'Taxing the Rich'

[AVG-JOE]

Frankly, Poo went wrong way back when he started trying to argue an adult subject - taxes - from a fundamentally childish premise - fairness - so it's really not surprising that everything that has come after was juvenile garbage.

There is no such thing as "fair". How can there be, when the word itself has no real meaning? It's the most subjective word in the English language, meaning something different to each and every person who hears it. Only children in schoolyards believe there is such a thing as "fair", or that the universe and anything in it is ever going to comply with that imaginary concept.

I disagree. I think that there are many ways for people to be fair with each other - usually in a mutually beneficial way. If there weren't, the 'free market' would be impossible and slavery would still reign as the most effective method of putting people to work and maintaining trust within production organizations.

Of course there are "many ways for people to be fair". Y'know why? Because there are many definitions of "fair". As many definitions as there are people trying to use the word to justify their own particular agenda.

What's "fair" to you is almost certainly not what's "fair" to me, but we can each make an equally valid argument for our own particular perspective on it . . . which is why it's an utterly subjective word.

It's only subjective until two or more people find common ground, then 'fair' becomes an agreement. It helps if the parties enter the discussion with an actual goal of coming to an agreement. That's what makes politics so fun!

 

[Bern80]

No shit. The poor have less to spare. Duh. On the other hand, a doctor who make 500k a year and a stock broker who make 500k - have the same income, yet get treated vastly differently by the tax code.

Why would their be indignation over the POOR getting a break?



Because the poor person needs their $1 more than the rich person. This should be blatantly obvious. If we tax the poor more, its not going to make them MORE able to take care of their children ,it will make them LESS able - and when the poor can't take care of their children, who do you think winds up footing the bill?

That being said, to close the deficit will require higher taxation on everyone.

What they NEED has NOTHING to do with what is FAIR. Fair means those who benefit from taxes need to contribute to it. Fair is not defined by what you NEED it is defined by who receives the benefits from the the taxes. And a very large segment of the population is receiving benefits they aren't paying for. Some are paying for benefits they receive. Others don't need the benefits but are paying for them anyway.

The simple fact is your excuse that it's fair for the poor to not pay because they can't afford it, fits no known definition of th word 'fair'. You can call it a lot of things if you like; charitable, compassionate, freeloading, but fair isn't one of them.

Fair, at least when it comes to taxes, is we all pay the same. That is to say we all feel the same pinch.

Fairest tax structure I've ever heard of?

7 + 7 on 3

7% general sales tax on retail transactions
+
7% 'winners' tax on personal income in excess of $3 million.

Everybody earns their first $3 million per year free of ANY income tax, no corporate income taxes AT ALL and no corresponding loop holes - every entity, both corporate and living, just pays its fair share of 7% on every consumption purchase and lease whether business or personal and the living strive for the $3 million winners circle.

When the code treats some people differently than others then it is by definition no longer fair. Why do you insist that simply because people have more it is fair to take more from them.

 

[AVG-JOE]

What they NEED has NOTHING to do with what is FAIR. Fair means those who benefit from taxes need to contribute to it. Fair is not defined by what you NEED it is defined by who receives the benefits from the the taxes. And a very large segment of the population is receiving benefits they aren't paying for. Some are paying for benefits they receive. Others don't need the benefits but are paying for them anyway.

The simple fact is your excuse that it's fair for the poor to not pay because they can't afford it, fits no known definition of th word 'fair'. You can call it a lot of things if you like; charitable, compassionate, freeloading, but fair isn't one of them.

Fair, at least when it comes to taxes, is we all pay the same. That is to say we all feel the same pinch.

Fairest tax structure I've ever heard of?

7 + 7 on 3

7% general sales tax on retail transactions
+
7% 'winners' tax on personal income in excess of $3 million.

Everybody earns their first $3 million per year free of ANY income tax, no corporate income taxes AT ALL and no corresponding loop holes - every entity, both corporate and living, just pays its fair share of 7% on every consumption purchase and lease whether business or personal and the living strive for the $3 million winners circle.

When the code treats some people differently than others then it is by definition no longer fair. Why do you insist that simply because people have more it is fair to take more from them.

A straight consumption tax is regressive and needs the progressive balance of a small income tax. Fair is allowing EVERYONE to earn the first $3 million tax free and then applying a flat tax.

 

[Bern80]

Fair, at least when it comes to taxes, is we all pay the same. That is to say we all feel the same pinch.

Fairest tax structure I've ever heard of?

7 + 7 on 3

7% general sales tax on retail transactions
+
7% 'winners' tax on personal income in excess of $3 million.

Everybody earns their first $3 million per year free of ANY income tax, no corporate income taxes AT ALL and no corresponding loop holes - every entity, both corporate and living, just pays its fair share of 7% on every consumption purchase and lease whether business or personal and the living strive for the $3 million winners circle.

When the code treats some people differently than others then it is by definition no longer fair. Why do you insist that simply because people have more it is fair to take more from them.

A straight consumption tax is regressive and needs the progressive balance of a small income tax. Fair is allowing EVERYONE to earn the first $3 million tax free and then applying a flat tax.

That part of it is. But to tax a group of people simply for having more is not. It's a also a little scary that use the phrasing 'allows'. The government of this country was not set up to define what it would 'allow' the citizenry to do or what property it would allow them to keep. The government was set up to PROTECT our property, not tell us how much of it they're going to let you keep and decide that arbitrarily on how much you have.

 

[shintao]

fine... simplify the tax system... no loopholes or deductions anywhere... say a flat and straight 12% tax on every dollar earned by every citizen, NO EXCEPTIONS... problem solved, right OP?

Why tax earnings? Why not tax shoe size, or waist size? Why not just tax ALL US Citizens whatever amount a homeless or poverty man can pay annually? Why should I pay more than he does? We should all pay the same amount of taxes.

 

[AVG-JOE]

When the code treats some people differently than others then it is by definition no longer fair. Why do you insist that simply because people have more it is fair to take more from them.

A straight consumption tax is regressive and needs the progressive balance of a small income tax. Fair is allowing EVERYONE to earn the first $3 million tax free and then applying a flat tax.

That part of it is. But to tax a group of people simply for having more is not. It's a also a little scary that use the phrasing 'allows'. The government of this country was not set up to define what it would 'allow' the citizenry to do or what property it would allow them to keep. The government was set up to PROTECT our property, not tell us how much of it they're going to let you keep and decide that arbitrarily on how much you have.

It's just a word, Bro'. How much does the government 'allow' you to earn before lowering the tax boom now? For me it's every paycheck.

If it will make everyone happy, we could do 7% on every dime for everyone in addition to the 7% general sales tax. That just gives the government more to spend and gives "those most likely to spend it" less.

I'm easy - I can certainly afford it.

 

[AVG-JOE]

A straight consumption tax is regressive and needs the progressive balance of a small income tax. Fair is allowing EVERYONE to earn the first $3 million tax free and then applying a flat tax.

That part of it is. But to tax a group of people simply for having more is not. It's a also a little scary that use the phrasing 'allows'. The government of this country was not set up to define what it would 'allow' the citizenry to do or what property it would allow them to keep. The government was set up to PROTECT our property, not tell us how much of it they're going to let you keep and decide that arbitrarily on how much you have.

It's just a word, Bro'. How much does the government 'allow' you to earn before lowering the tax boom now? For me it's every paycheck.

If it will make everyone happy, we could do 7% on every dime for everyone in addition to the 7% general sales tax. That just gives the government more to spend and gives "those most likely to spend it" less.

I'm easy - I can certainly afford it.

Here's a thought... How about we allow citizens to earn their first $30,000 tax free and make citizenship worth something again?

 

[AVG-JOE]

fine... simplify the tax system... no loopholes or deductions anywhere... say a flat and straight 12% tax on every dollar earned by every citizen, NO EXCEPTIONS... problem solved, right OP?

Why tax earnings? Why not tax shoe size, or waist size? Why not just tax ALL US Citizens whatever amount a homeless or poverty man can pay annually? Why should I pay more than he does? We should all pay the same amount of taxes.

Taxing earnings is progressive and therefore unfair.

Taxing consumption is regressive and therefore unfair.

The answer is a blend.

7 + 7 on 3

 

[Steelplate]

I've seen cases where an individual paid $5,000 in (state and federal) taxes, but got $7,000 back...

It happens all the time.

Mostly with single mothers that have a million kids but work a minimum wage job.

47% pay little to no taxes...

Paying $2,500 in taxes then getting $2,200 back is seriously not paying anything in taxes.

Making 20k a year and paying 300 bucks is nonsense. I call that not paying any taxes.

You can call it what you want... but it's a lie.

Furthermore.... You guys are such decent upstanding people. Single moms with a million kids working a minimum wage job? This is where your hatred lies? This is your target? Yeah! Fuck those kids, let the little bastards starve... it'll cure the overpopulation problem.

Last part of my quote? Was a embellishment on Dickens' Ebenezer Scrooge.

You idiots don't even think about what you guys are saying.

 

[Steelplate]

I buy a product for a dollar and sell it to you for two dollars - I just created a dollar out of thin air...

Thats another dollar the Fed will have to print eventually.. Hence I just created wealth.

Not necessarily... that dollar that you "created" came from somewhere....namely the guy you sold the product to. So you increased your wealth by decreasing his. It definitely wasn't "out of thin air".

Is that bad? Not in and of itself. However, there comes a tipping point(that we have passed well over) when the Wealth taken by the makers of products affects the quality of life of the people who buy these products.

Printing money? yeah, let's keep that up until we need a wheelbarrow full of bills for a loaf of bread like in 1923 Germany... which coincidentally brought the rise of one of the greatest villains mankind has ever known.

 

[AVG-JOE]

If only people like you understood that wealth is NOT finite but infinite.

Has school already let out for the summer where you are at?

On a different note, that is probably one of the biggest problems with the gold standard. There IS a finite amount of gold..

Yeah, right, besides the occasional long periods of deflation that are associated with a gold standard that cause farms and businesses to have to close up shop - that's the biggest problem

You obviously don't understand economics...

In what universe is wealth finite??

Care to explain our living standards???

Furthermore gold IS IN FACT finite....

Our monetary system is is a) based on faith and b) based on production...

I buy a product for a dollar and sell it to you for two dollars - I just created a dollar out of thin air...

Thats another dollar the Fed will have to print eventually.. Hence I just created wealth.

Retail transactions do not create wealth, they create profits.

The only way to create wealth is the efficient harvest of natural resources. The more efficient the harvest, the more wealth created - Slave labor and a total disregard for the environment would be the MOST efficient... the next evolutionary step for organized humanity is to understand that some costs, like those born by the environment, can not be measured in dollars.

 

[Uncensored2008]

A straight consumption tax is regressive and needs the progressive balance of a small income tax.

Then food, housing and even iPad's are regressive.

Fair is allowing EVERYONE to earn the first $3 million tax free and then applying a flat tax.

I could support that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Retail transactions do not create wealth, they create profits.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they create loss.

The only way to create wealth is the efficient harvest of natural resources.

Nonsense. If that were true, hunter-gatherer clans would dominate the globe.

Wealth is created from the mind.

The more efficient the harvest, the more wealth created - Slave labor and a total disregard for the environment would be the MOST efficient...

Nonsense, burning the house down doesn't keep one warm in the winter.

the next evolutionary step for organized humanity is to understand that some costs, like those born by the environment, can not be measured in dollars.

Those who reap benefit are the best stewards of the land.

Ever wonder why most yards are in better shape than public parks? Because owners care about what they own.

The best was to protect the environment is to expand private ownership.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

. And a very large segment of the population is receiving benefits they aren't paying for.

Well no fucking shit sherlock, if they could pay for the benefits they are receiving they wouldn't need the benefits in the first place. DUH

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Fair means the Government not mugging one person to buy votes from another.

According to the left, that IS the definition of fair.

No, according to YOU according to the left that's the definition, that's not actually according to the left. You are confusing your lies and fears with reality.


Practically EVERYONE on this board at one point in their adult lives didn't pay net income tax. The question of relevance isn't whether someone is a net contributor NOW but are they a net contributor over their lifetime. Many of the people unemployed now and not paying net taxes used to pay net taxes when they were employed and will pay them again when they eventually find work. Many of them are young - college students or people just starting out in their work - they don't make much, but over time they'll make more and more and eventually become a net contributor. Many of them are RETIRED and were net contributors their whole lives prior to retirment.

According to right wing thinking, college students, career workers between jobs, young people, and retirees are almost all leaches.

 

[Wiseacre]

" According to right wing thinking, college students, career workers between jobs, young people, and retirees are almost all leaches. "


Not true, I'd say most rigntwingers see these people as temporarily on the dole and are okay with that, although 2 years is long enough IMHO. Retirees earned their checks, nobody is claiming they are leaches and it's really bogus for you to say that. I think the problem the right has is with the career welfare types who don't look for a job and don't want one, ever.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Retail transactions do not create wealth, they create profits.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they create loss.

The only way to create wealth is the efficient harvest of natural resources.

Nonsense. If that were true, hunter-gatherer clans would dominate the globe.

Wealth is created from the mind.

The more efficient the harvest, the more wealth created - Slave labor and a total disregard for the environment would be the MOST efficient...

Nonsense, burning the house down doesn't keep one warm in the winter.

the next evolutionary step for organized humanity is to understand that some costs, like those born by the environment, can not be measured in dollars.

Those who reap benefit are the best stewards of the land.

Ever wonder why most yards are in better shape than public parks? Because owners care about what they own.

The best was to protect the environment is to expand private ownership.

Hunter gatherers do dominate the planet: Exxon-Mobil - an organization dedicated to hunting the world for petroleum and then gathering it to process and sell at a profit.

I'm going to disagree with owners being the best stewards. Owners who live on the property they own usually take good care of it, but there is plenty of documentation of owners who specifically purchased property for the sole purpose of exploitation and with every intention of simply discarding the property for scrap value when they were finished with the harvest of the resources that the property came with.

 

[bripat9643]

Hunter gatherers do dominate the planet: Exxon-Mobil - an organization dedicated to hunting the world for petroleum and then gathering it to process and sell at a profit.

I'm going to disagree with owners being the best stewards. Owners who live on the property they own usually take good care of it, but there is plenty of documentation of owners who specifically purchased property for the sole purpose of exploitation and with every intention of simply discarding the property for scrap value when they were finished with the harvest of the resources that the property came with.

Can you provide a verifiable example of a property owner doing what you claim?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Hunter gatherers do dominate the planet: Exxon-Mobil - an organization dedicated to hunting the world for petroleum and then gathering it to process and sell at a profit.

I'm going to disagree with owners being the best stewards. Owners who live on the property they own usually take good care of it, but there is plenty of documentation of owners who specifically purchased property for the sole purpose of exploitation and with every intention of simply discarding the property for scrap value when they were finished with the harvest of the resources that the property came with.

Can you provide a verifiable example of a property owner doing what you claim?

Easy.

Environment: The Price of Strip Mining - TIME

 

[Cecilie1200]

I disagree. I think that there are many ways for people to be fair with each other - usually in a mutually beneficial way. If there weren't, the 'free market' would be impossible and slavery would still reign as the most effective method of putting people to work and maintaining trust within production organizations.

Of course there are "many ways for people to be fair". Y'know why? Because there are many definitions of "fair". As many definitions as there are people trying to use the word to justify their own particular agenda.

What's "fair" to you is almost certainly not what's "fair" to me, but we can each make an equally valid argument for our own particular perspective on it . . . which is why it's an utterly subjective word.

It's only subjective until two or more people find common ground, then 'fair' becomes an agreement. It helps if the parties enter the discussion with an actual goal of coming to an agreement. That's what makes politics so fun!

An agreement doesn't make it any less subjective, aka "a matter of opinion".

Look at huge mergers being blocked by antitrust lawsuits. The people planning the mergers both agree that it's fair and equitable TO THEM, but the people bringing the lawsuits beg to differ. THEY consider it completely unfair. Totally a matter of opinion.