62% Federal Tax rate??!!

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

yes, because we all know that when we give rich folks more money they will share it with the middle class and the poor by creating more well paying jobs and increasing benefits...they are all really secret Santas!

Subtle, but important difference: it's not "giving the rich more money" - it's taking less from them.

They earned the money. Why should they part with more of it (as a percentage) than anyone else?

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Subtle, but important difference: it's not "giving the rich more money" - it's taking less from them.

They earned the money. Why should they part with more of it (as a percentage) than anyone else?

[clyde]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

^^^^ No. 50 on the 100 Richest People in the World list.



Small wonder.

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by clyde

^^^^ No. 50 on the 100 Richest People in the World list.



Small wonder.

You, sir, are now un-invited to the Belmont party with the Belmonts on my private yacht.

[clyde]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

You, sir, are now un-invited to the Belmont party with the Belmonts on my private yacht.

rolling and laughing!!











all the same:







( ( )

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by clyde

rolling and laughing!!











all the same:







( ( )

I have reconsidered my uninvite. You may still come if you provide the hershey bars.

[clyde]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

I have reconsidered my uninvite. You may still come if you provide the hershey bars.

!




I have a fine dupa..do I not??

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

I have reconsidered my uninvite. You may still come if you provide the hershey bars.

i prefer toblerones. or dove dark chocolate.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Subtle, but important difference: it's not "giving the rich more money" - it's taking less from them.

They earned the money. Why should they part with more of it (as a percentage) than anyone else?

As Mr Spock would say..."the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Especially in this case when the rich don't "need", they covet. In the end, one either favors possessions or people. Talk of what is "fair" to one group at the expense of another is inherently "unfair"...such is the world, not a black and white place but one filled with shades of grey.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

As Mr Spock would say..."the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Especially in this case when the rich don't "need", they covet. In the end, one either favors possessions or people. Talk of what is "fair" to one group at the expense of another is inherently "unfair"...such is the world, not a black and white place but one filled with shades of grey.

Any talk of "need" with regard to income and what can keep due to government confiscation is, often unintentionally, socialistic.

If I am to "earn" a large paycheck, and 62% of it is forcibly taken from me, why the hell would I work hard enough to do that again? I'd work enough to earn a figure in a lower bracket - which I can do, due to the ludicrous progressive tax system. So then it is not just I who lost the income, but also the government. This is one of the mechanisms by which higher tax rates often yield lower revenues.

Another mechanism is that I simply move my business out of the country and avoid this confiscatory tax.

You cannot define what is "fair", especially, as you point out, when the costs are assigned to one group and the benefits are assigned to another non-overlapping group. This is why we need a flat tax: everyone paying the same rate. Earn twice as much, pay twice as much. Earn half as much, pay half as much. Put in a poverty exclusion - like not taxing the first $50,000 or something. Because we can define what is proportional, and that often syncs up with what most people would agree is fair.

By the way, on a more frivolous note:

I am a huge Star Trek fan. When Spock said that statement it was in reference to whether he or Kirk should command the ship since Spock was acting captain, Kirk was an admiral and normally would not interfere, but of course, as always, a critical mission came up. I don't think it was a wholesale endorsement of redistributing wealth.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Any talk of "need" with regard to income and what can keep due to government confiscation is, often unintentionally, socialistic.

If I am to "earn" a large paycheck, and 62% of it is forcibly taken from me, why the hell would I work hard enough to do that again? I'd work enough to earn a figure in a lower bracket - which I can do, due to the ludicrous progressive tax system. So then it is not just I who lost the income, but also the government. This is one of the mechanisms by which higher tax rates often yield lower revenues.

Another mechanism is that I simply move my business out of the country and avoid this confiscatory tax.

You cannot define what is "fair", especially, as you point out, when the costs are assigned to one group and the benefits are assigned to another non-overlapping group. This is why we need a flat tax: everyone paying the same rate. Earn twice as much, pay twice as much. Earn half as much, pay half as much. Put in a poverty exclusion - like not taxing the first $50,000 or something. Because we can define what is proportional, and that often syncs up with what most people would agree is fair.

By the way, on a more frivolous note:

I am a huge Star Trek fan. When Spock said that statement it was in reference to whether he or Kirk should command the ship since Spock was acting captain, Kirk was an admiral and normally would not interfere, but of course, as always, a critical mission came up. I don't think it was a wholesale endorsement of redistributing wealth.

Actually, I thought Spock made that statement regarding his "suicide mission" exposing himself to fatal levels of radiation in the warp drive...perhaps I am mistaken but that's what I recall. Anyway, it obviously wasn't regarding distribution of wealth but applies to life in general. I also support a flat tax with a poverty exclusion so we have a point of agreement there. Socialism is a term that many run from, I have no trouble embracing many so-called Socialist concepts, the problem being avoiding a central government that denies freedoms to the people in the name of same.

[Antitrust32]

My friend had an idea. No federal income taxes but a flat Federal tax (say 6-7%) on all goods and services that you buy.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

My friend had an idea. No federal income taxes but a flat Federal tax (say 6-7%) on all goods and services that you buy.

that would be too fair. Heck I'd even go for a 10-15% tax.

Any new taxes right now would only amount to even more hyper-spending by the current administration.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

that would be too fair. Heck I'd even go for a 10-15% tax.

Any new taxes right now would only amount to even more hyper-spending by the current administration.

Unjustified accusation. Unproven. Illogical. Not evidenced by any fact.

But don't let that stop you from expressing your 'opinion' <g>

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

My friend had an idea. No federal income taxes but a flat Federal tax (say 6-7%) on all goods and services that you buy.

It would cost about 23-25% flat tax to replace our revenue from income taxes. That's why it's not been pursued.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

It would cost about 23-25% flat tax to replace our revenue from income taxes. That's why it's not been pursued.

think about how much more money would be pumping through the economy though! it would be like churn at a race track.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

It would cost about 23-25% flat tax to replace our revenue from income taxes. That's why it's not been pursued.

sounds good to me.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

My friend had an idea. No federal income taxes but a flat Federal tax (say 6-7%) on all goods and services that you buy.

That, I think, always sounds like a totally logical idea, until you get to thinking how much that disproportionately would affect the poor who would be taxed on everything they need to keep their lives going (which usually amounts to nearly all of their income) with the little money they already have, while the rich would be taxed on only a small percentage of their income in comparison.

Which makes it even more shocking that the GOP has not been trying to ram such a plan through Congress.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

That, I think, always sounds like a totally logical idea, until you get to thinking how much that disproportionately would affect the poor who would be taxed on everything they need to keep their lives going (which usually amounts to nearly all of their income) with the little money they already have, while the rich would be taxed on only a small percentage of their income in comparison.

Which makes it even more shocking that the GOP has not been trying to ram such a plan through Congress.

I would support a flat tax as long as it contained reasonable exceptions (ie: no tax on first $50,000 or so)...that would protect the poor and lower middle class.

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Any talk of "need" with regard to income and what can keep due to government confiscation is, often unintentionally, socialistic.

If I am to "earn" a large paycheck, and 62% of it is forcibly taken from me, why the hell would I work hard enough to do that again? I'd work enough to earn a figure in a lower bracket - which I can do, due to the ludicrous progressive tax system. So then it is not just I who lost the income, but also the government. This is one of the mechanisms by which higher tax rates often yield lower revenues.

Another mechanism is that I simply move my business out of the country and avoid this confiscatory tax.

You cannot define what is "fair", especially, as you point out, when the costs are assigned to one group and the benefits are assigned to another non-overlapping group. This is why we need a flat tax: everyone paying the same rate. Earn twice as much, pay twice as much. Earn half as much, pay half as much. Put in a poverty exclusion - like not taxing the first $50,000 or something. Because we can define what is proportional, and that often syncs up with what most people would agree is fair.

By the way, on a more frivolous note:

I am a huge Star Trek fan. When Spock said that statement it was in reference to whether he or Kirk should command the ship since Spock was acting captain, Kirk was an admiral and normally would not interfere, but of course, as always, a critical mission came up. I don't think it was a wholesale endorsement of redistributing wealth.

This is beyond ludicrous. You have no understanding of taxation. everyone is taxed at the same rate. The rich are taxed at the same rate up to a certain income that everyone else is. It is only after they go into another bracket that "that" income is taxed at the higher rate. It is this level of stupidity that harms AMerica. All of your income is not taxed at the next level no matter what your income is. If you make 9 gazillion dollars your first 50k is taxed at the lower level, then up to 250 k taxed at the next higher level, then after that taxed at the highest level, so anyone purposely not making money to stay in the lower bracket is an imbecile because they are already there at imcomes taxed at that amount. It's called a marginal tax rate.

Are you this stupid on purpose or do you work hard at it??