Announcement

lowing
Banned
+1,662|5984|USA

jonsimon wrote:

There should be a bracket for the top 1%, and it should be 50% or higher. The people that are making that money are so rich, their income is nothing compared to their wealth.
Yeah, never mind they EARNED it, lets just punish them for being successful, by robbing them. Then, if all goes well, they will not have the incentive to start up new businesses and employ more people. I only assume the rich are the ones that do this since; I don't ever remember asking a poor uneducated unmotivated person for a job.



What a great idea it is, to knock down the people who are actively involved in building up a society and concentrate on propping up the leeches and tics of it. Why are you so hell bent on punishing success? Why do you insist on subsidizing laziness? Why do you hate individuality, and personal responsibility for your own successes and failures?

FAIR TAX!!
lowing
Banned
+1,662|5984|USA

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Agreed, although the Canadian government has run a budget surplus for quite some time.  I wish we could....
Well, the majority of US governemnt spending is in the form of welfare... medicare and the like.  About 2/3, to be honest.
Closely followed by warfare...  If we intervened less in the world's conflicts and shifted most social programs to state governments, the federal government would be much smaller, and we could create a significant budget surplus to pay down the national debt with.
Well gee, then count us out on going over and fixing Africa then. Let the Euro weenies do it, they are the ones spouting off about all that needs to be done over there, and then don't do shit except look at the US and criticize our efforts or lack of efforts in the world.

I have poor people who refuse to work here in the states that need coddling after all.
.:XDR:.PureFodder
Member
+105|6162

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

There should be a bracket for the top 1%, and it should be 50% or higher. The people that are making that money are so rich, their income is nothing compared to their wealth.
Yeah, never mind they EARNED it, lets just punish them for being successful, by robbing them. Then, if all goes well, they will not have the incentive to start up new businesses and employ more people. I only assume the rich are the ones that do this since; I don't ever remember asking a poor uneducated unmotivated person for a job.



What a great idea it is, to knock down the people who are actively involved in building up a society and concentrate on propping up the leeches and tics of it. Why are you so hell bent on punishing success? Why do you insist on subsidizing laziness? Why do you hate individuality, and personal responsibility for your own successes and failures?

FAIR TAX!!
To be fair, you know that they're going to exploit every last possible tax loophole to drop their actual taxes way below that anyway as they can afford a decent accountant.

If you place the tax rate higher than you want, then after the accountants has fiddled with numbers as best they can, you'll be back to the 40 odd percent you wanted to tax them in the first place.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|5984|USA

Kmarion wrote:

I would like lower taxes of course. Maybe if we weren't writing Israel a check for 2.4 billion a year. Get rid of that abomination called social security why your at it. Let me put more of my retirement money where I want it. I am for less government when it comes to handling my money. I think any reasonable person understands that.
Any reasonable person does, then you have the liberals/communists/socialists/democrat crowd who think you managing your own money is absurd. Why after all should YOU manage your money, when the democrats are more than capable to do it for you? They know where your money needs to be spent more than you do. They, after all, are masters at managing (spending) someone else’s money.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|5984|USA

.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

There should be a bracket for the top 1%, and it should be 50% or higher. The people that are making that money are so rich, their income is nothing compared to their wealth.
Yeah, never mind they EARNED it, lets just punish them for being successful, by robbing them. Then, if all goes well, they will not have the incentive to start up new businesses and employ more people. I only assume the rich are the ones that do this since; I don't ever remember asking a poor uneducated unmotivated person for a job.



What a great idea it is, to knock down the people who are actively involved in building up a society and concentrate on propping up the leeches and tics of it. Why are you so hell bent on punishing success? Why do you insist on subsidizing laziness? Why do you hate individuality, and personal responsibility for your own successes and failures?

FAIR TAX!!
To be fair, you know that they're going to exploit every last possible tax loophole to drop their actual taxes way below that anyway as they can afford a decent accountant.

If you place the tax rate higher than you want, then after the accountants has fiddled with numbers as best they can, you'll be back to the 40 odd percent you wanted to tax them in the first place.
You keep your money you get taxed as you spend it. Rich people buy big things like $100,000 cars and $50,000,000 boats and shit. Poor people buy cigarettes and beer and lottery tickets. Who is getting taxed more again??


Also I did take note that you did not challenge my post, can I assume you agree with it?

Last edited by lowing (2007-03-19 04:11:01)

.:XDR:.PureFodder
Member
+105|6162

lowing wrote:

.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:

lowing wrote:


Yeah, never mind they EARNED it, lets just punish them for being successful, by robbing them. Then, if all goes well, they will not have the incentive to start up new businesses and employ more people. I only assume the rich are the ones that do this since; I don't ever remember asking a poor uneducated unmotivated person for a job.



What a great idea it is, to knock down the people who are actively involved in building up a society and concentrate on propping up the leeches and tics of it. Why are you so hell bent on punishing success? Why do you insist on subsidizing laziness? Why do you hate individuality, and personal responsibility for your own successes and failures?

FAIR TAX!!
To be fair, you know that they're going to exploit every last possible tax loophole to drop their actual taxes way below that anyway as they can afford a decent accountant.

If you place the tax rate higher than you want, then after the accountants has fiddled with numbers as best they can, you'll be back to the 40 odd percent you wanted to tax them in the first place.
You keep your money you get taxed as you spend it. Rich people buy big things like $100,000 cars and $50,000,000 boats and shit. Poor people buy cigarettes and beer and lottery tickets. Who is getting taxed more again??


Also I did take note that you did not challenge my post, can I assume you agree with it?
Actually if you look at the precentage earnings that actually end up at tax money the poor buy tobacco, beer, lottery tickets all of which are very heavily taxed and tend to use up most of their earning on taxable things just to survive.

The rich stick their money in a tax haven bank to avoid paying taxes, then spend only a fraction of their money on expensive stuff that will be used to reduce that years earnings anyway, hence reduce their taxes. Money in the hands of the rich does little for the economy compaired to money in the hands of the poor as the poor actually spend it. So yeah, tax the crap out of the rich, they don't need it.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|5984|USA

.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:

lowing wrote:

.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:


To be fair, you know that they're going to exploit every last possible tax loophole to drop their actual taxes way below that anyway as they can afford a decent accountant.

If you place the tax rate higher than you want, then after the accountants has fiddled with numbers as best they can, you'll be back to the 40 odd percent you wanted to tax them in the first place.
You keep your money you get taxed as you spend it. Rich people buy big things like $100,000 cars and $50,000,000 boats and shit. Poor people buy cigarettes and beer and lottery tickets. Who is getting taxed more again??


Also I did take note that you did not challenge my post, can I assume you agree with it?
Actually if you look at the precentage earnings that actually end up at tax money the poor buy tobacco, beer, lottery tickets all of which are very heavily taxed and tend to use up most of their earning on taxable things just to survive.

The rich stick their money in a tax haven bank to avoid paying taxes, then spend only a fraction of their money on expensive stuff that will be used to reduce that years earnings anyway, hence reduce their taxes. Money in the hands of the rich does little for the economy compaired to money in the hands of the poor as the poor actually spend it. So yeah, tax the crap out of the rich, they don't need it.
Am I missing something here? We need to cut the poor people a break on their beer lottery tickets and cigarettes???!! The rich don't "stick" their money anywhere except INVESTMENTS, which helps them create new businesses . They also spend extravagantly, just look at all the liberal celebrities who preach to us what to do with our money as they walk the red carpet through life.
.:XDR:.PureFodder
Member
+105|6162

lowing wrote:

.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:

lowing wrote:


You keep your money you get taxed as you spend it. Rich people buy big things like $100,000 cars and $50,000,000 boats and shit. Poor people buy cigarettes and beer and lottery tickets. Who is getting taxed more again??


Also I did take note that you did not challenge my post, can I assume you agree with it?
Actually if you look at the precentage earnings that actually end up at tax money the poor buy tobacco, beer, lottery tickets all of which are very heavily taxed and tend to use up most of their earning on taxable things just to survive.

The rich stick their money in a tax haven bank to avoid paying taxes, then spend only a fraction of their money on expensive stuff that will be used to reduce that years earnings anyway, hence reduce their taxes. Money in the hands of the rich does little for the economy compaired to money in the hands of the poor as the poor actually spend it. So yeah, tax the crap out of the rich, they don't need it.
Am I missing something here? We need to cut the poor people a break on their beer lottery tickets and cigarettes???!! The rich don't "stick" their money anywhere except INVESTMENTS, which helps them create new businesses . They also spend extravagantly, just look at all the liberal celebrities who preach to us what to do with our money as they walk the red carpet through life.
I guess you are missing the point. The poor tend to spend all their money on taxable goods which go straight back into the economy. The rich don't. They may buy expensive things, but relative to the money they earn, they spend lass than the poor. If you charged a flat rate tax on everyone, then 10 people on $15,000 a year will between them spend more money on tax than one person on $150, 000. So charging rich people more on tax is required just to even that up, let alone the fact the the poor might need the money more.
markkos
Kokko, kokoo koko kokko kokoon!
+9|6008|Zurich, Switzerland
336% import taxes on imported meat in Switzerland. That's too much!
lowing
Banned
+1,662|5984|USA

.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:

lowing wrote:

.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:


Actually if you look at the precentage earnings that actually end up at tax money the poor buy tobacco, beer, lottery tickets all of which are very heavily taxed and tend to use up most of their earning on taxable things just to survive.

The rich stick their money in a tax haven bank to avoid paying taxes, then spend only a fraction of their money on expensive stuff that will be used to reduce that years earnings anyway, hence reduce their taxes. Money in the hands of the rich does little for the economy compaired to money in the hands of the poor as the poor actually spend it. So yeah, tax the crap out of the rich, they don't need it.
Am I missing something here? We need to cut the poor people a break on their beer lottery tickets and cigarettes???!! The rich don't "stick" their money anywhere except INVESTMENTS, which helps them create new businesses . They also spend extravagantly, just look at all the liberal celebrities who preach to us what to do with our money as they walk the red carpet through life.
I guess you are missing the point. The poor tend to spend all their money on taxable goods which go straight back into the economy. The rich don't. They may buy expensive things, but relative to the money they earn, they spend lass than the poor. If you charged a flat rate tax on everyone, then 10 people on $15,000 a year will between them spend more money on tax than one person on $150, 000. So charging rich people more on tax is required just to even that up, let alone the fact the the poor might need the money more.
The day you ask a poor person for a job let me know.

Also I will not buy into the argument that the poor people of this nation are needed to stimulate economic growth, and that the rich people ( the ones who create the jobs) are the problem.
ph4s3
engineer
+34|6162|Texas

lowing wrote:

Why after all should YOU manage your money, when the democrats are more than capable to do it for you? They know where your money needs to be spent more than you do. They, after all, are masters at managing (spending) someone else’s money.
Not to pick a fight here or anything, but the Democratic Party hardly has the market cornered on irresponsible fiscal policy.  I'm no fan, but they're not the ones that have been in charge of Congress for the last decade or so.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|5984|USA

ph4s3 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Why after all should YOU manage your money, when the democrats are more than capable to do it for you? They know where your money needs to be spent more than you do. They, after all, are masters at managing (spending) someone else’s money.
Not to pick a fight here or anything, but the Democratic Party hardly has the market cornered on irresponsible fiscal policy.  I'm no fan, but they're not the ones that have been in charge of Congress for the last decade or so.
I would rather my taxes go to the war effort or R&D, over a lazy tic or leech.
G3|Genius
Pope of BF2s
+355|5959|Sea to globally-cooled sea
Have you ever been employed by a poor person?

I hate to tell you, but the rich people are the people who hire.  The busines OWNERS.  Not the wage earners.  The quickest way to raise the unemployment rate is to raise taxes.  Another good way is to raise minimum wage. 

The problem is--chew this over--our system does not tax wealth, it taxes the creation of wealth.

The creation of wealth is what keeps the entire economy churning.  To tax the creation of wealth is stupid because, in effect, it's injecting the system with lethargy.  The less you tax the business owner, the more he will spend.  We've heard "you need to spend money to make money."  Every business has a threshhold.  Businesses have specific expenses that we need to pay no matter what: insurance, rent, utilities, payroll.  After that, there is a certain amount of money left that the owner can use for several things, the most important thing on his mind being helping his business grow so that he can make more money the next year.  The more money he is required to give to the government, the less he can put back into his business.  If he didn't have to spend that money to taxes, perhaps he'd get a new delivery truck (which would contribute to a boost in the auto industry).  Then he'd need to hire another driver for the truck (helping with the employment rate).  Et cetera.  You get the picture.

Taxation hurts the economy.  You may want your social programs for the poor.  I say, give the business owner the ability to keep his money so that he can grow his business and hire the poor. 

I do not trust the government.  Consider this: the government does not earns its money.  Your government does not work for its money.  It takes its money from you.  That is YOUR money.  Or your PARENTS' money.  It's your EMPLOYER'S money.  Remember the Christmas bonus that you wish had $100.00 more?  The GOVERNMENT got that $100.00.

Do not trust an institution that does not have to work for the money it earns, and does not have to use prudence when spending. 

"what's the problem?  the budget won't balance?  it's ok!  raise the taxes.  Don't worry about cutting spending...just make someone else pick up more of the tab!"

It's so short-sighted.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|5984|USA

G3|Genius wrote:

Have you ever been employed by a poor person?

I hate to tell you, but the rich people are the people who hire.  The busines OWNERS.  Not the wage earners.  The quickest way to raise the unemployment rate is to raise taxes.  Another good way is to raise minimum wage. 

The problem is--chew this over--our system does not tax wealth, it taxes the creation of wealth.

The creation of wealth is what keeps the entire economy churning.  To tax the creation of wealth is stupid because, in effect, it's injecting the system with lethargy.  The less you tax the business owner, the more he will spend.  We've heard "you need to spend money to make money."  Every business has a threshhold.  Businesses have specific expenses that we need to pay no matter what: insurance, rent, utilities, payroll.  After that, there is a certain amount of money left that the owner can use for several things, the most important thing on his mind being helping his business grow so that he can make more money the next year.  The more money he is required to give to the government, the less he can put back into his business.  If he didn't have to spend that money to taxes, perhaps he'd get a new delivery truck (which would contribute to a boost in the auto industry).  Then he'd need to hire another driver for the truck (helping with the employment rate).  Et cetera.  You get the picture.

Taxation hurts the economy.  You may want your social programs for the poor.  I say, give the business owner the ability to keep his money so that he can grow his business and hire the poor. 

I do not trust the government.  Consider this: the government does not earns its money.  Your government does not work for its money.  It takes its money from you.  That is YOUR money.  Or your PARENTS' money.  It's your EMPLOYER'S money.  Remember the Christmas bonus that you wish had $100.00 more?  The GOVERNMENT got that $100.00.

Do not trust an institution that does not have to work for the money it earns, and does not have to use prudence when spending. 

"what's the problem?  the budget won't balance?  it's ok!  raise the taxes.  Don't worry about cutting spending...just make someone else pick up more of the tab!"

It's so short-sighted.
well said
liquix
Member
+51|5787|Peoples Republic of Portland
Money only sucks when you don't have any
ph4s3
engineer
+34|6162|Texas
PureFodder, no offense of course, but you need to learn some math skills.

.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:

If you charged a flat rate tax on everyone, then 10 people on $15,000 a year will between them spend more money on tax than one person on $150, 000.
What the hell?  Where did you go to school, man?
For those not smart enough to notice the above stupidity,
1 person * 150,000/yr * 10% = $15,000 in taxes.
1 person * 15,000/yr * 10% = $1500 in taxes. 
10 people making 15k/yr on a flat tax of 10% make EXACTLY the same combined tax contribution as 1 person making 150k/yr.


.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:

So charging rich people more on tax is required just to even that up, let alone the fact the the poor might need the money more.
Oh my.  Seriously.  What the hell is wrong with you?  Even what up?  As shown above, this guy makes 10 times the individual contribution of those 10 idiots, and makes the same contribution as the entire lot of them.

So let's see... He's already paying 10 times more than any one of those other idiots and he needs to pay M O R E?!?!?!?!?! 

If you can't do simple math, then you really REALLY shouldn't be arguing about taxes.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|5984|USA

ph4s3 wrote:

PureFodder, no offense of course, but you need to learn some math skills.

.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:

If you charged a flat rate tax on everyone, then 10 people on $15,000 a year will between them spend more money on tax than one person on $150, 000.
What the hell?  Where did you go to school, man?
For those not smart enough to notice the above stupidity,
1 person * 150,000/yr * 10% = $15,000 in taxes.
1 person * 15,000/yr * 10% = $1500 in taxes. 
10 people making 15k/yr on a flat tax of 10% make EXACTLY the same combined tax contribution as 1 person making 150k/yr.


.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:

So charging rich people more on tax is required just to even that up, let alone the fact the the poor might need the money more.
Oh my.  Seriously.  What the hell is wrong with you?  Even what up?  As shown above, this guy makes 10 times the individual contribution of those 10 idiots, and makes the same contribution as the entire lot of them.

So let's see... He's already paying 10 times more than any one of those other idiots and he needs to pay M O R E?!?!?!?!?! 

If you can't do simple math, then you really REALLY shouldn't be arguing about taxes.
He is no doubt, trying to argue that the rich do not pay the taxes you cite, because of tax shelters and loop holes, that are not apparently available to the poor.
ph4s3
engineer
+34|6162|Texas

lowing wrote:

He is no doubt, trying to argue that the rich do not pay the taxes you cite, because of tax shelters and loop holes, that are not apparently available to the poor.
Well, if he can't even say what he means then he shouldn't be arguing anyway.  He specifically said,  "If you charged a flat rate tax on everyone, then 10 people on $15,000 a year will between them spend more money on tax than one person on $150, 000."  That's idiotic at best, purposefully dishonest at worst.

The thing about a flat tax is that it would not have loopholes.  Period.  The only fair tax is one that has no loopholes or other special rules.  If you make $X, you pay the same percentage as if you made $Z.  Remove the incentive to cheat by making it a reasonable percentage and change the law to remove the possibility of cheating (no loopholes = no cheaters).
Fen321
Member
+54|5831|Singularity

Fen321 wrote:

Can anyone fill me in on why we can get double taxed -- income + sales tax?
Aye, my tax savvy Forum reader -----^ Any idea why I can get double taxed !?!???!?!?!!!?!??!!??!?!
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|5738|North Carolina

Fen321 wrote:

Fen321 wrote:

Can anyone fill me in on why we can get double taxed -- income + sales tax?
Aye, my tax savvy Forum reader -----^ Any idea why I can get double taxed !?!???!?!?!!!?!??!!??!?!
To provide for political pork.  Kickbacks are costly...
lowing
Banned
+1,662|5984|USA

ph4s3 wrote:

lowing wrote:

He is no doubt, trying to argue that the rich do not pay the taxes you cite, because of tax shelters and loop holes, that are not apparently available to the poor.
Well, if he can't even say what he means then he shouldn't be arguing anyway.  He specifically said,  "If you charged a flat rate tax on everyone, then 10 people on $15,000 a year will between them spend more money on tax than one person on $150, 000."  That's idiotic at best, purposefully dishonest at worst.

The thing about a flat tax is that it would not have loopholes.  Period.  The only fair tax is one that has no loopholes or other special rules.  If you make $X, you pay the same percentage as if you made $Z.  Remove the incentive to cheat by making it a reasonable percentage and change the law to remove the possibility of cheating (no loopholes = no cheaters).
very true. I doubt you will be getting a response from this post.  You have hit this thread with factual kryptonite. Shame on you.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|5738|North Carolina

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:


Well, the majority of US governemnt spending is in the form of welfare... medicare and the like.  About 2/3, to be honest.
Closely followed by warfare...  If we intervened less in the world's conflicts and shifted most social programs to state governments, the federal government would be much smaller, and we could create a significant budget surplus to pay down the national debt with.
Got a better one for you.  If we cancelled all forms of social and corperate welfare, we could reduce our taxes by 2/3.  Not to mention get the government out of our daily lives.

And it is not so closely followed by military spending.  Note I did not call it warfare, as you did.
True...  see my Modest Proposal thread...  if we follow that idea, we can end social programs and replace them with more military spending and gain more resources through the wars involved.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|5738|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

There should be a bracket for the top 1%, and it should be 50% or higher. The people that are making that money are so rich, their income is nothing compared to their wealth.
Yeah, never mind they EARNED it, lets just punish them for being successful, by robbing them. Then, if all goes well, they will not have the incentive to start up new businesses and employ more people. I only assume the rich are the ones that do this since; I don't ever remember asking a poor uneducated unmotivated person for a job.



What a great idea it is, to knock down the people who are actively involved in building up a society and concentrate on propping up the leeches and tics of it. Why are you so hell bent on punishing success? Why do you insist on subsidizing laziness? Why do you hate individuality, and personal responsibility for your own successes and failures?

FAIR TAX!!
The unsuccessful and lazy will no longer be stuck at the bottom of society if we can enlist them.  Besides, the worst that can happen with this plan is that they'll just die while on the job, so to speak.

By following this plan, we'll stop punishing our nobility.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|5984|USA

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

There should be a bracket for the top 1%, and it should be 50% or higher. The people that are making that money are so rich, their income is nothing compared to their wealth.
Yeah, never mind they EARNED it, lets just punish them for being successful, by robbing them. Then, if all goes well, they will not have the incentive to start up new businesses and employ more people. I only assume the rich are the ones that do this since; I don't ever remember asking a poor uneducated unmotivated person for a job.



What a great idea it is, to knock down the people who are actively involved in building up a society and concentrate on propping up the leeches and tics of it. Why are you so hell bent on punishing success? Why do you insist on subsidizing laziness? Why do you hate individuality, and personal responsibility for your own successes and failures?

FAIR TAX!!
The unsuccessful and lazy will no longer be stuck at the bottom of society if we can enlist them.  Besides, the worst that can happen with this plan is that they'll just die while on the job, so to speak.

By following this plan, we'll stop punishing our nobility.
Only problem is, I doubt, after a successful NON-attempt at personal responsibility in life, they will actually succeed in anything, including being a successful soldier. Why dishonor the miltary by suggesting such action?
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|5738|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:


Yeah, never mind they EARNED it, lets just punish them for being successful, by robbing them. Then, if all goes well, they will not have the incentive to start up new businesses and employ more people. I only assume the rich are the ones that do this since; I don't ever remember asking a poor uneducated unmotivated person for a job.



What a great idea it is, to knock down the people who are actively involved in building up a society and concentrate on propping up the leeches and tics of it. Why are you so hell bent on punishing success? Why do you insist on subsidizing laziness? Why do you hate individuality, and personal responsibility for your own successes and failures?

FAIR TAX!!
The unsuccessful and lazy will no longer be stuck at the bottom of society if we can enlist them.  Besides, the worst that can happen with this plan is that they'll just die while on the job, so to speak.

By following this plan, we'll stop punishing our nobility.
Only problem is, I doubt, after a successful NON-attempt at personal responsibility in life, they will actually succeed in anything, including being a successful soldier. Why dishonor the miltary by suggesting such action?
How would it be a dishonor to the military, if they were to succeed?

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2022 Jeff Minard