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.
And its INCOME taxes, not inheritance taxes, capital gains taxes, etc. which is how many of the rich dodge paying their fair share.
The top 1% pays twice the share of federal income tax revenue that they receive in income. Is it "fair" to tax them double the percentage of their income?
The answer would be a 100% tax rate. Karl Marx or one of those other commies admitted as much. I can't find the quote right now but it went something like this
"""A 100% tax rate would be justifiable as long as it could be shown that there was a need and that the peoples basic needs were being met"""
Something like that. Maybe someone will come along and post the actual quote, but that's where Liberal/Socialist/Marxist thought leads. The standard of Fairness ever changing and whatever they say it is at any given moment... The irony is, if there isn't a basic, objective standard by which everyone will be treated equally, and we treat some people differently than others, that is inherently unfair.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 25 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,567 posts, read 16,552,753 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
I never signed or agreed to enter in to any contract with the government to pay taxes, yet I still have to pay a certain percentage of my income to the government every year, don't I? Therefore, it is forced upon me, because if I don't pay, I'll end up in prison, which would also be against my will. I never consented, and yet there is no "don't pay" option, therefore, it's forced upon me, therefore, it's theft. I don't see how you can continue to deny that logic
Very simply, part of that contract is your defense from harm long before you were born. You keep saying that you never got an "opt in" option, but in truth you did, as the contract is for living in this nation and taxes dont kick in until you make a certain amount of money which likely doesnt happen til adulthood. You can always leave, you are never told you can not. I dont mean that as derogatory, im just saying that is the opt out option. It is extreme by most standards, but its there.
Quote:
I never argued that it was specific to liberal ideologues, I argued that liberal policy kills drive and ambition. Why would I work extra hard if my earnings are just going to be redistributed to the guy who doesn't? what's my incentive to earn more money knowing you're just gonna want to come along and take it for yourself under the guise of entitlements with a weaponized government? You look at Sanders and his "free college" proposals and all that, or Hillary with her paid maternity leave, that's what that is. But this is taking us too far off topic.
Again, Liberals havent controlled this country for a long time. Also paid maternity leave(something Trump supports) is something very few politicians dont support.
I think you are just labeling polices you dont like as liberal, and i dont think i even need to mention why that is flawed.
Quote:
A flat tax could work to sustain "a" government here in America, it just wouldn't work to sustain our current government. That's all I'm saying.
Im saying that the structural change you support to get to a flat tax is far more complex than what you think.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 25 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,567 posts, read 16,552,753 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
The answer would be a 100% tax rate. Karl Marx or one of those other commies admitted as much. I can't find the quote right now but it went something like this
"""A 100% tax rate would be justifiable as long as it could be shown that there was a need and that the peoples basic needs were being met"""
Something like that. Maybe someone will come along and post the actual quote, but that's where Liberal/Socialist/Marxist thought leads. The standard of Fairness ever changing and whatever they say it is at any given moment...
I would argue the same of any ideology, fair isnt constant.
But to combat your post. Both 100% and 0% tax rates have the same end result.
We both agree to some tax rate between 0 and 100. We simply disagree on where that number should be.
Why try to demonize me for wanting it to be somewhat higher than you ????
The answer would be a 100% tax rate. Karl Marx or one of those other commies admitted as much. I can't find the quote right now but it went something like this
"""A 100% tax rate would be justifiable as long as it could be shown that there was a need and that the peoples basic needs were being met"""
Something like that. Maybe someone will come along and post the actual quote, but that's where Liberal/Socialist/Marxist thought leads. The standard of Fairness ever changing and whatever they say it is at any given moment...
Given that, who do they think would work for nothing? Serious question.
So, I just wanna know.... How many of you do your "civic duty" and voluntarily give the IRS more money than required when paying your taxes, you know, for the troops.....?
Of all the fake, drummed up controversies, this HAS to be the most ridiculous I've ever heard. Is there anyone out there who doesn't do everything they can to pay as little taxes as legally possible? Is there anyone out there who doesn't look for every deduction or take advantage of every loophole available? Don't blame Trump for legally not paying any federal taxes ( if in fact that is the case )... blame the laws and the tax code that permitted him to do it, or better yet, blame the politicians who wrote it to begin with. It goes back to the old adage, don't hate the player, hate the game.
This is just more of Democrats doing what they do best; Creating a culture of victimhood ( i.e. why am I paying taxes and someone like him isn't ), railing against the rich and promoting class warfare, and purposefully sewing the seeds of division. It's pretty sad...
So if it was legal, what is wrong with what Trump did? Can someone please explain that to me?
I can honestly say that there were many years that I took just standard deductions with short form and did not consider that paying more than I may have been legally required to do was that important. I felt privileged to be afforded a very comfortable life and felt no compunction in helping a little with the Federal and State Govts do more for people in actual need.
Very simply, part of that contract is your defense from harm long before you were born.
Other people made that deal on my behalf, I didn't.
Quote:
You keep saying that you never got an "opt in" option, but in truth you did, as the contract is for living in this nation and taxes dont kick in until you make a certain amount of money which likely doesnt happen til adulthood. You can always leave, you are never told you can not. I dont mean that as derogatory, im just saying that is the opt out option. It is extreme by most standards, but its there.
And then what? Go live in some other country and be forced to live under another contract that I didn't agree to? Just face it, wherever you go, things like taxes are forced upon you, without your consent. You can't escape it. That, by definition, is theft. That's not even the crux of the matter though, because we both agree they are necessary, so the only thing left is to determine how they should be applied.
Quote:
Again, Liberals havent controlled this country for a long time. Also paid maternity leave(something Trump supports) is something very few politicians dont support.
If very few politicians didn't support it, it would already be the law of the land. Now, with that said, there is a difference between supporting something in theory and thinking it's not practical in reality. And telling me Trump supports it isn't going to make me think any differently about it. Trump's not a Conservative, he's not a Republican, and he doesn't represent the ideals of my party. Most people in my party didn't even vote for him, but by some freak accident, he's just the horse that our wagon got hitched to.
Quote:
Im saying that the structural change you support to get to a flat tax is far more complex than what you think.
Maybe so, but it is possible, and that's my argument.
Given that, who do they think would work for nothing? Serious question.
In it's purist form, socialist / Marxist theory dictates a society where the means of production are publicly owned ( no private enterprise ) and everyone basically works for the government. In return, the government would provide you with all your basic needs like housing, food, healthcare, etc. and everyone would have equal means and assets. No one would have more than anyone else and everyone would be provided for by the government.
Of course no one is proposing anything that radical here, but that is where American Leftist thought inevitable ends up taken to it's logical conclusion.
So, you wouldn't really be working for "nothing", but at the same time, there would be no incentive to innovate or work hard because there is no room for you to advance economically.
Socialism is an economic concept that advocates public ownership of all resources. The production and distribution of resources with a society are then controlled by members of that society collectively or by the government that represents that society. Goods are produced and distributed based on need rather than on market forces such as profitability, price and consumers' purchasing power. In a socialist economy, workers contribute to society based on their ability and receive according to their needs, rather than being paid wages and using that money to purchase what they want. Private possessions are limited to personal-use items such as clothes, and there is no need or ability for individuals to accumulate wealth, so there is equality among the people.
In a completely socialist society, there would be no money. Things such as food, shelter, education and healthcare would be provided to everyone. There would be no poverty and no division of classes based on wealth.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 10-04-2016 at 05:55 AM..
Given that, who do they think would work for nothing? Serious question.
Well when it gets to that point, they no longer ask you to work, they make you work. If you think your boss is a dick now, wait til you see what he's like if you're required by law to work for him!
Let's see...100% tax, mandatory overtime, gulag if you complain!
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.
