without automobile traffic. Grass along the right of way needs to be cut. Lane markings need to be maintained. Why are you so vehemently opposed to paying a minimal fee? If you are riding a road bike with high pressure tires, you should be glad to pay for a nice paved surface that would otherwise require something like a mountain bike. I have mentioned this before but would your rather have your foot stepped on by someone wearing sneakers or a spike heel?
You might be interested in reading about some of the early roads back east since you are originally from PA. Some of the early privately owned roads did charge for pedestrians. I also remember that the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel (from the Eastern Shore to Norfolk, VA area) originally charged by the number of occupants in the car in addition to the car itself, same as the earlier ferry had done.
The tax is not on travel. The tax is on the infrastructure provided to make your travel easier.
Quote from: swake on May 26, 2012, 04:51:06 PM
or who concentrate in tax free investments.
Tax free investments provide money to municipalities and other government entities at a lower rate than would be otherwise possible. Are you saying that municipalities etc should pay a higher interest rate just so that a few people cannot get a tax advantage? It will come out of your wallet and mine both.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 26, 2012, 05:44:33 PM
Let me know the next time you pay $6.2 Million in one year in Federal Income Tax. You will just have to remain disturbed. I will just have to be bewildered (I don't prefer to think of myself as disturbed.) to think that the tax system should be Robin Hood.
The tax system isn't Robin Hood. It's reverse Robin Hood. Small businesses subsidizing large chains and poor, middle, and upper middle class wage earners subsidizing the already very wealthy. We let CEOs loot their companies by allowing publicly held companies to have incestuous boards and little shareholder control over governance. The donor class is looting our nation and sticking us with the debt. Why do the well-to-do need welfare?
Quote
No, I don't. I don't have a smart phone either. My phone is capable of connecting to the internet but I chose not to use that so I have no data plan on my cell phone and specifically told AT&T to block any data other than voice phone calls.
Too bad. Hopefully you have a library card: http://opac.tulsalibrary.org/search/o52858224
Quote from: nathanm on May 26, 2012, 06:20:57 PM
The tax system isn't Robin Hood. It's reverse Robin Hood.
My impression of you is that you would like it to be. I won't disagree that there are some problems with golden parachutes etc in the corporate world.
Quote
Too bad. Hopefully you have a library card: http://opac.tulsalibrary.org/search/o52858224
I have one somewhere but I haven't used it for a l-o-n-g time.
I followed your link but have little interest in reading something involving tax or politics that you recommend. We have little or no common ground there.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 26, 2012, 06:34:37 PM
I followed your link but have little interest in reading something involving tax or politics that you recommend. We have little or no common ground there.
If you want to close your mind, I can't stop you. You might note that Johnston is an Adam Smith quoting Reagan Republican, but whatever. Enough people make the choice to be ignorant of the facts that I doubt it'll matter much if you make the same choice.
And what I would like is for everyone to stop shirking their bucking obligations under the current system. I would also like to have an open debate about tax policy rather than the subterfuge that has been used for the last 30 years. There has been no public discussion about whether or not we should shift taxation away from capital and towards labor. It's being done quietly and without the consent of the governed. That is not OK. It's more than a little unfortunate that you and many others can't see that merely because the change happens to comport with your world view.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 26, 2012, 06:34:37 PM
My impression of you is that you would like it to be. I won't disagree that there are some problems with golden parachutes etc in the corporate world.
I have one somewhere but I haven't used it for a l-o-n-g time.
I followed your link but have little interest in reading something involving tax or politics that you recommend. We have little or no common ground there.
Wow. Would not have expected you to make that statement. Guido, maybe.
Just because I don't like guys like O'Reilly or Hannity doesn't mean I won't listen or read them. Does it mean I will like it? Probably not. But I agree with Nathan. It's incredibly closed minded.
But since my politics don't agree with yours, I doubt you give a smile about my opinion.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 26, 2012, 06:12:14 PM
OK, Bicyclists should pay a tax for the privilege of using a public road; even though you call it a right in other discussions. Most of those roads would not be there without the advent of the automobile....
You might be interested in reading about some of the early roads back east since you are originally from PA. Some of the early privately owned roads did charge for pedestrians. I also remember that the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel (from the Eastern Shore to Norfolk, VA area) originally charged by the number of occupants in the car in addition to the car itself, same as the earlier ferry had done.
The tax is not on travel. The tax is on the infrastructure provided to make your travel easier.
You may have missed it, Red. Cyclists already pay taxes to pay for roads: income taxes, real estate taxes, and sales taxes. Fuel taxes, tag fees, and license fees are miniscule compared to the rest, and surprisingly enough, cyclists pay those taxes too because most of them own and use motor vehicles. Given your line of reasoning, we should tax shoes as well.
I wouldn't support any licensing scheme for bicyclists because a license isn't necessary to use the public road. A motor vehicle license is the state's way of ensuring that someone has at least a minimum level of skill and knowledge when it comes to operating a potentially dangerous vehicle. Bicycles, horses, Amish buggies, and pedestrians do not pose the same dangers as automobiles, so licensing them isn't necessary. That's not saying that injuries and fatalities are non-existent, but the numbers are tiny.
I knew several former private roads in western PA. Any of the ones with "Pike" in their names were once private, and I think the Butler Plank Road was private also. They're all long gone, but the ability to discriminate against who may use a privately built facility remains. That's a problem when it comes to toll bridges, especially those public/private ventures. Some places have bridges that are effectively barriers to bicycle travel as they prohibit any bicyclist to use them.
It's late and I'm done for the night. We can continue this tomorrow....g'night!
Quote from: Ed W on May 26, 2012, 10:54:52 PM
You may have missed it, Red.
Nope, didn't miss it. We disagree.
Quote from: Hoss on May 26, 2012, 07:04:17 PM
Wow. Would not have expected you to make that statement. Guido, maybe.
Just because I don't like guys like O'Reilly or Hannity doesn't mean I won't listen or read them. Does it mean I will like it? Probably not. But I agree with Nathan. It's incredibly closed minded.
But since my politics don't agree with yours, I doubt you give a smile about my opinion.
It's really fairly simple. There is something to be said for knowing your enemy. I don't really consider anyone here my enemy but that is the saying and we certainly have differences of opinion. There is probably no real right or wrong in tax policy except for one's personal convictions. I believe I understand Nathan's and your opinions and don't feel the need to spend any time reading material reinforcing those opinions. I find it unlikely that the recommended reading material would present any new information. I would rather go weed my pepper garden.
Ed,
Please look at the revenue apportionment for vehicle registrations and explain again how the fees primarily support road maintenance due to wear and tear caused by automobiles. Revenue raised by bicycle licensing could be used for the Various School Districts. Bicycles I see on the road are rarely the $100 Walmart variety. Most fall into the nearly $1000 category except for a few like Conan's tank bikes. My brother bought a used bike that listed new for nearly $4000. You guys can afford a $10/yr fee. Maybe it should cost like a car tag. It's not for the roads, it's for the general fund and education. Do it for the kids.
Oklahoma
Motor Vehicle:
Revenue Apportionment for Vehicles, Boats and Outboard Motor
36.20% To the Various School Districts
29.84% To the General Revenue Fund
15.00% To the County Improvements for Roads and Bridges
7.24% To the County Highway Maintenance and Construction Fund
3.62% To the Emergency County Road Fund for County Fund
3.10% To the Various Cities and Incorporated Towns
2.59% To the County Road Fund for County Fund
1.24% To the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement Fund
0.83% To the Counties for the Support of County Government
0.31% To the State Transportation Fund
0.03% To the Wildlife Conservation Fund
http://www.tax.ok.gov/mv8.html
Where else does your Oklahoma tax money go?
Ed, you may note that there is an Oklahoma Amateur Radio Operators License. I think it is you that's a Ham. (My dad was one.)
http://www.tax.ok.gov/ApportionmentCharts/12perchart.pdf
Quote from: Ed W on May 26, 2012, 10:54:52 PM
Cyclists already pay taxes to pay for roads: income taxes, real estate taxes, and sales taxes. Fuel taxes, tag fees, and license fees are miniscule compared to the rest, and surprisingly enough, cyclists pay those taxes too because most of them own and use motor vehicles. Given your line of reasoning, we should tax shoes as well.
Given your reasoning, no one should have to register more than one vehicle. I own two cars. I get a multiple car discount on my insurance but I don't get a multiple car discount on my tags.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 27, 2012, 12:40:55 PM
Ed,
Please look at the revenue apportionment for vehicle registrations and explain again how the fees primarily support road maintenance due to wear and tear caused by automobiles. Revenue raised by bicycle licensing could be used for the Various School Districts. Bicycles I see on the road are rarely the $100 Walmart variety. Most fall into the nearly $1000 category except for a few like Conan's tank bikes. My brother bought a used bike that listed new for nearly $4000. You guys can afford a $10/yr fee. Maybe it should cost like a car tag. It's not for the roads, it's for the general fund and education. Do it for the kids.
Oklahoma
Motor Vehicle:
Revenue Apportionment for Vehicles, Boats and Outboard Motor
36.20% To the Various School Districts
29.84% To the General Revenue Fund
15.00% To the County Improvements for Roads and Bridges
7.24% To the County Highway Maintenance and Construction Fund
3.62% To the Emergency County Road Fund for County Fund
3.10% To the Various Cities and Incorporated Towns
2.59% To the County Road Fund for County Fund
1.24% To the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement Fund
0.83% To the Counties for the Support of County Government
0.31% To the State Transportation Fund
0.03% To the Wildlife Conservation Fund
http://www.tax.ok.gov/mv8.html
Where else does your Oklahoma tax money go?
Ed, you may note that there is an Oklahoma Amateur Radio Operators License. I think it is you that's a Ham. (My dad was one.)
http://www.tax.ok.gov/ApportionmentCharts/12perchart.pdf
Last things first - I did think about getting an amateur radio tag for the car when I was more active in volunteer work, but there are drawbacks. The main one for me is that you can find someone's address from the callsign database, and as I had some problems with antagonistic co-workers at the time, I preferred to keep my family's location off the grid, so to speak.
Now, on to bicycle licensing....
There are some municipalities that require bike licenses and actually enforce the ordinances. Mostly, they're college towns using a licensing fee as another way to fleece students. The fee is low, only five or ten dollars, but the fine for being without the tag is more like $35 or $40. They know the students won't tag their bikes as they're unlikely to know the law, so it's a quick buck for the town.
I asked about Owasso's tag once upon a time. The law is still on the books here, though it hasn't been enforced for ages, and there's good reason for that. The town would issue a tag, then have to keep a record of it on file in case the tag were lost or stolen. At that time, records were all on paper, meaning it took a file cabinet and a clerk to handle them. I was told the costs of doing that more than offset the money the tags brought in, and the presence of a tag had little effect on stolen bike recovery rates. If I remember right, the chances of getting a bike back are under 5%. So the practice of issuing tags wasn't cost-effective. The city could use the clerk's time and the storage space for more important affairs. Was it BS? I don't know.
It would be interesting to see how much money the average cyclist spends on sales taxes related to bicycle products. On a per-mile basis, it may be higher than a motorist's spending, excluding fuel. My commuting bike needs tires about every 18-24 months as they wear and weather ages them. The chain and cluster have to be replaced about every three years at roughly $100. Wheels need to be rebuilt every couple of years too, but that's more a function of my weight. I'm a tightwad. Some recreational cyclists spend far more.
As for the licensing and tag fees (and presumably the taxes levied on fuel), I think I said they're a minor contribution to the overall road budget which is supported by income taxes, real estate taxes, and sales taxes. Your breakdown above would seem to confirm that. Given the funding, we all contribute because we all benefit - even if we do not own or use a motor vehicle, bicycle, or a dog cart. Most of the goods and services we need are delivered via the road network, so the cyclist buying his soya-mocha-fru-fru-coffee-whatever at the local coffee shop while feeling smug about being 'car free' is no less dependent on the road network than the NASCAR fan waiting behind him. We all pay and we all benefit.
Come to think of it, perhaps I'll make some more coffee. I haven't used the moka pot for awhile.
(and real quick since you posted while I was writing this - my insurance agent gave us a discount because I was doing most of my commuting by bike, and as a result, I drove the car only about 4-5 thousand miles per year.)
Quote from: Ed W on May 27, 2012, 01:38:26 PM
Last things first - I did think about getting an amateur radio tag for the car when I was more active in volunteer work, but there are drawbacks. The main one for me is that you can find someone's address from the callsign database, and as I had some problems with antagonistic co-workers at the time, I preferred to keep my family's location off the grid, so to speak.
All sorts of things were listed at the second site I linked. I believe the Amateur Radio Operator's License is for your radio station, not a tag for your car.
Just enter a callsign in Google. The very first return I had was interceptradio.com and it listed my home address.
Moka's done!
Quote from: Ed W on May 27, 2012, 01:51:07 PM
Just enter a callsign in Google. The very first return I had was interceptradio.com and it listed my home address.
Moka's done!
I guess my dad has been gone long enough that he doesn't show up on those records anymore. My uncle, passed away about 2 years ago, shows up on interceptradio.com but it's a few lines down from the top.
Quote from: Ed W on May 27, 2012, 01:38:26 PM
As for the licensing and tag fees (and presumably the taxes levied on fuel), I think I said they're a minor contribution to the overall road budget which is supported by income taxes, real estate taxes, and sales taxes. Your breakdown above would seem to confirm that. Given the funding, we all contribute because we all benefit - even if we do not own or use a motor vehicle, bicycle, or a dog cart. Most of the goods and services we need are delivered via the road network, so the cyclist buying his soya-mocha-fru-fru-coffee-whatever at the local coffee shop while feeling smug about being 'car free' is no less dependent on the road network than the NASCAR fan waiting behind him. We all pay and we all benefit.
Using this reasoning, there is no more reason to tag a car than to tag a bicycle.
I think car driver's licenses should actually be more difficult to obtain regarding training. Fees? I don't know. I still think bicyclists should be required to get a bicycle driver's license. It would be evidence that at least at one time you could actually ride and knew the rules of the road. Clip in pedals would be an additional rating. I was about 5 ft too far away to help someone once in a parking lot that couldn't unclip. He fell over. It was good he wasn't in traffic. The town I grew up in required a bicycle license. We had to take a simple driving test marked on a parking lot with cones and chalk. There were a few questions to answer too. It was administered by the Township Police Dept. It was a big deal to get a low number tag. You had to get in line well before the site opened. One of my friends got tag 1 a couple of years. I think the best I did was 11. The license was mainly to make sure all the kids knew the rules and were actually able to ride. It was extended to everyone, probably to make things simple.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 27, 2012, 10:38:17 AM
It's really fairly simple. There is something to be said for knowing your enemy. I don't really consider anyone here my enemy but that is the saying and we certainly have differences of opinion. There is probably no real right or wrong in tax policy except for one's personal convictions. I believe I understand Nathan's and your opinions and don't feel the need to spend any time reading material reinforcing those opinions. I find it unlikely that the recommended reading material would present any new information. I would rather go weed my pepper garden.
That's your loss then. The fact that you made this statement:
QuoteThere is something to be said for knowing your enemy
Is really all I need to know. Oh, even though right after you said this:
QuoteI don't really consider anyone here my enemy
...see what I did there?
And for the record: I don't believe I've ever divulged my own opinions in detail on taxes, so you wouldn't know them.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 27, 2012, 02:52:14 PM
Using this reasoning, there is no more reason to tag a car than to tag a bicycle.
I think car driver's licenses should actually be more difficult to obtain regarding training. Fees? I don't know. I still think bicyclists should be required to get a bicycle driver's license. It would be evidence that at least at one time you could actually ride and knew the rules of the road. Clip in pedals would be an additional rating....
I don't know if this is true, but I was told that European driver's licenses are far more difficult and costly to obtain than those in the US. Cars are more expensive due to VAT taxes and fuel is astronomical by our standards. It's one of the reasons I get annoyed at those who look at Copenhagen or Amsterdam as some kind of cycling utopias. Sure, the mode share is much, much higher, but the economics are stacked against car ownership. We could see similar mode shares here if we had high density cities with associated high cost of living. That is the case in some larger American cities like New York, Boston, and San Francisco.
Road cyclist training is a good idea, and in fact since most cyclists are already drivers, they already know the rules of the road. Keri Caffrey uses this very well in the Cycling Savvy program. She gets adult cyclists to realize that the road rules work to make riding in traffic a safer, less stressful task than they initially believe. I'd like to take the course sometime.
You would think that cyclists would be anxious to add to their skill set by getting some formal education on best practices, but they're often very resistant and dismissive. One instructor said that they learned to balance in 4th grade and haven't progressed much since then. That's cynical, I know.
But I suspect you and I diverge when it comes to making the training mandatory or not. On one hand, mandatory training might result in more people using their bikes for short trips, and that's a good thing. But on the other hand, it might make some people push the bike to the back of the garage and forget about using it again. Many of those who insist that cyclists should carry some of the more onerous obligations that go along with car ownership - like tag fees, insurance, titles, and licensing - propose them in the knowledge that many cyclists would be lawbreakers and that could be used to get them off the roads.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 27, 2012, 10:38:17 AM
I find it unlikely that the recommended reading material would present any new information. I would rather go weed my pepper garden.
You'd be wrong, but again, it's your choice to remain ignorant of how our tax policy is being manipulated. I'd rather be out riding my bike, but I consider it my duty to be informed about the issues. Sometimes that takes more time than I'd really like to devote, but it's pretty important. Otherwise I'm just voting and speaking blindly.
Quote from: guido911 on May 25, 2012, 06:51:30 PM
I know I have posted several times about 47% of Americans who do not pay any federal income tax. I saw this today and thought: If you don't pay federal income tax, do you have a basis to grumble about those who do not paying enough? Or, should we just make light of their opinions on tax policy.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/08/10/30-types-of-people-who-aren%E2%80%99t-allowed-to-complain/
More than the topic of tax policy, I am extremely interested in your real thoughts on what that list says. Perhaps PM would be more appropriate?
In particular, does any or all of that correspond to your personal beliefs - beyond #4? (Especially 8 or 31).
Quote from: Hoss on May 27, 2012, 03:08:56 PM
I'm sure you believe that. I obviously don't.
Quote
The fact that you made this statement:
Is really all I need to know. Oh, even though right after you said this:
...see what I did there?
Yep, you truncated my sentence, removing any context applied to the previous statement.[/quote]
Quote
And for the record: I don't believe I've ever divulged my own opinions in detail on taxes, so you wouldn't know them.
Possibly not. Maybe you should so people won't get the wrong ideas.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 27, 2012, 05:06:06 PM
I'm sure you believe that. I obviously don't.
Yep, you truncated my sentence, removing any context applied to the previous statement.
Possibly not. Maybe you should so people won't get the wrong ideas.
Nope. I will say that the current tax code is broken and leave it at that.
Plus, I don't want to give you the chance for you to tag me as 'enemy'...
Wait, too late.
Quote from: Ed W on May 27, 2012, 04:10:30 PM
I don't know if this is true, but I was told that European driver's licenses are far more difficult and costly to obtain than those in the US.
In 1994 a friend from Germany said the mandatory driver's school cost about $2000.
Quote
Road cyclist training is a good idea, and in fact since most cyclists are already drivers, they already know the rules of the road. Keri Caffrey uses this very well in the Cycling Savvy program. She gets adult cyclists to realize that the road rules work to make riding in traffic a safer, less stressful task than they initially believe. I'd like to take the course sometime.
A refresher probably never hurt anyone. As a pilot, I am required to get a biennial (every 2 years) review with a Certified Flight Instructor (CFI). The review requires at least one hour of ground "school" which is primarily a review of the rules and regs. There is also a 1 hour flight review. Some people think this should also be required to drive a car but maybe less frequently than 2 years.
Quote
You would think that cyclists would be anxious to add to their skill set by getting some formal education on best practices, but they're often very resistant and dismissive. One instructor said that they learned to balance in 4th grade and haven't progressed much since then. That's cynical, I know.
I saved my lawn mowing money and allowance to buy 1/2 (my parents paid for the other half) of my first bicycle in 2nd grade. I had to get my license before I was allowed on the street and even then was only allowed on neighborhood streets and to cross the big, 2-lane, 35 mph Springfield Road.
Quote
But I suspect you and I diverge when it comes to making the training mandatory or not. On one hand, mandatory training might result in more people using their bikes for short trips, and that's a good thing. But on the other hand, it might make some people push the bike to the back of the garage and forget about using it again. Many of those who insist that cyclists should carry some of the more onerous obligations that go along with car ownership - like tag fees, insurance, titles, and licensing - propose them in the knowledge that many cyclists would be lawbreakers and that could be used to get them off the roads.
I think part of my wanting bicycle training mandatory comes from when the 11 year old kid across the street got killed on Mingo at (I think) 91st in the early 70s. He and my sister were riding around. As they approached the stop sign at 91st, my sister evidently slowed down. Ronny made it about 1/2 way across 91st. There were no charges against the car driver as it was a 2 way stop with the stop on Mingo. If someone is going to put their bicycle in the back of the garage because a little mandatory training is required to use a public facility, so be it. Maybe I don't want them on the road any more than Nathan thinks I should vote on tax matters. Onerous obligations? My idea of training is reading a booklet aimed at safe bicycling and taking a written test. The driving part could be done at a local police station. I don't think a $10 annual fee is onerous. You will probably save that much in gasoline in a week by riding instead of driving. Titles? No, a bill of sale or receipt should be enough. You should probably have that anyway. The chance of getting back a stolen bicycle is probably not too good though. I am willing to let the insurance issue slide although if you cause an accident you may wish you had it. I think most motorists will sacrifice their car rather than hit a cyclist even if the cyclist is at fault. Be prepared to pay.
We have at least somewhat agreed that tag fees do little toward maintenance of roads. Car tags and boat stickers are little more than a fee for permission to use a public facility. There is no reason to exempt bicycles from that practice.
Quote from: Hoss on May 27, 2012, 05:48:00 PM
Nope. I will say that the current tax code is broken and leave it at that.
Plus, I don't want to give you the chance for you to tag me as 'enemy'...
Wait, too late.
If you believe you would be tagged as the enemy, you have just stated your basic philosophy. If that is not true, you might be afraid that you would be found to be agreeing with *gasp* me.
Quote from: nathanm on May 27, 2012, 04:15:17 PM
You'd be wrong,
Based on the fact that we disagree?
I have posted tax items based on a link that YOU provided and you still disagreed with me. You have little credibility on some subjects. Others you are OK.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 27, 2012, 06:02:08 PM
Based on the fact that we disagree?
No, based on the fact that the book has facts which I seriously doubt you are aware of, given that I was not aware of them prior to reading it, despite it being published in 2004. Disagreement has nothing to do with it.
Quote
I have posted tax items based on a link that YOU provided and you still disagreed with me.
When did this happen?
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 27, 2012, 05:59:28 PM
If you believe you would be tagged as the enemy, you have just stated your basic philosophy. If that is not true, you might be afraid that you would be found to be agreeing with *gasp* me.
yeah, my basic philosophy is reading comprehension.
And just like any other opinion, it's mine to keep or divulge. Just like yours is. I don't have to explain myself to anyone on this Earth. Just as you don't. I was merely pointing out my observation of your philosophy as it relates to what I've read of your posts in this thread.
Quote from: nathanm on May 27, 2012, 06:17:10 PM
No, based on the fact that the book has facts which I seriously doubt you are aware of, given that I was not aware of them prior to reading it, despite it being published in 2004. Disagreement has nothing to do with it.
There is a issue of trust and I don't have much for you regarding taxes or politics.
Quote
I have posted tax items based on a link that YOU provided and you still disagreed with me.
When did this happen?
You published a link to the amount of tax various groups paid broken out by among other things as AGI. When I used that info and reposted the link your attitude generally poo-pooed any statement that I made which were just based on the numbers and not a statement of my opinion. I used to have it bookmarked but I appear to have deleted it.
Quote from: Hoss on May 27, 2012, 06:28:40 PM
yeah, my basic philosophy is reading comprehension.
And just like any other opinion, it's mine to keep or divulge. Just like yours is. I don't have to explain myself to anyone on this Earth. Just as you don't. I was merely pointing out my observation of your philosophy as it relates to what I've read of your posts in this thread.
I guess you are free to misinterpret anything you like.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 27, 2012, 06:32:48 PM
There is a issue of trust and I don't have much for you regarding taxes or politics.
I'm not sure what I have to do with it? I'm not the one who wrote the book.
Quote
You published a link to the amount of tax various groups paid broken out by among other things as AGI. When I used that info and reposted the link your attitude generally poo-pooed any statement that I made which were just based on the numbers and not a statement of my opinion. I used to have it bookmarked but I appear to have deleted it.
Too bad. I doubt that's what I was actually doing, but I guess we'll never know unless one of us cares to dig it up. ;) If I did argue with the facts, shame on me. If I was pointing out that IRS statistics only cover income tax, I think we're both clear on what the other thinks in that regard.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 27, 2012, 06:35:27 PM
I guess you are free to misinterpret anything you like.
Just as you are free to call 'enemies' any person you like. Last I checked, we were all Americans here. I can not remember a time when Americans called each other enemies save for that four year period in the middle of the 19th century.
I would never call a fellow American, regardless of whether I agreed with them or not, an 'enemy'. Implied or otherwise.
But, I guess, that's why it's America isn't it?
Quote from: Hoss on May 27, 2012, 06:47:20 PM
Just as you are free to call 'enemies' any person you like. Last I checked, we were all Americans here. I can not remember a time when Americans called each other enemies save for that four year period in the middle of the 19th century.
I would never call a fellow American, regardless of whether I agreed with them or not, an 'enemy'. Implied or otherwise.
But, I guess, that's why it's America isn't it?
Are you really that dense? Is your reading comprehension that poor and you are depending on it? Can you not make the transition to knowing what people with different opinions are doing from the more popular statement about knowing your enemies? Are you depending on a truncated quote to try to make a point? Have you had too many Marshall's?
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 27, 2012, 06:54:24 PM
Are you really that dense? Is your reading comprehension that poor and you are depending on it? Can you not make the transition to knowing what people with different opinions are doing from the more popular statement about knowing your enemies? Are you depending on a truncated quote to try to make a point? Have you had too many Marshall's?
Maybe not enough. But keep deflecting.
I do know that statement. It STILL uses the term 'enemy'. It's divisive and has no place in civil discourse in this country when it's referring to countrymen.
Look. Call me dense if it's your justification. Most people who know me will disagree. As far as I'm concerned the conversation is over. You have your viewpoints, I have mine.
Quote from: nathanm on May 27, 2012, 06:42:33 PM
I'm not sure what I have to do with it? I'm not the one who wrote the book.
Your presentation of the book is the problem. When you make statements like:
QuoteThose two things are diametrically opposed, not complementary.
to quotes like:
QuoteHe has vowed to oppose any legislation that adds to the national debt. In fact, he has said that he would urge his fellow congressmen to pass a constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority to raise taxes.
and present them as indisputable facts, you lose my trust when there is an alternative however undesirable you may think it is.
QuoteToo bad. I doubt that's what I was actually doing, but I guess we'll never know unless one of us cares to dig it up. ;) If I did argue with the facts, shame on me. If I was pointing out that IRS statistics only cover income tax, I think we're both clear on what the other thinks in that regard.
I am usually careful to include the modifiers like "income" in discussions like that. I expect that you dropped the word "income" to make your point. Beyond that, I don't feel like looking it up.
Quote from: Hoss on May 27, 2012, 07:06:39 PM
As far as I'm concerned the conversation is over.
Good evening.
Nathan,
It's been an interesting weekend but I probably should have just ignored your reading recommendation rather than make a fuss.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 27, 2012, 07:45:35 PM
present them as indisputable facts, you lose my trust when there is an alternative however undesirable you may think it is.
Sorry if you thought I was presenting that statement of opinion as a statement of fact. I think it's a well supported statement of opinion, as I went on to discuss.
Quote
I am usually careful to include the modifiers like "income" in discussions like that. I expect that you dropped the word "income" to make your point. Beyond that, I don't feel like looking it up.
And I try to be careful to point out that discussing one individual tax to the exclusion of all other forms of tax that we pay doesn't present a broad enough picture to avoid being misleading. As of 2004, I don't know the numbers today, the difference in
total tax rate between the bottom fifth of income earners and the top fifth was less than 1%. IIRC, it was around 17.5% that year. That doesn't capture the effects of the tax cheats, like our esteemed former President who misclassified earned income as capital gains and evaded somewhere in the vicinity of $10 million in tax.
Quote from: nathanm on May 28, 2012, 01:28:14 AM
And I try to be careful to point out that discussing one individual tax to the exclusion of all other forms of tax that we pay doesn't present a broad enough picture to avoid being misleading. As of 2004, I don't know the numbers today, the difference in total tax rate between the bottom fifth of income earners and the top fifth was less than 1%. IIRC, it was around 17.5% that year.
Insert standard statements about payroll tax and modify bottom earners to about 10% plus being forced to pay into a system that will keep them from starving in their old age. Oh, and for those of us that are not self employed, your employer is paying an equal amount toward your old age financial security. It it unlikely that you would get that in a pay raise if your employer's portion were suddenly no longer necessary.
Quote from: nathanm on May 28, 2012, 01:28:14 AM
Sorry if you thought I was presenting that statement of opinion as a statement of fact. I think it's a well supported statement of opinion, as I went on to discuss.
If you go through the Pike Pass lanes on the Creek Turnpike, they will take your picture and send you a violation if you don't have a valid Pike Pass. You must have a valid Pike Pass to use the Creek Turnpike without getting a violation.
I can now support that as an opinion by saying that I never carry enough change to use the cash exit.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 28, 2012, 10:34:50 AM
Insert standard statements about payroll tax and modify bottom earners to about 10% plus being forced to pay into a system that will keep them from starving in their old age. Oh, and for those of us that are not self employed, your employer is paying an equal amount toward your old age financial security. It it unlikely that you would get that in a pay raise if your employer's portion were suddenly no longer necessary.
If the payroll tax were actually segregated, and if leading Republicans (and many Democrats) weren't talking as if we're going to stiff the trust fund, I might agree with your assessment as to how social security tax works. The fact of the matter is that workers have (well, had until the last couple of years) been paying 2-3 times as much social security tax as was necessary to keep the program running. Twice it was used to finance tax cuts for the wealthiest that did little for those at the bottom. Even if I buy into your view, everyone still pays federal taxes, whether it be excise taxes, airport fees, or whatever else I can't think of at the moment.
As far as getting a raise if payroll tax went away, most economists disagree, but they're economists. It's part of your pay package today, after all. Like your pension, if you have one. (My SO does, surprisingly)
Quote from: nathanm on May 28, 2012, 11:45:08 AM
Even if I buy into your view, everyone still pays federal taxes, whether it be excise taxes, airport fees, or whatever else I can't think of at the moment.
Which is why I left the bottom group at 10%. I merely deducted the Payroll tax and decided that your 17.5% number included the things you just mentioned. I agree that the SS fund is being inappropriately squandered but paying the tax is enabling the miracle, kind of like buying a lottery ticket with nearly a 100% chance of winning. Nearly because you may die before receiving benefits. I don't see SS going away completely in any of our lifetimes.
So that is what Social Security is. I thought it was a facebook page for jailers and prison guards.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 28, 2012, 12:14:51 PM
So that is what Social Security is. I thought it was a facebook page for jailers and prison guards.
Could be that too. Lots of words and terms have multiple meanings. Check any dictionary.
I don't know. For some reason I think it would be best if the people who got the benefit of our paying far too much SS tax had to pay it back. It shouldn't take too long, after all, a dollar "borrowed" in 1990 can be paid back with a current dollar worth only 61 1990 cents.
Quote from: nathanm on May 28, 2012, 12:34:17 PM
I don't know. For some reason I think it would be best if the people who got the benefit of our paying far too much SS tax had to pay it back. It shouldn't take too long, after all, a dollar "borrowed" in 1990 can be paid back with a current dollar worth only 61 1990 cents.
I expect we are about to diverge again. I think everyone gained something by "borrowing" from SS, not just the rich. Given that premise, everyone should pay it back but not necessarily on a flat scale.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 28, 2012, 12:50:19 PM
I think everyone gained something by "borrowing" from SS, not just the rich. Given that premise, everyone should pay it back but not necessarily on a flat scale.
You think the folks who paid the vast majority of the surplus tax should also pay it back? There's definitely some divergence of opinion there. ;)
(It helps when I don't leave out words or have a surplus of them)
Quote from: nathanm on May 28, 2012, 01:33:50 PM
You think the folks who paid the vast majority of the surplus tax should also pay it back?
QuoteI think everyone gained something by "borrowing" from SS, not just the rich. Given that premise, everyone should pay it back but not necessarily on a flat scale.
For starters, how much trouble would SS be in if that "surplus" had been left in SS? Would there be some for a "rainy day"? I believe some of that "surplus" was to account for the amount of Baby Boomers retiring and less younger workers contributing. You will have to convince me there was actually an actuarial surplus and not just a short term amount of money burning holes in Congress' pockets. You will also have to convince me that no one but the rich benefited from the spending of the money that should have been held in reserve. So, yes,
to some degree even the folks who paid the vast majority of the spent "surplus" should contribute to repaying the fund.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 28, 2012, 02:08:42 PM
I believe some of that "surplus" was to account for the amount of Baby Boomers retiring and less younger workers contributing. You will have to convince me there was actually an actuarial surplus and not just a short term amount of money burning holes in Congress' pockets. You will also have to convince me that no one but the rich benefited from the spending of the money that should have been held in reserve.
It's pretty clear that both parties have it out for Social Security and will not allow it to run into deficit (other than the occasional year here and there from un/underemployment) and thus redeem the securities it holds. If that turns out to be the case, I think we can both agree that it doesn't matter what the surplus was intended to be used for and instead we should look at where it actually went.
Much of it went into the Reagan tax cuts. More went into the capital gains cuts and the AMT realignment. Yet more went into the Bush tax cuts. I'm not going to do the math this very moment, but I suspect those items account for most of the $2.5 trillion collected in excess of need. The benefits of all of those cuts went mainly to those at the very top of the income and wealth distribution. Some went to upper middle class folks. The rest of us got a small benefit. This wouldn't seem so much like outright theft to me if there were no cap on Social Security contributions. Since there is, it looks an awful lot like a direct transfer of wealth from the lower rungs of the income distribution to the upper rungs of it, in effect, if not in design.
I did not say that
only those at the top benefited, but it's pretty clear (if my estimates are not wildly incorrect, anyway) that most of the benefit went to them. If the schemes to kneecap Social Security do not succeed, the transfer is much smaller, as it was only a loan to (mainly) the wealthy rather than an out and out giveaway.
Quote from: swake on May 26, 2012, 12:09:03 PM
A large percentage of the people that don't pay taxes are retirees that have paid in plenty over their lives, it's like almost 1/3 of the total of people not paying taxes. They often at paid at much higher rates than are paid today. Do they get a say?
If you are not paying federal income tax, then in my opinion you do not get to grumble about the rate that people who do pay that tax. Period. It is none of your business.
I do not understand the circumstances issue either. If you are retired, or do not earn enough to pay federal income tax, what's the point? You are still bitching about people who are paying that tax not paying enough. I guess I cannot understand where some people get the damned gall to do such. Seriously, just enjoy the ride and be quiet.
Quote from: nathanm on May 28, 2012, 03:28:04 PM
It's pretty clear that both parties have it out for Social Security and will not allow it to run into deficit (other than the occasional year here and there from un/underemployment) and thus redeem the securities it holds. If that turns out to be the case, I think we can both agree that it doesn't matter what the surplus was intended to be used for and instead we should look at where it actually went.
Wrong assumption. I do think it matters what the surplus was intended for. It gives us a reason to restore it. We do need to look where it actually went and make those projects pay. The rich may not have paid as much tax as you want but that is not where the money was spent.
Quote from: guido911 on May 28, 2012, 04:54:05 PM
Seriously, just enjoy the ride and be quiet.
Everybody wants a better ride.
;D
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 28, 2012, 08:21:29 PM
Everybody wants a better ride.
;D
I'm looking to unload my pickup for something new soon. :)
Quote from: guido911 on May 28, 2012, 04:54:05 PM
If you are not paying federal income tax, then in my opinion you do not get to grumble about the rate that people who do pay that tax. Period. It is none of your business.
I do not understand the circumstances issue either. If you are retired, or do not earn enough to pay federal income tax, what's the point? You are still bitching about people who are paying that tax not paying enough. I guess I cannot understand where some people get the damned gall to do such. Seriously, just enjoy the ride and be quiet.
So the fact that they paid a much higher rate during their working lives while you were a snot nosed non-tax paying, in fact tax sucking, child is irrelevant? You can call to cut your taxes and their benefits as you like and they just need to shut up?
Makes sense.
Quote from: swake on May 29, 2012, 08:30:36 AM
So the fact that they paid a much higher rate during their working lives while you were a snot nosed non-tax paying, in fact tax sucking, child is irrelevant? You can call to cut your taxes and their benefits as you like and they just need to shut up?
Makes sense.
I don't remember bitching about how much/little those paying taxes (higher rate or otherwise) were paying while I was being snot nosed. Perhaps I just couldn't get the nerve to demand someone who is paying more than me should pay more.