sgtdmski wrote:So, what's wrong with the Constitutional system of taxation?

FICA=Social Security and Medicare contributions.Yes,they are a tax.But this tax is supposed to be separate to fund SS & MediCare, not part of the general fund to run the govt. Just because the politicians have raided the fund and put in IOU's does not change the premise of this tax (it is supposed to be like a retirement fund).
What sgtdmksi is pointing out is the federal tax owed is $0.00 for these people.
So,no he is not a liar,you are not telling the entire story,just enough to make it seem like he is.
And just for general info,this tax is also matched by your employer,so you only pay 50% of the total.

You are so full of shit nobody is blocking or deleting your posts.

I disagree with the message presented by this article, and I feel that it fails to address any of my concerns on the issue. I suspect that many liberals view things similarly to me.

I do not argue that rich people should pay the most simply because they have more wealth. I argue that rich people should pay the most because our system of government unfairly gives them more money than they deserve. The article made no mention of the means by which each of the ten people became the richest, and it thus did not address my argument.

I have written a different story, which might help present my viewpoint:

Caketon is a town where everybody wants cake. I mean, who wouldn't want cake? It's delicious. But cake in Caketon was scarce: everyone wanted more than they had. Fortunately, Mayor McCakes had a plan to change this, to bring more cake to everyone.

On the first day of the new year, Mayor McCakes annouced that there would be a cake-baking competition, where everyone would form into teams and bake cakes all day. Teams would be graded based on how delicious their cakes are and how many cakes they can bake.

"This is great", thought Ashley. "I'm a fantastic cake-baker." So Ashley quickly formed a team of ten people and entered her team into the contest.

But Cindy wasn't so pleased. "I've never been very good at baking cakes," she thought. But still, she was determined to win the prize, and she also put together a team of ten and entered the contest.

Both Ashley's team and Cindy's team worked very hard, and both teams made many delicious cakes. But in the end, Ashley's team clearly produced more cakes than Cindy's team, and Ashley's team's cakes tasted better. In the end, everyone agreed that Ashley's team was one of the winners, and Cindy's team was one of the losers.

After the contest Mayor McCakes congratulated everyone on a job well done. There would be enough cakes for everyone, he said. Since Ashley's team won, Ashley would receive all the cakes she can eat, and then even more. She'd also receive political power, fame, multiple houses, and a life that people only dream of. Ashley's team members, for their work, would each receive one cake per month. For losing, Cindy and her team would receive nothing, and they would have to move into smaller houses and recieved a docked income for the rest of the year.

Cindy was upset about this: how could so much be riding on a cake-baking competition? She and her team had done their best to produce good cakes, even if they were outmatched. So why did she deserve to lose so much for it?

Mayor McCakes explained the situation. If the punishment for losing were any softer, people wouldn't be encouraged to win the contest, and if they weren't encouraged to win the contest, they cakes wouldn't be as good.

Ashley's teammates were also unhappy. Why did Ashley get so much when they got so little? While the original idea for the cake was Ashley's, it was mostly the individual ideas and work of her teammates that won the contest.

Again, Mayor McCakes explained the situation. If the reward for having the winning team were not so huge, people would not want to form their own teams. Instead, they'd want to join up with a team they knew was going to win. This means that less creative people would start their own teams, and the cakes output wouldn't be as creative as it could be.

Cindy's team and Ashley's team were resigned to their fate, while Ashley lived happily ever after. The end.

Without a government, property doesn't exist. It is our government, our laws, which create property, and in doing so, they limit our freedom. Without property, I can take any object I want and do whatever I want with it. But because of property, I am not allowed to do anything with any object unless I am given government permission.

If a government is going to create property, to restrict people in this fashion, it is the government's responsibility to distribute that property as evenly and fairly as possible.

Our government has chosen the system of capitalism. We've chosen this system because under it, we can produce huge amounts of wealth, and this leads to more wealth for everyone.

Capitalism requires that some people be more wealthy than others. This is its method of encouraging people to work and do a good job. But Capitalism is a random contest: a cake-baking competition. Just because someone succeeds under capitalism doesn't make that person more deserving than anyone else.

Even under capitalism, our government is still responsible for distributing wealth evenly and fairly. Obviously this isn't one-hundred percent possible under capitalism, but we should still strive for a balance between pure capitalism and an even distribution of wealth, because that is the most fair way to do things.

All income is nothing more than property granted by our government. So the idea that the wealthy person is "contributing more" than the average person because he "is taxed more money" is false. The truth is, the wealthy person is contributing less than the average person. Both do an equal amount of work, but in the end, the government gives the wealthy person more property. The wealthy person takes the most from our government, not the average person.

If anyone is going to make a case that we should cut taxes on the wealthy, that case must stem from the argument that cutting taxes on the wealthy is best for our economy. It is absurd to pretend that cutting taxes on the wealthy is fair.

"How is it with corporate wealth? The Congress, the courts, and all the branches of the Government are almost daily engaged in dealing with the affairs of corporate wealth. And to protect the property of these greedy corporations the whole Army and Navy of the United States is at their command." — Congressman George W. Fithian of Illinois, in the House of Representatives, Wednesday, 24 January 1894

Oh yes now who is playing around with semantics here? We all know that the tax cuts did not effect FICA. So the rich still pay there same share of the FICA taxes, as do the poor. The tax cuts affect income tax. So an increase of 50% in the number of people who do not have to pay income taxes. So once again how does the premise fall apart. When we talk about tax cuts for the rich, it is under the auspices of income taxes, not payroll taxes and you now it. So why in the hell do you want to be so disingenuious now? Of perhaps that is the only way you can get around the truth.


dmk

Eagle Head - I just pointed out your misrepresentation of the tax debate. Republicans never like to talk about the FICA Taxes they are stealing or admit the country would be bankrupt without FICA Taxes. Republicans just pretend FICA Taxes do not exist. Now let me point out your second big lie. FICA Taxes are capped somewhere around $80 to $90 in income. All these $100 million a year CEO's only pay FICA Taxes on $90,000. The cap on FICA Taxes should be removed, I think this is doable. Stopping Republicans from stealing your FICA Taxes, not going to happen.

Top 100 Executives by Salary | 2006 | Post 200 | washingtonpost.com

I don't see any CEO on that list making more than 2.5mill a year..let alone "100 million a year CEO's"

Every ***damn administration has used the FICA fund for general fund purposes. Don't try to just blame the Republicans.
And you did not admit that you were caught trying to obscure fact with half truths. Step up and admit it.

Duncan, RHS, thanks for the support. But come now, he has lost the argument and he knows it, all he is doing now is trying to find some way to make a point, because as we have seen is basic premise has not only been blown out of the water, but launched into outer space. The next thing he will do, is try to convince everyone that if the tax cuts expire your taxes are not being raised. But that is all he can do......

By the way billy (as you see have the courtesy of using yours), I have a name, but then again a liberal resorting to name calling, who would have thunk it.

dmk