Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
questionmark

`Joe the Plumber' Owes Back Taxes

218 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

danielost

The problem is the liberals and the socialists demand the right to control what everyone is being payed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MasterPo
I agree with you there too, and that is where I say that the maximum tax bracket should be 50% instead of 35, and everybody who earns more than 50 times the average income should pay that.

What is the reason for 50x?

Why not 30x? Or 20x? Or 80x?

What's the magic of 50x?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
What is the reason for 50x?

Why not 30x? Or 20x? Or 80x?

What's the magic of 50x?

just arbitrary, could be 25% or 75%... open to discussion...what is you offer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MasterPo
just arbitrary, could be 25% or 75%... open to discussion...what is you offer?

How about none.

It's not your concern what someone else is being paid compared to someone else. You have no moral or ethical basis to interject yourself into personal affairs that don't concern you.

Edited by MasterPo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
How about none.

It's not your concern what someone else is being paid compared to someone else. You have no moral or ethical basis to interject yourself into personal affairs that don't concern you.

Do you agree with reducing the military by 50% in order to not to make more debts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
Do you agree with reducing the military by 50% in order to not to make more debts?

?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MasterPo
Do you agree with reducing the military by 50% in order to not to make more debts?

Cut the military in the middle of a war? Yea, that's a brilliant move! :td:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
?????

About 50% of the projected taxes in the next few years will have to go to pay interest on the over 10 trillion debt (some pessimists think it will be nearer to 20 trillion once they bailed everybody out) , the other 50% for military expenses. There will not be any money for anything else. The interest payment cannot be reduced in order to pay for the other government expenses so it must be the military. And not a penny of the debt has been repaid yet in that calculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
About 50% of the projected taxes in the next few years will have to go to pay interest on the over 10 trillion debt (some pessimists think it will be nearer to 20 trillion once they bailed everybody out) , the other 50% for military expenses. There will not be any money for anything else. The interest payment cannot be reduced in order to pay for the other government expenses so it must be the military. And not a penny of the debt has been repaid yet in that calculation.

Then I say we need to cut the law makers salaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
About 50% of the projected taxes in the next few years will have to go to pay interest on the over 10 trillion debt (some pessimists think it will be nearer to 20 trillion once they bailed everybody out) , the other 50% for military expenses. There will not be any money for anything else. The interest payment cannot be reduced in order to pay for the other government expenses so it must be the military. And not a penny of the debt has been repaid yet in that calculation.

Duhhh...

all you have to do is make sure NO one pays any taxes...and the problem solves itself!

Voila!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MasterPo
Then I say we need to cut the law makers salaries.

I second that!

The people in Congress are amoung some of the richest people in the country by anyone's definition.

Yet you never hear about them being forced to "contribute" to the paying the debt or being right for them to redistribute their income to those who haven't achieved as well as them!!

Put your own money where your mouth is!! :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
Then I say we need to cut the law makers salaries.

Good idea, we will be capable of saving about $20.000.000 dollars...that is what the 50th Fighter wing needs for gas every 6 months.... no money for parts though...

lets see...maybe if we reduce the park rangers salaries in half we might be able to pay for the spark plugs of the 6th Corps...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MasterPo
Good idea, we will be capable of saving about $20.000.000 dollars...that is what the 50th Fighter wing needs for gas every 6 months.... no money for parts though...

lets see...maybe if we reduce the park rangers salaries in half we might be able to pay for the spark plugs of the 6th Corps...

Yea, and I'm sure the park police will be fine as the first line of defense against terrorists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
Good idea, we will be capable of saving about $20.000.000 dollars...that is what the 50th Fighter wing needs for gas every 6 months.... no money for parts though...

lets see...maybe if we reduce the park rangers salaries in half we might be able to pay for the spark plugs of the 6th Corps...

The lawmakers make a minimum of 120,000 a year there are over 500 of them. They are the ones who got us into this mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
The lawmakers make a minimum of 120,000 a year there are over 500 of them. They are the ones who got us into this mess.

Hmmm... we cannot pay for the 50th now cause 120,000 x 500 = 60.000.000 or do you mean they should work for free?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
Then I say we need to cut the law makers salaries.

I second that!

The people in Congress are amoung some of the richest people in the country by anyone's definition.

Yet you never hear about them being forced to "contribute" to the paying the debt or being right for them to redistribute their income to those who haven't achieved as well as them!!

Put your own money where your mouth is!! :angry:

Yea, and I'm sure the park police will be fine as the first line of defense against terrorists.

The lawmakers make a minimum of 120,000 a year there are over 500 of them. They are the ones who got us into this mess.

didn't you get it? The law makers salaries would be 0 anyway cause ALL the taxes would have to go for interest and defense....

No matter who wins the next election, there are only two choices:

1) raise taxes

2) reduce the military

As I doubt that anybody would go for option 2, the choice is to take it from the rich or to take it from the poor.

Economically it makes more sense to take from the rich ... the only thing that would happen is that Wall Street would be less inflated. You can't eat more than a bull a day anyway.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes
didn't you get it? The law makers salaries would be 0 anyway cause ALL the taxes would have to go for interest and defense....

No matter who wins the next election, there are only two choices:

1) raise taxes

2) reduce the military

As I doubt that anybody would go for option 2, the choice is to take it from the rich or to take it from the poor.

Economically it makes more sense to take from the rich ... the only thing that would happen is that Wall Street would be less inflated. You can't eat more than a bull a day anyway.....

:tu:

Maybe the 420-1 ratio of CEO pay to the average wage earner will be reduced to a more feasible figure.

Edited by SoCrazes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
:tu:

Maybe the 420-1 ratio of CEO pay to the average wage earner will be reduced to a more feasible figure.

the ratio can stay... just the taxes on exorbitant salaries should go up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
Hmmm... we cannot pay for the 50th now cause 120,000 x 500 = 60.000.000 or do you mean they should work for free?

No the lawmakers should work for free

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
No the lawmakers should work for free

How do you figure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
No the lawmakers should work for free

In an ideal world, perhaps. In order to do that, though - they'd have to be rich enough not to be paid for the time that they've been elected for.

Which means that then, only the rich would be able to become lawmakers - which, apart from being undemocratic, has it's own problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
In an ideal world, perhaps. In order to do that, though - they'd have to be rich enough not to be paid for the time that they've been elected for.

Which means that then, only the rich would be able to become lawmakers - which, apart from being undemocratic, has it's own problems.

They are rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes
They are rich.

Not all, depending on how you define "rich"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
Not all, depending on how you define "rich"

Which is why they are defining rich as 250,000 just above what they make at the most in their jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes

McCain's campaign is truly lacking with the "princess" and the "joes". His record of voting for veterans is lacking as well.

John McCain is documented as having voted with the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) supported legislation 34 percent of the time. Barack Obama has voted with the DAV 89 percent of the time.

Another organization that tracks legislation important to veterans is Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA). Its records show McCain voting with IAVA 58 percent of the time, and receiving a "D" rating. Obama voted with IAVA 89 percent of the time, receiving a "B-plus" rating.

On issues relating to veterans' health care McCain's record is even worse. Since 2004 McCain has voted twice against closing corporate tax loopholes to help fund healthcare for veterans. In March 2004 Senator McCain voted against an amendment that would have created a $1.8 billion reserve fund to increase Veteran's medical care.

His neglect of veterans goes on and on. Most recently in May of 2008 McCain spoke out against the updated GI Bill being sponsored by Virginia Sen. Jim Webb.

We're talking benefits for enlisted veterans here, not the wealthier officers. For A Vet, McCain's record really lacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.