Should Billionaires Even Exist?

[Ken Mac]

It is not HAVING the money. It is the EARNING that is fun. If one is the type able to do it in the first place.

Yes, people who end up being millionaires and billionaires have a different mindset that's for sure.

Yes. Some people forget that they create JOBS.

The government creates jobs.

The government creates nothing. It produces nothing and creates nothing. It expands and spends more money thereby needing to fill more seats as it get more and more bloated with more and more programs.

The government is a tax on our Products and Services (GDP) the private sector produces.

The government is blood sucking overhead and the larger it gets, the less competitive we are in the global market.

The government provides modern infrastructure without which business wouldn't exist.

Infrastructure is called out specifically in the constitution. It is a shared task that everyone in the nation contributes to. It's their ******* job. That and security of the nation. That is pretty much ALL they are tasked with.

 

[Ken Mac]

Yes. Some people forget that they create JOBS.

The government creates jobs.

The government creates nothing. It produces nothing and creates nothing. It expands and spends more money thereby needing to fill more seats as it get more and more bloated with more and more programs.

The government is a tax on our Products and Services (GDP) the private sector produces.

The government is blood sucking overhead and the larger it gets, the less competitive we are in the global market.

The government provides modern infrastructure without which business wouldn't exist.

The government provides modern infrastructure without which business wouldn't exist.

Government is awesome!
Where did they get the money to pay for that infrastructure that they so thoughtfully provide?

Taxes, which is why you don't pay a toll when you leave your driveway, and more importantly for you, get a bill from the fire department for fire suppression when your meth lab explodes. ;-)

Actually that is incorrect. They get the money from the people through levying taxes. Taxes are a process to gather funds for supporting the government's task to build infrastructure to support commerce.

 

[Ken Mac]

I have no desire to be a billionaire or to take a billionaire's money from him/her. I just want to be able to pay my bills and be comfortable, and accomplishing my own personal goals. I would rather make less and do a job that I enjoy too, but that's just me.

Do what makes you happy. Amma rite?

 

[Rigby5]

The government provides modern infrastructure without which business wouldn't exist.

The government provides modern infrastructure without which business wouldn't exist.

Government is awesome!
Where did they get the money to pay for that infrastructure that they so thoughtfully provide?

Taxes, which is why you don't pay a toll when you leave your driveway, and more importantly for you, get a bill from the fire department for fire suppression when your meth lab explodes. ;-)

Everybody uses infrastructure. It's not one entities responsibility to fund most of it. People who drive cars use our infrastructure, people who ride bicycles, kids who get around on skate boards or roller skates, trucks who deliver and pickup products that pay a ton of road taxes.

As for businesses, besides their product or service, they create jobs. Where would we all work if there was nobody to do that?

Given the fact every single American uses infrastructure for one reason or another, everybody should pay equally.

Taxed based infrastructure make everyone's life easier and makes business possible.

That's what I just said, but you leftists always claim that industry should pay more for it than others. That was my point.

The more you benefit from government financed infrastructure and the more you are able to pay, then it makes perfect sense and ethics for you pay more.

For example, it makes no sense for poor people who never fly, to have to contibute to a new and expensive airport they will never use.
Trucks should pay more for the advantage of better highways, and the wear and tear they cause.
But poor people forced to commute longer distances in order to find affordable housing, should not be forced to pay more for the fact they have long commutes they do not desire.

 

[Rigby5]

Taxes, which is why you don't pay a toll when you leave your driveway, and more importantly for you, get a bill from the fire department for fire suppression when your meth lab explodes. ;-)

If so ,then all TAX should be EQUAL. Such as 15% for everyone. That includes the worthless poor.

Not going to happen. We wealthy pay much less than 15%.

Where in the F do you get your info???

The top 1% pay 37%
50% pay 97%
50% pay 3%

Where are all these made up facts from??? I see a lot of ass pulling facts here on this place.

Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2018 Update

WOW! So you think that the wealthy have to pay 37% individually to pay 37% of the total?

No. I say we need a flat TAX of 15%. And the POOR have to pay also.

Bad idea.
Why?
First of all there is no reason to reduce taxes down to 15% for the very wealthy and most profitable.
The tax needs to be more like 25 or 30%.
And the reason that also should not be a harmful rate for poor people, is that the cost of doing business should not be taxed since that is not profit. And expenses like housing, food, clothing, fuel, utilities, etc., is the cost of doing business.
So then actually almost none or none at all of the income for poor people should be taxed at all.
The fair way to do this is with something like a 25k deduction, per person.

 

[Rigby5]

Taxes, which is why you don't pay a toll when you leave your driveway, and more importantly for you, get a bill from the fire department for fire suppression when your meth lab explodes. ;-)

If so ,then all TAX should be EQUAL. Such as 15% for everyone. That includes the worthless poor.

Not going to happen. We wealthy pay much less than 15%.

How much does your Nevada Corporation pay?

In federal tax, 1.5% of revenue.

Where did you read that Nevada Corporations pay taxes on revenue? Link?

{...
Nevada's tax structure is also a large benefit to incorporation in Nevada. Nevada has no franchise tax. It also has no corporate income tax or personal income tax.[1] While Nevada likes to promote that there are "no corporation taxes" in the state, there is an annual $200 "Business License Fee" which is paid to the Secretary of State's Office at the time of formation or renewal of the corporation. Nevada additionally applies a 1.475% tax rate for most General Business employers, as opposed to Financial Institutions, on wages after deduction of health benefits paid by the employer and certain wages paid to qualified veterans—that tax is equivalent to a personal income tax. However, the first $50,000 of gross wages is not taxable as a state tax however federal taxes do apply.[2] Nevada also imposes a "Commerce Tax" on businesses with Nevada gross revenue exceeding $4,000,000 within a taxable year.[3] Nevada and Texas are the only two states that do not have information sharing agreements with the Internal Revenue Service.[4] In addition there are,

• No state corporate income tax, franchise tax, personal income tax, or taxes on corporate shares
• No IRS information-sharing agreement (although other states' incorporation laws often supersede Nevada law in certain cases)
• Low annual fees and minimal reporting/disclosure requirements
• Stockholders, directors, and officers are not public record, not required to reside or hold meetings in Nevada, and are not required to be US citizens
• Directors not required to hold stock
• Officers/directors are protected from personal liability for lawful acts of the corporation
• Corporations may purchase, hold, sell, or transfer shares of its own stock
• Corporations may issue stock for capital, services, personal property, or real estate, including leases and options
• Directors may determine the value of any transactions; their decision is final once determined

...}

Nevada corporation - Wikipedia

However, that is only state taxes.
Federal taxes on corporations in Nevada are the same as everywhere.

{...
Federal corporate rate is 21%. Branch profits tax imposes additional 30% tax on foreign corporations engaged in US trade or business. Separate taxes levied at state and municipal levels.
...}

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If so ,then all TAX should be EQUAL. Such as 15% for everyone. That includes the worthless poor.

Not going to happen. We wealthy pay much less than 15%.

How much does your Nevada Corporation pay?

In federal tax, 1.5% of revenue.

Where did you read that Nevada Corporations pay taxes on revenue? Link?

{...
Nevada's tax structure is also a large benefit to incorporation in Nevada. Nevada has no franchise tax. It also has no corporate income tax or personal income tax.[1] While Nevada likes to promote that there are "no corporation taxes" in the state, there is an annual $200 "Business License Fee" which is paid to the Secretary of State's Office at the time of formation or renewal of the corporation. Nevada additionally applies a 1.475% tax rate for most General Business employers, as opposed to Financial Institutions, on wages after deduction of health benefits paid by the employer and certain wages paid to qualified veterans—that tax is equivalent to a personal income tax. However, the first $50,000 of gross wages is not taxable as a state tax however federal taxes do apply.[2] Nevada also imposes a "Commerce Tax" on businesses with Nevada gross revenue exceeding $4,000,000 within a taxable year.[3] Nevada and Texas are the only two states that do not have information sharing agreements with the Internal Revenue Service.[4] In addition there are,

• No state corporate income tax, franchise tax, personal income tax, or taxes on corporate shares
• No IRS information-sharing agreement (although other states' incorporation laws often supersede Nevada law in certain cases)
• Low annual fees and minimal reporting/disclosure requirements
• Stockholders, directors, and officers are not public record, not required to reside or hold meetings in Nevada, and are not required to be US citizens
• Directors not required to hold stock
• Officers/directors are protected from personal liability for lawful acts of the corporation
• Corporations may purchase, hold, sell, or transfer shares of its own stock
• Corporations may issue stock for capital, services, personal property, or real estate, including leases and options
• Directors may determine the value of any transactions; their decision is final once determined

...}

Nevada corporation - Wikipedia

However, that is only state taxes.
Federal taxes on corporations in Nevada are the same as everywhere.

{...
Federal corporate rate is 21%. Branch profits tax imposes additional 30% tax on foreign corporations engaged in US trade or business. Separate taxes levied at state and municipal levels.
...}

Federal taxes on corporations in Nevada are the same as everywhere.

Weird, OnePercenter claimed they allowed him to pay low single digits on
his federal corporate taxes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The government provides modern infrastructure without which business wouldn't exist.

Government is awesome!
Where did they get the money to pay for that infrastructure that they so thoughtfully provide?

Taxes, which is why you don't pay a toll when you leave your driveway, and more importantly for you, get a bill from the fire department for fire suppression when your meth lab explodes. ;-)

Everybody uses infrastructure. It's not one entities responsibility to fund most of it. People who drive cars use our infrastructure, people who ride bicycles, kids who get around on skate boards or roller skates, trucks who deliver and pickup products that pay a ton of road taxes.

As for businesses, besides their product or service, they create jobs. Where would we all work if there was nobody to do that?

Given the fact every single American uses infrastructure for one reason or another, everybody should pay equally.

Taxed based infrastructure make everyone's life easier and makes business possible.

That's what I just said, but you leftists always claim that industry should pay more for it than others. That was my point.

The more you benefit from government financed infrastructure and the more you are able to pay, then it makes perfect sense and ethics for you pay more.

For example, it makes no sense for poor people who never fly, to have to contibute to a new and expensive airport they will never use.
Trucks should pay more for the advantage of better highways, and the wear and tear they cause.
But poor people forced to commute longer distances in order to find affordable housing, should not be forced to pay more for the fact they have long commutes they do not desire.

I don't believe taxation should be based on your ability to pay, it should be based on ones use of the services rendered. But if we are going to go in that direction, let's take it one step further:

You have eight beautiful bushes in front of your house. You have more than the family on the next street. Would it not be fair for government to take four of your beautiful bushes, and give it to the family that has none? Or perhaps you love entertainment and own three big screen televisions. Would it not be fair for government to take one of your big screen televisions, and give it to somebody that has none?

The problem with your philosophy is that you have more than other people, just as some have more than you do. So where do we decide when one has too much and must give it to another?

 

[San Souci]

The government provides modern infrastructure without which business wouldn't exist.

Government is awesome!
Where did they get the money to pay for that infrastructure that they so thoughtfully provide?

Taxes, which is why you don't pay a toll when you leave your driveway, and more importantly for you, get a bill from the fire department for fire suppression when your meth lab explodes. ;-)

Everybody uses infrastructure. It's not one entities responsibility to fund most of it. People who drive cars use our infrastructure, people who ride bicycles, kids who get around on skate boards or roller skates, trucks who deliver and pickup products that pay a ton of road taxes.

As for businesses, besides their product or service, they create jobs. Where would we all work if there was nobody to do that?

Given the fact every single American uses infrastructure for one reason or another, everybody should pay equally.

Taxed based infrastructure make everyone's life easier and makes business possible.

That's what I just said, but you leftists always claim that industry should pay more for it than others. That was my point.

The more you benefit from government financed infrastructure and the more you are able to pay, then it makes perfect sense and ethics for you pay more.

For example, it makes no sense for poor people who never fly, to have to contibute to a new and expensive airport they will never use.
Trucks should pay more for the advantage of better highways, and the wear and tear they cause.
But poor people forced to commute longer distances in order to find affordable housing, should not be forced to pay more for the fact they have long commutes they do not desire.

They live here and they vote. Reason enough to pay tax. Besides ,nobody is stopping poor folks from becoming rich except their own laziness.

 

[Rigby5]

Taxes, which is why you don't pay a toll when you leave your driveway, and more importantly for you, get a bill from the fire department for fire suppression when your meth lab explodes. ;-)

Everybody uses infrastructure. It's not one entities responsibility to fund most of it. People who drive cars use our infrastructure, people who ride bicycles, kids who get around on skate boards or roller skates, trucks who deliver and pickup products that pay a ton of road taxes.

As for businesses, besides their product or service, they create jobs. Where would we all work if there was nobody to do that?

Given the fact every single American uses infrastructure for one reason or another, everybody should pay equally.

Taxed based infrastructure make everyone's life easier and makes business possible.

That's what I just said, but you leftists always claim that industry should pay more for it than others. That was my point.

The more you benefit from government financed infrastructure and the more you are able to pay, then it makes perfect sense and ethics for you pay more.

For example, it makes no sense for poor people who never fly, to have to contibute to a new and expensive airport they will never use.
Trucks should pay more for the advantage of better highways, and the wear and tear they cause.
But poor people forced to commute longer distances in order to find affordable housing, should not be forced to pay more for the fact they have long commutes they do not desire.

I don't believe taxation should be based on your ability to pay, it should be based on ones use of the services rendered. But if we are going to go in that direction, let's take it one step further:

You have eight beautiful bushes in front of your house. You have more than the family on the next street. Would it not be fair for government to take four of your beautiful bushes, and give it to the family that has none? Or perhaps you love entertainment and own three big screen televisions. Would it not be fair for government to take one of your big screen televisions, and give it to somebody that has none?

The problem with your philosophy is that you have more than other people, just as some have more than you do. So where do we decide when one has too much and must give it to another?

View attachment 306757

What about someone who is disabled, why should you tax them at all when they already have a bad life through no fault of their own.
Some people are smarter or stronger, but mostly what makes someone have a greater income is the amount of wealth they have to start with. And since that is usually inherited, it makes sense that those who get paid the most should then shoulder the greater tax burden. After all, they are the ones benefiting the most from the system the tax money gets invested into.

The bushs and TV screens make no sense because everyone can afford bushes and TV screens.
If you want to talk about equity, then you should talk about homes, and I think everyone should have a home.
In many countries almost everyone does, or at least everyone who wants one.
Only in the US is home ownership down to only about 40% or so.
Disgraceful if you ask me.
Too many tax breaks for landlords, so individual can not compete.

Anyway, taxes to NOT go to other individuals.
Taxes go to group infrastructure, like roads, fire departments, defense, schools, etc., that benefit everyone.

 

[Rigby5]

Taxes, which is why you don't pay a toll when you leave your driveway, and more importantly for you, get a bill from the fire department for fire suppression when your meth lab explodes. ;-)

Everybody uses infrastructure. It's not one entities responsibility to fund most of it. People who drive cars use our infrastructure, people who ride bicycles, kids who get around on skate boards or roller skates, trucks who deliver and pickup products that pay a ton of road taxes.

As for businesses, besides their product or service, they create jobs. Where would we all work if there was nobody to do that?

Given the fact every single American uses infrastructure for one reason or another, everybody should pay equally.

Taxed based infrastructure make everyone's life easier and makes business possible.

That's what I just said, but you leftists always claim that industry should pay more for it than others. That was my point.

The more you benefit from government financed infrastructure and the more you are able to pay, then it makes perfect sense and ethics for you pay more.

For example, it makes no sense for poor people who never fly, to have to contibute to a new and expensive airport they will never use.
Trucks should pay more for the advantage of better highways, and the wear and tear they cause.
But poor people forced to commute longer distances in order to find affordable housing, should not be forced to pay more for the fact they have long commutes they do not desire.

They live here and they vote. Reason enough to pay tax. Besides ,nobody is stopping poor folks from becoming rich except their own laziness.

That is not at all true.
It is impossible to make money without first having money.
If you can't afford $150k tuition, you can't get the needed degree.
If you can't afford the $500k start up collateral, you can't start a business.
If you do not have the $40k down payment, you can't buy even a modest home and are stuck paying rent possibly forever.

 

[San Souci]

Everybody uses infrastructure. It's not one entities responsibility to fund most of it. People who drive cars use our infrastructure, people who ride bicycles, kids who get around on skate boards or roller skates, trucks who deliver and pickup products that pay a ton of road taxes.

As for businesses, besides their product or service, they create jobs. Where would we all work if there was nobody to do that?

Given the fact every single American uses infrastructure for one reason or another, everybody should pay equally.

Taxed based infrastructure make everyone's life easier and makes business possible.

That's what I just said, but you leftists always claim that industry should pay more for it than others. That was my point.

The more you benefit from government financed infrastructure and the more you are able to pay, then it makes perfect sense and ethics for you pay more.

For example, it makes no sense for poor people who never fly, to have to contibute to a new and expensive airport they will never use.
Trucks should pay more for the advantage of better highways, and the wear and tear they cause.
But poor people forced to commute longer distances in order to find affordable housing, should not be forced to pay more for the fact they have long commutes they do not desire.

They live here and they vote. Reason enough to pay tax. Besides ,nobody is stopping poor folks from becoming rich except their own laziness.

That is not at all true.
It is impossible to make money without first having money.
If you can't afford $150k tuition, you can't get the needed degree.
If you can't afford the $500k start up collateral, you can't start a business.
If you do not have the $40k down payment, you can't buy even a modest home and are stuck paying rent possibly forever.

Never heard of WORKING for it? Ronald Reagan was Poor.

 

[dblack]

It is impossible to make money without first having money.

You need to think that one through. It's a nice bromide, but it's obviously not true. If it were, no one would ever make money.

 

[Redfish]

We're living a lot longer. And I don't mean like 2-3 years since 1960. More like 15 years. And the boomer generation which is huge is aging and it is a huge generation of people. So yeah, more health care is needed. That doesn't mean these are the only reasons for it going up and being a greater portion of the GDP but it's a very large chunk of it.

It's the most expensive healthcare system in the world, and we don't live the longest....

Longevity is not a direct result of our healthcare system. We have drugs killing over 90,000 Americans a year now, and that's not including the thousands of murders that take place over drug sales in the streets. We drive more than most other people around the world, and we lose a lot of people in traffic accidents; 27,000 last year alone. Professional women have children much later in life than women in other countries. The later a woman gets pregnant, the more likely she is to lose the child after birth.

Not gonna dispute it's the most expensive eh? Pretty sure other countries have drugs and cars and all manner of ways to die too.

we are not the most expensive and we are the best. Would you rather pay 55% of your income to the government and have to wait months for routine care? Thats what they have in countries with socialized medicine, ask any Brit, Swede, or Canadian how the government run medicine works for them. It sucks.

We have the most expensive healthcare, and the 11th best.

Which countries have the best healthcare systems? | APRIL International

wow, a Bloomberg company did a survey. the countries at the top have very small populations, very little immigration, and very high taxes.

If you think thats a good way to live, move to Sweden or The Netherlands. Do it, and STFU with your inane criticisms of the best country in the history of the world.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's the most expensive healthcare system in the world, and we don't live the longest....

Longevity is not a direct result of our healthcare system. We have drugs killing over 90,000 Americans a year now, and that's not including the thousands of murders that take place over drug sales in the streets. We drive more than most other people around the world, and we lose a lot of people in traffic accidents; 27,000 last year alone. Professional women have children much later in life than women in other countries. The later a woman gets pregnant, the more likely she is to lose the child after birth.

Not gonna dispute it's the most expensive eh? Pretty sure other countries have drugs and cars and all manner of ways to die too.

we are not the most expensive and we are the best. Would you rather pay 55% of your income to the government and have to wait months for routine care? Thats what they have in countries with socialized medicine, ask any Brit, Swede, or Canadian how the government run medicine works for them. It sucks.

We have the most expensive healthcare, and the 11th best.

Which countries have the best healthcare systems? | APRIL International

wow, a Bloomberg company did a survey. the countries at the top have very small populations, very little immigration, and very high taxes.

If you think thats a good way to live, move to Sweden or The Netherlands. Do it, and STFU with your inane criticisms of the best country in the history of the world.

If you are a wealthy VIP living in another country, and you had serious medical issues that needed to be addressed, WTF would you go to the 11th best country in the world to get treatment? Wouldn't you go to the fourth, fifth, or even the country with the best medical care?

My provider is the world famous Cleveland Clinic. When you go to their downtown campus, you are the one who feels like a foreigner. My sister works there, and as a supervisor, she would have to cater to all these wealthy foreigners that go there for treatment or surgery. Some are so wealthy that they rent out an entire hospital floor for security reasons. The elevator doesn't even stop on the floor unless you have a key.

Like most northern hospitals, beds are filled with Canadian patients who can't get proper attention under their socialized medical care system. So when I read these "opinions" or polls, I just have to laugh because I know it's BS seeing it up front dozens of times.

 

[Redfish]

Everybody uses infrastructure. It's not one entities responsibility to fund most of it. People who drive cars use our infrastructure, people who ride bicycles, kids who get around on skate boards or roller skates, trucks who deliver and pickup products that pay a ton of road taxes.

As for businesses, besides their product or service, they create jobs. Where would we all work if there was nobody to do that?

Given the fact every single American uses infrastructure for one reason or another, everybody should pay equally.

Taxed based infrastructure make everyone's life easier and makes business possible.

That's what I just said, but you leftists always claim that industry should pay more for it than others. That was my point.

The more you benefit from government financed infrastructure and the more you are able to pay, then it makes perfect sense and ethics for you pay more.

For example, it makes no sense for poor people who never fly, to have to contibute to a new and expensive airport they will never use.
Trucks should pay more for the advantage of better highways, and the wear and tear they cause.
But poor people forced to commute longer distances in order to find affordable housing, should not be forced to pay more for the fact they have long commutes they do not desire.

They live here and they vote. Reason enough to pay tax. Besides ,nobody is stopping poor folks from becoming rich except their own laziness.

That is not at all true.
It is impossible to make money without first having money.
If you can't afford $150k tuition, you can't get the needed degree.
If you can't afford the $500k start up collateral, you can't start a business.
If you do not have the $40k down payment, you can't buy even a modest home and are stuck paying rent possibly forever.

bill Gates did not start out rich, neither did Warren Buffet or Steve Jobs, or Henry Ford, or Thomas Edison, or Rush Limbaugh, or me.

you don't have to have money to get rich or comfortably wealthy, you just need to think, have an idea, work hard, and never give up.

 

[Redfish]

Longevity is not a direct result of our healthcare system. We have drugs killing over 90,000 Americans a year now, and that's not including the thousands of murders that take place over drug sales in the streets. We drive more than most other people around the world, and we lose a lot of people in traffic accidents; 27,000 last year alone. Professional women have children much later in life than women in other countries. The later a woman gets pregnant, the more likely she is to lose the child after birth.

Not gonna dispute it's the most expensive eh? Pretty sure other countries have drugs and cars and all manner of ways to die too.

we are not the most expensive and we are the best. Would you rather pay 55% of your income to the government and have to wait months for routine care? Thats what they have in countries with socialized medicine, ask any Brit, Swede, or Canadian how the government run medicine works for them. It sucks.

We have the most expensive healthcare, and the 11th best.

Which countries have the best healthcare systems? | APRIL International

wow, a Bloomberg company did a survey. the countries at the top have very small populations, very little immigration, and very high taxes.

If you think thats a good way to live, move to Sweden or The Netherlands. Do it, and STFU with your inane criticisms of the best country in the history of the world.

If you are a wealthy VIP living in another country, and you had serious medical issues that needed to be addressed, WTF would you go to the 11th best country in the world to get treatment? Wouldn't you go to the fourth, fifth, or even the country with the best medical care?

My provider is the world famous Cleveland Clinic. When you go to their downtown campus, you are the one who feels like a foreigner. My sister works there, and as a supervisor, she would have to cater to all these wealthy foreigners that go there for treatment or surgery. Some are so wealthy that they rent out an entire hospital floor for security reasons. The elevator doesn't even stop on the floor unless you have a key.

Like most northern hospitals, beds are filled with Canadian patients who can't get proper attention under their socialized medical care system. So when I read these "opinions" or polls, I just have to laugh because I know it's BS seeing it up front dozens of times.

We see the same thing at Ochsner here in NOLA, lots of rich south americans, europeans, and asians.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Everybody uses infrastructure. It's not one entities responsibility to fund most of it. People who drive cars use our infrastructure, people who ride bicycles, kids who get around on skate boards or roller skates, trucks who deliver and pickup products that pay a ton of road taxes.

As for businesses, besides their product or service, they create jobs. Where would we all work if there was nobody to do that?

Given the fact every single American uses infrastructure for one reason or another, everybody should pay equally.

Taxed based infrastructure make everyone's life easier and makes business possible.

That's what I just said, but you leftists always claim that industry should pay more for it than others. That was my point.

The more you benefit from government financed infrastructure and the more you are able to pay, then it makes perfect sense and ethics for you pay more.

For example, it makes no sense for poor people who never fly, to have to contibute to a new and expensive airport they will never use.
Trucks should pay more for the advantage of better highways, and the wear and tear they cause.
But poor people forced to commute longer distances in order to find affordable housing, should not be forced to pay more for the fact they have long commutes they do not desire.

They live here and they vote. Reason enough to pay tax. Besides ,nobody is stopping poor folks from becoming rich except their own laziness.

That is not at all true.
It is impossible to make money without first having money.
If you can't afford $150k tuition, you can't get the needed degree.
If you can't afford the $500k start up collateral, you can't start a business.
If you do not have the $40k down payment, you can't buy even a modest home and are stuck paying rent possibly forever.

That's utter bull. The beverage store I go to is owned by a guy from India. He came here with a few bucks in his pocket and never went to college. He worked night and day until he saved enough money for his own beverage store. He was successful. So he used the profits to buy rental property, and he became a landlord as well. About six years ago, he bought a hotel in a small town by a truck stop, and he's now running all three.

Of course he doesn't do this all himself, his wife basically runs the hotel, and they both work night and day. He had to hire several people to run the beverage store as he's helping his wife at the hotel because they can't find people to work.

So why can't people who are born here do the same thing? They can, but you would have to work night and day seven days a week like this couple.

 

[Redfish]

Taxed based infrastructure make everyone's life easier and makes business possible.

That's what I just said, but you leftists always claim that industry should pay more for it than others. That was my point.

The more you benefit from government financed infrastructure and the more you are able to pay, then it makes perfect sense and ethics for you pay more.

For example, it makes no sense for poor people who never fly, to have to contibute to a new and expensive airport they will never use.
Trucks should pay more for the advantage of better highways, and the wear and tear they cause.
But poor people forced to commute longer distances in order to find affordable housing, should not be forced to pay more for the fact they have long commutes they do not desire.

They live here and they vote. Reason enough to pay tax. Besides ,nobody is stopping poor folks from becoming rich except their own laziness.

That is not at all true.
It is impossible to make money without first having money.
If you can't afford $150k tuition, you can't get the needed degree.
If you can't afford the $500k start up collateral, you can't start a business.
If you do not have the $40k down payment, you can't buy even a modest home and are stuck paying rent possibly forever.

That's utter bull. The beverage store I go to is owned by a guy from India. He came here with a few bucks in his pocket and never went to college. He worked night and day until he saved enough money for his own beverage store. He was successful. So he used the profits to buy rental property, and he became a landlord as well. About six years ago, he bought a hotel in a small town by a truck stop, and he's now running all three.

Of course he doesn't do this all himself, his wife basically runs the hotel, and they both work night and day. He had to hire several people to run the beverage store as he's helping his wife at the hotel because they can't find people to work.

So why can't people who are born here do the same thing? They can, but you would have to work night and day seven days a week like this couple.

the answer to "why can't" is simple. Because its easier to lay around, smoke pot, and collect welfare and food stamps.

Our system incentivizes laziness, kids out of wedlock, and fatherless homes. Liberalism will destroy this country if we let it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Everybody uses infrastructure. It's not one entities responsibility to fund most of it. People who drive cars use our infrastructure, people who ride bicycles, kids who get around on skate boards or roller skates, trucks who deliver and pickup products that pay a ton of road taxes.

As for businesses, besides their product or service, they create jobs. Where would we all work if there was nobody to do that?

Given the fact every single American uses infrastructure for one reason or another, everybody should pay equally.

Taxed based infrastructure make everyone's life easier and makes business possible.

That's what I just said, but you leftists always claim that industry should pay more for it than others. That was my point.

The more you benefit from government financed infrastructure and the more you are able to pay, then it makes perfect sense and ethics for you pay more.

For example, it makes no sense for poor people who never fly, to have to contibute to a new and expensive airport they will never use.
Trucks should pay more for the advantage of better highways, and the wear and tear they cause.
But poor people forced to commute longer distances in order to find affordable housing, should not be forced to pay more for the fact they have long commutes they do not desire.

I don't believe taxation should be based on your ability to pay, it should be based on ones use of the services rendered. But if we are going to go in that direction, let's take it one step further:

You have eight beautiful bushes in front of your house. You have more than the family on the next street. Would it not be fair for government to take four of your beautiful bushes, and give it to the family that has none? Or perhaps you love entertainment and own three big screen televisions. Would it not be fair for government to take one of your big screen televisions, and give it to somebody that has none?

The problem with your philosophy is that you have more than other people, just as some have more than you do. So where do we decide when one has too much and must give it to another?

View attachment 306757

What about someone who is disabled, why should you tax them at all when they already have a bad life through no fault of their own.
Some people are smarter or stronger, but mostly what makes someone have a greater income is the amount of wealth they have to start with. And since that is usually inherited, it makes sense that those who get paid the most should then shoulder the greater tax burden. After all, they are the ones benefiting the most from the system the tax money gets invested into.

The bushs and TV screens make no sense because everyone can afford bushes and TV screens.
If you want to talk about equity, then you should talk about homes, and I think everyone should have a home.
In many countries almost everyone does, or at least everyone who wants one.
Only in the US is home ownership down to only about 40% or so.
Disgraceful if you ask me.
Too many tax breaks for landlords, so individual can not compete.

Anyway, taxes to NOT go to other individuals.
Taxes go to group infrastructure, like roads, fire departments, defense, schools, etc., that benefit everyone.

Well as a landlord, can you tell me about all these tax breaks I'm getting, because my CPA is unaware of them.

I've been doing this for about 25 years now, and I can honestly say I haven't seen the rental business this crazy than I have the last six or seven years. I rented out one of my apartments about four years ago to a couple. I didn't have it ready until February. Usually when I post apartments in the middle of winter, I may get one or two replies a week, and at least one of them not really serious. Nobody wants to move in winter. This last time, I had a dozen replies the next day after I posted the ad. Some begging me to rent them the apartment and even offered to take it sight unseen.

Landlords are taking advantage of this, and now apartments are nearly unaffordable. So why the sudden change in the market? Because younger people don't want the responsibility of home ownership anymore. It's not that they can't buy a house, it's they simply don't want to. They don't want to deal with yard work, a plugged up drain, a broken hot water tank, a leaky roof. If any problems arise, they simply want to make a phone call to have it taken care of. If they want to move to another location, they don't have to worry about selling their present home and buying a new one. They simply give notice to the landlord and they are gone in a month.

I've read articles where millennials even rent their furniture, appliances, lease their cars, etc. Is some of it because they can't afford a home? Perhaps, but it's not the sole reason.