DaVinci 0
Recommended Posts
QuoteSo basically, you feel that people should be taxed every year on their assets, not their income. I.e fill out a balance sheet every year, multiply by x and send the check to the fed.
It's not about balancing the budget, it's all about wealth redistribution. The modern day Robin Hood.
Try not to worry about the things you have no control over
kallend 2,114
QuoteSo basically, you feel that people should be taxed every year on their assets, not their income. I.e fill out a balance sheet every year, multiply by x and send the check to the fed.
I think that more reasonable than being taxed on income.
As mnealtx will doubtless confirm, wealth and income are not synonyms.
I'd prefer taxes to be based on wealth. I see no reason a billionaire who happens to have lost $60k in a year should pay less towards running the country than a wage earner who makes $60k.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,114
QuoteI'm just trying to get an idea of where he stands. He intermixes wealth assets and income so much it can be tough to tell where he comes from.
If you refer to me, I think I have been extremely clear about the difference between assets and income. If you can't read it's hardly my fault.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,114
QuoteQuoteSo basically, you feel that people should be taxed every year on their assets, not their income. I.e fill out a balance sheet every year, multiply by x and send the check to the fed.
It's not about balancing the budget, it's all about wealth redistribution. The modern day Robin Hood.
No, it's about paying a reasonable contribution towards the cost of running the country based on what the country has given them. Something many right wingers are loath to do.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Coreece 190
QuoteQuoteQuoteSo basically, you feel that people should be taxed every year on their assets, not their income. I.e fill out a balance sheet every year, multiply by x and send the check to the fed.
It's not about balancing the budget, it's all about wealth redistribution. The modern day Robin Hood.
No, it's about paying a reasonable contribution towards the cost of running the country based on what the country has given them.
Oh, ok...so kinda like Indian giving?
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...
kallend 2,114
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo basically, you feel that people should be taxed every year on their assets, not their income. I.e fill out a balance sheet every year, multiply by x and send the check to the fed.
It's not about balancing the budget, it's all about wealth redistribution. The modern day Robin Hood.
No, it's about paying a reasonable contribution towards the cost of running the country based on what the country has given them.
Oh, ok...so kinda like Indian giving?
The dormouse has woken up.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Coreece 190
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo basically, you feel that people should be taxed every year on their assets, not their income. I.e fill out a balance sheet every year, multiply by x and send the check to the fed.
It's not about balancing the budget, it's all about wealth redistribution. The modern day Robin Hood.
No, it's about paying a reasonable contribution towards the cost of running the country based on what the country has given them.
Oh, ok...so kinda like Indian giving?
The dormouse has woken up.
*Yawn...rubs eyes*
Is that straw on your head?
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...
Quote
I'd prefer taxes to be based on wealth. I see no reason a billionaire who happens to have lost $60k in a year should pay less towards running the country than a wage earner who makes $60k.
So how would that be implemented? How do you deal with the adverse consequences of discouraging saving or investment in illiquid assets?
And how do you get past the issue of retaxing money that hasn't changed hands?
BTW, shifting from taxing earnings to taxing wealth would result in 10% of the people paying the bill for 90%. There is already an obvious problem with the ratio a tad under 50% not contributing.
QuoteNo, I've known that you can't tell the difference between the two for a long time now.
come back to the real world man - you know where you're not grovelling and aplogising for the rich day in day out - how much do they pay you? interested parties want to know.
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteSo how would that be implemented? How do you deal with the adverse consequences of discouraging saving or investment in illiquid assets?
And how do you get past the issue of retaxing money that hasn't changed hands?
BTW, shifting from taxing earnings to taxing wealth would result in 10% of the people paying the bill for 90%. There is already an obvious problem with the ratio a tad under 50% not contributing.
Or you could do both...
Property Tax is at it's basic form a wealth tax. The more expensive the house (asset) the higher the tax you pay on it.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo basically, you feel that people should be taxed every year on their assets, not their income. I.e fill out a balance sheet every year, multiply by x and send the check to the fed.
It's not about balancing the budget, it's all about wealth redistribution. The modern day Robin Hood.
No, it's about paying a reasonable contribution towards the cost of running the country based on what the country has given them.
Oh, ok...so kinda like Indian giving?
The dormouse has woken up.
Why are you so upset that someone has more than you? The green monster has consumed the left.
What is someones "fair share"? Isn't it fair that you pay "your fair share"? To be fair, all people should pay the same, that would be "fair". Since it is not possible that you can pay your "fair share" because you do not make enough money, the rich have covered most of your "fair share". If I was on the left I would keep my mouth shut and show some apreciation to those that have helped me pay my bills or face the fact that the rich will get fed up with all the whining and stop helping you pay your "fair share". When the rich move all thier money overseas and say fuck the whining people, let them pay ALL their "fare share" what will the left do then?
kallend 2,114
QuoteQuote
I'd prefer taxes to be based on wealth. I see no reason a billionaire who happens to have lost $60k in a year should pay less towards running the country than a wage earner who makes $60k.
So how would that be implemented? How do you deal with the adverse consequences of discouraging saving or investment in illiquid assets?
And how do you get past the issue of retaxing money that hasn't changed hands?
BTW, shifting from taxing earnings to taxing wealth would result in 10% of the people paying the bill for 90%. There is already an obvious problem with the ratio a tad under 50% not contributing.
Since 1% owns 40% of the country's wealth, I see no particular ethical problem with that.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,114
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo basically, you feel that people should be taxed every year on their assets, not their income. I.e fill out a balance sheet every year, multiply by x and send the check to the fed.
It's not about balancing the budget, it's all about wealth redistribution. The modern day Robin Hood.
No, it's about paying a reasonable contribution towards the cost of running the country based on what the country has given them.
Oh, ok...so kinda like Indian giving?
The dormouse has woken up.
Why are you so upset that someone has more than you? The green monster has consumed the left.
Why do you think I'm not in the top 1%?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,114
QuoteQuoteQuoteSo basically, you feel that people should be taxed every year on their assets, not their income. I.e fill out a balance sheet every year, multiply by x and send the check to the fed.
I think that more reasonable than being taxed on income.
As mnealtx will doubtless confirm, wealth and income are not synonyms.
I'd prefer taxes to be based on wealth. I see no reason a billionaire who happens to have lost $60k in a year should pay less towards running the country than a wage earner who makes $60k.
OK, so we've cleared that up. Now we won't need two pages of wasted bandwidth between you and Mike anymore.
Hmm, interesting concept. So we have a tax every year levied on portfolios, sort of like the mutual fund 'management fee.' As a replacement for an income tax, that might not be a bad idea. You'd have to have standard 'tables' on how much a car or RV was worth based on model and year. Could get sticky if they wanted to try and assess on 'collectible items' like rare, vintage, or restored vehicles.
Well, let's take that a step further. That 60k a year family that pays less than 5% federal taxes due to tax credits would get hit on their investments. If they've been diligent savers and investors over the years and have $250k in investments (they bought some Apple stock years ago), plus a house that's assessed at $200k (they bought a foreclosure and fixed it themselves) and a few other things. That 'wealth tax' could easily end up surpassing their income if it was more than a few points.
But still, interesting idea. I'll have to turn that one over in my head some more.
And don't worry- we won't hold your tendency to be a condescending jerk against you. I'm sure you're really a decent guy in person.
Sometimes one has to be a jerk to get morons to see beyond the ends of their noses.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo basically, you feel that people should be taxed every year on their assets, not their income. I.e fill out a balance sheet every year, multiply by x and send the check to the fed.
It's not about balancing the budget, it's all about wealth redistribution. The modern day Robin Hood.
No, it's about paying a reasonable contribution towards the cost of running the country based on what the country has given them.
Oh, ok...so kinda like Indian giving?
The dormouse has woken up.
Why are you so upset that someone has more than you? The green monster has consumed the left.
Why do you think I'm not in the top 1%?
Why? because you failed. just like the other 99%. You failed to do what the 1% did to achieve the level of sucsess they have. Just because you and I have failed to achieve what the 1% did does not give us the right to take it from them. Taking it from you, me or the 1% is the same. Taking is wrong and the last I heard is that taking is theft and that is a crime.
kallend 2,114
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo basically, you feel that people should be taxed every year on their assets, not their income. I.e fill out a balance sheet every year, multiply by x and send the check to the fed.
It's not about balancing the budget, it's all about wealth redistribution. The modern day Robin Hood.
No, it's about paying a reasonable contribution towards the cost of running the country based on what the country has given them.
Oh, ok...so kinda like Indian giving?
The dormouse has woken up.
Why are you so upset that someone has more than you? The green monster has consumed the left.
Why do you think I'm not in the top 1%?
Why? because you failed. just like the other 99%. You failed to do what the 1% did to achieve the level of sucsess they have. Just because you and I have failed to achieve what the 1% did does not give us the right to take it from them. Taking it from you, me or the 1% is the same. Taking is wrong and the last I heard is that taking is theft and that is a crime.
Try again - what makes you believe that I am not a member of the 1%?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Fact is that human nature is for humans to discount the things they didn't have to put any effort into getting. Like lefties claiming the "inherited rich" do not understand the value of work.
Of course, I do not expect you to listen to anything that challenges your already held opinion.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites