Agreed, that was one of the worst moves in our history. But I still don't want to put my hands in the States to protect me from the Feds when it comes to my right to chose who I do business with and walk across the street when I chose not to.
Morality of Wealth Redistribution
- Thread starter Wiseacre
- Start date
Vanquish
Vanquisher of shills
- Aug 14, 2009
- 2,663
- 358
- 98
And there's your problem. Like a welfare bum, you expect someone to do the hard work FOR YOU.
Sure they're accountable. You just don't like what they account up to because WE ALL voted them in.
Show me where Americans have had the vote taken away, and I'll agree that they're not accountable. Did we all suddenly wake up in Bizarro world where we don't get to vote??? Of course not. They're accountable. The problem is that the citizenry has a short attention span and is too busy playing Xbox and watching The Real Housewives of Des Moine to give a damn. If they did, the crooks would be drummed out of office.
Fail by you.
I'm not a tax expert. However they figure up the average joe's tax should be the done the same way, except without the loopholes.
I wish I could agree with you, but most of those favoring government wealth redistribution think it's fine that almost 50% of American wage earners pay little or no federal income taxes, the next 20 or 30% pay about the right amount, and everybody else should be paying a whole bunch more. "Fair" doesn't enter into it.
I'm telling you that if you don't like a company you are dealing with you need to get off your can and walk across the street.
You're telling me if I don't like what the government is doing I need to convince the majority of Americans and vote them out of office.
And this equates to that "I" am "like a welfare bum" who wants someone to do my work for me? Oh, and you're a centrist. Right.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
The same with "walking across the street." Maybe there's a change. Maybe there's not.
There is an immediate change. My money no longer supports the poor performer.
I get 100% of the vote on my decision. In government, I need to get at least 50% support for my position and there is still no guarantee I will see improvement.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
With all due respect, that is just ignorant.
Consumer influence is actually effective. Elections are for the most part a charade to appease the masses. Note that Dear Leader did NOT close Gitmo, did NOT withdraw from Iraq, has NOT engaged the public prior to promoting laws. Those complaints against Bush are equally valid against Obama, despite the belief of millions that he would bring about "hope and change."
Look at what happened when Campbells reduced salt?
{
Campbell Soup Company, which has become synonymous with sodium reduction and even showcased its healthier ways in a commercial, announced a new sales strategy this week: add more salt back into its soups.
Incoming CEO Denise Morrison told an investorÂ’s meeting at company headquarters in New Jersey this week that CampbellÂ’s will boost the sodium content of its products in hopes of combatting sluggish sales. }
Campbell’s adding salt back to its soups - The Globe and Mail
The power of the purse made the company heed the will of the people,
Coke found out when they changed to "New Coke."
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Everyone paying the same percentage, no deductions, allowances or other means of not paying, seems fair to me.
10% off the top - end of story...
yidnar
Diamond Member
Well my question is, is there a fair share. I mean is there a percentage that you think is fair to tax someone? I'm not asking to be a dick, I'm asking because I always hear about people (left/right/middle/white/black/yellow/brown/red/smart/stupid-- literally everyone) talking about "their fair share" and I'm never quite sure what that means. I would think it would be a fairly simple answer. What do you think is a fair share for you to pay? I would think that whatever you think is fair for you to pay is same percentage that is fair for someone else to pay.
I just like to ask because "their" is easy to follow with "fair share". You ask someone what is 'your fair share' and suddenly they stammer and stutter like somehow it is different.
Mike
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,419
- 2,180
It means "soak the rich" and "raise taxes on everyone," and that's all it has ever meant.
Last edited:
The reason they stammer is because that's a hard question to truly answer. I don't know how to answer it, but I do know that I don't use loopholes in order to pay less than my share, whatever the IRS has determined that share to be. It is these loopholes of the rich that is not right, and should be closed.
I agree with you and disagree with you (well tbh its not really agree/disagree its just wrong.)
I agree with the second point you make. That is why I'm such a big states rights kinda guy.
To the first point, that's not entirely true. Now look, I'm all for stopping subsidizes across the board if that's what we're going to do. I wish we would tax income, corporate or otherwise at one level. Once you have your money, its yours -- no more loopholes. Part of the reason is evidenced in what you say in your first point. The "subsidizes to oil companies" is not really an "oil company subsidy". They are "subsidizes" that are given to all kinds of companies for all kinds of reasons. Mostly it allows companies to write off risks that are inherent in their business. Now I'm fine with ending them all but part of the problem is that we (the general public) get into this rhetorical battle because of what politicians throw out there.
If you think the oil subsidizes are bad, consider this. What is even more egregious is the subsidizes that we give to the competitors of the oil companies. The oil companies literally fund the research and development of the companies that the government hopes one day replaces them. We tax the oil company (who pays taxes just like they would if they were any other company and gets the same tax breaks (its not a subsidy if the company is paying taxes and you let them keep some of their money) as other companies that operate in the same capacity. Then the federal government takes that money and literally gives it to ethanol companies, bio-diesel companies to start up/do research (the bio-diesel/ethanol/alternative energy companies don't pay money if they aren't making profits so it is literally a subsidy) in the hopes that one day they replace the oil company. Talk about digging your own grave?
Mike
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,419
- 2,180
In other words, they aren't accountable. You're whining about the reason doesn't change the outcome. You're also ignoring the fact that the federal government has $4 trillion each year that it extracts from our hides at gun point to use to buy votes and insure reelection for incumbents.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Which loopholes do you want to eliminate? Be specific.
Answering for myself, all of them. Any deduction that isn't directly related to calculating net income should be eliminated.
Ultimately though. There is a fair share. I don't think it is what is the "fair share" for you to pay, more it is what is the fair share for the government to take from you.
Think about it like this. When you work (however you do it, trading stocks, investing, working at McD's, as a CEO, an engineer, digging ditches or whatever) you are devoting a certain percentage of your day away from your family (working at home not withstanding). The total amount that you pay in taxes (after you get your refund/entitlements -- not saying you do, this is the royal generic you now) divided by the total amount of money that you make (say 60,000 for easy math) * 100 is the percentage of your work that it is acceptable to tax. So, if you pay 10,000 in taxes that means that for every hour you work the government gets 10 minutes. If its 20k/taxes then the government gets 20 mins. If it is 5000 the government gets 5 minutes. How many hours a day is it fair to ask a person to labor on behalf of the group? Should that question be answered differently for a person who makes more? I mean if a guy makes a million dollars a year, should you be able to tell him that he must labor for 20 minutes an hour on behalf of everyone else while most people labor for 10 minutes?
I know its hypothetical and its really more to inspire thought than get a direct answer. I just think that when people talk in terms of money they forget that nobody gets money for free. The money they acquire is (in most cases) the value of the amount and type of work they can accomplish in an hour multiplied by the number of hours they work. (It goes backwards too for salaried employees). We hear about "tons of money". My dad for example, is a wealthy man. He did very well for himself (he's not one of the ultra-billionares) but he put in a lot of hours. He didn't work 40 hours a week, he worked closer to 70-80 hrs/week. We lived in a trailer when I was a kid while he finished school and eventually took an entry level engineering job, paying off loans and things like that. He spend a lot of time building the value of his labor and while its true that he did benefit from the infrastructure around him, he didn't get grants or anything, he worked his tail off. Is it fair to rob him of the extra compensation he made after he got his MBA just because he gets more money? I mean what is the benefit of me improving the value of my labor by 10-20% if you stand there and tell me that half of it (or 1/4 or 1/3 or whatever) belongs to society. If you tax everyone at an equal rate then society is already realizing the added value of my wage by getting that extra tax revenue.
Its just food for thought, mixed in with the way I see the world. (I'm not rich yet by the way.)
Mike
Immanuel
Gold Member
- May 15, 2007
- 16,828
- 2,270
- 183
So, let me see if I understand what you are saying, if you had children under the age of 18 you would not take the Child Tax Credit that you would be entitled to? If you own a home and pay interest on the mortgage, you don't itemize your deductions and take advantage of the mortgage interest credit?
Both of those are "loopholes". Are you saying you don't take advantage of such "loopholes"?
Immie
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Which ones aren't directly related to calculating net income?
Those that don't represent actual expenses incurred in generating said income. I gather you're trying to make a point, but rather than playing guessing games, it might be simpler if you said what it is.
Similar threads
- Locked
