Taxes

[catnipdipper]

I thought Defense Attorneys were liberal Democrats and made large contributions to the DNC?

COG what happened?

Stupid question I guess but.................was it your fault?

[lacrew_2000]

Tort Attorneys

[catnipdipper]

42

[john_galt]

A major caveat of the Fair Tax is the repeal of the 16th amendment so the federal income tax goes away along with most of the IRS.
As for buying high ticket items out of the country and doing tax avoidance, that is happening now under the present system so what is the difference. That could be one of those loopholes to close or it could be the cost of personal freedom. If the consumption tax were low enough plus no federal tax then the desire to avoid taxes may be less. In other words it may not be worth the trouble to go to Aruba to buy that yacht. It would be simple to get the tax money when things like boats and aircraft are registered. Just like your car.

I have to point out to some that many of the Tea Party republicans voted against this $38 billion dollar cut since it has been revealed to be fraudulent. So for those, I don't have to name you, who think the Tea Party sold out, think again.

[Kshunter]

A dose of reality regarding taxing "the rich" - the total combined income of all Americans with incomes over $250K (Obama's 'rich') - was about $1.6 trillion in 2009. Hence, you could tax these people at 100% (and even if you're stupid enough to think that they would still earn just to give all their money to the government), and it would barely cover Obama's DEFICIT.

We have to cut government. Not with a scalpel, not a machete, but a buzzsaw.

And it sure as hell wouldn't hurt to remove some of the deductions so that the bottom 50% pay some taxes. Currently they vote as a dependent bloc; they need to share in the pain as well.

[john_galt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

This tells you a great deal and it is somewhat humorous. The meaty part starts at 2:30 or you can watch the preamble. It won't hurt you.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by Kshunter

A dose of reality regarding taxing "the rich" - the total combined income of all Americans with incomes over $250K (Obama's 'rich') - was about $1.6 trillion in 2009. Hence, you could tax these people at 100% (and even if you're stupid enough to think that they would still earn just to give all their money to the government), and it would barely cover Obama's DEFICIT.

We have to cut government. Not with a scalpel, not a machete, but a buzzsaw.

And it sure as hell wouldn't hurt to remove some of the deductions so that the bottom 50% pay some taxes. Currently they vote as a dependent bloc; they need to share in the pain as well.

As I stated before you tax everyone, but those above 500,000 a year should pay more. Please quit spouting the Republican cry that higher taxes will cost jobs, Clinton raised taxes and had a pretty robust economy. But raising taxes alone is not the answer you must have spending cuts as well. Thats the whole fucking problem with the political system in this country. The country is split by very strict Ideology that prevents either side from working together. The republicans want to cut spending and cut taxes and they wont stray from that, the Democrats want to raise taxes but not cut spending and they wont stray from that, where that leaves us is exactly where were at, borrowing money from China and sinking further and further into the pile of crap called our economy.

[Kshunter]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

As I stated before you tax everyone, but those above 500,000 a year should pay more.

Why?

Very simple question - why? Those who earn over $500,000 are already essentially those who support the government for everyone else; talk about "fair shares" is complete and utter stupidity. I don't make half a mil - yet - but I have no problem with those who do.

Remember, income tax isn't a tax on WEALTH; it's a tax on PRODUCTIVITY. You can be worth a billion dollars, have no annual income (other than interest), and you are not subject to earned income taxes (though you are earned to taxes on interest earnings, etc.). Hence, the so-called 'progressive' tax rate is a penalty on PRODUCTIVITY, and penalizing your most productive citizens is a hell of a good way to incent them to be less productive.

I'm speaking from principle here. By the time you get done with state taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc., the top earners already end up contributing more than 50% of their annual earnings to supporting one form of government or another. That's bullshit. Unless you're stuck with a bad case of penis envy over those people more productive and successful than you, or unless your life is lived by sucking the government tit (which describes most of the Democrat voting bloc), there's no justification whatsoever to tax the successful more just to spend it on transfer payments.

[CuteOldGuy]

KC, I understand your concern and if the FairTax is adopted, I will take the blame. But I also wouldn't object to giving those with post-tax savings account a rebate on taxes paid on their deposits. The economy will be so robust under the FairTax, that rebate would be quickly paid for.

As far as the income tax is concerned, I couldn't have said it better myself:

"With all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens -- a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."

- Thomas Jefferson
First Inaugural Address
March 4, 1801

[sipapi]

[quote=Kshunter;1208996]Why?

Hence, the so-called 'progressive' tax rate is a penalty on PRODUCTIVITY, and penalizing your most productive citizens is a hell of a good way to incent them to be less productive.

KS:I hesitate to comment on your post... as Mark Twain said "never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference". But...just to correct you on the economic result of a progressive tax structure. It actually serves to increase productivity. The principle in laymen's terms, if one wants to earn a higher income(which is assumed is based on higher productivity) but is taxed at a higher rate(progressive) for each level of income, one must increase productivity to reach that goal.

I will leave you now to your disillusion of grandeur.

[lookn2u4fun69]

I would vote for the consumption tax. That everybody pays something. Our government currently spends $10 billion a day, we have to do something to reduce that, I wish I knew how to do that but like most feel pretty powerless to do anything about that. Over 50% of the government payments go to Medicare, social security and Medicaid, raising the retirement age would be a start to fix the problem. Also, lets have a garage sale and sell all the crap in the Smithsonian and close it down.

The killer nobody has mentioned so far is the national debt. With gasoline hitting $4.00 a gallon again the government won't be able to do anything to affect the economy with that amount of debt.
That's my humble $.02.

[john_galt]

I'm from the IRS and that $.02 belongs to us now.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by Kshunter

Why?

Very simple question - why? Those who earn over $500,000 are already essentially those who support the government for everyone else; talk about "fair shares" is complete and utter stupidity. I don't make half a mil - yet - but I have no problem with those who do.

Remember, income tax isn't a tax on WEALTH; it's a tax on PRODUCTIVITY. You can be worth a billion dollars, have no annual income (other than interest), and you are not subject to earned income taxes (though you are earned to taxes on interest earnings, etc.). Hence, the so-called 'progressive' tax rate is a penalty on PRODUCTIVITY, and penalizing your most productive citizens is a hell of a good way to incent them to be less productive.

I'm speaking from principle here. By the time you get done with state taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc., the top earners already end up contributing more than 50% of their annual earnings to supporting one form of government or another. That's bullshit. Unless you're stuck with a bad case of penis envy over those people more productive and successful than you, or unless your life is lived by sucking the government tit (which describes most of the Democrat voting bloc), there's no justification whatsoever to tax the successful more just to spend it on transfer payments.

I love the concept that many on the right hold, that if someone does well they did it all on their own, without any government help, yet when the same people do bad then its always the governments fault. The reality is this, the rich need to pay more for their own benefit and the benefit of the nation. The gap between those who are wealty and those who are poor is widening, this means the middle class is disappearing. Because the wealthy are generally those who provide the jobs, and produce the profit the middle class supports the wealty by purchasing the products, and the middle class supports the poor. The problem in this is that the middleclass is disappearing because the wealty are not supporting them with jobs, so they are sliding down the slope to the poor. When this happens there are fewer middle class to purchase the products lets say for example a new car. Fewer new cars are then sold and the wealthy or business owners lose money and then they fail and start their slide down. For a while at lease we need for the wealthy to support the middle class by picking up the tax revenue slack allowing the middle and lower class to regain footing and start working their way back up. Is this fair maybe not but it is necessary or we are going to lose the middleclass and maybe much worse.

[catnipdipper]

All of the serfs and tenant farmers banding together based on mean sound bites and protecting their Massas from having to pay more so they don't threaten to take away their shitty jobs and benefits. Dreaming that maybe just maybe someday they can be a Massa too.

Look the old time Massas never recognize the Noveau Massas as their equals.

I don't get it.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by catnipdipper

All of the serfs and tenant farmers banding together based on mean sound bites and protecting their Massas from having to pay more so they don't threaten to take away their shitty jobs and benefits. Dreaming that maybe just maybe someday they can be a Massa too.

Look the old time Massas never recognize the Noveau Massas as their equals.

I don't get it.

English please Cat