Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 26, 2014, 06:33:05 AM
538158 Posts in 40743 Topics by 5131 Members
Latest Member: mmadplumamoham
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  Who Pays America's Tax Burden, and Who Gets the Most Government Spending? « previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Who Pays America's Tax Burden, and Who Gets the Most Government Spending?  (Read 2533 times)
CheezeFlixz
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 3723


Pathetic Earthlings


WWW
« on: March 26, 2007, 08:23:41 AM »

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/2286.html

Summery - Overall, we find that America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America's highest-earning households received $0.41. Government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60 percent of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in federal, state and local taxes. In 2004, between $1.03 trillion and $1.53 trillion was redistributed downward from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest income quintiles through government taxes and spending policy.

Your thoughts .... ?
Logged

Him
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 1
Posts: 258


« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2007, 09:57:06 AM »

The United States is a nation designed to make people rich. But for the greater good, some of the wealth has to be redistributed.
Logged
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 324
Posts: 3833


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2007, 10:11:43 AM »

wealth has to be redistributed.

Is that straight from the communist manifesto?  I know the progressive tax is one thing mentioned in Marx and Engels as a key to establishment of a communist state.
Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
Him
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 1
Posts: 258


« Reply #3 on: March 26, 2007, 10:51:04 AM »

wealth has to be redistributed.

Is that straight from the communist manifesto?  I know the progressive tax is one thing mentioned in Marx and Engels as a key to establishment of a communist state.

No its called common sense. Allowing the wealth to remain with a few people creates a situtation along the lines of midevil fuedalism.
Logged
Andrew
Administrator
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 0
Posts: 8439


I know where my towel is.


WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 26, 2007, 10:59:55 AM »

I did not find any sort of breakdown about how much was spent, so it is a little hard to make a reasonable comment.  For example, if my tax dollars were spent on food stamps or WIC for a single mother with a pair of children, I have no problem.  No matter what, if my taxes are being spent to help provide nutrition to children, I am good with it.  The same can be said if those taxes are being spent on subsidizing housing for someone who needs it or paying for preschool programs.

All that I ever ask of my tax dollars is that they be gathered fairly and used wisely, minimizing fraud and abuse.  Taxes are part of my responsibility to the community as a whole.
Logged

Andrew Borntreger
Badmovies.org
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 324
Posts: 3833


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 26, 2007, 11:21:35 AM »

if my tax dollars were spent on

Hasn't there been some attempts in the past to allow each tax payer to designate where they wanted their portion of the public trough, er fund, to go?  The theory is that there is a sufficient diversity in 'beliefs' about what are necessary programs that all the necessary programs would get funded. 

As I recall, that gets shot down each time it's brought up.  There seems to be little interest among the politicians to allow people to know where the money goes.  That's one reason why I am personally opposed to the withholding - I happen to believe that if each person had to write a check each year (or monthly, however you want to do it) so that everyone would know what they are paying, we'd have a lot less waste in government.

And for what it's worth, I don't agree that weatlh redistribution is 'common sense.'  The US was not founded to make people wealthy, but there does exist in this country the opportunity for everyone to make a living.  I believe that personal empowerment, if I might use that term, comes from people feeling free and self-sufficient, NOT from knowing that their survival depends on the forceful taking from others.  Helping those that NEED is one thing; but, I think there is no argument that the welfare system as it exists now has produced positive results in the welfare neighborhoods of America's larger cities.  Allowing each man or woman to work and earn their own honest living is NOT the same thing as reverting to a feudal state, and there is no historical basis in this country or any other to make the assertion that it would.

Him, we may have to agree to disagree on the "common sense"-ness of progressive taxation and wealth redistribution.
Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
Him
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 1
Posts: 258


« Reply #6 on: March 26, 2007, 11:48:43 AM »

And for what it's worth, I don't agree that weatlh redistribution is 'common sense.'  The US was not founded to make people wealthy, but there does exist in this country the opportunity for everyone to make a living.  I believe that personal empowerment, if I might use that term, comes from people feeling free and self-sufficient, NOT from knowing that their survival depends on the forceful taking from others.  Helping those that NEED is one thing; but, I think there is no argument that the welfare system as it exists now has produced positive results in the welfare neighborhoods of America's larger cities. 
Taxes don't just pay for welfare. They also pay for infrastructure, national defense, law enforcement, public schools and universities, medical research, prisons, courts and many other things nessessary for capitalism to thrive.

Government, buisness, labor and consumers form a sembionic circle. One cannot exist without the others and neither is more important than the others. The government needs revenue, and buisnesses, workers and consumers need the services the goverment provides.


Allowing each man or woman to work and earn their own honest living is NOT the same thing as reverting to a feudal state, and there is no historical basis in this country or any other to make the assertion that it would.

Allowing each man or woman to work and earn their own honest living is not the same thing as reverting to a feudal state, but allowing  a small group of people to control most of the wealth is the same thing as reverting to a feudal state.

The US in the 19th century is a perfect example. Big buisness was allowed unrestricted freedom to do whatever it wanted. Buisness tycoons became more powerful than government officials.  Workers were paid slave wages, and many employers employed prison inmates who weren't paid at all. There was no 40 hour work week, and no overtime pay. There were no child labor laws, there were no health and saftey regulations.

This is the path many of the tax opponents are leading us back to.
Logged
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 324
Posts: 3833


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 26, 2007, 07:31:55 PM »


[ allowing  a small group of people to control most of the wealth is the same thing as reverting to a feudal state.


No matter how many times you make that assertion, I still reject your premise.  Progressive taxation, which is what this thread is about, is a key component of the Communist Manifesto; ending progressive taxation is NOT the same thing as returning to a feudal state.  Either you don't understand what progressive taxation is (and the point of this thread), or you really do believe wealth redistribution is a good thing.  If the latter, that's your business, but don't try to divert attention from that by pretending that this thread is about paying NO taxes and still expecting the government to provide core services like those that actually ARE Constitutionally mandated (like the military).

No one in this thread, except you, has brought up the component of taxes that pays for services.  Those services can be funded by flat, fixed or consumption taxes.  The post that started this thread was very clearly about the 'woes' of the progressive tax, and THAT is nothing but wealth redistribution.  It has absolutely nothing to do with government services.
Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
CheezeFlixz
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 3723


Pathetic Earthlings


WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 26, 2007, 09:02:34 PM »

I for one am all for doing away with the tax code as we know it and go to a straight consumptions, where there are no deduction, no cash under the table, no refunds, you pay taxes based on what you consume. That way everybody pays what they owe and there is no way of hiding income short of buying and trading off the grid.
You want to pay less taxes, buy less stuff. Now necessities like food and health will be non taxable. But if you are living on a government check or making $10K/week and go out and buy a 62" plasma you'll pay a consumer tax of say (grab a number from the air) 17% regardless of income because you don't have to have a 62" plasma to survive.

I think the feds would have more money in the long run, for one you could completely dissolve the IRS. how much would that save? Just an idea.
Logged

raj
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 109
Posts: 2549



« Reply #9 on: March 27, 2007, 09:32:32 AM »

I like the consumption based idea too.  You just exclude food (yes, include lobster & caviar, I don't want a complicated, easily manipulated [by politicians or people]), clothing (including mink coats), residential real estate -- primary homes only, vacation homes get taxed--, and medical care (yes, including boob jobs)

I would also include services as well as goods, and maybe drop the rate down to 5%.  Currently we spend billions just to comply with the income tax.  It's absurd and inefficient.
Logged
CheezeFlixz
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 3723


Pathetic Earthlings


WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 27, 2007, 02:59:41 PM »

The idea is to simplify, if you (and I understand why) go saying this is tax free and this isn't, or you pay this amount on this and not on this and you pay this rate if you are a business and this much if you are an individual then you undermine the "simplify it" concept and you are right back to the bloated bureaucracy you were trying to avoid. Not to mention you get the lobster, caviar and mink lobbyist throwing money around trying to get there product either untaxed and reduced, complaining it hurting their business. Then some congressmen puts forth a bill to subsidize there industry with tax dollars ... it's a nasty circle.
Logged

raj
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 109
Posts: 2549



« Reply #11 on: March 27, 2007, 03:12:06 PM »

No.
What I would propose is a constitutional amendment 1) killing the 16th Amendment, 2) making sure that Congress does not have the power to levy an income tax, 3) allowing Congress to levy a sales tax on goods and services, excepting food, clothing, shelter and medical care.
Logged
CheezeFlixz
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 3723


Pathetic Earthlings


WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 27, 2007, 03:18:11 PM »

No.
What I would propose is a constitutional amendment 1) killing the 16th Amendment, 2) making sure that Congress does not have the power to levy an income tax, 3) allowing Congress to levy a sales tax on goods and services, excepting food, clothing, shelter and medical care.

Right, I'm all for dumping the 16th, but if you make a sales tax convoluted then you are back to square one with bureaucracy. Trust me and I think you know anytime government is involved if given the chance to make it confusing and more complex they will.
Logged

Pages: [1]
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  Who Pays America's Tax Burden, and Who Gets the Most Government Spending? « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.