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.
I don't want cops coming to my home, or the fire department, or the ambulance...so I shouldn't be taxed for any of those. How about we tax PROPERTY owners only?
40% of the people should not be exempted from paying income taxes. Everyone should have a stake and be taxed equally.
To encourage investment and home-buying, capital gains and dividends should be tax-free. A reasonable exemption on estate-taxes should also be allowed. It will revert back to $600,000 in 2011 (up to 55% will be taxed). $600,000 will only generate about $24,000-$30,000 per year, not even enough to retire on..
Most retired Americans are living on less than half of "not enough to retire on", and flat taxers want to tax them at the same rate as the mllionaires.
How do you encourage that $8-an-hour single mom to buy a home, by not taxing her capital gains and dividends?
How many people with capital gains and dividends do not already own their home?
And finally, why do you think America is a better place with people owning, instead of renting, their homes?
Next time you tip your hat to the security guard and drive out of your gated country-club estate, open your eyes and look around. There are people living out here, too.
A lot of widows have traditionally lived on utility stocks which pay dividends ( Widow-and-Orphan Stock ) - these are not very expensive to buy. When you sell a share of these, why tax it? It encourages people to save and invest - also to learn about companies and the stock market - how can that be bad?
BTW, I abhor gated communities and I live in an area with both rich and poor people.
Could you set out for us your understanding of the methodology that CAGW uses...
I don't care. What I care about is having a source that will tell me what kind of crap Congresspeople are doing.
I only post it, in this case, because we both know we're at different ends of the spectrum. As a communist, you, I assume, feel that there is nothing the government can do wrong because the government defines right and wrong. That, I believe, is a premise of your assertion about the value of earmarks. I on the other hand, think people should make the decision according to their sense of right and wrong... So, we agree to disagree and I offer up to others an option to see how their representation is blowing their tax dollars.
Citizens Against Government Waste: Homepage (http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer - broken link)
Quote:
Right-wing reactionaries see everything as being "communistic". A lot of people these days are coming to see right-wing reactionaries as being irrelevant.
It comes and goes.
Quote:
Obviously, the point of that post went over your head. Perhaps you are one of those whose vision of the world has never really gone much beyond that which was planted in your head by some JV high school football coach?
Simplify it then.
Quote:
You're getting off lightly at a slap in the face. Selfishness and greed aren't so well hidden as you might imagine by transparently fraudulent arguments of Personal Responsibility®. When all you've got to say is "I-Me-Me-Mine", you really don't have very much to say. As at least a few have noted when comparing the state of the union today to that which existed eight years ago, trying to run a society that way is at best foolhardy.
Yes, from a communist's perspective, I guess my concerns about myself are silly compared to regard for the collective.
Quote:
Your complaint might be submiited to those right-wing corporatists who diverted ever-increasing shares of productivity gains toward corporate profits and away from supposedly inflationary wage gains, leaving real incomes to fall for the many while private reserves of wealth expanded for the few. It is the rich and irresponsible who have been stealing from you (with Bush's blessing at every turn), not these poor and irresponsible that you and others imagine.
Not at all. They're confiscating because I support them because rather than offering a basic level of care for the poor, the Dems prefer socialism. I'd rather see AIG take a few dollars than the Dems take my freedom... or, my favorite, watch the Dems make it so that I have to work sixty hours to get what my welfare neighbor gets for nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saga
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1k
Please share the moral principle that supports punishing the responsible person with paying for the irresponsible, particularly after the irresponsible were living a higher standard of living than the responsible. What is the justification in forcing the responsible to subsidize a better lifestyle than their own?
It's difficult to make out much in particular here...
The questions are relative to:
Quote:
The people who live there are all of us. We are the producers. We are the consumers. We are the taxpayers. We are the regulators. There is no one else here besides us. Sometimes, the producers need help.
I'd like to know the morality, from your perspective-- I assume communist; if something else, please state-- that supports forcing one producer to help the next producer when the first doesn't want/need help.
A lot of widows have traditionally lived on utility stocks which pay dividends ( Widow-and-Orphan Stock ) - these are not very expensive to buy. When you sell a share of these, .
When a single mom's household income is $8 an hour, ($16,000 a year)minus the impending flat tax of maybe 23%, minus $13,000 a year for health insurance, milk is very expensive to buy. One gallon has to last a year. You're telling this person that if she does not make sufficient investments to generate 24-30K, she won't have enough to retire on.
The flat tax idea is a non-starter. Why would the majority of U.S. citizens, who are earning less than about $50K/year, accept being taxed at the same rate as a millionaire? Plus, the progressive system brings in a lot more $$$ to the Treasury. The deficit would be even larger with a flat tax.
The progressive tax philosophy is here to stay. Especially with Dems in the majority in Congress.
The Repubs were in control in Congress for 6 years starting in 2000, and they still didn't do away with the progressive tax system.
The flat tax idea is a non-starter. Why would the majority of U.S. citizens, who are earning less than about $50K/year, accept being taxed at the same rate as a millionaire? Plus, the progressive system brings in a lot more $$$ to the Treasury. The deficit would be even larger with a flat tax.
The progressive tax philosophy is here to stay. Especially with Dems in the majority in Congress.
The Repubs were in control in Congress for 6 years starting in 2000, and they still didn't do away with the progressive tax system.
Move on to another topic, please.
Because they don't want to lose that much of their money. They don't want to go without tax shelters. I want to hit up some of that unearned income, personally...for tax payments.
This is common sense and exactly why proposals to raise taxes on the 'rich' and cut taxes for others is a scam. People just don't think it through enough to understand that what they're really going to get is higher prices on many things to pay for the tax increase on the 'rich'.
So just cut the corporate rate tax to 0. Let Wal-Mart pay no taxes!
I don't want cops coming to my home, or the fire department, or the ambulance...so I shouldn't be taxed for any of those. How about we tax PROPERTY owners only?
No way. Property owners will only think like they're renting their property from the state.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,456,964 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar
Only those who receive services should pay taxes.
I don't want cops coming to my home, or the fire department, or the ambulance...so I shouldn't be taxed for any of those. How about we tax PROPERTY owners only?
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie
No way. Property owners will only think like they're renting their property from the state.
Agreed. And even then they'd want to further parse it out on what they think they're "renting". It would be like my tenants saying they should only pay rent on the part of the floor that they actually walk on.
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.
