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.
The word "punish" means to respond to an action by another with an action that intentionally is chosen to be something the first actor is averse to. Typically it is used for either deterrence or retribution, but tax is not meant for either goal. Yes, as a side effect of taxation, we may make them "pay the price" of having that income (retribution) or may reduce the incentive to earn more money (deterrence) but that is not the PURPOSE of the taxes and one still has a higher after-tax income with a higher before-tax income than with a lower before-tax income, so it is really hardly a deterrent at all.
"Punishment" is really simply not a good word choice for this.
And since you want to tell me what "correct" terminology is. Learn the difference between "high income" and true wealth.
Democrat and Liberal version of Tax the rich means tax high income (not wealth). The true rich own assets that produce cash flow NOT in w2 income. With your lack of understanding you'll never be rich. Anyone who believes in giving money away (taxing your income) as you are trying to build their wealth will have a hard time building their wealth. Next time don't be so easy to manipulate into giving money away.
At higher incomes deductions including the personal tax exemption gets phased out. That would mean they are taxed higher than you starting with the first dollar of income.
That's simply not true. If your deductions or exemptions are limited it doesn't impact your first dollar unless you only made a single dollar.
Quote:
In 2015 while the federal government doesn't take a dime of your first $4000.00 of income, a high income earner pays taxes on their first $4000.00 of income. Multiply that times a family of 4, you get to keep the every dime of the first $16,000.00, a high income earner pays taxes on the first dollar. And that's just one example of how they are hit with taxes while you are not.
Your conclusion is wrong.
Your understanding is wrong, your personal exemption or lack thereof impacts the last dollars your make not the first
And since you want to tell me what "correct" terminology is. Learn the difference between "high income" and true wealth.
Democrat and Liberal version of Tax the rich means tax high income (not wealth). The true rich own assets that produce cash flow NOT in w2 income. With your lack of understanding you'll never be rich. Anyone who believes in giving money away (taxing your income) as you are trying to build their wealth will have a hard time building their wealth. Next time don't be so easy to manipulate into giving money away.
YOU said something about "The 1%" without specifying whether you meant the top 1% by wealth or the top 1% by income. What did you expect me to say? Your condescending remark is totally unjustified as I said nothing to even suggest that I don't know the difference.
What I find interesting about libertarians and ultra conservatives is the way they deliberately confuse two issues:
The first issue is how to best fund government.
The second issue is this "straw man" they erect about income redistribution.
Government is funded largely through a graduated, or progressive income tax not to redistribute income, but for a more practical reason. A flat rate income tax would have to have a very low rate. This is because the poor and lower income groups couldn't afford to part with more than 5% or so of their income. If we reduced taxes for wealthier groups to this level, you could kiss the modern state good bye. We wouldn't have money for a military second to none, social security, medicare, or medicaid. The income tax, taxes those with greater incomes as a higher rate because it would be impossible to run the type of modern state we have without doing so.
Now, if someone wants to argue taxes on the wealthy are too high, that's fine with me. However, its pure dishonesty to not spell out what reducing those taxes would mean. That's why I laugh at anyone who tries to start a discussion about imposing a flat rate income tax. The part they leave out is that such a tax would result in dismantling government as we know it. If you support such an agenda, that's your privilege, but say so. Don't hide behind the dishonesty of a flat rate tax or "how unfair" our current system is to the wealthy.
Nor, does your argument about taking property without due process of law mean anything in this context. Various provisions of the Constitution, including the Sixteenth Amendment give government the power to impose an income and other taxes. In short, taxation is not taking property without due process.
Income redistribution is a totally different animal. Some socialist countries have attempted something like this with varying results. The Scandinavian countries come to mind. I personally don't think income redistribution is the province of government. I don't think you have much to worry about. The current Republican Congress is not going to go down a socialist path.
I will say this: The policies we've pursued in this country have redistributed income. Its just that its been in the other direction. Forty years ago, 1% of this country didn't own 50% of the wealth. If you did get your way, you'd make this problem infinitely worse. Perhaps, you intend for the poor and middle classes to be serfs or slaves of the wealthy?
YOU said something about "The 1%" without specifying whether you meant the top 1% by wealth or the top 1% by income. What did you expect me to say? Your condescending remark is totally unjustified as I said nothing to even suggest that I don't know the difference.
After all the vitriol against the 1% who Obama and Democratic supporters THINK are rich. yes, they are high income but there are other factors in being rich.
After all the vitriol against the 1% who Obama and Democratic supporters THINK are rich. yes, they are high income but there are other factors in being rich.
After all the vitriol against the 1% who Obama and Democratic supporters THINK are rich. yes, they are high income but there are other factors in being rich.
Vitriol sounds like one of those newfangled motor oils.
How is that different from homeowners taxing landlords up the wazoo because they are successful in real estate?
huh? Homeowners get to tax landlords?
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.
Great rebuttal.
