Comparative Federal Tax Contribution by State

[firstdown]

I think that Federal Taxes paid is based on income so that explains some of your findings. FL has a large population of retired people who don't pay much in taxes and most of their income (beside SS) comes from money they have already paid taxes on.

I must ask. You think its fair that the richest 10% pay most of the federal taxes while the bottom 40% pay little to no fed taxes. Then you say its not fair that some states pay more then their share while others pay very little.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I think that Federal Taxes paid is based on income so that explains some of your findings. FL has a large population of retired people who don't pay much in taxes and most of their income (beside SS) comes from money they have already paid taxes on.

I must ask. You think its fair that the richest 10% pay most of the federal taxes while the bottom 40% pay little to no fed taxes. Then you say its not fair that some states pay more then their share while others pay very little.

I believe in the progressive tax wholeheartedly. It's the best system to sustain a capitalistic nation around the globe. I do look forward to, however, the day where we are all on equal footing and therefore pay equally into the system.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by saden1

I believe in the progressive tax wholeheartedly. It's the best system to sustain a capitalistic nation around the globe. I do look forward to, however, the day where we are all on equal footing and therefore pay equally into the system.

How do you envision everyone achieving "equal footing"?
AND BTW, Schneed, you may want to seriously consider getting a.......woman

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Hog1

How do you envision everyone achieving "equal footing"?
AND BTW, Schneed, you may want to seriously consider getting a.......woman

LOL, I got one, and am raising another. I'm a financial analyst by trade, so this comes naturally.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Hog1

How do you envision everyone achieving "equal footing"?
AND BTW, Schneed, you may want to seriously consider getting a.......woman

Through enlightenment? Through a disaster that wipes out 99% of the human population? F*ck if I know man, but it would be nice....then again man is a selfish and greedy animal and Cain is programed to to kill Able no matter the situation.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by saden1

Through enlightenment? Through a disaster that wipes out 99% of the human population? F*ck if I know man, but it would be nice....then again man is a selfish and greedy animal and Cain is programed to to kill Able no matter the situation.

It wasn't a trick question Saden. I thought maybe you had a secret plan!
AND...Schneed, you......may be on the road to recovery. Back away from the spreadsheet!

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

I believe in the progressive tax wholeheartedly. It's the best system to sustain a capitalistic nation around the globe. I do look forward to, however, the day where we are all on equal footing and therefore pay equally into the system.

This will never happen and you will always have people who can't or are to lazy to be successful in life. The Federal Goverment and states have spent Billions trying to help people better there life with little success. We do live in a nation that if you set your mind to it you can become whatever you want. Clarence Thomas is a great example of a person who was born into poverty and now sits on the highest court. My parent old neighbor came from a family that had nothing and is now worth millions.

[CRedskinsRule]

What if the congress had just taken the approx. 800Billion, and given every person over 16 (approx 240 million in 2008) 3333 dollars, not tax cuts, not spending programs, just a flat 3333 dollars. That would have been interesting. Some it would have been a windfall, some would have repaid loans, some would have invested, and still others would not have noticed that amount. but it all would surely have been a stimulus.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

What if the congress had just taken the approx. 800Billion, and given every person over 16 (approx 240 million in 2008) 3333 dollars, not tax cuts, not spending programs, just a flat 3333 dollars. That would have been interesting. Some it would have been a windfall, some would have repaid loans, some would have invested, and still others would not have noticed that amount. but it all would surely have been a stimulus.

That would have been way too easy but then there would be no strings attached to the money and would not make any voters dependent on goverment programs (vote buying).

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by firstdown

That would have been way too easy but then there would be no strings attached to the money and would not make any voters dependent on goverment programs (vote buying).

Exactly. The last thing government wants to do is make the people independent of it.

Even if you did give every poor person $50,000 or a million, they would eventually wind up the same way they were before.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Exactly. The last thing government wants to do is make the people independent of it.

Even if you did give every poor person $50,000 or a million, they would eventually wind up the same way they were before.

I disagree, I know several people who would rather be free of debt and live comfortably instead of trying to keep up with the Jones's. I was one of them. My wife and I live very modestly off of our salaries. We may not be rich, nor have the latest and greatest of cars or gizmo's, but we can afford to do just about anything we want at any time because we do not owe alot money. We do not spend it just because we have it either. At one time in my life I lived check to check. I swore that if I ever got out of that mess, I would never do it again. I am not the only one out there who feels that way.

If the governmet would have given every adult 50K, then the majority would have become debt free... save their mortgages and they woud have had the financial freedom to spend money outside of past debt. In other words the majority could have obtained almost complete financial freedom. The spending that would have resulted from that would have eventually boosted the economy. Instead we gave the money to banks and corporations for them to sit their happy asses on, pay out large bonuses to CEO's, and layoff employees in order to make their bottom line look better. We always do things ass backwards in the U.S.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Angry

I disagree, I know several people who would rather be free of debt and live comfortably instead of trying to keep up with the Jones's. I was one of them. My wife and I live very modestly off of our salaries. We may not be rich, nor have the latest and greatest of cars or gizmo's, but we can afford to do just about anything we want at any time because we do not owe alot money. We do not spend it just because we have it either. At one time in my life I lived check to check. I swore that if I ever got out of that mess, I would never do it again. I am not the only one out there who feels that way.

If the governmet would have given every adult 50K, then the majority would have become debt free... save their mortgages and they woud have had the financial freedom to spend money outside of past debt. In other words the majority could have obtained almost complete financial freedom. The spending that would have resulted from that would have eventually boosted the economy. Instead we gave the money to banks and corporations for them to sit their happy asses on, pay out large bonuses to CEO's, and layoff employees in order to make their bottom line look better. We always do things ass backwards in the U.S.

You might be that way but I see it everyday that people spend and spend on things they do not need or can not afford. If the goverment did hand out that kind of money some people would do the right thing and either put the money away or would buy stuff they did not have to have. When the housing market was going crazy I wondered how people could afford the house they purchased. You can blame the banks for some of that but the bulk of the blame goes to the people who still decided to purchase the home. I saw person after person buying home and used a 2nd mortgage to finance the down payment. People got greedy and want more home then they could afford. They got these interest only loans instead of saving the money they saved on their mortgage tp pay down the priciple in 5 years they purchased other things like cars. So now when the 5 year interest only thing ran out the money they saved was tied up in othe dept so then they had a problem. Thus here we are today.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

What if the congress had just taken the approx. 800Billion, and given every person over 16 (approx 240 million in 2008) 3333 dollars, not tax cuts, not spending programs, just a flat 3333 dollars. That would have been interesting. Some it would have been a windfall, some would have repaid loans, some would have invested, and still others would not have noticed that amount. but it all would surely have been a stimulus.

From an economic standpoint, the democratic argument is that too many people would save it. Which doesn't help give the immediate shot in the arm for creating jobs. To an extent they're right.

Consumer confidence is really low right now, which is always an indicator that people are afraid to spend money. They instead save it.

But eventually that money would trickle back into the economy and give us the economic boost. Some argue that doing it your way would be more efficient in the long run, and I think they're probably right. But it wouldn't get the immediate results democrats are looking for.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

From an economic standpoint, the democratic argument is that too many people would save it. Which doesn't help give the immediate shot in the arm for creating jobs. To an extent they're right.

Consumer confidence is really low right now, which is always an indicator that people are afraid to spend money. They instead save it.

But eventually that money would trickle back into the economy and give us the economic boost. Some argue that doing it your way would be more efficient in the long run, and I think they're probably right. But it wouldn't get the immediate results democrats are looking for.

Well I'm not sure what part of the stimulas bill will hit the economey very fast with the bill passed. Heck 40% of it will not be spent until 3 years from now and another large portion does not really do much more then grow goverment. The actual building of schools, roads, etc.. is like only 10% of the entire bill but if your on welfair now don't worry more money is heading your way.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well I'm not sure what part of the stimulas bill will hit the economey very fast with the bill passed. Heck 40% of it will not be spent until 3 years from now and another large portion does not really do much more then grow goverment. The actual building of schools, roads, etc.. is like only 10% of the entire bill but if your on welfair now don't worry more money is heading your way.

Well a significant portion of the bill comes in the form of tax credits. We'll see those when we file our tax returns next winter.

Also, what people fail to understand is that if you give people on welfare more money, they WILL spend it and spend it immediately. Forget whether you think that's fair or not, that's not the point, the point is the money gets spent, businesses do better as a result, and more jobs get created.