Now, if the super-rich--the ones with the money--are only seeing about 3% of their total worth taxed, and the poor are all prebated into paying few to no taxes, how the hell is that going to generate enough revenue to keep the federal government solvent? There's a reason you should have a greater tax burden on the rich: that's where the money is, and they can afford it.
Yeah. And they can totally NOT afford to tell you to go fuck youself and move to the Caymans. Not at all.
Their seems to be some fallacy with placing 90% of your tax burden on 10% of your population, especially when that 10% also has the financial ability to pick up and move the fuck out.
1. It makes sense when that 10% of the population has 90% of the wealth.
2. Your argument seems to be, "The rich are getting out of paying taxes now. Let's just not make them pay taxes."
No, merely to point out you're treating them like a limitless commodity.....when they are actually humans, and will do what humans do best : whatevers best for them.
Not being rich, why the fuck would I stand up for them? Because I know where my job comes from, and it isn't because of charity or goodwill towards men. Sharing the burden equally via how much you consume sounds a lot more fair than "lol he has phat lootz, lets steal it from!!". Cause thats basically what you said up above.
But this isn't sharing the burden equally, it's disproportionately placing that burden on the poor and middle class.
moniker on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Now, if the super-rich--the ones with the money--are only seeing about 3% of their total worth taxed, and the poor are all prebated into paying few to no taxes, how the hell is that going to generate enough revenue to keep the federal government solvent? There's a reason you should have a greater tax burden on the rich: that's where the money is, and they can afford it.
Yeah. And they can totally NOT afford to tell you to go fuck youself and move to the Caymans. Not at all.
Their seems to be some fallacy with placing 90% of your tax burden on 10% of your population, especially when that 10% also has the financial ability to pick up and move the fuck out.
1. It makes sense when that 10% of the population has 90% of the wealth.
2. Your argument seems to be, "The rich are getting out of paying taxes now. Let's just not make them pay taxes."
No, merely to point out you're treating them like a limitless commodity.....when they are actually humans, and will do what humans do best : whatevers best for them.
Not being rich, why the fuck would I stand up for them? Because I know where my job comes from, and it isn't because of charity or goodwill towards men. Sharing the burden equally via how much you consume sounds a lot more fair than "lol he has phat lootz, lets steal it from!!". Cause thats basically what you said up above.
The rich should shoulder a higher tax burden because:
1. They can afford it effortlessly.
2. They have benefited from the workings of the government more than the poor have.
3. When they have almost all the nation's wealth, how could you not put the burden there?
You'll notice that none of those reasons is "lol he has phat lootz, let's steal it from!!", so that's kind of a straw man.
And as for the ridiculous, vaguely Randian claim that the rich will leave if they are being over-taxed: Where are they going to go? You'll be hard-pressed to find a first world nation more amenable to business than the present-day United States, and while the Cayman Islands might be nice to visit, I wouldn't want to live there.
I've skipped over some stuff, but I have a question. Does Fair Tax mean if I buy all my non-grocery stuff on eBay, Craigslist, or garage sales, etc, I don't pay any taxes at all?
So, what would it be called to tax people proportional to their wealth? Is that what we have now? I'm woefully ignorant on these things.
Tax brackets; the first $X of your income is taxed a certain low percentage, then the next $X is taxed a slightly higher percentage, then the next $X is taxed a higher percentage, etc, up to the final bracket that is above $X and is taxed the most. So basically anyone making enough to fit into the highest bracket is paying the same amount of taxes on the their income that falls into each of those lower brackets as everyone else, and then they're paying a higher percentage on the rest of their remaining income. So, yeah, the rich get taxed more.
So, what would it be called to tax people proportional to their wealth? Is that what we have now? I'm woefully ignorant on these things.
A progressive income tax, and yes it is.
It is? I thought income was separate from wealth. As in, you can be wealthy and have no income, and as such, have no income tax.
If you are wealthy, you almost certainly have your wealth tied up in investments, which is taxable income. At the very least, you'll have a savings account that accrues interest.
Now, if the super-rich--the ones with the money--are only seeing about 3% of their total worth taxed, and the poor are all prebated into paying few to no taxes, how the hell is that going to generate enough revenue to keep the federal government solvent? There's a reason you should have a greater tax burden on the rich: that's where the money is, and they can afford it.
Yeah. And they can totally NOT afford to tell you to go fuck youself and move to the Caymans. Not at all.
Their seems to be some fallacy with placing 90% of your tax burden on 10% of your population, especially when that 10% also has the financial ability to pick up and move the fuck out.
1. It makes sense when that 10% of the population has 90% of the wealth.
2. Your argument seems to be, "The rich are getting out of paying taxes now. Let's just not make them pay taxes."
No, merely to point out you're treating them like a limitless commodity.....when they are actually humans, and will do what humans do best : whatevers best for them.
Not being rich, why the fuck would I stand up for them? Because I know where my job comes from, and it isn't because of charity or goodwill towards men. Sharing the burden equally via how much you consume sounds a lot more fair than "lol he has phat lootz, lets steal it from!!". Cause thats basically what you said up above.
Because humans are like robots. They only think in terms of money, not of family or social life or patriotism. In fact, rich people have no patriotism whatsoever, and they all hate America, because America taxes them to give all of their money to those damn poor people. Rich people don't really care that opportunities in America made them rich, and they don't have any affinity for American culture. Rich people spend every single cent of every paycheck they make, just like someone living in poverty.
In other news, not only does Warren Buffett not exist, but anyone who talks about him is killed and blotted out from memory.
Picardathon on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Not being rich, why the fuck would I stand up for them? Because I know where my job comes from, and it isn't because of charity or goodwill towards men. Sharing the burden equally via how much you consume sounds a lot more fair than "lol he has phat lootz, lets steal it from!!". Cause thats basically what you said up above.
So how do you resolve the issue of the poor and the middle classes then? Because as has been said, you're actually placing the larger tax burden on those with less money. How is that not stealing from those without the phat lootz? Basically, your concept is one of social irresponsibility - that those with the money have no responsibility to those without. Which can be a dangerous concept.
Let me ask you this: Since it's been shown time and time again that people that areas dominate by poverty have higher crime rates than areas with affluence, why would you want to increase poverty while creating an even larger gap between the rich and poor? Isn't that a way to lead to a social breakdown?
I've skipped over some stuff, but I have a question. Does Fair Tax mean if I buy all my non-grocery stuff on eBay, Craigslist, or garage sales, etc, I don't pay any taxes at all?
Yes, absolutely no taxes are paid. And because you probably wont pay any taxes on groceries due to the plan not taxing "essential goods" congratulations, you don't pay taxes!
So, what would it be called to tax people proportional to their wealth? Is that what we have now? I'm woefully ignorant on these things.
A progressive income tax, and yes it is.
It is? I thought income was separate from wealth. As in, you can be wealthy and have no income, and as such, have no income tax.
Not unless you have cash stuffed into the walls and under the floorboards of your mansion. Rich people, even if they don't work, generate income via interest from savings and stocks and appreciation of other assets they own. This is considered taxable income.
Here's YET ANOTHER inequity caused by consumption based taxing.
It is caused by a lack of accounting for dependants.
If you have a family with two children, and a family with five children, and both families are making identical incomes, the five child family will inevitably consume more, and because of it they will be faced with a highertax, even though they are the ones who need the savings more (because of higher future expenses.)
Not being rich, why the fuck would I stand up for them? Because I know where my job comes from, and it isn't because of charity or goodwill towards men. Sharing the burden equally via how much you consume sounds a lot more fair than "lol he has phat lootz, lets steal it from!!". Cause thats basically what you said up above.
So how do you resolve the issue of the poor and the middle classes then? Because as has been said, you're actually placing the larger tax burden on those with less money. How is that not stealing from those without the phat lootz? Basically, your concept is one of social irresponsibility - that those with the money have no responsibility to those without. Which can be a dangerous concept.
Let me ask you this: Since it's been shown time and time again that people that areas dominate by poverty have higher crime rates than areas with affluence, why would you want to increase poverty while creating an even larger gap between the rich and poor? Isn't that a way to lead to a social breakdown?
But are they going to target rich people? No! They're going to target themselves, inflaming a bunch of ugly old stereotypes in order to express their anger at their condition.
Essentially, welcome back to 1900, just before Theodore Roosevelt came to power.
Picardathon on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
If you are wealthy, you almost certainly have your wealth tied up in investments, which is taxable income. At the very least, you'll have a savings account that accrues interest.
I was speaking in an absolute. Basically, we don't tax wealth, we tax income and we rely on the wealthy to be maintaining an income in order to tax them. I think it's disingenuous to say that an bracketed income tax is designed to tax the wealthy because someone who makes $100,000 a year is in the top bracket, but depending on his expenses, could have virtually no wealth. It's a hypothetical, but it's true. We don't tax wealth, we tax income, which are two separate concepts.
Not being rich, why the fuck would I stand up for them? Because I know where my job comes from, and it isn't because of charity or goodwill towards men. Sharing the burden equally via how much you consume sounds a lot more fair than "lol he has phat lootz, lets steal it from!!". Cause thats basically what you said up above.
So how do you resolve the issue of the poor and the middle classes then? Because as has been said, you're actually placing the larger tax burden on those with less money. How is that not stealing from those without the phat lootz? Basically, your concept is one of social irresponsibility - that those with the money have no responsibility to those without. Which can be a dangerous concept.
Let me ask you this: Since it's been shown time and time again that people that areas dominate by poverty have higher crime rates than areas with affluence, why would you want to increase poverty while creating an even larger gap between the rich and poor? Isn't that a way to lead to a social breakdown?
But are they going to target rich people? No! They're going to target themselves, inflaming a bunch of ugly old stereotypes in order to express their anger at their condition.
Essentially, welcome back to 1900, just before Theodore Roosevelt came to power.
Taft was the bigger trust buster, actually. TR just gets all the credit for his big stick rhetoric.
Not being rich, why the fuck would I stand up for them? Because I know where my job comes from, and it isn't because of charity or goodwill towards men. Sharing the burden equally via how much you consume sounds a lot more fair than "lol he has phat lootz, lets steal it from!!". Cause thats basically what you said up above.
So how do you resolve the issue of the poor and the middle classes then? Because as has been said, you're actually placing the larger tax burden on those with less money. How is that not stealing from those without the phat lootz? Basically, your concept is one of social irresponsibility - that those with the money have no responsibility to those without. Which can be a dangerous concept.
Let me ask you this: Since it's been shown time and time again that people that areas dominate by poverty have higher crime rates than areas with affluence, why would you want to increase poverty while creating an even larger gap between the rich and poor? Isn't that a way to lead to a social breakdown?
But are they going to target rich people? No! They're going to target themselves, inflaming a bunch of ugly old stereotypes in order to express their anger at their condition.
Essentially, welcome back to 1900, just before Theodore Roosevelt came to power.
Taft was the bigger trust buster, actually. TR just gets all the credit for his big stick rhetoric.
And possibly because TR started it.
Picardathon on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
But are they going to target rich people? No! They're going to target themselves, inflaming a bunch of ugly old stereotypes in order to express their anger at their condition.
Essentially, welcome back to 1900, just before Theodore Roosevelt came to power.
And that's kind of the point. Rich people are harder to target because they're rich. They can pay for security, for justice, for protection. Poor people are easier to steal from because people like Marauder don't give a fuck about them. So nobody cares when they get knifed or shot for $10 other than the obligatory "Oh, how terrible! Something has to be done!" and then the person who makes $10K a month turns to the stock page to see how their personal finances are doing and forgets that they're the one with the power to fix it.
Nova_C on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
Is the consideration of externalities in examining a proposal/plan as well as relying on facts and figures rather than hypotheticals being taught as a bad thing to do in today's education system? Because this seems to be a common theme of certain opinions within the recent economic-related threads of late.
Not being rich, why the fuck would I stand up for them? Because I know where my job comes from, and it isn't because of charity or goodwill towards men. Sharing the burden equally via how much you consume sounds a lot more fair than "lol he has phat lootz, lets steal it from!!". Cause thats basically what you said up above.
So how do you resolve the issue of the poor and the middle classes then? Because as has been said, you're actually placing the larger tax burden on those with less money. How is that not stealing from those without the phat lootz? Basically, your concept is one of social irresponsibility - that those with the money have no responsibility to those without. Which can be a dangerous concept.
Let me ask you this: Since it's been shown time and time again that people that areas dominate by poverty have higher crime rates than areas with affluence, why would you want to increase poverty while creating an even larger gap between the rich and poor? Isn't that a way to lead to a social breakdown?
But are they going to target rich people? No! They're going to target themselves, inflaming a bunch of ugly old stereotypes in order to express their anger at their condition.
Essentially, welcome back to 1900, just before Theodore Roosevelt came to power.
Taft was the bigger trust buster, actually. TR just gets all the credit for his big stick rhetoric.
And possibly because TR started it.
Not really. He was all bluster and bombast, but barely broke up any of them. It was practically all Taft, like 95%.
But are they going to target rich people? No! They're going to target themselves, inflaming a bunch of ugly old stereotypes in order to express their anger at their condition.
Essentially, welcome back to 1900, just before Theodore Roosevelt came to power.
And that's kind of the point. Rich people are harder to target because they're rich. They can pay for security, for justice, for protection. Poor people are easier to steal from because people like Marauder don't give a fuck about them. So nobody cares when they get knifed or shot for $10 other than the obligatory "Oh, how terrible! Something has to be done!" and then the person who makes $10K a month turns to the stock page to see how their personal finances are doing and forgets that they're the one with the power to fix it.
That was my quote!
Picardathon on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
Sorry, was trimming the quote tree and got the branches crossed. Fixed.
Is the consideration of externalities in examining a proposal/plan as well as relying on facts and figures rather than hypotheticals being taught as a bad thing to do in today's education system? Because this seems to be a common theme of certain opinions within the recent economic-related threads of late.
externalities, facts, and figures are all dripping with liberal bias
Evander on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Is the consideration of externalities in examining a proposal/plan as well as relying on facts and figures rather than hypotheticals being taught as a bad thing to do in today's education system? Because this seems to be a common theme of certain opinions within the recent economic-related threads of late.
externalities, facts, and figures are all dripping with liberal bias
Yeah, if you have to rely on facts to make decisions then you can't justify manipulating the entire system to benefit you and you alone.
Not being rich, why the fuck would I stand up for them? Because I know where my job comes from, and it isn't because of charity or goodwill towards men. Sharing the burden equally via how much you consume sounds a lot more fair than "lol he has phat lootz, lets steal it from!!". Cause thats basically what you said up above.
So how do you resolve the issue of the poor and the middle classes then? Because as has been said, you're actually placing the larger tax burden on those with less money. How is that not stealing from those without the phat lootz? Basically, your concept is one of social irresponsibility - that those with the money have no responsibility to those without. Which can be a dangerous concept.
Let me ask you this: Since it's been shown time and time again that people that areas dominate by poverty have higher crime rates than areas with affluence, why would you want to increase poverty while creating an even larger gap between the rich and poor? Isn't that a way to lead to a social breakdown?
Well, a high Gini index tends to be a self-correcting problem. It's just that the self-correction tends to be...messy. I've heard it said that FDR saved the rich from themselves...and they've never forgiven him for it.
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
edited January 2008
Hey, you know what would be the fairest tax of all? If every last person, man woman and child, paid the exact same nominal amount. We need two trillion per year in revenue, we have 300 million people, so each person should pay about $6600 per year. Doesn't get much more fair than that - every last person treated completely equally.
Why don't we do that? Because it wouldn't fucking work. Not every person can afford to pay it. It may be the most "fair" by some definition, but it's untenable and would bugger our economy. The moral of the story is that "fairness" only goes so far. And really, it's not even all that far. Pragmatism is a lot more important in matters of tax burden than fairness. Is it fair that 5% of the population bears 90% of the tax burden? I dunno, who the fuck cares? It works. It keeps our economy functional. It allows the poor to survive, the middle-class to thrive, and the wealthy to still buy their rich-dude toys. It works.
I'm not too keen on completely abolishing something that works yet violates someone's sensibilities in favor of something idealistic and fundamentally broken. In short, if the best argument you can make is that something is "more fair", then your argument is a squelchy puddle of llama vomit.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Well, a high Gini index tends to be a self-correcting problem. It's just that the self-correction tends to be...messy. I've heard it said that FDR saved the rich from themselves...and they've never forgiven him for it.
Gini index? I'm guessing you mean, once it gets bad enough there's a bloody revolution and things start over.
Nova_C on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Not being rich, why the fuck would I stand up for them? Because I know where my job comes from, and it isn't because of charity or goodwill towards men. Sharing the burden equally via how much you consume sounds a lot more fair than "lol he has phat lootz, lets steal it from!!". Cause thats basically what you said up above.
So how do you resolve the issue of the poor and the middle classes then? Because as has been said, you're actually placing the larger tax burden on those with less money. How is that not stealing from those without the phat lootz? Basically, your concept is one of social irresponsibility - that those with the money have no responsibility to those without. Which can be a dangerous concept.
Let me ask you this: Since it's been shown time and time again that people that areas dominate by poverty have higher crime rates than areas with affluence, why would you want to increase poverty while creating an even larger gap between the rich and poor? Isn't that a way to lead to a social breakdown?
Well, a high Gini index tends to be a self-correcting problem. It's just that the self-correction tends to be...messy. I've heard it said that FDR saved the rich from themselves...and they've never forgiven him for it.
Well, a high Gini index tends to be a self-correcting problem. It's just that the self-correction tends to be...messy. I've heard it said that FDR saved the rich from themselves...and they've never forgiven him for it.
Gini index? I'm guessing you mean, once it gets bad enough there's a bloody revolution and things start over.
Pretty much. People don't realize how close we came to a People's Revolution in the 30s.
(Note: For those who have never heard of it, the Gini index is a measurement of the income inequality in a country, scaled between 0 (perfect equality) and 1 (perfect inequality - one person has all the money.))
One possible benefit of a flat sales tax would be to simply the tax process - if more tax revenue is from a flat, no (or few) exemption source then if implemented well it might. But would that possibility outweigh the negatives - probably not.
How long does it take you guys on average to complete and file your annual tax return, say in hours?
One possible benefit of a flat sales tax would be to simply the tax process - if more tax revenue is from a flat, no (or few) exemption source then if implemented well it might. But would that possibility outweigh the negatives - probably not.
How long does it take you guys on average to complete and file your annual tax return, say in hours?
One? Maybe two? (Then again, I usually file a 1040A.)
And the answer isn't "simplify the tax code", it's "end loopholes, like the ones that allow private equity firms to treat their income as capital gains."
Unless Corporate expenditures are taxed, then you run the risk of having large purchases funneled through employers (with the item or service given to the employee as part of their compensation, in lieu of an ammount of money) and that expenditure would not be taxed at all.
I hate quoting myself, but I'd really like to see a response to this.
I believe that unless the good is somehow acquired overseas (and not taxed on bringing it into the country) or unless the service is provided directly by the company, this won't work. These taxes, IIRC, aren't paid by people; they're collected at the register. Your company can buy you a car or a television all they want, but wherever they buy it from will still have to collect the 23% tax. And the maid they pay for for you will have to charge the 23% tax (if services are taxed). And so on.
It's moving away from taxing people entirely and taxing goods instead, so a lot of the loopholes that work when taxing people won't work anymore.
It's still a retarded system, mind you...but this seems like an answer to your specific issue with it.
EDIT: And the rich, at least most of them, don't leave because the places that have lower taxes largely suck. And the places that don't suck largely have higher taxes. You can live here, and be taxed a lot. Move to Europe, and be taxed even more. Or move to Uganda, and save save save! Rich people aren't stupid, and for all the taxes they pay they really do receive value. It's better to be really rich in the US than really really rich in Nigeria.
mcdermott on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
And the answer isn't "simplify the tax code", it's "end loopholes, like the ones that allow private equity firms to treat their income as capital gains."
Well, all those "loopholes" are just different exemptions, basically. When you "end a loophole", you're necessarily simplifying the tax code.
A flat tax with a large standard deduction and exemptions for dependents could structure the tax burden pretty much as it is now, while saving billions of dollars annually in tax filing expenses.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
One possible benefit of a flat sales tax would be to simply the tax process - if more tax revenue is from a flat, no (or few) exemption source then if implemented well it might. But would that possibility outweigh the negatives - probably not.
How long does it take you guys on average to complete and file your annual tax return, say in hours?
One? Maybe two? (Then again, I usually file a 1040A.)
And the answer isn't "simplify the tax code", it's "end loopholes, like the ones that allow private equity firms to treat their income as capital gains."
I've never understood why capital gains arent taxed... other than that only rich people / corporations have capital gains, and thus they have the influence to get it not taxed.
Can someone explain to me why taxing capital gains is a bad thing?
One possible benefit of a flat sales tax would be to simply the tax process - if more tax revenue is from a flat, no (or few) exemption source then if implemented well it might. But would that possibility outweigh the negatives - probably not.
How long does it take you guys on average to complete and file your annual tax return, say in hours?
One? Maybe two? (Then again, I usually file a 1040A.)
And the answer isn't "simplify the tax code", it's "end loopholes, like the ones that allow private equity firms to treat their income as capital gains."
I've never understood why capital gains arent taxed... other than that only rich people / corporations have capital gains, and thus they have the influence to get it not taxed.
Can someone explain to me why taxing capital gains is a bad thing?
You pretty much have it right there.
They used to be taxed, but Bush got rid of it a while ago when the Republicans and thus the rich had control.
The official answer is that the money will "trickle down" to the poor, but thats assuming that rich people spend every cent of their money.
One possible benefit of a flat sales tax would be to simply the tax process - if more tax revenue is from a flat, no (or few) exemption source then if implemented well it might. But would that possibility outweigh the negatives - probably not.
How long does it take you guys on average to complete and file your annual tax return, say in hours?
One? Maybe two? (Then again, I usually file a 1040A.)
And the answer isn't "simplify the tax code", it's "end loopholes, like the ones that allow private equity firms to treat their income as capital gains."
I've never understood why capital gains arent taxed... other than that only rich people / corporations have capital gains, and thus they have the influence to get it not taxed.
Can someone explain to me why taxing capital gains is a bad thing?
Well, they ARE taxed, it's just at a lower rate than regular income. The idea is that high capital gains taxes discourage investment, which is pretty bad. The problem is that when you look at the structure of how Joe Worker makes his money versus Richie Rich, you see that most of Rich's income comes from invetments and capital gains.
One possible benefit of a flat sales tax would be to simply the tax process - if more tax revenue is from a flat, no (or few) exemption source then if implemented well it might. But would that possibility outweigh the negatives - probably not.
How long does it take you guys on average to complete and file your annual tax return, say in hours?
One? Maybe two? (Then again, I usually file a 1040A.)
And the answer isn't "simplify the tax code", it's "end loopholes, like the ones that allow private equity firms to treat their income as capital gains."
I've never understood why capital gains arent taxed... other than that only rich people / corporations have capital gains, and thus they have the influence to get it not taxed.
Can someone explain to me why taxing capital gains is a bad thing?
Well, they ARE taxed, it's just at a lower rate than regular income. The idea is that high capital gains taxes discourage investment, which is pretty bad. The problem is that when you look at the structure of how Joe Worker makes his money versus Richie Rich, you see that most of Rich's income comes from invetments and capital gains.
Thats pretty faulty logic. The only way capital gains taxes would discourage investment would be if the capital gains tax was large enough that regular bank interest would earn more than actual investment after risk is calculated.
One possible benefit of a flat sales tax would be to simply the tax process - if more tax revenue is from a flat, no (or few) exemption source then if implemented well it might. But would that possibility outweigh the negatives - probably not.
How long does it take you guys on average to complete and file your annual tax return, say in hours?
One? Maybe two? (Then again, I usually file a 1040A.)
And the answer isn't "simplify the tax code", it's "end loopholes, like the ones that allow private equity firms to treat their income as capital gains."
I've never understood why capital gains arent taxed... other than that only rich people / corporations have capital gains, and thus they have the influence to get it not taxed.
Can someone explain to me why taxing capital gains is a bad thing?
Well, they ARE taxed, it's just at a lower rate than regular income. The idea is that high capital gains taxes discourage investment, which is pretty bad. The problem is that when you look at the structure of how Joe Worker makes his money versus Richie Rich, you see that most of Rich's income comes from invetments and capital gains.
Thats pretty faulty logic. The only way capital gains taxes would discourage investment would be if the capital gains tax was large enough that regular bank interest would earn more than actual investment after risk is calculated.
seriously. A capital gains tax will, undoubtedly, discourage a small ammount of investment, but setting the tax rate at an appropriate spot easily minimizes that.
Thats pretty faulty logic. The only way capital gains taxes would discourage investment would be if the capital gains tax was large enough that regular bank interest would earn more than actual investment after risk is calculated.
Not true at all. The more money you get from an endeavor, the more likely you are to perform that endeavor. Increasing taxes makes investment less lucrative, because the payout is less. This is true even if the investment is still the most lucrative thing you can do.
The effect of a small tax increase will be small, though, and this doesn't mean we shouldn't have capital gains taxes. But we need to carefully tailor the numbers such that they generate revenue without unduly hampering the propensity to invest.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
But this isn't sharing the burden equally, it's disproportionately placing that burden on the poor and middle class.
The rich should shoulder a higher tax burden because:
1. They can afford it effortlessly.
2. They have benefited from the workings of the government more than the poor have.
3. When they have almost all the nation's wealth, how could you not put the burden there?
You'll notice that none of those reasons is "lol he has phat lootz, let's steal it from!!", so that's kind of a straw man.
And as for the ridiculous, vaguely Randian claim that the rich will leave if they are being over-taxed: Where are they going to go? You'll be hard-pressed to find a first world nation more amenable to business than the present-day United States, and while the Cayman Islands might be nice to visit, I wouldn't want to live there.
If you have all of your money under your matress, and only ever consume, without liquidating any of your possessions, then sure.
Tax brackets; the first $X of your income is taxed a certain low percentage, then the next $X is taxed a slightly higher percentage, then the next $X is taxed a higher percentage, etc, up to the final bracket that is above $X and is taxed the most. So basically anyone making enough to fit into the highest bracket is paying the same amount of taxes on the their income that falls into each of those lower brackets as everyone else, and then they're paying a higher percentage on the rest of their remaining income. So, yeah, the rich get taxed more.
If you are wealthy, you almost certainly have your wealth tied up in investments, which is taxable income. At the very least, you'll have a savings account that accrues interest.
Because humans are like robots. They only think in terms of money, not of family or social life or patriotism. In fact, rich people have no patriotism whatsoever, and they all hate America, because America taxes them to give all of their money to those damn poor people. Rich people don't really care that opportunities in America made them rich, and they don't have any affinity for American culture. Rich people spend every single cent of every paycheck they make, just like someone living in poverty.
In other news, not only does Warren Buffett not exist, but anyone who talks about him is killed and blotted out from memory.
So how do you resolve the issue of the poor and the middle classes then? Because as has been said, you're actually placing the larger tax burden on those with less money. How is that not stealing from those without the phat lootz? Basically, your concept is one of social irresponsibility - that those with the money have no responsibility to those without. Which can be a dangerous concept.
Let me ask you this: Since it's been shown time and time again that people that areas dominate by poverty have higher crime rates than areas with affluence, why would you want to increase poverty while creating an even larger gap between the rich and poor? Isn't that a way to lead to a social breakdown?
It's kind of hard to have no income and survive, unless you're sitting on a mattress of millions or a ward of the state.
Yes, absolutely no taxes are paid. And because you probably wont pay any taxes on groceries due to the plan not taxing "essential goods" congratulations, you don't pay taxes!
Not unless you have cash stuffed into the walls and under the floorboards of your mansion. Rich people, even if they don't work, generate income via interest from savings and stocks and appreciation of other assets they own. This is considered taxable income.
It is caused by a lack of accounting for dependants.
If you have a family with two children, and a family with five children, and both families are making identical incomes, the five child family will inevitably consume more, and because of it they will be faced with a highertax, even though they are the ones who need the savings more (because of higher future expenses.)
But are they going to target rich people? No! They're going to target themselves, inflaming a bunch of ugly old stereotypes in order to express their anger at their condition.
Essentially, welcome back to 1900, just before Theodore Roosevelt came to power.
I was speaking in an absolute. Basically, we don't tax wealth, we tax income and we rely on the wealthy to be maintaining an income in order to tax them. I think it's disingenuous to say that an bracketed income tax is designed to tax the wealthy because someone who makes $100,000 a year is in the top bracket, but depending on his expenses, could have virtually no wealth. It's a hypothetical, but it's true. We don't tax wealth, we tax income, which are two separate concepts.
Taft was the bigger trust buster, actually. TR just gets all the credit for his big stick rhetoric.
And possibly because TR started it.
And that's kind of the point. Rich people are harder to target because they're rich. They can pay for security, for justice, for protection. Poor people are easier to steal from because people like Marauder don't give a fuck about them. So nobody cares when they get knifed or shot for $10 other than the obligatory "Oh, how terrible! Something has to be done!" and then the person who makes $10K a month turns to the stock page to see how their personal finances are doing and forgets that they're the one with the power to fix it.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Not really. He was all bluster and bombast, but barely broke up any of them. It was practically all Taft, like 95%.
That was my quote!
externalities, facts, and figures are all dripping with liberal bias
Yeah, if you have to rely on facts to make decisions then you can't justify manipulating the entire system to benefit you and you alone.
EDIT: Jesus I'm cynical today.
Well, a high Gini index tends to be a self-correcting problem. It's just that the self-correction tends to be...messy. I've heard it said that FDR saved the rich from themselves...and they've never forgiven him for it.
Why don't we do that? Because it wouldn't fucking work. Not every person can afford to pay it. It may be the most "fair" by some definition, but it's untenable and would bugger our economy. The moral of the story is that "fairness" only goes so far. And really, it's not even all that far. Pragmatism is a lot more important in matters of tax burden than fairness. Is it fair that 5% of the population bears 90% of the tax burden? I dunno, who the fuck cares? It works. It keeps our economy functional. It allows the poor to survive, the middle-class to thrive, and the wealthy to still buy their rich-dude toys. It works.
I'm not too keen on completely abolishing something that works yet violates someone's sensibilities in favor of something idealistic and fundamentally broken. In short, if the best argument you can make is that something is "more fair", then your argument is a squelchy puddle of llama vomit.
Gini index? I'm guessing you mean, once it gets bad enough there's a bloody revolution and things start over.
VIVA LA REVOLUTION!
Pretty much. People don't realize how close we came to a People's Revolution in the 30s.
(Note: For those who have never heard of it, the Gini index is a measurement of the income inequality in a country, scaled between 0 (perfect equality) and 1 (perfect inequality - one person has all the money.))
How long does it take you guys on average to complete and file your annual tax return, say in hours?
One? Maybe two? (Then again, I usually file a 1040A.)
And the answer isn't "simplify the tax code", it's "end loopholes, like the ones that allow private equity firms to treat their income as capital gains."
I believe that unless the good is somehow acquired overseas (and not taxed on bringing it into the country) or unless the service is provided directly by the company, this won't work. These taxes, IIRC, aren't paid by people; they're collected at the register. Your company can buy you a car or a television all they want, but wherever they buy it from will still have to collect the 23% tax. And the maid they pay for for you will have to charge the 23% tax (if services are taxed). And so on.
It's moving away from taxing people entirely and taxing goods instead, so a lot of the loopholes that work when taxing people won't work anymore.
It's still a retarded system, mind you...but this seems like an answer to your specific issue with it.
EDIT: And the rich, at least most of them, don't leave because the places that have lower taxes largely suck. And the places that don't suck largely have higher taxes. You can live here, and be taxed a lot. Move to Europe, and be taxed even more. Or move to Uganda, and save save save! Rich people aren't stupid, and for all the taxes they pay they really do receive value. It's better to be really rich in the US than really really rich in Nigeria.
Well, all those "loopholes" are just different exemptions, basically. When you "end a loophole", you're necessarily simplifying the tax code.
A flat tax with a large standard deduction and exemptions for dependents could structure the tax burden pretty much as it is now, while saving billions of dollars annually in tax filing expenses.
I've never understood why capital gains arent taxed... other than that only rich people / corporations have capital gains, and thus they have the influence to get it not taxed.
Can someone explain to me why taxing capital gains is a bad thing?
MWO: Adamski
You pretty much have it right there.
They used to be taxed, but Bush got rid of it a while ago when the Republicans and thus the rich had control.
The official answer is that the money will "trickle down" to the poor, but thats assuming that rich people spend every cent of their money.
Thats pretty faulty logic. The only way capital gains taxes would discourage investment would be if the capital gains tax was large enough that regular bank interest would earn more than actual investment after risk is calculated.
MWO: Adamski
seriously. A capital gains tax will, undoubtedly, discourage a small ammount of investment, but setting the tax rate at an appropriate spot easily minimizes that.
Oh man.
That Voodoo Reaganomics.
That is some funny shit.
Or, it would be, if itweren't actually somethingreal that people try to impliment.
Not true at all. The more money you get from an endeavor, the more likely you are to perform that endeavor. Increasing taxes makes investment less lucrative, because the payout is less. This is true even if the investment is still the most lucrative thing you can do.
The effect of a small tax increase will be small, though, and this doesn't mean we shouldn't have capital gains taxes. But we need to carefully tailor the numbers such that they generate revenue without unduly hampering the propensity to invest.
Fix'd