- Mar 7, 2014
- 45,863
- 9,604
- 2,030
Okay, FYI, businessman in Somalia who has a very limited workforce when it comes to education, and a US businessman who has a wide variety of education and skills, who do you think is going to earn more money? Go on, tell me.
It doesn't matter whether an individual is selling their labor to you or not. You're able to buy it.
If you want to buy a car and you go to the local shop and you can only buy carrots and bananas, do you think your car is going to earn you as much money as the guy who can go to the local shop and buy all the parts a car usually uses? Do you?
I didn't say the individuals don't make money out of this. You've COMPLETELY missed the point.
And your comment about the businessman who travels to Somalia.... what the feck are you going on about?
If you don't understand what I say, I'd rather you just said you're incapable of understanding rather than pretend you do know and then write some drivel that has nothing to do with what I said.
SO tell me why do businesses consistently set up shop in other countries if the workforce is so poorly educated? obviously your education that the business is supposedly exploiting isn't enough to keep that business here is it? And you mentioned security and somalia not me
You equate you using government roads to make a living to the business getting more out of it than you do the business pays far more for roads via all the additional taxes it pays compared to what you pay to use the same roads
And yet somehow you think businesses are getting more than you from government?
They set up shop in other countries because the labor is CHEAPER. Sometimes companies want lower educated workers to do menial tasks. In the US these workers will cost too much because the US has an economy that is on the higher end, which means everything costs more. Which means workers want more money to do the same task.
Yes, I mentioned security and Somalia to you. I didn't not just spurt out the words "security" and "Somalia" and expect you to make a sentence with those two words, I actually made a point.
Back to roads. If a company had to use only private roads, a company would pay FAR MORE MONEY to use those roads than they do right now to use government roads.
Government roads are far more cost effective than private roads. They don't have to employ people to take money off drivers, they don't have to pay for electronic machines which will charge the driver, so everyone saves money, including the business. However businesses will use the roads far more than individuals will.
If you take that into consideration you'll see that businesses should be paying more money for using the roads in tax than individuals.
Government roads... LOOOOL.
Whose taxes paid for those "government roads"?
This is like dealing with children.
Taxes paid for the roads and taxes help with the upkeep of those roads.
Now, the point of what I am saying is that people should pay their fair share. With a flat tax the rich wouldn't be paying their fair share. They'd be paying less for the roads as a percentage than they'd otherwise be paying under a private road system.
People who paid taxes have every right to enjoy the services paid by those taxes. There are 47% of people who are not paying any federal income taxes. How fair is that they use services that they haven't pay for?
It would help if you explain what is the "fair share".
"fair share" is not something easy to come up with. Fair share would basically be people paying for the right amount of taxes for the services they use.
47% of people don't pay any federal income taxes.... so?
43% of households pay no income tax: Study
Actually it's 43%.
Federal income tax isn't the only tax out there either.
"
Roberton Williams, a senior fellow with the Tax Policy Center, notes that households that pay no federal income tax are very likely to still be paying other taxes. Those include payroll taxes for Medicare and Social Security, sales taxes and other state and local taxes."
However...
"approximately 10 percent are elderly"
"A smaller portion—about 3 percent—are making less than $20,000 a year and therefore aren't subject to federal income tax because they are too poor."
"Williams' analysis found that about 29 percent of all households include people who are working, and subject to payroll taxes, but don't have a federal income tax bill. That could be because of deductions or other tax breaks."
"Those who pay no federal income taxes aren't all low wage earners. Thousands of people who have income of more than $200,000[FONT=Gotham Narrow SSm 4r, Arial] a year have been able to zero out their federal income tax bill, according to data from the Internal Revenue Service."[/FONT]
[FONT=Gotham Narrow SSm 4r, Arial]Thousands of wealthy earners manage to zero out tax bills
"[/FONT]More than 35,000 people who had income of more than $200,000 in 2009 paid no federal income taxes that year, according to a new report from the Internal Revenue Service."
"The number of wealthy people who paid no federal income taxes rose between 2007 and 2009, thanks in part to new tax credits, according to the report. "
So, is this system fair? No, it's not. Would a flat tax be fair? No it wouldn't.