Tax burden

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Yeah, it's fucked up... if you think our incomes should be taxed at all

He pays so little probably because he makes so much in the market itself, and you can swing 15% on CGT if you play it right. Now, if they INCREASE CGT, that hurts people like me and you, and we're most certainly not rich! By taxing that method more, it just causes more oppression for those trying to get ahead and the people who are already ahead don't really care. Not to mention the effects it has on the market itself (when you affect people's returns, the risk factor changes).

Yea but I had maybe 1000 dollars in capital gains this year. The difference to me is unimportant. Whether I pay 15 or 30% on 1000 bucks is a drop in the bucket compared to what I pay in income tax.
I don't know how they could fix the system. Maybe tax capital gains at 30% but only on gains over 100,000 or 500,000 or some number that works out. Then index it for inflation. I was just trying to illustrate the fact that these super rich people don't really pay what they should be paying which directly contradicts what the initial post was trying to assert.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I'd be willing to bet they'll find a loophole

Closing loopholes is a Democratic priority once they can pass even the simplest bill without a GOP filibuster

[Thorgrim]

hedge fund managers are outrageous, and you know arden, in your heart, what hasn't been stolen by the LP

[DosEquis]

The original argument in the thread is kind of horse shit.

Is it fair if everyone, rich and poor, pays the same percentage...such as 15% across the board for everyone? If thats the case you could still start a thread just like this showing how "bad" the rich people have it when it comes to taxes, and how they pay the majority of total taxes.

The only thing that I can think of, that would make it fair based on this thread, is that everyone paid a set amount and not a set percentage. Everyone has to pay $1500. That way everyone across the board had the exact same tax bill.

When you use words like "burden" it also creates extra debate. If you tax a guy 15% on his 30k, it is much more of a "burden" than 15% on a guy who makes 300k.

So how about you tell me what is fair and then we can use that as a platform for debate.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

The original argument in the thread is kind of horse shit.

Is it fair if everyone, rich and poor, pays the same percentage...such as 15% across the board for everyone? If thats the case you could still start a thread just like this showing how "bad" the rich people have it when it comes to taxes, and how they pay the majority of total taxes.

The only thing that I can think of, that would make it fair based on this thread, is that everyone paid a set amount and not a set percentage. Everyone has to pay $1500. That way everyone across the board had the exact same tax bill.

When you use words like "burden" it also creates extra debate. If you tax a guy 15% on his 30k, it is much more of a "burden" than 15% on a guy who makes 300k.

So how about you tell me what is fair and then we can use that as a platform for debate.

I think therein lies the problem. Fair is often a question of values and values aren't something you can argue someone out of. So my definition of 'fair' is based on my own set of morals and values, while someone else with a somewhat different set of values might come up with another definition of what "fair" is.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I think therein lies the problem. Fair is often a question of values and values aren't something you can argue someone out of. So my definition of 'fair' is based on my own set of morals and values, while someone else with a somewhat different set of values might come up with another definition of what "fair" is.

"Fair" has no role in the debate. The only consideration is what is going to keep this country running. Emotional appeals based on the oppression of the rich are just ridiculous talking points that detract from the actual issue.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

hedge fund managers are outrageous, and you know arden, in your heart, what hasn't been stolen by the LP

hedge funds are a failure. Tons of them had to file for bankruptcy not too long ago. High risk always comes back to hurt eventually.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by bheld

"Fair" has no role in the debate. The only consideration is what is going to keep this country running. Emotional appeals based on the oppression of the rich are just ridiculous talking points that detract from the actual issue.

I can agree with that. It's just that I think what will keep the government running is reduced SPENDING, not increased taxes (which is being touted by the democrats up for nomination).

I also agree that "burden" is a silly word since those in the upper 1% can still live minus the 30% the gov't takes. However, when I look at MY life, I feel a heavy tax burden and I am NOT rich by any stretch. I do better than the really poor, but that doesn't mean I don't feel that the gov't is hurting my ability to better myself.

So again, I reiterate, I want tax cuts for EVERYONE. For the poor, for the rich, but especially for those of us who are middle Americans who find it difficult to build wealth.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I can agree with that. It's just that I think what will keep the government running is reduced SPENDING, not increased taxes (which is being touted by the democrats up for nomination).

I also agree that "burden" is a silly word since those in the upper 1% can still live minus the 30% the gov't takes. However, when I look at MY life, I feel a heavy tax burden and I am NOT rich by any stretch. I do better than the really poor, but that doesn't mean I don't feel that the gov't is hurting my ability to better myself.

So again, I reiterate, I want tax cuts for EVERYONE. For the poor, for the rich, but especially for those of us who are middle Americans who find it difficult to build wealth.

Taxes aren't the issue, it's what is done with the tax dollars that is most important. Taxes right now aren't structured properly and our government is wasting money right and left. We all need to step back and look at the real issue at hand here. It isn't big government vs. small government like most would have you believe, it's good government vs. bad government. Right now we have very bad government. That doesn't imply government is bad, it means that we've all abdicated our duty as citizens and it's time to rectify that.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by bheld

Taxes aren't the issue, it's what is done with the tax dollars that is most important. Taxes right now aren't structured properly and our government is wasting money right and left. We all need to step back and look at the real issue at hand here. It isn't big government vs. small government like most would have you believe, it's good government vs. bad government. Right now we have very bad government. That doesn't imply government is bad, it means that we've all abdicated our duty as citizens and it's time to rectify that.

I use very similar logic to come to the conclusion that the only answer is to scale back government. It certainly isn't that government is inherently bad, but governments have a tendency to want more and more power as can be exhibited by every country in the world's history (and we are certainly no exception to that). The only reasonable way to combat that is for the citizens to keep the government small. We have failed at that, so the end result will be either what has happened thousands of times in the past and is happening even today all over the world: the government takes over too much, the people get pissed and revolt; or the other choice is we make the changes now while we still can.

It's just the nature of the thing. Governments don't WANT to be kept small, not because their evil, but because there's no power in a scaled down government. If we let them get big, then there's less we can do to stop them from taking more and more power.

[7960]

Originally Posted by bheld

"Fair" has no role in the debate. The only consideration is what is going to keep this country running. Emotional appeals based on the oppression of the rich are just ridiculous talking points that detract from the actual issue.

"Fair has no role in debate" but from your posts you think it's unfair to expect the poor to shoulder some of the tax burden and you think it's unfair to reduce taxes on the rich.

For someone who doesn't think "fair" should be part of the discussion you're sure throwing it around a lot when the discussion favors the rich.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by 7960

"Fair has no role in debate" but from your posts you think it's unfair to expect the poor to shoulder some of the tax burden and you think it's unfair to reduce taxes on the rich.

For someone who doesn't think "fair" should be part of the discussion you're sure throwing it around a lot when the discussion favors the rich.

Where did I use the word "fair?" If anything, I've been more than logical in my attempts to communicate my position without resorting to emotional appeals.

Give me a little credit. As if I'd try to appeal to a conservative's sense of compassion or justice.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by 7960

"Fair has no role in debate" but from your posts you think it's unfair to expect the poor to shoulder some of the tax burden and you think it's unfair to reduce taxes on the rich.

For someone who doesn't think "fair" should be part of the discussion you're sure throwing it around a lot when the discussion favors the rich.

I believe the root of it all, from the perspective of those who support the redistribution of wealth, is that they find it to be unfair that some people can have lots of money while others have so little. I've heard MANY suggestions on how to redistribute wealth, from disallowing inheritance (everyone starts with nothing) to taxing in such a way that everyone has the same amount (that amount obviously being determined by the government).

It's a point of view I simply do not understand. Money drives the world, and if you take away the incentive, as demonstrated by every communist country in the history of man, you simply cannot maintain a decent economy.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I use very similar logic to come to the conclusion that the only answer is to scale back government. It certainly isn't that government is inherently bad, but governments have a tendency to want more and more power as can be exhibited by every country in the world's history (and we are certainly no exception to that). The only reasonable way to combat that is for the citizens to keep the government small. We have failed at that, so the end result will be either what has happened thousands of times in the past and is happening even today all over the world: the government takes over too much, the people get pissed and revolt; or the other choice is we make the changes now while we still can.

It's just the nature of the thing. Governments don't WANT to be kept small, not because their evil, but because there's no power in a scaled down government. If we let them get big, then there's less we can do to stop them from taking more and more power.

Well that's just a fact of democracy. We can't keep government small because there are things that government needs to do to maintain a productive society. It can't just be the postal service and the military. If the government is bad, the private sector is worse.

What we need to do is cut down on the disproportionate influence that some have over our government. When you give everybody an equal voice, or at least get as close as possible, you get a government that works for everybody. That's the only way. Right now votes are obviously not as important as dollars and that's not democracy.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I believe the root of it all, from the perspective of those who support the redistribution of wealth, is that they find it to be unfair that some people can have lots of money while others have so little. I've heard MANY suggestions on how to redistribute wealth, from disallowing inheritance (everyone starts with nothing) to taxing in such a way that everyone has the same amount (that amount obviously being determined by the government).

It's a point of view I simply do not understand. Money drives the world, and if you take away the incentive, as demonstrated by every communist country in the history of man, you simply cannot maintain a decent economy.

If you don't understand what happens when resources get heavily concentrated then of course you're not going to understand why people are wanting to use taxation to affect distribution. It's hardly about "fairness." Funny how the only times the world "fair" has been used it's been by the conservatives.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I believe the root of it all, from the perspective of those who support the redistribution of wealth, is that they find it to be unfair that some people can have lots of money while others have so little. I've heard MANY suggestions on how to redistribute wealth, from disallowing inheritance (everyone starts with nothing) to taxing in such a way that everyone has the same amount (that amount obviously being determined by the government).

It's a point of view I simply do not understand. Money drives the world, and if you take away the incentive, as demonstrated by every communist country in the history of man, you simply cannot maintain a decent economy.

I don't think we are talking about taking away incentives but in a system where luck plays a large role in who gets rich and who does not, you need something to even that out. I can work my ass off all my life and never be as rich as Bill Gates. Yes, you need to work hard to have a chance to succeed, and having brains increases your chances further, but neither will guarantee you anything. Yeah if you are smart and work hard you will probably be OK. But when you have people walking around with hundreds of millions of dollars in thier bank accounts and at the same time have people working 2 jobs trying to support thier families... incentive isn't an issue. Both people have incentives. I would argue that the guy working 2 jobs has more incentive to succeed. The poor person working 2 jobs has plenty of incentive, works hard, but still struggles. Whereas the person with millions has a much easier time. Why should that be? Accident of birth? Right time right place? Why do we have a system where some people get more than others given equal input?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by bheld

Well that's just a fact of democracy. We can't keep government small because there are things that government needs to do to maintain a productive society. It can't just be the postal service and the military. If the government is bad, the private sector is worse.

What we need to do is cut down on the disproportionate influence that some have over our government. When you give everybody an equal voice, or at least get as close as possible, you get a government that works for everybody. That's the only way. Right now votes are obviously not as important as dollars and that's not democracy.

I disagree with essentially the entire premise of this post. We do not need to expand government and a smaller government has always been more efficient. There is no reason we should expand government in an attempt to assist the private sector. That's essentially an oxymoron. It is not sound economic advice.

We shouldn't cut back on the disproportionate influence some have on our government. We should cut back on all influences on our government. Taking away power from one group and giving it to another is not productive.

Originally Posted by bheld

If you don't understand what happens when resources get heavily concentrated then of course you're not going to understand why people are wanting to use taxation to affect distribution. It's hardly about "fairness." Funny how the only times the world "fair" has been used it's been by the conservatives.

This is untrue and a very prejudiced statement that incorrectly assumes Ardent's political affiliations.

Originally Posted by bheld

Where did I use the word "fair?" If anything, I've been more than logical in my attempts to communicate my position without resorting to emotional appeals.

Give me a little credit. As if I'd try to appeal to a conservative's sense of compassion or justice.

This is also a very prejudiced statement. It seems a dislike in conservatives or the wealthy has a role in some of your political beliefs on the economy. That's not very productive to drawing sound economic conclusions.

[7960]

Originally Posted by bheld

Where did I use the word "fair?" If anything, I've been more than logical in my attempts to communicate my position without resorting to emotional appeals.

Give me a little credit. As if I'd try to appeal to a conservative's sense of compassion or justice.

You say that like I'm a conservative.

The least you could do is learn something about who you're talking to

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by bheld

Well that's just a fact of democracy. We can't keep government small because there are things that government needs to do to maintain a productive society. It can't just be the postal service and the military. If the government is bad, the private sector is worse.

What we need to