kallend 2,127 #151 January 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe rich (and I probably just scrape into the low end of that category) SHOULD pay more because they (we) receive and use a greater share of the nation's resources in exchange.. Do you really use more of the resources? . Of course I do. Just to give one example (environmental destruction), I destroy (directly or indirectly through my use electricity, gasoline, avgas and jet fuel, paper, plastics, metals and alloys...) more clean air and water and replace it with more polluted air and water than does a homeless poor person. Until the true cost of pollution is factored into the cost of goods and services and the cost of doing business, the biggest consumers and investors will be benefitting out of proportion to their numbers in society.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,127 #152 January 19, 2004 QuoteI agree we need a revamp of our current tax laws. I'm really pissed the discussions about reforming them we were having in 1994-1996 have faded into oblivion. I think all Americans and even non-citizens should be taxed if they are deriving benefits from America. Which non-citizens don't pay taxes? The only ones I can think of are illegals, and even they pay sales and other use taxes at minimum.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,091 #153 January 19, 2004 >If everyone in America had to write a check every month to pay their > taxes, like I do, peoples view of taxation and how oppresive it really > is, would change quickly and dramatically. That's a sad statement on intelligence. If it takes that to get people to notice their taxes, we're doomed. In any case, I never see my money directly any more. Why would I care if it's deducted from my paycheck or an automatic payment is made from my bank account? I pay the same amount both ways. (I pay estimated quarterly from my bank account most years.) >my guess is you would have a more empathetic attitude towards > businesses that walk the borderline regarding taxes and would feel > the way many of us who have worked towards tax reform do. I don't feel empathy or malice towards anyone who pays taxes. It's something we all do. I pay about 45% of my total income in taxes; should I have empathy for someone who pays 35%? (BTW I have had problems with the IRS; I once forgot to declare $250 I made for writing an article for a computer magazine. Cost me over $2000 to fix that.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #154 January 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteI agree we need a revamp of our current tax laws. I'm really pissed the discussions about reforming them we were having in 1994-1996 have faded into oblivion. I think all Americans and even non-citizens should be taxed if they are deriving benefits from America. Which non-citizens don't pay taxes? The only ones I can think of are illegals, and even they pay sales and other use taxes at minimum. Haven't spent much time in the "real world" of business, eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,127 #155 January 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteI agree we need a revamp of our current tax laws. I'm really pissed the discussions about reforming them we were having in 1994-1996 have faded into oblivion. I think all Americans and even non-citizens should be taxed if they are deriving benefits from America. Which non-citizens don't pay taxes? The only ones I can think of are illegals, and even they pay sales and other use taxes at minimum. Haven't spent much time in the "real world" of business, eh? Answer the question. Which non-citizens are you referring to? Green card holders? J1 visas, H1 visas, illegals? ...... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #156 January 19, 2004 My thoughts on taxes... As I said before and I believe GM probably know this is true if he really employs that many people, payroll taxes make it harder to make new hires than "excessive" income taxes do anyday... So here's my plan... Slash payroll taxes by say 75% off their current levels. Exempt the 1st 30K of anyone's income from taxation. Add 20K for any dependent. After 30K to 75K, 10% 75K-100K 15% 100-300K 25% 300K-500K 30% 500K-1mil 35% >1mil 40% No deductions, no forensic CPAs Oh yeah, dividends: income from div < 10K, 0% >10K 40% Estate: < 1 mil, 0% >1 mil, 50% Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #157 January 19, 2004 Quote What kind of beer was that? Oh crap I was hoping you had forgotten Hmm, beer... depends on George... George wins, same as I'm drinkin' now, Southpaw George loses, what I drank in the Clinton years, Red Stripe Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,091 #158 January 19, 2004 >Slash payroll taxes by say 75% off their current levels. OK, how do we cut government spending by 75%? What do you want to give up? NASA, roads, the military? >After 30K to 75K, 10% Right now it's 14% for 30K >75K-100K 15% 20% now >100-300K 25% 23% now >300K-500K 30% 31% now for 500K So you are proposing a tax cut for the very, very rich, in other words? I will have to remember that. I seem to remember you being critical of someone else doing that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #159 January 19, 2004 you leave out my proposals for those above 500K and dividends and estate in your analysis. plus you ignore the extreme simplification. Hell, most of the government spending cuts that you say would be necessary under my program could be offsets by the reduction in the IRS/IRS paperwork that would be necessary. Oh well, I was just shooting from the hip really, those numbers aren't firm. But if payroll taxes we cut, I'd say we'd see a lot more hiring. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,091 #160 January 20, 2004 >you leave out my proposals for those above 500K and dividends and > estate in your analysis. plus you ignore the extreme simplification. Not at all! Just pointing out that it's very easy to say "he only gives tax cuts to the rich!" if you ignore the details. Quite literally, you were proposing tax cuts for the very rich. But that misses the point of your tax cut plan, eh? Dontcha hate it when people oversimplify like that? >Hell, most of the government spending cuts that you say would be > necessary under my program could be offsets by the reduction in > the IRS/IRS paperwork that would be necessary. Now that's just plain silly. The entire IRS budget, paperwork and all, is less than half of one percent of the US budget. >But if payroll taxes we cut, I'd say we'd see a lot more hiring. Hmm. Think we'd see a lot more hiring if trucks couldn't deliver goods because the roads were falling apart? "Cut taxes!" is a great thing to campaign on. How you do that is the hard part. Either you have to cut programs, which is painful, or you have to run up a huge deficit. And despite the belief of many people, you _do_ have to pay back what you borrow. The US can't just print money to pay off its debt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #161 January 20, 2004 I totally disagree with your tax plan. Why should someone in a higher income bracket pay a higher percentage of taxes than someone in a lower income bracket? If I make hypothetically-$200,000 per year and I am assesed 20%, I'm paying $40,000 per year in taxes. If someone makes $40,000. per year and is assesed the same rate, they only pay $8,000 in taxes. If I make $200,000 per year and someone else makes $40,000. by your logic, if we both are shopping for the same automobile, I should pay 5 times more for it. So I am being "punished" for being more successful and the lower income person is being subsidized for being less successful. This is just one reason why I will NEVER vote for a Democrat. You guys just don't make sense. Edited to add: If anyone from the IRS is reading this, I'm just kidding. I really only make $15,000 per year. Honestly, check my tax return. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,127 #162 January 20, 2004 Quote If I make $200,000 per year and someone else makes $40,000. by your logic, if we both are shopping for the same automobile, I should pay 5 times more for it. So I am being "punished" for being more successful and the lower income person is being subsidized for being less successful. But you aren't getting the same "automobile". In terms of real return on the taxes paid, the rich get more than the poor. Let's start with access, which is a valuable resource. If Bill Gates phones his Congressman, how long do you think it will take for him to get a reply? How long do you think it will take a homeless person calling from a pay phone in the local bus station?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiverRick 0 #163 January 20, 2004 QuoteQuote For households, I like a single rate with exemptions. Nothing else. Either that, or take the total expense of the government and divide by the number of people and make everyone pay the same - hard to make that work though. Same rate is doable. Ahh another flat-taxer... There is one real big reason that the rich should hold a greater share of the tax burden... They have so much more to lose.... If they don't like paying taxes, they can move (and by move I don't mean incorporate offshore) Why do the liberals always want to punish people for being successful? never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #164 January 20, 2004 QuoteQuote If I make $200,000 per year and someone else makes $40,000. by your logic, if we both are shopping for the same automobile, I should pay 5 times more for it. So I am being "punished" for being more successful and the lower income person is being subsidized for being less successful. QuoteBut you aren't getting the same "automobile". Why aren't we? You might be surprised at the financially sound people I know who don't flaunt their wealth. They live in middle class neighborhoods, drive mid-priced automobiles and from all outwardly appearances are just average wage earners. I think you are stereotyping people based on envy. QuoteIn terms of real return on the taxes paid, the rich get more than the poor. Let's start with access, which is a valuable resource. If Bill Gates phones his Congressman, how long do you think it will take for him to get a reply? How long do you think it will take a homeless person calling from a pay phone in the local bus station? You have lost me here Kallend. When I phone my Congressman, I am usually able to get through. Both my Senators too. Nobody is saying a homeless person would have the same access, however I doubt the reason is entirely that he pays less taxes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,127 #165 January 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote If I make $200,000 per year and someone else makes $40,000. by your logic, if we both are shopping for the same automobile, I should pay 5 times more for it. So I am being "punished" for being more successful and the lower income person is being subsidized for being less successful. QuoteBut you aren't getting the same "automobile". Why aren't we? You might be surprised at the financially sound people I know who don't flaunt their wealth. They live in middle class neighborhoods, drive mid-priced automobiles and from all outwardly appearances are just average wage earners. I think you are stereotyping people based on envy. the "automobile" (in quotes, since you missed it last time) is a metaphor for what people receive from the nation in exchange for their taxes. The rich get access to more of the nation's resources (in the widest sense of the word) than the poor. QuoteIn terms of real return on the taxes paid, the rich get more than the poor. Let's start with access, which is a valuable resource. If Bill Gates phones his Congressman, how long do you think it will take for him to get a reply? How long do you think it will take a homeless person calling from a pay phone in the local bus station? You have lost me here Kallend. When I phone my Congressman, I am usually able to get through. Both my Senators too. Nobody is saying a homeless person would have the same access, however I doubt the reason is entirely that he pays less taxes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #166 January 20, 2004 I can assure you when someone with a high income gets better access, it isn't because he pays more "taxes" Perhaps it's because he may have something more important to say. And yes it is a metaphor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkydiverRick 0 #167 January 20, 2004 QuoteI can assure you when someone with a high income gets better access, it isn't because he pays more "taxes" Perhaps it's because he may have something more important to say. And yes it is a metaphor. Or more to contribute to the re-election fund. never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,127 #168 January 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteI can assure you when someone with a high income gets better access, it isn't because he pays more "taxes" Perhaps it's because he may have something more important to say. And yes it is a metaphor. Or more to contribute to the re-election fund. Ding ding ding - we have a winner.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,127 #169 January 20, 2004 QuoteI can assure you when someone with a high income gets better access, it isn't because he pays more "taxes" I didn't say it was. I said they *should* pay more taxes because they get a bigger share of the nation's resources. I gave access as just one example.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites gmanpilot 0 #170 January 20, 2004 QuoteMy thoughts on taxes... Estate: < 1 mil, 0% >1 mil, 50%Quote Estate taxes at any level are evil, pure evil. They are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth. Stealing is wrong, no matter the circumstances._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,127 #171 January 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteMy thoughts on taxes... Estate: < 1 mil, 0% >1 mil, 50%Quote Estate taxes at any level are evil, pure evil. They are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth. Stealing is wrong, no matter the circumstances. Even Jesus didn't equate taxes with stealing. A tax is a tax, I don't see how one is any more "evil" than another. They all redistribute wealth. How would you propose to pay government employees without taxes?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,091 #172 January 20, 2004 > Why should someone in a higher income bracket pay a higher >percentage of taxes than someone in a lower income bracket? Because they can afford to, and it helps the economy. The government needs X amount of money. It is raised by taxation. If you want to reduce taxes, first you have to reduce the amount you spend. This is grade school math. Next you have to figure out how to best apportion those taxes. A true flat tax, one where you take the budget, divide by the number of taxpayers, and have everyone pay the same amount, is the "fairest" from an objective point of view. For 2003, that would be about $10,000 per person. Nice in theory, but the prisons to hold unemployed scofflaws who can't afford the $10K annual bill would cost trillions to build and man. The next fairest way is a flat percentage. That 'penalizes' the rich more, but it keeps people out of jail, and people who are out of jail can get work. (And they don't cost taxpayers anything once they get a job.) So going to a flat percentage helps the economy - and helps lower taxes. After that you have a progressive tax, which is what we have now. This penalizes the rich even more, but it "goes easy" on the low-income people. This has a few advantages - it helps the low income people _become_ higher income people (they can save up for college for themselves and their children, take classes etc) and it puts more money into circulation. A surgeon who makes $300,000 a year is not going to go out and spend spend spend if he gets a 1% tax break; he's more likely than not going to crank the money into his portfolio, which includes stocks, bonds and straight savings. This contributes to the economy as well, but less directly. The guy making $20K a year, on the other hand, is a lot more likely to put new brakes on the family beater or fix his leaky roof if he gets some extra money. That's money that goes directly into the pocket of a roofer or a garage owner, and thus is a more direct stimulus of the economy. Personally I pay a lot in taxes. I can afford to; I am happy to do my part to keep the US running. I am also glad that my cousin Bobby, who's been bopping from job to job for about 15 years now, doesn't have to pay much in taxes. Because he gets a break he can better support his wife and child, and that's a good thing. Someone who can afford a (very basic) home, a car etc is going to contribute more to the economy than someone who gets taxed out of a house and into food stamps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #173 January 20, 2004 Thats great, Bill. Have you considered paying MORE in taxes than you have to? You know since you don't mind supporting the economy and all. Did you return you tax rebate last year? I don't have a problem paying taxes for National Defense, roads etc. What pisses me off is the BS about Social Security "lock boxes" etc. Plus all the hidden taxes people don't even realize they are paying like gasoline, corporate taxes, energy taxes, import taxes etc. I do find it amusing that you actually think you only pay 45% of you income in taxes. When government taxes businesses, do you actually think the business pays the tax? No, they simply increase prices to cover the additional cost of doing business. So when you lefties harp about how we need to raise tax on businesses or on the wealthy, all you are advocating is paying more for a product or service or destroying the amount of a raise you might have recieved. I'm for a minimum tax that everyone would pay every year. Then a flat tax based on income and eliminating all tax deductions including mortgage interest, business expenses and IRA contributions. This would bring more honesty into our system of taxation and eliminate the huge tax subsidies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #174 January 20, 2004 QuoteI didn't say it was. I said they *should* pay more taxes because they get a bigger share of the nation's resources. I gave access as just one example. The rich don't 'get' more resources, they do 'pay' for more gas etc. Buying something doesn't equate to the government 'giving' it to you. That's a spurious argument. As one of the 'rich', what do you get that the poor don't? That's your contention. I'll even start the ball rolling with a real example although a very weak one. After 80 something K dollars of taxable income, you no longer pay social security. What 'social' programs are targetted to you, as a representative of the rich, that the poor are not eligible to receive? It's a simple question. Edit: Anyone want to start a separate list of programs targetted to the poor (say making less than $25K/year, that the rich - > $60K/year, and the filthy rich - > $250K/year are not eligible)? We could then compare the size of the lists. At least Billvon is honest - rich make more and we should take it and give to the poor "they can afford it and it helps the economy". ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,127 #175 January 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteI didn't say it was. I said they *should* pay more taxes because they get a bigger share of the nation's resources. I gave access as just one example. The rich don't 'get' more resources, they do 'pay' for more gas etc. Buying something doesn't equate to the government 'giving' it to you. That's a spurious argument. As one of the 'rich', what do you get that the poor don't? That's your contention. ". I get to use more non-renewable resources, the true replacement cost of which is not passed on to the consumer, I get to cause more pollution, the true cost of which is not passed on to the consumer, I get better access to public use airports and roads than someone that can't afford a plane or a car, I get attention from my congressman that a homeless person won't get. And I'm only borderline wealthy. The list is endless.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 7 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Subscriptions Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
kallend 2,127 #165 January 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote If I make $200,000 per year and someone else makes $40,000. by your logic, if we both are shopping for the same automobile, I should pay 5 times more for it. So I am being "punished" for being more successful and the lower income person is being subsidized for being less successful. QuoteBut you aren't getting the same "automobile". Why aren't we? You might be surprised at the financially sound people I know who don't flaunt their wealth. They live in middle class neighborhoods, drive mid-priced automobiles and from all outwardly appearances are just average wage earners. I think you are stereotyping people based on envy. the "automobile" (in quotes, since you missed it last time) is a metaphor for what people receive from the nation in exchange for their taxes. The rich get access to more of the nation's resources (in the widest sense of the word) than the poor. QuoteIn terms of real return on the taxes paid, the rich get more than the poor. Let's start with access, which is a valuable resource. If Bill Gates phones his Congressman, how long do you think it will take for him to get a reply? How long do you think it will take a homeless person calling from a pay phone in the local bus station? You have lost me here Kallend. When I phone my Congressman, I am usually able to get through. Both my Senators too. Nobody is saying a homeless person would have the same access, however I doubt the reason is entirely that he pays less taxes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #166 January 20, 2004 I can assure you when someone with a high income gets better access, it isn't because he pays more "taxes" Perhaps it's because he may have something more important to say. And yes it is a metaphor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkydiverRick 0 #167 January 20, 2004 QuoteI can assure you when someone with a high income gets better access, it isn't because he pays more "taxes" Perhaps it's because he may have something more important to say. And yes it is a metaphor. Or more to contribute to the re-election fund. never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,127 #168 January 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteI can assure you when someone with a high income gets better access, it isn't because he pays more "taxes" Perhaps it's because he may have something more important to say. And yes it is a metaphor. Or more to contribute to the re-election fund. Ding ding ding - we have a winner.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,127 #169 January 20, 2004 QuoteI can assure you when someone with a high income gets better access, it isn't because he pays more "taxes" I didn't say it was. I said they *should* pay more taxes because they get a bigger share of the nation's resources. I gave access as just one example.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites gmanpilot 0 #170 January 20, 2004 QuoteMy thoughts on taxes... Estate: < 1 mil, 0% >1 mil, 50%Quote Estate taxes at any level are evil, pure evil. They are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth. Stealing is wrong, no matter the circumstances._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,127 #171 January 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteMy thoughts on taxes... Estate: < 1 mil, 0% >1 mil, 50%Quote Estate taxes at any level are evil, pure evil. They are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth. Stealing is wrong, no matter the circumstances. Even Jesus didn't equate taxes with stealing. A tax is a tax, I don't see how one is any more "evil" than another. They all redistribute wealth. How would you propose to pay government employees without taxes?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,091 #172 January 20, 2004 > Why should someone in a higher income bracket pay a higher >percentage of taxes than someone in a lower income bracket? Because they can afford to, and it helps the economy. The government needs X amount of money. It is raised by taxation. If you want to reduce taxes, first you have to reduce the amount you spend. This is grade school math. Next you have to figure out how to best apportion those taxes. A true flat tax, one where you take the budget, divide by the number of taxpayers, and have everyone pay the same amount, is the "fairest" from an objective point of view. For 2003, that would be about $10,000 per person. Nice in theory, but the prisons to hold unemployed scofflaws who can't afford the $10K annual bill would cost trillions to build and man. The next fairest way is a flat percentage. That 'penalizes' the rich more, but it keeps people out of jail, and people who are out of jail can get work. (And they don't cost taxpayers anything once they get a job.) So going to a flat percentage helps the economy - and helps lower taxes. After that you have a progressive tax, which is what we have now. This penalizes the rich even more, but it "goes easy" on the low-income people. This has a few advantages - it helps the low income people _become_ higher income people (they can save up for college for themselves and their children, take classes etc) and it puts more money into circulation. A surgeon who makes $300,000 a year is not going to go out and spend spend spend if he gets a 1% tax break; he's more likely than not going to crank the money into his portfolio, which includes stocks, bonds and straight savings. This contributes to the economy as well, but less directly. The guy making $20K a year, on the other hand, is a lot more likely to put new brakes on the family beater or fix his leaky roof if he gets some extra money. That's money that goes directly into the pocket of a roofer or a garage owner, and thus is a more direct stimulus of the economy. Personally I pay a lot in taxes. I can afford to; I am happy to do my part to keep the US running. I am also glad that my cousin Bobby, who's been bopping from job to job for about 15 years now, doesn't have to pay much in taxes. Because he gets a break he can better support his wife and child, and that's a good thing. Someone who can afford a (very basic) home, a car etc is going to contribute more to the economy than someone who gets taxed out of a house and into food stamps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #173 January 20, 2004 Thats great, Bill. Have you considered paying MORE in taxes than you have to? You know since you don't mind supporting the economy and all. Did you return you tax rebate last year? I don't have a problem paying taxes for National Defense, roads etc. What pisses me off is the BS about Social Security "lock boxes" etc. Plus all the hidden taxes people don't even realize they are paying like gasoline, corporate taxes, energy taxes, import taxes etc. I do find it amusing that you actually think you only pay 45% of you income in taxes. When government taxes businesses, do you actually think the business pays the tax? No, they simply increase prices to cover the additional cost of doing business. So when you lefties harp about how we need to raise tax on businesses or on the wealthy, all you are advocating is paying more for a product or service or destroying the amount of a raise you might have recieved. I'm for a minimum tax that everyone would pay every year. Then a flat tax based on income and eliminating all tax deductions including mortgage interest, business expenses and IRA contributions. This would bring more honesty into our system of taxation and eliminate the huge tax subsidies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #174 January 20, 2004 QuoteI didn't say it was. I said they *should* pay more taxes because they get a bigger share of the nation's resources. I gave access as just one example. The rich don't 'get' more resources, they do 'pay' for more gas etc. Buying something doesn't equate to the government 'giving' it to you. That's a spurious argument. As one of the 'rich', what do you get that the poor don't? That's your contention. I'll even start the ball rolling with a real example although a very weak one. After 80 something K dollars of taxable income, you no longer pay social security. What 'social' programs are targetted to you, as a representative of the rich, that the poor are not eligible to receive? It's a simple question. Edit: Anyone want to start a separate list of programs targetted to the poor (say making less than $25K/year, that the rich - > $60K/year, and the filthy rich - > $250K/year are not eligible)? We could then compare the size of the lists. At least Billvon is honest - rich make more and we should take it and give to the poor "they can afford it and it helps the economy". ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,127 #175 January 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteI didn't say it was. I said they *should* pay more taxes because they get a bigger share of the nation's resources. I gave access as just one example. The rich don't 'get' more resources, they do 'pay' for more gas etc. Buying something doesn't equate to the government 'giving' it to you. That's a spurious argument. As one of the 'rich', what do you get that the poor don't? That's your contention. ". I get to use more non-renewable resources, the true replacement cost of which is not passed on to the consumer, I get to cause more pollution, the true cost of which is not passed on to the consumer, I get better access to public use airports and roads than someone that can't afford a plane or a car, I get attention from my congressman that a homeless person won't get. And I'm only borderline wealthy. The list is endless.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 7 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Gravitymaster 0 #166 January 20, 2004 I can assure you when someone with a high income gets better access, it isn't because he pays more "taxes" Perhaps it's because he may have something more important to say. And yes it is a metaphor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiverRick 0 #167 January 20, 2004 QuoteI can assure you when someone with a high income gets better access, it isn't because he pays more "taxes" Perhaps it's because he may have something more important to say. And yes it is a metaphor. Or more to contribute to the re-election fund. never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,127 #168 January 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteI can assure you when someone with a high income gets better access, it isn't because he pays more "taxes" Perhaps it's because he may have something more important to say. And yes it is a metaphor. Or more to contribute to the re-election fund. Ding ding ding - we have a winner.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,127 #169 January 20, 2004 QuoteI can assure you when someone with a high income gets better access, it isn't because he pays more "taxes" I didn't say it was. I said they *should* pay more taxes because they get a bigger share of the nation's resources. I gave access as just one example.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gmanpilot 0 #170 January 20, 2004 QuoteMy thoughts on taxes... Estate: < 1 mil, 0% >1 mil, 50%Quote Estate taxes at any level are evil, pure evil. They are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth. Stealing is wrong, no matter the circumstances._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,127 #171 January 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteMy thoughts on taxes... Estate: < 1 mil, 0% >1 mil, 50%Quote Estate taxes at any level are evil, pure evil. They are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth. Stealing is wrong, no matter the circumstances. Even Jesus didn't equate taxes with stealing. A tax is a tax, I don't see how one is any more "evil" than another. They all redistribute wealth. How would you propose to pay government employees without taxes?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,091 #172 January 20, 2004 > Why should someone in a higher income bracket pay a higher >percentage of taxes than someone in a lower income bracket? Because they can afford to, and it helps the economy. The government needs X amount of money. It is raised by taxation. If you want to reduce taxes, first you have to reduce the amount you spend. This is grade school math. Next you have to figure out how to best apportion those taxes. A true flat tax, one where you take the budget, divide by the number of taxpayers, and have everyone pay the same amount, is the "fairest" from an objective point of view. For 2003, that would be about $10,000 per person. Nice in theory, but the prisons to hold unemployed scofflaws who can't afford the $10K annual bill would cost trillions to build and man. The next fairest way is a flat percentage. That 'penalizes' the rich more, but it keeps people out of jail, and people who are out of jail can get work. (And they don't cost taxpayers anything once they get a job.) So going to a flat percentage helps the economy - and helps lower taxes. After that you have a progressive tax, which is what we have now. This penalizes the rich even more, but it "goes easy" on the low-income people. This has a few advantages - it helps the low income people _become_ higher income people (they can save up for college for themselves and their children, take classes etc) and it puts more money into circulation. A surgeon who makes $300,000 a year is not going to go out and spend spend spend if he gets a 1% tax break; he's more likely than not going to crank the money into his portfolio, which includes stocks, bonds and straight savings. This contributes to the economy as well, but less directly. The guy making $20K a year, on the other hand, is a lot more likely to put new brakes on the family beater or fix his leaky roof if he gets some extra money. That's money that goes directly into the pocket of a roofer or a garage owner, and thus is a more direct stimulus of the economy. Personally I pay a lot in taxes. I can afford to; I am happy to do my part to keep the US running. I am also glad that my cousin Bobby, who's been bopping from job to job for about 15 years now, doesn't have to pay much in taxes. Because he gets a break he can better support his wife and child, and that's a good thing. Someone who can afford a (very basic) home, a car etc is going to contribute more to the economy than someone who gets taxed out of a house and into food stamps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #173 January 20, 2004 Thats great, Bill. Have you considered paying MORE in taxes than you have to? You know since you don't mind supporting the economy and all. Did you return you tax rebate last year? I don't have a problem paying taxes for National Defense, roads etc. What pisses me off is the BS about Social Security "lock boxes" etc. Plus all the hidden taxes people don't even realize they are paying like gasoline, corporate taxes, energy taxes, import taxes etc. I do find it amusing that you actually think you only pay 45% of you income in taxes. When government taxes businesses, do you actually think the business pays the tax? No, they simply increase prices to cover the additional cost of doing business. So when you lefties harp about how we need to raise tax on businesses or on the wealthy, all you are advocating is paying more for a product or service or destroying the amount of a raise you might have recieved. I'm for a minimum tax that everyone would pay every year. Then a flat tax based on income and eliminating all tax deductions including mortgage interest, business expenses and IRA contributions. This would bring more honesty into our system of taxation and eliminate the huge tax subsidies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #174 January 20, 2004 QuoteI didn't say it was. I said they *should* pay more taxes because they get a bigger share of the nation's resources. I gave access as just one example. The rich don't 'get' more resources, they do 'pay' for more gas etc. Buying something doesn't equate to the government 'giving' it to you. That's a spurious argument. As one of the 'rich', what do you get that the poor don't? That's your contention. I'll even start the ball rolling with a real example although a very weak one. After 80 something K dollars of taxable income, you no longer pay social security. What 'social' programs are targetted to you, as a representative of the rich, that the poor are not eligible to receive? It's a simple question. Edit: Anyone want to start a separate list of programs targetted to the poor (say making less than $25K/year, that the rich - > $60K/year, and the filthy rich - > $250K/year are not eligible)? We could then compare the size of the lists. At least Billvon is honest - rich make more and we should take it and give to the poor "they can afford it and it helps the economy". ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,127 #175 January 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteI didn't say it was. I said they *should* pay more taxes because they get a bigger share of the nation's resources. I gave access as just one example. The rich don't 'get' more resources, they do 'pay' for more gas etc. Buying something doesn't equate to the government 'giving' it to you. That's a spurious argument. As one of the 'rich', what do you get that the poor don't? That's your contention. ". I get to use more non-renewable resources, the true replacement cost of which is not passed on to the consumer, I get to cause more pollution, the true cost of which is not passed on to the consumer, I get better access to public use airports and roads than someone that can't afford a plane or a car, I get attention from my congressman that a homeless person won't get. And I'm only borderline wealthy. The list is endless.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 7 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 2,127 #171 January 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteMy thoughts on taxes... Estate: < 1 mil, 0% >1 mil, 50%Quote Estate taxes at any level are evil, pure evil. They are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth. Stealing is wrong, no matter the circumstances. Even Jesus didn't equate taxes with stealing. A tax is a tax, I don't see how one is any more "evil" than another. They all redistribute wealth. How would you propose to pay government employees without taxes?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,091 #172 January 20, 2004 > Why should someone in a higher income bracket pay a higher >percentage of taxes than someone in a lower income bracket? Because they can afford to, and it helps the economy. The government needs X amount of money. It is raised by taxation. If you want to reduce taxes, first you have to reduce the amount you spend. This is grade school math. Next you have to figure out how to best apportion those taxes. A true flat tax, one where you take the budget, divide by the number of taxpayers, and have everyone pay the same amount, is the "fairest" from an objective point of view. For 2003, that would be about $10,000 per person. Nice in theory, but the prisons to hold unemployed scofflaws who can't afford the $10K annual bill would cost trillions to build and man. The next fairest way is a flat percentage. That 'penalizes' the rich more, but it keeps people out of jail, and people who are out of jail can get work. (And they don't cost taxpayers anything once they get a job.) So going to a flat percentage helps the economy - and helps lower taxes. After that you have a progressive tax, which is what we have now. This penalizes the rich even more, but it "goes easy" on the low-income people. This has a few advantages - it helps the low income people _become_ higher income people (they can save up for college for themselves and their children, take classes etc) and it puts more money into circulation. A surgeon who makes $300,000 a year is not going to go out and spend spend spend if he gets a 1% tax break; he's more likely than not going to crank the money into his portfolio, which includes stocks, bonds and straight savings. This contributes to the economy as well, but less directly. The guy making $20K a year, on the other hand, is a lot more likely to put new brakes on the family beater or fix his leaky roof if he gets some extra money. That's money that goes directly into the pocket of a roofer or a garage owner, and thus is a more direct stimulus of the economy. Personally I pay a lot in taxes. I can afford to; I am happy to do my part to keep the US running. I am also glad that my cousin Bobby, who's been bopping from job to job for about 15 years now, doesn't have to pay much in taxes. Because he gets a break he can better support his wife and child, and that's a good thing. Someone who can afford a (very basic) home, a car etc is going to contribute more to the economy than someone who gets taxed out of a house and into food stamps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #173 January 20, 2004 Thats great, Bill. Have you considered paying MORE in taxes than you have to? You know since you don't mind supporting the economy and all. Did you return you tax rebate last year? I don't have a problem paying taxes for National Defense, roads etc. What pisses me off is the BS about Social Security "lock boxes" etc. Plus all the hidden taxes people don't even realize they are paying like gasoline, corporate taxes, energy taxes, import taxes etc. I do find it amusing that you actually think you only pay 45% of you income in taxes. When government taxes businesses, do you actually think the business pays the tax? No, they simply increase prices to cover the additional cost of doing business. So when you lefties harp about how we need to raise tax on businesses or on the wealthy, all you are advocating is paying more for a product or service or destroying the amount of a raise you might have recieved. I'm for a minimum tax that everyone would pay every year. Then a flat tax based on income and eliminating all tax deductions including mortgage interest, business expenses and IRA contributions. This would bring more honesty into our system of taxation and eliminate the huge tax subsidies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #174 January 20, 2004 QuoteI didn't say it was. I said they *should* pay more taxes because they get a bigger share of the nation's resources. I gave access as just one example. The rich don't 'get' more resources, they do 'pay' for more gas etc. Buying something doesn't equate to the government 'giving' it to you. That's a spurious argument. As one of the 'rich', what do you get that the poor don't? That's your contention. I'll even start the ball rolling with a real example although a very weak one. After 80 something K dollars of taxable income, you no longer pay social security. What 'social' programs are targetted to you, as a representative of the rich, that the poor are not eligible to receive? It's a simple question. Edit: Anyone want to start a separate list of programs targetted to the poor (say making less than $25K/year, that the rich - > $60K/year, and the filthy rich - > $250K/year are not eligible)? We could then compare the size of the lists. At least Billvon is honest - rich make more and we should take it and give to the poor "they can afford it and it helps the economy". ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,127 #175 January 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteI didn't say it was. I said they *should* pay more taxes because they get a bigger share of the nation's resources. I gave access as just one example. The rich don't 'get' more resources, they do 'pay' for more gas etc. Buying something doesn't equate to the government 'giving' it to you. That's a spurious argument. As one of the 'rich', what do you get that the poor don't? That's your contention. ". I get to use more non-renewable resources, the true replacement cost of which is not passed on to the consumer, I get to cause more pollution, the true cost of which is not passed on to the consumer, I get better access to public use airports and roads than someone that can't afford a plane or a car, I get attention from my congressman that a homeless person won't get. And I'm only borderline wealthy. The list is endless.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 7 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 3,091 #172 January 20, 2004 > Why should someone in a higher income bracket pay a higher >percentage of taxes than someone in a lower income bracket? Because they can afford to, and it helps the economy. The government needs X amount of money. It is raised by taxation. If you want to reduce taxes, first you have to reduce the amount you spend. This is grade school math. Next you have to figure out how to best apportion those taxes. A true flat tax, one where you take the budget, divide by the number of taxpayers, and have everyone pay the same amount, is the "fairest" from an objective point of view. For 2003, that would be about $10,000 per person. Nice in theory, but the prisons to hold unemployed scofflaws who can't afford the $10K annual bill would cost trillions to build and man. The next fairest way is a flat percentage. That 'penalizes' the rich more, but it keeps people out of jail, and people who are out of jail can get work. (And they don't cost taxpayers anything once they get a job.) So going to a flat percentage helps the economy - and helps lower taxes. After that you have a progressive tax, which is what we have now. This penalizes the rich even more, but it "goes easy" on the low-income people. This has a few advantages - it helps the low income people _become_ higher income people (they can save up for college for themselves and their children, take classes etc) and it puts more money into circulation. A surgeon who makes $300,000 a year is not going to go out and spend spend spend if he gets a 1% tax break; he's more likely than not going to crank the money into his portfolio, which includes stocks, bonds and straight savings. This contributes to the economy as well, but less directly. The guy making $20K a year, on the other hand, is a lot more likely to put new brakes on the family beater or fix his leaky roof if he gets some extra money. That's money that goes directly into the pocket of a roofer or a garage owner, and thus is a more direct stimulus of the economy. Personally I pay a lot in taxes. I can afford to; I am happy to do my part to keep the US running. I am also glad that my cousin Bobby, who's been bopping from job to job for about 15 years now, doesn't have to pay much in taxes. Because he gets a break he can better support his wife and child, and that's a good thing. Someone who can afford a (very basic) home, a car etc is going to contribute more to the economy than someone who gets taxed out of a house and into food stamps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #173 January 20, 2004 Thats great, Bill. Have you considered paying MORE in taxes than you have to? You know since you don't mind supporting the economy and all. Did you return you tax rebate last year? I don't have a problem paying taxes for National Defense, roads etc. What pisses me off is the BS about Social Security "lock boxes" etc. Plus all the hidden taxes people don't even realize they are paying like gasoline, corporate taxes, energy taxes, import taxes etc. I do find it amusing that you actually think you only pay 45% of you income in taxes. When government taxes businesses, do you actually think the business pays the tax? No, they simply increase prices to cover the additional cost of doing business. So when you lefties harp about how we need to raise tax on businesses or on the wealthy, all you are advocating is paying more for a product or service or destroying the amount of a raise you might have recieved. I'm for a minimum tax that everyone would pay every year. Then a flat tax based on income and eliminating all tax deductions including mortgage interest, business expenses and IRA contributions. This would bring more honesty into our system of taxation and eliminate the huge tax subsidies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #174 January 20, 2004 QuoteI didn't say it was. I said they *should* pay more taxes because they get a bigger share of the nation's resources. I gave access as just one example. The rich don't 'get' more resources, they do 'pay' for more gas etc. Buying something doesn't equate to the government 'giving' it to you. That's a spurious argument. As one of the 'rich', what do you get that the poor don't? That's your contention. I'll even start the ball rolling with a real example although a very weak one. After 80 something K dollars of taxable income, you no longer pay social security. What 'social' programs are targetted to you, as a representative of the rich, that the poor are not eligible to receive? It's a simple question. Edit: Anyone want to start a separate list of programs targetted to the poor (say making less than $25K/year, that the rich - > $60K/year, and the filthy rich - > $250K/year are not eligible)? We could then compare the size of the lists. At least Billvon is honest - rich make more and we should take it and give to the poor "they can afford it and it helps the economy". ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,127 #175 January 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteI didn't say it was. I said they *should* pay more taxes because they get a bigger share of the nation's resources. I gave access as just one example. The rich don't 'get' more resources, they do 'pay' for more gas etc. Buying something doesn't equate to the government 'giving' it to you. That's a spurious argument. As one of the 'rich', what do you get that the poor don't? That's your contention. ". I get to use more non-renewable resources, the true replacement cost of which is not passed on to the consumer, I get to cause more pollution, the true cost of which is not passed on to the consumer, I get better access to public use airports and roads than someone that can't afford a plane or a car, I get attention from my congressman that a homeless person won't get. And I'm only borderline wealthy. The list is endless.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
