Billionaires/Billions in Poverty

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

work to stop exploitation of third world countries by the West, etc

I bet if I looked at the clothes you have that you are in fact supporting the exploitation of third world countries.

I bet not.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

I said "Maybe" because what and how much I give is nobody's goddamned business but mine.

But it is your business how much others give? So I guess it is no ones business how much you give, UNLESS you are considered "rich" then it is everyone business.

That is correct - when applied to fair taxation. Private gifts are nobody's business. Taxes are different.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

That is correct - when applied to fair taxation. Private gifts are nobody's business. Taxes are different.

You like to play with other peoples money....Got it.

And only to the rules you consider to be "fair". I consider a flat rate fair no matter how much you make. You think if you make more you should pay more.

So I guess you think only your rules should count?

[Royd 0]

Quote

Damn libs always trying to feed the poor and help the sick. Bastards!!

Damn rich people always trying to hire someone to do some work so that they won't have to beg.

[billvon 3,009]

>I consider a flat rate fair no matter how much you make.

I think you are confusing flat rate and flat percentage. "Flat rate" means fixed amount - everyone in the country gets taxed approximately $30,000. You could justify this by saying that everyone should support the country equally. Results - something like a third of the country goes straight to prison for nonpayment of taxes. Taxes go up to support the new prisons to house 100 million people. More people go to prison. Taxes go up some more, since people in prison don't pay taxes. Result is all the richest people in the country pay all the taxes. Few people actually advocate this.

Flat _percentage_ means that rich people pay the same _percentage_ of their income as poor people, not the same amount. Or, to put it another way, rich people pay far more in dollar amounts than poor people. That's similar to what we have now, but the curve isn't a straight line. It's more curved, which puts less burden on the poor. Thus they tend to stay out of debtor's prison a little more often, and can contribute more overall.

Or you could do it more flat line or less flat line, but in every case the rich pay far more than the poor. And that's not as much of an argument. To paraphrase Winston Churchill - you agree we should tax the rich more, now we're just quibbling on details.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

>I consider a flat rate fair no matter how much you make.

I think you are confusing flat rate and flat percentage

Yes, I should have said flat *tax* rate. But I think we should remove almost all deductions (401k/IRA and health savings plans as examples of exceptions) and have a flat % of income.

This would still have the rich pay more in total dollars and would remove some of the fancy deductions from them that the lower incomes never take.

The IRS could also almost be abolished.

Also, no one anywhere could claim that a flat percentage would be unfair.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Also, no one anywhere could claim that a flat percentage would be unfair.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Quote

Also, no one anywhere could claim that a flat percentage would be unfair.

Succinct -- and smack on.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Also, no one anywhere could claim that a flat percentage would be unfair.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, yes they WOULD, but they are just looking to start shit....Kinda like you

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Also, no one anywhere could claim that a flat percentage would be unfair.

Succinct -- and smack on.

just to clarify, I'm noting people would complain no matter what

I personally think a flat percentage (with an up front personal deduction - which would make the percentage 'mildly' progressive) is "fair". Whatever 'fair' means.

so much for succinct

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

I personally think a flat percentage . . . is "fair".

Do you really think that?

How does that deal compensate for the "money begets money" realities of life? Some sort of curve seems more appropriate.

. . =(_8^(1)

[billvon 3,009]

>Also, no one anywhere could claim that a flat percentage would be unfair.

Of course they could. Ultraconservatives would claim that the very rich would pay almost all the tax and the poor use more public services - but they pay LESS! How unfair! Far left leaners would howl that you are taking money from someone who makes $4000 a year and has to support seven kids on her meager earnings, and that surely it is better to let her keep her money than tax her and then give her foodstamps and welfare.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Quote

Succinct -- and smack on.

just to clarify, blah blah blah

so much for succinct

Yeah

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Of course they could.

Well they could, but if you gave everyone 1,000 dollars some would find a reason to complain...."I got TAXED on that! He should have paid the taxes as well!"

Quote

Far left leaners would howl that you are taking money from someone who makes $4000 a year and has to support seven kids on her meager earnings, and that surely it is better to let her keep her money than tax her and then give her foodstamps and welfare.

And if that was the difference between food stamps and not being on food stamps I would agree 100%...But we both know that say 10% of 4G's would not make the difference.

And like I said before getting rid of deductions that only "rich" people take would mean they pay more than before. Also the cost savings in reducing the staff of the IRS would save money.

[rehmwa 2]

Do you really think that?

yes, it's still progressive, but balance at least on a proportion basis

How does that deal compensate for the "money begets money" realities of life?"money begets money" - yes it does, so what? If you do well, don't you want to benefit your kids as a result?

Some sort of curve seems more appropriate.It is progressive, you already have your curve. And, if you have a simple cost of living up front deduction, the net result is even a slight progressive "rate" - in other words, everybody gets the exact same deduction (not rate) for basic survival. All the rest is taxed at the same rate.

In this scenario, people with your perspective would then just argue over the amount of the deduction in order to vastly increase the number of people that get their entire income 100% deducted.

I'm also a big believer that everybody should pay "something" even as a gesture if they really believe they are part of this country.

1 - everybody pay some kind of gesture regardless of income (minor amount)

2 - personal deduction of X for every family member

3 - every cent left over is taxed at a single rate

everyone contributes something, cost of living is assured, 'discretionary income' is taxed in an equal way

Do the math with simple assumptions - say everybody pays $500 up front, then cost of living is $25,000 per person, then the tax is 25% of the leftover.

Run the numbers for someone making $10,000/$100,000/$1,000,000 per year and see what happens.

It doesn't really matter, what the envious REALLY want to do is to tax savings, not income. i.e., if you don't spend it all the first year, be prepared to be taxed AGAIN the second year.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

here's your answers

Do the math with simple assumptions (numbers are random):
$500 - everybody pays, and per person - you have 3 kids, you come up with the dough
$25,000 - deduction per income producing person - so if you have kids?, I don't know, maybe a smaller deduction for dependents, or everybody would have enough kids to avoid paying any tax....
25% tax rate (on the leftovers)

Run the numbers for someone single making $10,000/$100,000/$1,000,000 per year and see what happens.

Person at $10K: pays $500 (5%)
Person at $100K: pays $18,625 (19%)
Person at $1M: pays $249,875 (24.3% - nearly the full tax as their deduction is such a tiny portion)

How isn't that a progressive rate in practice?
It even encourages having or adopting kids - probably too much


the rich will want to make the percent low and the deduction low and not much care about the gesture tax - the poor will want to make the deduction HIGH, the rate HIGH, and fight tooth and nail to delete the 'ownership in the country' minimum

but it's clear to understand, and is fair enough - therefore it'll never happen

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Ether 0]

Here's an interesting metaphor for income taxes, and the seeming "unfairness" of taxes on the poor:

http://www.9types.com/chatboard/messages/20148.html

Looking for newbie rig, all components...

[DZJ 0]

Bit of a digression perhaps, but is it possible to live on $10,000 a year?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Here's an interesting metaphor for income taxes, and the seeming "unfairness" of taxes on the poor:

http://www.9types.com/.../messages/20148.html

Cute but it does not really apply since the rich cannot opt out of paying taxes.

It does show how the system is twisted to make anything done seem wrong.

Which is why I like the flat percentage. Plus the savings by reducing the IRS.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

Here's an interesting metaphor for income taxes, and the seeming "unfairness" of taxes on the poor:

http://www.9types.com/.../messages/20148.html

Cute but it does not really apply since the rich cannot opt out of paying taxes.

The rich have an easier time opting out of taxes than the rest of us, who'd have to move elsewhere and renounce our US citizenship since America is unique in taxing people based on that rather than residency as other countries do. 509 people did this in 2006, some for tax reasons (Bush 43 retroactively increased taxes on ex-patriate citizens). People from Switzerland to Germany for that reason, and they'd leave America for elsewhere if the situation got too out of hand.

With passive foreign income the wealthy can route those earnings to countries where they will be taxed more favorably, as the Rolling Stones have done with their royalty payments which are now taxed at 1.5% in the Neterlands instead of 40% in their British home.

While the US will tax you personally regardless of where the money comes from, as a multi-national holding corporation Rich Guy, Inc. will only be taxed when their foreign profits are repatriated. Just like the drug companies that have their foreign patent revenues delivered to someplace other than the USA.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

here's your answers

Thanks for taking the time. I will this give a read and reply tomorrow night when I am not dead tired. Loooong day here.

. . =(_8^(1)

[ACMESkydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There are now 946 billionaires in the world with a combined worth of over 3.5 Trillion US$.

At the same time, there are 2.7 Billion people living on less than $2 a day.

Draw your own conclusions.....

So what do you propose? Should there be a 'salary cap'? Should there be a law that anyone that makes more then a million dollars a year should then have all that money over a million distributed to everyone else?

How about univeral care and better social programs. Also, college tuition paid, as California used to do. Education and health care should be encouraged and provided.

-It should all be provided...paid for by the billionaires?

We need better research for Diabetes, Autism, Multiple Sclerosis, Muscular Dystrophy, Heart disease, Stroke, Emphesema, Lou Gherig's disease, Asthma, Lung Cancer, Breast cancer, Thyroid Disease, obesity, influenza, allergies, Celiac, animal cruelty, save the rainforest, save the ozone layer, save the whales, protect the spotted owl, free Turkbekishwanistan, sleep apnea, neural tube defects, birth defects, AIDS, ebola, small pox, mental retardation, equal rights for women, doctors that know what they're doing, government waste, more prisons, better facilities for the institutionalized patients, substance abuse help, grief counseling for children, nutrition programs, feed the starving kids in Mozastasia, treatments for the hard of hearing, modifications to workspace for the disabled, service dogs for the blind, shelters for the homeless, hurricane Katrina victims, earthquake victims around the world, plate techtonics research, tornado warnings, ocean floor exploration, preserve the national archives, West Nile Virus, Mad Cow Disease, Bird Flu, Hantavirus, Anthrax, protect the habitat of the rare yellow-bellied sap-sucker...

They should pay for all those, too. -But not you, is that correct? Not you...you haven't said where you will stand up to do anything but 'vote' for people that will take action...the action you won't take yourself. The money you won't pay yourself because you shouldn't have to; you haven't built a company or come into wealth. But if you DID, oh if you DID win MegaMillions, by God every dime would go back to the people! Power to education!

Correct? It's safe to say that others should pay but not yourself? If you drew a line...and had everyone above that income line pay into your marvelous program, it would be well above your own income, wouldn't it?
Ask the masses 'How much income is 'too much' income?' The answer will always be relative to what each..person...earns...

~Jaye
Do not believe that possibly you can escape the reward of your action.

[ACMESkydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I said "Maybe" because what and how much I give is nobody's goddamned business but mine.

But it is your business how much others give? So I guess it is no ones business how much you give, UNLESS you are considered "rich" then it is everyone business.

That is correct - when applied to fair taxation. Private gifts are nobody's business. Taxes are different.

Cool. So what's your tax bracket?

~Jaye
Do not believe that possibly you can escape the reward of your action.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I said "Maybe" because what and how much I give is nobody's goddamned business but mine.

But it is your business how much others give? So I guess it is no ones business how much you give, UNLESS you are considered "rich" then it is everyone business.

That is correct - when applied to fair taxation. Private gifts are nobody's business. Taxes are different.

Cool. So what's your tax bracket?

I'd tell you , but my wife is included, and she's more private than me.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[rehmwa 2]

I think a couple posters here are CIA agents playing a role trying to get recruited by dissentive militant types who look to recruit domestic discontents to conduct covert terrorism.

The recruiters see the extensive posts and the passion and the disgruntlement, they contact them via PMs for a meeting, then the poster uses that contact to find and arrest the leadership.

It's really quite brilliant and I, for one, am grateful for the devoted contributions to national safety.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants