Of course the last two years were different. We provided free money to people. You have a kid. Here is a check. You have a business. Here is a check if you do not lay someone off. Reality is @citygator has not clue what he is talking about. For decades now we have seen 45% plus or minus a few points of tax filers have zero federal income tax liability. Which is what I said. But city for some reason said that was not true. And you can thank W and Trump for that as they are the ones that expanded the child tax credits and deductions. You cannot cut taxes for someone who pays no taxes.
Who should be paying taxes that today isn’t? Give me a profile so I can show you your ignorance and lack of clues.
Nice. Instead of acknowledging you were wrong about what you said about my post. You change the subject. Your ignorance is strong though.
For those that want a profile. A family of five married filing jointly pays no federal income tax until they recognize $79325 of income. Family of four $62658. Using the standard deduction and child tax credit only.
For that family of 4, That works out to both parents working jobs that take home $600 a week… seems like a reasonable place to draw the line. What do you think it should be?
I think everyone should pay something. Make the 10% bracket bigger (or better yet make a 5% bigger bracket). But get rid of the deductions. I can live with a $10K deduction and charitable deductions. Though certainly charitable deductions can be abused by some entities. But many are good and far more efficient than government. The only reason to keep the Child tax credit is if we are going to use it for accountability. Have a child using Medicaid. 100 hours of community service from the parents by the child’s first birthday or no credit. I would do away with it. But this is for a discussion on taxes.
It’s a bullshit stat. I wasn’t wrong about anything, quote it. The non taxpayers are retirees, those below poverty level and students. You’re ignorantly rattling off meaninglessness. You cite the number to illustrate that you think someone isn’t paying enough. I asked you who it was that should pay more and you ran like an alley cat.
Boris coming back would be the best possible scenario imaginable for the Opposition. He's nationally loathed for being a self-interested, lying, work-shy buffoon by anyone who isn't blind to the realities of Brexit. Why? Because he says whatever people want to hear. There's no Governing per se. It's the Churchillian comeback story without the competence. It'll rile up more people than anyone can yet see. You've got politicians who outed him just 3 months ago, citing the fact he was a liability now suddenly proclaiming his virtues. You could not make it up. If there was a GE, the Tories would be mauled according to indicative polling right now. But realistically, everyone knows they won't do it because of that very fact. Rishi and Mordaunt might have some small hope of getting things turning in the right direction - especially the former, who understands the grave economic picture - but Boris will just be more moronic soundbites for the gullible. It'll lead to their extinction when those 2 years are up. Political self serving, front and centre. People aren't tired, or even angry. They're frothing.
No. You tried to change the subject. I provided the profile for you anyway. And you are now running like “an alley cat” LOL.
LOL ... hefty tax increases on the poorest ... additional tax cuts for people who can afford to donate $10K ... so Christ-like in your thinking...
Who said additional tax cuts? You are smarter than this. I clearly discussed making a larger low percentage tax rate that most if not all should pay. I never said anything about tax cuts for anyone. Reality is we all need to pay more right now. I will say…LOL at how ignorant you are.
Everybody who works does pay something. The first dollar of earned income is subject to the Social Security payroll tax.
A lower tax rate that almost everyone should pay??? Uhhhh... how is that not a tax cut for the people who had been paying a higher rate? Talk about ignorance, geez, please tell me you didn't actually go to UF ...
Well yeah, but the general fund borrows from the social security fund, there is nothing left in the social security fund now except for ious to the general fund, and in terms of deficit accounting, it is all rolled together.
Theoretically they're supposed to be treated separately. In 1968, President Johnson changed the budgeting rules to create the illusion of a budget surplus for FY 1969 when the Social Security Trust Fund was running a significant surplus. Since 1968 (FY 1969) payment of social security payroll taxes has been treated the same as all other revenue with the payment of social security benefits (retirement, disability and survivors) being treated the same as other federal government expenditures. Example:
Glad to see you continue to post. I haven't been over here lately. I appreciate your "insider" status, if nothing more than avoiding the traditional nonsense known as our media outlets (on any side) and the minions/righteous who worship and die with them...also known as a majority of the Too Hot posters. Question (I think somewhat on-topic), um, how is your bar bill? Getting steeper, or have you found something more productive?
Sorry to get into y'all's fun. I think where this is supposed to go, and yes, it won't come to any agreement, is that each and every citizen who benefits from government services at any and all levels needs to have some skin in the game. You are a partner in a firm and they ask you to contribute $50,000 in a startup fund, yet because there are 40% of the folks who are considered voting partners who don't contribute one red cent, you feel like you have more to lose than them. And you have "issues" with the arrangement. With taxes, you don't have the luxury of just saying "no." No skin, moral hazard likely.
