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 06-03-2013, 03:13 PM
 
17,752 posts, read 15,594,327 times
Reputation: 6391

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
What is stupid about letting those who actually PAY taxes, keep more of what they actually earn? As opposed to, say, re-distributing it to those who pay nothing at all but reap a hell of a windfall from those who do?
Because some of it is unearned. Selling a condo because of its view of Central Park isn't "earned". One the other hand income taxes which it seems you are not complaining about is a tax on labor. Nope, not a peep about that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-03-2013, 03:16 PM
 
Location: Chicago Area
8,006 posts, read 4,176,541 times
Reputation: 3016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
Sales taxes are incredibly regressive. Wealthy people shield a lot of their income from income tax, but they still pay a lot of taxes. With a sales tax the wealthy have so much access income that most of the money will not be taxed.

While lower income Americans don't pay income taxes and nearly all of their income is spent to live. So your tax policy would result in nearly 100% of the after income of poor people being taxed much higher which could represent a huge tax increase.

And a huge drop off in the taxes for wealthy people.
Ultimately, the liberal approach of villainizing the wealthy and trying to tax the living crap out of them isn't working. I think far too much red tape has been wasted in trying to use tax policy as broad system of punishing "bad behavior" and rewarding "good behavior." We've created a tax system that is so ridiculously complicated that even trained professionals who specialize in nothing but taxes need to rely on computer programs to actually file taxes on behalf of their customers.

If you want to improve things for poorer people focus on actual legislation. Do things that put more money in the pockets of your base-level American workers. If you raise the tax rate on folks making more than $1 million to 80%, how on earth does that help the poor ******* working at McDonald's for minimum wage?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2013, 03:25 PM
 
8,399 posts, read 5,288,705 times
Reputation: 2314
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
Ultimately, the liberal approach of villainizing the wealthy and trying to tax the living crap out of them isn't working. I think far too much red tape has been wasted in trying to use tax policy as broad system of punishing "bad behavior" and rewarding "good behavior." We've created a tax system that is so ridiculously complicated that even trained professionals who specialize in nothing but taxes need to rely on computer programs to actually file taxes on behalf of their customers.

If you want to improve things for poorer people focus on actual legislation. Do things that put more money in the pockets of your base-level American workers. If you raise the tax rate on folks making more than $1 million to 80%, how on earth does that help the poor ******* working at McDonald's for minimum wage?
Taxes for the wealthy are historically very low.

You should read some Liberal economists, you should read the economists in President Obama's and President Clinton's administrations, they don't want to tax the crap out of the wealthy. They don't view the wealthy as villains. In fact they themselves are wealthy, the business people who support the Democratic party with donations are wealthy, the people who run the Democratic party are wealthy.

The complexity of the tax system is based on rich people buying themselves cut outs and the government wanting to encourage certain kinds of economic behavior, this will happen regardless.

The tax code can be simplified, but it will still be rather complex no matter what.

I think the goal is to tax wealthy who have gotten nearly all the wages gains a little more to put more money in the pockets of poor people, by giving them more healthcare, or cheaper student loans or more student grants, maybe subsidize day care, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2013, 03:26 PM
 
15,712 posts, read 9,207,244 times
Reputation: 14155
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Not necessarily. I have an idea for a five-figure website, and I have an East Coast partner who wants to do the website jointly. But neither of us has the web skills or the cash to make it happen. I can make money selling things but can't get ahead when I'm stuck living with dirtbags who steal my stuff.
If you have this great idea, then it should be no trouble to convince someone to invest in your idea. That's how business works - investors take chances on good ideas, inventors get their ideas off the ground.

I'm not sure how a "5 figure" idea is such a great thing. Isn't that like $10,000? Barely minimum wage.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2013, 03:28 PM
 
14,298 posts, read 8,082,803 times
Reputation: 4247
Quote:
Originally Posted by clb10 View Post
Say, for example, 0.001% per million dollars of wealth every three years (as determined by IRS audit)?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/bu...come.html?_r=0

http://www.hamptonsemployment.com/images/eventstaff.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://graphics2.snopes.com/politics/graphics/soupkitchen.jpg
Just make it illegal to accumulate wealth over a certain amount, or in the immortal words of Obama "because I do think at a certain point, you've made enough money".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2013, 03:28 PM
 
15,712 posts, read 9,207,244 times
Reputation: 14155
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
I said I have an idea for a five-figure website. My partner and I jointly have content for a five-figure website but we don't have the technical skills or the cash to get it online. Got it?
I know you won't take this advice, but there might be someone out there that might. Domain name: $10. Website: $15 a month. Free templates: Free. Acquiring the skills: no cost (since you obviously have the internet).

I know next to nothing about web site design, and I recently figured it out all on my lonesome.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2013, 03:56 PM
 
10,167 posts, read 17,073,634 times
Reputation: 5738
Quote:
=gwynedd1;29855276]Because some of it is unearned. Selling a condo because of its view of Central Park isn't "earned".
So who earned it? You? Government? And who should it go to? You? Government? Please point out what entity should be in charge of collecting it, and just who should be the recipients?.

A question you cannot avoid is who -- in the final analysis -- does the money belong to? Is it the "government"? (translation: politicians and bureaucrats who leech off the income earners and tax-payers) Or to those who made it to begin with...and passed it on to their children as they saw fit? Please answer that.

Quote:
One the other hand income taxes which it seems you are not complaining about is a tax on labor. Nope, not a peep about that.
LOL What the hell are you talking about? I believe in a flat tax. Do you have a problem with that?. If so, why? But ok...I will go along with that the "rich" should pay, oh, 15% of their income as opposed to 10% that the middle class should pay? Fair?

Of course, too, it would only be fair to wonder exactly how the tax money is being spent, don't you think? If my money is going somewhere, then I would respectfully advance that I have a right to know if it is being squandered on things that the constitution of the United States does not authorize the federal government to spend it upon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2013, 11:33 PM
 
Location: Chicago Area
8,006 posts, read 4,176,541 times
Reputation: 3016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
Taxes for the wealthy are historically very low.

You should read some Liberal economists, you should read the economists in President Obama's and President Clinton's administrations, they don't want to tax the crap out of the wealthy. They don't view the wealthy as villains. In fact they themselves are wealthy, the business people who support the Democratic party with donations are wealthy, the people who run the Democratic party are wealthy.

The complexity of the tax system is based on rich people buying themselves cut outs and the government wanting to encourage certain kinds of economic behavior, this will happen regardless.

The tax code can be simplified, but it will still be rather complex no matter what.

I think the goal is to tax wealthy who have gotten nearly all the wages gains a little more to put more money in the pockets of poor people, by giving them more healthcare, or cheaper student loans or more student grants, maybe subsidize day care, etc.
I have a better idea for putting money into the pockets of the working class: Put money into the pockets of the working class. Raise minimum wage to $15 per hour and permanently set it to increase at the same rate as inflation. That actually puts money into the pockets of the working class. But since the cost of living changes drastically from state to state and city to city, it would be best if you let the states set their own minimum wage laws. For some states, $15 per hour is too high and for others it's too low. But $15 is in the right ballpark for everyone I think.

Healthcare and college are both excellent examples of things whose price has spiraled upwards out of control because of government subsidies. Gradually decrease and eventually stop top subsidizing them, start regulating and auditing them and you'll see those costs drop rapidly, especially pharmaceuticals.

Having an extremely uncomplicated tax code just works better. You pay your taxes when you buy stuff and if you bought luxury items overseas, you still pay taxes on those things. Ever see a rich guy trying to smuggle a newly purchased Bugatti Veyron into the USA and then proceed to try and get it licensed and registered? Ain't gonna work obviously. Meanwhile, if a rich guy actually wants to buy a box of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese, I'm not offended by the idea that he pays the same price as a poor person.

We need to drop this idiot notion that tax laws are this magical all-purpose voodoo doll that you can poke and prod in every which way to make people conform to what you think they should be doing. Just make it simple and keep it that way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2013, 05:07 AM
 
27,903 posts, read 34,340,394 times
Reputation: 4031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
Taxes for the wealthy are historically very low.

You should read some Liberal economists, you should read the economists in President Obama's and President Clinton's administrations, they don't want to tax the crap out of the wealthy. They don't view the wealthy as villains. In fact they themselves are wealthy, the business people who support the Democratic party with donations are wealthy, the people who run the Democratic party are wealthy.

The complexity of the tax system is based on rich people buying themselves cut outs and the government wanting to encourage certain kinds of economic behavior, this will happen regardless.

The tax code can be simplified, but it will still be rather complex no matter what.

I think the goal is to tax wealthy who have gotten nearly all the wages gains a little more to put more money in the pockets of poor people, by giving them more healthcare, or cheaper student loans or more student grants, maybe subsidize day care, etc.
A war or two. Another covert action in a foreign land. A few more secret CIA annexes. A few more lavish trips and conventions for the IRS workers. Another shrimp on a treadmill study.

How the hell do you know what the money goes to?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2013, 08:06 AM
 
8,399 posts, read 5,288,705 times
Reputation: 2314
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
I have a better idea for putting money into the pockets of the working class: Put money into the pockets of the working class. Raise minimum wage to $15 per hour and permanently set it to increase at the same rate as inflation. That actually puts money into the pockets of the working class. But since the cost of living changes drastically from state to state and city to city, it would be best if you let the states set their own minimum wage laws. For some states, $15 per hour is too high and for others it's too low. But $15 is in the right ballpark for everyone I think.

Healthcare and college are both excellent examples of things whose price has spiraled upwards out of control because of government subsidies. Gradually decrease and eventually stop top subsidizing them, start regulating and auditing them and you'll see those costs drop rapidly, especially pharmaceuticals.

Having an extremely uncomplicated tax code just works better. You pay your taxes when you buy stuff and if you bought luxury items overseas, you still pay taxes on those things. Ever see a rich guy trying to smuggle a newly purchased Bugatti Veyron into the USA and then proceed to try and get it licensed and registered? Ain't gonna work obviously. Meanwhile, if a rich guy actually wants to buy a box of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese, I'm not offended by the idea that he pays the same price as a poor person.

We need to drop this idiot notion that tax laws are this magical all-purpose voodoo doll that you can poke and prod in every which way to make people conform to what you think they should be doing. Just make it simple and keep it that way.
President Obama wants to raise the minimum wage. conservatives oppose this.

In terms of the government subsidizing college and causing prices to spiral upwards, that is a very simplistic narrative.

The GI bill, pell grants and federal loans has lead to millions more students going to college which of course has lead to pushing up the prices of colleges because of supply and demand, the additional costs of training and housing those millions of extra students, the increased cost of maintaining and expanding the campus and the increased number of degree programs(there are fields that didn't exist that colleges now have whole departments to train students) and the cost of the equipment that colleges need to teach students the latest information are all the drivers for increased college costs.

Nearly every public state college turns away students for admission, this means the product that universities are selling is so valuable that they don't have enough slots for all the students that want to attend.

Your way only reduces the cost of college because your way cutting funding would lead to fewer people being able to afford college which might drive the down costs as demand drops, but that won't help the people who can't afford it.

Concerning government subsidizes driving up the cost of healthcare, I think that is a misreading of the facts.

First off the US has a mismash system of payments for healthcare which leads to a lot of blindness of the costs of the same medical procedures from different hospitals, we have millions of uninsured whose unpaid health services has to be paid by everyone with increased costs, we have a rapidly growing elderly population that is driving up demand for healthcare services, and finally the system for educating and qualifying doctors that artificially limits the number of doctors because medical schools turn away thousands of students. This keeps doctors salaries very high.

Also, the maintenance and expansion of hospitals to treat all of those elderly people adds to the increasing costs.

Also, from a factual standpoint, the societies that have the most government control of healthcare have far lower costs than we do. So the real world says we need more government control of healthcare to get costs under control this is how the rest of first world nations do it and have much lower health care costs.

In terms of an uncomplicated tax code, it is just buzz words that don't have any real world applications. The US tax code can be simplified some, but it will inevitably be complex and I don't see sales taxes as any less complicated than income taxes.

Higher sales taxes could lead to a huge tax increase for everyone but the most well off tax payers. This is why I oppose it. Simplicity cannot be a justification to increasing taxes on the poorest while cutting taxes for the richest and this is what sales taxes would do.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:13 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top