stevendedalus stevendedalus

Taxing The Rich

▼

Taxing The Rich

from JoeUser Forums

 

Exchanging ideas is essential to a free society. However, when on the tax system a letter writer who is a math teacher says the government ought not to penalize taxpayers who are wealthy owes to free speech the entire equation. The tax system does not nor should it consider a simplistic proportion as the writer advocates, for it is just another flat tax scam that sees no unfairness to one percentage fits all. Progressive tax is based on taxable income meaning income after one has had the ability and means to take care of himself reasonably well.

It is this differentiation between minimum essentials and play money left over that drives the concept of progressive tax. High income brackets are being taxed theoretically on nonessential income—income beyond basic creature comfort— but this is not as severe as it reads. In an enlightened society, even during the 90+% FDR era, loopholes were abundant for such things as capital gains, second homes, mortgage interest and real estate taxes, but primarily for business large and small to reinvest in their activity to maintain and create jobs, thus growing the economy.

As for charities the writer is worried about, FDR implied if you don’t extend the benefactor hand, the government will. That is why since then there have been so many partnerships of government and foundations that have substantially made life better for those in need.

partnerships government and taxation politics
63,553 views 135 replies
Reply #126 from JoeUser Forums Top

You really will argue anything, won't you! Anyway I've had enough - I've no desire to waste any more of my time trying to explain the most basic of points to someone displaying an intellect little above that of a gnat. Argue all you want about whether giving someone money is actually giving them it, or at what point the ownership of that money changes, but at the end of the day the rich person gets $3 more to spend to the poor person's $1. If you still can't see how that $3 is more than the $1, you need your head examined.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y

 

As for your whole semantics argument...

"All major terrorist attacks on the us since 2000 were performed by muslims" =! "All muslims performed major terrorist attacks on the us since 2000". Minor changes in sentence structure can completely change its meaning in a fundamental manner. Your "semantics" are anything but, they are major changes to the meaning.

Reply #127 from Stardock Forums Top

Aerotar, you seem to believe that money is the property of the government and the government's role is to decide how much money each citizen can have.

If that is the case, there is no point in having this discussion because we are working from different premises.

I see the government as simply another service provider that we pay for via taxation. I don't look at the government as something that "rules me" or as an entity that I exist to serve. I look at the government much the same way as I look at the electric company or the cable company. 

The money I earn by trading my skills/labor for is inherently mine that I use to purchase products and services. The way the goverment bills me for its services is determined by elected representatives.  

So I can't begin to undersand how you see the government "giving" me money through the rationale of any money that I earn that they don't take is somehow a gift.

TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #128 from JoeUser Forums Top

at the end of the day the rich person gets $3 more to spend to the poor person's $1.

And, your point would be?  What do you mean by 'gets'?  Giving money away never leaves you with more money than you started with, no matter the tax deductibility.

Reply #129 from JoeUser Forums Top

I see the government as simply another service provider that we pay for via taxation. I don't look at the government as something that "rules me" or as an entity that I exist to serve. I look at the government much the same way as I look at the electric company or the cable company.

That point says it all. But here's the rub, there are folks out there that feel the electric company should be charging people who make more money, more for their electricity and some should gt it for little or nothing. I made that point a long time ago, if say McDonald's charged more for a hamburger if you were rich and gave them out for free if you were poor. They would be out of business soon as many "rich" people would stop coming by, and the number of "poor' people eating their would increase. The same holds true for the government, who by the way, now want to hire more workers (expand) to hand out the free "burgers".

It never ceases to amaze me who the individuals that cry for fairness, really don't want anything fair. To be truly fair everyone should pay the same, get the same deductions (or none). I wonder what they would say if they went to buy a car and the poor person before them drove off for free. Then the salesman says I tacked the price of that car onto your contract. Would they smile an say fine or have a hissy fit on the show room floor? I would expect the later. They see the concept when it it their personal money and lose it when they see all Americans money. This argument is pointless to those personality types.

Reply #130 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Bunnahabhain, reply 10

kaos_never_endingcomment 109
Can I ask you what you think poor is?

I can't speak for Andrew, but here's my definition of poor:

It is when you have no assets to liquidate, and -

- you can't feed yourself or your children the minimal amount necessary for healthy living.

- you can't afford minimal shelter for you and your family.

- you can't provide clean clothing that more or less fits for your children and keeps them warm and dry.

- you lack the minimal resources required to obtain better employment. This includes clothing, transportation, communications (phone, internet, fax, mail, etc)

 

[Poor] is not when -

-[1] you have to take the bus to work because you can't afford a car.

-[2] you can only afford one vacation per year.

-[3] you have to sell cherished assets in order to take proper care of your family.

-[4] you have to use the library computer to look for work.

-[5] you can't afford some non-necessity of life that you would like.

-[6] you can't afford to sustain your past habits (smoke/drink/drugs).

-[7] you have to buy food at the grocery store, walk 1/2 mile home, cook your dinner for yourself, and clean up afterwards.

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

 

[1] is very debatable. It depends greatly on the area a person lives in. Areas with less established public transit systems may not give this option. Areas with more expensive public transit systems may be near as expensive as car ownership and yield no assets for the cost. Here in Vegas, have fun waiting for a bus out in 100+ degree heat, hoping it isn't running behind...and if you live in a less than convient location, have fun walking that half-mile to mile to the bus stop in that heat.

[2] I would definitely agree with.

[3] is iffy. If you're selling cherished assets to take care of basic necessities, you've probably already sold the other non-essentials; how this isn't at least marginally approaching "poor" I don't know.

[4] agreed owning a personal computer is a luxury.

[5] true within reason. If you can't scratch enough together to splurge on a pack of gum or condiments for the dinner described in [7] after taking carre of necessities, that pretty much fits my definition of poor.

[6] yeah, not poor.

[7] no, not poor, but what about when the grocery store is farther away? What about getting to the point you have to actually sit down to do the math to find out if this is actually cheaper(per unit of nutrition) after calculating in the cost to cook the meal.

 

If we went by your definition, a person isn't truly poor until they've lost every possession, are homeless, possibly starving, wearing rags, and unemployable (having no address or reliable means of contact). That may be one definition of poor, but I personally would prefer to have a minimum acceptable level of human existence higher than subsistence.

 

I think a problem in this conversation is too many stereotypes being thrown around on both sides. If the worst that were said here were true, all poor people would be lazy, drug-addicted, morons who it is insinuated "get what they deserve", and all rich people would be conniving, cheating manipulators who hoard what is the rightful wealth of others.