unclestu
Cave Dweller
WINNER OF THE FIRST RTH KILLER CAB CONTEST UNCLESTU'S AGUA NUEVA AGATE
Member since April 2011
Posts: 2,298
|
Post by unclestu on Nov 14, 2012 21:11:29 GMT -5
In another thread I noticed a post that stated that the reason why our roads were falling apart and children were dying was because people making 21,000,000.00 were only paying 14% tax. That amounts to almost 3,000,000.00 in tax paid by one person. So I posted a question asking why $2,940,000.00 was not enough tax for one person to pay. In response I received an analogy about chewing gum. So i elaborated by posting the following to which I got no reply. As the thread was one about Obamacare I thought maybe that was why I didn't get any feedback on my post. So I am going to pose the same comment here in this thread with the hope of getting some opinions as to why one person paying $2,940,000 is not enough.
The question is: Why is $2,940,000. paid by one person in tax not enough? I don't know the guy paying 2,940,000 is contributing far more than the person who might be earning 35,000 and maybe paying 5,000 in taxes. Also the person making 35,000 and paying 5,000 is in most cases is utilizing more services provided by the government than the person who might make 21,000,000 and is paying 2,940,000 in taxes. Going to your example of chewing gum or better yet lets make it an item which is more meaningful. Say gasoline to go to work. Should a person with a high income be forced to pay a price for gasoline or taxed for gasoline based upon his income?
If you were a fund raiser for a charity and you went to call on a person making 21,000,000 for a donation and he donated 3,000,000 to your charity would you turn around and say that he was not giving enough because he was giving the same percentage of his income as a person making far less money? I don't think so. Stu
|
|
The Dad_Ohs
fully equipped rock polisher
Take me to your Labradorite!!
Member since September 2012
Posts: 1,860
|
Post by The Dad_Ohs on Nov 14, 2012 21:25:09 GMT -5
I understand your dilemma stu, but ask yourself this... why isn't the guy making 35000 allowed the same tax breaks as the guy making 21,000,000. Why should he pay more in adjusted taxes than the 21,000,000 guy. Why should the 35,000 guy be punished for not making as much money?
In this grand country of ours the saying the rich get richer is especially true because of all the tax breaks the wealthy get that the common man does not qualify for. That's why the subject of taxes is always so hot during elections. I'm not saying they should pay more, but if they get tax breaks for something, so should everyone else regardless of income. The only problem with this is the government would have gone broke decades ago if they ever put it into action. Personally I think if they got rid of all the deductions and make it a simple percentage of your income was taxable, it would put more money out there for the gov't to use and make for a lot less pressure on everybody. I also think that the president and all his flunkies should give up all their wealth when elected to office and receive a share based on the condition of the country when they leave office, if the country does poorly, so will you...kind of an incentive program to make it work for a change!!
|
|
|
Post by deb193redux on Nov 14, 2012 23:34:50 GMT -5
Absolute vs relative. It is a valid question. Also, does the nature of the income matter? Paid work, or carried interest (i.e., investment w/o risk). Should it matter? Also what if it is the sole genius of the taxpayer (like an invention) or an enterprise that leverages large parts of the public infrastructure (e.g., you didn't build that by yourself)?
All good questions.
But my question is what is your agenda? Why do you want (seemingly insist) to discuss this topic on a rock/lapidary forum? You present as asking a question, but you aren’t actually asking a question – are you? … and why on a lapidary forum? What even suggests that people who polish rock are even informed on the issue?
There are tax forums, social policy forums, and economic forums. There are pro/con forums where reasoned arguments are posted for each side and folks comment. I’m not saying the discussion in those forums is always informed, high-minded, or even civil. But with just a little looking you could find good quality informed discussion on tax and/or tax reform issues.
So why here? What broken part of your personality demands that the topic be hashed out here? What leads you to be an internet troll? You seem very insistent. Not getting a response on this topic in a healthcare thread, you start a new thread and press the point. It is obviously not about hearing what others think, nor is it at all related to lapidary.
So, I ask, why do people insist that these topics be shouted-out here? What’s the deal? It is clearly not about an answer in most cases, or even about listening. My theory is that folks just want to rant, my judgment is that most minds are closed, and my suspicion is that folks are afraid to seek out forums where informed discussions are taking place.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Nov 15, 2012 0:23:02 GMT -5
Life, the Universe and Everything!!! Because this is where you ask questions that are non rock related.
|
|
unclestu
Cave Dweller
WINNER OF THE FIRST RTH KILLER CAB CONTEST UNCLESTU'S AGUA NUEVA AGATE
Member since April 2011
Posts: 2,298
|
Post by unclestu on Nov 15, 2012 0:47:02 GMT -5
Absolute vs relative. It is a valid question. Also, does the nature of the income matter? Paid work, or carried interest (i.e., investment w/o risk). Should it matter? Also what if it is the sole genius of the taxpayer (like an invention) or an enterprise that leverages large parts of the public infrastructure (e.g., you didn't build that by yourself)? All good questions. But my question is what is your agenda? Why do you want (seemingly insist) to discuss this topic on a rock/lapidary forum? You present as asking a question, but you aren’t actually asking a question – are you? … and why on a lapidary forum? What even suggests that people who polish rock are even informed on the issue? There are tax forums, social policy forums, and economic forums. There are pro/con forums where reasoned arguments are posted for each side and folks comment. I’m not saying the discussion in those forums is always informed, high-minded, or even civil. But with just a little looking you could find good quality informed discussion on tax and/or tax reform issues. So why here? What broken part of your personality demands that the topic be hashed out here? What leads you to be an internet troll? You seem very insistent. Not getting a response on this topic in a healthcare thread, you start a new thread and press the point. It is obviously not about hearing what others think, nor is it at all related to lapidary. So, I ask, why do people insist that these topics be shouted-out here? What’s the deal? It is clearly not about an answer in most cases, or even about listening. My theory is that folks just want to rant, my judgment is that most minds are closed, and my suspicion is that folks are afraid to seek out forums where informed discussions are taking place. In reading your hostile response I thought that I might have posted this thread on the wrong board but I checked and as I understand the "Life, Universe and Everything" is the appropriate board for posting this thread. So why all the anger? I have no agenda. In reading comments that were made in a thread about Obamacare I came across a comment claiming that the state of broken roads and children dying were the result of the fact that a person earning $21,000,000. only paid 14% in taxes. So I posted a reply which did not get any feedback. Seeing that the posts that followed dealt primarily with health care I thought that perhaps the comment that I posted in response to was probably an anomaly, so I redirected my inquiry in a new thread unrelated to health care though still on the same Life, the Universe and Everything"board. You speak about my supposed "broken personality" I ask you what aspect of your broken personality is it that would prompt you to be so insulting to me. I did nothing to you. I see that you have over 3000 posts on this forum. I would think that by now you would have realized that these type od discussions are part of the culture of this forum as long as they are kept within the "Life, the Universe and Everything" board. I am in partial agreement with your theory that most folks want to rant as your post is a testament to that. You definitely posted a nice rant. However if that is what a person wants to do, rant, than if they are doing it in the "Life,the Universe and Everything " board they are in the right place and among the right company. If you find that offensive, irritating or what ever I suggest that you not click onto those threads. Especially if you are unable or un willing to conduct yourself in a manner that is not offensive or insulting to others. Stu
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Nov 15, 2012 1:01:50 GMT -5
Daniel, I hope you aren't offended by this, but if the conversation doesn't interest you perhaps you should find another. Starting a new thread instead of participating in the highjacking of another thread is the right thing to do. It says: "LIFE, THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING" "From time to time things not related to rocks are talked about. Politics, etc" Fairly easy to understand
"My theory is that folks just want to rant, my judgment is that most minds are closed, and my suspicion is that folks are afraid to seek out forums where informed discussions are taking place." If that is the case, why are you here and not where your informed people are?
Oh, sorry for the hijack Stu.
Lee
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Nov 15, 2012 1:16:08 GMT -5
Did you know that the top 0.2% pay 22.8% of total taxes paid? 1/500 of the people pay almost 1/4 of government revenue, can that in any way even be remotely considered fair by anyone who has a brain?
Lee
|
|
fmelvis
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since November 2010
Posts: 235
|
Post by fmelvis on Nov 15, 2012 7:33:54 GMT -5
well, I guess the election answered your question. People don't think its fair. If romney paid the same rate as the person making 35000, I don't think he would lose his summer house. I think people are tired about certain people playing by different rules. Income where I don't lift a finger is special somehow.
Its like someone trying to convince you that paint thrown at a canvas is art. People aren't that stupid.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Nov 15, 2012 9:34:21 GMT -5
well, I guess the election answered your question.
The only thing the election proved is that it can be bought and won with attacks.
|
|
fmelvis
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since November 2010
Posts: 235
|
Post by fmelvis on Nov 15, 2012 9:45:00 GMT -5
wasn't the gop buying votes with lower taxes for all? Isn't that a bit of a carrot?
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Nov 15, 2012 12:04:12 GMT -5
Yes it is a type of carrot. But if your paying taxes, that means your working and contributing to your country. Not your country contributing to you.
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Nov 17, 2012 2:20:08 GMT -5
What exactly does "tax the rich" mean?
What makes them rich? For the most part providing services or goods to everyone, right?
So when something like a tax comes along and increases their cost of doing business, what do they do? Either increase their prices or reduce costs. If they increase the price who pays? Customers (everybody) If they reduce the cost to do business where do they cut? Usually labor, the only true variable for most businesses. In other words, no raises and people laid off.
So who really pays? US, all of us, especially middle class workers.
The problem is not where the taxes come from, that never changes. The problem is HOW MUCH they take.
IT'S THE SPENDING, STUPID!!!!
Lee
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2012 3:49:08 GMT -5
What makes them rich? For the most part providing services or goods to everyone, right? A small percentage of them do. Many more do not. It is difficult to imagine what "services or goods" are provided by people who do absolutely nothing more than garner income from investments (and many don't even manage their own investments). Your average plumber does a lot more actual work than the average top executive, whose production is farmed out among many lower-level employees. Sure, he spent a couple of hundred thousand more in college tuition than the plumber did in his apprenticeship and certification, but does that justify the top executive (of ANY company) making more in one hour than a hardworking plumber or other employee makes in an entire year? To restate your question: Where is any conceivable fairness in that? That is fallacious rhetoric. On their way to their first few million, entrepreneurs do indeed often work hard in providing services and goods. Once they have some security under their belts and their needs are met, the rest is, as they say, just scorekeeping. The MARKET, what customers are willing or can pay, determines prices, NOT tax rates. Even gold is worthless if no one can afford to buy or trade for it, that's a basic tenet of capitalism. When the top income tax rate was over 90% back in the 1950's (with fewer deductions than today, and under a Republican administration and Congress) we still had people like Howard Hughes and J. Paul Getty breaking into the billionaire's club, and prices didn't skyrocket at all (they were very stable and affordable, thank you). Those are always part of the problem. It affects any organization, including government and including business. Does that mean that we need to revert to the kleptocracy that was the norm just over a century ago when the Robber Barons enjoyed sky-high incomes and very low taxes, there was almost no middle class as we've come to know it, and little social mobility for the vast majority of hard-working people? That era saw the rise of radical Anarchist and Marxist movements, because people will only take so much of that hopeless situation. In some nations (including Teddy Roosevelt in the US, himself a Republican and scion of the plutocracy) reforms that included safety and financial regulation, progressive tax rates, etc. were implemented. Countries such as Russia who turned a blind eye to the abuses, didn't survive, while those that took measures to improve the lot of the majority thrived. As Santayana famously said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,487
|
Post by Sabre52 on Nov 17, 2012 9:46:43 GMT -5
Perhaps I think too simply, but to me the tax issue should be easy to solve. Flat tax and "everybody" who has income pays. " Everybody" Some deductions allowed, charity, real business expenses, childcare, etc but a cap on total deductions of maybe the 25K Romney mentioned. That way, everyone, even the poorest individual earner, has chips in the game and everyone contributes a fair share.
I know this will overstimulate all you libs *L* but I also think, if you are not a taxpayer, you should not be able to vote. A voter should not only have to verify their ID but they should verify their status as a person who has paid taxes. ( couples with a non working spouse would still qualify as long as they file a joint return) That way, you don't have folks with no chips in the game voting for the candidate that promises them the most free stuff, like we do now. Those folks are dependents, just like little children, and dependents should not have a say in the passage of laws or election of government...Mel
|
|
agatemaggot
Cave Dweller
Member since August 2006
Posts: 2,195
|
Post by agatemaggot on Nov 17, 2012 10:08:58 GMT -5
Well stated Mel :2cents:
|
|
chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Nov 17, 2012 10:57:04 GMT -5
If we could get a cap on deductions(including charity/mortgage/etc) to something like 25K/per filing and start treating Capital Gains like Bank Interest and other income we could solve many of the ills of this countries tax system
charlie
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Nov 17, 2012 11:06:23 GMT -5
“Perhaps I think too simply . . . “ ;D Have fun running those elections. Separate elections for state, local and federal, depending on what you paid to either one, eh? Can a renter vote in local elections. Or don’t you think he’s paying any property tax. I drive a lot. Can I get three-fifths of a vote for my federal gas tax? How bout one-fifth? “couples with a non working spouse would still qualify as long as they file a joint return” Why? Free-ridin’ bitches (or slugs) if you ask me. NEED AN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Nov 17, 2012 11:33:18 GMT -5
I lost my job two years ago. My unemployment ran out last year. The dog ran away. My feet are killin’ me and my hemorrhoids are actin’ up.
Could I vote last week? Or did I have to show a current pay stub?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2012 13:12:13 GMT -5
I agree, we don't need to go back to the pre-Jacksonian days of only rich landowners being able to vote, literacy tests and other measures that made democracy anything but.
A "flat tax" is regressive, and doesn't take the ability to pay into account (which historically has been the big problem with such taxes). When you start tweaking by introducing deductions, exemptions, etc., to make them more fair to the working poor, retirees, jobless, disabled and others who just barely get by, you no longer have a flat tax. You can also bet that the billionaires who have their own lobbiests on their payrolls will do everything in their power to introduce tweaks that benefit them in any "modified flat tax" proposal, and their voices (and money) are going to be a lot louder than those of middle income people. Worse, the layers of state, city and other local taxes are never going to be "flat" and even more unfairly target lower and middle income people.
If we want true tax reform, the "flat tax" proposals are regressive and every bit as unfair as what they'd replace. How about some new ideas? Why don't we just ditch taxes altogether?
Surely we could come up with a better, more modern way of funding government than the 5,000 year old idea of confiscatory taxation. A truly capitalist, even progressive, system would acknowledge that the government prints the money to pay for its programs regardless of how much revenue is raised through taxation – always has, always will. So it is the market which determines whether it is printing too much or too little to fund itself (through inflation and deflation). Why not just eliminate the unnecessary and wasteful dog and pony show of taxation completely? Spending restraints (tied to GDP), incentives to attract and keep money here, ways to level the playing field for the lower and middle classes, etc. could all be built into such true reform. Of course, that would get a bunch of accountants and tax lawyers hopping mad, but would save some of us $$$ in their fees and years added to our lives in getting rid of the sheer frustration. This is the 21st century, and we need some new ideas – not more frayed old retreads.
That is likely something that would NOT be favored by the elite earners, though (unless they could sabotage it during the legislative process with more breaks for themselves). Maybe you haven't met anyone who kept a personal lobbiest in Washington, but I have, and those lobbiests wouldn't be there if they didn't earn their high salaries by bringing home favors that more than make up for the cost. Despite the rhetoric pushed by their PR machine, the current system isn't tilted toward the lower classes, much less the middle class. It favors THEM (don't believe me, start reading the current code which is full of esoteric exemptions put in their by THEIR lobbiests). Just deciphering the thing takes a squad of detectives, which is why a good tax attorney can charge the big bucks in fees.
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,487
|
Post by Sabre52 on Nov 17, 2012 13:13:26 GMT -5
Nope , no vote for youse Rich. I worked for year with roids and sore feet and still do, you freaking cry baby *L*. Dependent children do not get to vote themselves more candy. You can vote again when you work and pay taxes and contribute to the common good, Isn't that "common good" thing what you libs like? You would need a tax receipt showing you had paid income taxes in the last year. I'd consider property tax too but not sales or gas or any of those "use" taxes. Until then, the folks who work, earn, money and pay taxes get to make the decisions as you are like a dependent child and should have no say on how the money others contribute is spent or in what politicians are elected *L*.
Of coarse a renter can vote if they work and pay income taxes. No work, no taxes, no chips in the game, dependent, no vote.
Non working spouses still theoretically contribute work to the household. If your wife is willing to support you while you lay on the sofa, cry over your roids and play video games, and you file a joint return, lucky you, you still get to vote *L* However, if you're still living in your mom's basement and are still a dependent, suck it, no vote for you unless your parents feel your services are valuable and issue you a paycheck for housesitting and you have taxes taken out *L*...Mel
|
|