To:David wrote on Apr 27, 2007 5:12 PM:
" Except the rich. You are in effect penalizing them for being successful. Legalized Robbery. "
David wrote on Apr 27, 2007 2:55 PM:
" If everyone payed $5,000 a year, the person making 10,300 at minimum wage is losing half of his income. He only has another 5,000 left to live off. Yes, people who make $500,000 a year worked to make that much, and they are still left with much more money after taxes, even if they do pay more. But until we pay janitors and service workers the same amount we pay doctors or lawyers, it will be either impossible to have every person who works hard have a good job, or our office places will be very messy, and all restaurants will be self serve. - Before you say it, I'm aware of why doctors are payed more than janitors, but that doesn't change the fact that the world still needs low-income workers. A progressive tax system is fairest to most people. "
To:10:39pm wrote on Apr 27, 2007 9:03 AM:
" Right-so maybe everyone should pay $5,000 per year. "
Everyone should pay the same??? wrote on Apr 26, 2007 10:39 PM:
" Alright buddy. Let's say you make $5.15 an hour (the current minimum wage). If you work 40 hours a week for 50 weeks a year, you're pulling in $10,300 annually. If you're taxed at 7%, that's a total tax bill of $721. You really think this country could survive if all the billionaires, millionaires, and, for that matter, upper middle class citizens were paying just $721 a year in federal taxes. I'll tell you one thing--your boy Bush wouldn't have had his war in Iraq, because we wouldn't even have an army in the first place. You know what else we wouldn't have? Roads, schools, clean water... Do you see how ridiculous you are? "
To:11:39am wrote on Apr 26, 2007 2:45 PM:
" Whether you have sympathy for them or not is not the issue. It is their money. They earned it. I understand everyone has to pay taxes-but if you use the same government services, you should pay the same amount. Look at it this way. 2 People get a speeding ticket. A 50K wage earner gets a $50 fine, while a $500k wage earner gets a $500 fine. Now, do you understand why a rate tax, and especially a progressive tax, is unfair? "
Reader wrote on Apr 26, 2007 2:33 PM:
" If I make $500,000 vs someone who makes $50,000 I have worked to get to that level of pay. Anyone out there can do it, it is those that are motivated that do. If you work for you money you should be able to keep just as much of it as everyone else. "
8:40 am wrote on Apr 26, 2007 11:39 AM:
" In your situation, The person who was making $50,000 is left with $45,000. The person making $500,000 still has $450,000. I have very little sympathy for someone taing home $450,000 after taxes, even if they technically pay a larger dollar amount in taxes. Progressive tax rates are supposed to be based on ability to pay, and in that situation, the wealthier person is capable of paying more while still have plenty to live off. "
Frank Wright wrote on Apr 26, 2007 9:48 AM:
" Hey Stevarino,
I'm pretty happy with with the Democratic legislative initiatives. These people are doing what they ran on and that's why I voted for them. Glad you got a teaching job. In another 18.5 months, with a little luck, it may be your only job. "
To:10:28pm wrote on Apr 26, 2007 8:40 AM:
" No, that is the point I was making. Paying the same rate is unfair, as those who make more money will be paying more. To be fair, everyone should pay the same AMOUNT. "
Re: Darwin wrote on Apr 26, 2007 7:44 AM:
" Partisian politics are for sheep. Are you a sheep? "
I feel sorry for... wrote on Apr 25, 2007 10:57 PM:
" the young students at the U of M who will have to put up with this selfish, close-minded, bitter point of view. I'm glad I have professors who are compassionate, progressive, and hopeful. Also, in case Sviggum didn't take any history classes, we were all "children of illegal non-citizens" at some point, and where would he be with out his education? Maybe back on earth with thinking, feeling people. "
(insert eye roll here) wrote on Apr 25, 2007 10:28 PM:
" Hey, genius from 4:59p.m.--the comment you are responding to asks about the tax RATE. In your hypothetical example, the tax RATE is 10%. So, someone making 500,000 and paying 50,000 in taxes IS paying the same RATE as someone earning 50,000 and paying 5,000. Same RATE, different DOLLAR AMOUNT. That concept too tough for you?? "
To:2:53pm wrote on Apr 25, 2007 4:59 PM:
" Say the rate is 10%. Someone makes 500,000 annually. You make 50,000 annually. They must pay 50,000 in taxes while you only pay 5,000. They are overpaying by 45,000. "
Robbing the Rich??? wrote on Apr 25, 2007 2:53 PM:
" How is having the rich pay the same tax rate as me robbery?? "
Darwin wrote on Apr 25, 2007 2:45 PM:
" Once again liberals completely miss the point, and with dyslexic zeal, sound off on subject matter far too complex for the little liberal mind. Go ahead and tax the rich, big business, property of all manner. In the end, it all, and I mean all of it, trickles down to those who can afford the least, the poor and the working class. Coincidentally, most of the same people who put these tax and spend, fiscally irresponsible politicians in office in the first place. $5 milk, $4 bread and $3 gas doesn't impact the rich as much as the poor. Some folks must love living paycheck to paycheck and having the government standing at the head of the hand out line before they even get to buy their groceries. Vote Liberal! "
To:10:33am wrote on Apr 25, 2007 11:22 AM:
" So, robbery committed against the rich should be legal, as long as you don't take "too much"? "
jack wrote on Apr 25, 2007 10:56 AM:
" Sviggum just took a job with the Humphrey Institute at the UofM. HMMMM. . .back on the public welfare. . . nice "
Never has happened wrote on Apr 25, 2007 10:33 AM:
" No rich man has become poor because of taxes. "
To:ACLU wrote on Apr 25, 2007 9:45 AM:
" I can't believe you! Your comments are sick. So, a person should have a "choice" to kill another human being? And we should have to pay for it? What is wrong with you? You need help! "
ACLU wrote on Apr 25, 2007 8:56 AM:
" Why would government funded abortions be a bad thing? We must remember that these women who kill their babies are merely practicing an alternative lifestyle that we must be more tolerant of. Not only should we tolerate it, we should embrace it by supporting the act with our tax dollars. I realize the Bible says "Thou Shalt Not Kill", but what about separation of church and state?(I know my argument falls apart a little here because taxpayer funded abortions are forcing people to assist financially in murder, despite their religious beliefs-but stay with me). What about these womens right to choose? These women who choose to kill their babies are merely expressing their independence as a woman. We need to embrace this. "
Kevin H wrote on Apr 25, 2007 8:55 AM:
" Don't be naive Max. Who do you think signs the paychecks of Joe Lunchbucket? It's the guy making more than $ 250,000. If he's making less, Joe Lunchbucket will too. "
Memory test coming wrote on Apr 25, 2007 8:46 AM:
" Sviggum speaks the truth that the DFL candidates said nothing of the things they are currently trying to enact. They said and did many things that were basically untrue to win votes at any cost. In future elections the voters may remember these deceptions. It will be a test of the voters' memory. I hope they pass with brilliant colors. "
No worse than you, buster! wrote on Apr 25, 2007 8:34 AM:
" They didn't promise WSU a new building and then reneg less than a year later months later, did they, Steve? You did. "
Emil wrote on Apr 25, 2007 4:18 AM:
" Its good Steve is going back to school to teach. Like most of the republican leadership he lacks a vision. Perhaps being around young adults will stimulate some grey matter otherwise he sounds like a guy who has had time pass him by. Perhaps instead of tossing the political BS he could examine the state of our roads and maybe he could find a way to build em better, faster and cheaper. That road from Lewiston to the arches is in bad shape. "
Max Fletcher wrote on Apr 25, 2007 12:53 AM:
" Sorry, I mistyped. You would have to have to make $400,000 a year as a family or $226,000 a year as an individual to be affected by the tax increases Sviggum decries. My apologies. "
Max Fletcher wrote on Apr 25, 2007 12:49 AM:
" Also, the "tax increases" Mr. Sviggum is up in arms about will only affect the very wealthiest of Minnesotans. You would have to have a household income above $250,000 to even begin to feel such increases. And guess what? That income tax increase on the wealthiest Minnesotans would go toward providing property tax relief to the rest of Minnesota's taxpayers, as well as funding for. Either Steve Sviggum is still a big believer in the discredited "trickle down" effect, or he is simply supporting the wealthiest Minnesotans at the expense of the rest of the state. "
Max Fletcher wrote on Apr 25, 2007 12:38 AM:
" Really Steve Sviggum? This is the best you can do? The scary "same sex domestic partner benefits" I presume Sviggum speaks of include allowing domestic partners to visit each other in the hospital and buy in (BUY.IN.) to their partner's health insurance policy at the state rate (married partners don't have to buy in).
Whether you're for or against gay marriage, Mr. Sviggum, it is sickening that you would not allow people to be visited by their loved ones at the time when they most need such a visit. "
Advertisement
