TEA party compared to 47% pay no fed income taxes
-
You are just a bumbling idiot foaming at the mouth with hatred at the idea of a constitutional government with liberty and justice for all. Let me guess, you were/are an obama supporter?
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Incorrect. The lower class currently DOES NOT PAY income tax
They still do pay for all of the taxes imposed on the more skilled and productive workers, and businesses, because when the poor purchase a good or service, they must pay a higher price to pay for the taxes on the other end.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
They spend a small fraction of their annual income to "enjoy" it. The rest sits in investment accounts and trusts. Poor people spend almost every cent they earn. Rich people don't.
As I already explained, investments still generate considerable tax revenue because money invested is spent, and additionally interest is taxed because the investment firm or bank sold the rich guy its services.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
When they buy stocks and bonds, they don't pay sales tax.
That is why we need reform, our current tax system is broken. There are all kinds of loopholes and tricks for a select few to take advantage of. I figured you would have known this by now.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And sure, the interest would be taxed, just as it is now, but that's a small fraction of the money being invested. Tax revenue from the rich would still drastically decrease.
That interest taxed is just a cherry on top for the government on top of all the VAT/Sales type taxes collected from that investment money being spent by the people who where invested in.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Either way, the costs will hit the consumers, whether it's by taxing the rich or applying VAT to every purchase.
Which is my point, there is no purpose for complex tax schemes other than micromanagement of the economy. The whole (it will hurt the poor) thing is just a load of crap to keep people supporting a system of control and loopholes. ================================== TO break everything down, taxes should only be collected on money spent, not money earned from labor (income). ALL goods and services should be taxes equally (IE no special tax on cars, cigarettes ...) and (NOT PERMITTED for instance e-books being taxed at 5% while regular books being taxed at 10%)
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Ian Shlasko wrote: When they buy stocks and bonds, they don't pay sales tax. That is why we need reform, our current tax system is broken. There are all kinds of loopholes and tricks for a select few to take advantage of. I figured you would have known this by now.
And how would you reform that? If I buy a few thousand shares of stock, why should I pay sales tax? I'm not receiving a product that I can use, or a service I can enjoy. I'm just changing my money into another form. If buying stock involved paying sales tax (i.e. taking a 10% loss right off the top), who in their right mind would actually invest in the stock market?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
That interest taxed is just a cherry on top for the government on top of all the VAT/Sales type taxes collected from that investment money being spent by the people who where invested in.
The rich people still aren't paying. I understand completely how this is supposed to trickle down to more business income and lower prices, but the taxes will have to make up for all that money the rich aren't paying.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Which is my point, there is no purpose for complex tax schemes other than micromanagement of the economy. The whole (it will hurt the poor) thing is just a load of crap to keep people supporting a system of control and loopholes.
Right, so the poor won't see a huge difference, but the rich will be paying substantially less. Of course, that's only in theory. In practice, would prices really decrease enough to compensate for the increase in sales tax? I mean, sales tax would have to be a LOT higher than it is today, to make up for all of that lost tax revenue from the rich.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
TO break everything down, taxes should only be collected on money spent, not money earned from labor (income).
Despite your usual idiocy, that IS actually a good idea in theory... If I thought it was a viable solution (Able to provide the necessary tax income without putting more burden on the poor), I would get behind it.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
ALL goods and services should be taxes equally (IE no special tax on cars, cigarettes ...) and (NOT PERMITTED for instance e-books being taxed at 5% while regular books being taxed at 10%)
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Ian Shlasko wrote: When they buy stocks and bonds, they don't pay sales tax. That is why we need reform, our current tax system is broken. There are all kinds of loopholes and tricks for a select few to take advantage of. I figured you would have known this by now.
And how would you reform that? If I buy a few thousand shares of stock, why should I pay sales tax? I'm not receiving a product that I can use, or a service I can enjoy. I'm just changing my money into another form. If buying stock involved paying sales tax (i.e. taking a 10% loss right off the top), who in their right mind would actually invest in the stock market?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
That interest taxed is just a cherry on top for the government on top of all the VAT/Sales type taxes collected from that investment money being spent by the people who where invested in.
The rich people still aren't paying. I understand completely how this is supposed to trickle down to more business income and lower prices, but the taxes will have to make up for all that money the rich aren't paying.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Which is my point, there is no purpose for complex tax schemes other than micromanagement of the economy. The whole (it will hurt the poor) thing is just a load of crap to keep people supporting a system of control and loopholes.
Right, so the poor won't see a huge difference, but the rich will be paying substantially less. Of course, that's only in theory. In practice, would prices really decrease enough to compensate for the increase in sales tax? I mean, sales tax would have to be a LOT higher than it is today, to make up for all of that lost tax revenue from the rich.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
TO break everything down, taxes should only be collected on money spent, not money earned from labor (income).
Despite your usual idiocy, that IS actually a good idea in theory... If I thought it was a viable solution (Able to provide the necessary tax income without putting more burden on the poor), I would get behind it.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
ALL goods and services should be taxes equally (IE no special tax on cars, cigarettes ...) and (NOT PERMITTED for instance e-books being taxed at 5% while regular books being taxed at 10%)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And how would you reform that? If I buy a few thousand shares of stock, why should I pay sales tax?
In the case of a VAT tax, you would only pay tax if you sold your stocks at a higher price than what you paid for them, and the amount in tax would be a percentage of the difference.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The rich people still aren't paying.
You don't get it. Nobody should have to pay taxes on money not spent.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Right, so the poor won't see a huge difference, but the rich will be paying substantially less.
This is not a bad thing. The more money so called rich people have, the better off the economy. "Rich" people tend to invest their money, which is excellent for the economy, good for the "poor" because jobs are created from investments.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Some of those actually make sense. Extra taxes on cars are, I presume, to help offset the cost of federal regulations and safety standards. Extra taxes on cigarettes are SUPPOSED to help pay for lung cancer research and treatment (As in, if you want to damage yourself, you help pay for the extra health care you'll need). Sure, they're abused to some degree by politicians, but just like the idea of switching to just sales tax, they're better in theory than in practice.
I'm sure you've heard of the phrase "Keep it simple stupid".
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And how would you reform that? If I buy a few thousand shares of stock, why should I pay sales tax?
In the case of a VAT tax, you would only pay tax if you sold your stocks at a higher price than what you paid for them, and the amount in tax would be a percentage of the difference.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The rich people still aren't paying.
You don't get it. Nobody should have to pay taxes on money not spent.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Right, so the poor won't see a huge difference, but the rich will be paying substantially less.
This is not a bad thing. The more money so called rich people have, the better off the economy. "Rich" people tend to invest their money, which is excellent for the economy, good for the "poor" because jobs are created from investments.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Some of those actually make sense. Extra taxes on cars are, I presume, to help offset the cost of federal regulations and safety standards. Extra taxes on cigarettes are SUPPOSED to help pay for lung cancer research and treatment (As in, if you want to damage yourself, you help pay for the extra health care you'll need). Sure, they're abused to some degree by politicians, but just like the idea of switching to just sales tax, they're better in theory than in practice.
I'm sure you've heard of the phrase "Keep it simple stupid".
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
In the case of a VAT tax, you would only pay tax if you sold your stocks at a higher price than what you paid for them, and the amount in tax would be a percentage of the difference.
That's investment income. I thought you weren't going to tax income.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You don't get it. Nobody should have to pay taxes on money not spent.
I understand completely, but like I keep saying, you're shifting the tax burden onto the lower class... The ones who can LEAST afford it.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
This is not a bad thing. The more money so called rich people have, the better off the economy. "Rich" people tend to invest their money, which is excellent for the economy, good for the "poor" because jobs are created from investments.
Nice selective quoting... As I said right after that, it's a good IN THEORY. In practice, I suspect the poor would see a GREATER tax burden, because prices would not decrease enough to compensate for the increased sales tax.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I'm sure you've heard of the phrase "Keep it simple stupid".
Option 1: Everyone pays the same tax rate on everything, and the government has zero control. Option 2: The government can increase taxes on things that incur extra costs, either to compensate for the extra burden placed on government services, or to discourage their use. Likewise, the government can lower taxes on other services to encourage use (Such as solar power tax subsidies). I know you're firmly opposed to #2, as you hate anything having to do with government, but the simple reality is that what's profitable isn't always what's best for the nation, so the invisible hand can't be depended on to make all of the decisions.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And how would you reform that? If I buy a few thousand shares of stock, why should I pay sales tax?
In the case of a VAT tax, you would only pay tax if you sold your stocks at a higher price than what you paid for them, and the amount in tax would be a percentage of the difference.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The rich people still aren't paying.
You don't get it. Nobody should have to pay taxes on money not spent.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Right, so the poor won't see a huge difference, but the rich will be paying substantially less.
This is not a bad thing. The more money so called rich people have, the better off the economy. "Rich" people tend to invest their money, which is excellent for the economy, good for the "poor" because jobs are created from investments.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Some of those actually make sense. Extra taxes on cars are, I presume, to help offset the cost of federal regulations and safety standards. Extra taxes on cigarettes are SUPPOSED to help pay for lung cancer research and treatment (As in, if you want to damage yourself, you help pay for the extra health care you'll need). Sure, they're abused to some degree by politicians, but just like the idea of switching to just sales tax, they're better in theory than in practice.
I'm sure you've heard of the phrase "Keep it simple stupid".
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
You think because the government gives them other people's tax money (directly or indirectly through progressive tax schemes) that those people should support the government or have no right to criticize the government? The tea party members are people of principle.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
You think because the government gives them other people's tax money (directly or indirectly through progressive tax schemes) that those people should support the government or have no right to criticize the government? The tea party members are people of principle.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You think because the government gives them other people's tax money (directly or indirectly through progressive tax schemes) that those people should support the government or have no right to criticize the government?
No, his point is they shouldn't bitch about being taxed to death. As they do.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The tea party members are people of principle.
Not that they've put much thought into them, but they do certainly seem to believe they have them. I haven't seen any examples of them, they do proclaim to have them.
-
According to http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1[^] 47% of all households pay no federal income taxes because of credits, etc. These numbers came from the Tax Policy Center. The source http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001289_who_pays.pdf[^], first table. So that being said, what's the problem? If the tea party doesn't like how much tax is collected and 47% pay none then there should be no problem. Policy never matches what people believe.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
tea party doesn't like how much tax is collected
Your attempt to cast the movement as a bunch of paranoid bean counters who are bad at math is accompanied by a strong fecal aroma. The people do not like what is being done with tax money and are sick of the arrogance of those who make policy and believe themselves to be above it all (ex: Charles Rengal), and believe in a smaller set of responsibilities for the Federal government than is currently held. The reasons for this are covered by CSS rather well on a daily basis. The government has been found to do stupid things when given the chance which is enabled by our tax dollars and our tacit approval of borrowing or printing money. The power to tax is the power to destroy--in so many different ways. This makes statements of the Tea Party movement consistent with the philosophy of our founders.
-
Seriously!? You are so clueless about teabaggers that you are unaware of their hatred for Hispanics and Muslims? Read about their loathing of the 14th amendment and the hand wringing over the Burlington Coat factory swimming pool.
Though you have to admit, they're creative as hell in explaining it away. They're apparently afraid of terrorists who haven't been born yet, who if born here would be citizens of the country, who could then be exported elsewhere to be trained, only to return and kill us all! I've read Lovecraft stories with a more straight forward plot than that.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You think because the government gives them other people's tax money (directly or indirectly through progressive tax schemes) that those people should support the government or have no right to criticize the government?
No, his point is they shouldn't bitch about being taxed to death. As they do.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The tea party members are people of principle.
Not that they've put much thought into them, but they do certainly seem to believe they have them. I haven't seen any examples of them, they do proclaim to have them.
Distind wrote:
No, his point is they shouldn't bitch about being taxed to death. As they do.
Exactly. I haven't seen anything constructive or problematic in solving the debt problem come out of any party except Democrats right now, which is a shame because Republicans used to have ideas instead of just propaganda. Rhetoric aside I see more problem solving than making on the Democratic side. If policy debate is what took place in politics right now nonsense like questioning people's citizenship, patriotism, etc we'd be much further ahead. I don't see how the tea partiers are helping that along at all. Seeing pictures of Obama on posters with a bone through his nose, calling him a socialist, marxist, closet muslim, fascist, etc may be part of the 1st amendment, but it certainly doesn't help the country solve problems. Some people like to bitch and moan and the tea partiers are those people.
Distind wrote:
Not that they've put much thought into them,
Very true.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: Although, I have tried to tell active people in the movement to get a better mission statement that stands up to this tax bracket rebuttal without having to explain it.
puromtec1 wrote:
get a better mission statement
Mission statements are for people who can't handle detail or don't want to bother explaining as you put it.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
wolfbinary wrote:
tea party doesn't like how much tax is collected
Your attempt to cast the movement as a bunch of paranoid bean counters who are bad at math is accompanied by a strong fecal aroma. The people do not like what is being done with tax money and are sick of the arrogance of those who make policy and believe themselves to be above it all (ex: Charles Rengal), and believe in a smaller set of responsibilities for the Federal government than is currently held. The reasons for this are covered by CSS rather well on a daily basis. The government has been found to do stupid things when given the chance which is enabled by our tax dollars and our tacit approval of borrowing or printing money. The power to tax is the power to destroy--in so many different ways. This makes statements of the Tea Party movement consistent with the philosophy of our founders.
puromtec1 wrote:
The people do not like what is being done with tax money
Does anyone?
puromtec1 wrote:
(ex: Charles Rengal)
Finally, something we all agree on! For the record, Rangel's district starts several miles NORTH of me, so I can't be held responsible for his... well... anything.
puromtec1 wrote:
The government has been found to do stupid things when given the chance which is enabled by our tax dollars and our tacit approval of borrowing or printing money.
So do people... And corporations... And other countries... No matter where the power (and money) rests, whoever has it is going to do stupid things with it. If that group is "the people" (Which has a fecal odor of its own, since power will inevitably be concentrated somewhere), then not only do we have stupid things being done, but we have no easy way to stop it. At least now, we can theoretically vote in people with brains (Blame "the people" for our inability to do that).
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
wolfbinary wrote:
tea party doesn't like how much tax is collected
Your attempt to cast the movement as a bunch of paranoid bean counters who are bad at math is accompanied by a strong fecal aroma. The people do not like what is being done with tax money and are sick of the arrogance of those who make policy and believe themselves to be above it all (ex: Charles Rengal), and believe in a smaller set of responsibilities for the Federal government than is currently held. The reasons for this are covered by CSS rather well on a daily basis. The government has been found to do stupid things when given the chance which is enabled by our tax dollars and our tacit approval of borrowing or printing money. The power to tax is the power to destroy--in so many different ways. This makes statements of the Tea Party movement consistent with the philosophy of our founders.
puromtec1 wrote:
Your attempt to cast the movement as a bunch of paranoid bean counters who are bad at math is accompanied by a strong fecal aroma.
Ad Hominem attack -Fail
puromtec1 wrote:
The people do not like what is being done with tax money and are sick of the arrogance of those who make policy and believe themselves to be above it all (ex: Charles Rengal), and believe in a smaller set of responsibilities for the Federal government than is currently held. The reasons for this are covered by CSS rather well on a daily basis.
There is corruption, but not to the extent portrayed by the movement. The movement is hypocritical by the tax laws and spending levels for programs they say they want. Polling has shown this.
puromtec1 wrote:
The government has been found to do stupid things when given the chance which is enabled by our tax dollars and our tacit approval of borrowing or printing money. The power to tax is the power to destroy--in so many different ways. This makes statements of the Tea Party movement consistent with the philosophy of our founders.
This has nothing to do with the point being made and neither does your last paragraph. Complaining about being taxed too much and then wanting to not cut back on anything is a logical fallacy of completeness. You can't have it both ways. That's the point in the thread, nothing else. Talking about printing money, the fed, or anything else has nothing to do with it.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Distind wrote:
No, his point is they shouldn't bitch about being taxed to death. As they do.
Exactly. I haven't seen anything constructive or problematic in solving the debt problem come out of any party except Democrats right now, which is a shame because Republicans used to have ideas instead of just propaganda. Rhetoric aside I see more problem solving than making on the Democratic side. If policy debate is what took place in politics right now nonsense like questioning people's citizenship, patriotism, etc we'd be much further ahead. I don't see how the tea partiers are helping that along at all. Seeing pictures of Obama on posters with a bone through his nose, calling him a socialist, marxist, closet muslim, fascist, etc may be part of the 1st amendment, but it certainly doesn't help the country solve problems. Some people like to bitch and moan and the tea partiers are those people.
Distind wrote:
Not that they've put much thought into them,
Very true.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
Politics as usual. The Democrats are in charge right now, so it's up to them to actually do some work. The Republicans don't want anything to get done. Their goal is to prevent the Democrats from accomplishing anything, and simultaneously BLAME the Democrats for failing to accomplish anything. That'll make them look better, so when elections roll around again, they can say "Vote for us! We'll actually get things done!"
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
In the case of a VAT tax, you would only pay tax if you sold your stocks at a higher price than what you paid for them, and the amount in tax would be a percentage of the difference.
That's investment income. I thought you weren't going to tax income.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You don't get it. Nobody should have to pay taxes on money not spent.
I understand completely, but like I keep saying, you're shifting the tax burden onto the lower class... The ones who can LEAST afford it.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
This is not a bad thing. The more money so called rich people have, the better off the economy. "Rich" people tend to invest their money, which is excellent for the economy, good for the "poor" because jobs are created from investments.
Nice selective quoting... As I said right after that, it's a good IN THEORY. In practice, I suspect the poor would see a GREATER tax burden, because prices would not decrease enough to compensate for the increased sales tax.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I'm sure you've heard of the phrase "Keep it simple stupid".
Option 1: Everyone pays the same tax rate on everything, and the government has zero control. Option 2: The government can increase taxes on things that incur extra costs, either to compensate for the extra burden placed on government services, or to discourage their use. Likewise, the government can lower taxes on other services to encourage use (Such as solar power tax subsidies). I know you're firmly opposed to #2, as you hate anything having to do with government, but the simple reality is that what's profitable isn't always what's best for the nation, so the invisible hand can't be depended on to make all of the decisions.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's investment income. I thought you weren't going to tax income.
It is not income, it is a sale. Payment from employment is considered income. Sales are subject to sales/vat.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I understand completely, but like I keep saying, you're shifting the tax burden onto the lower class... The ones who can LEAST afford it.
I'm simply suggesting a proper and fair tax system, as I have already stated several times, the poor are already paying for the taxes imposed on the more productive and skilled workers.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I suspect the poor would see a GREATER tax burden
Your argument is based on suspicion and therefor not binding in this discussion.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I know you're firmly opposed to #2, as you hate anything having to do with government, but the simple reality is that what's profitable isn't always what's best for the nation, so the invisible hand can't be depended on to make all of the decisions.
You are talking non-sense. Profitable activities should be encouraged, unless of course we are talking about an activity that violates the constitution, such as bailouts, subsidies, and regulations that encourage excessive risk taking or regulations that promote monopolies like the financial, health, and agricultural legislation. Nobody knows whats best for everyone else, that is especially true for those in a position of power. The only person who knows whats best for me and my business, is me or perhaps any consultation that I hire for an opinion, but in the end, I make all the decisions on how I want to run my life/business. The government should stay out of the way and do the tasks delegated to it by the constitution with the powers enumerated by the constitution, in a manner consistent with the consent of the governed.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[
-
puromtec1 wrote:
The people do not like what is being done with tax money
Does anyone?
puromtec1 wrote:
(ex: Charles Rengal)
Finally, something we all agree on! For the record, Rangel's district starts several miles NORTH of me, so I can't be held responsible for his... well... anything.
puromtec1 wrote:
The government has been found to do stupid things when given the chance which is enabled by our tax dollars and our tacit approval of borrowing or printing money.
So do people... And corporations... And other countries... No matter where the power (and money) rests, whoever has it is going to do stupid things with it. If that group is "the people" (Which has a fecal odor of its own, since power will inevitably be concentrated somewhere), then not only do we have stupid things being done, but we have no easy way to stop it. At least now, we can theoretically vote in people with brains (Blame "the people" for our inability to do that).
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
At least now, we can theoretically vote in people with brains (Blame "the people" for our inability to do that).
This is pretty much at the crux of another issue, near and dear to my heart. ;P Campaign finance reform. If you want the average Joe to be able to run, then all elections need to be publicly financed and corporations have to be forced to disclose any funds they give to candidates through whatever means. "the people" as you put it have elected the people "we" have deemed smart enough already given our current system. The difference being now we have large corporations and people of vast wealth who influence elections and perceptions for their own benefit and not what's good for the country.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The more money so called rich people have, the better off the economy.
:omg: :omg: :omg: :omg: The top 10% already control 70% of the wealth in this country. And you want them to control even more!? You must be insane.
You are thinking of the people who are exempt from taxation, like Goldman Saches cronies and military contractors who are the government. The select few corporations get special deals because they are the big monopolies that are needed to promote the agenda of command & control over society. Like communism, but more closely related to fascism or corporatism. When big talking heads talk about taxing the rich, they mean the middle class. Anyone who owns a restaurant or gas station, small businesses are actually the backbone of the economy. Only the big mega corporations are allowed to survive and profit. The little guys get shut down, and everyone survives off of the little bit of chicken feed (welfare), and the rest is history. Remember, 1/4th of the entire population of America is now on food-stamps and is rapidly increasing like never before.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Politics as usual. The Democrats are in charge right now, so it's up to them to actually do some work. The Republicans don't want anything to get done. Their goal is to prevent the Democrats from accomplishing anything, and simultaneously BLAME the Democrats for failing to accomplish anything. That'll make them look better, so when elections roll around again, they can say "Vote for us! We'll actually get things done!"
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Sometimes I wonder if they want people unemployed because they can blame the Democrats for it and that is evil.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You think because the government gives them other people's tax money (directly or indirectly through progressive tax schemes) that those people should support the government or have no right to criticize the government?
No, his point is they shouldn't bitch about being taxed to death. As they do.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The tea party members are people of principle.
Not that they've put much thought into them, but they do certainly seem to believe they have them. I haven't seen any examples of them, they do proclaim to have them.
Distind wrote:
No, his point is they shouldn't bitch about being taxed to death. As they do.
The problem is that even though the direct taxation imposed on them is minimal, they still have to pay for the taxes imposed on more productive and skilled laborers, and business taxes, and all the other hidden fees and taxes. The price of a product or service is directly effected by amount of taxation and other costs. If you own a business and must pay a high income earner a reasonable wage that actually rewards that worker for his skills and talents, you will have to pay him considerably more if his taxes are 50-60 percent of his income, that cost is shifted to the consumer. Don't forget all the different kinds of business taxes. Income tax isn't the only tax. INcome tax only accounts for less than one quarter of the federal government's budget, and then there is the soon to be 14 trillion dollar debt, and lets not forget about the state and local government taxes and debt.
Distind wrote:
Not that they've put much thought into them
This is just blind hatred and bigotry. They are certainly different than you, they are more principled, sound minded, independent, spirited, determined, and patriotic. Something completely foreign to you.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's investment income. I thought you weren't going to tax income.
It is not income, it is a sale. Payment from employment is considered income. Sales are subject to sales/vat.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I understand completely, but like I keep saying, you're shifting the tax burden onto the lower class... The ones who can LEAST afford it.
I'm simply suggesting a proper and fair tax system, as I have already stated several times, the poor are already paying for the taxes imposed on the more productive and skilled workers.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I suspect the poor would see a GREATER tax burden
Your argument is based on suspicion and therefor not binding in this discussion.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I know you're firmly opposed to #2, as you hate anything having to do with government, but the simple reality is that what's profitable isn't always what's best for the nation, so the invisible hand can't be depended on to make all of the decisions.
You are talking non-sense. Profitable activities should be encouraged, unless of course we are talking about an activity that violates the constitution, such as bailouts, subsidies, and regulations that encourage excessive risk taking or regulations that promote monopolies like the financial, health, and agricultural legislation. Nobody knows whats best for everyone else, that is especially true for those in a position of power. The only person who knows whats best for me and my business, is me or perhaps any consultation that I hire for an opinion, but in the end, I make all the decisions on how I want to run my life/business. The government should stay out of the way and do the tasks delegated to it by the constitution with the powers enumerated by the constitution, in a manner consistent with the consent of the governed.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It is not income, it is a sale. Payment from employment is considered income. Sales are subject to sales/vat.
Except now you're not taking the SALE of the stock. You're taxing the profit made. That falls under the realm of Capital Gains. So you should revise your proposed policy to state that you support only Sales Tax and Capital Gains Tax. They're two different things.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I'm simply suggesting a proper and fair tax system, as I have already stated several times, the poor are already paying for the taxes imposed on the more productive and skilled workers.
Sure, some of the taxes translate to retail price increases... But if the rich are no longer paying taxes (Sales tax is minimal compared to their income tax), then that missing tax revenue is going to come from everyone else. Right now, the top 10% pays most of the total tax revenue... With your idea, the burden on the other 90% of us will almost double.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Your argument is based on suspicion and therefor not binding in this discussion.
So is yours. Unless you're going to provide actual numbers, then suspicion is all we have to work with.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are talking non-sense. Profitable activities should be encouraged, unless of course we are talking about an activity that violates the constitution, such as bailouts, subsidies, and regulations that encourage excessive risk taking or regulations that promote monopolies like the financial, health, and agricultural legislation.
As I said, the invisible hand doesn't always know what's best for us all. Pollution is profitable. Worker exploitation is profitable. Slave labor is profitable (But I repeat myself...). Price fixing and collusion are profitable. Should those activities be encouraged?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Nobody knows whats best for everyone else, that is especially true for those in a position of power. The only person who knows whats best for me and my business, is me or perhaps any consultation that I hire for an opinion, but in the end, I make all the decisions on how I want to run my life/business.
What's best for you and your business may very well be harmful for someone else. If you ran a manufacturing plant,