Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TnTnTn
If one isn't paying income tax then that person did not get a tax cut. It is impossible to cut what isn't there-seems simple enough.
|
At the time of the rebate, both I and my DW were working and paying taxes, yet we still did not earn enough to qualify. It was hard to earn enough to qualify when we both earned near minimum wage, and didn't get enough hours to even pay all of our bills. At the time that was the only work available within reasonable distance. We were supporting two dependent children, but still did not qualify for the additional child tax credit. The only break we had was from the earned income credit for the children. We eventually worked our way out of debt.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TnTnTn
We benefited from a tax cut and I don't consider it a tax break for the wealthy. It first came as a rebate for retroactive tax reduction and two dependant children and has continued as a lower withholding tax on my paycheck. In my view any tax cut is good as the producer of income knows best how to use it. And they are much more efficient with their own monies.
|
I consider any tax break that has a minimum income level to qualify to be for the wealthy. If not, then it would apply to all income levels across the board. Maybe the word wealthy was not the best choice of words. Maybe I should have said non-poverty. :haha:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TnTnTn
Liberals should be happy to pay more taxes-at least you are getting what your candidates and you by extension support. After all, the government knows who is too wealthy and who needs monies consficated from those 'wealthy' land and property holders. And of course none of us landholders earned or worked for our property. It was given to us by a rich uncle who stole it from the native americans thus we were born with a silver spoon in our collective mouths.
Maybe I can register my vehicles in Liberia...hmmmmmmmmm..........
TnTnTn
|
Interesting perspective. However I don't share that opinion. I have seen way to many farmers here hurt by ever increasing taxes. Most are barely able to survive as it is without having to sell off parcels of land to pay their taxes. So more taxes is a bad idea in my opinion. We, and most of the others around here, worked very hard to buy our land.
I don't begrudge anyone what they own, no matter if they worked hard for it, were given it, or inherited it, ect. I just feel that ability to pay should be more of a determining factor than it is in real property taxes.
My DW is a descendent of the eastern band of cherokee native americans. That type of sarcasm may strike a nerve with some.
This tangible personal property tax issue is wrong. The state did not help me buy what I own, so why should I pay them for the use of it? I am not earning money with the personal property that they want to tax me on.
I bought all of my vehicles and other personal property while living in another state. I paid the appropriate sales tax, and I pay to renew my vehicle registrations every year. I buy fuel and pay taxes on that as well, so the state and federal government are getting their shares. I do the majority of my driving and shopping in the state that my vehicles are titled and registered in.
Because of the distances involved between towns here, the state that our land is located in does not even provide any services to our area. All services come from the state next to it. It's not fair to them to have to provide our services, rural mail delivery, ect. and they don't even get the benefit of being able to collect property taxes from us. It's downright confusing sometimes to try to explain to people why we have a mailing address, and a 911 address, for a state our property is not even located in. This caused all sorts of confusion for our social security, and took months to get ironed out.
Bob
