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.
Taxes are theft under the color of law when, in my opinion, it comes to labor. Nothing else....
This is a tired argument, and one that long ago failed. Nonetheless, I shall repeat that labor is not taxed. Income derived from any and all sources is subject to being taxed. You can labor all day long for Habitat for Humanity, and as long as they don't pay you for it, you don't owe a single additional penny in tax. If you sit on your duff all day, but earn dividends or interest on some investment or other, that income is liable to taxation.
This is a tired argument, and one that long ago failed. Nonetheless, I shall repeat that labor is not taxed. Income derived from any and all sources is subject to being taxed. You can labor all day long for Habitat for Humanity, and as long as they don't pay you for it, you don't owe a single additional penny in tax. If you sit on your duff all day, but earn dividends or interest on some investment or other, that income is liable to taxation.
Posts like his are the reason there is so much opposition to Socialism in the US. I wouldn't mind a welfare state if it weren't for people using it to demand what theirs is theirs and mine is theirs too.
Income is income. If you have more today than you had yesterday, the difference is income, no matter how you got it. It is generally taxed, with a few exceptions.
Income is income. If you have more today than you had yesterday, the difference is income, no matter how you got it. It is generally taxed, with a few exceptions.
This is what you call a conjecture.
Geez....
Riddle me this : If "net" income on labor is taxed, why can't said person deduct every personal use to exist on earth when it comes to filing taxes?
The way it's now set up as though your person is a corporation/business without able to reap the benefits of being a corp./business.
Without workers working, who then is able to buy the goods that are not being made? I think Henry Ford had an epiphany of sorts when he realized that his workers were the very same people buying his products.
People don't realize that currency is a token of debt instead of a form of wealth.
People don't realize that currency is a token of debt instead of a form of wealth.
This is where the capitalistic system goes awry.
Having a good piece of land, some cows and chickens is wealth IMHO
But then again there is some debt there in the form of taxes so you can never really be completely free of debt. The best you can do is minimize the debt you carry.
Riddle me this : If "net" income on labor is taxed, why can't said person deduct every personal use to exist on earth when it comes to filing taxes?
The way it's now set up as though your person is a corporation/business without able to reap the benefits of being a corp./business.
You did not understand me. I did not justify the current system of distributing the tax liability. I justified the wealth-based collection of revenues to fund public works. I even went to the trouble of pointing out that spreading the tax burden is problematic, and I "conjectured" that the elected representatives of the people might be in the best position to enact tax law. (Rather than a handful of people who refuse to pay any at all.) Read my post again, and please address the points that I actually made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Grass Fever
People don't realize that currency is a token of debt instead of a form of wealth.
This is where the capitalistic system goes awry.
I can do you one better than that. If you will read the history of currency, you will see that the reason it was invented in the first place was so that there would be some form of portable wealth with which people could pay their taxes to the king, and the tax collectors wouldn't have to struggle with carrying all that grain and livestock back to the palace.
As an aside, nowadays, if people paid a percentage each year of their wealth, instead of income, most people would have no tax liability at all, since most people have a negative real wealth (assets/equity minus debts/liabilities). Which, if you think about it, makes Americans the poorest people in the world.
I know quite a few people (in professional fields) who have stopped looking for jobs 'until the economy improves.' They've had the experienced of looking for months and months, and not finding anything. However, because they're also married, they have another income to live off. So, while they're waiting for the economy to pick up, they're doing volunteer work on campaigns for local candidates or doing work under the table (bartending or general contracting). Some of them have been doing this for quite some time. I'm not sure if they would show up in the unemployment figures since some of them are not collecting unemployment.
I know quite a few people (in professional fields) who have stopped looking for jobs 'until the economy improves.' They've had the experienced of looking for months and months, and not finding anything. However, because they're also married, they have another income to live off. So, while they're waiting for the economy to pick up, they're doing volunteer work on campaigns for local candidates or doing work under the table (bartending or general contracting). Some of them have been doing this for quite some time. I'm not sure if they would show up in the unemployment figures since some of them are not collecting unemployment.
No they would not show up. The government doesn't count "discouraged" unemployeed workers.
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.