U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Florida > Tampa Bay
 [Register]
Tampa Bay Tampa - St. Petersburg - Clearwater
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 07-31-2013, 08:12 AM
 
1,106 posts, read 1,947,355 times
Reputation: 954

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DUNNDFRNT View Post
Most of the successful people I know understand the concept of social responsibility.
Most of the successful people I know (and will include myself as one of them) has the common sense to to not flush money down the toilet for terrible ideas. Paying for schools is one thing. Paying for a less-than-worthless perpetual money hole because some loud-mouthed social activists are crying for it is another thing entirely. That's why every mass transit project has to use false, even comical, assumptions to try to get funding.

Apparently you believe in the infallibility of government to make good financial decisions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DUNNDFRNT View Post
It is a fact that people in the upper brackets pay less of a percentage of their income in taxes, than the average working person.
Spoken like someone who has social services fill out their annual 1040s.

This statement is a complete falsehood, and I will debate you all day long on the numbers.

Here's your first clue: if you are going to count FICA as "taxes", you have to only count it as a tax for upper-income types. For every dollar they put in, "poor" people get 5,10 or even 50 times the benefit back. Upper income types get negative returns for what they put in. That makes it a tax for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-31-2013, 08:49 AM
BBI
 
490 posts, read 808,463 times
Reputation: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUNNDFRNT View Post
Most of the successful people I know understand the concept of social responsibility... It is a fact that people in the upper brackets pay less of a percentage of their income in taxes, than the average working person.
Yes, but that's because of wealth (i.e., net worth), not income. Super-duper wealthy people do not have to spend their income the way us normal people do, and so they can shelter more of it from taxes. If I didn't have a mortgage, I'd put more money in tax-deferred savings accounts. If I had more money than I could ever spend, I'd arrange things so any money I earned went to others and I would not pay tax on it. So on and so on. I'd also note here that the very wealthiest people (and corporations) in this country are our largest donors to charity. So it is not as if avoiding income tax is somehow exclusive with social responsibility. In fact, the only ways you avoid income tax have been pre-approved by the government. The pejorative term is "loophole," but if you are married, paying on a mortage, a parent, saving for retirement, or doing anything else that the government is encouraging you to do through the tax code, you're taking advantage of "loopholes," too. Giving money to the federal government is likely the least efficient way to put your money towards socially responsible causes. The exception is if creating/perpetuating government jobs is your favorite cause, and I'll admit that I've always thought a strong military is the best possible social cause -- military employment has truly helped my family over the generations.

Anyway, if you ignore the implications of wealth, and only look at income, an average working person pays less (as a percentage of income) than a successful working person, who pays less than a very successful working person. Basically, our system punishes success, which makes no sense to me at all. Of course, if you've been very successful for a very long time, then, despite the tax scheme, you should have accumulated enough wealth to be able to significantly avoid taxes, if that's your preference. And it's fun to talk about "fairness" when super-wealthy people are involved because, hey, screw those guys. But any scheme is "unfair" when only half of us pay into it. If I'm paying 20%, Donald Trump is paying 10%, and the median American paid nothing, how is any aspect of that fair? And how could you possibly resolve the fairness issue on a percentage of income basis? Tell the Don he makes too much money to deduct charitable donations? Drive a bottom-half wage earner into poverty through increased taxes? Raise my taxes even further above the other guys? Taxation on the basis of income, no matter how you do it, is going to give an unfair, counterproductive result. I would note that it was not so long ago that we managed without any federal income taxes. And I am very happy to live in a state that has no income tax.

I don't see how any of this affects a mass transit discussion, though. That the government should not fund transportation infrastructure is a fairly extreme position that no one has taken. And transportation infrastructure functioning as a "social responsibility" project seems like a very strained argument to me. Meanwhile, state/local projects in FL are not funded by income taxes, that a rich person might pay a lower income tax rate than I do is irrelevant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2013, 08:59 AM
 
2,262 posts, read 1,556,575 times
Reputation: 2947
Quote:
Originally Posted by vaughanwilliams View Post
That's just ignorant...
This cut and paste from Wikipedia

Some critics of the Pulitzer Prize have accused the organization of favoring those who support liberal causes or oppose conservative causes. Syndicated columnist L. Brent Bozell said that the Pulitzer Prize has a "liberal legacy", particularly in its prize for commentary.[SIZE=2][18][/SIZE] He pointed to a 31-year period in which only five conservatives won prizes for commentary. The claim is also supported by a statement from the 2010 Pulitzer Prize winner for commentary,Kathleen Parker: "It's only because I'm a conservative basher that I'm now recognized."[SIZE=2][19][/SIZE]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2013, 09:11 AM
 
2,262 posts, read 1,556,575 times
Reputation: 2947
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBI View Post
Yes, but that's because of wealth (i.e., net worth), not income. Super-duper wealthy people do not have to spend their income the way us normal people do, and so they can shelter more of it from taxes. If I didn't have a mortgage, I'd put more money in tax-deferred savings accounts. If I had more money than I could ever spend, I'd arrange things so any money I earned went to others and I would not pay tax on it. So on and so on. I'd also note here that the very wealthiest people (and corporations) in this country are our largest donors to charity. So it is not as if avoiding income tax is somehow exclusive with social responsibility. In fact, the only ways you avoid income tax have been pre-approved by the government. The pejorative term is "loophole," but if you are married, paying on a mortage, a parent, saving for retirement, or doing anything else that the government is encouraging you to do through the tax code, you're taking advantage of "loopholes," too. Giving money to the federal government is likely the least efficient way to put your money towards socially responsible causes. The exception is if creating/perpetuating government jobs is your favorite cause, and I'll admit that I've always thought a strong military is the best possible social cause -- military employment has truly helped my family over the generations.

Anyway, if you ignore the implications of wealth, and only look at income, an average working person pays less (as a percentage of income) than a successful working person, who pays less than a very successful working person. Basically, our system punishes success, which makes no sense to me at all. Of course, if you've been very successful for a very long time, then, despite the tax scheme, you should have accumulated enough wealth to be able to significantly avoid taxes, if that's your preference. And it's fun to talk about "fairness" when super-wealthy people are involved because, hey, screw those guys. But any scheme is "unfair" when only half of us pay into it. If I'm paying 20%, Donald Trump is paying 10%, and the median American paid nothing, how is any aspect of that fair? And how could you possibly resolve the fairness issue on a percentage of income basis? Tell the Don he makes too much money to deduct charitable donations? Drive a bottom-half wage earner into poverty through increased taxes? Raise my taxes even further above the other guys? Taxation on the basis of income, no matter how you do it, is going to give an unfair, counterproductive result. I would note that it was not so long ago that we managed without any federal income taxes. And I am very happy to live in a state that has no income tax.

I don't see how any of this affects a mass transit discussion, though. That the government should not fund transportation infrastructure is a fairly extreme position that no one has taken. And transportation infrastructure functioning as a "social responsibility" project seems like a very strained argument to me. Meanwhile, state/local projects in FL are not funded by income taxes, that a rich person might pay a lower income tax rate than I do is irrelevant.
A lot of the wealthy get their income from capital gains which is taxed at a different rate because its investment income. So people like to use that interchangeable with an income tax to confuse people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2013, 09:17 AM
 
Location: Downtown St. Pete
292 posts, read 528,073 times
Reputation: 290
Greed!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2013, 09:49 AM
 
4,817 posts, read 3,464,550 times
Reputation: 2856
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBI View Post
Yes, but that's because of wealth (i.e., net worth), not income. Super-duper wealthy people do not have to spend their income the way us normal people do, and so they can shelter more of it from taxes. If I didn't have a mortgage, I'd put more money in tax-deferred savings accounts. If I had more money than I could ever spend, I'd arrange things so any money I earned went to others and I would not pay tax on it. So on and so on. I'd also note here that the very wealthiest people (and corporations) in this country are our largest donors to charity. So it is not as if avoiding income tax is somehow exclusive with social responsibility. In fact, the only ways you avoid income tax have been pre-approved by the government. The pejorative term is "loophole," but if you are married, paying on a mortage, a parent, saving for retirement, or doing anything else that the government is encouraging you to do through the tax code, you're taking advantage of "loopholes," too. Giving money to the federal government is likely the least efficient way to put your money towards socially responsible causes. The exception is if creating/perpetuating government jobs is your favorite cause, and I'll admit that I've always thought a strong military is the best possible social cause -- military employment has truly helped my family over the generations.

Anyway, if you ignore the implications of wealth, and only look at income, an average working person pays less (as a percentage of income) than a successful working person, who pays less than a very successful working person. Basically, our system punishes success, which makes no sense to me at all. Of course, if you've been very successful for a very long time, then, despite the tax scheme, you should have accumulated enough wealth to be able to significantly avoid taxes, if that's your preference. And it's fun to talk about "fairness" when super-wealthy people are involved because, hey, screw those guys. But any scheme is "unfair" when only half of us pay into it. If I'm paying 20%, Donald Trump is paying 10%, and the median American paid nothing, how is any aspect of that fair? And how could you possibly resolve the fairness issue on a percentage of income basis? Tell the Don he makes too much money to deduct charitable donations? Drive a bottom-half wage earner into poverty through increased taxes? Raise my taxes even further above the other guys? Taxation on the basis of income, no matter how you do it, is going to give an unfair, counterproductive result. I would note that it was not so long ago that we managed without any federal income taxes. And I am very happy to live in a state that has no income tax.

I don't see how any of this affects a mass transit discussion, though. That the government should not fund transportation infrastructure is a fairly extreme position that no one has taken. And transportation infrastructure functioning as a "social responsibility" project seems like a very strained argument to me. Meanwhile, state/local projects in FL are not funded by income taxes, that a rich person might pay a lower income tax rate than I do is irrelevant.
I get it I didn't say income tax, I said of "percentage of their income in taxes". Maybe I was not complying to the definition of income if you don't want to include other instruments like capital gains. I was replaying to this comment (below), which also had nothing to do with mass transit.
I would argue that part of our social responsibility is to take care of our less fortunate members of society, people who typically live in areas that don't have any job centers, and facilitating a low cost way for them to get to where the jobs are seems like a sensible step towards making them self sufficient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chi_tino View Post
You are either having reading comprehension problems or you just started reading this thread at comment #131. The two comments I was responding to claimed:

post #124:
1. Rich people do not pay taxes because they find loopholes
and
2. Poor people's taxes pay for everything
and

post #128:
3. Rich people have money -- we should just take it

city-data is full of poverty-stricken socialist types, but sometimes their hatred of successful people goes a little overboard.

Last edited by DUNNDFRNT; 07-31-2013 at 09:59 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2013, 10:33 AM
 
Location: Places you dream of
20,064 posts, read 12,041,246 times
Reputation: 8701
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrviking View Post
Attachment 115395

God Bless those evil rich, otherwise we would have no money to spend. I'm sure people like you still won't be happy till they pay 100% of all taxes.
I think people just want FAIR. and I am in a position to tell you day in and day out from many corps and CEO's etc., in this area alone, are NOT playing fair.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2013, 11:53 AM
 
2,262 posts, read 1,556,575 times
Reputation: 2947
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinytrump View Post
I think people just want FAIR. and I am in a position to tell you day in and day out from many corps and CEO's etc., in this area alone, are NOT playing fair.
So if the top 25% pay 85% of the taxes collected. How much more do they need to pay to make it FAIR in your world?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2013, 01:03 PM
 
Location: Downtown St. Pete
292 posts, read 528,073 times
Reputation: 290
"Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn echoed Sharpe's anxiety. "If we don't do it now, shame on us." Ah there's the rub. Shame has never been all that much of an inhibiting factor when it comes to shying away from progress in these parts."

Echoing what I've been saying about old Tampa residents holding back the progress of a city with tons of potential.

Ruth: The time for mass transit was yesterday | Tampa Bay Times
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2013, 01:44 PM
 
Location: Places you dream of
20,064 posts, read 12,041,246 times
Reputation: 8701
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrviking View Post
So if the top 25% pay 85% of the taxes collected. How much more do they need to pay to make it FAIR in your world?
My position is more of that % of of folks not abiding by the laws that are in place already, and avoidance of paying thier dues. It is not prudent to go into detail on a public blog, but let's just say I have job security because of them.
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:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

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 > U.S. Forums > Florida > Tampa Bay
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

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