Really I'm not sure he would have wanted anything of the sort, more like worker control over the means of production :).Quote:
You're right. He would never have settled for 30%.
Printable View
Really I'm not sure he would have wanted anything of the sort, more like worker control over the means of production :).Quote:
You're right. He would never have settled for 30%.
I do NOT think it fair that we owed no Federal income tax this year, while a person with earned income of similar amount would have paid several thousand. Because we are NOT greedy is why I support changes that would not give such unfair preference to unearned income. It might be in MY interest, but it is not good for our country or fair to working people.
No, it's actually the second 'plank' of his '10 Planks', memorialized in the Communist Manifesto. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...festo/ch02.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
It's interesting to see how many of the 'planks' have already been instituted, in whole or part, in the United States and other western countries.
I disagree that almost any have.
noQuote:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
this is debatable, and 30% is not heavy (based on what middle class people are already paying now!) and that's merely a proposal. A somewhat progressive income tax (with many loopholes) that we have, whose progressivity is somewhat offset by all the other regressive non-income taxation in existence.Quote:
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
no, how heavy inheritance hits mostly depends on your ability to set up trusts I thinkQuote:
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
may have a point there. It is costly to leave, and property will be confiscated in drug raids and so on.Quote:
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
We have a central bank, but we don't actually have the kind of central bank talked about here. Banks are not nationalized. Money creation is actually run through nominally private (bank of american, wells fargo, chase etc.) banks who profiteer from it. Now a lot of credit is government *backed* these days but even that throws off privitized profit (like the housing market, ginnie mae, fannie mac etc.). If you are looking for a word to best describe this, I think corporatism is the best word.Quote:
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
tricky when the state was actually the main player in the invention of the major means of communication in the world today, so that's kinda a thorny problem in and of itself eh? Roads have long been public, Ike's fault for the interstate highway system?Quote:
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
erm? I suppose by some wild stretch something like emminent domain could be likened to the cultivation of waste-lands but it's a stretch. Of course soil is not improving.Quote:
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
not really, though we do have prison labor.Quote:
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
not reallyQuote:
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
to some degree yeaQuote:
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
Anyway this conversation is so ridiculous at this point that I'm defending Marxism, which isn't actually anything I particularly favor. I think what is defendable to some degree is some European style welfare state measures, and also small scale socialism as in worker co-ops ala Mondragoon etc., and also unions.
There hasn't been this much hysteria on the right about socialism, commies, Karl Marx, etc., since the days of ole Joe McCarthy, and I see that they are dredging up much of the same scare tactics, (and considering some of the folks touted by people like Glenn Beck), even the same people and books much lauded by the John Birch Society, etc. back then......
If we have ANYTHING in this country, it's about as far from socialism or Karl Marx, as it could be......we've been moving far more toward the dog eat dog social Darwinism of the very far right wing folks than anytime certainly in MY lifetime. I'd laugh, but it's serious.
For the record I defended Kerry here when it came out that he and his immensely rich wife only paid about 14%. There were good reasons for it, but I guess it is always more fun to try to grab your pitchfork than use your brain.Quote:
Originally Posted by loosechickens
Put up or.... :moon:Quote:
Originally Posted by loosechickens
https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/for...ormId=23779454
And are you still claiming residency in that state tax haven?
Hogwash.Quote:
Originally Posted by loosechickens
While "everybody knows" that the wealthy take advantage of strange and mysterious "tax loopholes" and offshore bank accounts, that isn't reality, and hasn't been for ages. It's just another divisive myth, for the usual divisive reasons.
I have had access to simply the best tax attorneys on the planet. There are no such legal loopholes or evasive techniques of any real-world utility to most wealthy people. And you can take that to the bank.
I have asked on these forums time and time again for specific examples, and the only one usually offered is "oh, well, they can deduct 'paper' capital losses". Showing a distinct lack of understanding, methinks....
Yep, we are still residents of that reddest of states, Texas, where ALL those far right, "business friendly", free market right wing ideas of governance hold sway. All the stuff you guys believe in most, shines brightly in Texas. If we give up our nomadic life, we will probably settle in CA, but since you pay CA tax based on your Federal return, probably not much would change except that we wouldn't be throwing our Presidential vote away. Not much chance President Obama will carry Texas, that wonderful example of right wing governance run amuck. ;-)
Maybe you just need Dick Cheney's or Mitt Romney's tax attorneys, bae, and they can show you how to have tens of millions in income every year and pay less than 15 percent in Federal taxes. You may be paying way too much.
Wait, so YOU may support issues that are best for the country but are not in your immediate financial self interest? Yet you malign voters in flyover country who do the same. You've said that many voters do not truly understand the issues because they vote against themselves, and you talk about them as if when they become informed or smarter they'd allow Nanny G to do what is best for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by loosechickens
I guess it's ok that persons of superior intellect recognize issues that are best for the country as a whole and lobby accordingly, but poor fools in Kansas need to just give in to Nanny G who has only their best interests at heart. There's no accounting for their distaste of that teat.
You may miss the point, Iris Lily. It is possible that they may be both voting against their own self interest AND against the society and their country as well, after being shrewdly manipulated by a few emotional hot issues, like guns, gays and religion. And in the interest of a small handful of extremely self interested folks who would sell their country down the river without even blinking as long as the money and power is held in their hands. It's not rocket science. G'nite
Come now. It is trivial to arrange that, it's in the tax code, all simple and easy, with no smoke or mirrors required.Quote:
Originally Posted by loosechickens
But that's not the sort of bogus mysterious tax loophole secrets the class warfare fans keep trotting out.
As you well know.
If it's so simple, bae, then why hire/gain access to armies of the best tax attorneys in the country? Anyone smart enough to amass great wealth surly can do a simple return with basic instructions. How many thousands and thousands of pages is the tax code? Surly there is one or two little loopholes tucked in there for which we hire armies of the best tax attorneys in the country.;)
I am surprised at the level of personal attacks that are taking place here.
Don't a lot of states as well as the federal government give you a tax credit for certain things you invest in that are for the good of society? I am thinking historic preservation projects, low income housing, energy projects (like windmills) or other clean energy projects. Also, some people invest heavily when they do have income in tax free bonds. What about charitable deductions, too. If you have enough money you can donate a lot to charities. Even at my middle class income charitable deductions make a difference, although we are the middle class who pays tax.
I recently read a book by Neil strauss called "emergency" and he outlined how difficult it is for Americans to have offshore accounts and secret Swiss bank accounts today.
Hysteria is a little strong, at least if you get outside the sensationalist, fear monger media and go to the sources where average people speak their minds. Here, for example. My question is this LC, is it just possible that there is a valid reason so many folks are chiming in on this debate (nationally)? There are apparently millions of people who think there is. They can't all fit neatly into one of the caricature portrayals. Only a few could be great manipulators hell bent on ruling the world. A few more might be apathetic super-rich. None I know are zombies blindly following the landed gentry. None, to my knowledge, are inbred. Etc. Overall, it's just not a group of people that are generally slow on the uptake.Quote:
Originally Posted by loosechickens
Yes, some of their (our) words have been heard before, but I would suggest your responses here are also delivered with a familiar drumbeat. It's worth stepping back a little and asking just what it was that raised the red flags. Are you really sure there aren't legitimate underlying issues that are making your opposition nervous and that it is nothing more than partisan paranoia? Dismissing the idea that "the state" is overstepping its authority is, at least according to much popular literature, what allows the state to do that very thing. The reason the watchdogs are cautious is because once you surrender any fraction of liberty its really costly to get it back.
It's true. Republicans are much better at marketing than Democrats. If the Dems were better they would immediately publish an extensive list of very wealthy donors who intentionally overpaid their taxes. You know, the ones who wrote that big 7 or 8 figure check over and above what they owed because their secretary paid more and the tax code just didn't offer any other way for them to chip in their fair share. It's a really long list....right?Quote:
Originally Posted by loosechickens
yea really, now everyone is a Marxist.Quote:
I am surprised at the level of personal attacks that are taking place here.
Actually it is VERY HARD to get charitable deductions to make a difference if it is your only itemization. You have to give A LOT to charity on a middle class income to do that. For single people the standard deduction was $5,800, $11,600 married. So .... if your single and give $6000 to charity have at it, or married and give $12,000 to charity. Most middle class people are not giving that much to charity (in fact it beats what many contribute to their own retirement accounts which of course aren't itemizable :( ). See what I mean most of these deductions only make any sense at all to the middle class if you are able to itemize.Quote:
Don't a lot of states as well as the federal government give you a tax credit for certain things you invest in that are for the good of society? I am thinking historic preservation projects, low income housing, energy projects (like windmills) or other clean energy projects. Also, some people invest heavily when they do have income in tax free bonds. What about charitable deductions, too. If you have enough money you can donate a lot to charities. Even at my middle class income charitable deductions make a difference, although we are the middle class who pays tax.
Yes they may get a world with no government benefits, but I'm not sure most will actually like it when they do. Now there is plenty, plenty, of government involvement that I can do the unintended (only I suspect it's not) consequences analysis on. Like the government basically owns the housing market by now. Was that necessary? Were private (at least nominally private aka the banks) lenders really some horrible horrible thing for the housing market? I dont' think so. Was there perhaps some freezeup in lending, yea but more so, noone is going to lend at conditions that keep current housing prices (especially in bubble markets) propped up. Enter the government. Was this a bailout? Yes I think so. Ok but back to my point, the things that are going to get cut are ultimately not things like this, it's ultimately social security and so on. People will have a world that no tax revenue funds, but will they like it? The ultimate truth is most people have not saved enough to do retirement alone with no social security. A few may have pensions (oh the irony if the right wing charge to cut ends up being mostly cheered for by those with government jobs!! who aren't even making it in the private sector), most people even the savers (and many arent' savers), but even the savers will not likely end up accumulating enough on the only sometimes matched 401k and so on to do retirement alone. So how to you fund the government if noone is willing to pay taxes? 30% like I said is not much more than my only middle class income is paying, is somewhat progressive. Now if the entire charge to defund government was aimed: we'll do the least damage to the poorer people in society while doing so, then hmm, as in first we'll defund everything benefitting the richer people, these farm subsides to giant agribusiness they have to go first, department of energy subsidizies to fossil fuels have to go first, etc. etc.. Then I think the poor would still be hurt by government defunding but if at least the aim was to do the least damage to them while attaining libertopia it would be one thing. But that's not the way it is going to play out. In fact the average persons money has alrelady been stolen in so many ways but they dont' know. The BIG ENTITIES have ALREADY been bailed (the banks etc.) with money we did not have (on debt, on money creation). And now there will be nothing left for joe schmoe poor or middle class, and we'll make sure no taxes will even be paid so that there will be anything left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
Where was the outcry on NDAA? Oh I know many people were against it in principle and that is good, but even then how much did they do? I'm sure a few did a lot, most did not do much. I wrote my congress people, the president, called them, went to a protest (in which everyone left etc. :( ). I didn't do enough, how many even did this? The ACLU is in one constant never ending battle for our civil liberties these days (and I don't just mean some lefty issues the ACLU may get involved in, I mean REAL civil liberties fights, on what I would almost universally consider civil liberties). How many know? How many care? But 30% taxes are the epitomy of government tyranny, reallly? Taxes especially very direct ones (not hidding somewhere 50 miles deep within the tax codes) even compared to another way the government takes your money (inflation and money creation) are benign. It's much easier to just plan to hand 30% over to the government in taxation than it is to plan for say hyperinflation or even long run ordinary run of the mill high inflation (hey maybe especially for the middle class but hey).Quote:
Dismissing the idea that "the state" is overstepping its authority is, at least according to much popular literature, what allows the state to do that very thing. The reason the watchdogs are cautious is because once you surrender any fraction of liberty its really costly to get it back.
[ETA: social security and medicare are currently self-funded through payroll taxes though (and if the cap was raised on the income subject to Social Security taxation, Social Security could be self-funded under current conditions pretty much indefinitely. So then you ask what is worth still funding in the Federal government that isn't self-funded? Food stamps, unemployment, welfare, other general aid, regulation of environmental/worker protections, national parks, green policies (at current far outweighed by non-green policies), medicaid. I'm not sure this actually amounts to that much money. Minimal defense? Well fine it should be less than most other countries in the world pay for theirs since it's been overfunded for years, so drastic cuts.]
Many middle class, however, are able to itemize and take full advantage of these deductions. If you have a house with a mortgage and/or live in a state with an income tax, you are probably itemizing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
With regard to your comment on retirement accounts, you don't itemize those because unless it's a roth, you aren't paying tax on them anyway. If your income is low enough, you even get a credit for those retirement contributions against your taxes.
If we want to fix the deficit, we need to fix spending and everyone needs to pay at least some income tax. The rich may, in fact need to have their rates raise. But, we also need some reforms at the other end of the spectrum.
When a significant part of the population pays no income tax, that's a problem. Despite assertions to the contrary in this thread, middle class people aren't paying 30% of their income in federal taxes.
The class warfare proposed by the buffet rule is simply a misdirection.
Well I'm 20%. I just looked at a paycheck. So it came out to 19.6% I have paid so far of my income for federal taxes when you include SS and medicare (I am currently contributing 12% to my 401k - I don't expect anyone to be impressed by that, I'm not, I could do better :). But taxes would be higher without that). That's overall, not marginal. I consider my income middle middle class for living in California (it's not cheap to live here, I mean sure this income might be ALL THAT somewhere in the country but ...).Quote:
When a significant part of the population pays no income tax, that's a problem. Despite assertions to the contrary in this thread, middle class people aren't paying 30% of their income in federal taxes.
A 60k income for a family would not be easier to do here, it's doable, it's just tought. So if you want to rent a house that's 2k a month, 3k to buy. Noone on a 60k income has any business buying a house here (unless they have a good inheritence or something, then well sure, have at it). Sure you could rent a 1 bedroom for 1k, you want to raise a family in that? It's doable but if you go with the renting a house for 2k a month then maybe 500 a month in medical insurance to cover a family (and that's not the fanciest of plans). So your up to 1/2 your GROSS on housing and medical. Then are you saving anything, paying any taxes, food, car expenses etc.. Am I really supposed to be eaten up with envy if one of my neighbors is raising a family on 60k a year here and not paying a massive amount in taxes? It's not a great income, not for a family.
A rather bold claim was made:Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
These loopholes do not exist, nor are the foreign account evasion techniques legal (heck, my wife used to work for the FBI tracking down funds Very Bad People had squirrelled away in that manner...).Quote:
Originally Posted by loosechickens
I ask for specifics, no response is given other than generalities of the form: "well, there must be!".
For those interested, go to the Intuit Turbotax web site to their free tax estimator:
http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools...ors/taxcaster/
Enter in the data for a married couple filing jointly, with no deductions at all, and $1 million dollars of dividend or long term capital gain income, and tell me how much tax that couple pays, and what the rate ends up being.... It will take you 60 seconds. I just did my own taxes, and it took mere moments to fill out the forms for this.
Now consider a second path: what happens if you invest in public-activity muni bonds...
You'd think Simple Living fans, who presumably have read and thought about "Your Money or Your Life" would know this stuff, it isn't rocket science.
According to your check you are paying 20% which is a long way from 30%. I can back into the income required to do that and it's well above the median US household income of $50k. The claims in this thread insinuate the average middle class person is paying 30% in federal income tax is entirely wrong. Even a single person with no kids taking the standard deduction doesn't pay 30%.Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
I don't fault my neighbors living on $60k or those making a million. It's a lot easier, however, to go after those evil rich people than to admit that a significant portion of the populace pays no federal income tax at all. Many get a refund for taxes they didn't even pay due to refundable credits.
We have a huge deficit problem in this country and Obama's Buffet rule isn't the answer.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
People just don't realize what this country would look like without government benefits. Roads, schools, libraries, food safety, police, fire, etc....is all government benefit. And of course medicare, medicaid, SS are the big ones most think of when they think of government benefits.
Unfortunately, the meme of 'evil government' is an easy one to pull out for the low information voter audience who usually is the target of this advertising. That's where we get the tea party pictures of signs saying 'keep the government out of my medicare' and the like. They are fed, then regurgitate the evil government mantra without a defined enemy. Just 'big government'. But if you ask them if the upgrade to the old highway they drive on everyday is evil, or if the library or local grade school is evil, they would likely look at you as if you were crazy. Is the county extension agent evil? The park rangers? All these cost money. Lots and lots of money.
This is a 21st century nation, being run on last centuries dollars. Sure, we can cut some areas, but we need to raise taxes too if we want to continue to enjoy what we have enjoyed so far, at the level we have enjoyed it, which in my opinion is fine. I'm an American living in America. I expect, as most other Americans expect, a certain standard of living. That's what makes America great, and the envy of the world.
flowerseverywhere- we are pretty used to being called Marxist, or fascists, or nanny liberals whenever 'some' have no better argument. We just pretty much ignore it, and realize most of these folks would never say something like this to our faces. It's a political discussion and often those can get heated, although i haven't really seen any 'unbelievable' attacks in this discussion.
It's called progressivity in the tax code and it's not extreme progressivity - me 20%, a millionaire 30%. I mean you know to only go up 10% in brackets from that huge a jump in income, that is what I call very mildly progressive. A steeper curve would be top brackets as they have been historically.Quote:
According to your check you are paying 20% which is a long way from 30%.
Median incomes in many parts of California tend to be, the same way in some expensive east coast cities (notably New York but even Boston etc. isn't super cheap).Quote:
I can back into the income required to do that and it's well above the median US household income of $50k.
Well I said 20% is acheived easily, trust me low level managers I had were earning FAR more than me. Loose was making the claim about people earning a lot from wages, and yes you can be taxed a lot from making a lot from wages.Quote:
The claims in this thread insinuate the average middle class person is paying 30% in federal income tax is entirely wrong. Even a single person with no kids taking the standard deduction doesn't pay 30%.
Part of it?Quote:
We have a huge deficit problem in this country and Obama's Buffet rule isn't the answer.
You know actually I don't have a dog in the fight as far as deductions since I never get any. So which one should we get rid of - the housing deduction or the deduction for kids or both? Which one of those should we eliminate as the answer to our deficits? But you know I'm not as as purely self-centered as all that, I realize it does cost some money to raise kids (but at the same time we should not be encouraging excess population - so maybe cap out at replacement rate - 2 kids?). I have heard the budget could be a lot closer to balanced if all deductions were eliminated which seems to be the policy most people want rather than 30% taxes on millionaires, they would rather get rid of all their deductions (since complaining about people not paying is ultimately complaining about deductions - since like I said a person without kids or deductions earning minimum wage still owes taxes - they eke a little blood out of even that stone). Ok I can live with no deductions clearly. Can they?
By the way even using deductions to lower income below paying much taxes can only be done to some degree in a certain income range, beyond that it's go straight to the AMT, do not pass go. The AMT is catching a lot of non-rich people now.
we are close to the median household income and paid less than 9% in federal taxes, but we do have state income and property taxes.
Bae, your example was interesting- it still is a lot of money.
Peggy, it may be different in other areas but here our library is funded by all the people who live in our school district. Everyone pays a few dollars. There are fundraising efforts, and almost $38,000 from fees and fines (stupid tax)
There is a great book out I referenced before "emergency" by Neil strauss. He outlines how he tries to get citizenship in another country so he can have swiss bank accounts and meets lots of wealthy people doing the same. Also, we have some friends who tried to get us to invest in some gas leasing deal. We read the glossy brochures but didn't undertstand it and we don't have the money to invest in such stuff but there were some tax breaks associated with it under new energy tax breaks. And like bae said, some people have invested in tax free bonds for one.
There is a huge difference between legal tax avoidance and illegal tax evasion.
It seems like that would be a little more obvious that it apparently is. Thanks for making it clear flowers.Quote:
Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere
"Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one’s affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant" Justice Learned Hand, Comm’r v. Newman, 159 F.2d 848, 850–51 (2d Cir. 1947)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
I'm skeptical most people really know what to do to minimize tax liability. Really dont' make any major financial moves without consulting tax advisors, you are probably doing it wrong.
Well, to be fair, a significant portion of the US population believes that the motions of the planetary bodies influence their individual fates, or in UFOs, or ESP... So it isn't terribly surprising to me that some folks have a hard time doing their taxes, even with Turbotax holding their hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
Well do Turbotax BEFORE each financial move (after is too late), even then you have to know that you may be subject to things you never thought you would ever be subject to and didn't know about.
Perhaps this is indicative that some sort of radical simplification of the overly-complex tax code is in order...Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
There is a certain elegance to 15% of all income received by anyone above the poverty line. But that's just me, I love one line answers to essay questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
It's worse than that. Hand's quote is usually employed in the context of structuring transactions that take advantage of favorable rules. The pitchfork crowd is really worked up over basic tax policy, but they are ironically ignorant or callously mislead. As you fairly pointed out, some people's tax rate is lower simply because they earn income that is taxed at a lower rate, not that they employ some nefarious tax scheme (note to LC, income earned in a Swiss bank account or a Cayman partnership is taxable in the US the same as if the money was held in a US entity, and no one is defending tax fraud). But there are typically reasons why there is a lower rate. Yes Kerry held a bunch of tax exempt bonds, but there is an additional economic tax implicit in the lower interest rate you get from them. Yes dividends (currently) and capital gains are taxed at a lower rate, but they bear some additional indirect payment through the double tax system that puts the economic tax rate much higher. The tax code is actually full of rules that distort capital allocations AWAY from dividends, even at 15%, because people who have a choice and employ those evil tax planners know that and try to avoid the very income that uninformed get worked up over. Yet some people would prefer to wallow in demagoguery about the nominal headline rate without addressing the substance.
They have better lobbyists.Quote:
Originally Posted by East River Guide
That's impossible. There is no way an equation could be developed to measure personal effort.Quote:
Originally Posted by East River Guide
But the comment you quoted was not stated clearly. I should have added to the end, "tied to their level of success."
I am arguing that those who earn more income should pay a higher percentage of their income to taxes in part because a lower percentage of their income is necessary for them to pay for the necessities of life and they have more disposable income. Additionally, I just think it's ethically right for those who benefit from our economic system to contribute to making life a little less difficult for those don't benefit from it. If I didn't feel that way I would say that as a nation we should dismantle ALL social welfare programs and all regulations passed curb the natural tendancies of business that were passed during the Progressive Era.
Would you want to eliminate all Social Security, minimum wage, workplace safety, child labor laws and welfare and just let business go wild doing whatever they wanted unchecked to make money? If not, where would you draw the line? Isn't any line arbitrary?
I am of the Robin Hood camp. And unapologetic about it. But let's be clear here. This is not about communism or socialism or killing the work ethic. No one is proposing anything even close to that. I just want to raise taxes a few percentage points on the wealthiest people in our society. And I don't think that families living below the poverty level should be required to pay any income taxes.
Hey Gregg: As I said in the beginning we aren't coming from the same place and there is no way you're going manage to convince me of your position or that I will be able to convince you of mine. Although I do think we both did an admirable job of explaining our positions to each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
Ulitmately, I think the difference here lies in the fact that you and I come from philosophically seperate camps that look at the world in profoundly different ways. That's ok.
Hope my voice above wasn't too harsh. You said you were a little put off by my earlier comments so I really don't want you to bristle further. However, the nature of this kind of discussion often does lead to that, huh? It's been interesting talking with you about this.
I dont think any of those folks NEED to resort to tax fraud. When you are the ones with the campaign money, access and clout, you just see to it that the tax rules that benefit YOU and folks like you become legal and written into the tax regulations. When you can control what legal IS, you have no problems.
I'm one that is also in favor of a flat tax. And do away with all the deductions. No mortgage, kid, charity, ect. If you make a dollar, pay a percentage to run the government. And I mean everyone. Maybe if everyone paid there would be a little more interest in the amount of government spending.
I can go along with making sure people who can't do well are taken care of, but IMHO your ideas of reallocation based simply on outcomes lacks the morality you think they do. We aren't talking ethics of caring for your neighbor, you are endorsing violence to reallocate the fruits of labor without any justification other than the desire for someone else's stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by bunnys
I wish I could create one of those online counters so I could track the number of times you've been asked for specifics on this and you have simply given insubstantial rhetoric. This is a smart crowd here, we can get past some meaningless campaign tripe. So what are these great tax rules that you are referring to? And don't say dividend rates, because there are lots of places in the tax code that push people into dividends- and they have to be pushed because it's a horrible tax result that people with access to planning and choices run from.Quote:
Originally Posted by loosechickens
I think things like the step up at death might be a fair issue, but that doesn't affect your annual rate which is the topic at hand. From a budget point of view the big issues are really things like the healthcare exclusion, mortgage interest deduction, retirement savings exclusions, but those don't really fit your narrative since they are widely accessed. So please save us the meaningless tin foil had stuff and honor us with some specifics.
when I read your quote it brought me back to when I was a child in the 50's. My mother used to tell us "the rich get richer and the poor have children. The only way to get ahead is to have a profession. If you have children without being married to someone who has a decent job you are resigning yourself to a life of poverty. If you have money you can have great influence in how your own life will turn out. Never take on debt except to buy a house"Quote:
Originally Posted by loosechickens
I only knew one person who was divorced when I was a child and you did not have children unless you were married to their father. Or you married their father. You took care of your family.
Somewhere this message got lost.
The war on poverty has failed. More people are in poverty than in the 60's when these social programs really increased. We need to do something different because all these social programs are not working.
There will always be rich people and always poor people. Unless we put all the money in a pot and divvy it up it's the way it is going to be.