Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You know...if you would stop your haranguing and hyperbole, take a deep breath and actually READ what I wrote then you may see that our two proposals are remarkably similar.
This is what I imagine those White House conferences were like over the weekend...ideologues from both sides huffing and puffing without even noticing the common ground.
Hold on, I am not angry, simply annoyed by you not responding to the issue of your 1% net tax.
I gave you an example, and you said you could "exempt" them, but then it would be yet another loophole for seniors and put us back to square one.
I am not concerned with that issue specifically, it may be as you say, but my point is that your 1% net tax has some serious issues and it would greatly penalize people who are not the "rich" as you might claim. A person who saves and invests for retirement can very easily have over 2 million dollars in investments to carry them out through retirement.
Now some might look at that number and say "OMG THOSE RICH PEOPLE" but this is easily obtainable by a person who starts saving at 25 to which most investment and retirement planners advise.
So, as I said, your plan would penalize as they would then have to figure out how to deal with the "suggested retirement value" and that of your new tax which would eat at it each year.
This is why so many are against taxing dividends, investment returns, etc... as to do such is essentially eating at the entire aspect of it in the first place. The point is, be it the example of the half-billionaire you had or that of someone with only few million by retirement, it will hurt. The half-billionaire you brushed off as nobody cares because they are massively rich, but you didn't think about the common person who will also have to deal with this virus of a tax eating down their worth each year.
Right now, a typical CD will only return 1-2 percent in interest for a year. You are suggesting the government tax people 1% on their entire net worth and it is absolutely and completely absurd. It is an economic killer at all angles.
You seemed to understand when you clicked and pasted that link to my response. Can you not go back and read again and then respond in your own words? I am not doing the work for you. You made a statement, I asked for some examples to your statement. It was pretty clear.
It is a mostly a moral issue, to me. The people who have nothing have a tremendous amount to gain in terms of well-being, while the rich do not.
Now if you don't find morality compelling, if you prefer a more practical view -- it prevents the poor from rising up violently against the rich, and/or overthrowing society.
You also have the issue: what blend of these two ideas creates the most wealth? You contrasted a purely capitalist system against a purely communist system, but those aren't the actual choices we're facing. In reality, the USSR had perestroika, and the U.S. has had plenty of "socialist" ideas that led to more wealth creation. The trick is finding the right balance for stability and the creation of wealth.
So your answers are
a. because of touchy-feely
and
b. because the 'poor' (which in this country barely qualify as poor) are holding the rest of us hostage
Yeah, sound like good reasons.
How about this simple point of logic: A shrinking portion of the population will not be able to subsidize a growing portion of the population indefinitely...getting all your goodies from the rich is a completely unsustainable situation.
Turning a blind eye to the fact that laziness and greed are the overriding human factors involved in our poor (and for some reason glorifying them and making them out to be some kind of noble indigent) will not solve the problem.
Throwing money at these cultural issues is like trying to treat the symptoms instead of trying to cure the disease. Sooner or later, that aorta is going to bleed through all the bandaids and duct tape you've tried to stick on it.
For liberals, the rich are getting shafted hard with the net worth tax.
For conservatives, the less productive spendthrifts are contributing through their unnecessary purchases.
And for good measure we are all still paying a modest income tax.
Couple this with a 1% across the board Federal spending cut each year for 15 years and the deficit and debt disappear before today's infants enter college.
Everyone contributes and everyone sacrifices.
Let's go!!!
Nice idea, but it will never fly, the liberals, and many politicians, crave power and control over the masses, this idea would remove many of those. How could they lord their power over us if they can no longer bribe, threaten and punish us with the taxman's club?
So your answers are
a. because of touchy-feely
and
b. because the 'poor' (which in this country barely qualify as poor) are holding the rest of us hostage
Yeah, sound like good reasons.
How about this simple point of logic: A shrinking portion of the population will not be able to subsidize a growing portion of the population indefinitely...getting all your goodies from the rich is a completely unsustainable situation.
Turning a blind eye to the fact that laziness and greed are the overriding human factors involved in our poor (and for some reason glorifying them and making them out to be some kind of noble indigent) will not solve the problem.
Throwing money at these cultural issues is like trying to treat the symptoms instead of trying to cure the disease. Sooner or later, that aorta is going to bleed through all the bandaids and duct tape you've tried to stick on it.
I'm talking about why we should calculate taxation as a share of someone's income, rather than taxing people regressively at a fixed amount. I don't know what the hell you're babbling about. You have de-railed.
I'm talking about why we should calculate taxation as a share of someone's income, rather than taxing people regressively at a fixed amount.
You're talking about artificially supporting an exponentially growing dependent class, at the expense of a shrinking taxpaying population. That's NOT sustainable, and will fail. That should come as NO surprise to anyone.
You're talking about artificially supporting an exponentially growing dependent class, at the expense of a shrinking taxpaying population. That's NOT sustainable, and will fail. That should come as NO surprise to anyone.
In my experience, people like Le Roi are NOT interested in a sustainable system. Rather, they want to punish the successful to bring them down to their level, usually as a result of success-envy.
In my experience, people like Le Roi are NOT interested in a sustainable system. Rather, they want to punish the successful to bring them down to their level, usually as a result of success-envy.
Sure thing, Dr. Phil.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
