marks2065 0 #201 September 28, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo basically, you feel that people should be taxed every year on their assets, not their income. I.e fill out a balance sheet every year, multiply by x and send the check to the fed. It's not about balancing the budget, it's all about wealth redistribution. The modern day Robin Hood. No, it's about paying a reasonable contribution towards the cost of running the country based on what the country has given them. Oh, ok...so kinda like Indian giving? The dormouse has woken up. Why are you so upset that someone has more than you? The green monster has consumed the left. Why do you think I'm not in the top 1%? Why? because you failed. just like the other 99%. You failed to do what the 1% did to achieve the level of sucsess they have. Just because you and I have failed to achieve what the 1% did does not give us the right to take it from them. Taking it from you, me or the 1% is the same. Taking is wrong and the last I heard is that taking is theft and that is a crime. Try again - what makes you believe that I am not a member of the 1%? I don't care if you are or are not in the 1%, even if you are there I would not raise your burden on the federal spending just because you are in the 1%. What the left can not seem to understand is that I am not jealous of, or sorry for you status in the financial community. All I would hope is that when I see you you say hi to me and lets go enjoy a skydive or a beer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #202 September 28, 2011 QuoteNo, it's about paying a reasonable contribution towards the cost of running the country based on what the country has given them Ah, so something like: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #203 September 28, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo basically, you feel that people should be taxed every year on their assets, not their income. I.e fill out a balance sheet every year, multiply by x and send the check to the fed. It's not about balancing the budget, it's all about wealth redistribution. The modern day Robin Hood. No, it's about paying a reasonable contribution towards the cost of running the country based on what the country has given them. Oh, ok...so kinda like Indian giving? The dormouse has woken up. Why are you so upset that someone has more than you? The green monster has consumed the left. Why do you think I'm not in the top 1%? Why? because you failed. just like the other 99%. You failed to do what the 1% did to achieve the level of sucsess they have. Just because you and I have failed to achieve what the 1% did does not give us the right to take it from them. Taking it from you, me or the 1% is the same. Taking is wrong and the last I heard is that taking is theft and that is a crime. Try again - what makes you believe that I am not a member of the 1%? I don't care if you are or are not in the 1%, even if you are there I would not raise your burden on the federal spending just because you are in the 1%. What the left can not seem to understand is that I am not jealous of, or sorry for you status in the financial community. All I would hope is that when I see you you say hi to me and lets go enjoy a skydive or a beer. Trouble is that you make assumptions about my financial status because you assume I'm motivated by jealousy. You don't need to be a billionaire to be in the top 1% of wealth owners in the USA.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #204 September 28, 2011 QuoteQuoteNo, it's about paying a reasonable contribution towards the cost of running the country based on what the country has given them Ah, so something like: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need? No. Still having that comprehension problem? Why don't you carefully explain to us why you think taxing INCOME is more reasonable than taxing WEALTH. Be sure to explain why a billionaire who lost $60k last year should pay less than someone of modest means who made $60k last year.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #205 September 28, 2011 QuoteTry again - what makes you believe that I am not a member of the 1%? 2403 square foot, 2.5 bathroom, single family home sold in Dec 2010 for 221k... Of course you could have moved into a mansion.... And your toy car and 3910N.... You might be what many would call "rich" even if not in the top 1% Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #206 September 28, 2011 QuoteNo. Still having that comprehension problem? Dude, maybe you should read your own words before you post. you said, "No, it's about paying a reasonable contribution towards the cost of running the country based on what the country has given them" How is that NOT "From each according to his ability" Your are so blinded by something that you just refuse to see what you yourself type. QuoteWhy don't you carefully explain to us why you think taxing INCOME is more reasonable than taxing WEALTH It is really up to YOU to prove that taxing wealth is better than income since that is a position YOU hold. I never said taxing income was the best way. BTW, you going to write a check to uncle sam for your Mooney and MG? After all they are assets and contribute to your WEALTH. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #207 September 28, 2011 QuoteQuote I don't care if you are or are not in the 1%, even if you are there I would not raise your burden on the federal spending just because you are in the 1%. What the left can not seem to understand is that I am not jealous of, or sorry for you status in the financial community. All I would hope is that when I see you you say hi to me and lets go enjoy a skydive or a beer. Trouble is that you make assumptions about my financial status because you assume I'm motivated by jealousy. You don't need to be a billionaire to be in the top 1% of wealth owners in the USA. I made no such assumptions, and I don't care if you are or are not. I am just saying you don't deserve to pay higher or lower tax percentage no matter what level of the scale you are on. I personally feel that a percentage should be set and all people should pay that percentage. If you make $10 or $10 billion you should pay that percentage. What the left doesn't understand is that jealousy is a bad emotion and that is what is tearing this country apart. Instead of trying to take from those that have, people people should be trying to acheive a better life by working harder and smarter. By setting goals for themselves and working towards those goals. sitting around trying to figure out how to take it from someone else is what this country is obsessed with. While people are spending energy trying to take from others they are not contributing to the future of the country, they are sucking the life out of it by draing the recources with not putting anything back into it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #208 September 28, 2011 QuoteQuoteNo. Still having that comprehension problem? Dude, maybe you should read your own words before you post. you said, "No, it's about paying a reasonable contribution towards the cost of running the country based on what the country has given them" How is that NOT "From each according to his ability" Your are so blinded by something that you just refuse to see what you yourself type. QuoteWhy don't you carefully explain to us why you think taxing INCOME is more reasonable than taxing WEALTH It is really up to YOU to prove that taxing wealth is better than income since that is a position YOU hold. I never said taxing income was the best way. . OK, so you have no argument.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #209 September 28, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote I don't care if you are or are not in the 1%, even if you are there I would not raise your burden on the federal spending just because you are in the 1%. What the left can not seem to understand is that I am not jealous of, or sorry for you status in the financial community. All I would hope is that when I see you you say hi to me and lets go enjoy a skydive or a beer. Trouble is that you make assumptions about my financial status because you assume I'm motivated by jealousy. You don't need to be a billionaire to be in the top 1% of wealth owners in the USA. I made no such assumptions, Oh yes you did. I suppose you think Warren Buffett is also motivated by jealousy since he wants the rich to pay more too. And you wrote of taxes: "Taking is wrong and the last I heard is that taking is theft and that is a crime." How exactly do you think we should pay for raods, schools, police, and the military? The right should stop projecting its selfish motivations on the rest of us.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #210 September 28, 2011 I am just responding to the last post of this thread, my comments are not directed at one specific person. Taxing Wealth is beyond comprehension and just reeks of the "Wealth Transfer". In many cases when you are taxing wealth you are punishing people who have good saving and good investment habits. Let's look at two examples: 1) John Q Public has been brought up thinking "Live for Today" and Mr Public has lived a very exciting vibrant life. He has a good income and wastes no time spending his income on fine clothing, fast cars, even faster women and is mortgaged to the hilt try to keep up to the Jones next door. John Q Public is really only living a few paychecks away from financial ruin should his source of income dry up. Sound familiar? There are millions and millions of Mr Publics out there who have little to no wealth despite the lavish lifestyles they have lived. Well at least when he dies, Mr Public will know that "He Partied like a Rock Star". 2) I would like to introduce you to John Doe. John Doe makes the exact same income as John Q Public, but Mr Doe was brought up differently. Mr Doe was brought up to not buy things on credit whenever possible, Mr Doe was brought up to live within his means and keep his debt at a minimum and if at all possible have no debt at all. Mr Doe was brought up to save for a rainy day. Yes Mr Public may have lived a more exciting more vibrant life than Mr Doe, but upon reaching middle age while John Q Public has little to no equity to his name, John Doe might actually have a small fortune due to his sound fiscal discipline. Both men earned the same income, but under the "Tax the Wealth" plan, Mr Public has nothing to tax while Mr Doe has assets in the millions that can be taxed. But how is he supposed to pay his taxes? By selling off his assets? And who will be around to buy these assets? The longer the plan is in effect the less wealth there will be. The less buyers out there to purchase these assets means the more the assets depreciate and the more Mr Doe is punished for having good sound fiscal discipline. It is simply mind boggling where the Left wants to take things with their "Wealth Transfer" ideology. The existing income tax laws can be improved by reducing some of the loop holes. Some deductions make sense to promote economic activity while others are simply a case of satisfying the pigs at the troughs. Consumption taxes (while never popular) are also another viable option as at least it gives people the choice when and where they decide to consumer products and services and whether paying the taxes is something they can afford. But taxing people based on their assets is wrong wrong wrong. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #211 September 28, 2011 Quote You don't need to be a billionaire to be in the top 1% of wealth owners in the USA. 99% of what John says is to just yank people chains. He's great at it....but.... The above IS the issue. The far LEFT talks like the only people that are going to get hammered are the Warren Buffets. THEY WON'T it will be the million a year and down to start with. THATS not Buffett but a lot of people that have work hard to build up business..... THESE people don't trust the gov to NOT blow the money. FIRST cut spending then raise taxs. Tie the tax raise to the cut in spending. Spending goes UP taxes raise get's cut down.Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #212 September 28, 2011 QuoteTaxing Wealth is beyond comprehension and just reeks of the "Wealth Transfer". Property taxes are pretty common and are a Wealth Tax. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #213 September 28, 2011 QuoteOK, so you have no argument. Yes, I am just waiting for you to back up your claims. YOU said, "No, it's about paying a reasonable contribution towards the cost of running the country based on what the country has given them" How is that NOT "From each according to his ability"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #214 September 28, 2011 QuoteYOU said, "No, it's about paying a reasonable contribution towards the cost of running the country based on what the country has given them" How is that NOT "From each according to his ability"? Simple, it isn't. It just isn't. Though, if it is in your mind, go fill your boots. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #215 September 28, 2011 QuoteProperty taxes are pretty common and are a Wealth Tax. At least in any jurisdiction I have ever lived in, property taxes are applied at the municipal level to pay for services at the civic level. They are not paid to national governments. So what are we to do now, have the "Wealth Tax" applied at two levels, maybe all three levels of government? How far do people want to go with the "Transfer of Wealth" agenda. Everywhere I look all I see is poorly run tax and spend governments at all levels. Nationally, State/Provincial and local municipal governments. Dude I do not know if you actually live in TO or some surrounding city but I was reading yesterday how Toronto's city council could only come to an agreement on cutting about $30 million from it's deficit (what was it $500 million or is it $800 million ... you can just not get a clear answer from anyone). So Toronto has decided, no we refuse to make any meaningful cuts to our bloated municipal government because god forbid all those "for lifers" they have on the municipal payroll would not get the entitlements they feel they are entitled to. Screw the tax payer, time to raise taxes again. Oh and not to pick on Toronto, Calgary where I live is equally being run by idiots. We just cleaned house with a election last year and the new blood is acting just as bad as the old blood we just turfed through our so called democratic process. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #216 September 28, 2011 QuoteGreek lawmakers pass controversial property tax The Greek parliament has approved a controversial property tax that aims to plug a budget hole and help unlock bailout funds needed to prevent the country from defaulting. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8793416/Greek-lawmakers-pass-controversial-property-tax.htmlstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #217 September 28, 2011 QuoteQuoteProperty taxes are pretty common and are a Wealth Tax. At least in any jurisdiction I have ever lived in, property taxes are applied at the municipal level to pay for services at the civic level. So they don't count as taxes in your mind, or municipal government isn't government in your mind? You do realize the absurdity of your position, right?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #218 September 28, 2011 And your one warning. Cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #219 September 28, 2011 QuoteQuoteOK, so you have no argument. Yes, I am just waiting for you to back up your claims. YOU said, "No, it's about paying a reasonable contribution towards the cost of running the country based on what the country has given them" How is that NOT "From each according to his ability"? Same way income tax isn't. Arguing with you is like shooting fish in a barrel.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #220 September 28, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I don't care if you are or are not in the 1%, even if you are there I would not raise your burden on the federal spending just because you are in the 1%. What the left can not seem to understand is that I am not jealous of, or sorry for you status in the financial community. All I would hope is that when I see you you say hi to me and lets go enjoy a skydive or a beer. Trouble is that you make assumptions about my financial status because you assume I'm motivated by jealousy. You don't need to be a billionaire to be in the top 1% of wealth owners in the USA. I made no such assumptions, Oh yes you did. I suppose you think Warren Buffett is also motivated by jealousy since he wants the rich to pay more too. And you wrote of taxes: "Taking is wrong and the last I heard is that taking is theft and that is a crime." How exactly do you think we should pay for raods, schools, police, and the military? The right should stop projecting its selfish motivations on the rest of us. Warren Buffet is not paying the taxes he owes, he is in a court battle for taxes he hasn't paid over some of the last 10 years. why would he care if the taxes are raised? Selfish? the only selfish people I see are those that want to take what isn't theirs, as in the left. they want to keep what they earn and have a cut of what others earned, that is selfish and your education should allow you to understand that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #221 September 28, 2011 QuoteSimple, it isn't. It just isn't. Saying "it isn't" does not make it true. QuoteThough, if it is in your mind, go fill your boots. Don't blame me for your inability to understand two simple sentences. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #222 September 28, 2011 QuoteArguing with you is like shooting fish in a barrel. Well, at least you can identify my positions and I answer questions you ask.... You avoid and dodge and refuse to answer anything. I am still just waiting for you to back up your claims. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #223 September 28, 2011 QuoteSaying "it isn't" does not make it true. And for once the inverse is true as well. Saying it is, does not make it true either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #224 September 28, 2011 QuoteIt's not about balancing the budget, it's all about wealth redistribution. The modern day Robin Hood. Robin Hood took money from the government which was overtaxing the working people and tried to give it back. The government was an aristocracy that overtaxed - pretty much the ideal of the hard left. ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #225 September 28, 2011 Poor, terrified, little barrelfishes won't someone please think of the barrelfishes ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
