Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Tax code too complicated for IRS - costs tax payers $11 Billion.


  • Please log in to reply
155 replies to this topic

#31 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 April 2013 - 03:00 PM

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

#32 elessar123

elessar123

    96.5% more WUB WUB

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 April 2013 - 04:49 PM

In the end it amounts to the gov't taking by force what someone has legally earned for themselves. I'm fine with confiscating monies derived from illegal activities, but a successful businessman who has not broken the law should never see a 70%, let alone 50% tax rate.


Laws change. Some things that were once legal, no longer are. Should we just pass a law that says it's illegal to earn more than X amount? Then making more than that amount would be breaking the law, but it's obviously even more tyrannical than higher taxes.

How do you recover money from illegal activities? Do you suppose they can recover all the insider trading and illegal activity money? No, they go straight back into the pool of the wealthy, for the most part. Even when convicted, they don't pay the full amount back. Do you think people ever got back what they lost from Enron or Madoff? Where do you think the money went? To the poor?

We give the gov't power to enforce the laws of the land, not enforce social justice and perceived inequalities in wealth and status. The disparity in incomes is distressing, but gov't threats of force and imprisonment are tyrannical and unjust.


So we should get rid of all social injustice and wealth distribution laws is basically what you're saying. Eventually, wealth will shift so much that a few rich can buy up all the basic resources, and charge everything the poorer have just to survive. By your views, that should be perfectly legal, since it's just perceived inequalities in wealth. So what if the non-wealthy has to spend every dime they earn just to survive. It's an extreme example, sure, but it really only takes one.

Do you want the gov't to decide all occupations salaries? That might be a better system (if we had honest and incorruptible politicians), but it would not be "by the people, for the people".


You even agree that a tyrannical system might be better. That's essentially socialism. Why would you say it's not "by the people, for the people?" Is there a definition somewhere where the only way the government is for the people, by the people is to give the rich all the power?

Liberals tend to want programs that indeed would usually do good (but often with unforeseen negative side effects) for people in poverty, but they are willing to sacrifice the rights and freedoms of others to do it. The ends can not always justify the means. Is it truly fair for the gov't to redistribute someone's earned wealth to others who have not earned it? Doesn't that cheapen the ideal of America as the land of opportunity if the fruits of your labor are just handed to others by a forceful gov't?


Unemployment is only low because of the number of people who no longer count into the figure. So like my previous example, it's fair for these rich corporations to fire employees and make each remaining employee's workload higher, at a reduced pay, so the few "smart" people at the top can get record bonuses?

Our employment to population ratio has been the lowest since 1979. In that same time, CEO compensation ballooned from 25 times the average pay to 300 times the average pay, corporate tax went from 30% to 15%, highest tax bracket went from 77% to 35% (until it recently went back up to 39.6%), while everyone else stagnated. When adjusted to inflation, buying power, salaries, and household wealth all fell since 1979. Why should this be legal, but not taxation?

elessar123.png


#33 Access_Denied

Access_Denied

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 April 2013 - 07:50 PM

I disagree on flat tax being the most fair. My effective tax rate is higher than Romney's, and he doesn't have to do jack shit to get it in a year what most people can't get in a lifetime. If someone makes $30 million a year, why should they only pay 10%? We already see right now that lowering tax for the wealthy causes bigger divides between the rich and the poor. We used to tax millionaires like 70%.


I agree. We ought to punish those bastards for being successful. Fuck em.

#34 elessar123

elessar123

    96.5% more WUB WUB

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 April 2013 - 08:58 PM

I agree. We ought to punish those bastards for being successful. Fuck em.


If success was rewarded properly, I'd agree with you. I bet you the people who actually came up with ideas for patents get rewarded less than the CEOs who reigns over them.

elessar123.png


#35 Access_Denied

Access_Denied

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 April 2013 - 09:21 PM

If success was rewarded properly, I'd agree with you. I bet you the people who actually came up with ideas for patents get rewarded less than the CEOs who reigns over them.


They do, and they should. The guy that came up with the patent worked hundreds of hours to perfect it, all on the CEO's dime. If the company hadn't paid for his meals for 6 months while he perfected the design, he never would have worked on it. The CEO funded the research, so he reaps most of the rewards. That's how it goes. There's no reason people who are more successful should pay more in taxes. Maybe success doesn't correlate to effort, but that's not a problem that our tax code can (or should) solve.

#36 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 April 2013 - 09:36 PM

They do, and they should. The guy that came up with the patent worked hundreds of hours to perfect it, all on the CEO's dime. If the company hadn't paid for his meals for 6 months while he perfected the design, he never would have worked on it. The CEO funded the research, so he reaps most of the rewards. That's how it goes. There's no reason people who are more successful should pay more in taxes. Maybe success doesn't correlate to effort, but that's not a problem that our tax code can (or should) solve.


Company's dime, not the CEO, the company belongs to the shareholders, not the CEO. If you really lack that basic knowledge I'm not even sure how you can give an informed opinion on corporations and taxation.

#37 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 April 2013 - 10:55 PM

Company's dime, not the CEO, the company belongs to the shareholders, not the CEO. If you really lack that basic knowledge I'm not even sure how you can give an informed opinion on corporations and taxation.


CEO runs the company, he makes the decisions. If he fails then he gets the boot. Do you understand?

#38 willardhaven

willardhaven

    Thief of Life

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 April 2013 - 11:05 PM

CEO runs the company, he makes the decisions. If he fails then he gets the boot. Do you understand?


Haha really? That's like saying politicians who fail don't get re-elected. Only in this case they usually get a few lifetime's worth of money.

PaulManda.png


#39 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 April 2013 - 11:15 PM

They do, and they should. The guy that came up with the patent worked hundreds of hours to perfect it, all on the CEO's dime. If the company hadn't paid for his meals for 6 months while he perfected the design, he never would have worked on it. The CEO funded the research, so he reaps most of the rewards. That's how it goes. There's no reason people who are more successful should pay more in taxes. Maybe success doesn't correlate to effort, but that's not a problem that our tax code can (or should) solve.


CEO runs the company, he makes the decisions. If he fails then he gets the boot. Do you understand?


:rofl:

Thank you for explaining how capital works in such an "accurate" manner.
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#40 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 April 2013 - 11:42 PM

CEO runs the company, he makes the decisions. If he fails then he gets the boot. Do you understand?


Yep, but they employees aren't on the CEO's dime, they're on th company's dime, so keep up with the conversation junior.

#41 Access_Denied

Access_Denied

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 April 2013 - 01:19 AM

Company's dime, not the CEO, the company belongs to the shareholders, not the CEO. If you really lack that basic knowledge I'm not even sure how you can give an informed opinion on corporations and taxation.


Yes, because we were having a 100% exact conversation about the inner workings of business. :roll: It's a simplification, just as his example was. If we really want to get into a discussion about patents and CEOs we could, but I don't really think it's very necessary.

#42 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 April 2013 - 02:15 AM

Yes, because we were having a 100% exact conversation about the inner workings of business. :roll: It's a simplification, just as his example was. If we really want to get into a discussion about patents and CEOs we could, but I don't really think it's very necessary.


It's a simplification that sidesteps an important issue in the discussion about the wealthy benefiting from the government's protections. Just as that CEO benefits more from the inventor's patent than the inventor himself, the CEO benefits from the government in that it is the government and courts that allow him to protect and enforce the patent. Without that protection a patent isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Ergo, the CEO is benefiting more from the government than his underlings and should be paying higher taxes as a result.

So, any other issues you wanna oversimplify pull out of your ass?

You know, companies are always bitching about regulations and such but what their shortsightedness never acknowledges is that it is those same regulations which help keep them in business. Show me some fortune 500 companies that are operating out of 3rd world, no government nations.

#43 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 29 April 2013 - 02:21 AM

So, should a family with kids pay more in taxes than a couple with no kids? The family with kids receives more benefit from the government - in that the police help protect the lives of their children, which is worth more than any patent, right?

I say, we ditch the IRS and replace it with a group that evaluates each individual and bases their tax liability on the amount of government services they receive.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#44 willardhaven

willardhaven

    Thief of Life

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 April 2013 - 02:44 AM

So, should a family with kids pay more in taxes than a couple with no kids? The family with kids receives more benefit from the government - in that the police help protect the lives of their children, which is worth more than any patent, right?

I say, we ditch the IRS and replace it with a group that evaluates each individual and bases their tax liability on the amount of government services they receive.


If they did that all of our taxes would go down and corporate America's taxes would skyrocket.

PaulManda.png


#45 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 April 2013 - 02:58 AM

I really wish ignore lists extended to when other users quote that person...

#46 willardhaven

willardhaven

    Thief of Life

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 April 2013 - 03:04 AM

Sorry.

PaulManda.png


#47 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 29 April 2013 - 03:08 AM

If they did that all of our taxes would go down and corporate America's taxes would skyrocket.


You think? Are you a parent? How much money would you put on your children's heads?
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#48 willardhaven

willardhaven

    Thief of Life

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 April 2013 - 03:12 AM

I know you are being snarky, but are you talking about the hypothetical value or a sort of yearly bill for services rendered?

PaulManda.png


#49 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 29 April 2013 - 03:25 AM

I'm saying, would you put more value on the government protecting the life of your child or the government protecting your patent?

Ideally, everyone can use the police. Everyone can use the patent system. Everyone is covered by the same FDIC rules.

The idea that "Mr. CEO gets more use of out government because they protect his patents." is silly. The same rules that protect his patents are the same rules that would allow you to make millions from a patent that you come up with (or hire someone to come up with for you). The same roads that allow Mr. CEO's company to ship products are the same roads that allow employees to drive there and earn a paycheck and customers to purchase products that they want and wouldn't be able to otherwise.

It's not perfect - because we have weak politicians that cave in to their own greed and craft the system in such a way that some of these things are unequal (for example, there's an older post on here where I talk about how Mattel's policies lead to lead poisoning, so then they worked with the government to craft a bill that required expensive testing of toys... then worked with the government to get themselves exempted...). But that's something we need to work on. And it's not going to get fixed by crying about evil CEOs. It's going to get fixed by keeping our politicians in check.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#50 willardhaven

willardhaven

    Thief of Life

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 April 2013 - 03:55 AM

It seems like you are obfuscating the point of your original question.

How is the federal government protecting children anymore than it protects every citizen? How well is it doing? We can argue about healthcare costs, EPA and FDA cuts another time.

Nobody called CEOs evil, you are the one who projected that characterization. Treated like royalty? Impervious to the consequences of failure? Okay, yeah maybe some of them are evil too.

I don't think you guys will ever decide it's fair to raise taxes on the wealthy, so why are we debating this?

PaulManda.png


#51 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 April 2013 - 04:18 AM

Sorry.


I don't blame others for not putting him on ignore but I've been done with him since Dohdough and I were temp banned because of him. That's when I decided interacting with him just wasn't worth it anymore as he can sit and dish it out all day long but as soon as someone says anything back he runs to mods like it's flippin' daycare tattle-taling all over again.

#52 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 29 April 2013 - 10:40 AM

It seems like you are obfuscating the point of your original question.

How is the federal government protecting children anymore than it protects every citizen? How well is it doing? We can argue about healthcare costs, EPA and FDA cuts another time.


True, the government does protect children the same as it does every other citizen. Just like it (should) will protect your patents the same as it would those of every other citizen. Also, a family of five would gain more benefit from the government protection than a single guy, right?

I don't think you guys will ever decide it's fair to raise taxes on the wealthy, so why are we debating this?


Thing is, I'm not against raising taxes on any particular group. I simply feel that the raises in taxes should be met with *smart* cuts in spending. Additionally, taxes should be raised as a means of funding our government - not as some kind of equalizer in social justice.

I don't blame others for not putting him on ignore but I've been done with him since Dohdough and I were temp banned because of him.


For the record, RedvsBlue was temp banned because he posted crap insinuating that I had sexually assaulted underage children. But he'll never be an adult and admit that.

As for DD - as far as I know, he's been temp banned twice. The first time, oddly enough, I did not report any posts made by him. The second time was for posts that DD made that weren't even on vs. Funny, eh?

*and* How freakin' crazy is it to be all "Oh, I'm just not going to talk to someone from now on.", then specifically go into threads started by that someone just to complain about having to read posts made by that someone? Remind me *again* who it is that goes into threads and drags them off topic with BS?

Edited by UncleBob, 29 April 2013 - 11:33 AM.

"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#53 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 April 2013 - 12:00 PM

I really wish ignore lists extended to when other users quote that person...

Use Firefox? Install grease monkey and the monkey list script. No more bob,ego,knoell etc.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#54 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 April 2013 - 01:14 PM

Use Firefox? Install grease monkey and the monkey list script. No more bob,ego,knoell etc.



HAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA...to think that people are installing special programs to ensure that they aren't exposed to others opinions and views. Why are you even here? You want to talk about living in a self imposed echo chamber....:applause:

I respect the right to report posts, but I would never do it.
1. Its the internet. A bunch of self important a-holes (myself included;)) who view themselves as "experts" and smarter than everyone else. Why do I care what a small subset of anonymous whiners say or think about me?
2. Insults are the friend of a weak argument. Just like screaming louder doesn't make your argument valid, being belligerent just makes me laugh at you and dismiss your opinion even more.
3. Who has time to report and document this stuff? As Meatballs says, "it just doesn't matter!"

I do find it funny that some people think that you should have to pay for equal protection under the law, or that you should get a deduction for some personal choice you make.:roll:

#55 Access_Denied

Access_Denied

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 April 2013 - 02:40 PM

It's a simplification that sidesteps an important issue in the discussion about the wealthy benefiting from the government's protections. Just as that CEO benefits more from the inventor's patent than the inventor himself, the CEO benefits from the government in that it is the government and courts that allow him to protect and enforce the patent. Without that protection a patent isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Ergo, the CEO is benefiting more from the government than his underlings and should be paying higher taxes as a result.

So, any other issues you wanna oversimplify pull out of your ass?

You know, companies are always bitching about regulations and such but what their shortsightedness never acknowledges is that it is those same regulations which help keep them in business. Show me some fortune 500 companies that are operating out of 3rd world, no government nations.


So if I'm hearing you right, you're saying that taxes should be based on how much assistance you get from the government.

#56 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 April 2013 - 02:57 PM

So if I'm hearing you right, you're saying that taxes should be based on how much assistance you get from the government.


Define "assistance."
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#57 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 April 2013 - 03:13 PM

So if I'm hearing you right, you're saying that taxes should be based on how much assistance you get from the government.


No, what I'm saying is that millionaires are benefiting more from government protections and services than the average person, even low income people on public assistance, so for them to bitch about having to pay too high of taxes is preposterous.

#58 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 April 2013 - 04:03 PM

Yep, but they employees aren't on the CEO's dime, they're on th company's dime, so keep up with the conversation junior.

When the company experiences the hardships, shareholders do not get penalized instead it is the person who runs the company. If the company prospers then the CEO gets a nice bonus. Its not rocket science.

No, what I'm saying is that millionaires are benefiting more from government protections and services than the average person, even low income people on public assistance, so for them to bitch about having to pay too high of taxes is preposterous.

They receive the government protection because the system is broken. Most of these CEOs cannot change it and they can only work within the system. Blame people who run the federal government for such inequality in wealth.

I don't blame others for not putting him on ignore but I've been done with him since Dohdough and I were temp banned because of him. That's when I decided interacting with him just wasn't worth it anymore as he can sit and dish it out all day long but as soon as someone says anything back he runs to mods like it's flippin' daycare tattle-taling all over again.

If you can't take the heat then get out of the kitchen.

#59 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 April 2013 - 04:15 PM

When the company experiences the hardships, shareholders do not get penalized instead it is the person who runs the company. If the company prospers then the CEO gets a nice bonus. Its not rocket science.

The shareholders don't get penalized during hardship? The Fuck? Of course they do, decreased (or none) dividends, lowered stock price, complete loss of value if the company folds... The shareholders most definitely experience the hardship when a company is struggling.

Shareholders have their golden parachutes, seats on boards of other companies, etc.

They receive the government protection because the system is broken. Most of these CEOs cannot change it and they can only work within the system. Blame people who run the federal government for such inequality in wealth.

How do you propose the government "fix" the broken system then?

If you can't take the heat then get out of the kitchen.

While I will disagree with many people on VS. forum, there's still room for interesting discussion. As a matter fact, he is the only VS. regular who I have on my ignore list for the simple fact that he puts forth absolute drivel with the added benefit of any interaction which he perceives as an insult will result in a report to a mod. No upside to discourse with him, only downside.

#60 elessar123

elessar123

    96.5% more WUB WUB

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 April 2013 - 04:32 PM

When the company experiences the hardships, shareholders do not get penalized instead it is the person who runs the company. If the company prospers then the CEO gets a nice bonus. Its not rocket science.


What fucking planet are you on?