Originally posted by moon1969Its not going to happen but I definitely agree. Everyone should pay say the amount for things and everyone should get the same number of votes. If you pay very little in taxes you will want to government to continually expand because you can get benefits and have others pay. Similarly if you pay a lot in taxes you would rather keep the money and get your benefits privately.
But it would be more fair, right? Why is the same "rate" more fair than the same "amount"?
For a flat tax rate, some people pay more than others = unfair. The only income tax that can be fair is the same amount.
Originally posted by quackquackSorry, but the second sentence does not follow from the first.
I have not heard you offer to pay more than is legally required. It just seems you want others to support you.
You are correct that I have not offered to pay more than is legally required.
But I do want what is legally required to be changed, as well as better enforcement of the legal requirements.
Originally posted by quackquackActually, I would rather have the government raise my taxes and find some useful purpose for the money (e.g. scientific research). I have enough stuff.
Its not going to happen but I definitely agree. Everyone should pay say the amount for things and everyone should get the same number of votes. If you pay very little in taxes you will want to government to continually expand because you can get benefits and have others pay. Similarly if you pay a lot in taxes you would rather keep the money and get your benefits privately.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI conceded that avoidance is natural, but some systems don't leave as much wiggle room, and if the system is fair, there isn't the incentive there is in a system perceived to be unfair.
You are the one pretending that your particular favourite tax code will somehow make everyone happy to pay their tax. People will try to avoid tax however little it is, and generally the rich feel more entitled to avoid tax than the poor do. Its an aspect of human psychology that the rich and successful think they deserve it.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou label this guy as a douchebag not even knowing him. He actually works a lot less at networking, and does some farming, and hunting. He's chosen a lifestyle where he isn't coerced to support the lifestyles of others.
Your story of the petty douchebag seems to me like an argument to have an effective and efficient IRS to make those people pay their taxes.
People who are supported by government are not all poor welfare folks. In some countries, teachers, medical personel, and all other subsidized activities are supported by the taxes of persons who may not wish to support the activities funded by the taxes. Pacifists for example forced to support a military, and imperialistic activities.
The IRS already has immense powers, and has been abused by the current President, and many in the past. How much more powerful ought it be? Perhaps a tax that requires minimal enforcement, because most people perceive it to be fair and equal toward all.
Originally posted by moon1969Hey increase everyone's taxes! Make everyone pay into the government
Hopefully, now with America having increased political capital against the Tea Party, in the next few months Boehner will let a budget go to the House Floor that has increased income tax rates on high income.
Also votes on (1) immigration reform and (2) universal background checks on gun purchases. Let's cross our fingers.
so many are getting freebies out of. That way the freebies will not be
freebies any more, but part of something they themselves put into.
Kelly
- Joined
- 15 Aug 12
- Moves
- 11620
Originally posted by TeinosukePerhaps the state should give up these increased financial obligations? The government isn't responsible for everything, it can't be. If it were, total totalitarian regimes would be the answer. I suppose there are some who would like that.
Fine, although the real situation, given that the state's financial obligations continue to increase, is more like the price of the meal has been increased from 100 dollars to 120 dollars and Number 10 is refusing to pay more than the 59 dollars he used to pay. The others don't have the money to make up the shortfall, so they can't pay the bill. Number 10 ...[text shortened]... ut of the restaurant in a self-righteous huff, and a little later, the restaurant goes bankrupt.
How about the State builds an environment that panders to success rather than failure by not awarding failure and rewarding the so called entitled with entitlements?
Teach a man how to fish; don't just give him fish.
- Joined
- 15 Aug 12
- Moves
- 11620
Originally posted by twhiteheadSure the analogy breaks down (all do). But if he pays more than others according to your suggestion he should receive definite preference from those services he's paying more for through taxation then.
Yes, tax avoidance is a big problem. But when the richest guy doesn't want to pay his fair share, we shouldn't cave in and start being nice to him, we should make him pay.
In your analogy your richest guy, by not coming, no longer benefits and is no longer responsible, but when the richest person doesn't pay tax, he still uses government facilities and services and is still responsible.
That will never happen. The wealthy are over taxed because we no longer have a sense of individual work, individual responsibility, or property rights.
So question, what is the richest guy's 'fair share' as you say? Is it 59% of the bill just because he can pay it when he only ate 10% of the food presumably?
btw, per the analogy that I quoted, the richest man took his business elsewhere, meaning a different country.
I know many who are or will (including myself) who will leave the U.S. because of the political climate and how it punishes success. You have to award success if you want the successful to stay folks.
Originally posted by King TigerWell, then, let the state pursue policies conducive to full employment - which most countries gave up trying to do a little more than thirty years ago - and then there will be rather less need for "entitlements".
How about the State builds an environment that panders to success rather than failure by not awarding failure and rewarding the so called entitled with entitlements?
Teach a man how to fish; don't just give him fish.
Originally posted by King TigerIf you leave the US, where will you go? Which country do you think rewards success more than the US?
I know many who are or will (including myself) who will leave the U.S. because of the political climate and how it punishes success. You have to award success if you want the successful to stay folks.
2 edits
TEA PARTY FAIL WITH ACA
While the contractor screwed up big time with the website, that has nothing to do with the ACA product. Many have signed up through the federal exchange. Also, do not forget the hundreds of thousands including many children who have signed up through state exchanges and via the ACA Medicaid expansions implemented by many states.
It's happening. No turning back on the ACA now. I love it.
--There are already hundreds of thousands of children getting healthcare treatment with the ACA Medicaid expansion implemented in many states.
--There are already hundreds of thousands of Americans signed up through the state exchanges, and soon to be millions signed up through the federal exchange.
--The website will be working, and Americans without medical insurance will sign up or they will pay tax penalty. Simple as that.
--The right-wing focus on the impact of an initial couple of weeks as incredibly significant is funny when considering the ACA healthcare reform will be with us for generations.
Also I read a right-winger pointing to an ACA worker -- one person with a criminal past and active warrant -- in relation to a massive healthcare reform in US history.
Like pointing to a social security worker during the initial implementation of social security back in the 1930s, as if that is somehow significant.
Originally posted by King TigerDon't let the door hit you on the way out!
Sure the analogy breaks down (all do). But if he pays more than others according to your suggestion he should receive definite preference from those services he's paying more for through taxation then.
That will never happen. The wealthy are over taxed because we no longer have a sense of individual work, individual responsibility, or property rights. ...[text shortened]... and how it punishes success. You have to award success if you want the successful to stay folks.
Make sure you sell all your property in the US too.
Go away. Completely. Please.
Originally posted by normbenignWell, he's petty because he can easily afford paying taxes, and a douchebag because every dollar that he does not pay has to be paid by someone else, who might not as easily be able to afford it.
You label this guy as a douchebag not even knowing him. He actually works a lot less at networking, and does some farming, and hunting. He's chosen a lifestyle where he isn't coerced to support the lifestyles of others.
People who are supported by government are not all poor welfare folks. In some countries, teachers, medical personel, and all other ...[text shortened]... t requires minimal enforcement, because most people perceive it to be fair and equal toward all.