DNC Convention and "investment"

[GilpinGuy]

I've been watching the Socialist National Conv.....oh, I mean the Democrat National Convention for the last half hour or so. I've heard the words "invest" or "investment" about 20 times. I can't take any more of the sewage spewing forth from their mouths.

When will the lefties realize that an "investment" by the government is simply more government spending?

WE'RE OUT OF MONEY ASSHOLES No money to spend = broke. Continuous spending when broke = economic disaster. Economic disaster = mayhem and misery.

If I'm broke, or in debt up to my ass and beyond, and spending way more than I make, I can't "invest" in anything.

Ahhh, I just need a printing press. It all makes sense now. [Flower]

[ChunkyMonkey]

Liberal cannot tell the difference between an investment and a divestment. That's all I got to say on this topic.

[GilpinGuy]

Meh, just changed the channel to "Metal: A Headbanger's Journey" on VH1. Much more interesting.

[Teufelhund]

*Hijack*

Anyone else face palm when Romney issued the commercials advertising that Obama was going to take away the "work" requirement of welfare? Like good god man, do you realize what a significant portion of the voter base is? Overweight couch potatoes on welfare that uh, ya, don't really want to work. Not helping the votes by advertising that Obama want's to give leeches more freebies.

[Coffee]

That's a good point. "Alienate potential voters" seems to be the trending battle cry. God knows why anyone thinks that's a good idea.


I did facepalm earlier tonight when I saw an Obama commercial where a woman talks about how Romney made Mass. into number 47 in job growth, so now she's voting for Obama.

Why, because Obama's track record with job growth is more impressive? Someone remind me again how many Americans are out of work and how many are on some form of welfare.

[sellersm]

JIi_a93uaa8

Here ya go, a nation 'under water'.

[GilpinGuy]

Anyone else face palm when Romney issued the commercials advertising that Obama was going to take away the "work" requirement of welfare? Like good god man, do you realize what a significant portion of the voter base is? Overweight couch potatoes on welfare that uh, ya, don't really want to work. Not helping the votes by advertising that Obama want's to give leeches more freebies.

I think (and could be wrong - no evidence here) that most actual voters are working folks, or folks that want to work. Totally government-dependent sloths don't do anything that they don't have to, and they don't have to vote.

These ads reinforce the GOP base and (hopefully) convince some "independents" that this move by Obama was bad, like most moves he's made (those made on the basketball court excepted).

[jhood001]

*Hijack*

Anyone else face palm when Romney issued the commercials advertising that Obama was going to take away the "work" requirement of welfare? Like good god man, do you realize what a significant portion of the voter base is? Overweight couch potatoes on welfare that uh, ya, don't really want to work. Not helping the votes by advertising that Obama want's to give leeches more freebies.

[Coffee]

So are you arguing that Romney doesn't actually want to take the work requirement away? Or are you saying that he should lie about what he wants to do?

Are you encouraging a politician to lie or obscure the truth so that he can do what is right once they're in a position to do so?

If you believe obscuring one's agenda now so that they can do the right thing later is what this country needs, you just might be a part of the problem.

Just a thought.

[Rucker61]

*Hijack*

Anyone else face palm when Romney issued the commercials advertising that Obama was going to take away the "work" requirement of welfare? Like good god man, do you realize what a significant portion of the voter base is? Overweight couch potatoes on welfare that uh, ya, don't really want to work. Not helping the votes by advertising that Obama want's to give leeches more freebies.

[Coffee]

I'm curious. Just how many voters are on welfare? And what are their demographics. You seem to know.

[roberth]

I've been watching the Socialist National Conv.....oh, I mean the Democrat National Convention for the last half hour or so. I've heard the words "invest" or "investment" about 20 times. I can't take any more of the sewage spewing forth from their mouths.

When will the lefties realize that an "investment" by the government is simply more government spending?

WE'RE OUT OF MONEY ASSHOLES No money to spend = broke. Continuous spending when broke = economic disaster. Economic disaster = mayhem and misery.

If I'm broke, or in debt up to my ass and beyond, and spending way more than I make, I can't "invest" in anything.

Ahhh, I just need a printing press. It all makes sense now. [Flower]

The left is just redefining words to fit their paradigm.

[Rucker61]

Someone remind me again how many Americans are out of work and how many are on some form of welfare.

Roughly 12.5M unemployed, down from a high of

Welfare: 1.7% derive over 50% of their income from welfare, and about 8% (29.9 million) of the population receive some type of assistance (food stamps, etc.), if we count Temporary Aid to Needy Families. Demographically, the latter is broken down into about 39% white, 38% Black, 17% Hispanic.

Here's a article from WSJ that reports that almost half of the US population lived in a househould where at least one member received some benefit from the government.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/05/26/number-of-the-week-half-of-u-s-lives-in-household-getting-benefits/

Unfortunately, details on what counted as a benefit were lacking, so it's not a useful data point.

[Ronin13]

Roughly 12.5M unemployed, down from a high of

Welfare: 1.7% derive over 50% of their income from welfare, and about 8% (29.9 million) of the population receive some type of assistance (food stamps, etc.), if we count Temporary Aid to Needy Families. Demographically, the latter is broken down into about 39% white, 38% Black, 17% Hispanic.

Here's a article from WSJ that reports that almost half of the US population lived in a househould where at least one member received some benefit from the government.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/05/26/number-of-the-week-half-of-u-s-lives-in-household-getting-benefits/

Unfortunately, details on what counted as a benefit were lacking, so it's not a useful data point.

Actually your data is out of date-
As of 7/26/12 (most recent data available)
Total number of American’s on welfare 15,000,000 (4.1%)
Total government spending on welfare annually (not including food stamps or unemployment): $131.9 billion
Total amount of money you can make monthly and still receive Welfare: $1000
Total Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than an $8 per hour job: 40
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than a $12 per hour job: 7
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than the average salary of a U.S. Teacher: 9
TIME ON WELFARE PERCENTAGES:
Less than 7 months: 19%
7 to 12 months: 15.2%
1 to 2 years: 19.3%
2 to 5 years: 26.9%
Over 5 years: 19.6%
14.5 percent of people share a home with a person on Medicare, and 16 percent lived with someone reliant on Social Security.
32.4 percent of the U.S. population receives support with food stamps, subsidized housing and healthcare support.
Applications for state benefits have increased 50 percent in the past decade.

Entitlements have to go... they're sucking us dry. It's the scary, dirty, and unfortunate truth, but that's the way it is...

[Rucker61]

Actually your data is out of date


Quite possibly, although I suspect we'd find different data from just about every source. It's the inherent inaccuracy of collecting this type of data.

What is the source of your data?




Entitlements have to go... they're sucking us dry. It's the scary, dirty, and unfortunate truth, but that's the way it is...

What's your answer to the problem? Just turn off the spigot? Given the numbers you listed, there are a lot of people that would be affected, including plenty of seniors and children.

[MrPrena]

QE3..... QE4.....QE5......QE6.....

^^^^ MS


We get screwed...



I've been watching the Socialist National Conv.....oh, I mean the Democrat National Convention for the last half hour or so. I've heard the words "invest" or "investment" about 20 times. I can't take any more of the sewage spewing forth from their mouths.

When will the lefties realize that an "investment" by the government is simply more government spending?

WE'RE OUT OF MONEY ASSHOLES No money to spend = broke. Continuous spending when broke = economic disaster. Economic disaster = mayhem and misery.

If I'm broke, or in debt up to my ass and beyond, and spending way more than I make, I can't "invest" in anything.

Ahhh, I just need a printing press. It all makes sense now. [Flower]

[Ronin13]

Quite possibly, although I suspect we'd find different data from just about every source. It's the inherent inaccuracy of collecting this type of data.

What is the source of your data?



What's your answer to the problem? Just turn off the spigot? Given the numbers you listed, there are a lot of people that would be affected, including plenty of seniors and children.

Census data.
I'm not a policy maker, so I don't actually have a solution, but I can identify where the problem is. If you have a house on fire you have to put the fire out before you can even begin to think about rebuilding it.

[Ronin13]

AKA - the percentage of people on welfare is irrelevant. The percentage of people not paying taxes that would rather not have to work is highly relevant (even if they are working now). I'm sure some people here fall into that category. Work for $9 an hour or stay home and play WoW all day? Ya, you know who you are......

I would much rather sit at home and do nothing all day, but the reasonable, logical side of me says that I wouldn't have a home to sit at if I didn't work. Unemployment and welfare just wouldn't cut it, both financially or morally... I felt bad enough taking from unemployment when I did and when asked what I did for work during that time was about the most embarrassing position ever for me.

[Rucker61]

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/19/chart-of-the-week-nearly-half-of-all-americans-dont-pay-income-taxes/

It's pretty well known fact that close to half the country doesn't pay any taxes.



Doesn't pay any Federal Income Tax, to be correct. They still pay SS taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes and perhaps in some cases state income taxes.

Who are those people, anyway?

http://news.yahoo.com/numbers-47-percent-pay-no-income-tax-look-170500327.html




It's a well known historical and sociological fact, that when close to half of a democratic or similar civilization is not contributing, they start voting themselves benefits from the treasury.



Fortunately for us, then, we're not there. It's a bit misleading to claim these people aren't contributing. Given that households in the lower income brackets tend to not save or invest, they contibute to the sales tax revenue disproportionately. They also tend to spend all of their income locally to support local businesses.



AKA - the percentage of people on welfare is irrelevant. The percentage of people not paying taxes that would rather not have to work is highly relevant (even if they are working now). I'm sure some people here fall into that category. Work for $9 an hour or stay home and play WoW all day? Ya, you know who you are......

Just how may people fall into this subcategory, and how many fall into others like: no jobs in their locale, single parent families who can't afford the childcare it would take for a $9 job to support that family, folks between jobs, folks with substandard educations who aren't qualified for local jobs, folks trained in fields that no longer exist (or are trending down)?

The reason people don't pay taxes is that they don't make enough money to, and you can work full time at a $9 an hour job and easily avoid having to pay taxes through legal deductions and the minimum taxable income. Check out www.irs.gov (http://www.irs.gov) and see if you'd be willing to live at that income level to avoid taxes. Some people would, and do, but quite a few do and would prefer not to, but can't.

[Ronin13]

So Rucker, can I get this straight, you're all for the rich "paying their fair share?" Do you join the rest of the left in claiming we should eat the rich?

Let's take a look at America where the tax cap is at 55% (for many of the top of the food chain that's a 10% increase in taxes)... The top 5% of our nation who pays somewhere in the area of 65% of the taxes, decides that if they're going to get rich they'd have to give up more than half of their earned income to government. A government that doesn't handle their money wisely, no less. They decide that they don't like contributing more and more to a system that pretty much rewards laziness at the expense of their hard work. So they move. Then you see that 5% paying 65% of the taxes drops to 2%. That's a pretty huge burden for such a small number... it would be even more unsustainable than currently and we wouldn't pull in enough money to cover all those expenses. Remember, if we cut out the federal government, and military, we still wouldn't have enough for all these entitlements and pensions. And cutting out the government is impossible (I mean really, we do need the TSA and the DHS and the Department of Education! /sarcasm), cutting out the military is stupid (yes it could use some reform, and reduction in wasteful spending). So the bad news is, we have to say goodbye to the welfare, medicaid, medicare, social security and other social programs as we know them, and dramatically reform them... to the point where yes, a lot of liberals will get pissed, a lot of leeches will be butthurt.

I'll have you know right now, that with the way our tax code is, a lot of my friends who make a very decent amount of money refuse to let their wives work because their tax bracket is so high already. So yes, let's eat the rich, let's pick their bones dry so they can pay for everyone else! That's stupid. How about instead of bitching about why these people don't make enough to pay taxes, we make it so we improve the system so they can make enough to pay taxes, instead of taxing those who already pay more than their fair share. How about instead of complaining that they're too rich, we look at the fact that they pay the most in, and take the most out.

[Rucker61]

So Rucker, can I get this straight, you're all for the rich "paying their fair share?" Do you join the rest of the left in claiming we should eat the rich?


So, Ronin, did I mention the rich anywhere here? I was pointing out that one reason that the poor pay less or no taxes is because they're poor.





Let's take a look at America where the tax cap is at 55% (for many of the top of the food chain that's a 10% increase in taxes)...



The IRS standard rates top out at 35%, and AMT tops out at 28%.




The top 5% of our nation who pays somewhere in the area of 65% of the taxes,


They do make a lot of money, and to pay 65% of the taxes, they have to make a lot of money. And since both the standard tax rate and the AMT treat capitial gains at 15%, they make a whole lot of money. That's just math.




decides that if they're going to get rich they'd have to give up more than half of their earned income to government.



Less than half, which still leaves them a lot. A whole lot.




A government that doesn't handle their money wisely, no less.



Granted, not all the time, but there's a good bit of good activity, too. YMMV.




They decide that they don't like contributing more and more to a system that pretty much rewards laziness at the expense of their hard work.
So they move. Then you see that 5% paying 65% of the taxes drops to 2%. That's a pretty huge burden for such a small number.



I'm guessing there's no real data behind your decrease in the rich remaining in the tax base, and you presume that merely moving will remove the tax liability (hint: you can't move property). Lastly, the system doesn't reward laziness, but it does enable it in some circumstances. Is there anyone here who wouldn't work harder to be in a higher tax bracket? I know I would, if the opportunity was there.




.. it would be even more unsustainable than currently and we wouldn't pull in enough money to cover all those expenses. Remember, if we cut out the federal government, and military, we still wouldn't have enough for all these entitlements and pensions. And cutting out the government is impossible (I mean really, we do need the TSA and the DHS and the Department of Education! /sarcasm), cutting out the military is stupid (yes it could use some reform, and reduction in wasteful spending). So the bad news is, we have to say goodbye to the welfare, medicaid, medicare, social security and other social programs as we know them, and dramatically reform them... to the point where yes, a lot of liberals/moderates/conservatives will get pissed, a lot of leeches/truly deserving will be butthurt.


Cuts need to be made in all areas, but no one wants their rice bowl touched. I do feel that there is waste in every level and sector of government, just as you do. I think we'd have different some ideas on what to cut, and how much. We'd want to take a long look at long term consequenes, but the US has never been very good at that. Next quarter, or next election, that's about as far as the decision makers can focus.




I'll have you know right now, that with the way our tax code is, a lot of my friends who make a very decent amount of money refuse to let their wives work because their tax bracket is so high already.



Absent the idea of men refusing to let their wives work, let's take a look at this claim. Unless your friends are right on the edge of a tax bracket, and the incremental income the wives would bring to the household is tiny, the numbers just don't work out. Here are the current tax brackets:


http://www.emeraldhost.net/files/newsletters/12042_chart.jpg

Can you pick out some numbers in the 25% or higher brackets where a wife making up to say 50% of the husbands salary doesn't pay off?




So yes, let's eat the rich, let's pick their bones dry so they can pay for everyone else! That's stupid. How about instead of bitching about why these people don't make enough to pay taxes, we make it so we improve the system so they can make enough to pay taxes,


Okay, I'm bitching. I presume you're talking about more jobs, not increasing the minimum wage. What kind of jobs? Traditionally, manufacturing jobs have been the blue collar job of choice. How do we compete with overseas manufacturing costs? How do we convince American companies to create more jobs here instead of in Asia? I'm sure that corporate tax rates are a topic that will be considered, but how low would they have to go to impact job creation? Note that many small businesses are sole-proprietorships whose owners pay personal, not corporate income taxes, and that comparisons of nominal and effective corporate tax rates around the world don't include VAT, which is another tax paid in many of the western countries.




[instead of taxing those who already pay more than their fair share. How about instead of complaining that they're too rich, we look at the fact that they pay the most in, and take the most out.

I hardly think that 15% is more than anyone's fair share. You do realize that much of the income of the very rich falls into capital gains and not ordinary income, right? If I can pay 28%, why can't they?

[Rucker61]

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to object as to hearsay. Your opinion holds no factual weight. Last I checked, most people are spending shit purchasing shit from walmart whose corporate center is not local, and whose product is foreign.
Yea. Great economy booster. Just like all those stiumulus "I'll give you free money to buy a Chinese TV" programs. Do you believe your own bullshit?



Thank you for your courteous reply. Since you're so data driven, please provide a cite that shows that over 50% of the income of any particular income bracket is spent at Wal-Mart. You seem to be neglecting rent, utilities, transportation and other expenses that are typically paid locally. Even Walmart spending generates sales tax revenue, and the money paid to Walmart pays the wages of their employees, whom I surmise, live locally and also spend locally.



Again, going to object as to hearsay. You seem to be potentially intelligent, but unfortunately your logic complex seems to be shorting out in your cerebrum, and I'm going to object to your argument on relevance.

Tax brackets have little to do with who does, and who does not pay taxes. The fact of the matter is, virtually half of people do not pay taxes (remember, EIC credits, credits for having six anchor babies, etc. etc.).



Tax brackets have all of the significance in who pays taxes. You'll note that your "taxable income", which takes into account all of your credits above, and more, determines which bracket/rate you fall into.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf



Many of these people are "middle class".The accounting industry is entirely built around dodging taxes. Please provide your degree in accounting before spewing groundless opinion based rhetoric at fast. Otherwise, your opinions are wholly unqualified and are stricken.



I do have a double emphasis in Accounting and Operations Management MBA, and have the necessary education to be a CPA in Washington State, where I attended graduate school. Stop by for a beer and I'll show you the diploma and leftover textbooks. The tax accounting industry is built around avoiding taxes, which is perfectly legitimate. That's one reason many of us own a home instead of renting, to take advantage of the mortgage tax avoidance rules.




The point is - do you honestly think the vast majority of people, if given the option of early retirement or the option of paying 45-55% in taxes (scaling even more with more income) are going to chose the "slave" option? Your argument is... tax brackets.



Are you saying that you wouldn't want to be in the next higher tax bracket, even if your income tax rate was higher? If so, I think you and I use different math.

Anyone that makes enough money to be affected by the very highest of tax brackets can't really be considered a slave, as that's a taxable income of around $383k. I don't know any of those people, and what motivates them. I do know that HP's previous CEO Mark Hurd received enough money in his tenure for any, heck, quite a few, of us to retire and live quite well. He still goes to work every day.



Right. [Coffee] Those people are TOTALLY wanting to slave away for $9 an hour and if given the option, most WOULDNT take a government check for $10 an hour tax free instead. Makes total sense.

I agree, it makes no sense to work in those circumstances. Yet people still do. I wonder why? Given these circumstances, how do we provide a way to make a living for these folks?

[Irving]

I hardly think that 15% is more than anyone's fair share. You do realize that much of the income of the very rich falls into capital gains and not ordinary income, right? If I can pay 28%, why can't they?

A much better question is: If they can use their OWN money, to make money, and only be taxed at 15%, why can't you?

I asked myself that very question, and it has set me on a quest. Being poor sucks, so don't do it.

[Rucker61]

A much better question is: If they can use their OWN money, to make money, and only be taxed at 15%, why can't you?



It's the old saw, it takes money to make money. I've no objection to folks making money by hard work or their own investments. I have no respect for inherited money or Wall Street investment bankers who bet against their own advice. TANJ.




I asked myself that very question, and it has set me on a quest. Being poor sucks, so don't do it.

You damn betcha. When I was a kid, my family was one of those that didn't owe any income tax. Thank heaven for the socialized medicine, free housing, and subsidized food and consumer goods provided by the US Air Force and AAFES. Being poor sucked. Being upper middle class is much nicer.

[Irving]

It's the old saw, it takes money to make money. I've no objection to folks making money by hard work or their own investments. I have no respect for inherited money or Wall Street investment bankers who bet against their own advice. TANJ.


1) Does it take YOUR money to make money?
2) Why does the money have to be earned through hard work?
3) Wall street selling toxic assets as good buys? I agree. Someone inherited some money? Why should I have an opinion on that either way? If you had significant money left after you die, would you NOT give it to your children?


Being poor sucked. Being upper middle class is much nicer.

Why stop at upper middle class?

[roberth]

Originally Posted by Rucker61 http://www.ar-15.co/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ar-15.co/forums/showthread.php?p=614898#post614898)
I hardly think that 15% is more than anyone's fair share. You do realize that much of the income of the very rich falls into capital gains and not ordinary income, right? If I can pay 28%, why can't they?

You're not the jealous, envious sort at all are you. /sarc

These 'rich' people take a capital risk investing in the products and services that we need and use. Then someone like you comes along and purely out of spite for their success you want to punish them for their efforts so you can get your revenge.

No wonder I utterly despise people like you.

[Sharpienads]

It's the old saw, it takes money to make money. I've no objection to folks making money by hard work or their own investments. I have no respect for inherited money or Wall Street investment bankers who bet against their own advice. TANJ.

What's TANJ?

[Rucker61]

You're not the jealous, envious sort at all are you. /sarc

These 'rich' people take a capital risk investing in the products and services that we need and use. Then someone like you comes along and purely out of spite for their success you want to punish them for their efforts so you can get your revenge.


You realize that not all folks who make an income that falls under the 15% capital gains? I well understand investment and risk; Wall Street bankers who bet against their own advice, who pretended their was no risk to the investments they sold and bet against, did not risk their own money. CEOs don't risk their own money, yet their payment packages are set up to be taxed as capital gains, even if they fail as a CEO. You like that setup? I understand the need for corporations, and the pooling of capital. It's a good thing. It's the abuse of the system that bothers me.



No wonder I utterly despise people like you.

That's okay. I pity people like you.

[Rucker61]

What's TANJ?

From Larry Niven's Known Space setting: There Ain't No Justice. A common mild expletive in his books.

[BUC303]

I hardly think that 15% is more than anyone's fair share. If I can pay 28%, why can't they

This is an odd statement from someone who thinks it's fair that 47% of people are not paying any income tax.

[Rucker61]

1) Does it take YOUR money to make money?
2) Why does the money have to be earned through hard work?



I did qualify it with "their own investments". Being smart, taking risks and getting lucky are all great ways to get rich. Do you think that folks who simply inherit wealth deserve a lower tax rate than you pay?




3) Wall street selling toxic assets as good buys? I agree.


Someone inherited some money? Why should I have an opinion on that either way? If you had significant money left after you die, would you NOT give it to your children?



Bill Gates and Warren Buffett evidently don't feel it's good for the children, and that's where people like Paris Hilton and CU trustafarians come from.




Why stop at upper middle class?

The opportunities for that kind of advancement are not always there, no matter how hard you want or work. If some patent ideas pay off, though...

[Rucker61]

This is an odd statement from someone who thinks it's fair that 47% of people are not paying any income tax.

I never said anything about "fair". I did point out that if you have a taxable income above a certain level, you pay taxes. If your taxable income falls below that level, you don't. Not one person here would want to be in the position of being poor enough not to pay taxes. I've been there - it's no fun.

[Irving]

I did qualify it with "their own investments". Wrong answer. You don't have to use your own money to make money. If the idea is sound, someone else will put up the money for you.


Being smart, taking risks and getting lucky are all great ways to get rich. Do you think that folks who simply inherit wealth deserve a lower tax rate than you pay?
Yes I do. They would pay income tax the first time that they receive the income, and only then. Otherwise, they would have to pay income tax on the same income more than once. I have to frame my answer according to the law as it is currently written. I don't think there should be any taxes on an inheritance. If I give someone money, they shouldn't have to pay taxes on it. I don't think there should be death taxes either.




Bill Gates and Warren Buffett evidently don't feel it's good for the children, and that's where people like Paris Hilton and CU trustafarians come from.
I understand what you are saying here, and I will do my damndest to teach my own child/ren financial literacy so that they know how to make their own money. However, you have not answered the question. If you have children, and more money than you could spend, would you give any of it to your children?



The opportunities for that kind of advancement are not always there, no matter how hard you want or work. If some patent ideas pay off, though...

Opportunities for that kind of advancement ALWAYS exist, and have nothing to do with your day job. Expand your way of thinking. You'll never become rich with that mindset.

[sniper7]

You're not the jealous, envious sort at all are you. /sarc

These 'rich' people take a capital risk investing in the products and services that we need and use. Then someone like you comes along and purely out of spite for their success you want to punish them for their efforts so you can get your revenge.

No wonder I utterly despise people like you.

just add him to your ignore list. I don't have to listen to his BS anymore! I tried, he doesn't seem to get it. He just trolls the forums spewing liberal drivel. Easiest way to silence someone is not to respond[Tooth]

[Sharpienads]

I think 15% is more than anybody's fair share. If we have an income tax, it ought to be a flat tax. No higher than 10%. And everybody pays. 10% personal and 10% corporate. No deductions, no credits, no tax on investment. If the federal government can't live off that revenue than it is too big and too intrusive, and therefore too coercive.

[Rucker61]

I think 15% is more than anybody's fair share. If we have an income tax, it ought to be a flat tax. No higher than 10%. And everybody pays. 10% personal and 10% corporate. No deductions, no credits, no tax on investment. If the federal government can't live off that revenue than it is too big and too intrusive, and therefore too coercive.

What about other taxes, like excise tax, sales tax, property tax, state income tax, etc? Serious question.

[Sharpienads]

Duties, imposts, and excise taxes would be up to the federal government, but I'm not sure what they should be set at. I don't know enough about them.

All the other taxes mentioned would be up to the state. IMO, there should be no such thing as a property tax. I would rather pay more in other taxes and have no property tax. I would also rather pay more in taxes to my state than my federal government.

[Rucker61]

Wrong answer. You don't have to use your own money to make money. If the idea is sound, someone else will put up the money for you.



Good points all.




Yes I do. They would pay income tax the first time that they receive the income, and only then. Otherwise, they would have to pay income tax on the same income more than once. I have to frame my answer according to the law as it is currently written. I don't think there should be any taxes on an inheritance. If I give someone money, they shouldn't have to pay taxes on it. I don't think there should be death taxes either.



Fair enough.




I understand what you are saying here, and I will do my damndest to teach my own child/ren financial literacy so that they know how to make their own money. However, you have not answered the question. If you have children, and more money than you could spend, would you give any of it to your children?



The answer is a qualified 'yes'. Like you, I am teaching my children financial literacy.




Opportunities for that kind of advancement ALWAYS exist, and have nothing to do with your day job. Expand your way of thinking. You'll never become rich with that mindset.

True, but getting rich isn't my primary life goal.

[Rucker61]

Duties, imposts, and excise taxes would be up to the federal government, but I'm not sure what they should be set at. I don't know enough about them.

All the other taxes mentioned would be up to the state. IMO, there should be no such thing as a property tax. I would rather pay more in other taxes and have no property tax. I would also rather pay more in taxes to my state than my federal government.

Interesting. I wonder how it would model out?

[Irving]

True, but getting rich isn't my primary life goal.

Would being rich help you achieve your life goal?

[Rucker61]

Would being rich help you achieve your life goal?

Gotta wonder. Could I still raise my kids to be good men and good citizens if we had way more money? Doesn't work for a lot of rich folks, but it applies across the spectrum of incomes. Could I teach them the same if we were poor? My parents did, for most of us, but it's easier as a parent I think to not see your kids do without nice things. Could my kids get by going to school with just three outfits? Sure, but that's hard on a kid. Will they get a new car on their 16th birthday? Only if my wife buys it with my life insurance.

[Irving]

My loose plan is to start the financial education in high school. I remember ONCE in high school, we all bought stocks with fake money and watched the market for a few weeks.

I imagine I will do a similar exercise with my daughter, only it will be more like I will give her $500, and tell her to make as much money as possible with it as she can in 12 months. Of course I will have instructed her on different techniques before hand. Before all of that, I will cover the bases of how to manage the money that she already has, as I think that is the best foundation to have. You can't just go out and give a poor person money and not expect them to blow it or get in way over their head with it.

[Sharpienads]

Gotta wonder. Could I still raise my kids to be good men and good citizens if we had way more money? Doesn't work for a lot of rich folks, but it applies across the spectrum of incomes. Could I teach them the same if we were poor? My parents did, for most of us, but it's easier as a parent I think to not see your kids do without nice things. Could my kids get by going to school with just three outfits? Sure, but that's hard on a kid. Will they get a new car on their 16th birthday? Only if my wife buys it with my life insurance.

“What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: 'tis dearness only that gives everything its value.”

--Thomas Paine, The American Crisis

[Sharpienads]

Would being rich help you achieve your life goal?

If you were rich it would help me achieve my life goal of being on welfare. [Tooth]

[Rucker61]

Duties, imposts, and excise taxes would be up to the federal government, but I'm not sure what they should be set at. I don't know enough about them.

All the other taxes mentioned would be up to the state. IMO, there should be no such thing as a property tax. I would rather pay more in other taxes and have no property tax. I would also rather pay more in taxes to my state than my federal government.

New question: would you tax churches and non-profits?

[Sharpienads]

New question: would you tax churches and non-profits?

No. Why would you?

[Rucker61]

No. Why would you?

Why wouldn't you? Your plan said "everybody pays". How do you determine who is exempt? What qualifies as a church or non-profit?

[GilpinGuy]

I think 15% is more than anybody's fair share. If we have an income tax, it ought to be a flat tax. No higher than 10%. And everybody pays. 10% personal and 10% corporate. No deductions, no credits, no tax on investment. If the federal government can't live off that revenue than it is too big and too intrusive, and therefore too coercive.

I haven't heard Rucker comment on a flat tax yet. I like it. Everyone has some skin in the game then. No free ride at all, ever. Then federal income tax hikes have an effect on every voter - not just the 50% who pay now.

That might change the game a little.

[GilpinGuy]

What qualifies as a church or non-profit?

Current tax law qualifies them. Want to change that? Change the law.

Edit: To be clear, I'm sure that the tax law has specifications in them for what exactly qualifies. I'm not going to look up the exact language - you can do that if you want. For example, I can't claim that I am the High Priest of the "GilpinGuy Church" (members: 1) and get exempt.

[Sharpienads]

Why wouldn't you? Your plan said "everybody pays". How do you determine who is exempt? What qualifies as a church or non-profit?

Anybody that receives an income from a church or non profit organization would be taxed. But the organizations themselves would not be taxed. I don't know what the exact legal definition of what a church or nonprofit would be, but it would be what one generally considers to be a church or nonprofit. Not very precise, I know. But you get the general idea. Any money you donate would have already been taxed, and any item you donated would have already been taxed and paid for with already taxed money.

[Irving]

I would eliminate taxes on fees and fines.

[Sharpienads]

I haven't heard Rucker comment on a flat tax yet. I like it. Everyone has some skin in the game then. No free ride at all, ever. Then federal income tax hikes have an effect on every voter - not just the 50% who pay now.

That might change the game a little.

That's "if" we have an income tax. I don't don't like the idea of an income tax, but if that's what we have it should be flat and everybody should pay. I think a consumption tax might be a better way to go.

[Irving]

I think a consumption tax might be a better way to go.

What is your idea behind a consumption tax? Why should I be taxed because I purchase something?

[GilpinGuy]

...any item you donated would have already been taxed and paid for with already taxed money.

Libs do seem to have a problem understanding the double taxation thing, huh?

[Sharpienads]

What is your idea behind a consumption tax? Why should I be taxed because I purchase something?

You're already taxed everytime you buy something. The Fair Tax only taxes new goods at the point of retail and replaces the income tax. I'm typing on my phone right now so I don't feel like going into a lot of detail. But there are a lot of good aspects to the Fair Tax. I think its a little too complicated the way it is now, but could be simplified.

[Sharpienads]

Libs do seem to have a problem understanding the double taxation thing, huh?

Yeah, they do. My personal favorite though is when they say we can't afford tax breaks for the rich because it contributes to the deficit. There is so much wrong with that way of thinking its not even funny.

[Irving]

You're already taxed everytime you buy something. The Fair Tax only taxes new goods at the point of retail and replaces the income tax. I'm typing on my phone right now so I don't feel like going into a lot of detail. But there are a lot of good aspects to the Fair Tax. I think its a little too complicated the way it is now, but could be simplified.

Of course you're already taxed at purchase, but when I hear people suggest a consumption tax, I'm under the impression that it would be a significantly higher rate than the current sales tax.

[Goodburbon]

I like how they keep going on about the republican desire to "give" the rich people tax breaks.

NO! YOU'RE NOT GIVING ANYTHING, YOU'RE "NOT TAKING".

When politicians manipulate language and descriptions to evoke the response they desire it makes me sick. Both sides do it but the left is considerably more proficient.

Oh, and I was watching Bill Clinton speak at the DNC and every time they panned to the audience they would focus on one person and their reaction to the speech. I would instantly want to punch that person in the face.

[GilpinGuy]

That's "if" we have an income tax. I don't don't like the idea of an income tax, but if that's what we have it should be flat and everybody should pay. I think a consumption tax might be a better way to go.


What is your idea behind a consumption tax? Why should I be taxed because I purchase something?

We need a tax of some sort, right? The gov has to operate and needs funds for the operation. So if we did away with the income tax, a consumption tax is one option.

I'm with Irving here (I think). I just don't know if a consumption tax is the way to go. I've heard folks promote it. I would LOVE it personally. I don't go nuts at the mall every weekend and mosty buy used stuff, so it wouldn't hurt me that bad.

Here's a downside I can think of. Folks just won't buy as much new stuff because of the tax. Of course folks would have more cash on hand because there would be no income tax, so that's unlikely at first. But after a while they would get wise. Maybe not. Folks like their "stuff", that's for sure.

The tax would be rolled into the cost of any new product as well, so unless that cost was listed on every price tag, many folks wouldn't even get that their tax is XX amount. Details....

If anything I think we'll see a consumption tax ON TOP OF the income tax before anything else. This would be promoted as a tax on the wealthy as well.

[Sharpienads]

Of course you're already taxed at purchase, but when I hear people suggest a consumption tax, I'm under the impression that it would be a significantly higher rate than the current sales tax.

Yeah it would be higher. But there are pros and cons.

[GilpinGuy]

I like how they keep going on about the republican desire to "give" the rich people tax breaks.

NO! YOU'RE NOT GIVING ANYTHING, YOU'RE "NOT TAKING".


Haha! I've heard Rosen quote George Will (I think) in saying, "If I'm blowing cigar smoke in your face, then I stop blowing cigar smoke in your face, I'm not giving you clean air."

You earn $100 they take $20. Then you earn $100 and they only take $15. They didn't GIVE you $5. They allowed you to keep $5 more of what YOU earned. How nice.

[Irving]

I recently heard someone talking about being in favor of a consumption tax because it would be a way to stick it to the rich, and it rubbed me the wrong way. Now I am re-evaluating how I feel about a consumption tax.

What it boils down to, is that I think that people's money should only be taxed ONCE, period. The government tries to make sure that they get a cut of every financial transaction that takes place, and I don't agree with that concept. To accept that way of thinking, is to accept that those taxes are your payment for existing in society. The government does not allow me to live and engage in commerce, I allow the government an allowance in order to operate.

A good example of the government taking a slice of financial transactions is how the US government outlawed online gambling unless the companies paid taxes to the US government. This conversation reminds me that I need to research bitcoins some more. A lot of people are afraid of the concept of a global currency, but what about a global currency that no government has control over?

[Rucker61]

I haven't heard Rucker comment on a flat tax yet. I like it. Everyone has some skin in the game then. No free ride at all, ever.

Some quick research on various flat tax proposals indicates that "most serious" flat tax schemes require a "zero-bracket", ie, a level of income that isn't taxed. I don't think it's difficult to see that $1k of tax from a $10k family hurts more than $10k from a $100k family. The basic idea is that a certain level of income is exempt from the tax, say $20k, and everyone gets that same $20k deduction from their income. Something like this is more socially acceptable (read: acceptable by the left) and the flat tax rate should be lower to the wealthy than what they're paying. The hard part would be keeping those with the means of creating exceptions in their favor. We'd have to kill all the lawyers first.

[Sharpienads]

Some quick research on various flat tax proposals indicates that "most serious" flat tax schemes require a "zero-bracket", ie, a level of income that isn't taxed. I don't think it's difficult to see that $1k of tax from a $10k family hurts more than $10k from a $100k family. The basic idea is that a certain level of income is exempt from the tax, say $20k, and everyone gets that same $20k deduction from their income. Something like this is more socially acceptable (read: acceptable by the left) and the flat tax rate should be lower to the wealthy than what they're paying. The hard part would be keeping those with the means of creating exceptions in their favor. We'd have to kill all the lawyers first.

I don't agree with the zero bracket. If you don't pay you shouldn't have a say in what goes on. Besides, it would be all the more reason for everybody to want lower taxes. Or, if you don't pay taxes, you don't get to vote. But I think everybody should vote, ergo everybody pays taxes.

Or, something that I just thought of: Maybe there should be no direct taxation by the federal government on individuals. The states collect taxes, the states propose the federal budget, and the federal government collects taxes from the states. Interesting idea...

ETA: I guess if states still appointed senators (thank the progressive movement for the change), the states would propose the budget. Time to repeal the 17th amendment.

[Ronin13]

I have no respect for inherited money

So what should people who inherit things do? Give it all up and start from scratch? How can one decide what kind of life they're born into? Seems to me the only people who have issue with those who inherited their wealth are those who have little to no wealth. I would say this is that age old word, oh what's it called? Envy! I have a few friends who were fortunate enough to have been born into families that achieved huge financial success, that's not their fault. One such has a father who is a freaking genius when it comes to investments and has pretty much done what Romney did with Bane Capital, he helps businesses, and has made quite a bit. How is that his kids fault that they're born into that life? Again, you sound like one of those who wants to eat the rich.... not passing judgement, just making an observation based on your demeanor and what you've posted thus far.

Heres one for you for the sake of argument:

How is an equal percentage "fair"? If Joe Shmoe pays $6.25 in taxes, and Joeseph Shmore pays $501,250, which covers Joe Schmoes food stamps, medical care, etc. etc... but they both pay $15% (after Joe Schmoe gets his tax credits), how is that fair taxation?
Fair and taxation do not belong in the same sentence in our society today... I don't get how, for example, my dad pays 23%, I pay 11%, in income tax. I make substantially less than he does, but I have less tax deductions than he does (for one, I don't own a house). His main argument is that if he's paying say $23,000 in taxes (if we use $100,000 income for argument's sake) is that fair? What about people making $23,000 that pay 0% taxes? Is that fair? He pays what they make in a year in taxes. But what he says is, he is less likely to use nearly as many services, but pays into the system, meanwhile, those who don't pay into the system (or do so in very small amounts- if we only talk about income tax) are those who use it the most. And what is a fair share? Because he can afford to pay 2-5% more in taxes that he should? What about his friends that earn 3x what he does, they can afford to pay more in taxes, so should they? Is that fair? When you punish success too much, you eliminate success.

[merl]

a flat tax wont happen for the simple reason that Govt would then lose all thier ability to 'encourage' things with deductions, credits, and penalties. Govt would have to be more open about it "buy something green and we'll send you a check for 4k"

[Byte Stryke]

aww, you guys just simmer down and pay your lapdance tax. (http://bit.ly/UvJB2w)

[sniper7]

I really don't understand why you guys even bother to respond to Rucker. it is obvious that all of us combined pointing out point after point, fact after fact have no impact on him. Ignore him and let him go away. He doesn't get it. Some people don't "get it", and I refuse to give them the time of day.

As to taxes, anyone who is jealous of wealth, thinks people should give up inheritance, should be double taxed or taxed extra just because they have done well in their lives are petty low life thieves. They are just mad at themselves they were not afforded the luxury to have nice things, not worry as much about money or have parents who were successful.