When Have You Made Enough Money?

[Bern80]

You didn't answer the question.

You're question depends on the assumption that we actually need equal compensation for every dollar we are currently collecting.

When is the last time we had a major tax cut that wasn't immediately followed by a significant increase in the deficit?

There hasn't been one. Which means one of two things. Either our government is hyper efficient, not wasteful in anyway and are taxing exaclty and only what they need.....or not.

To answer your original question though I would be in favor of eliminating income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax.

 

[Cuyo]

i don't think that income should be taxed AT ALL. It shouldn't be any of the government's business to know how much I make.

I support a national sales tax. Tax what I spend, not what I earn.

too many ways for the wealthiest to avoid the sales tax.....they can buy their big ticket items overseas in this global market.

What would be taxed is another issue....would purchases of stock on the Wall street market be considered a purchase being taxed? Would the purchase of ones house be taxed? would any purchases of anything overseas be taxed? Will ones purchase from the electric company be taxed, or the oil for heating be taxed?

Will food and necessities be taxed by this national sales tax?

How fair can it be if a person making $20 grand has to spend all of his money in purchases and all, 100%, of his money is sales taxed and the person making a million only gets taxed on 10% of his money?

Sounds pretty unequal and unfair to me.....

No... for what a person spends is up to them... a person making 20K is not forced to spend all 20K... just as a person making 20MIL is not forced to spend all 20MIL.. whether some do is irrelevant

Funny that we have import taxes and taxes on items being shipped back into the country that are bought elsewhere... I know.. I have paid it.. and not on huge items...

I am not one for a sales tax as the only means for federal taxation... for that leads to more political manipulation... those pandering to certain groups to have more things exempted.... now having a separate tax (for example the gas tax) that is used to pay for the creation and upkeep of federal roads is something that is doable... the problem is government getting 'creative' and finding a way to tax each and every thing as a way to gather more power and control and expand itself continually

There will be 'inequality' in outcomes for people.. in a free society there will always be people all over the spectrum between rich and poor... but each citizen is still a citizen... and each citizen should be blindly treated the exact same way... whether it be in taxation, in criminal court, in representation, in voting, etc

Tax the dollar earned and stop having the system revolve around touchy-feely subjective bullshit

So you are willing to admit it really isn't a fair system?

I sure ain't. 10 times out of 10 the rich make their money off the poor, often by exploitation. Behind every great fortune is a great crime, and all that noise. Also worth mentioning they depend completely on the lower classes. One day we're going to wake up and the lower class will have nothing, then guess what? We're all going down.

Fair system? Life ain't fair. But a graduated progressive tax is the fairest I can think of. Regressive taxes like sin taxes, property taxes, sales tax, are the most unjust IMO.

What poor person did I make my $ off of? What crime did I commit to get my wealth?
I intend to keep as much of the $ I earned from thieves like you that believe they are entitled to my hard earned cash. If you are unwilling to work 70 hour weeks 7 days a week, drive old cars for years and not buy every fad item on the shelf and lead a disciplined life then cry me a bucket of tears.
Wealth is earned. You are a dumbass. Even a Mexican laborer KNOWS THAT.

Yeah, listen up. 40 years ago you didn't have to work 70 hours a week (which I've done), or live like a pauper for years just to survive. You could work a regular 9-5 and raise a family, with mom staying home.

You all assume there's something wrong with my life. There isn't. I'm comfortable; Far from rich or even where I'd like to be, but very comfortable.

What pisses me off second is rich ne'er-do-well pricks who don't have to work, because they started out with enough to beget all the wealth they need without the kind of real work that I (and according to your post, you) had to endure. They actually make money off MY labor, in the form of interest on loans I've taken out, rent I've paid in the past, skimming every utility bill I've ever paid, and (before I was self-employed) skimming MY labor.

What pisses me off FIRST is dopes like you who unwittingly stand up for their ability to do it. People who've sufficiently drank the kool-aid and go on to the polls and vote against your own best interests every f**kin' chance you get.

 

[Cuyo]

So you are willing to admit it really isn't a fair system?

I sure ain't. 10 times out of 10 the rich make their money off the poor, often by exploitation. Behind every great fortune is a great crime, and all that noise. Also worth mentioning they depend completely on the lower classes. One day we're going to wake up and the lower class will have nothing, then guess what? We're all going down.

Fair system? Life ain't fair. But a graduated progressive tax is the fairest I can think of. Regressive taxes like sin taxes, property taxes, sales tax, are the most unjust IMO.

What poor person did I make my $ off of? What crime did I commit to get my wealth?
I intend to keep as much of the $ I earned from thieves like you that believe they are entitled to my hard earned cash. If you are unwilling to work 70 hour weeks 7 days a week, drive old cars for years and not buy every fad item on the shelf and lead a disciplined life then cry me a bucket of tears.
Wealth is earned. You are a dumbass. Even a Mexican laborer KNOWS THAT.

Yeah, listen up. 40 years ago you didn't have to work 70 hours a week (which I've done), or live like a pauper for years just to survive. You could work a regular 9-5 and raise a family, with mom staying home.

You all assume there's something wrong with my life. There isn't. I'm comfortable; Far from rich or even where I'd like to be, but very comfortable.

What pisses me off second is rich ne'er-do-well pricks who don't have to work, because they started out with enough to beget all the wealth they need without the kind of real work that I (and according to your post, you) had to endure. They actually make money off MY labor, in the form of interest on loans I've taken out, rent I've paid in the past, skimming every utility bill I've ever paid, and (before I was self-employed) skimming MY labor.

What pisses me off FIRST is dopes like you who unwittingly stand up for their ability to do it. People who've sufficiently drank the kool-aid and go on to the polls and vote against your own best interests every f**kin' chance you get.

 

[Ava]

One has made enough money, when they consider that, not others.

 

[boedicca]

You didn't answer the question.

You're question depends on the assumption that we actually need equal compensation for every dollar we are currently collecting.

When is the last time we had a major tax cut that wasn't immediately followed by a significant increase in the deficit?

Fixing this mess is not going to be an instant gratification endeavor. With the deficit at approx. $1.5T (probably worse) and anemic 3% economic growth (which only generates enough jobs to handle population growth), the only solution is to spur real economic growth.

Government spending and more debt wont' do it. They've been tried. They have failed.

It's time for Obama & Co. to get out of the way of the private sector. Lower taxes will free up capital for productive investment, create jobs, and eventually increase the absolute dollar value of tax receipts. This needs to be combined with lowering government outlays to approx. the modern historical level 20% of GDP from the destructive 25% level Obama has "achieved" in less than 18 months.

 

[Bern80]

Yeah, listen up. 40 years ago you didn't have to work 70 hours a week (which I've done), or live like a pauper for years just to survive. You could work a regular 9-5 and raise a family, with mom staying home.

You all assume there's something wrong with my life. There isn't. I'm comfortable; Far from rich or even where I'd like to be, but very comfortable.

The only thing wrong with you is seem to think you are somehow entitled to have things be the way the were before.

What pisses me off second is rich ne'er-do-well pricks who don't have to work, because they started out with enough to beget all the wealth they need without the kind of real work that I (and according to your post, you) had to endure. They actually make money off MY labor, in the form of interest on loans I've taken out, rent I've paid in the past, skimming every utility bill I've ever paid, and (before I was self-employed) skimming MY labor.

Save your energy. This huge group of wealthy people that didnt' have to do anything to get rich is a fairly tale. Yes there are the Paris Hilton's of the world. But they represent a fraction of how wealthy people derive their income.

What pisses me off FIRST is dopes like you who unwittingly stand up for their ability to do it. People who've sufficiently drank the kool-aid and go on to the polls and vote against your own best interests every f**kin' chance you get.

'We' do not stand for people's ability to do that. There is simply a fundamental difference of opinion on how people become wealthy. Most of 'us' believe that people become wealthy through hard work, drive and intellect. 'You' beleive they all got rich by somehow collecting a check for doing nothing. What I have read on the subject and simply observed suggests that I'm right.

 

[Cuyo]

You're question depends on the assumption that we actually need equal compensation for every dollar we are currently collecting.

When is the last time we had a major tax cut that wasn't immediately followed by a significant increase in the deficit?

Fixing this mess is not going to be an instant gratification endeavor. With the deficit at approx. $1.5T (probably worse) and anemic 3% economic growth (which only generates enough jobs to handle population growth), the only solution is to spur real economic growth.

Government spending and more debt wont' do it. They've been tried. They have failed.

It's time for Obama & Co. to get out of the way of the private sector. Lower taxes will free up capital for productive investment, create jobs, and eventually increase the absolute dollar value of tax receipts. This needs to be combined with lowering government outlays to approx. the modern historical level 20% of GDP from the destructive 25% level Obama has "achieved" in less than 18 months.

Product investment, R&D and payroll are PRE-TAX expenses for a corporation; Therefore, a company's tax burden is reduced when a larger work force is maintained. If anything, I think a company would do more within it's power to limit their workforce if taxes were lower, because the benefit to them is greater than if taxes were higher.

I never bought into this lower taxes=more jobs. From an accounting standpoint, it simply does not hold water.

 

[Cuyo]

Yeah, listen up. 40 years ago you didn't have to work 70 hours a week (which I've done), or live like a pauper for years just to survive. You could work a regular 9-5 and raise a family, with mom staying home.

You all assume there's something wrong with my life. There isn't. I'm comfortable; Far from rich or even where I'd like to be, but very comfortable.

The only thing wrong with you is seem to think you are somehow entitled to have things be the way the were before.

What pisses me off second is rich ne'er-do-well pricks who don't have to work, because they started out with enough to beget all the wealth they need without the kind of real work that I (and according to your post, you) had to endure. They actually make money off MY labor, in the form of interest on loans I've taken out, rent I've paid in the past, skimming every utility bill I've ever paid, and (before I was self-employed) skimming MY labor.

Save your energy. This huge group of wealthy people that didnt' have to do anything to get rich is a fairly tale. Yes there are the Paris Hilton's of the world. But they represent a fraction of how wealthy people derive their income.

What pisses me off FIRST is dopes like you who unwittingly stand up for their ability to do it. People who've sufficiently drank the kool-aid and go on to the polls and vote against your own best interests every f**kin' chance you get.

'We' do not stand for people's ability to do that. There is simply a fundamental difference of opinion on how people become wealthy. Most of 'us' believe that people become wealthy through hard work, drive and intellect. 'You' beleive they all got rich by somehow collecting a check for doing nothing. What I have read on the subject and simply observed suggests that I'm right.

It's not that I feel entitled to have things the way they used to be, just that those days stand as proof that a system is possible where an honest worker didn't have to kill himself to survive. Back in those days a smart, driven workaholic got rich and could retire early if he so chose. Now, you must be smart, driven, and a workaholic just to survive, and that's wrong.

So where did the money go? We're no less wealthy as a nation, why is the bulk of the middle class twisting in the wind these days? The answer is that the money has been funneled straight up to the top with the help of Reagan Bush et al. Not just in policy, but in a change in attitude.

In 1960, the highest paid person in a company made roughly 16 times that of the lowest paid person in the company. Now, that figure is 174 times as much. They accomplished this by exploiting a flooded labor pool that they helped to create; Primarily through outsourcing but also by in-sourcing labor and breaking the unions.

You stand up in defense of a system that seeks to cast you aside.

Wealth for the sake of wealth is a scary proposal. When you possess $1Billion in assets, what do you do with another $200M? It's a sickness, a contest if you will. What a government can or should do is a matter of opinion, but following our current trajectory will not end in a pleasant way.

 

[Foxfyre]

A progressive tax makes sense because the higher the bracket the money is made in, the less of it represents money to be spent on necessities.

And how do you define necessities?

Good point. The people at the bottom who don't want to stay there and be 'wards of the state' might consider it necessity that there be those with the wherewithall to save so that others will have money to borrow, to invest so that businesses will grow and the economy prospers, to start up and expand commercial enterprises creating jobs for others, to purchase which in turn prospers the less affluent etc. etc. etc. And certainly the hospitals and universities and libraries and museums and research foundations etc. etc. etc. receiving large philanthropic contributions would not be able to serve us so well without those contributions.

There is simply no way to go after a disproportionate share of the rich man's wealth without hurting the poor man.

 

[Gunny]

Thesis: Whether the government should determine if an individual or a corporation or any other entity has made enough money.

Obama to Wall Street: “I do think at some point, you have made enough money.”
Breitbart.tv Obama to Wall St.: ‘I Do Think at Some Point You’ve Made Enough Money’

Rebuttal via Thomas Sowell:

. . . .The key word in this statement, made by President Barack Obama recently, is "you." There is nothing wrong with my deciding how much money is enough for me or your deciding how much money is enough for you, but when politicians think that they should be deciding how much money is enough for other people, that is starting down a very slippery slope.

Politicians with the power to determine each citizen's income are no longer public servants. They are public masters. . . .
. . . .Ida Tarbell's famous muckraking book, "History of the Standard Oil Company," said that Rockefeller "should have been satisfied" with the money he had acquired by 1870, implying greed in his continued efforts to increase the size and profitability of Standard Oil. But would the public have been better off or worse off if Rockefeller had retired in 1870?

One of the crucial facts left out of Ida Tarbell's book was that Rockefeller's improvements in the oil industry brought down the price of oil to a fraction of what it had been before.

As just one example, oil was first shipped in barrels, which is why we still measure oil in terms of the number of barrels today, even though oil is seldom -- if ever -- actually shipped in barrels any more. John D. Rockefeller shipped his oil in railroad tank cars, reducing transportation costs, among other costs that he found ways of reducing.
Thomas Sowell

So what do you think? Should there be a limit on how much money somebody is allowed to make? If so, what should that limit be? If not, why?

Why doesn't he just declare the US Constitution null and void and be done with it?

 

[boedicca]

When is the last time we had a major tax cut that wasn't immediately followed by a significant increase in the deficit?

Fixing this mess is not going to be an instant gratification endeavor. With the deficit at approx. $1.5T (probably worse) and anemic 3% economic growth (which only generates enough jobs to handle population growth), the only solution is to spur real economic growth.

Government spending and more debt wont' do it. They've been tried. They have failed.

It's time for Obama & Co. to get out of the way of the private sector. Lower taxes will free up capital for productive investment, create jobs, and eventually increase the absolute dollar value of tax receipts. This needs to be combined with lowering government outlays to approx. the modern historical level 20% of GDP from the destructive 25% level Obama has "achieved" in less than 18 months.

Product investment, R&D and payroll are PRE-TAX expenses for a corporation; Therefore, a company's tax burden is reduced when a larger work force is maintained. If anything, I think a company would do more within it's power to limit their workforce if taxes were lower, because the benefit to them is greater than if taxes were higher.

I never bought into this lower taxes=more jobs. From an accounting standpoint, it simply does not hold water.

I guess you never learned about CASH FLOW statements from an accounting standpoint.

 

[midcan5]

Did anyone address the central premise of Obama's point? We often get lost in our own narratives and lose the context.

In my reading of the words, a business that fails and requires support - or even if it does not require support but fails, requires the executives be rewarded fairly, and not just skim all the profits into their salaries or golden parachutes. I not do see this position as wrong, it is merely an attempt to chastise a system that rewards complete idiots, who belong to a good old boy/girl, crony network of thieves.

Betting on the Blind Side | Business | Vanity Fair

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary." Adam Smith

PS

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm
http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/25/beaton.html

"I’m fully aware that I risk excommunication from the Church of Economic Science when I argue exactly the opposite: Tax cuts actually hurt the economy. It isn’t just that they don’t help, or that they’re ineffective—THEY REALLY HURT!"

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're question depends on the assumption that we actually need equal compensation for every dollar we are currently collecting.

When is the last time we had a major tax cut that wasn't immediately followed by a significant increase in the deficit?

There hasn't been one. Which means one of two things. Either our government is hyper efficient, not wasteful in anyway and are taxing exaclty and only what they need.....or not.

To answer your original question though I would be in favor of eliminating income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax.

The first part of your answer makes no sense. Reagan cut taxes and the deficit increased. GW Bush cut taxes and the deficit increased. Obama cut taxes and the deficit increased.

As to a national sales tax, that will raise taxes on lower income earners relative to higher income earners. Good luck with that politically. The national sales tax is fundamentally premised on the assumption that currently the lower income earners are undertaxed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're question depends on the assumption that we actually need equal compensation for every dollar we are currently collecting.

When is the last time we had a major tax cut that wasn't immediately followed by a significant increase in the deficit?

The Bush tax cuts were effective in generating revenue that was bringing the deficit down significantly each year despite financing two wars and a Congress that was spending like druniken sailors. Had the housing bubble not burst in late 2008, and that trend continued, the budget would have eventually balanced at least in the near term. The more sinister culprits of massive entitlements continue to grow however and sooner or later will have to be addressed.

The Reagan tax cuts were effective in generating revenue that would have brought the deficits down significantly every year had the Congress not increased spending more than the amount of new monies that were coming into the treasury.

Some tax cuts would certainly reduce national revenues. Those tax cuts, however, did not.

.

That is the conservative tax myth of all tax myths, in a nutshell. The nonsensical idea that you can cut taxes and increase revenues is the equivalent of an 'eat all you want and still lose weight' fad diet.

 

[Care4all]

It is immoral to tax those who make enough to just get by.

It is NOT immoral to tax those that make more than just getting by...

When the poorest among us end up improving themselves and making more, they too will be taxed equally, to the person making the same income as them.

This meets the constitutional muster OF EQUAL treatment..... it IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

Care, I'm really sensitve to the 'moral' argument. All I've heard for years ad nauseum is that the so-called 'right wing' has been trying to push their morals on everyone else through government fiat (which isn't even true). Why is it now suddenly okay for the government to determine what is 'moral' and what is not and enforce that on me? Tell me how this is any different than some saying that abortion is immoral and should be a criminal offense? If those that are wealthy chose of their own free will to give their money to the poor or to help financially in any way they can, isn't that up to them to determine? Just like it's up to the woman to determine whether or not she aborts her child?

I brought up what I said, because another poster, quoted something boedicca said that basically said it was IMMORAL to tax the wealthy at a higher rate than the poorest...or at least this is how I had interpreted her statement that was quoted....I looked for her post through the thread page i was on, but it was not there so i presumed it was on an earlier page of the thread and never got to it to see if the quote of hers that i saw was taken out of context.... but anyway, this is why i just quick quoted my thoughts on that....I did not bring it up first, someone on the "right" said it was immoral to tax the rich...yahdeedah...

and there is no way in Heaven, could I let that pass by without voicing what I did....because I firmly believe such!


Well, you know that I have never made such argument against the religious!

But if I recall, the argument from the left was.... that the religious right were trying to force their "Religious Morals" down their throat....I think the 'general left' sees a difference on some morals..... where they draw a line between religious morals simply because of religious Doctrine vs. ones that are moral in a secular sense as well...

Example:

The general 'you' may see it as immoral to allow gay marriage due to religious scripture, while the general 'they' may see it as immoral to legislate someone elses free will or free choice on such a personal issue.

Not being able to get blood out of a turnip, is JUST common sense, ya know?

And taxing families that are barely keeping their head above water while both parents work 40 hours a week and are not frivolous in their spending is only HURTING the family.....just common sense.

and sure there are those that abuse the system...then we should CATCH THEM and throw them out of the system meant to help the least among us, but to throw the baby out with the bath water, is unacceptable to many on the left...and I believe many on the right as well.....I know this, because my husband is a Republican and he has no desire at all, to have our govt stop helping those in real need.

But what the Democrats see the "right" on this board as the group that DO NOT in any way, shape, or form, care for the poor....they mock the poor, they label them as lazy and put them with the ones that are scamming the system....(not very religious sounding to me, or not very Christ like to me, which is what I am familiar with in the religious sense)

and yes, I know that it is the few boisterous ones making these statements or claims and NOT all of you, as said...hubby is life long R, and he says no such thing....

and yes, I can understand how these claims of laziness or these statements of envy regarding the poorest not having to pay INCOME taxes can take place and even escalate when in a gang....

But I will have NO PART EVER in the manner in which the poor are degraded, or attacked with general comments as though they all are lazy or robbing the system....or IMMORAL because they are not paying any income tax....(and of course, they are paying SS taxes ON EVERY DIME THEY EARN, Medicare taxes, state sales taxes or state income taxes or state property taxes or all of those in some states, federal gas taxes and state gas taxes, and cigarette taxes mostly come from them, and so on and so forth...and of course this is never brought up by the right)

A flat tax without the first 20k per couple exempt is a tax increase for tens of millions making ONLY THAT and just getting by.....while you reduce DRASTICALLY the tax burden of the wealthiest...

Same with a national sales tax without the exemption of necessities...(which then complicates it and we are suppose to be replacing the income tax with a simpler system).

THAT is immoral imho....

Yes, there needs to be some BIG BIG discussions on how to cut spending in Washington DC and also our own States while we are at it, and BIG BIG discussions on how to reform SS where most will not get hurt too much, and medicare and medicaid....again, where the least among us do not get ditched but where the scammers can't scam as much....we need to review the WASTE in our military and defense as well...and YES there is billions upon billions in waste, even there....

I don't think there is a fairer tax system than a progressive tax system...while admitting there is much I would change about our progressive tax system...

I think it would be better, if other than the standard deductions, there are no deductions...a FLAT progressive tax bracket system, where even capital gains and dividend earnings are taxed the same....lowering all tax bracket rates...more like 5%/10%/15%/20% being the highest, but on all that you earn with no deductions....other than a standard deduction for everyone.

but of course, MOST PEOPLE think I have gone OFF the Wall with that!

Care

 

[Bern80]

It is immoral to tax those who make enough to just get by.

It is NOT immoral to tax those that make more than just getting by...

When the poorest among us end up improving themselves and making more, they too will be taxed equally, to the person making the same income as them.

This meets the constitutional muster OF EQUAL treatment..... it IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

Care, I'm really sensitve to the 'moral' argument. All I've heard for years ad nauseum is that the so-called 'right wing' has been trying to push their morals on everyone else through government fiat (which isn't even true). Why is it now suddenly okay for the government to determine what is 'moral' and what is not and enforce that on me? Tell me how this is any different than some saying that abortion is immoral and should be a criminal offense? If those that are wealthy chose of their own free will to give their money to the poor or to help financially in any way they can, isn't that up to them to determine? Just like it's up to the woman to determine whether or not she aborts her child?

I brought up what I said, because another poster, quoted something boedicca said that basically said it was IMMORAL to tax the wealthy at a higher rate than the poorest...or at least this is how I had interpreted her statement that was quoted....I looked for her post through the thread page i was on, but it was not there so i presumed it was on an earlier page of the thread and never got to it to see if the quote of hers that i saw was taken out of context.... but anyway, this is why i just quick quoted my thoughts on that....I did not bring it up first, someone on the "right" said it was immoral to tax the rich...yahdeedah...

and there is no way in Heaven, could I let that pass by without voicing what I did....because I firmly believe such!


Well, you know that I have never made such argument against the religious!

But if I recall, the argument from the left was.... that the religious right were trying to force their "Religious Morals" down their throat....I think the 'general left' sees a difference on some morals..... where they draw a line between religious morals simply because of religious Doctrine vs. ones that are moral in a secular sense as well...

Example:

The general 'you' may see it as immoral to allow gay marriage due to religious scripture, while the general 'they' may see it as immoral to legislate someone elses free will or free choice on such a personal issue.

Not being able to get blood out of a turnip, is JUST common sense, ya know?

And taxing families that are barely keeping their head above water while both parents work 40 hours a week and are not frivilous in their spending is only HURTING the family.....just common sense.

and sure there are those that abuse the system...then we should CATCH THEM and throw them out of the system meant to help the least among us, but to through the baby out with the bath water, is unacceptable to many on the left...and I believe many on the right as well.....I know this, because my husband is a Republican and he has no desire at all, to have our govt stop helping those in real need.

But what the Democrats see the "right" on this board as the group that DO NOT in any way, shape, or form, care for the poor....they mock the poor, they label them as lazy and put them with the ones that are scamming the system....(not very religious sounding to me, or not very Christ like to me, which is what I am familiar with in the religious sense)

and yes, I know that it is the few boisterous ones making these statements or claims and NOT all of you, as said...hubby is life long R, and he says no such thing....

and yes, I can understand how these claims of laziness or these statements of envy regarding the poorest not having to pay INCOME taxes can take place and even escalate when in a gang....

But I will have NO PART EVER in the manner in which the poor are degraded, or attacked with general comments as though they all are lazy or robbing the system....or IMMORAL because they are not paying any income tax....(and of course, they are paying SS taxes ON EVERY DIME THEY EARN, Medicare taxes, state sales taxes or state income taxes or state property taxes or all of those in some states, federal gas taxes and state gas taxes, and cigarette taxes mostly come from them, and so on and so forth...and of course this is never brought up by the right)

A flat tax without the first 20k per couple exempt is a tax increase for tens of millions making ONLY THAT and just getting by.....while you reduce DRASTICALLY the tax burden of the wealthiest...

Same with a national sales tax without the exemption of necessities...(which then complicates it and we are suppose to be replacing the income tax with a simpler system).

THAT is immoral imho....

Yes, there needs to be some BIG BIG discussions on how to cut spending in Washington DC and also our own States while we are at it, and BIG BIG discussions on how to reform SS where most will not get hurt too much, and medicare and medicaid....again, where the least among us do not get ditched but where the scammers can't scam as much....we need to review the WASTE in our military and defense as well...and YES there is billions upon billions in waste, even there....

I don't think there is a fairer tax system than a progressive tax system...while admitting there is much I would change about our progressive tax system...

I think it would be better, if other than the standard deductions, there are no deductions...a FLAT progressive tax bracket system, where even capital gains and dividend earnings are taxed the same....lowering all tax bracket rates...more like 5%/10%/15%/20% being the highest, but on all that you earn with no deductions....other than a standard deduction for everyone.

but of course, MOST PEOPLE think I have gone OFF the Wall with that!

Care

Care you are ignoring the fact that a national sales tax would be INSTEAD OF income tax. One offsets the other.

 

[Care4all]

Care, I'm really sensitve to the 'moral' argument. All I've heard for years ad nauseum is that the so-called 'right wing' has been trying to push their morals on everyone else through government fiat (which isn't even true). Why is it now suddenly okay for the government to determine what is 'moral' and what is not and enforce that on me? Tell me how this is any different than some saying that abortion is immoral and should be a criminal offense? If those that are wealthy chose of their own free will to give their money to the poor or to help financially in any way they can, isn't that up to them to determine? Just like it's up to the woman to determine whether or not she aborts her child?

I brought up what I said, because another poster, quoted something boedicca said that basically said it was IMMORAL to tax the wealthy at a higher rate than the poorest...or at least this is how I had interpreted her statement that was quoted....I looked for her post through the thread page i was on, but it was not there so i presumed it was on an earlier page of the thread and never got to it to see if the quote of hers that i saw was taken out of context.... but anyway, this is why i just quick quoted my thoughts on that....I did not bring it up first, someone on the "right" said it was immoral to tax the rich...yahdeedah...

and there is no way in Heaven, could I let that pass by without voicing what I did....because I firmly believe such!


Well, you know that I have never made such argument against the religious!

But if I recall, the argument from the left was.... that the religious right were trying to force their "Religious Morals" down their throat....I think the 'general left' sees a difference on some morals..... where they draw a line between religious morals simply because of religious Doctrine vs. ones that are moral in a secular sense as well...

Example:

The general 'you' may see it as immoral to allow gay marriage due to religious scripture, while the general 'they' may see it as immoral to legislate someone elses free will or free choice on such a personal issue.

Not being able to get blood out of a turnip, is JUST common sense, ya know?

And taxing families that are barely keeping their head above water while both parents work 40 hours a week and are not frivilous in their spending is only HURTING the family.....just common sense.

and sure there are those that abuse the system...then we should CATCH THEM and throw them out of the system meant to help the least among us, but to through the baby out with the bath water, is unacceptable to many on the left...and I believe many on the right as well.....I know this, because my husband is a Republican and he has no desire at all, to have our govt stop helping those in real need.

But what the Democrats see the "right" on this board as the group that DO NOT in any way, shape, or form, care for the poor....they mock the poor, they label them as lazy and put them with the ones that are scamming the system....(not very religious sounding to me, or not very Christ like to me, which is what I am familiar with in the religious sense)

and yes, I know that it is the few boisterous ones making these statements or claims and NOT all of you, as said...hubby is life long R, and he says no such thing....

and yes, I can understand how these claims of laziness or these statements of envy regarding the poorest not having to pay INCOME taxes can take place and even escalate when in a gang....

But I will have NO PART EVER in the manner in which the poor are degraded, or attacked with general comments as though they all are lazy or robbing the system....or IMMORAL because they are not paying any income tax....(and of course, they are paying SS taxes ON EVERY DIME THEY EARN, Medicare taxes, state sales taxes or state income taxes or state property taxes or all of those in some states, federal gas taxes and state gas taxes, and cigarette taxes mostly come from them, and so on and so forth...and of course this is never brought up by the right)

A flat tax without the first 20k per couple exempt is a tax increase for tens of millions making ONLY THAT and just getting by.....while you reduce DRASTICALLY the tax burden of the wealthiest...

Same with a national sales tax without the exemption of necessities...(which then complicates it and we are suppose to be replacing the income tax with a simpler system).

THAT is immoral imho....

Yes, there needs to be some BIG BIG discussions on how to cut spending in Washington DC and also our own States while we are at it, and BIG BIG discussions on how to reform SS where most will not get hurt too much, and medicare and medicaid....again, where the least among us do not get ditched but where the scammers can't scam as much....we need to review the WASTE in our military and defense as well...and YES there is billions upon billions in waste, even there....

I don't think there is a fairer tax system than a progressive tax system...while admitting there is much I would change about our progressive tax system...

I think it would be better, if other than the standard deductions, there are no deductions...a FLAT progressive tax bracket system, where even capital gains and dividend earnings are taxed the same....lowering all tax bracket rates...more like 5%/10%/15%/20% being the highest, but on all that you earn with no deductions....other than a standard deduction for everyone.

but of course, MOST PEOPLE think I have gone OFF the Wall with that!

Care

Care you are ignoring the fact that a national sales tax would be INSTEAD OF income tax. One offsets the other.

no bern, I am not.... because now, you will be taxing some of that 20k that couple or that family earned in replacement of the income tax system where that couple or family would NOT have been taxed at all....while still taxing them on their full amount of income for SS and while still having a cap on NOT TAXING the income over =/- $100k....

If you said this National sales tax plan, replaced both income tax and ss tax and medicare tax and the separate cigarette tax and gas tax, and liquor tax if there is a federal one, etc and incorporated one sales tax for all of those taxes, combined with exempting all food and necessities, and all medicines or prescriptions and probably all health care services as well.....I might consider it!

care

 

[boedicca]

I brought up what I said, because another poster, quoted something boedicca said that basically said it was IMMORAL to tax the wealthy at a higher rate than the poorest...or at least this is how I had interpreted her statement that was quoted....I looked for her post through the thread page i was on, but it was not there so i presumed it was on an earlier page of the thread and never got to it to see if the quote of hers that i saw was taken out of context.... but anyway, this is why i just quick quoted my thoughts on that....I did not bring it up first, someone on the "right" said it was immoral to tax the rich...yahdeedah...

You are misinterpreting what I said. I believe it is immoral for the government to tax anyone for social engineering/redistribution purposes. There is a valid role for the federal government: national defense, court system, diplomacy are the key items imo.

A fair level of taxes to support those basic functions makes sense. But that is not what the Leviathan currently does. We have an incredibly skewed and distorted system in which the top 1% pay 40% of the federal income tax - and yet the average tax burden of a median family as a percent of income has doubled since the 1950s. The way all taxpayers are treated is immoral - and enables a great deal of corruption via selling favors.

A flat tax for everyone with no loop holes and the elimination of all the other federal taxers (ss, medicare, excise etc.) would be a far better system. It would make the cost of government obvious in one tax metric - and get rid of the moral hazard of manipulating the tax code to sell favors.

 

[Cecilie1200]

As just one example, oil was first shipped in barrels, which is why we still measure oil in terms of the number of barrels today, even though oil is seldom -- if ever -- actually shipped in barrels any more. John D. Rockefeller shipped his oil in railroad tank cars, reducing transportation costs, among other costs that he found ways of reducing.
Thomas Sowell

Interesting that Obama's comment is obviously one he would not have made to Thomas Sowell. It was made in the context of Wall Street greed. Yet Sowell also uses a cliche' to make his point that an old commonly used term does not mean the same when placed in the moment.

This is just one more example of the right wing playing GOTCHA. Yawn....

You are coming from an abvious anti-conservative leftwing bias I think. Whatever you might think of Thomas Sowell, partisanship of any sort is not included in his repertoire of wisdom.

Thomas Sowell was not addressing President Obama at all in his essay. What he was doing was expressing the fact that if Standard Oil had been reined in, the American people would likely have never benefitted from the cost savings Standard Oil came up with. Standard Oil was being condemned as greedy and for accumulating excessive assets/wealth etc. (You obviously haven't read the book.) The author of that book failed to note the benefits Standard Oil produced for the country, however.

The lesson is that President Obama should be considering the downside that will certainly exist should he presume to rein in profits on Wall Street or anywhere else.

Also, how many OTHER products, made from petroleum which we now take for granted, would we not have today, given that it was Standard Oil which hired scientists to find new ways of using the by-products of refining oil in order to lower the price of kerosene to the consumer?

 

[Newby]

It is immoral to tax those who make enough to just get by.

It is NOT immoral to tax those that make more than just getting by...

When the poorest among us end up improving themselves and making more, they too will be taxed equally, to the person making the same income as them.

This meets the constitutional muster OF EQUAL treatment..... it IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

Care, I'm really sensitve to the 'moral' argument. All I've heard for years ad nauseum is that the so-called 'right wing' has been trying to push their morals on everyone else through government fiat (which isn't even true). Why is it now suddenly okay for the government to determine what is 'moral' and what is not and enforce that on me? Tell me how this is any different than some saying that abortion is immoral and should be a criminal offense? If those that are wealthy chose of their own free will to give their money to the poor or to help financially in any way they can, isn't that up to them to determine? Just like it's up to the woman to determine whether or not she aborts her child?

I brought up what I said, because another poster, quoted something boedicca said that basically said it was IMMORAL to tax the wealthy at a higher rate than the poorest...or at least this is how I had interpreted her statement that was quoted....I looked for her post through the thread page i was on, but it was not there so i presumed it was on an earlier page of the thread and never got to it to see if the quote of hers that i saw was taken out of context.... but anyway, this is why i just quick quoted my thoughts on that....I did not bring it up first, someone on the "right" said it was immoral to tax the rich...yahdeedah...

and there is no way in Heaven, could I let that pass by without voicing what I did....because I firmly believe such!


Well, you know that I have never made such argument against the religious!

But if I recall, the argument from the left was.... that the religious right were trying to force their "Religious Morals" down their throat....I think the 'general left' sees a difference on some morals..... where they draw a line between religious morals simply because of religious Doctrine vs. ones that are moral in a secular sense as well...

Example:

The general 'you' may see it as immoral to allow gay marriage due to religious scripture, while the general 'they' may see it as immoral to legislate someone elses free will or free choice on such a personal issue.

Not being able to get blood out of a turnip, is JUST common sense, ya know?

And taxing families that are barely keeping their head above water while both parents work 40 hours a week and are not frivilous in their spending is only HURTING the family.....just common sense.

and sure there are those that abuse the system...then we should CATCH THEM and throw them out of the system meant to help the least among us, but to through the baby out with the bath water, is unacceptable to many on the left...and I believe many on the right as well.....I know this, because my husband is a Republican and he has no desire at all, to have our govt stop helping those in real need.

But what the Democrats see the "right" on this board as the group that DO NOT in any way, shape, or form, care for the poor....they mock the poor, they label them as lazy and put them with the ones that are scamming the system....(not very religious sounding to me, or not very Christ like to me, which is what I am familiar with in the religious sense)

and yes, I know that it is the few boisterous ones making these statements or claims and NOT all of you, as said...hubby is life long R, and he says no such thing....

and yes, I can understand how these claims of laziness or these statements of envy regarding the poorest not having to pay INCOME taxes can take place and even escalate when in a gang....

But I will have NO PART EVER in the manner in which the poor are degraded, or attacked with general comments as though they all are lazy or robbing the system....or IMMORAL because they are not paying any income tax....(and of course, they are paying SS taxes ON EVERY DIME THEY EARN, Medicare taxes, state sales taxes or state income taxes or state property taxes or all of those in some states, federal gas taxes and state gas taxes, and cigarette taxes mostly come from them, and so on and so forth...and of course this is never brought up by the right)

A flat tax without the first 20k per couple exempt is a tax increase for tens of millions making ONLY THAT and just getting by.....while you reduce DRASTICALLY the tax burden of the wealthiest...

Same with a national sales tax without the exemption of necessities...(which then complicates it and we are suppose to be replacing the income tax with a simpler system).

THAT is immoral imho....

Yes, there needs to be some BIG BIG discussions on how to cut spending in Washington DC and also our own States while we are at it, and BIG BIG discussions on how to reform SS where most will not get hurt too much, and medicare and medicaid....again, where the least among us do not get ditched but where the scammers can't scam as much....we need to review the WASTE in our military and defense as well...and YES there is billions upon billions in waste, even there....

I don't think there is a fairer tax system than a progressive tax system...while admitting there is much I would change about our progressive tax system...

I think it would be better, if other than the standard deductions, there are no deductions...a FLAT progressive tax bracket system, where even capital gains and dividend earnings are taxed the same....lowering all tax bracket rates...more like 5%/10%/15%/20% being the highest, but on all that you earn with no deductions....other than a standard deduction for everyone.

but of course, MOST PEOPLE think I have gone OFF the Wall with that!

Care

I hope you know that I wasn't referring specifically to you with regards to people constantly putting out how the right is always pushing their morals. It's just something that I've heard over and over again, and I've always thought it hypocritical since the left does the very same thing. I don't think there is any disntinction as to whether or not a moral has any religious affiliation or not with regards as to how we as a society treat it. Religion, at least for me personally, has nothing to do with how I feel about abortion. To me, it's murder, you're killing a living being. Murder is a crime in our country, is that based on religion as well? You could also say that the government 'saving' the poor (which is a misnomer, since I fully believe that they've contributed greatly to the poor class with all of these social programs) could also have grounds in religion since helping the poor is mentioned numerous times in the Bible by Jesus himself.

My point is that this country was founded on individual freedoms, liberties, and rights. And generally when people are allowed the freedom to run their own lives, they will do so to the benefit of themselves and those around them. The left, in my opinion, is all about designing a society thru the state because they feel that they know what's best for the individual and they do not trust the individual to make their own decisions. To do this, they need more and more of the individual's money and intervene in the individual's life to handle key situations (like healthcare for instance). I am against that, and the constitution was not written for our society to be designed that way. Everything is not going to be a perfect upopia regardless of which structure is predominant, but I think the odds are far greater of having a stable and sound society when people are free. The people who founded this country did so exactly because the government they were living under was inserting itself too far into the individual's life, and I think they would be sad to see what we have become today.