Taxes for Rich.
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=188922
Printed Date: 30 July 2026 at 3:53pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Taxes for Rich.
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Subject: Taxes for Rich.
Date Posted: 15 August 2011 at 7:45am
|
While I am sure it doesn't represent the views of all superwealthy Americans:
http://news.yahoo.com/stop-coddling-super-rich-buffett-084140678.html - http://news.yahoo.com/stop-coddling-super-rich-buffett-084140678.html
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Replies:
Posted By: Chadb1520
Date Posted: 15 August 2011 at 7:51am
|
id just be happy if everyone paid their taxes around forty percent of americans do not pay taxes into the government and recieve a government check ------------- All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. Thomas Jefferson |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 15 August 2011 at 8:05am
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Chadb1520 wrote:Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 15 August 2011 at 8:33am
|
If your the top 1%, you should get taxed 99%.
If your te top 10%, you should get taxed 90%
Etc. Etc.
There should be no motivation to make money, for personal gain.
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 15 August 2011 at 8:44am
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 15 August 2011 at 9:44am
|
Of course he's trolling.
I don't think any rational person believes that we should leave the current tax loopholes open. It is amazing how uninformed members of the middle class are about the rich, how much money they have, and why they need it.
A timeline of tax rates for the rich:
http://mercatus.org/publication/tax-rates-vs-tax-revenues - Tax Rates vs. Tax Revenues | Mercatus
 ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 15 August 2011 at 10:29am
They tried that in the USSR between 1922 and 1991. KBK ------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2 |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 15 August 2011 at 10:53am
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 15 August 2011 at 12:01pm
|
People should not be able to obtain mansions, just imagine how many people could live in a structure like that. Every American should have the same sized room, in a housing complex. No American should have more than one car, unless it's used for a greater good. There is no reason someone needs two vehicles. Ownership of gold, and other fine metals needs to be illegal. Not having faith in our dollar, should be treason. All transactions of goods, needs to be used in the form of our national currency. Trading services or goods should be a federal crime. Anyone who participates in a athletic activity, needs to pay a fine for their unnecessary contribution of carbon dioxide |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 15 August 2011 at 12:25pm
| I hardly think Buffett is preaching communism, impulse. He's merely acting as the first ultra-wealthy philanthropist to point out the disparity in taxation practices which unfairly favor the rich AND the poor putting a disproportionate load on the middle class. |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 15 August 2011 at 12:32pm
|
Oh the middle class is definitely getting shafted, dry. Poor don't pay taxes, but suck up money. And the rich have the money to hire good accountants, or put their money in off shore accounts. There is a reason DHS, is monitoring the middle class heavily. You can only piss on someone for so long. |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 15 August 2011 at 1:23pm
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 15 August 2011 at 1:46pm
 ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 15 August 2011 at 3:19pm
|
Yeah, communism is great. I mean like, who needs a capatalist society that promotes free thinking. The world would be a much better place if Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were thrown into shoe factories at age 16. In fact, I would love it if we had shortages of all commercial goods and rolling blackouts. ------------- 
|
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 15 August 2011 at 6:53pm
|
Most of the rich have no income technically, so that is how they get away without paying income tax. They have assets. When they need money they sell these assets and pay a capitol (sp?) gains tax. That is roughly around 15%. Now there are several libs out there that are for upping the cap gains tax just so the rich will pay more of their "fair share". Now, if I was rich as all get out and they raise the cap gains tax to oh, say 40%, do you think I'm going to be selling any assets? Hell no. I'll sit on them. I wouldn't be the only one either. So much for getting extra income from the rich.
Now, there is nothing stopping Buffet from paying extra in taxes. The IRS will accept money from anyone. They're just waiting for the checks to arrive. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 15 August 2011 at 6:59pm
Not if they're into that kinda thing. ------------- 
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 15 August 2011 at 8:14pm
|
I missed the FAIL stamp. |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 15 August 2011 at 8:19pm
|
I figured it was about time to bring it back. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: deadeye007
Date Posted: 15 August 2011 at 9:45pm
|
I've heard the rich should "Pay their fair share". I just cant understand how paying 35% when someone else pays 10% is Fair. Then again I don't understand how people that don't pay taxes get tax returns either. ------------- Face it guys, common sense is a form of wealth and we're surrounded by poverty.-Strato |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 15 August 2011 at 9:57pm
Economics.
|
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 16 August 2011 at 12:10pm
You would if you wanted to pay for stuff. You know, basic stuff - like food, clothes, and Ferraris. ------------- 
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 16 August 2011 at 12:17pm
|
I love how we blame the "rich" for not pulling their weight. But are fine with paying taxes to fund things we don't agree with. Can we stop paying interest to the Fed Res, and our countless endless wars. That should free up some money. |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 16 August 2011 at 1:54pm
Inb4 income disparity between top 1% and everyone else. Srsly, last I knew they held 80% of the wealth and contributed only 65% of the tax revenue for the government. That's not exactly paying their "fair" share, if true. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 16 August 2011 at 4:50pm
I'm sorry, you are going to have to translate this into non-whargarrbl for me. -------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 16 August 2011 at 5:04pm
Please stop lumping me in with yourself, I am not against our presence in either Iraq or Afghanistan. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 16 August 2011 at 7:57pm
|
Actually by statistics released by the CBO, 25% of Americans pay 86% of all Federal Income taxes collected. 46% of the population pay NOTHING in actual Federal Income Taxes, and a high percentage of that 46% recieve money in tax credits as well. So the small majority (25%)support the 46% in benifits and entitlements, as well as tax credits, all the while being told that they do not pay their 'fair share'.
If we read Marx, and Lenin the focus of the arguement was the Aristocracy held the money and the workers needed their 'fair share' to be seen as all the wealth of the Aristocracy, and all the revolution did was change the possetion of the wealth from the Czar and Aristocracy to the Commisars and The Party, how much more did the actual worker recieve after the revolution. And on Warren Buffet, need to take a road trip to Omaha and ask the employees of Union Pacific what they think of their true boss. Berkshire Hathaway has a tendancy to search for low wage workers and areas, constantly shifting rail support activities to lower laboe costs areas, all for the search in that little more profit margein for Berkshire Hathaway, and ultimately Mr Buffet himself. And rest assured Mr Buffet and his minions of lawyers have all the hedges in place to protect his millions/billions as the government goes after others not so prepared. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 16 August 2011 at 11:22pm
... and this has what to do with the validity of his point? -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 16 August 2011 at 11:36pm
If statistics were cats, PeTA would be outraged by the abuses in this thread.
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 17 August 2011 at 11:55am
|
You whine when people don't use facts. You when when people make sarcastic statements, like the one you just used. Pick one. |
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 17 August 2011 at 12:50pm
-------------
|
Posted By: deadeye007
Date Posted: 17 August 2011 at 1:24pm
So 35% and 10% are equal? ------------- Face it guys, common sense is a form of wealth and we're surrounded by poverty.-Strato |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 17 August 2011 at 1:34pm
I don't recall whining. Or whenning, whatever that may be. They are highly misused statistics. They show a lack of knowledge in how taxation, or even basic economics, work. The percentage of people that "don't pay taxes" makes the assumption, for one, that they don't pay any form of tax. Which is usually an intentional conflation of concepts. Also, it's ignoring the basic understanding of economics behind the threshold one must pass in order to pay said Federal taxes. At a point, it no longer becomes conducive to the economy to collect taxes from those not earning much. By allowing them to retain their smaller incomes, they have the ability to continue spending. Spending, as we all know, keeps the economy functioning. The statistic of "__% don't even pay taxes!" should be more concerning on the topic of poverty and stagnating income than some kind of perceived injustice to billionaires. And on that note, the statistics of "__% pay __% of te taxes!" ignores the income gap between the that initial paying percentage. By focusing only on the percentage of taxes paid as a flat pie, you ignore the fact that those in the upper sections have far more income and general wealth. And, on average, they're paying a lower percentage than those earning far less - yet, they're still paying a bigger chunk. Essentially, they're paying "more" because they have more. It is, plain and simple, egregious abuse of statistics.
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 17 August 2011 at 1:44pm
Economic functionality does not always run on "equal." There are reasons those mechanisms you speak about exist. As I mentioned in a previous post, there is an income threshold where when you dip below it, taxation no longer becomes beneficial to the economy as a whole. You lose return on investment, as the people with low incomes no longer have the ability to purchase. Think of Henry Ford's basic concept of paying his employees a higher wage than other factory workers, because he knew by doing so they'd have enough money to actually buy his cars. You also make the incorrect assumption that the upper ends of the spectrum are paying anywhere close to 35 percent. But that's another discussion.
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 17 August 2011 at 2:48pm
|
"25% of Americans pay 86% of all Federal Income taxes collected" is a pretty direct statisic of one single point FEDERAL IBCOME TAXES COLLECTED. And that 46% of the population pays NOTHING in actual FEDERAL INCOME TAXES, again is a pretty direct statisic. Both statements are hard to misunderstand. FEDERAL INCOME TAXES are the key phrase there.
The whole concept that the 'poor' are unjustly taxed higher in Federal Income Taxes, than the rich flies in the face of the actual statistics supplied by the CBO. 'Perception is the truth of the moment' and if the left can continue this perception of the tax structure to that 46% who contribute nothing to the Federal Debt, but for the most cases continue to add to it in the collection of their benifits and entitlements, they will remain in political control of that percentage of the population. Combined in all taxes collected I as 'upper middle class' pay in 57% of total household income in all taxes combined. Property, School, sales, auto, gasaoline, wheel, alcohol, etc the combined tax on my families income is @57%. And there are those like Whale who still believe that individuals such as myself are not paying enough. The business taxes (IFTA, Fuel, Quarterlies, etc)on J&L Transport my small trucking company ( the guy who still drives my old truck) makes my actual 'profit' after all operating cost this year at $.02 a mile, where in 2007 when I was driving if I take out the 'employee' (myself)cost was @$.07 per mile. I am structured right now where I could buy 2 more trucks and employ 2 more people, but in this uncertian and hostile business enviornment created by this administration my question is can I afford the risk? So now by the definition of the left, my decesion to keep my 'wealth' and not spend it to hire 2 more people is 'evil', and I should be taxed more for my greed. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 17 August 2011 at 3:03pm
And what is the income level, on mean and median, of that 25 percent, compared to the others in this pie?
And what is the income level, on mean and median, of that 46 percent, compared to the others in this pie?
Yet here you are.
|
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 17 August 2011 at 8:42pm
If you say so. Which I find somewhat ironic, since you are usually loudly proclaiming how we are paying way too much tax when you add in all the taxes we pay, not just that federal income tax, and how we shouldn't focus just on federal income tax. FICA/medicare taxes, are regressive - the more you make, the less you pay, proportionally. The same is largely true of sales/use type taxes as well, although that varies in a more complex fashion. As you have pointed out to us on many occasions, if you add up all the taxes we pay, we all pay quite a bit. So your post, regardless of factual accuracy, is wildly misleading. -------------
|
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 17 August 2011 at 8:50pm
Except that isn't what actually happens. Taxes on the wealthy have gone up and down in all countries over the course of centuries. The result is pretty uniform: none. Short of massive changes in tax structure, far beyond what is being discussed here, the main result is a bunch of legal fees spent on trying to identify new tax minimization plans. This is true for a simple reason: Rich people, by definition, have expendable funds. Poor people, by definition, do not. If you give a poor person $1,000, he will fix his car, or buy a sofa, or whatever - give a rich person $1,000, and it just goes into the general savings fund - where it will probably be invested in t-bills or equivalent. The former helps the economy, the latter does not. And so conversely, if you take $1,000 from a poor person, you removed that money from the economy, and further hurt the economy by making the poor person less able to work - since his car is now still broken. If you take $1,000 from a rich person, it comes out of the general slush fund and changes nothing, including his behavior. -------------
|
Posted By: deadeye007
Date Posted: 17 August 2011 at 8:53pm
|
No one on here curious if the Fair Tax would work? ------------- Face it guys, common sense is a form of wealth and we're surrounded by poverty.-Strato |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 17 August 2011 at 8:54pm
Define "work."
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 17 August 2011 at 9:09pm
If you look at income as ownership in a business, it makes perfect sense. Think of a business separated into 20 parts on the stock exchange. Let's say it were legal for one stockholder to buy 10 shares, then 10 individuals could only afford 1 share apiece. So the wealthy individual who could afford what amounts to half ownership in a publicly traded business incurs not only half ownership, but half liability. In other words, he paid in more, and stands to lose more if it crumbles. So in economics, if you make above a certain amount, your share of the economy is much larger than people below that mount. Think of it as a weighted figure-if your income bracket enjoys a share that amounts to 35% of the economy, should your bracket not pay 35% taxes? Maybe my logic is skewed, but it makes perfect sense to me. Now...that number is completely inaccurate thanks to the various loopholes that businesses and individuals have exploited, not to mention the number of people that just don't pay taxes. But if you look at it in that light, it makes sense. And as Gatyr said, it would make no sense to take 35% of a person's income who makes 10,000 a year. You've crippled that person's ability to survive, and the money you brought in did nothing to support the economy. ------------- 
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 17 August 2011 at 9:13pm
|
Also, as a second post (since I'm sure that my above example will inspire its own arguments), I'd like to point out that there are quite a few American businesses (big, big businesses) that are using geographic maneuvering to avoid paying their full share of American taxes. Paying an Irish tax rate because your business is HQ'd there, even though your entire business and most of it employees resides in America. These billion dollar businesses are researching foreign tax codes to ignore US taxation, which from a capitalistic standpoint is perfectly logical, but from the perspective of economy, I can't see how this is even remotely healthy.
-------------
|
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 17 August 2011 at 9:19pm
|
BINGO. Again, increased taxes to the rich will absolutely crush the middle class. You think the calculator punchers don't realize this? |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 17 August 2011 at 9:23pm
|
I just like how the continued us vs. them attitude in this country mirrors exactly in the writings of Marx and the battle between the evil "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", who own all the wealth, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" who sees the worker as the true owner of the nations wealth. Yet, after the revolution, contrary to all the promises during the revolution, all the wealth just transfered from the Czar and the Aristocrats, directly to the new Commisars and 'The Party'. The peasant was in his same lot, just beholding to a differant master.
The Democrats attempts to use the cleaver of taxes to sever the fingers of the wealthy, in order to put that wealth to be aquired into thier special interests, all the while protecting those within the 'approved' wealthy class from the splatter of the cleaver. How long can the government continue to spend up to 60% more than it takes in, and what economic model stated that if we only spend 65% more than we take in we can reduce the debt we are incurring. I would love to read that example of the success of overspending. -------------
|
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 17 August 2011 at 10:42pm
I know, right? Like this quote from Marx: "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion" What a commie that Marx was. . . . (Oh, did I say Marx? I meant to say Adam Smith. That was a quote from Wealth of Nations. My bad.) -------------
|
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 17 August 2011 at 10:43pm
.... wait, what? -------------
|
Posted By: deadeye007
Date Posted: 17 August 2011 at 11:50pm
The thought of taxes being based on a sales tax is intriguing. I like the idea of skipping payroll taxes and only paying taxes when I choose to buy something. It would also end the debate of "Paying your fair share" because the tax rate is the same for everyone (fair in my opinion). Even though I see potential benefits, I would also be reluctant to try it. Texas sales tax rate is 8.25% so after the Fair Tax the rate around here would be 31.25%. The higher rate would make people more reluctant to make a large purchase (at least I assume it would). Of course people will try to find ways around any form of taxes, but I think the fair tax would remove a problem with loop holes that exist today. So in the end I like the concept, but wonder if it were ever put into place if it would suffice. It would free up money for people to spend and boost the economy, but then again the higher sales tax might reduce the urge to spend money. So when I ask if it would work, I basically just wanted to see what opinions were out there. It seems like the fair tax was pushed in 07-08, but it seems like I haven't heard much about it lately. ------------- Face it guys, common sense is a form of wealth and we're surrounded by poverty.-Strato |
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 18 August 2011 at 12:51am
Some immediate random thoughts on the "Fair Tax:" 1. The name is lame and misleading. A consumption-based tax is not inherently more or less "fair" than an income-based tax. 2. It would not end the "paying fair share" debate - far from it. Fine, all purchasers of product X would pay the same tax, but would all goods be taxed at the same rate? (The answer is "no"). That leads to the same debate, just under different labels. Should malt liquor be taxed at the same rate as margarita mix, for instance? Or a Ferrari and a Ford? Or bread and vacation homes? 3. This country (and all other countries) uses its tax code to influence behavior. Deductions for charitable giving, credits for drilling oil well, etc. This desire would not end with the end of income tax, and govn'ment would find ways to make sales taxes work for them in complicated ways - this already is the case at the state level, of course, and would only get worse. It is a mistake to think that a sales tax system would be any simpler than an income tax system. "Loop holes," as you call them, would pop up quickly and constantly. 4. There might be an eased administrative burden on individuals (no more 1040s - yay!), or there may end up being a similar sales tax report requirement, or the administrative burden on businesses may go up. Sales taxes are complicated. 5. ... which leads to the states. Just because the IRS stopped collecting income taxes, that does not necessarily mean that the states did. So you would still be doing a 1040 anyway (darn it!), and the administrative burden on states will increase, since they can no longer rely on the IRS to do all the heavy lifting. 6. ... except that even if the income tax went away, there are still payroll taxes. Is it the intent that the "fair" tax will also pay for social security and medicare/medicaid, or would we still have to withhold and do 1040s (double darn it!) just for payroll taxes? And if SS is to be paid out of the sales tax, would it be a special dedicated SS/medicare sales tax (that would have to be accounted for separately), or would it come out of the general fund by some mechanism? 7. Such a system would be devastating to the tourism industry and foreign investment in general. Comic-Con would relocate to Tijuana. 8. Smuggling would become big business and a popular hobby. 9. Ultimately, though, it comes down to this: Assuming that the sales tax is to replace the revenue from the income tax, then either (a) everybody pays about the same amount as before, and this accomplished little, or (b) some people pay more than before and other people pay less than before. Result (b) is the most likely, which means that some people will think this new arrangement is no good. 10. ... and is this result (b) necessarily any more "fair" than the old system? If the poor are now paying 40% of their income in taxes while Bill Gates pays 5%, is that "fair" just because it is built around a sales tax instead of income tax? 11. Should a perception of fairness be the main driving principle behind tax policy? It is certain A consideration, but one of many. I would certainly think "not crippling the working poor," for instance, to be a more important goal. /ramble -------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 18 August 2011 at 6:26am
|
#8. Smuugling as you call it, or an underground economy, black market, is almost allways throughout history been driven by over taxation. From Rome to America, anytime a government places restrictive tax levels on any consumer product a 'black market' appears. Cigarettes come to mind, where people go to say North Carolina where the tax is low, drive back to NY where tax is high, sell somewhere in between and still make a hefty profit.
The US Federal Government has used the tool of taxation as a club used to control segments of the population for years, and we did not complain. Now they bring out a meat cleaver and purposely begin a serious 'class war' between those who pay little or nothing, but also tend to be more dependant on government, and those who by choice have succeeded in the game, who by the rhetoric of the left need to be punished for their success, by the standard used by the left is that they profit from the 'poor'. But as the arguement continues we see those 'rich' of the right demonized, while those on the left seem to be ignored, as if one group is an evil rich, and the other group is a 'good' rich. John Edwards (D)defended his wealth during his presidential campaign by saying and I paraphrase, "I worked for my wealth." somehow feeling his wealth needed to be protected, but the wealth of others is fair game for the tax man. How many millionaires in Congress on the left side of the aisle actually voluntarily pay taxes at the higher rates that they propose for other non political 'rich' to pay? Answer NONE, your money is fair game theirs is not. The failure of the high tax European style social systems should give us pause as we see that even with extreme high tax rates, the government still overspends and then demands more. Again a spending problem rather than a revenue problem. Look at Great Britian, Greece, and other examples of this failed concept, and now America feels this method of overtax the 'rich' undertax the dependant too is the way to go on taxation. Until the spending is curtailed, no tax system in the world, now or past will contain the monster of a free spending government. -------------
|
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 18 August 2011 at 6:47am
Listen man, If the people that are capable of creating large businesses and jobs sit on their vast sums of money that they currently hold because someone pisses them off, where does that leave us mediocre, cash starved fools? People like that can retire now, sit on their money and laugh at jokers slinging useless college text book theory. |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 18 August 2011 at 7:08am
-------------
|
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 18 August 2011 at 7:13am
It's the attitude of entitlement that is taking huge manufacturers to Mexico and overseas. Does it really take a phd to realize this? |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 18 August 2011 at 8:25am
|
Simple question. If you were offered a luxury car, one made in Japan and a simular American model and this was to be you last car, which would you choose?
It is that standard of manufacturing and work ethic that has put us in this hole. When in the late 70's Japan began to import quality autos, fuel efficiant, and priced right in the markets target, why didn't the American auto industry see the writing on the wall and react. Why did the unions continue to demand more and more, placing the price of the domestic auto further out of reach of the consumer. Almost every consumer product manufacturer in America faced this same or simular scenario, and the exodus of manufacturing was the end result. No one will pay $400 for an American manufactured, union made I-pod, when they can get the same I-pod made in Malaysia for $75. -------------
|
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 18 August 2011 at 12:49pm
iPods are assembled in China, with components manufactured around the world... The $400 price tag has nothing to do with cost - purely demand-driven. (But your point stands) -------------
|
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 18 August 2011 at 12:50pm
Well, that's a bit overstated. I am all about blaming things on entitlement attitudes, but there are a lot more economic factors at work here. -------------
|
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 18 August 2011 at 1:01pm
... but they don't. They never have. This is a completely made-up and completely false argument. People with money ALWAYS - without fail - do a combination of two things: spend money, and invest money. When taxes on wealth were higher in this country than they are now, spending and investment continued apace. In countries that have much higher taxes than us, the wealthy continue to spend and invest. They will always seek the best investment available. They won't do a crappy investment just to spite the gubmint for taxing them "too much" - people who invest that way aren't rich for long. And "sitting on" their money isn't a real concern either. Any large bucket of money will be managed more or less the same way: a portion will be held in immediately available funds (t-bills or similar), and the rest will be invested in a diversified portfolio. The t-bills are the closest to "sitting on" their money you can get. High taxes might push a higher proportion into tax-favored investments, but under no circumstance will all the money be in t-bills due to high taxes - you still pay the same high taxes on t-bill earnings, but now you are paying those high taxes on a low-return investment. The whole "the rich will stop spending and/or investing if taxes go up" argument (up from where? what is the baseline, anyway?) is contrary to theory, and contrary to observed fact throughout human history. It's just flat out wrong. -------------
|
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 18 August 2011 at 1:30pm
More specifically, smuggling comes about as a result of tariffs or sales tax differentials, which was precisely my point. Income taxes don't particularly contribute to smuggling, but a scheme heavy on sales tax does contribute to smuggling.
Errr.... what?
Holy loaded statement, Batman! First off, you do realize that the difference in US tax rates for high and low earners is basically the smallest it has ever been since WWII, right? Your "meat cleaver" would be the 90% marginal rate of the 60s, not the return to 39% from 36% that is currently discussed. In fact, in today's scheme, the very wealthy pay LESS of their income (as a percentage) in tax than the working middle class, and by a significant amount. That's like the opposite of a meat cleaver. As for the rest of your sentence - well, it would take a couple of pages to point out and challenge all the assumptions, misstatements, and unsupported conclusions, so I surrender.
Not really, no. The wealthy are not demonized in the US. Elsewhere in the world, perhaps, but not really here. This is like the "War on Christmas" - it exists only in the fevered fantasies of FNC
This "argument" is such BS. Pure, unadulterated, BS of the highest order, and it needs to stop. If I think that the speed limit should be reduced to 50 mph to make the roads safer, and I helping by driving 50 myself while everyone else zooms by at 75? No - that would just be a political demonstration. Just as if Warren Buffett wrote an extra check for $6MM in taxes - it wouldn't solve the real problem, not even a little bit. All those in favor of higher taxes (myself included) pay as little as we can under the current rules - I don't like paying taxes any more than anyone else. I have no interest in making a meaningless donation that will be more painful to me than beneficial to the country. But I will, without complaining, pay the higher taxes if they are required from others as well, because now I know that I am doing my share, instead of quixotically throwing money away. This is not about political posturing, but about an honest belief about what needs to be done. If it makes you feel any better, I think the same applies to right-wingers accepting government benefits. I have absolutely no problem when my buddy Joe Miller benefits from state and federal benefits even as he campaigns against them. Same for Michelle Bachmann. I see no hypocrisy there (although Bachmann gets pretty close, due to her over-the-top rhetoric), and the press should not give them a hard time for it. Just because you want to change a rule does NOT mean that you are morally obligated to unilaterally act as if that rule had already been changed.
Which are these failed systems exactly? Britain isn't exactly "failed," is it? Seems to be going fairly well there, other than the occasional overenthusiastic flash mob. And Greece didn't "fail" due to high taxes - rather the opposite, as one of their main problems was that they never actually collected taxes. Greece has historically had just about the lowest realization rate on tax revenue of any modern society. Tax cheating is/was the norm, on a massive scale. So if anything, Greece was a LOW tax society, not a high tax society.
... except that I don't see how you can characterize the US as "overtaxing" the wealthy - the wealthy in the US, as I mentioned earlier, pay proportionally LESS in taxes than the middle class. On what planet is that overtaxed? And who are these "dependents" of whom you speak? I can't imagine that you are referring to all those who do not pay federal income tax - most of those folks are hard-working families, contributing to society every day with the sweat of their brow. -------------
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 18 August 2011 at 5:59pm
And that sort of scociety I'd support. I'm all for having robots do all the manual labour, freeing people from the need to work, letting them do work they WANT to. Wile I don't think robotics are there yet, the changeover period will be a bugger to live through, with the need for work for renumeration still there, but more people losing their jobs to robots. Almost need to do it overnight. There will still be design and innovation because people will want to do it. ------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2 |
Posted By: GroupB
Date Posted: 18 August 2011 at 6:31pm
All taxes coming from sales? Hell, I'm in, I don't pay sales tax. ------------- 
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 19 August 2011 at 8:20am
|
With the caveat that online vendors would be required to charge sales tax. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 19 August 2011 at 9:18am
|
One of the big issues I see with a sales tax in lieu of an income tax is the abuse of the "tax exempt" status. I would wager that there would be a masssive influx of applications for churches and non-profit groups.
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |