Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-09-2013, 12:37 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,361,845 times
Reputation: 9074

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Again... explain to us exactly WHY a higher birth rate is financially incentivized (via a plethora of taxpayer-funded welfare benefits) among the least responsible.

Because sometimes having four children is not sufficient to have one survive you?

https://soundcloud.com/afternoonshif...r-loses-fourth

Yes, I know the irony is rich, just saying...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-09-2013, 12:41 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,721 posts, read 44,496,734 times
Reputation: 13594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda View Post
dumb question here, but what if property values go down?

do you pay less tax
Not usually. The property taxing bodies simply adjust their tax rate in order to collect the same or more tax revenue as they collected when the property values were higher.
Quote:
and what about capital 'gains' (can there be a capital loss, where you actually get money back?)
Either a gain or a loss is only realized when the property is sold. If there's a loss, it may only be deducted if it was investment property, not on property held for personal use.

The IRS has info, here:
Ten Important Facts About Capital Gains and Losses

You're not likely to get any money back on a capital loss. At most, it will slightly reduce your tax liability.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2013, 12:42 AM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,090,097 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Let's intertwine the taxes that pay for that infrastructure then. Capitation tax (head tax). Everyone shares the costs equally.

Your premise is patently absurd. Remove the roads, infrastructure, etc., and you remove any access whatsoever to burgers so there's no need whatsoever for burger flippers. Same is true of any other product or service. No mode of distribution? No access to the product/services? No need for jobs. So, since everyone relies on the infrastructure, everyone should pay for it.
Everyone does through gas taxes currently. Except that small business owner gets a lot a bang for his buck for the taxes he/she pays for roads since the roads multiple his opportunity. Hell try shipping a package across China, India, Nigeria, Sudan for a client. Same thing with education. A small business owner gets the whole working age population at his disposable with all the varying skills from the most basic to the most advanced and everything in between just for paying his taxes going towards education in this country. Again you just can't think big picture and have an ignorant bias.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2013, 12:53 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,721 posts, read 44,496,734 times
Reputation: 13594
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Local voters are rent seekers and protectionists. Since homeowners almost always constitute a majority of local voters, homeowners are effectively able to restrict home purchase to newcomers only if they meet community economic standards. Don't like renters? Zone them out. If you can't zone them out - sometimes, well-funded developers prevail over homeowners at the ballot box - tax the snot out of their homes.

It's effectively legal class warfare, and the poor never win that battle.
Homeowners generally outnumber renters 2:1. As not everyone votes, if you wish to change local policy, work on a get out the vote campaign among fellow renters.

Things are changing in the owners vs. renters demographics, though.
Quote:
Interestingly, the squashing of households has been principally in the number of homeowners. From the bursting of the housing bubble, homeowner households have not increased at all in the past six years. But the number of renters has steadily risen. Rents will rise as a result. Rising rents also mean added pressure to broader consumer price inflation since this rental component is one of the bigger weights in the inflation calculation (more so than even gasoline or food prices).
Homeowner Versus Renter Population
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2013, 12:57 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,721 posts, read 44,496,734 times
Reputation: 13594
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
What government benefits and services am I getting? Quantify them.
The same benefits and services every other single adult who is not receiving public assistance gets. Most of them are paying significantly more than you for those exact same benefits and services. Paying more does not get one more government benefits and services. However, paying less still gets one the same government benefits and services. And we already know that everyone except the low-income will LOSE money on Social Security.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2013, 01:00 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,721 posts, read 44,496,734 times
Reputation: 13594
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Far less than even the middle class pays? Are you sure about that? Did you include the untaxed employment freebies that constitute a large proportion of middle class compensation?
I applied federal tax law. If you don't like it, abolish the federal income tax. I'm good with that!

As a low-income earner, you'll be one of the few who profits on Social Security.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2013, 01:04 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,721 posts, read 44,496,734 times
Reputation: 13594
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
I figure the value of US citizenship and residency is incalculable, even priceless. And that is one thing I have NO QUALMS about not being able to quantify. (And I don't think qualms can be quantified either.)

If the rich think they are overtaxed or underserved here, they should try putting their money and their persons in a third world country, and see how safe they are there.
The rich actually do invest globally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2013, 01:06 AM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,090,097 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
The same benefits and services every other single adult who is not receiving public assistance gets. Most of them are paying significantly more than you for those exact same benefits and services. Paying more does not get one more government benefits and services. However, paying less still gets one the same government benefits and services. And we already know that everyone except the low-income will LOSE money on Social Security.
No the wealthier you are, the more you rely on the govt.

If you don't believe then go to China and the exact same thing or India, or any other low tax haven. You're unbelievable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2013, 01:06 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,721 posts, read 44,496,734 times
Reputation: 13594
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Because sometimes having four children is not sufficient to have one survive you?
Why does anyone need a child to survive them? It's not necessary to have any children at all. Many people choose to remain childless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2013, 01:09 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,721 posts, read 44,496,734 times
Reputation: 13594
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
Everyone does through gas taxes currently. Except that small business owner gets a lot a bang for his buck for the taxes he/she pays for roads since the roads multiple his opportunity.
Gas taxes are not the only source for funding roads and infrastructure. Business owners get no more use out of the infrastructure than their employees and customers. Each needs access to the infrastructure.

No infrastructure? No businesses. No products/services. No jobs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top