Tax The Rich Scam (health care system, Canada, money, medical)
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.
[They pay 40% of taxes and hold 60% of all wealth.
The rich hardly do anything first person. The organizations that protect their wealth are very active in policy influencing. Near 99% of those organizations would rather immigration enforcement be subdued at the bare minimum.
For this reason, I see no other way to deal with this, other than increased taxation, or they back off, which they won’t.
There is no such thing as "60% of all the wealth".
Wealth is not a finite commodity so, therefore there can be no "percentage of wealth".
Think of it this way:
If I make $25/hr, that in no way prevents you from also making $25/hr.
The concept doesn't change just because the numbers get bigger.
Are you finally conceding the fact that any "direct tax" is required to be apportioned among the states?
.
From a theoretical perspective that is true. However, income taxes after the 16th Amendment are NOT direct taxes that are required to be apportioned. I was asking a theoretical question. Of course, the apportioned taxes are unfair to states having economic difficulties, since their residents may not be able to pay them. Much like Texas in the mid-80's where it was so bad I went back to school to get a degree during the period when getting a job was impossible. How does someone with no income pay their share of a theoretical apportioned tax?
If you don't like the tax loopholes that the rich use, talk to your Congressperson about changing them. Until then, they're following the law.
I don't like the loopholes either. The ones where people choose to barely work, shoot out kids they can't afford, then collect food stamps, Earned Income Tax Credit, Childcare Tax Credit and every government program going so they don't have to make the hard choices. And then complain about the rich people.
Every moment in life is about choices. Choose well, or wallow and complain. It's your choice.
So what should we do? Kill the rich? That wouldn't accomplish anything. The goal is to redistribute money so that EVERYBODY has some. Not just the rich who are hoarding all the world's wealth. Taking the money that they most likely stole anyway away from them is the best way of doing that. Of course, there's always the option to print more money, but instead of doing that obvious solution, we are always presented with excuses usually from the rich misers, of why that won't work.
Your type tends to forget that the wealthy create jobs. And those people pay taxes.
There is no such thing as "60% of all the wealth".
Wealth is not a finite commodity so, therefore there can be no "percentage of wealth".
Think of it this way:
If I make $25/hr, that in no way prevents you from also making $25/hr.
The concept doesn't change just because the numbers get bigger.
The economy can change of course, but wealth is indeed finite at any snapshot in time, and every part indeed affects every other part. Miniscule effects at smaller scales, larger effects when it comes to vast wealth. How can you say making more money doesn't affect anything when it causes gentrification of entire neighborhoods?
If you don't like the tax loopholes that the rich use, talk to your Congressperson about changing them. Until then, they're following the law.
I don't like the loopholes either. The ones where people choose to barely work, shoot out kids they can't afford, then collect food stamps, Earned Income Tax Credit, Childcare Tax Credit and every government program going so they don't have to make the hard choices. And then complain about the rich people.
Every moment in life is about choices. Choose well, or wallow and complain. It's your choice.
Unfortunately, with the current un-apportioned federal direct tax we don't get to choose how we support of our federal government when spending our money as our Founders intended.
Hamilton stresses in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption:
“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.
It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”
The very purpose of avoiding taxing consumption and subjugating the rule of apportionment as applied to direct taxation is to not allow taxpayers to choose the amount, they are able to contribute to support of our federal government. To the contrary, its subjugation is specifically intended to be able to dictate what each taxpayer shall pay, regardless of their economic circumstances.
.
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.
