Class War Illustrated

[AVG-JOE]

I don't know how it progresses up.

I'm not sure who pays 50%, but I have heard that in some states, the marginal rate is above 50%. If you include all taxes, not just income taxes, that pushes rates higher.

In some countries, some people pay more than half their incomes in taxes.

uhm yes like California.

my query as to how was really intended as a question as to your view of what would be a quick take on how as I and cuyo stipulated above as to tax burden by 'bracket'...

The thing is, by the time you add up local, state, and/or federal income taxes, sales taxes, license and permit fees, excise taxes, and all the other add ons built into various products and services, a great many of us are already paying close to 50% of our income in taxes.

But if we are making a good living, some seem to think we should be paying even more. But they won't ever say how much is enough for anybody to be able to earn and keep for himself or herself.

I say $3 million per year for Citizens and just 7% tax on income in excess of that.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government​

does that mean elections count?

Depends on the mood of the Supreme Court.

 

[editec]

The basic theory of CAPITALISM is this

Workers, who create the wealth, are paid less than the wealth that they created in order for the CAPTIAL CLASS to be able to amass that excess capital necessary for future growth.

Now that system works really well when the workers make enough to live, AND the capital that they have created which the capital class has amassed, is REinvested BACK INTO THE SOCIETY that created it.

Unfortunately, thanks to policies like FREE TRADE, and foolish government over-spending, that is not happening to the degree necessary for the working classes to enjoy the quality of life they deserve.

As Ayn Rand would have put it, ATLAS is SHRUGGING.

Of course, this is a highly simplified description of the macro-economic problem, but it is accurate enough to start out discussing the issue seriously, I think.

Unhappily serious discussions of this sort aren't likely as too many of us prefer to (or don't know who to do anything else but) attack those whose opinion differ, rather than addresss the issues at hand dispassionately and respectfully.

You know what this board needs?

Rooms where one can post by invitation only.

There are at least ten people here whose thoughts on these subjects are worthy of point and counterpoint discussions.

But having to post around the pointlessly insulting posts directed toward those who try to discuss things honestly pretty much insures that serious discussion of the issues is impossible.

Therefore I propose the following:

If some number (say 4?) people choose to create a BY INVITATION ONLY room, they ought to be able to do that.

Is that technically possible with this software package?

It would, I think, not only give those people a place to discuss issues, but also it might work to keep those of us who are posting on the public forums incentive to act more responsibly so that we are invited into rooms where serious discussions are happening.

 

[georgephillip]

I don't know if invitation only is compatible with USMB software or policy but it would enhance the learning process.

These times are starting to look very interesting to me.

History is being written from Cairo to Madison, and its first drafts are electronic. Getting ahead of this curve would be much easier if conflicting opinions could be honestly shared with insults marginalized and confined to the flame zone.

 

[georgephillip]

I don't know if invitation only is compatible with USMB software or policy but it would enhance the learning process.

These times are starting to look very interesting to me.

History is being written from Cairo to Madison, and its first drafts are electronic. Getting ahead of this curve would be much easier if conflicting opinions could be honestly shared with insults marginalized and confined to the flame zone.

 

[Vanquish]

Tax incentives for the rich don't work as well as you'd think. Especially in a down economy where people want to hold on to their money. Voodoo Economics - trickle down - it's a myth, buddy.

 

[Oddball]

There should be no taxes on incomes in any case....This is the cornerstone of class warfare.

Yep. originally? Commerce was taxed, and indirectly.

Sales tax is the way to go... as long as it's tempered with an income tax starting on an amount few of us will see, like $3 million per year.

Buy a 75 foot Yacht - pay Big-boat tax, buy a 15 foot bass troller, pay less.

Sales taxes are the most regressive of all.

Besides that, taxes are meant to pay for legitimate functions (i.e. national defense) not levied just because you think someone can better afford to pay.

 

[Foxfyre]

uhm yes like California.

my query as to how was really intended as a question as to your view of what would be a quick take on how as I and cuyo stipulated above as to tax burden by 'bracket'...

The thing is, by the time you add up local, state, and/or federal income taxes, sales taxes, license and permit fees, excise taxes, and all the other add ons built into various products and services, a great many of us are already paying close to 50% of our income in taxes.

But if we are making a good living, some seem to think we should be paying even more. But they won't ever say how much is enough for anybody to be able to earn and keep for himself or herself.

I say $3 million per year for Citizens and just 7% tax on income in excess of that.

Interesting. So how did you arrive at the $3 million? Or are you being tongue in cheek here?

 

[Foxfyre]

Yep. originally? Commerce was taxed, and indirectly.

Sales tax is the way to go... as long as it's tempered with an income tax starting on an amount few of us will see, like $3 million per year.

Buy a 75 foot Yacht - pay Big-boat tax, buy a 15 foot bass troller, pay less.

Sales taxes are the most regressive of all.

Besides that, taxes are meant to pay for legitimate functions (i.e. national defense) not levied just because you think someone can better afford to pay.

Yes, I agree that they are which, after giving it a lot of thought, still brings me back to a true flat income tax as the least punative, and most fair means of funding the necessary functions of government at the federal level. With a reasonable blanket exemption, the poorest of the poor and the kid running a paper route would not be impacted.

 

[AVG-JOE]

No one should have to pay more than half their income in taxes under any circumstances perhaps with the exception of times of war.

There should be no taxes on incomes in any case....This is the cornerstone of class warfare.

The religion du jour for 'conservatives' is to be against any taxes - Maybe not up front but individually poll any sort of tax, and you'll say it's too high and certainly shouldn't be increased.

In the beginning a large percentage of government revenue was in tariffs. I'd be OK with looking at a plan that would reduce income taxes and revert back to tariffs - In fact I'd probably prefer it. But we can't have that - That's an impediment to FREE TRADE. You can sell anything as long as you throw that word "FREE" in there...

The US Federal government is the most powerful entity on the face of the earth, and it's massively expensive to maintain. Whatever form of commerce or service industry you count on for income, counts on infrastructure maintained by the government. So please, how exactly do you intend to maintain it?

7 + 7 on 3

 

[AVG-JOE]

The current tax rates are clearly not high enough, evidenced by the record deficits we're encountering.

You're only looking at half the equation. What about spending?

How do you propose we handle this issue? 84% +/- of the budget are Social Security, Medicare, and military

Then let us look at how we might trim them and make them more efficient and effective

Also, repeal NAFTA

I'm OK with spending cuts over a broad array of programs - Particularly military. But cuts alone CANNOT balance the budget, period... Nor can we 'Grow our way out of it,' popular soundbytes notwithstanding.

 

[AVG-JOE]

But cuts alone CANNOT balance the budget, period...

If you don't spend money... You don't seem to grasp the basics of what a budget is

If we quit spending money on everything but the salary of one guy to write regular monthly checks out to The Peoples of China, India and Saudi Arabia - we'd still need to raise taxes or file for bankruptcy protection.

 

[AVG-JOE]

There should be no taxes on incomes in any case....This is the cornerstone of class warfare.

I'd be ok with taxing wealth instead.

Wealth taxes are the worst taxes because they destroy the capital stock. Its better to tax income.

It's best to tax consumption. Income tax also taps capital - and taxing income changes investment decisions...

Say it with me now: SALES TAX

7 + 7 on 3

 

[Cecilie1200]

So your basic thesis is that the earnings of any person are not theirs, but actually belong to the state and therefore anything not collected by the state is a loss by the state?

How much money is earned by those that are not on your target list that they do not send to the government? Is this money counted as a loss from the government coffers also?

At what point does any person exceed the amount of money that you deem it acceptable for a person to earn? Is any money kept by an individual acceptable? Why not just take it all and give back what ever seems like the right amount according to the intelligencia?

Should any private property be allowed to be held by individuals?

I have another question. How much do any of the programs on the left-hand side (very appropriate placing, by the way) increase the revenue stream for the government? Because history and economics have shown that the items on the right-hand side DO increase the overall tax revenues.

Of course, leftists have never been able to grasp that economics is not a zero-sum game, have they?

 

[AVG-JOE]

I'd be ok with taxing wealth instead.

Wealth taxes are the worst taxes because they destroy the capital stock. Its better to tax income.

WRONG. it is better to TAX commerce...as the Founders intended.

If me and The T agree, a sales tax is the way to be!

 

[Trajan]

What makes him responsible?

The moral obligation to help others regardless of their bad choices.

Yeah we know, the so-called safety net. Problem is? too many start using the safety net as a hammock.

Uhmm Chris? It's called responsibility for yourself. Folks as you cry freedom and liberty, but in the same breath you feel that you don't have to be responsible for it, but others should be.

Horseshit.

I paid $22,000 in federal taxes just last week.

Half of all Americans including some very wealthy people paid none.

So you have no idea about how I handle responsibility.

 

[AVG-JOE]

If you don't spend money... You don't seem to grasp the basics of what a budget is

Of course you can balance the budget on spending cuts alone. You can also balance the budget with tax increases alone. The only people who say otherwise are strident ideologues with deeply held beliefs not rooted in empiricism.

I should have thrown the word "Feasibly" in. Yes, technically if you eliminate SS and Medicare outlays, but keep the corresponding tax, you could balance the budget. The deficit for FY2010 was $1.42 trillion. Total discretionary spending (which of course includes DoD and all related programs) was $1.36 trillion.

You're going to tell me that saying we can't cut our way out of this makes me a strident ideologue? C'mon man.

The day they tell me my SS Retirement has gone the way of the Dodo Bird is the day they can try to pry my 15% SS tax out of my cold dead fingers.

Howzat for mixing metaphors?

 

[Chris]

So your basic thesis is that the earnings of any person are not theirs, but actually belong to the state and therefore anything not collected by the state is a loss by the state?

How much money is earned by those that are not on your target list that they do not send to the government? Is this money counted as a loss from the government coffers also?

At what point does any person exceed the amount of money that you deem it acceptable for a person to earn? Is any money kept by an individual acceptable? Why not just take it all and give back what ever seems like the right amount according to the intelligencia?

Should any private property be allowed to be held by individuals?

I have another question. How much do any of the programs on the left-hand side (very appropriate placing, by the way) increase the revenue stream for the government? Because history and economics have shown that the items on the right-hand side DO increase the overall tax revenues.

Of course, leftists have never been able to grasp that economics is not a zero-sum game, have they?

And you have never grasped the concept that societies move forward BY INVESTING IN PEOPLE.

 

[AVG-JOE]

As one who understands economics, I am a staunch advocate for incentive to investment. Tax incentives for the wealthy are one of the smartest things any economy can ever do.

"The Republican proposal, HR1, actually proposes cuts in the Head Start program that would mean:

* 218,000 children from low income families will lose Head Start/Early Head Start services;
* 16,000 Head Start/Early Head Start classrooms will close;
* 55,000 Head Start/Early Head Start teachers and staff will lose their jobs;
* 150,000 low-income families and their children will lose assistance in paying for child care.

They say they need to make these cuts because we must "tighten our belts" to cut spending because "America is broke."

But at the very same time they voted to cut Head Start, the Republicans voted to continue $4 billion worth of subsidies to Big Oil."

Earth to Boner...Come In!​

​

you lost the purse strings in November s0n.........wont have 'em back for ten years too!!!

Just 'cause the Dems lost in the last election does NOT mean the Repubs have a plan - just means the voters have a piss-fucking poor choice.

Throw them all out.

 

[Toro]

I'd be ok with taxing wealth instead.

Wealth taxes are the worst taxes because they destroy the capital stock. Its better to tax income.

It's best to tax consumption. Income tax also taps capital - and taxing income changes investment decisions...

Say it with me now: SALES TAX

7 + 7 on 3

Consumption taxes are the most efficient but they are regressive because people with lower incomes spend relatively more of their income than wealthier people, effectively paying a higher rate of tax.