Does the money you earn belong to you or the state?

[Baruch Menachem]

This has to be the most depressing thread ever.

 

[loosecannon]

The governemnt cannot simply take away anything without due process.

Of course not, so they are fully equipped to take away your money with taxation process, take away your real estate with eminent domain process and take away your gold with a simple recall like they did in 1933.

Gold confiscation in 1933; avoiding gold confiscation today

They always have a due process to take anything they want, esp when you help them by signing away your rights.

Then maybe we should wise up and take away their power

I wonder if it is still possible. We are so distracted by sports, partisanship, teevee and consumerism that we collectively hardly pay any attention to the real power plays.

We are sleeple.

 

[shintao]

or does the ownership pass to the state somewhere at some income level?

Folks keep on saying that reducing tax rates from 35 to 30 is a "giveaway" on high incomes. Since the person earned it in some fashion, how does that 5% belong to the state so that they could "give it away?"

The rejects think because someone makes more money then them that it is fair to make them pay MORE percentage wise then them as well.

And the returds think that because someone uses the majority of government services, receives the majority of welfare, bonuses, entitlements, etc., that they should pay no taxes at all.

Notice how many democrats have been caught when they applied for high office, that simply were not paying what they owed. And not one of them was ever charged with a crime. And most of them got the positions anyway.

Notice how this is nothing but a distraction to take your mind off the Returds who have bankrupted America for ten trillion dollars, and were never charged with a crime. And most of them still have their positions in the Bahama sun where they retired to.

 

[eagleseven]

This has to be the most depressing thread ever.

Indeed.

It seems that we no longer have any right to the paper we wipe our asses with, but for the grace of society.

 

[eagleseven]

And the returds think that because someone uses the majority of government services, receives the majority of welfare, bonuses, entitlements, etc., that they should pay no taxes at all.

Someone receiving more handouts than they pay in taxes are effectively paying no taxes at all.

Doh!

 

[loosecannon]

And the returds think that because someone uses the majority of government services, receives the majority of welfare, bonuses, entitlements, etc., that they should pay no taxes at all.

Someone receiving more handouts than they pay in taxes are effectively paying no taxes at all.

Doh!

EXXON!!!!!!! They paid 0$ in taxes in 2009 yet used a gazzillion buttloads of US services and benefited from a near world record tax break compliment.

 

[JBeukema]

Does the money you earn belong to you or the state?

The 'money' itself belongs to the federal reserve.

 

[JBeukema]

The rejects think because someone makes more money then them that it is fair to make them pay MORE percentage wise then them as well./quote]
Is it right to expect a poor man to starve because you take from him?

Is it right to expect a pauper to contribute the same as a billionaire?

 

[eagleseven]

Is it right to expect a poor man to starve because you take from him?

Is it right to expect a pauper to contribute the same as a billionaire?

Is taking $15 from a $100 salary better than taking $1 from a $10 salary, and why?

 

[JBeukema]

Is it right to expect a poor man to starve because you take from him?

Is it right to expect a pauper to contribute the same as a billionaire?

Is taking $15 from a $100 salary better than taking $1 from a $10 salary, and why?

I'd contend that unless that's by the day, neither of those salaries is enough to support one's self in the US and both of those persons should be exempt from income taxes.

 

[loosecannon]

This has to be the most depressing thread ever.

Why?

 

[eagleseven]

I'd contend that unless that's by the day, neither of those salaries is enough to support one's self in the US and both of those persons should be exempt from income taxes.

We're establishing the principles upon which we justify taxation.

---

Is taking $150,000 from a $1,000,000 salary better than taking $10,000 from a $100,000 salary? If so, why?

Would your answer change, if the person making $100,000 funds a cocaine habit, while the person making $1,000,000 funds several charities which help war orphans?

Would your answer change, if the person making $100,000 is a doctor, while the person making $1,000,000 is a Lehman Brothers executive?

---


Is our government in a position to make this determination? If so, why?

 

[loosecannon]

I'd contend that unless that's by the day, neither of those salaries is enough to support one's self in the US and both of those persons should be exempt from income taxes.

We're establishing the principles upon which we justify taxation.

---

Is taking $150,000 from a $1,000,000 salary better than taking $10,000 from a $100,000 salary? If so, why?

Would your answer change, if the person making $100,000 funds a cocaine habit, while the person making $1,000,000 funds several charities which help war orphans?

Would your answer change, if the person making $100,000 is a doctor, while the person making $1,000,000 is a Lehman Brothers executive?

---


Is our government in a position to make this determination? If so, why?

OK, it might make more sense to tax according to proximity to illegal drugs and Wall street.

TAX panels!

 

[Synthaholic]

He schooled you and you don't even know it.

Sucks to be you.

In what way?

He was absolutely right while you were absolutely wrong.

"Schooled"; look it up.

Why is he right and I'm wrong?

C'mon bigboy, you can do it. Don't puss out now.

 

[JBeukema]

If a man earns 20k/year and another man earns 200k/year and I ask each of them to give 5k/year to support local infrastructure, then one man must now live on 15k/year and the other still has $195k/yr.

The first man will find it difficult to house, clothe, and feed himself- let alone afford education or investment to increase his income in the future and better his condition. The effect upon the second man will be minimal.

Yet we need this infrastructure (for instance, a facility to clean wastewater) (or law enforcement) or both men will be unable to survive and society will collapse. (I happen to live in the desert, so water is the most obvious example to my mind). Yet I cannot ask a man to starve. Indeed, that flies in the face of the very reason we seek to build this infrastructure in the first place, let alone all moral decency.

The only solution is to ask each man to give as he is able- to ask all members of society to contribute as they are able to ensure society as a whole can continue to thrive.

 

[eagleseven]

OK, it might make more sense to tax according to proximity to illegal drugs and Wall street.

TAX panels!

If you tax the rich because the poor "need" it more, then, logically, you must ensure that the poor spends it on their needs. Else, you will never "eliminate poverty."

Which means Government must control how spend your money. Via, for example, healthcare insurance mandates.

---

This is why the progressive Income Tax system leads to authoritarianism.

 

[loosecannon]

In what way?

He was absolutely right while you were absolutely wrong.

"Schooled"; look it up.

Why is he right and I'm wrong?

C'mon bigboy, you can do it. Don't puss out now.

because he was right! And you were wrong!

or does the ownership pass to the state somewhere at some income level?

Folks keep on saying that reducing tax rates from 35 to 30 is a "giveaway" on high incomes. Since the person earned it in some fashion, how does that 5% belong to the state so that they could "give it away?"

A portion belongs to the state. That's the cost of living in a society. Unless you move to Antarctica, the state/country you live in is going to tax you. And rightfully so.

You're a fool.

If the state can tell you how much you get to keep and how much is extorted from you, then the presumption is that it's ALL the property of the state.

Ownership = Control.

He was spot on. An infallible post. A no hitter.

 

[loosecannon]

If you tax the rich because the poor "need" it more, then, logically, you must ensure that the poor spends it on their needs. Else, you will never "eliminate poverty."

None of that is the rationale for progressive taxation.

Taxing those who rely upon far more government services and have far more disposable income as a result is the justification for progressive taxes. Not eliminating poverty. Nobody thinks like that.

 

[Synthaholic]

He was absolutely right while you were absolutely wrong.

"Schooled"; look it up.

Why is he right and I'm wrong?

C'mon bigboy, you can do it. Don't puss out now.

because he was right! And you were wrong!

A portion belongs to the state. That's the cost of living in a society. Unless you move to Antarctica, the state/country you live in is going to tax you. And rightfully so.

You're a fool.

If the state can tell you how much you get to keep and how much is extorted from you, then the presumption is that it's ALL the property of the state.

Ownership = Control.

He was spot on. An infallible post. A no hitter.

You're a poseur and a pussy. You didn't give any reasons. All you're doing is cheerleading. You didn't say why he is right, and you didn't say why I'm wrong.

What color are your pom poms?

 

[eagleseven]

The only solution is to ask each man to give as he is able- to ask all members of society to contribute as they are able to ensure society as a whole can continue to thrive.

You and I both know that asking for donations will not generate enough income to fund a military to keep the barbarians at the gates, let alone maintain a national highway system.

Thus, we have the IRS to keep people paying...men with guns. Should the IRS have the power to determine who needs to pay?

Further, should the government ensure that the poor spend their limited funds on genuine needs, not their favorite vices?