Gbaji wrote:
I'm talking about the bottom line(s) on your tax form you file, not some estimation of how much is taken out of your paycheck each month. Just checked last night. Rounded to the nearest thousand, I paid $39k in federal income tax, $10k in federal payroll taxes (social security and medicare, which is the max amount), and since I live in the lala state, $15k in state taxes. Oh. And I also live in a state with an 8% sales tax. Add in another $3k or so for property taxes too, while we're at it. Of course, we could also dig into things like gas/fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees, etc, but now we're just getting silly.
Gbaji wrote:
My point is that there doesn't seem to be a limit point in most liberals minds where there's "enough" unbalanced taxation to satisfy them. They just add more and more spending, and then when it comes time to pay, well, of course those who are receiving the most benefits can't pay cause that's why they're receiving benefits, right? So it gets lumped into "the rich". But the problem is that while maybe "the rich" can afford to pay as much money as you want to levy on them, the middle class folks really can't. I don't drive around in a super expensive car. I don't live in a freaking mansion. I don't wear a different thousand dollar outfit every day. I don't go on vacation cruises around the world every month with all the extra cash I have lying about. I don't eat out at expensive restaurants. And while I do have a comfortable amount of cash in my bank account, the amount isn't growing that fast either.
If the GOP didn't jump on the "income inequality" boat, you would have a point. Since they did, they are even worse than the DEMs, because the GOP is trying to have it both ways. They talk about the "rich getting richer" as if it's a bad thing, but support measures that allow them to maintain their rate of wealth.
Gbaji wrote:
Why is that? Because I set aside a good sized chunk of my income into investments. I'm trying to do what people should be doing, and saving/investing for their future rather than consuming more for themselves today. I choose to live a more modest lifestyle that I could otherwise, because I want to be able to support myself when I retire. I don't want to be a burden on others. And for that, I'm called "greedy". WTF? How dare I want to set aside my own earnings to support my own future. Nosirree! I should blow my paycheck every week, live on the edge of bankruptcy, and if I lose my job or something happens, or I get sick or something, well I can just count on a big government safety net to save me. Cause that's what it's for, right? And it's even better when those other rich greedy people pay for it!
Gbaji wrote:
That's the mentality that I find offensive. That I'm just not paying my "fair share" somehow. I ask you: What exactly is a "fair share"?