rehmwa 2 #101 January 19, 2012 Quote>As an investor, I put my money where I get the greatest return. Most people do; so does Romney. Nothing wrong with that. However, once you do that, you don't get to claim that you want people to invest in America. Indeed, a leader who invests in foreign companies to improve his bottom line might lead people to think "gosh, I’m not sure I want to invest in America."* (* - and that, of course, is a quote directly from Romney himself.) so really wonder how different his portfolio is from any of the other Rep candidates, Barack Obama, George Bush, John Kerry, or Al Gore using this to go after any specific candidate is pretty dumb - using this to go after the tax code is a great thing ... 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
Gravitymaster 0 #102 January 19, 2012 QuoteQuote>As an investor, I put my money where I get the greatest return. Most people do; so does Romney. Nothing wrong with that. However, once you do that, you don't get to claim that you want people to invest in America. Indeed, a leader who invests in foreign companies to improve his bottom line might lead people to think "gosh, I’m not sure I want to invest in America."* (* - and that, of course, is a quote directly from Romney himself.) so really wonder how different his portfolio is from any of the other Rep candidates, Barack Obama, George Bush, John Kerry, or Al Gore using this to after any specific candidate is pretty dumb - using this to go after the tax code is a great thing +1, agreed. Huge fail, but they will still keep trying. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,587 #103 January 19, 2012 If you consider what someone has left over after buying essentials (realizing that the definition of "essential" is rather flexible), the characterization of a sales tax as regressive is easier to see. If you don't make very much, you really don't have very much left over after buying even a pretty modest amount of food, housing, clothing etc. As Dave Ramsey says, the rice-and-beans, beans-and-rice plan. I think it's hard for many of us (me included) to really understand being poor for a long time. If one spends enough time just trying to get the basics, it doesn't leave very much mental or other energy left over for getting ahead; you have to be above average in the first place to have something left over. To continue in this totally tangential offshoot (so sue me ), I got a lovely "live slow" piece recently talking about how much we lose by always being in a hurry. I agree, but one point they made was that in the 19th century, people worked for the pleasure, not for the gain. Somehow, I think that many people in the 19th century worked because otherwise they wouldn't eat. There's not a lot of pleasure in child labor etc. Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #104 January 19, 2012 QuoteIf you consider what someone has left over after buying essentials (realizing that the definition of "essential" is rather flexible), the characterization of a sales tax as regressive is easier to see. I understand this argument, Wendy. Nevertheless, I think it's silly because it's a purely emotionally based argument designed to push a specific agenda rather than to correctly describe the nature of the tax. Misusing the term regressive dilutes the descriptive ability of the term. ... 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
rehmwa 2 #105 January 19, 2012 oops - I'll use this space later ... 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
kelpdiver 2 #106 January 19, 2012 QuoteIf you consider what someone has left over after buying essentials (realizing that the definition of "essential" is rather flexible), the characterization of a sales tax as regressive is easier to see. If you don't make very much, you really don't have very much left over after buying even a pretty modest amount of food, housing, clothing etc. As Dave Ramsey says, the rice-and-beans, beans-and-rice plan. California, among many states, tries to mitigate this by not charging sales tax to food or services or rent. So in concept, the true basics are not part of the equation, so it's only additional consumption that is taxed and so the lower class isn't unduly burdened compared to the middle and upper wealth classes. It does make for a confusing mess of laws though. "Snack" food got moved to the tax side during one of the recessions of the past couple decades, but that term is as abused and vague as "assault weapon." Services are also hard to pin down - your skydiving video is now a product rather than a service. Grocery store food is non taxed, but if it's prepared and served, it is. At one point in high school I recall that an ice cream cone was taxed if you ate in, but not if you said it was to go. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,587 #107 January 19, 2012 Yeah, Texas has it like that too. All those caveats seem stupid, except that each and every one of them probably has as its basis some person trying to get it thoroughly pinned down. Because, well, whether you tax something or not is pretty black-and-white, rather than the shades of grey that tend to characterize real life. E.g. -- "prepared food." Yeah, it should be taxable. But: what if you're the working mother of a sick kid?? then you don't have time to prepare food!!!. Etc. etc. etc. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #108 January 20, 2012 QuoteI hope my effective tax rate will be 15% one day! The dust hasn't settled, so to speak, but on the back of the envelope my "effective" (that's kind of a crap term, but whatever) 2011 federal tax rate will be around 9.5%. To be fair you can throw in FICA and it would be around 15%... ...better string me up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #109 January 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteI hope my effective tax rate will be 15% one day! The dust hasn't settled, so to speak, but on the back of the envelope my "effective" (that's kind of a crap term, but whatever) 2011 federal tax rate will be around 9.5%. To be fair you can throw in FICA and it would be around 15%... ...better string me up. Why, are you worth over $220M and only paying 9.5%?... 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
rushmc 23 #110 January 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteI hope my effective tax rate will be 15% one day! The dust hasn't settled, so to speak, but on the back of the envelope my "effective" (that's kind of a crap term, but whatever) 2011 federal tax rate will be around 9.5%. To be fair you can throw in FICA and it would be around 15%... ...better string me up. Why, are you worth over $220M and only paying 9.5% you could easily be WORTH 1 trillion and not pay a dime But if you earned a triilion well then........"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #111 January 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI hope my effective tax rate will be 15% one day! The dust hasn't settled, so to speak, but on the back of the envelope my "effective" (that's kind of a crap term, but whatever) 2011 federal tax rate will be around 9.5%. To be fair you can throw in FICA and it would be around 15%... ...better string me up. Why, are you worth over $220M and only paying 9.5% you could easily be WORTH 1 trillion and not pay a dime . Indeed. That's because the current rules are biased in favor of the wealthy, who have bought and paid for the folks who write the rules. The rules need to be changed.... 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
rushmc 23 #112 January 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI hope my effective tax rate will be 15% one day! The dust hasn't settled, so to speak, but on the back of the envelope my "effective" (that's kind of a crap term, but whatever) 2011 federal tax rate will be around 9.5%. To be fair you can throw in FICA and it would be around 15%... ...better string me up. Why, are you worth over $220M and only paying 9.5% you could easily be WORTH 1 trillion and not pay a dime . Indeed. That's because the current rules are biased in favor of the wealthy, who have bought and paid for the folks who write the rules. The rules need to be changed. So, if this person does not make a dime for a year. his wealth should be taxed in kallend world?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #113 January 20, 2012 >So, if this person does not make a dime for a year. his wealth should be taxed in kallend world? And in many other places in the world. Norway and India both have wealth taxes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #114 January 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI hope my effective tax rate will be 15% one day! The dust hasn't settled, so to speak, but on the back of the envelope my "effective" (that's kind of a crap term, but whatever) 2011 federal tax rate will be around 9.5%. To be fair you can throw in FICA and it would be around 15%... ...better string me up. Why, are you worth over $220M and only paying 9.5% you could easily be WORTH 1 trillion and not pay a dime . Indeed. That's because the current rules are biased in favor of the wealthy, who have bought and paid for the folks who write the rules. The rules need to be changed. So, if this person does not make a dime for a year. his wealth should be taxed in kallend world? If a trillionaire doesn't make a dime in a year, they need a new financial advisor. Choosing what to tax is fairly arbitrary. Why is wealth given preferential treatment over earned income? Because the wealthy paid for the laws.... 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
rushmc 23 #115 January 20, 2012 Quote>So, if this person does not make a dime for a year. his wealth should be taxed in kallend world? And in many other places in the world. Norway and India both have wealth taxes. So you advocate for this too?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #116 January 20, 2012 >So you advocate for this too? Actually no. I understand why they do it, and I can see the benefits, but the negatives outweigh the positives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #117 January 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI hope my effective tax rate will be 15% one day! The dust hasn't settled, so to speak, but on the back of the envelope my "effective" (that's kind of a crap term, but whatever) 2011 federal tax rate will be around 9.5%. To be fair you can throw in FICA and it would be around 15%... ...better string me up. Why, are you worth over $220M and only paying 9.5% you could easily be WORTH 1 trillion and not pay a dime . Indeed. That's because the current rules are biased in favor of the wealthy, who have bought and paid for the folks who write the rules. The rules need to be changed. So, if this person does not make a dime for a year. his wealth should be taxed in kallend world? If a trillionaire doesn't make a dime in a year, they need a new financial advisor. Choosing what to tax is fairly arbitrary. Why is wealth given preferential treatment over earned income? Because the wealthy paid for the laws. taxing wealth would be double dipping since it was taxed when earned. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,587 #118 January 20, 2012 When the government taxes money is an arbitrary legal construct. That "taxed once" thing doesn't really hold water. In the same taxing cycle, things that are taxed by other entities are exempt from income tax (like sales tax, other state tax, and property tax). But generally all money has been taxed at some time in the past. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #119 January 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI hope my effective tax rate will be 15% one day! The dust hasn't settled, so to speak, but on the back of the envelope my "effective" (that's kind of a crap term, but whatever) 2011 federal tax rate will be around 9.5%. To be fair you can throw in FICA and it would be around 15%... ...better string me up. Why, are you worth over $220M and only paying 9.5% you could easily be WORTH 1 trillion and not pay a dime . Indeed. That's because the current rules are biased in favor of the wealthy, who have bought and paid for the folks who write the rules. The rules need to be changed. So, if this person does not make a dime for a year. his wealth should be taxed in kallend world? If a trillionaire doesn't make a dime in a year, they need a new financial advisor. Choosing what to tax is fairly arbitrary. Why is wealth given preferential treatment over earned income? Because the wealthy paid for the laws. taxing wealth would be double dipping since it was taxed when earned. Silly argument. (1) Money isn't taxed, people are. (2) Not all wealth was earned in the first place. (3) How does your claim not also apply to sales taxes, property taxes, etc?... 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
marks2065 0 #120 January 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI hope my effective tax rate will be 15% one day! The dust hasn't settled, so to speak, but on the back of the envelope my "effective" (that's kind of a crap term, but whatever) 2011 federal tax rate will be around 9.5%. To be fair you can throw in FICA and it would be around 15%... ...better string me up. Why, are you worth over $220M and only paying 9.5% you could easily be WORTH 1 trillion and not pay a dime . Indeed. That's because the current rules are biased in favor of the wealthy, who have bought and paid for the folks who write the rules. The rules need to be changed. So, if this person does not make a dime for a year. his wealth should be taxed in kallend world? If a trillionaire doesn't make a dime in a year, they need a new financial advisor. Choosing what to tax is fairly arbitrary. Why is wealth given preferential treatment over earned income? Because the wealthy paid for the laws. taxing wealth would be double dipping since it was taxed when earned. Silly argument. (1) Money isn't taxed, people are. (2) Not all wealth was earned in the first place. (3) How does your claim not also apply to sales taxes, property taxes, etc? People are taxed on the money they earn, in order to be wealthy someone had to earn the money that created the wealth, at that point they paid taxes on that money. Maybe you don't agree with the amount they paid in taxes, but the taxes got paid. Taxing someone for being wealthy is only retaxing the money already taxed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #121 January 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI hope my effective tax rate will be 15% one day! The dust hasn't settled, so to speak, but on the back of the envelope my "effective" (that's kind of a crap term, but whatever) 2011 federal tax rate will be around 9.5%. To be fair you can throw in FICA and it would be around 15%... ...better string me up. Why, are you worth over $220M and only paying 9.5% you could easily be WORTH 1 trillion and not pay a dime . Indeed. That's because the current rules are biased in favor of the wealthy, who have bought and paid for the folks who write the rules. The rules need to be changed. So, if this person does not make a dime for a year. his wealth should be taxed in kallend world? If a trillionaire doesn't make a dime in a year, they need a new financial advisor. Choosing what to tax is fairly arbitrary. Why is wealth given preferential treatment over earned income? Because the wealthy paid for the laws. taxing wealth would be double dipping since it was taxed when earned. Silly argument. (1) Money isn't taxed, people are. (2) Not all wealth was earned in the first place. (3) How does your claim not also apply to sales taxes, property taxes, etc? People are taxed on the money they earn, in order to be wealthy someone had to earn the money that created the wealth, at that point they paid taxes on that money. Maybe you don't agree with the amount they paid in taxes, but the taxes got paid. Taxing someone for being wealthy is only retaxing the money already taxed. Wendy elegantly debunked that argument just yesterday.... 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
marks2065 0 #122 January 20, 2012 Quote Wendy elegantly debunked that argument just yesterday. She did? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #123 January 20, 2012 Quote If a trillionaire doesn't make a dime in a year, they need a new financial advisor. few, if any, billionaires made any money in 2008. Buffet (one of the most highly regarded financial advisers ever), Gates, Ellison - lost tens of billions. Since they're not idiots like the bulk of investors here, these were generally unrealized losses and much of it was regained in 2009. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #124 January 20, 2012 QuoteQuote Wendy elegantly debunked that argument just yesterday. She did? Yes.... 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
rushmc 23 #125 January 21, 2012 Quote>So you advocate for this too? Actually no. I understand why they do it, and I can see the benefits, but the negatives outweigh the positives. Thanks This has to be the most direct straight forward answer given in SC in some time Very refreshing and a great example"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
