The beauty of capitalism in pictures.
- Thread starter speedracer
- Start date
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
That top 1% works the hardest. Flipping paper is backbreaking labor.
[quote name='UncleBob']You've lost me with your point. The rich pay a higher percentage of the Federal Income tax stream and they pay more money into it... ?[/QUOTE]
Say I make $2 million dollars and have to pay the government $1 million dollars, you make $50,000 and have to give the government $5,000.
Clearly I'm getting shafted, now I only have $1 million. And I personally just paid the equivalent taxes of 200 of you freeloading schmucks. Higher percentage and higher raw numbers. It's a
ing travesty.
I don't mean raw numbers paid, I mean raw numbers in income vs. raw numbers paid. Even equal percentages would have the rich paying more in raw numbers (duh), but even at greater percentages it's irrelevant compared to their income. I make $2 million and pay 50%, you make $50k and pay 10%. So I get to keep 50% of my income, you get to keep 90% of yours, and the 90% you keep is equal to 4.5% of what I keep. Goods cost the same regardless.
So again, what's your arbitrary number? What's "fair"? What's "paying their due"?
An equal raw number? An equal percentage? Whatever rich people want to pay?
Say I make $2 million dollars and have to pay the government $1 million dollars, you make $50,000 and have to give the government $5,000.
Clearly I'm getting shafted, now I only have $1 million. And I personally just paid the equivalent taxes of 200 of you freeloading schmucks. Higher percentage and higher raw numbers. It's a
ing travesty.I don't mean raw numbers paid, I mean raw numbers in income vs. raw numbers paid. Even equal percentages would have the rich paying more in raw numbers (duh), but even at greater percentages it's irrelevant compared to their income. I make $2 million and pay 50%, you make $50k and pay 10%. So I get to keep 50% of my income, you get to keep 90% of yours, and the 90% you keep is equal to 4.5% of what I keep. Goods cost the same regardless.
So again, what's your arbitrary number? What's "fair"? What's "paying their due"?
An equal raw number? An equal percentage? Whatever rich people want to pay?
As crazy as it sounds, I would actually support a per-head tax. It would be the most fair way to divide the tax burden. I think if the lower income bracket were more in-tune with government spending, they'd be more interested in how the money is being spent. The best way to do this is by making them pay an EQUAL share. "Fair" is subjective. "Equal" is mathematically defined.
[quote name='UncleBob']As crazy as it sounds, I would actually support a per-head tax. It would be the most fair way to divide the tax burden. [/QUOTE]
That's not fair. Men would pay twice as much as women.
HIYOOOOOOOOOOO
That's not fair. Men would pay twice as much as women.
HIYOOOOOOOOOOO
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']As crazy as it sounds, I would actually support a per-head tax. It would be the most fair way to divide the tax burden. I think if the lower income bracket were more in-tune with government spending, they'd be more interested in how the money is being spent. The best way to do this is by making them pay an EQUAL share. "Fair" is subjective. "Equal" is mathematically defined.[/QUOTE]
You're not even trying.
You're not even trying.
[quote name='UncleBob']As crazy as it sounds, I would actually support a per-head tax. It would be the most fair way to divide the tax burden. I think if the lower income bracket were more in-tune with government spending, they'd be more interested in how the money is being spent. The best way to do this is by making them pay an EQUAL share. "Fair" is subjective. "Equal" is mathematically defined.[/QUOTE]
So how exactly do you see this working out?
So how exactly do you see this working out?
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You're not even trying.[/QUOTE]
No one else has defined what they think the rich's "Fair Share" should be...
[quote name='SpazX']So how exactly do you see this working out?[/QUOTE]
About as well as our current tax system.
Honestly, If we're aiming toward taxes that could actually be implemented, a consumption-based tax (The so-called Fair Tax comes to mind). But I'd have no problem with taking the budget for next year, dividing it by the population adding 10-20% (for those who skip out and shortfalls in the budget) and letting people pay their own amount.
About $12,000 per person, by the way. Are you paying your fair share?
No one else has defined what they think the rich's "Fair Share" should be...
[quote name='SpazX']So how exactly do you see this working out?[/QUOTE]
About as well as our current tax system.
Honestly, If we're aiming toward taxes that could actually be implemented, a consumption-based tax (The so-called Fair Tax comes to mind). But I'd have no problem with taking the budget for next year, dividing it by the population adding 10-20% (for those who skip out and shortfalls in the budget) and letting people pay their own amount.
About $12,000 per person, by the way. Are you paying your fair share?
1) Income taxes aren't the only taxes.
2) Many corporations have an effective tax rate of zero.
3) Rich people cheat more on taxes.
The benefit to all this is to allow the uber rich to buy a 5th home and let them buy off even more government officials so they can lobby for more tax cuts and subsidies etc.
2) Many corporations have an effective tax rate of zero.
3) Rich people cheat more on taxes.
The benefit to all this is to allow the uber rich to buy a 5th home and let them buy off even more government officials so they can lobby for more tax cuts and subsidies etc.
[quote name='UncleBob']Honestly, If we're aiming toward taxes that could actually be implemented, a consumption-based tax (The so-called Fair Tax comes to mind). But I'd have no problem with taking the budget for next year, dividing it by the population adding 10-20% (for those who skip out and shortfalls in the budget) and letting people pay their own amount. About $12,000 per person, by the way. Are you paying your fair share?[/QUOTE]
And the people who can't pay (Using $12,000, probably around 30% of the population)? Work camps?
About $12,000 per person, by the way. Are you paying your fair share?[/QUOTE]And the people who can't pay (Using $12,000, probably around 30% of the population)? Work camps?
[quote name='SpazX']And the people who can't pay (Using $12,000, probably around 30% of the population)? Work camps?[/QUOTE]
Using Bob's plan he himself would end up in a camp but he probably figures he would get a cushy spot as kapo.
Because when I want to reform the tax system and society accordingly I always get my advice from radio personalities.
Using Bob's plan he himself would end up in a camp but he probably figures he would get a cushy spot as kapo.
Because when I want to reform the tax system and society accordingly I always get my advice from radio personalities.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']No one else has defined what they think the rich's "Fair Share" should be...[/QUOTE]
You have to start on a consensus of how wealth should be (re)distributed.
Should the top 1%, 5%, 10%, 50% or etc have 2%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 50% or etc of the wealth?
Then, you shape tax policy to match.
If you want the bottom 50% to have nothing, a per head tax works great. You might have to make infanticide legal so up and comers aren't stagnated by the birth of a child.
If you want the bottom 1-50% to pay nothing, you can increase the standard deduction.
You can also play other games such as removing the mileage deduction and certain deductions for businesses. You can force people to pay taxes on benefits they receive.
If you want a strong manufacturing base at home, replace the income tax with an import tax.
You have to start on a consensus of how wealth should be (re)distributed.
Should the top 1%, 5%, 10%, 50% or etc have 2%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 50% or etc of the wealth?
Then, you shape tax policy to match.
If you want the bottom 50% to have nothing, a per head tax works great. You might have to make infanticide legal so up and comers aren't stagnated by the birth of a child.
If you want the bottom 1-50% to pay nothing, you can increase the standard deduction.
You can also play other games such as removing the mileage deduction and certain deductions for businesses. You can force people to pay taxes on benefits they receive.
If you want a strong manufacturing base at home, replace the income tax with an import tax.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='SpazX']And the people who can't pay (Using $12,000, probably around 30% of the population)? Work camps?[/QUOTE]
retro's always in fashion: debtors prison.
retro's always in fashion: debtors prison.
[quote name='SpazX']And the people who can't pay (Using $12,000, probably around 30% of the population)? Work camps?[/QUOTE]
See, now it starts to get interesting. $12,000 - that's more than the federal guidelines for the 2009 poverty level ($10,830). And, as you pointed out, more than 30% of the country makes.
If people were looking at tax bills like this every year, do you think they'd be voting for Bush's second term, with his expensive war in Iraq? Do you think they'd be voting for Obama and his handout programs? Or do you think they'd be paying more attention to where the government is spending their tax dollars?
See, now it starts to get interesting. $12,000 - that's more than the federal guidelines for the 2009 poverty level ($10,830). And, as you pointed out, more than 30% of the country makes.
If people were looking at tax bills like this every year, do you think they'd be voting for Bush's second term, with his expensive war in Iraq? Do you think they'd be voting for Obama and his handout programs? Or do you think they'd be paying more attention to where the government is spending their tax dollars?
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You have to start on a consensus of how wealth should be (re)distributed.
Should the top 1%, 5%, 10%, 50% or etc have 2%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 50% or etc of the wealth?
Then, you shape tax policy to match.[/quote]
Is it really the role of the government to determine who gets money? Should it be? (I already know how most of you will answer).
Babies cost money. Taxes or no. If you can't afford them, don't have them. Abortion is legal and condoms are cheap. Somehow, I've managed to go 29 years and not have a child. I've also stayed employed since I was 15, graduated high school, went to college (which I paid for myself via working fast food). How odd some of those things tie together so well.
Should the top 1%, 5%, 10%, 50% or etc have 2%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 50% or etc of the wealth?
Then, you shape tax policy to match.[/quote]
Is it really the role of the government to determine who gets money? Should it be? (I already know how most of you will answer).
Babies cost money. Taxes or no. If you can't afford them, don't have them. Abortion is legal and condoms are cheap. Somehow, I've managed to go 29 years and not have a child. I've also stayed employed since I was 15, graduated high school, went to college (which I paid for myself via working fast food). How odd some of those things tie together so well.
Something I like about a consumption-based tax - if a company is building Widgets in America now, they have all kinds of crazy, cooky taxes (property, income, payroll, etc.). If they're building the Widgets in China, they get to avoid all of these taxes. With a consumption-based tax, it doesn't matter where they're built, the tax is paid the same. Except now, Widget, Inc. can build them here and not have to pay to get them shipped here.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Thinking a FairTax structure will make people more accountable for a knowledge of government spending is preposterous.
People don't know-all about government spending; it lies along party lines, as a recent Pew poll showed that over 60% of Republicans think Clinton increased the year-to-year budget deficit. Unfortunately, this means that Dick Cheney's maxim that "deficits don't matter" is correct. They don't matter, because people retrospectively look at history with glasses that are tinted by their political worldview. Even when they're contrary to what really happened by a WIDE margin.
Shifting the tax burden away from the rich to middle and low income earners as a means of improving government accountability is a new depth of ridiculously inept thinking, even for you, Bob.
The fact that it's all premised in the foundation of "the rich pay more, and that's not fair" truly exposes the degree to which you fail to think deeply about the things that you type.
People don't know
-all about government spending; it lies along party lines, as a recent Pew poll showed that over 60% of Republicans think Clinton increased the year-to-year budget deficit. Unfortunately, this means that Dick Cheney's maxim that "deficits don't matter" is correct. They don't matter, because people retrospectively look at history with glasses that are tinted by their political worldview. Even when they're contrary to what really happened by a WIDE margin.Shifting the tax burden away from the rich to middle and low income earners as a means of improving government accountability is a new depth of ridiculously inept thinking, even for you, Bob.
The fact that it's all premised in the foundation of "the rich pay more, and that's not fair" truly exposes the degree to which you fail to think deeply about the things that you type.
[quote name='UncleBob']See, now it starts to get interesting. $12,000 - that's more than the federal guidelines for the 2009 poverty level ($10,830). And, as you pointed out, more than 30% of the country makes.
If people were looking at tax bills like this every year, do you think they'd be voting for Bush's second term, with his expensive war in Iraq? Do you think they'd be voting for Obama and his handout programs? Or do you think they'd be paying more attention to where the government is spending their tax dollars?[/QUOTE]
Or do you think they would restructure the government so that they don't pay that?
Making people pay that when they can't afford it (especially when there's a portion of that spending meant to keep those people who can't afford to pay it alive) wouldn't so much make them pay more attention to government spending as it would make them revolt.
[quote name='UncleBob']I've also stayed employed since I was 15, graduated high school, went to college (which I paid for myself via working fast food). How odd some of those things tie together so well.[/QUOTE]
And Obama went from being poor to being the president, all by himself.
[quote name='UncleBob']Something I like about a consumption-based tax - if a company is building Widgets in America now, they have all kinds of crazy, cooky taxes (property, income, payroll, etc.). If they're building the Widgets in China, they get to avoid all of these taxes. With a consumption-based tax, it doesn't matter where they're built, the tax is paid the same. Except now, Widget, Inc. can build them here and not have to pay to get them shipped here.[/QUOTE]
Yet the labor would still be cheaper in China, and it would probably still cost less to pay the workers nothing a day and ship the products over. Unless you erase all taxes and pay workers wages that won't sustain them, it will probably still be cheaper to produce things overseas.
If people were looking at tax bills like this every year, do you think they'd be voting for Bush's second term, with his expensive war in Iraq? Do you think they'd be voting for Obama and his handout programs? Or do you think they'd be paying more attention to where the government is spending their tax dollars?[/QUOTE]
Or do you think they would restructure the government so that they don't pay that?
Making people pay that when they can't afford it (especially when there's a portion of that spending meant to keep those people who can't afford to pay it alive) wouldn't so much make them pay more attention to government spending as it would make them revolt.
[quote name='UncleBob']I've also stayed employed since I was 15, graduated high school, went to college (which I paid for myself via working fast food). How odd some of those things tie together so well.[/QUOTE]
And Obama went from being poor to being the president, all by himself.
[quote name='UncleBob']Something I like about a consumption-based tax - if a company is building Widgets in America now, they have all kinds of crazy, cooky taxes (property, income, payroll, etc.). If they're building the Widgets in China, they get to avoid all of these taxes. With a consumption-based tax, it doesn't matter where they're built, the tax is paid the same. Except now, Widget, Inc. can build them here and not have to pay to get them shipped here.[/QUOTE]
Yet the labor would still be cheaper in China, and it would probably still cost less to pay the workers nothing a day and ship the products over. Unless you erase all taxes and pay workers wages that won't sustain them, it will probably still be cheaper to produce things overseas.
[quote name='mykevermin']The fact that it's all premised in the foundation of "the rich pay more, and that's not fair" truly exposes the degree to which you fail to think deeply about the things that you type.[/QUOTE]
It's a strange, new world where 50% of earners pay for 95% of the bill and that's "fair".
It's a strange, new world where 50% of earners pay for 95% of the bill and that's "fair".
[quote name='SpazX']Or do you think they would restructure the government so that they don't pay that?
Making people pay that when they can't afford it (especially when there's a portion of that spending meant to keep those people who can't afford to pay it alive) wouldn't so much make them pay more attention to government spending as it would make them revolt.[/QUOTE]
Now you're seeing the light. Hell yes, they'd revolt and restructure the government.
Making people pay that when they can't afford it (especially when there's a portion of that spending meant to keep those people who can't afford to pay it alive) wouldn't so much make them pay more attention to government spending as it would make them revolt.[/QUOTE]
Now you're seeing the light. Hell yes, they'd revolt and restructure the government.
[quote name='UncleBob']Now you're seeing the light. Hell yes, they'd revolt and restructure the government.[/QUOTE]
Yes, they'd restructure the government in a way that was more favorable to them, and it would look more like it does now than what you're proposing.
Yes, they'd restructure the government in a way that was more favorable to them, and it would look more like it does now than what you're proposing.
Hey, does anyone want to see what a country that caters to the exclusively upper, upper crust looks like?
Just look at Dubai.
We have declining or stagnating wages for almost everyone for decades, policies where the middle class is basically strip mined in favor of said crusty ones, there are other less extreme example but then here we are.
Just look at Dubai.
We have declining or stagnating wages for almost everyone for decades, policies where the middle class is basically strip mined in favor of said crusty ones, there are other less extreme example but then here we are.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Is it really the role of the government to determine who gets money? Should it be? (I already know how most of you will answer).[/QUOTE]
Promote the common welfare. If companies (and, by extension, the rich) are making the pursuit of happines difficult for their employees (and, by extension, the poor), the only entity that can attempt to remedy the situation is the government.
[quote name='UncleBob'] Babies cost money. Taxes or no. If you can't afford them, don't have them. Abortion is legal and condoms are cheap. Somehow, I've managed to go 29 years and not have a child. I've also stayed employed since I was 15, graduated high school, went to college (which I paid for myself via working fast food). How odd some of those things tie together so well.[/QUOTE]
Your per head tax would force people to choose between having offspring or food solely because of a tax.
[quote name='UncleBob'] Something I like about a consumption-based tax - if a company is building Widgets in America now, they have all kinds of crazy, cooky taxes (property, income, payroll, etc.). If they're building the Widgets in China, they get to avoid all of these taxes. With a consumption-based tax, it doesn't matter where they're built, the tax is paid the same. Except now, Widget, Inc. can build them here and not have to pay to get them shipped here.[/QUOTE]
How about for exports? Should the VAT tax be on that? How about mutual funds or stocks? Should they be taxed?
Promote the common welfare. If companies (and, by extension, the rich) are making the pursuit of happines difficult for their employees (and, by extension, the poor), the only entity that can attempt to remedy the situation is the government.
[quote name='UncleBob'] Babies cost money. Taxes or no. If you can't afford them, don't have them. Abortion is legal and condoms are cheap. Somehow, I've managed to go 29 years and not have a child. I've also stayed employed since I was 15, graduated high school, went to college (which I paid for myself via working fast food). How odd some of those things tie together so well.[/QUOTE]
Your per head tax would force people to choose between having offspring or food solely because of a tax.
[quote name='UncleBob'] Something I like about a consumption-based tax - if a company is building Widgets in America now, they have all kinds of crazy, cooky taxes (property, income, payroll, etc.). If they're building the Widgets in China, they get to avoid all of these taxes. With a consumption-based tax, it doesn't matter where they're built, the tax is paid the same. Except now, Widget, Inc. can build them here and not have to pay to get them shipped here.[/QUOTE]
How about for exports? Should the VAT tax be on that? How about mutual funds or stocks? Should they be taxed?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='UncleBob']But it'd be a fun ride >insert Joker picture here
[quote name='SpazX']Sure, cut spending on things, whatever. But don't say the rich are getting a raw deal (especially when you're still calling them rich).[/QUOTE]
All I did was point out that the rich pay more in taxes (contrary to what some post/believe) and that the idea that they aren't paying their "fair share", when they're paying far beyond what anyone else is paying is ludicrous.
All I did was point out that the rich pay more in taxes (contrary to what some post/believe) and that the idea that they aren't paying their "fair share", when they're paying far beyond what anyone else is paying is ludicrous.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
And far less than their marginal tax rate prior to Reagan. Remember then, back before the national debt hit $1 trillion?
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Your per head tax would force people to choose between having offspring or food solely because of a tax.[/quote]
People already have to (or should) make that choice - without the idea of a tax being there.
Why tax exports? If a company wants to build a plant here and employ a few hundred people, isn't that a great thing?
People already have to (or should) make that choice - without the idea of a tax being there.
Why tax exports? If a company wants to build a plant here and employ a few hundred people, isn't that a great thing?
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']All I did was point out that the rich pay more in taxes (contrary to what some post/believe) and that the idea that they aren't paying their "fair share", when they're paying far beyond what anyone else is paying is ludicrous.[/QUOTE]
The idea that the rich claim the same percentage of their income as the poor is as much if not more ludicrous.
The idea that the rich claim the same percentage of their income as the poor is as much if not more ludicrous.
[quote name='mykevermin']And far less than their marginal tax rate prior to Reagan. Remember then, back before the national debt hit $1 trillion?[/QUOTE]
Ah, the good ol' days.
How much were the top 1% of earners paying in taxes in 1800? What was the national debt then? Perhaps we should go back to those tax rates?
Ah, the good ol' days.
How much were the top 1% of earners paying in taxes in 1800? What was the national debt then? Perhaps we should go back to those tax rates?
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The idea that the rich claim the same percentage of their income as the poor is as much if not more ludicrous.[/QUOTE]
Why should the amount of work one does or the amount of income one makes have *any* bearing on one's individual responsibility to fund the spending of the Federal Government?
Why should the amount of work one does or the amount of income one makes have *any* bearing on one's individual responsibility to fund the spending of the Federal Government?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Ah, the good ol' days.
How much were the top 1% of earners paying in taxes in 1800? What was the national debt then? Perhaps we should go back to those tax rates?[/QUOTE]
You're going to pay for the drywall to be repaired on the wall I just rammed my head through.
How much were the top 1% of earners paying in taxes in 1800? What was the national debt then? Perhaps we should go back to those tax rates?[/QUOTE]
You're going to pay for the drywall to be repaired on the wall I just rammed my head through.
[quote name='mykevermin']You're going to pay for the drywall to be repaired on the wall I just rammed my head through.[/QUOTE]
You're the one who got out the keys to the WABAC machine. Don't get mad at me because I pointed out the ridiculous flaw in your suggestion.
You're the one who got out the keys to the WABAC machine. Don't get mad at me because I pointed out the ridiculous flaw in your suggestion.
onetrackmind
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 81 (100%)
According to Bobs tax plan, he would have never made enough money flipping burgers to pay for college after paying his taxes. Good plan there Bob.
[quote name='onetrackmind']According to Bobs tax plan, he would have never made enough money flipping burgers to pay for college after paying his taxes. Good plan there Bob.[/QUOTE]
Not being able to pay as the way the system is now might be why he dropped out, although it would be perfectly plausible to say he couldn't hack it.
Not being able to pay as the way the system is now might be why he dropped out, although it would be perfectly plausible to say he couldn't hack it.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Why tax exports? If a company wants to build a plant here and employ a few hundred people, isn't that a great thing?[/QUOTE]
Let's say company A produces a widget for company B. Company A is in a country with a VAT and Company B is in a different country.
Company B tells Company A to drop off the widget at its local office across the street and ship the bill to the other country.
The local office within the VAT country proceeds to use the widget and Company B pays the bill without the VAT.
That is a very simple example of how the rich or a company can avoid a tax.
Let's say company A produces a widget for company B. Company A is in a country with a VAT and Company B is in a different country.
Company B tells Company A to drop off the widget at its local office across the street and ship the bill to the other country.
The local office within the VAT country proceeds to use the widget and Company B pays the bill without the VAT.
That is a very simple example of how the rich or a company can avoid a tax.
I'm looking for a consumption tax that taxes goods and services at the retail level. If company A produces a widget that company B uses to make a car, taxing the widget and the widget inside of the car is a crazy idea (because, as we both know, company B is going to pass the cost of the Widget-Tax on to the consumer when they put a final price on the car).
[quote name='UncleBob']It's a strange, new world where 50% of earners pay for 95% of the bill and that's "fair".[/QUOTE]
Because the better off should carry more of the country's burden.
If people don't care about community and helping others, and are just out for themselves and getting a much as they can, then humans are no better than other animals only concerned with survival. Worse since they're concerned with material items and status--not just survival.
Unfortunately, that's the reality of human nature and we're inherently hedonistic. There would be much less social programming, no military really etc. if it was all dependent on donations and charity--so some form of tax system is required.
Given the American Dream as the foundation of our country, and it's notion that anyone can succeed through hardwork. Those who have succeeded should pay higher percentages of their income to allow the lower and middle classes to pay lower percentages as they're trying to pull themselves up.
And I don't say that as a college student making nothing etc.--I'm already in the second highest income bracket in that silly chart you posted a couple pages back, and would be into the highest if I married my current girlfriend and we filed jointly.
I'm perfectly fine paying a higher tax bracket to help others as I was helped by public schools and public universities, make use of public parks, benefit from the safety of having a strong military, police forces, fire departments etc. I'm willing to pay a larger share of that to help out those who can't put as large a percentage of their income into the pool. And I'm fine paying for social programs to help out the disadvantage and improve their chances of getting by and hopefully pulling themselves up.
[quote name='UncleBob']All I did was point out that the rich pay more in taxes (contrary to what some post/believe) and that the idea that they aren't paying their "fair share", when they're paying far beyond what anyone else is paying is ludicrous.[/QUOTE]
And as Myke already pointed out, far less than they were prior to Reagan's dumb ass changes. And the debut was much smaller and the economy was growing rapidly through many of those preceding decades when the highest bracket was 70% or something. The fact of the matter is that we just need more tax brackets for the upper class.
It's just silly to stop at $370K, and that person pays the same percentage as a person who makes millions or billions. Tax the uber rich more, its not good to have so much of the wealth concentrated in the top few percent of a population.
Because the better off should carry more of the country's burden.
If people don't care about community and helping others, and are just out for themselves and getting a much as they can, then humans are no better than other animals only concerned with survival. Worse since they're concerned with material items and status--not just survival.
Unfortunately, that's the reality of human nature and we're inherently hedonistic. There would be much less social programming, no military really etc. if it was all dependent on donations and charity--so some form of tax system is required.
Given the American Dream as the foundation of our country, and it's notion that anyone can succeed through hardwork. Those who have succeeded should pay higher percentages of their income to allow the lower and middle classes to pay lower percentages as they're trying to pull themselves up.
And I don't say that as a college student making nothing etc.--I'm already in the second highest income bracket in that silly chart you posted a couple pages back, and would be into the highest if I married my current girlfriend and we filed jointly.
I'm perfectly fine paying a higher tax bracket to help others as I was helped by public schools and public universities, make use of public parks, benefit from the safety of having a strong military, police forces, fire departments etc. I'm willing to pay a larger share of that to help out those who can't put as large a percentage of their income into the pool. And I'm fine paying for social programs to help out the disadvantage and improve their chances of getting by and hopefully pulling themselves up.
[quote name='UncleBob']All I did was point out that the rich pay more in taxes (contrary to what some post/believe) and that the idea that they aren't paying their "fair share", when they're paying far beyond what anyone else is paying is ludicrous.[/QUOTE]
And as Myke already pointed out, far less than they were prior to Reagan's dumb ass changes. And the debut was much smaller and the economy was growing rapidly through many of those preceding decades when the highest bracket was 70% or something. The fact of the matter is that we just need more tax brackets for the upper class.
It's just silly to stop at $370K, and that person pays the same percentage as a person who makes millions or billions. Tax the uber rich more, its not good to have so much of the wealth concentrated in the top few percent of a population.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm looking for a consumption tax that taxes goods and services at the retail level. If company A produces a widget that company B uses to make a car, taxing the widget and the widget inside of the car is a crazy idea (because, as we both know, company B is going to pass the cost of the Widget-Tax on to the consumer when they put a final price on the car).[/QUOTE]
How does that change my example?
...
Let's try another example to avoid taxes in your quote. Instead of widget, let's say laptop.
Company B buys a laptop from Company A. Company B claims they are testing the laptop to fit in a car. The process is a complete failure. They bought thousands of laptops and were unable to fit any of them into cars. Sure, they've used the laptops for years on end, but they were unable to get these laptops to a retail level. So, they should be exempt from the consumption tax?
How does that change my example?
...
Let's try another example to avoid taxes in your quote. Instead of widget, let's say laptop.
Company B buys a laptop from Company A. Company B claims they are testing the laptop to fit in a car. The process is a complete failure. They bought thousands of laptops and were unable to fit any of them into cars. Sure, they've used the laptops for years on end, but they were unable to get these laptops to a retail level. So, they should be exempt from the consumption tax?
[quote name='dmaul1114']Because the better off should carry more of the country's burden.
[...]
And I don't say that as a college student making nothing etc.--I'm already in the second highest income bracket in that silly chart you posted a couple pages back, and would be into the highest if I married my current girlfriend and we filed jointly.
I'm perfectly fine paying a higher tax bracket to help others as I was helped by public schools and public universities, make use of public parks, benefit from the safety of having a strong military, police forces, fire departments etc. I'm willing to pay a larger share of that to help out those who can't put as large a percentage of their income into the pool. And I'm fine paying for social programs to help out the disadvantage and improve their chances of getting by and hopefully pulling themselves up.[/quote]
So... What's stopping you from turning over more of your income to the Federal Government right now? Go ahead and cut a check for another 30% of your income and mail it off to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. No one will stop you.
[...]
And I don't say that as a college student making nothing etc.--I'm already in the second highest income bracket in that silly chart you posted a couple pages back, and would be into the highest if I married my current girlfriend and we filed jointly.
I'm perfectly fine paying a higher tax bracket to help others as I was helped by public schools and public universities, make use of public parks, benefit from the safety of having a strong military, police forces, fire departments etc. I'm willing to pay a larger share of that to help out those who can't put as large a percentage of their income into the pool. And I'm fine paying for social programs to help out the disadvantage and improve their chances of getting by and hopefully pulling themselves up.[/quote]
So... What's stopping you from turning over more of your income to the Federal Government right now? Go ahead and cut a check for another 30% of your income and mail it off to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. No one will stop you.
[quote name='UncleBob']So... What's stopping you from turning over more of your income to the Federal Government right now? Go ahead and cut a check for another 30% of your income and mail it off to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. No one will stop you.[/QUOTE]
I could do it...and I do donate a good bit to private charities beyond my taxes. But not 30% as I can't afford that much with bills, student loans etc.
But again, my point is most people are entirely self interested and wouldn't donate nearly what they pay in taxes if it was all optional, and many would keep all their wealth to themselves.
The only way to support even the most basic government services is to have a progressive tax system where higher incomes pay higher percentages. Much less if we're going to wage optional wars and have social programming, try to have a decent education system (that already sucks compared to most of Europe and Asia) etc. etc.
Any type of flat tax systems wouldn't work as revenue would drop very sharply as the percentage would have to be pretty low--probably no taxes for people making under 15-20,000 and 20-25% for everyone else as the lower class and middle class can't pay much higher a percentage of taxes and still get by with a decent standard of living.
I could do it...and I do donate a good bit to private charities beyond my taxes. But not 30% as I can't afford that much with bills, student loans etc.
But again, my point is most people are entirely self interested and wouldn't donate nearly what they pay in taxes if it was all optional, and many would keep all their wealth to themselves.
The only way to support even the most basic government services is to have a progressive tax system where higher incomes pay higher percentages. Much less if we're going to wage optional wars and have social programming, try to have a decent education system (that already sucks compared to most of Europe and Asia) etc. etc.
Any type of flat tax systems wouldn't work as revenue would drop very sharply as the percentage would have to be pretty low--probably no taxes for people making under 15-20,000 and 20-25% for everyone else as the lower class and middle class can't pay much higher a percentage of taxes and still get by with a decent standard of living.
[quote name='dmaul1114']I could do it...and I do donate a good bit to private charities beyond my taxes. But not 30% as I can't afford that much with bills, student loans etc.[/quote]
Oh, now, don't bring private charities into it. From how some on here type, the government should be the sole decider of charitable distribution. How someone chooses to distribute their money is up to them... so long as they give the government it's "fair share" of the money.
Let's expand on that. How many people vote in favor of social programs (or politicians that openly support the programs) that are in their own self interests? Sure, it's greedy for a multi-millionaire to want to swim in a giant vault of his own cash. Is it any less greedy for everyone to decide to take the money from that guy at gunpoint and spend it on themselves?
Oh, now, don't bring private charities into it. From how some on here type, the government should be the sole decider of charitable distribution. How someone chooses to distribute their money is up to them... so long as they give the government it's "fair share" of the money.
Let's expand on that. How many people vote in favor of social programs (or politicians that openly support the programs) that are in their own self interests? Sure, it's greedy for a multi-millionaire to want to swim in a giant vault of his own cash. Is it any less greedy for everyone to decide to take the money from that guy at gunpoint and spend it on themselves?
Sure, again people are self interested. Voting for politicians who support programs that benefit you is reflective of that.
But it's not comparable to compare some one struggling to get buy in the lower class voting for some help, to a millionaire trying to keep as much of their money as possible. There's a difference between self interest in getting by and surviving, providing necessities for your family etc. and being filthy rich and only concerned with how to get even richer.
As for private charities. There will always be a need for them. The government will never be able to provide all the needed services for all segments of society. So there will always been a need for private charities to supplement what government is doing--and to help carry it out since many receive public funding.
Plus, most charitable contributions are tax deductible. So essentially, with limits on amounts etc, the tax system forces people to contribute. They can either give it all to the government, or can chose where at least some of their tax burden goes through making donations. So they give people some flexibility in allocating their tax dollars.
But it's not comparable to compare some one struggling to get buy in the lower class voting for some help, to a millionaire trying to keep as much of their money as possible. There's a difference between self interest in getting by and surviving, providing necessities for your family etc. and being filthy rich and only concerned with how to get even richer.
As for private charities. There will always be a need for them. The government will never be able to provide all the needed services for all segments of society. So there will always been a need for private charities to supplement what government is doing--and to help carry it out since many receive public funding.
Plus, most charitable contributions are tax deductible. So essentially, with limits on amounts etc, the tax system forces people to contribute. They can either give it all to the government, or can chose where at least some of their tax burden goes through making donations. So they give people some flexibility in allocating their tax dollars.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='UncleBob']You're the one who got out the keys to the WABAC machine. Don't get mad at me because I pointed out the ridiculous flaw in your suggestion.[/QUOTE]
1980 = 1800?
You're aing troll.
1980 = 1800?
You're a
ing troll.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']So... What's stopping you from turning over more of your income to the Federal Government right now? Go ahead and cut a check for another 30% of your income and mail it off to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. No one will stop you.[/QUOTE]
Ah I see - so whether they are rich or poor, people should just pay the government whatever they feel is fair.
What color is the sky in candyland?
Ah I see - so whether they are rich or poor, people should just pay the government whatever they feel is fair.
What color is the sky in candyland?
bread's done