Thread: Chavez snubs US

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Pinestraw, percentage is a meaningless statistic. The fact is that 90% of all taxes are paid by less than 5% of all Americans. The demographic you name is certainly not in that 5%, but thanks for letting me know that you also favor Socialism, whether you are willing to call yourself a Socialist or not. Let's not play games with the numbers here.

You don't even seem to understand what the discussion was, by the way.

First off, let me say that I have read every post in this thread, and barring some sort of tumor I think I follow it pretty well.

Secondly, I take offense at your implication that I somehow 'support Socialism' because I've made a few comments about the goofy numbers presented.

Thirdly, what numbers am I 'playing with'? I've simply put your's and Judy's into my trusty calculator and 'Voila', the answers come out.

If, as appears to be the case, you are supporting the notion that providing government programs to redistribute wealth from those with "enough money" to those the government deems to be poor or impoverished, then you are supporting Socialism by the definition of the term. Again, NOTHING in the Constitution empowers the federal government to engage in programs of that sort, and even the Supreme Court said so when it struck down the precursor to the Social Security Act because of its mandatory nature, saying it was "beyond the purview of the constitutionally delegated powers of Congress to mandate participation in such a scheme." It took FDR's use of dictatorial power under the auspices of a "national emergency" and threatening to pack the Supreme Court to get the thing ramrodded through, and even so, all mandatory language was first omitted from the SSA. Of course, after the fact, the dirtbags have tried to claim that while "participation" is not mandatory, the payment of the tax is.

CrocketsGhost Writes:

Pinestraw, percentage is a meaningless statistic. The fact is that 90% of all taxes are paid by less than 5% of all Americans. The demographic you name is certainly not in that 5%, but thanks for letting me know that you also favor Socialism, whether you are willing to call yourself a Socialist or not. Let's not play games with the numbers here.

You don't even seem to understand what the discussion was, by the way.

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm


FROM THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

April 1, 2004
js-1287

Fact Sheet:
Who Pays The Most Individual Income Taxes?

The individual income tax is highly progressive – a small group of higher-income taxpayers pay most of the individual income taxes each year.

In 2001, the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.3 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (32.0 percent) of income.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.9 percent of all individual income taxes in 2001. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 90 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.

The President’s tax cuts have shifted a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2004, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.

The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 30.5 percent to 32.3 percent.

The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 16 percent as compared to a 12 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.

___________

I support the Fair Tax. Then no one pays income tax, not individuals, not corporations ... you just pay when you spend through a national sales tax.

It is proposed as revenue neutral ... and contains a rebate of the sales taxes pre-calculated that a person would spend on necessities and those checks come back to you every month.

It's a great program.

Here's information about it:

www.fairtax.org

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Do you have a point, Pinestraw?

The only meaningful number is what an average person brings home. More important even than the skewed numbers that Judy is providing is the TAKE-HOME. That's a function of both income tax and the taxes implicit in every product you buy, the taxes on your home or factored into your rent, etc. Eliminate that vast bire from the government and everyone comes out FAR ahead.

My point is well-hidden by my thick hair. Damn, lighten up with the condescending tone, would you please? Don't talk to me about 'take-home' if you think the 'average' working man is taking home $50K. I work like a damned DOG and am lucky to clear $25-30K. I know LOTS of workers just like me. WE are the ones who've been getting KNIFED by illegal aliens for the last 20 YEARS!

Do you want a good example? Galveston, Texas took advantage of program allowing local governments to privatize their Social Security/ retirement programs back in 1979. By eliminating just the SS and FICA taxes and placing them in private accounts, the municipality was able to increase the retirement earnings to the extent that lifetime employees retire as MILLIONAIRES. That's right. And after retirement, the interest income alone is GREATER than their salaries at the time of retirement.

So if you were able to provide as little as 25% total tax relief, EVERYONE could enjoy these sorts of accounts AND the monies accrued may be passed along to their heirs rather than kept by the government.

THAT, my friend, would be a meaningful change for the benefit of the average American wage-earner.

Preaching to me about the tax system is preaching to the choir. I'm in full agreement with the Constitution Party concerning taxes. If it ain't Constitutional, it ain't right.

The federal income tax is completely unconstitutional. It should be banned completely and forever.

Replace it with a legal tax ... the Fair Tax. www.fairtax.org

Dennis Hastert who could be President right now if we'd impeached Bush and Cheney supports the Fair Tax which eliminates federal income tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax and social security tax. The Fair Tax generates more than enough money to fund social security and run the government.

You decide when you spend, so you decide when you pay tax. For expenditures on essentials, a precalculation rebates you based on number of persons in a household.

It's a great idea!!

Plus, the states can collect it so you don't have a huge government bureaucracy like the IRS ... and the states are paid a fee for the collection service.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Do you have a point, Pinestraw?

The only meaningful number is what an average person brings home. More important even than the skewed numbers that Judy is providing is the TAKE-HOME. That's a function of both income tax and the taxes implicit in every product you buy, the taxes on your home or factored into your rent, etc. Eliminate that vast bire from the government and everyone comes out FAR ahead.

My point is well-hidden by my thick hair. Damn, lighten up with the condescending tone, would you please? Don't talk to me about 'take-home' if you think the 'average' working man is taking home $50K. I work like a damned DOG and am lucky to clear $25-30K. I know LOTS of workers just like me. WE are the ones who've been getting KNIFED by illegal aliens for the last 20 YEARS!

Do you want a good example? Galveston, Texas took advantage of program allowing local governments to privatize their Social Security/ retirement programs back in 1979. By eliminating just the SS and FICA taxes and placing them in private accounts, the municipality was able to increase the retirement earnings to the extent that lifetime employees retire as MILLIONAIRES. That's right. And after retirement, the interest income alone is GREATER than their salaries at the time of retirement.

So if you were able to provide as little as 25% total tax relief, EVERYONE could enjoy these sorts of accounts AND the monies accrued may be passed along to their heirs rather than kept by the government.

THAT, my friend, would be a meaningful change for the benefit of the average American wage-earner.

Preaching to me about the tax system is preaching to the choir. I'm in full agreement with the Constitution Party concerning taxes. If it ain't Constitutional, it ain't right.

Dude, I'll stop "condescending" if you will stop BLATANTLY (and now that it's already been explained more than once, INTENTIONALLY) misrepresenting what I said.

I understand that there are lots of hard workers who make no more than about $30K. There are plenty of them in my own family. What I was disputing was Judy's claim that the country is chock full of people making only $10K at a primary full-time job. My own company employs numerous unskilled laborers who learn on the job, coming on at $12/hr. and easily attaining $15/hr. (that's over $30K/yr.) in a relatively short time.

And if you have read ANYTHING that I have written at this site, you know that I am as opposed as you are to allowing peasant labor into this country to drive down wages. My point is that over and above that problem is the fact that the Socialist federal programs are the real problem. If you unfetter the populace and the economy from that boat anchor we'll all be doing better. Judy was disagreeing with that premise. Since you seem to be supporting her stance, it was my assumption that you agree with her.

Originally Posted by Judy

The federal income tax is completely unconstitutional. It should be banned completely and forever.

Replace it with a legal tax ... the Fair Tax. www.fairtax.org

Dennis Hastert who could be President right now if we'd impeached Bush and Cheney supports the Fair Tax which eliminates federal income tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax and social security tax. The Fair Tax generates more than enough money to fund social security and run the government.

You decide when you spend, so you decide when you pay tax. For expenditures on essentials, a precalculation rebates you based on number of persons in a household.

It's a great idea!!

Plus, the states can collect it so you don't have a huge government bureaucracy like the IRS ... and the states are paid a fee for the collection service.

Judy, WE couldn't impeach Bush then any more than WE can now.

BTW - The rebate portion of the Fair Tax would have made it unconstitutional as well. Nothing in the Constitution empowers the government to play Robin Hood.

The federal income tax is a forced tax on income ... no choice, no way out.

The national sales tax after expenditures on essentials ... provides a choice ... spend and pay tax ... or keep your money and don't pay it.

Therefore, you right to support the government or not .. is yours. You want the government to have less money to waste .. you bank your money. If you want the government to have more money to spend because you approve of what they're doing ... spend.

I see no constitutional issue on a national sales tax on non-essentials when you have the choice to spend or not spend.

It gives the American People a set of reigns on their government unlike any proposal ever presented. It's more powerful that elections because it's every single day ... that you decide through your expenditures and choices how much money you're going to send to Washington DC.

It's a rebate of what you have already paid the government in sales taxes on expenditures for necessities. They are just sending it back to you as they should ... it's what makes it constitutional.

In addition, states collect it and then send it to the US Government and keep a fee for the service.

I'm not a proponent of the 'Fair Tax' either, even though it's my own Congressman that introduced it. (Linder - Ga.) If you make $30K, EVERYTHING you spend is on essentials, especially if it includes private health insurance.

My own personal opinion is that the last hundred years has been manipulated adroitly by the 'Globalist cabal' and all of our disputing over the details will stop us from beheading the monster.

I truly fear for my children's future.

Originally Posted by Judy

It's a rebate of what you have already paid the government in sales taxes on expenditures for necessities. They are just sending it back to you as they should ... it's what makes it constitutional.

In addition, states collect it and then send it to the US Government and keep a fee for the service.

Judy, if the tax is rebated it is no longer uniform. Uniformity is what defines lawful taxes.

I am a serious proponent of a national sales tax IF we are promised a ceiling that is hard and fast and we are pormised that other taxes will not be created or increased. And of I detest the rebate idea as it not only violates the uniformity requirement but also opens itself up to abuse and to federal monitoring (which would be necessary to determine how much tax a given individual had paid - instead of knowing every dollar you make, the federal government would now necessarily know every purchase you make!). However, I prefer to that a reduction in the size and expenditures of the federal government to the extent that the income tax could be eliminated without the need for a replacement tax.