Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[thanatos144]

Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes. The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.

Let's go to a simple flat tax. That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.

I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race. A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people. For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off. Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit. Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.

What bullshit. If you can't afford a flat tax then you are robbing all of us what are paying taxes for your own greed

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Never said I couldn't afford it. What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take. Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.

A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation. It has it's positives and it has it's negatives. A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial. It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.

I personally think all right offs are theft from all of us.... I should not be paying your bills.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

LOL, you don't want my bills.

Yeah, people complain about write-offs all the time. But without them, think of what your groceries might cost, your gasoline, your mortgage payment or rent. How do cities and states attract businesses to their areas for their citizens to have jobs? That's right, they offer tax-free property or even subsidies.

"If you want more of something, subsidize it. If you want less of something, tax it."
Ronald Reagan

It would cost what the market can afford you idiot.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[danielpalos]

You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.

The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.

The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.

So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.

That matters how? Oh, I know, "it's your money". It remains a childish and inconsequential question.

In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).

You made a stupid claim. Why it matters to you, I don't give damn. It was wrong. Now you try to deflect by trying to be some self righteous ass.

We are forced, glad to show you that you were wrong. Take care nutter.

It's the socialist idiotology that drives them to post absurd declarations and that same idiotology keeps them from admitting just how absurd those declarations are.

The social Power to Tax is delegated by the People in Article 1, Section 8.

You need to read that again. Because it doesn't say what you think it does. It is the reason why you progressives had to amend the constitution

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I got it right the first time.

 

[SAYIT]

How would your receipts versus expenses change under a Flat Tax system?
You would still be able to account for costs versus revenues under a flat tax system. Unless you are using loop holes, which everyone does, to find ways of paying less tax.

How would this force you to raise rents?

Much of the rent collected goes towards bills. Yes, you write that money off because you used the rent money to pay those bills. A flat tax system (the way I've always understood it) would eliminate those write-offs. That means I would have to pay tax on all rental collections even though it merely passed through my hands to another entity. That could put me in a higher tax bracket as well when you add my income from work.

I don't see that as a problem under the Flat Tax. As you would still calculate the final profit the same way with net receipts and expenses anyway.

He is using tax write off to pay little to no taxes making all of us foot his bill.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

You don't know that. Believe it or not, businesses have costs of doing biz. For a grocer the profit margin is very slim. It seems Ray thinks he would loss his biz expense deductions but that obviously would not be the case. As Eagle noted, the flat tax would be applied to the net profit (revenue minus COGS) not gross revenue.

Well if it did, then it would be no different than it is now. I would still have to file with the IRS, still have to list all my deductions, still be paying the same amount of tax that I would have to pay with or without a flat tax.

After I list my deductions, that's where the profit is at if there is any at all. Then I do get taxed on that profit.

Yeah, we would still need a tax code and accountants for corporate returns but the vast majority of Americans would be able to do their taxes in 15 minutes or less and legions of accountants and tax attorneys and IRSers could be out of work.

 

[SAYIT]

Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes. The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.

Let's go to a simple flat tax. That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.

I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race. A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people. For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off. Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit. Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.

What bullshit. If you can't afford a flat tax then you are robbing all of us what are paying taxes for your own greed

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Never said I couldn't afford it. What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take. Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.

A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation. It has it's positives and it has it's negatives. A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial. It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.

I personally think all right offs are theft from all of us.... I should not be paying your bills.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Really? A grocer spends 95% of his revenue on restocking his shelves. Do you really think he should not be able to deduct his expenses and be forced to pay taxes on revenue? Frankly, I think both you and Ray are a bit confused on how this works and are talking past each other.
Oh, and BTW, Ray is not an idiot.

 

[thanatos144]

Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes. The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.

Let's go to a simple flat tax. That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.

I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race. A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people. For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off. Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit. Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.

What bullshit. If you can't afford a flat tax then you are robbing all of us what are paying taxes for your own greed

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Never said I couldn't afford it. What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take. Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.

A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation. It has it's positives and it has it's negatives. A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial. It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.

I personally think all right offs are theft from all of us.... I should not be paying your bills.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Really? A grocer spends 95% of his revenue on restocking his shelves. Do you really think he should not be able to deduct his expenses and be forced to pay taxes on revenue? Frankly, I think both you and Ray are a bit confused on how this works and are talking past each other.
Oh, and BTW, Ray is not an idiot.

No he shouldn't.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[SAYIT]

That matters how? Oh, I know, "it's your money". It remains a childish and inconsequential question.

In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).

You made a stupid claim. Why it matters to you, I don't give damn. It was wrong. Now you try to deflect by trying to be some self righteous ass.

We are forced, glad to show you that you were wrong. Take care nutter.

It's the socialist idiotology that drives them to post absurd declarations and that same idiotology keeps them from admitting just how absurd those declarations are.

The social Power to Tax is delegated by the People in Article 1, Section 8.

You need to read that again. Because it doesn't say what you think it does. It is the reason why you progressives had to amend the constitution

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I got it right the first time.

If you did it would prove only that even a blind squirrel finds the occasional berry but alas, you were wrong.

 

[kaz]

You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.

The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.

The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.

So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.

That matters how? Oh, I know, "it's your money". It remains a childish and inconsequential question.

In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).

So let me understand this from a liberal prospective:

If you feel you've given enough of your property that you worked for and made responsible decisions in order to have, and you try to hide some of your money, you should be executed, but if you are a welfare queen who games the system at every corner, doesn't work, and keeps irresponsibly having more children for the public to support, those are the people we should respect?

Did you ever consider that if every able bodied person who could work did, that maybe we wouldn't need all this tax money in the first place?

If every able bodied person worked then the rich would have to pay higher salaries to those workers, employees would have more choice and cause more problems.
The rich want the poor to be poor and to feel they don't have choices. So unemployment is necessary and they're prefer to pay taxes to keep them there than to have everyone working. However if they can get the unemployed and not pay the tax for them, even better.

Can you explain to me how one rich person would benefit by having people in poverty?

You have supply and demand backwards. The more the supply, the lower the cost. The less the supply, the higher the cost.

During a good economy is when wages increase--not a bad one. That's because good workers are more difficult to find and employers need to compete using higher salaries and benefits to attract them. It's during a bad economy when employers make out because they have a larger selection of potential employees to choose from.

Frigid prattles on his Marxist dogma while claiming not to be a Democrat, you won't get far

 

[danielpalos]

You made a stupid claim. Why it matters to you, I don't give damn. It was wrong. Now you try to deflect by trying to be some self righteous ass.

We are forced, glad to show you that you were wrong. Take care nutter.

It's the socialist idiotology that drives them to post absurd declarations and that same idiotology keeps them from admitting just how absurd those declarations are.

The social Power to Tax is delegated by the People in Article 1, Section 8.

You need to read that again. Because it doesn't say what you think it does. It is the reason why you progressives had to amend the constitution

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I got it right the first time.

If you did it would prove only that even a blind squirrel finds the occasional berry but alas, you were wrong.

Nope; I got it right the first time, simply because I did and say so.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes. The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.

Let's go to a simple flat tax. That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.

I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race. A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people. For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off. Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit. Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.

What bullshit. If you can't afford a flat tax then you are robbing all of us what are paying taxes for your own greed

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Never said I couldn't afford it. What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take. Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.

A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation. It has it's positives and it has it's negatives. A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial. It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.

I personally think all right offs are theft from all of us.... I should not be paying your bills.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Really? A grocer spends 95% of his revenue on restocking his shelves. Do you really think he should not be able to deduct his expenses and be forced to pay taxes on revenue? Frankly, I think both you and Ray are a bit confused on how this works and are talking past each other.
Oh, and BTW, Ray is not an idiot.

Thank you for your support.

I have it correct. People think that tax write-offs mean you deduct your entire expense from what you owe to taxes. That's not a tax write-off. A tax write off means if you spend $10,000 on your investment, you still spend that 10K, it's just that you don't pay any taxes on that 10K.

Some think that if I write-off 10K, that's 10K of taxes I cheated the government out of.

 

[SAYIT]

I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race. A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people. For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off. Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit. Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.

What bullshit. If you can't afford a flat tax then you are robbing all of us what are paying taxes for your own greed

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Never said I couldn't afford it. What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take. Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.

A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation. It has it's positives and it has it's negatives. A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial. It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.

I personally think all right offs are theft from all of us.... I should not be paying your bills.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Really? A grocer spends 95% of his revenue on restocking his shelves. Do you really think he should not be able to deduct his expenses and be forced to pay taxes on revenue? Frankly, I think both you and Ray are a bit confused on how this works and are talking past each other.
Oh, and BTW, Ray is not an idiot.

No he shouldn't.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

He shouldn't what, be allowed to deduct his COGS? Are you really suggesting that a biz with a 2% profit margin be made to pay a 20% flat tax, thus incurring an 18% loss on every sale? Really?

 

[kaz]

It's the socialist idiotology that drives them to post absurd declarations and that same idiotology keeps them from admitting just how absurd those declarations are.

The social Power to Tax is delegated by the People in Article 1, Section 8.

You need to read that again. Because it doesn't say what you think it does. It is the reason why you progressives had to amend the constitution

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I got it right the first time.

If you did it would prove only that even a blind squirrel finds the occasional berry but alas, you were wrong.

Nope; I got it right the first time, simply because I did and say so.

Pigeon

 

[SAYIT]

I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race. A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people. For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off. Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit. Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.

What bullshit. If you can't afford a flat tax then you are robbing all of us what are paying taxes for your own greed

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Never said I couldn't afford it. What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take. Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.

A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation. It has it's positives and it has it's negatives. A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial. It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.

I personally think all right offs are theft from all of us.... I should not be paying your bills.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Really? A grocer spends 95% of his revenue on restocking his shelves. Do you really think he should not be able to deduct his expenses and be forced to pay taxes on revenue? Frankly, I think both you and Ray are a bit confused on how this works and are talking past each other.
Oh, and BTW, Ray is not an idiot.

Thank you for your support.

I have it correct. People think that tax write-offs mean you deduct your entire expense from what you owe to taxes. That's not a tax write-off. A tax write off means if you spend $10,000 on your investment, you still spend that 10K, it's just that you don't pay any taxes on that 10K.

Some think that if I write-off 10K, that's 10K of taxes I cheated the government out of.

Yeah ... he's a bit of a hot head but not really a bad guy. I think he is a bit confused on this issue and maybe just has a bug up his butt today.

 

[danielpalos]

The social Power to Tax is delegated by the People in Article 1, Section 8.

You need to read that again. Because it doesn't say what you think it does. It is the reason why you progressives had to amend the constitution

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I got it right the first time.

If you did it would prove only that even a blind squirrel finds the occasional berry but alas, you were wrong.

Nope; I got it right the first time, simply because I did and say so.

Pigeon

Dove

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What bullshit. If you can't afford a flat tax then you are robbing all of us what are paying taxes for your own greed

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Never said I couldn't afford it. What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take. Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.

A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation. It has it's positives and it has it's negatives. A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial. It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.

I personally think all right offs are theft from all of us.... I should not be paying your bills.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Really? A grocer spends 95% of his revenue on restocking his shelves. Do you really think he should not be able to deduct his expenses and be forced to pay taxes on revenue? Frankly, I think both you and Ray are a bit confused on how this works and are talking past each other.
Oh, and BTW, Ray is not an idiot.

No he shouldn't.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

He shouldn't what, be allowed to deduct his COGS? Are you really suggesting that a biz with a 2% profit margin be made to pay a 20% flat tax, thus incurring an 18% loss on every sale? Really?

Which wouldn't happen. He would only increase the price of his goods to make up the loss.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What bullshit. If you can't afford a flat tax then you are robbing all of us what are paying taxes for your own greed

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Never said I couldn't afford it. What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take. Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.

A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation. It has it's positives and it has it's negatives. A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial. It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.

I personally think all right offs are theft from all of us.... I should not be paying your bills.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Really? A grocer spends 95% of his revenue on restocking his shelves. Do you really think he should not be able to deduct his expenses and be forced to pay taxes on revenue? Frankly, I think both you and Ray are a bit confused on how this works and are talking past each other.
Oh, and BTW, Ray is not an idiot.

Thank you for your support.

I have it correct. People think that tax write-offs mean you deduct your entire expense from what you owe to taxes. That's not a tax write-off. A tax write off means if you spend $10,000 on your investment, you still spend that 10K, it's just that you don't pay any taxes on that 10K.

Some think that if I write-off 10K, that's 10K of taxes I cheated the government out of.

Yeah ... he's a bit of a hot head but not really a bad guy. I think he is a bit confused on this issue and maybe just has a bug up his butt today.

Rough night. LOL!

 

[frigidweirdo]

You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.

The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.

The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.

So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.

That matters how? Oh, I know, "it's your money". It remains a childish and inconsequential question.

In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).

So let me understand this from a liberal prospective:

If you feel you've given enough of your property that you worked for and made responsible decisions in order to have, and you try to hide some of your money, you should be executed, but if you are a welfare queen who games the system at every corner, doesn't work, and keeps irresponsibly having more children for the public to support, those are the people we should respect?

Did you ever consider that if every able bodied person who could work did, that maybe we wouldn't need all this tax money in the first place?

If every able bodied person worked then the rich would have to pay higher salaries to those workers, employees would have more choice and cause more problems.
The rich want the poor to be poor and to feel they don't have choices. So unemployment is necessary and they're prefer to pay taxes to keep them there than to have everyone working. However if they can get the unemployed and not pay the tax for them, even better.

Can you explain to me how one rich person would benefit by having people in poverty?

You have supply and demand backwards. The more the supply, the lower the cost. The less the supply, the higher the cost.

During a good economy is when wages increase--not a bad one. That's because good workers are more difficult to find and employers need to compete using higher salaries and benefits to attract them. It's during a bad economy when employers make out because they have a larger selection of potential employees to choose from.

Supply and demand.

If you have a worker and they know that if they lose their job it'll be hard to get another one, they're going to be more willing to work hard and keep their job.
If you have a worker who knows that you can't afford to let them go, then they became more about their rights and taking more liberties.

Also, supply and demand. You need to hire someone, well, I'm going to demand a pay rise to move to your company from my job now.
I can't get a job, I'll take what you're willing to pay me.

So, more unemployment = better staff for lower wages. Less unemployment means higher wages for worse work.

For companies who employ people at the low end of the wage scale, this is certainly true. For a company like Walmart, McDonalds, KFC etc, their profits are going to be directly related to the amount of money they have to pay out.

Sure, there's the issue of people not being able to afford your goods. Depends what you're selling I guess. But then again poor people with no job are getting money. How many people on welfare go to Walmart, eat at McDonalds or KFC? Probably a lot. Poorer people eat worse, and buy worse stuff.

Ferrari, BMW etc who employ mostly higher wage labor with skills, and who sell to richer people are probably not going to be affected much by this anyway.

Mid range companies might see it swing around and take hits on both sides.

 

[frigidweirdo]

"If every able bodied person worked then the rich would have to pay higher salaries to those workers..."

Sure sounds like you are talking about rich employers but then I often get the impression you really don't know what you are saying.

Doesn't surprise me that someone like you wouldn't get what I'm saying.

 

[danielpalos]

i would like to take this time and opportunity to thank those of the opposing view for ceding the point and their argument me, simply because i say they are wrong.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Frigid prattles on his Marxist dogma while claiming not to be a Democrat, you won't get far

Wow, I'd have preferred you trying to insult me in a better manner than this. Just going for the "He's a marxist" is hardly unique from the right's perspective.

No, I'm not a Marxist at all.
Also, no, I'm not a Democrat either.

But when has this ever stopped you people from flinging the shit?

 

[kaz]

Frigid prattles on his Marxist dogma while claiming not to be a Democrat, you won't get far

Wow, I'd have preferred you trying to insult me in a better manner than this. Just going for the "He's a marxist" is hardly unique from the right's perspective.

No, I'm not a Marxist at all.
Also, no, I'm not a Democrat either.

But when has this ever stopped you people from flinging the shit?

Right, you're just a regular guy who goes on about the rich wanting the poor to be poor, Karl