Bearcat37
Newbie
That right there is the problem. Going along with everyone else. No one is a leader and everyone follows. This is how we got to the overpowered government we are today because no one stood up to stop it. Please, No Obama Care.
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Romney vs. Obama
- Thread starter OutofDate1980
- Start date
- Status
That right there is the problem. Going along with everyone else. No one is a leader and everyone follows. This is how we got to the overpowered government we are today because no one stood up to stop it. Please, No Obama Care.
T
TxGoat
Guest
A combination of cuts across the board (like defense, which in case you haven't heard, we spend more than the next couple of nations COMBINED) regardless of whose pet project they are, AND tax hikes on those that profited most by eroding jobs overseas would be a 1-2 combination to help curb spending. Unfortunately, you have 1 side that doesn't care to compromise because they think compromise is a weakness, which also explains that party's failed foreign policy. I guess they have no idea what is meant by "Bend but don't break".
copestag
Android Expert
how about a round of cuts across the board........ and cut every program by the same percentage desire to cut defense (which in case you havent heard, is one of the few spending areas specifically demanded under the constitution) followed by a round of tax increases...... and raise every person in the countries rate by the exact same percentage
and yes you are correct..... we have 1 side who refuses to compromise....... they believe compromise means increasing the spending by a smaller amount than they would like....... this is not a spending cut
I will gladly pay my fair share....... in fact I already pay quite a bit more than most (given that fact that about half the nation pays zero)....... when will everyone else pony up their fare share
as has been mentioned countless times throughout history...... eventually you run out of other peoples money to spend..... guess what........ youre running out
and yes you are correct..... we have 1 side who refuses to compromise....... they believe compromise means increasing the spending by a smaller amount than they would like....... this is not a spending cut
I will gladly pay my fair share....... in fact I already pay quite a bit more than most (given that fact that about half the nation pays zero)....... when will everyone else pony up their fare share
as has been mentioned countless times throughout history...... eventually you run out of other peoples money to spend..... guess what........ youre running out
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Define "fair share".
OutofDate1980
Android Expert
Without a mandate in the Affordable Care Act, people could just wait until they get sick to sign up for coverage. Then premiums would skyrocket to levels even more unaffordable than what we have now. To get the buy-in from insurance companies it requires delivering to the insurance companies millions of new customers.
The Act is good for business, especially small business and the country. Creates a more equal playing field for small business to compete for employees with big business.
T
TxGoat
Guest
Typically this means "I'll overpay myself by millions so that when you tax me at a rate that I claim is "Fair", by default, I'll be paying a lower effective rate".
It's an argument I hear a lot from those that claim to bleed red, white, and blue, but ultimately are just trying to game the system (or those being gamed by those gaming the system). Sure, you can whine about paying a few percentage points higher than everyone else, but when you pay yourself EXPONENTIALLY more money than your position made back when we were a more prosperous nation (ironically the same period that the right wing have everyone convinced was more prosperous because spending was low and taxes were lower-- which actually the rate on the highest income is the lowest it's ever been) then you're still coming out ahead.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Again, define "fair share". I've seen this argument made over and over again. People argue that people aren't paying their "fair share". That may or may not be a legit argument. The question remains what someone's "fair share" is. Once we determine what someone's "fair share" is, then we can determine if they're paying it or not.
T
TxGoat
Guest
My point was that it's subjective. Paying a "fair share" also would need to imply that people are being fairly compensated. There is no way everyone is being compensated fairly. If you've ever seen that TV show undercover boss, you'll generally see the CEO sucking wind and realizing that he/she has no idea what real hard physical labor is all about. Of course we as a society have no problem looking down our noses at people that do manual labor for a living, and then blasting them for not paying their "fair share".
copestag
Android Expert
youre just confused is all....... theres a difference between the government (which we...a small portion of we... pay taxes to) and PRIVATE industry (which pays the CEO of their company)
now if you want to complain about how much a CEO makes...... talk about the CEO of the company the tax dollars go to......... I believe Obama just reported earning an adjusted gross income of nearly $800K (I bet thats more than a lot of people make for working harder than he does)........ although in his defense as a family of four they paid $162K in taxes......well above their "fair share"
the exact definition of "fair share" in 2012 is 1/313,000,000 of the Federal Budget(this is of course if you forget the fact that businesses pay federal taxes as well just for the privilege of operating)........ this should apply to every man, woman, and child........ so if you have kids below working age who cannot provide for their "fair share" then as a parent its your responsibility to pay their share as well
so I as a parent who has a child under the working age and also a wife my "fair share" is 3/313,000,000 of the federal budget
whats your "fair share"? and have you ever come close to paying it?
wait you think fair is letting someone else pay your bills? you think freeloaders who dont pay a penny in taxes are paying their "fair share".... they are paying NO share.... how is that fair?
do you not receive the same benefits from the Federal Government that everyone else receives...... I would suggest that MANY receive more benefits than others and those are the people who dont pay any share at all while receiving money for nothing
so maybe you should rephrase your argument to say:
I want you to pay your "fair share" and my "fair share" as well....... because thats what you are arguing here....... you want someone else to pay the "fair share" of others
until every man woman and child pay an equal % in taxes then there can never be a "fair share"
ylexot
Android Expert
So you think that what the CEO does on a daily basis is easy?
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk
T
TxGoat
Guest
Like I said, you can't determine someone's "Fair share" when they are compensating themselves more than their fair share. Take a look here, find your employer, and ask yourself if your CEO makes the exponential amount of money listed more than you and if you believe that your contribution to the company is X/XXth (1/65th based on the example below) of his contribution. I'll give you an example if it's too much trouble.
So you're saying that Mark Aslett's "fair share" compensation-wise is 65 times MORE than the average employee and somehow he should be subject to paying the same "fair share"(1/313,000,000 of the Federal Budget per your definition of "fair share") that an average employee makes? Your assessment that I'm confused is rather humorous to me.
How did you guess, that's EXACTLY what I said....
Most CEOs are overcompensated, but we're so programmed to believe that they earn every penny. To show you how programmed we are, it took the bailed out companies paying their executives insane bonuses immediately after being bailed out to outrage us.
This ties directly into why our political system is so corrupt. Why else would these large companies spend millions to buy politicians? Because they know BILLIONS are at stake. But, I guess as long as everyone is perfectly fine with believing that the "market will correct itself" and that these CEOs are compensating themselves "fairly", we'll continue to live out our sheep years until they decide that they can get more out of us at the slaughterhouse.
copestag
Android Expert
yep..... youre very confused
what he does or doesnt contribute to his company as CEO vs what someone else contributes as the lowest rung on the ladder has ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with the federal government
his fair share of paying to the federal government is exactly the same as everyone elses fair share of paying........ he receives exactly the same benefits from the federal government that everyone else does...... well perhaps less
why should he pay more to the federal government than anyone else exactly?
is it because of jealousy that he took the time to make something of himself and earn so much more money than someone else? he needs to be punished for doing something right?
Im sure others work hard at their job..... and Im sure they would like to have more money than they have........ guess what........ he also wanted to earn more money right before he decided to actually go out and earn more money
jealousy is one of the most basic of human emotions...... everyone experiences it at some point to some degree....... but that jealousy doesnt mean everyone else has to comply with the desires of others just to make them feel better about themselves
and class envy is among the most despicable forms of jealousy...... because its the fault of the jealous person that they dont have more
what he does or doesnt contribute to his company as CEO vs what someone else contributes as the lowest rung on the ladder has ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with the federal government
his fair share of paying to the federal government is exactly the same as everyone elses fair share of paying........ he receives exactly the same benefits from the federal government that everyone else does...... well perhaps less
why should he pay more to the federal government than anyone else exactly?
is it because of jealousy that he took the time to make something of himself and earn so much more money than someone else? he needs to be punished for doing something right?
Im sure others work hard at their job..... and Im sure they would like to have more money than they have........ guess what........ he also wanted to earn more money right before he decided to actually go out and earn more money
jealousy is one of the most basic of human emotions...... everyone experiences it at some point to some degree....... but that jealousy doesnt mean everyone else has to comply with the desires of others just to make them feel better about themselves
and class envy is among the most despicable forms of jealousy...... because its the fault of the jealous person that they dont have more
9to5cynic
Android Expert
And not to mention that there probably isn't much more stressful a job than President of the United States....
So, if everyone should pay 1/313.000.000, then shouldn't ever citizen make the same. I think you should factor in wealth into this equation. To me, this equation doesn't suit a free-market society.
copestag
Android Expert
you dont believe being CEO of a company is stressful?
another confused person.....
how much wealth you have....... or how much money you make has NOTHING to do with "fair share" of taxes
free-market has nothing to do with the federal government either in regards to this matter
do you get to shop around and pay taxes to which government you feel like?
the federal government is an entity entirely seperate from PRIVATE BUSINESS
let me put this in terms you may understand a little better:
if 10 buddies all goto the local pub and run a single tab..... some of the buddies drink more than others....... some drink less....... but everyone is drinking some....... at the end of the night nobody knows for sure who drank how many....... but there is a bill to be paid........ who pays the bill?
do you all agree to split the bill evenly? or does the guy who drives a fancier car have to pay more?
what if the guy in the fancy car was one of the ones who only had 2 beers while the brokest guy of them all had 10 beers? is it really fancy car guy's "fair share" to have to pay evenly?...... no its not really his fair share but unless he kept track of exactly how many each drank he should just go ahead and pony up an even amount to be fair
the federal government is just a big pub....... each of us ... everyone of us.... is drinking on a tab....... and its pretty hard to say who is drinking exactly how much........ at the end of the year the bill is due........ should we all agree to split it evenly....... or should the guy who drives the fancy car pay more?
what if the guy in the fancy car drank less than the brokest guy of them all? is it really fancy car guy's "fair share" to pay more taxes than the broke guy?......nope he should pay evenly
the fact that we use % of income as a standard is in itself an inequality..... but we have to start somewhere since the freeloaders on this nation could never pony up their fair share in actual equal dollars
so to answer your question: no everyone shouldnt make the same...... you earn what you earn based on your own life choices......... that doesnt change the fact that another entity is wanting to collect on a bill that we all shared in creating and should all pay for equally
do you believe the "rich" receive an unfair portion of the federal government spending? perhaps you would better understand if I said we should create a system in which the federal government keeps exact records on who benefits from every dollar spent...... and those beneficiaries are then responsible for repayment of that dollar? since you want to compare it to free-market......... thats how it would work in a free market......... you receive $XXX in use out of federal spending, you now owe the federal government $XXX
but its not a free market... its the federal government...... and we all must accept that we have to share in paying for all federal expenditures.... even if we get nothing out of that spending........ this is how we share the burden for the cost of things like roads and education... even if we dont use every road or go to every school....... we share that burden equally...... or at least we should share it equally....... we are already at a huge imbalance on who carries the vast majority of that burden (reminder: about 50% pay absolutely zero for any of it.... and in fact a certain portion actually get additional funds given to them for no reason at all)
I havent looked at the 2011 rates to check the exact figures so I will use 2010 which I did look at:
a family of 4 using standard deductions had to earn more than $50K before they paid 1 red cent in federal taxes
if memory serves me without checking ..... at $49,900 that same family actually received about $42 additional from the federal government for absolutely no reason at all..... and that number increased as the income decreased
now can you tell me that a family earning $50K ...... which is middle class..... and actually not bad in some parts of this country....... is paying their "fair share" at $0
T
TxGoat
Guest
So you think a CEO benefits the same from the average worker from a government's infrastructure? Are you serious? A company benefits from the infrastructure that tax dollars pay for more than the average worker. Just think of all the commerce that takes place on public roads. I guess I have as much commerce taking place as the CEO of a major corporation.....The sad part is that you're accusing everyone of being confused......
what he is saying is AS A CITIZEN what he owes to the government is EXACTLY what every other citizen should owe.
his job doesn't matter. his pay doesn't matter. the company he works for doesn't matter. etc, etc, so forth and so on.
not hard to understand. i bolded the important parts for you.
his job doesn't matter. his pay doesn't matter. the company he works for doesn't matter. etc, etc, so forth and so on.
not hard to understand. i bolded the important parts for you.
copestag
Android Expert
see you just keep getting yourself confused even more
do you think the CEO is provided with gold brick roads to drive on? these roads are resticted to CEO use only I guess.... of course you benefit EXACTLY the same from roads as the CEO..... he's an individual person who drives just like you
the company on the other hand of course may benefit more from the infrastructure than you as an individual....... it also may benefit more than the CEO as an individual......... you do realize you are BOTH just employees of the company
and yes as far as the company's commerce is concerned....... you do exactly the same amount of commerce as the CEO....... you both work there dont you
Im guessing youve never gone to the store to buy anything..... so you dont benefit from all the commerce taking place on those public roads at all.... or did you think magic ferries brought it there?
reminds me of the argument about hunters........ its wrong to be killing animals for food...... they should go to the store and buy their meat like everyone else
I cant speak about his individual commerce....... he hasnt invited me on any of his trips to the mall or the grocery store....... nor have you
and by the way...... that commerce that is taking place on public roads costs the company in the prices that the company has to pay for the shipping company........ which in turn has to pay very large fees to the federal and state governments to use those public roads
copestag
Android Expert
ahhh yes that is the stance they seem to have
my only question is.......
if the poor already pay zero...... and in fact get back more than they paid in as a bonus.......... how could they pay less?
I will take the liberty of revising the stance a bit:
the rich should pay more in taxes.... so the poor should never have to pay a penny
my only question is.......
if the poor already pay zero...... and in fact get back more than they paid in as a bonus.......... how could they pay less?
I will take the liberty of revising the stance a bit:
the rich should pay more in taxes.... so the poor should never have to pay a penny
T
TxGoat
Guest
Wow, so now the poor pay NO taxes? I think you're mistaking the "poor" with the money that Mitt Romney hides in other countries.
I'll say this one more time and I'll type it slower so you'll understand. If a citizen/corporation has MORE TO GAIN from a system that's in place then why is it so difficult to ask them to pay a little more into that system?
Now to bring this thread back on topic, if Romney pays his "fair share", why has he been so hesitant to release his tax records?
Joe the plummer had the same problem. He thought that his fight was the same fight as the top tier income earners. It's not. They pay more in taxes in one year than Joe the plummer would earn in more than a few years, and guess what? It's probably an even lower rate than he pays per year.
I'll say this one more time and I'll type it slower so you'll understand. If a citizen/corporation has MORE TO GAIN from a system that's in place then why is it so difficult to ask them to pay a little more into that system?
Now to bring this thread back on topic, if Romney pays his "fair share", why has he been so hesitant to release his tax records?
Joe the plummer had the same problem. He thought that his fight was the same fight as the top tier income earners. It's not. They pay more in taxes in one year than Joe the plummer would earn in more than a few years, and guess what? It's probably an even lower rate than he pays per year.
Perhaps 'fair share' of Federal income tax could be defined as paying an amount proportionate to the amount of Federal government provided services that a person uses?
Probably wouldn't be very popular though as many lower income people and higher ranking public officials would likely be burdened with a higher tax rate than they currently do.
I think one of the largest obstacles to overcome are in the form of the multitude of additional taxes and fees we all pay over and above the Federal income tax.
Another obstacle that will always remain lies with the criminal population that are not paying their fair share, whatever that fair share is deemed to be.
There can never be a perfect taxation system, but we can always strive for a better one. I think a good start would be to control government spending and waste.
As far as Obama vs Romney, I've never liked the Democratic Party's platforms and was once fooled into thinking the Republicans had the right idea for the most part. These days my views are mostly Libertarian but I identify with Ron Paul's ideas more than anyone else running for the office.
That said, I'm worried that Romney would bring back more of the Bush type policies with further increases to Homeland security, civil rights infringements and involvement in more foreign military actions.
I never thought I'd hear myself say that the country may well be better off with Obama in place for the next 4 years. That's reason enough to never say never
Probably wouldn't be very popular though as many lower income people and higher ranking public officials would likely be burdened with a higher tax rate than they currently do.
I think one of the largest obstacles to overcome are in the form of the multitude of additional taxes and fees we all pay over and above the Federal income tax.
Another obstacle that will always remain lies with the criminal population that are not paying their fair share, whatever that fair share is deemed to be.
There can never be a perfect taxation system, but we can always strive for a better one. I think a good start would be to control government spending and waste.
As far as Obama vs Romney, I've never liked the Democratic Party's platforms and was once fooled into thinking the Republicans had the right idea for the most part. These days my views are mostly Libertarian but I identify with Ron Paul's ideas more than anyone else running for the office.
That said, I'm worried that Romney would bring back more of the Bush type policies with further increases to Homeland security, civil rights infringements and involvement in more foreign military actions.
I never thought I'd hear myself say that the country may well be better off with Obama in place for the next 4 years. That's reason enough to never say never
ylexot
Android Expert
Yes.
Who's not paying federal income tax? ? USATODAY.com
So, half of tax filers pay no taxes and ~3/4 of them are poor. Another way of saying that is ~3/8 of tax filers are poor people who pay no taxes.
- Status