Printable View
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodburbon
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.
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by GilpinGuy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
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"
aww, you guys just simmer down and pay your lapdance tax.
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.