Yep, except the issue here is...Dilbert's point is how it is currently. Most companies are small biz which plow money beyond belief. It's just muddied because the tax system is complicated.LividBovine wrote:
Dammit, I agree with this.Dilbert_X wrote:
I agree its fairer, and probably the least bad system, but fair it isn't.It's fairer because the proportion remains the same.
Personally I think taxes should be loaded on individuals and consumption, corporations less so.
People don't really need to be super-rich, but we do need companies to drive the economy.
If people want to keep their money they can plow it back into their companies, rather than just hoard it.
I would think this would promote re-investment very well. I still believe the tax curve should be much more flat than it is. I will gladly pay more for that. Ideally, for me at least, I would rather see a drastic reduction of social services and flat/flatter tax rate. At least at the federal level. Let the states pick up the slack if there is any on the social side of things.
I understand that. I am in favor of changes to the tax code. It would be fairly easy to write a code that shifts a fair amount of tax burden off companies and rewards re-investment. I also think the personal tax code should reflect a more flat rate. I know I will pay more, but like I said, the fed is too big anyway and should be cut down a bit. That would lessen the increase in my taxes and make me happy at the same time.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
Too many different forms of making a living = need for complicated tax code
Or too many forms of trying to take advantage of the system and trying to keep loopholes open for special interests. Flat tax rate. Of course there will be some special circumstances to be addressed, but in general, flatter tax rate and less social programs from the fed.Pug wrote:
Too many different forms of making a living = need for complicated tax code
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
The one thing I would say for the sliding scale system is it does put a bit of a clamp on the psychotically greedy.
Remember, not everyone successful in business acheived it by honest hard work.
A flattish tax rate and tax rebates for stuff the govt wants to encourage is a pretty good system.
Remember, not everyone successful in business acheived it by honest hard work.
A flattish tax rate and tax rebates for stuff the govt wants to encourage is a pretty good system.
Fuck Israel
It's not a vacuum.LividBovine wrote:
Or too many forms of trying to take advantage of the system and trying to keep loopholes open for special interests. Flat tax rate. Of course there will be some special circumstances to be addressed, but in general, flatter tax rate and less social programs from the fed.Pug wrote:
Too many different forms of making a living = need for complicated tax code
You make a change, the behavior changes. My opinion is either it's completely flat or not at all.
Once upon a time, everyone paid the same percentage. And then gradually we have a tax deduction for boll weevill farming.
aka, "everyone pays the same amount...except we really want to encourage (insert lobby here)".
I get your point...but idyllic thought doesn't pitch the balance away from practicality.
Yeah, well, that's the rub. Most of those who get "screwed" by an unfair rule is based on closing a loophole for those who are not so honest. It's a little difficult to discriminate legally between the just and unjust...Dilbert wrote:
Remember, not everyone successful in business acheived it by honest hard work.
Also, wtf...not everyone is honest who's rich? Is it hate rich peoples day or something?
Here's a good topic: rich versus poor. Which have the most corrupt in terms of: number of people, percentage of population, or the gross damage?
In other words, I would think one rich corrupt mob guy does a lot more damage than the average poor dude. But is the percentage higher? Is the population greater?
Last edited by Pug (2009-09-30 21:52:44)
Some people achieve success through corruption, squashing the little guy, unethical business practices, their Daddy handing over a business to them, contacts, paying off the right people (via bribes or 'campaign contributions') and so on.Also, wtf...not everyone is honest who's rich? Is it hate rich peoples day or something?
Not sure TBH. The corrupt and dishonest do gain an unfair advantage - unless they get caught.In other words, I would think one rich corrupt mob guy does a lot more damage than the average poor dude. But is the percentage higher? Is the population greater?
Shit does tend to float to the top - look at the British MPs for an example.
And obviously a corrupt big wheel can do far more damage than 1,000 dishonest little guys - look at Madoff for example.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-30 22:26:17)
Fuck Israel
nope never said that.Dilbert_X wrote:
But according to lowing 'fairness' shouldn't be part of the argument.To me 'fair' means everyone is treated equal and a flat tax fits that definition for me.
I don't see how a flat tax is any 'fairer' than a sliding scale, the rich still pay more tax than the poor.
The poor still pay less than their share for the services they use, the rich still pay more than the poor for services they probably don't use at all.
How about everyone just pays $20,000 a year to live in the US?
Or pay for the services you use, and a fixed sum for the army, police, govt etc.
Can't pay GTFO?
Fair means equal opportunity, it does not mean equal results. learn the difference.
A tip of the hat to you sir.Bevo wrote:
I will be. I'm majoring in engineering and I'll probably be getting a graduate degree in business. I don't want to work for anybody but me.lowing wrote:
Well, I am not rich and I still say, keep your money and go build us a company to work for.
All you are doing is trying to figure out a way for govt. to better take care of us, when you are supposed to be taking care of yourself. You gotta understand that.Reciprocity wrote:
I'm not suggesting any control of wealth. taxes could theoretically control wealth, but they don't. and I don't think they need to. when 20% of the population owns 80+% of the United States maybe they should be paying 80% of the taxes. Our military is defending more of their shit than mine or yours. Of course, that doesn't cover social programs, but the people who use social programs usually have no money anyways, and like I said before, all that money is pumped back into the economy anyways. It's all a big cycle, and the cycle doesn't hurt the wealthy.lowing wrote:
Who exactly, other than the earners, do suggest control their wealth? Let me guess, govt. right?
Aussie, it has been proven over and oer again, the more you try to punish the rich the more money you lose. The rich are not going to stand by and let you rob them because they have money to steal. THey leave, they move somewhere else where they are not getting ass raped by the "entitled".AussieReaper wrote:
If you lower taxes on the rich, then it has to be made up elsewhere. So the middle to low income earners are now taxed a greater proportion of their earnings.
That money they are now losing to tax dollars, is what used to be going to the rich, through the consumption of goods, and the use of services owned by the rich. And additionally lost through investment into those companies owned by the rich that the lower income earners would have been spending. Retirement funds, shares, etc
Some of you here are only seeing the single side of the argument that taking more from the rich is less job opportunity for the poor. It works both ways. Take more from the poor and the rich lose a significant amount of earning potential.
Pathetic that you automatically assume if someone has money he stole it somehow or did not earn it, and therefore should be forced to give it to you. That is wealth envy at its finest.Dilbert_X wrote:
Some people achieve success through corruption, squashing the little guy, unethical business practices, their Daddy handing over a business to them, contacts, paying off the right people (via bribes or 'campaign contributions') and so on.Also, wtf...not everyone is honest who's rich? Is it hate rich peoples day or something?Not sure TBH. The corrupt and dishonest do gain an unfair advantage - unless they get caught.In other words, I would think one rich corrupt mob guy does a lot more damage than the average poor dude. But is the percentage higher? Is the population greater?
Shit does tend to float to the top - look at the British MPs for an example.
And obviously a corrupt big wheel can do far more damage than 1,000 dishonest little guys - look at Madoff for example.
Maddoff stole from rich people not poor people.
Five posts in a row man.
Edit button, please.
Edit button, please.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
And most achieve it by working hard, following the rules, being ethical, helping others, and so on.Dilbert_X wrote:
Some people achieve success through corruption, squashing the little guy, unethical business practices, their Daddy handing over a business to them, contacts, paying off the right people (via bribes or 'campaign contributions') and so on.Also, wtf...not everyone is honest who's rich? Is it hate rich peoples day or something?
Punish the whole for the actions of the few. Great plan.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
5 responses to five posts, sorry. I read then respond, then read the next then respond.Spark wrote:
Five posts in a row man.
Edit button, please.
But its worth having a bit of a cap to limit the real weasels.FEOS wrote:
Punish the whole for the actions of the few. Great plan.
Only the real sociopaths need complain.
Fuck Israel
NOOOOOODilbert_X wrote:
But its worth having a bit of a cap to limit the real weasels.FEOS wrote:
Punish the whole for the actions of the few. Great plan.
Only the real sociopaths need complain.
Look. Most of the businesses are small business owners like I am. I take pride in the fact I support the families of the people who work for me. I bend over backwards for my people and they do the same for me.
Because you can't LEGALLY discriminate to have a set of rules for those YOU THINK are scumbags, you have to write the law to affect all.
Its stupid to punish the 80% to get the 20%. Really fair.
I'm not talking about smalll businesses, I'm talking about the people earning megabucks.
As far as I'm concerned:
If you're taking home $1m a year - Good for you.
If you're taking home $10m a year - Great, have you thought about maybe donating to charity, medical research or a hospital? Lets help you think, by taxing your excess earnings at a high rate. You can take some of it home, or give it away - effectively paying tax but you get to choose what its spent on instead of the govt deciding.
If you're taking home $100m a year - Are you sure you haven't gone nuts? You couldn't spend that in your lifetime if you tried. Take a holiday.
As far as I'm concerned:
If you're taking home $1m a year - Good for you.
If you're taking home $10m a year - Great, have you thought about maybe donating to charity, medical research or a hospital? Lets help you think, by taxing your excess earnings at a high rate. You can take some of it home, or give it away - effectively paying tax but you get to choose what its spent on instead of the govt deciding.
If you're taking home $100m a year - Are you sure you haven't gone nuts? You couldn't spend that in your lifetime if you tried. Take a holiday.
Fuck Israel
LOL...okay. different group.Dilbert_X wrote:
I'm not talking about smalll businesses, I'm talking about the people earning megabucks.
As far as I'm concerned:
If you're taking home $1m a year - Good for you.
If you're taking home $10m a year - Great, have you thought about maybe donating to charity, medical research or a hospital? Lets help you think, by taxing your excess earnings at a high rate. You can take some of it home, or give it away - effectively paying tax but you get to choose what its spent on instead of the govt deciding.
If you're taking home $100m a year - Are you sure you haven't gone nuts? You couldn't spend that in your lifetime if you tried. Take a holiday.
BTW Obama wants to get rid of the charity deduction.
Most of the people running NPOs are as flaming liberal as they come. I'd like to see how that goes over with his basePug wrote:
LOL...okay. different group.
BTW Obama wants to get rid of the charity deduction.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Excess earnings??!! Who the hell do you think you are to decide whose income is exessive and should therefore be taken from him. Please note you yourself called it "EARNINGS", meaning they EARNED it. Fuckin' liberals.Dilbert_X wrote:
I'm not talking about smalll businesses, I'm talking about the people earning megabucks.
As far as I'm concerned:
If you're taking home $1m a year - Good for you.
If you're taking home $10m a year - Great, have you thought about maybe donating to charity, medical research or a hospital? Lets help you think, by taxing your excess earnings at a high rate. You can take some of it home, or give it away - effectively paying tax but you get to choose what its spent on instead of the govt deciding.
If you're taking home $100m a year - Are you sure you haven't gone nuts? You couldn't spend that in your lifetime if you tried. Take a holiday.
Last edited by lowing (2009-10-01 18:45:00)
How can you justify making $57,000 a fucking hour as "EARNING" it? Damn right they should be taxed at a higher rate. BTW, the 57 grand is what the CEO of Humana averaged last year. The PRIVATE healh insurance company under investigation for sending scare letters to seniors.lowing wrote:
Excess earnings??!! Who the hell do you think you are to decide whose income is exessive and should therefore be taken from him. Please note you yourself called it "EARNINGS", meaning they EARNED it. Fuckin' liberals.Dilbert_X wrote:
I'm not talking about smalll businesses, I'm talking about the people earning megabucks.
As far as I'm concerned:
If you're taking home $1m a year - Good for you.
If you're taking home $10m a year - Great, have you thought about maybe donating to charity, medical research or a hospital? Lets help you think, by taxing your excess earnings at a high rate. You can take some of it home, or give it away - effectively paying tax but you get to choose what its spent on instead of the govt deciding.
If you're taking home $100m a year - Are you sure you haven't gone nuts? You couldn't spend that in your lifetime if you tried. Take a holiday.
Sounds like an ubermensch, imo.nlsme1 wrote:
How can you justify making $57,000 a fucking hour as "EARNING" it? Damn right they should be taxed at a higher rate. BTW, the 57 grand is what the CEO of Humana averaged last year. The PRIVATE healh insurance company under investigation for sending scare letters to seniors.lowing wrote:
Excess earnings??!! Who the hell do you think you are to decide whose income is exessive and should therefore be taken from him. Please note you yourself called it "EARNINGS", meaning they EARNED it. Fuckin' liberals.Dilbert_X wrote:
I'm not talking about smalll businesses, I'm talking about the people earning megabucks.
As far as I'm concerned:
If you're taking home $1m a year - Good for you.
If you're taking home $10m a year - Great, have you thought about maybe donating to charity, medical research or a hospital? Lets help you think, by taxing your excess earnings at a high rate. You can take some of it home, or give it away - effectively paying tax but you get to choose what its spent on instead of the govt deciding.
If you're taking home $100m a year - Are you sure you haven't gone nuts? You couldn't spend that in your lifetime if you tried. Take a holiday.
Pretty well every country in the world has a progressive tax system - including the fuckin' liberal US.lowing wrote:
Excess earnings??!! Who the hell do you think you are to decide whose income is exessive and should therefore be taken from him. Please note you yourself called it "EARNINGS", meaning they EARNED it. Fuckin' liberals.
Fuck Israel
why doesnt the govt go after tiger woods? celebs? musicians? look how much they make a year. is that necessary?