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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-27-2014, 05:20 PM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,951,083 times
Reputation: 2177

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Being in the top 20% doesn't mean i am making "around" 70K, it means im making MORE then 70K.

Theres two ways of looking at this, lets say at a 75% flat tax, we provide a 2K per person per month basic income. Id be doing great. (btw that 75% flat tax IS about what it would take to provide a 2K per month basic income to every man woman and child). If we taxed everyone at 75% and provided no benefit you would have a point. But heres the thing, taxes provides benefits. How efficiently they do so is the question you should discuss. And corporate tax? Represents less then 9% of all taxes collected. Turns out big companies are pretty good at using loopholes.
You are, of course, free to implement your own tax rate at what you think it should be.

So, tell us, what extra percentage do you pay on your taxes each year? What's your percentage of donation to reach the tax rate you believe your income level should be paying?

If you do not pay this extra voluntarily, then you do not believe what you advocate. If you actually believed that the government should have more of your own money, you would donate it to make things right.

But I'm certain you don't donate it, ergo, you do not actually believe it, thus, like all other liberals... YOU LIE.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-27-2014, 06:14 PM
 
34,274 posts, read 19,297,155 times
Reputation: 17256
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
You are, of course, free to implement your own tax rate at what you think it should be.

So, tell us, what extra percentage do you pay on your taxes each year? What's your percentage of donation to reach the tax rate you believe your income level should be paying?

If you do not pay this extra voluntarily, then you do not believe what you advocate. If you actually believed that the government should have more of your own money, you would donate it to make things right.

But I'm certain you don't donate it, ergo, you do not actually believe it, thus, like all other liberals... YOU LIE.
Ahh yes, the old argument that everyone ELSE should pay except you because you do not want to pay your share of it, all the while getting the benefits of it.

I dont want to pay for our military as it exists, would you mind covering my share of it?

This is a foolish argument thats used over and over by those who feel that they should live in a wonderful society while not paying for it. Nice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2014, 07:59 PM
 
Location: mainland but born oahu
6,657 posts, read 7,723,781 times
Reputation: 3136
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
I understand that. However, that componant at which someone is taxed 75% is not worth earning. What does one do? Simply take more time off and keep one's income well below that rate of taxation.

A 75% rate is servitude to the government. It would be insane for anyone to work for income at that level. Again, I have cut my income EVEN NOW at rates just over 50%, as it is unjust for the government to take over 50% of ANYONE'S INCOME.

Are we working for ourselves, or are we serfs for the federal government. If 75%, why not 100%?
But if you read the tax code back then it was limited to the first few 100,000 in profit persa then the next few 100,000 was at 25% the rest tax free.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2014, 07:13 AM
 
Location: San Diego California
6,795 posts, read 7,269,447 times
Reputation: 5194
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
Benefits Banks:
Because prices increase more people are forced to borrow. Housing was a boon because it forced people to borrow outlandish amounts to finance a house.

Benefits Government:
Pay increases, a second job = more tax money into government coffers. Just like minimum wage increases. People would be better off demanding lower taxes instead of demanding higher wages. At least with lower taxes you get to keep more of the money you earn. With higher wages you'll pay higher taxes.

Manufacturing:
Not sure, they have to increase prices to offset their cost.
It increases total sales for manufacturing by allowing people to make major purchases prior to them actually being able to afford to do so. Also inflation penalizes people for saving by reducing the value of their earnings as time progresses. When you know you will have to pay more for something in the future, the inclination is to purchase now rather that to risk paying more in the future. It simultaneously reduces the purchasers power to haggle over price which also increases profit.
In addition purchasing on credit encourages people to purchase a more expensive item than they would have if they were making a cash purchase with a defined budget. It is a great sales ploy to upsell an item and point out that it only will cost a few more dollars a month.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2014, 07:33 AM
 
1,690 posts, read 2,053,473 times
Reputation: 993
Quote:
Originally Posted by ragnarkar View Post
Any countries use this model of taxation?
If this is before state income tax layers on then people in NYC will be paying close to 100% of income in taxes and the economy will disappear there overnight

Nobody would work there...would you work for no pay?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2014, 09:06 AM
 
41,111 posts, read 25,645,826 times
Reputation: 13868
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Ahh yes, the old argument that everyone ELSE should pay except you because you do not want to pay your share of it, all the while getting the benefits of it.

I dont want to pay for our military as it exists, would you mind covering my share of it?

This is a foolish argument thats used over and over by those who feel that they should live in a wonderful society while not paying for it. Nice.
You don't want to pay for our military? Hey, I don't want to pay for people on the dole, those people who think they should live a wonderful life while everyone else pays for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2014, 10:39 AM
 
34,274 posts, read 19,297,155 times
Reputation: 17256
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
You don't want to pay for our military? Hey, I don't want to pay for people on the dole, those people who think they should live a wonderful life while everyone else pays for it.
I don't want to pay for our current military as it exists. Im all for paying for a military, I just believe it should be defense orientated. Please don't try and change my statement.

And "a wonderful life" for those on the dole shows your complete ignorance of what "the dole" provides.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2014, 10:34 AM
 
14,924 posts, read 8,543,428 times
Reputation: 7357
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Yes educate yourself, you're being purposefully ignorant. Why don't you Google it? This isn't horrifically complex, I even pointed out the specific reason why low levels of inflation are good.....and you ignored it.

Keep in mind I think a inflation rate of 4% and higher is bad, and 1% and lower is bad. The exact number in between those is open to debate amongst economists, with 2 being the most common number, but 3% being discussed heavily.
There are only two responses to poor advice ... ignore it, or try to better educate the advisor.

Inflation, for lack of a better analogy, is like a hole in your water jug. There is no such thing as a hole too small, or a hole just the right size, or a hole that is beneficial. The very idea is supremely absurd. Your jug is compromised, and it's integrity is damaged because no matter how small the hole, it will eventually allow all of the water to leak out until it is empty.

Your solution to this ... and your apparent delusions about the value of this hole in your water jug is that it encourages you to put some of your water in other peoples jugs (investments, as it were). What you seem to be oblivious to is the fact that all of those other jugs are leaking too. You may miss that point if those other jugs are bigger than yours ... or they are being filled up faster from receiving water from many other leaky jugs,(borrowing) but the frigging floor is still wet with all that water leaking out. Some people understand this (bankers) which is why they have their own jugs (with no holes) collecting all of that water leaking out of everyone else's jugs. And it's only a matter of time before those jugs with no holes have captured ALL OF THE WATER from the leaky ones.

On a more sophisticated level, there are only two types of items when it comes to basic economics. Liabilities and assets. Assets either maintain or appreciate in value, while liabilities depreciate. Sound money is neither an asset or a liability. It's only a medium of exchange, but inflation based currency is a liability which slowly but continuously loses value until it is worth less each day that passes, until it is "worthless".

Apparently you have been hypnotized to believe the opposite. On the count of three, you will wake up ... you will no longer be a chicken, and you can stop quacking and flapping your arms and bobbing your head. You just don't realize how silly it is to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2014, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Lewes, Delaware
3,490 posts, read 3,780,786 times
Reputation: 1953
Taxing income has always been wrong and always will be. The only fair tax system would be taxing us on purchases. I still don't understand why we can't have that kind of tax system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2014, 11:12 AM
 
14,924 posts, read 8,543,428 times
Reputation: 7357
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Yes I do. When you disagree with the vast majority of economists you have to come up with a pretty good justification to do so, or a really compelling argument. You have neither. You want to see what deflation does? Go look at Japan. When just leaving your money in your bank doing nothing increases its value....your money is not going to move, you aren't going to invest. Even if its break even many would do nothing with it. Inflation is what makes our economy functional.
What a poor deluded concept. Of course people will invest. They will always invest. They buy property, goods, services, food, clothing, shelter, entertainment, transportation, etc., etc. This is all part of life and living ... every dollar spent is an investment in something. I know of no farmers who manufacture their own tractors, and produce their own fuel for them, or own fleets of trucks to ship their produce. Baseball players don't whittle their own bats out of raw wood, and car salesmen don't repair the cars they sell.

Why on earth would you believe for a moment that currency must lose some value in order to encourage people to eat, or wear clothes, or attend baseball games? I can't even find the adequate term for such lunacy. It's beyond definition.

Now let's address this equally absurd notion that being up to your ears in debt is better than being debt free. How can the human mind be convinced to believe such nonsense? Wouldn't any sane person prefer to pay $150,000 for their $150,000 house, rather than pay $285,000 for the same house (principle and interest)? You apparently prefer to pay the $285,000 .... why, will remain a mystery to us sane people.

Ask yourself a simple question ... who is more likely to be a lender .... a wealthy person, or a poor person? Conversely, who is more likely to be in debt? Now, the next question is equally self explanatory ... who owns that house you bought last year ... you? Or is it the bank to whom you must pay your mortgage payment to for the next 30 years?

The final question is as simple as the previous ones .... is it better to be wealthy or poor? A lender or a borrower? Would you rather embark on your journey across the desert with a water jug with a hole in it, or one that isn't leaking?
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