• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

“Enough Money"

Sandokan

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
3,875
Reaction score
466
Location
Los Angels, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
“Enough Money"
Townhall - Thomas Sowell - "Enough Money"

by Thomas Sowell

One of the many shallow statements that sound good-- if you don't stop and think about it-- is that "at some point, you have made enough money."

The key word in this statement, made by President Barack Obama recently, is "you." There is nothing wrong with my deciding how much money is enough for me or your deciding how much money is enough for you, but when politicians think that they should be deciding how much money is enough for other people, that is starting down a very slippery slope.

Politicians with the power to determine each citizen's income are no longer public servants. They are public masters.

Are we really so eaten up with envy, or so mesmerized by rhetoric, that we are willing to sacrifice our own freedom by giving politicians the power to decide how much money anybody can make or keep? Of course, that will start only with "the rich," but surely history tells us that it will not end there.
Obama doesn't have the right to redistribute income, but he can use the Executive power to do that. Progressives most of the time try to legitimize taking from the more affluent in the society and rewards those who haven’t earned, because according to them that is the moral thing to do. In reality what they are after is more power to control people lives.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Obama doesn't have the right to redistribute income, but he can use the Executive power to do that. Progressives most of the time try to legitimize taking from the more affluent in the society and rewards those who haven’t earned, because according to them that is the moral thing to do. In reality what they are after is more power to control people lives.
They hurt both those who earned the money and those who didn't. Why should Joe keep working to succeed if (when he's made enough) he is forced to give (the excess) to the government. Why should John try to better himself because he is getting what he needs without working. Redistribution is a recipe for a country of slackers.
We are a charitable people, however people don't feel charitable when money is taken from them like that. Instead of making the one giving, feel good, it makes them resentful to the one receiving (low income people). Instead of making the receiver grateful and motivated it makes them feel entitled to that money and future money from those who (can afford) it.
I see more and more class envy in this country. I think it's because more and more people are being led to believe they are entitled to other people's property.
This President sure is more of a divider than a uniter.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,074
Reaction score
32,898
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yeah I'm so sick of building those ****ing roads and schools in Alabama. I don't even like Alabama. Why should they get my tax dollars?
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Obama doesn't have the right to redistribute income, but he can use the Executive power to do that. Progressives most of the time try to legitimize taking from the more affluent in the society and rewards those who haven’t earned, because according to them that is the moral thing to do. In reality what they are after is more power to control people lives.
One must wonder if you've ever heard of a concept called "Corporate Welfare." That, IMO is worse because already profitable companies are getting free money. Giving money to people who need it isn't as bad as giving money to companies already raking in billions in profits. And effectively, that money gets sent to the upper class via dividends. So it's still redistribution.

And functionally, all government spending is redistribution of income. Defense? That's redistribution. Roads? Same. Welfare? Same.
 

The Dane

Active member
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
253
Reaction score
62
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Yeah I'm pretty ****ing tired of people taking a sentence Obama said out of context and then using that to build up a response to an imaginary totalitarian orwellian socialist radicalist redistrbution of wealth.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,074
Reaction score
32,898
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yeah I'm pretty ****ing tired of people taking a sentence Obama said out of context and then using that to build up a response to an imaginary totalitarian orwellian socialist radicalist redistrbution of wealth.
It's not even the talking point that bothers me (we're used to this from conservatives), it's that it comes up so regularly I could set my watch to it. Gotta keep that socialist boogeyman going!
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
32,646
Reaction score
21,531
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
That they constantly try to attach such an inappropriate label to a right of centre politician like President Obama, indicates where they are coming from.
 

MKULTRABOY

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
One must wonder if you've ever heard of a concept called "Corporate Welfare." That, IMO is worse because already profitable companies are getting free money. Giving money to people who need it isn't as bad as giving money to companies already raking in billions in profits. And effectively, that money gets sent to the upper class via dividends. So it's still redistribution.

And functionally, all government spending is redistribution of income. Defense? That's redistribution. Roads? Same. Welfare? Same.
Seriously, redistributing the wealth straight back to the rich seriously doesn't bother them somehow.

How much is redistributed to the wealthy and the corporate and how much goes to jobless john?
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Okay. For those who want to take more taxes I'll meet you half way. Everyone should pay 65-70% total taxation, get rid of the bracket system and apply it equally. Next, all government services including welfare assistance and food stamps are to be considered taxable benefits. To make up for those who haven't paid taxes all sub-class items such as scooters, economy cars and base model appliances shall have an excise tax of 25-45% of total value. If you use a road with a personal vehicle there is no tax since you pay those whenever you stay DMV compliant but all bus fares shall be subject to a 35% additional "shared use" tax. Recycling services cost money so they should be taxed at 5-10% for the first pound and then a 5$ fee for every additional pound plus a 15% additional tax. Then for those who DO NOT create jobs they should pay an additional tax for not creating jobs......that will go into a fund to pay employers to offset job creation costs.

I hope by now some of you fans of overtaxation can now see how arbitrary and stupid this is and realize I'm using about the same logic as those who want to tax people for having the NERVE to want a better life for themselves.
 

Sandokan

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
3,875
Reaction score
466
Location
Los Angels, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Who is going to decide who is making "enough money"? Let say you have a company which produce a product that people buy, and you make “enough money” satisfying a demand. How does a new department created by the government get to decide when you have made "enough money"? This will take us in a very dangerous path.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Who is going to decide who is making "enough money"? Let say you have a company which produce a product that people buy, and you make “enough money” satisfying a demand. How does a new department created by the government get to decide when you have made "enough money"? This will take us in a very dangerous path.
I can't state enough how a private individual's earnings are none of the government's business. Legally earned money is just that and anything other than staying out of the way of that will be arbitrary and draconian.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I support a corporate structure that distributes the profit of the business equally - I don't support it being stipulated *by* the government (like capping wages) - but if a company earns 9billion annually . . . then the employees who made that happen should get a much larger cut - rather than the CEO (etc) getting a golden mansion.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
50,416
Reaction score
32,170
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I support a corporate structure that distributes the profit of the business equally - I don't support it being stipulated *by* the government (like capping wages) - but if a company earns 9billion annually . . . then the employees who made that happen should get a much larger cut - rather than the CEO (etc) getting a golden mansion.
not sure i understand why you believe the paid employees - who are working by their own consent, for their given wage - are more entitled to a portion of the profits than the stockholders who have invested in the organization which generated the profits
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
not sure i understand why you believe the paid employees - who are working by their own consent, for their given wage - are more entitled to a portion of the profits than the stockholders who have invested in the organization which generated the profits
Well I don't understand why you believe that people who played the stock market and merely invested in a company based on it's employee-churned profit growth and CEO contrived business success would be more entitled to a portion of the profits that they played no direct part in making other than their initial investment per purchase of said stock.

The reason why a company offers stock is so the company can profit *from* the sale of stock. If the company pays *more* to their stock-holders than their stock-holders ever invest over the course of time then doesn't that defeat the purpose? Thus - dividend payouts are always controlled, capped or otherwise limited and not all stock-portions are for public-investment. Much is reserved for the use of the company itself.

(When a stock-holder gains a substantial amount of profits they are no longer a mere mouse in the game of the market - they are lifted to a different level in which their opinions and thoughts about the business are considered . . . this is *no longer* a routine "market shareholder position" - this is beyond that and this is no longer related to my point)

Aside that - those in the stock market don't receive all of a company's excessive profits as dividends - they purchase the stock knowing that they *might* receive a set % of profit as a dividend. Their amount fluctuates according to profit, growth, liquidity, overall market stability and other factors. . . none of which they have a direct hand in - the only money they invest is their purchase of said stock. For most investors their true interest is *not* the company's business-goals and purpose but it is the *company's* value and a very self-centered "how much will this profit *me*"

Unlike the employee - not all - but there are many which *do* care about the company's bottom line, reputation and overall success, not just how much they might profit from it. Without these employees the company/business would not exist - while stock-market investors are somewhat important - they are not necessary and many argue that they aren't actually beneficial to the company *at all*

Also, Not all companies reward their stock-investors with dividends, too boot; for the majority of stocks the only way to make money is to buy low/sell high - and literally play the game. And this isn't paid for *by* the company - this is paid for *by* other investors - the company in a buy/sell ONLY stock is merely profiting a portion from each sale of stock.

Aside that - employees are always offered a company-stock option that they can invest in if they wish - which often isn't from the market-pool but the reserved-pool of stocks that the company sets aside for itself.

Thus - I still stand firm and always will in my belief that the employees which keep a company going, make all the money and magic happen, should be respected and given the highest reward and appreciation from their employers - without employees working hard - there would be no company, there would be no profit in stocks.

Often when this "giving back to the employee" is done it's called a bonus, by the way, which many profitable companies fully believe in and give to their employees as a thank you for their hard work.
 
Last edited:

dontworrybehappy

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
3,928
Reaction score
1,559
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If I were in charge, the tax form would be one page long and 3 lines.

1. Enter your total gross income.
2. Subtract money given to charity.
3. Take 20% of line 1 minus line 2 and send it to the IRS.

Done.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
50,416
Reaction score
32,170
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well I don't understand why you believe that people who played the stock market and merely invested in a company based on it's employee-churned profit growth and CEO contrived business success would be more entitled to a portion of the profits that they played no direct part in making other than their initial investment per purchase of said stock.
another name for these shareholders is "owners"
they own the corporation, and they own the profits that corporation generates
unless the corporation (wisely) sets aside a portion of earnings for the employees, the employees would have no entitlement to those profits, which are rightfully the owners/shareholders

The reason why a company offers stock is so the company can profit *from* the sale of stock.
actually, the reason why stock is sold is usually to capitalize the corporation
there are instances where a privately held company - which is already capitalized - will initiare a public offering of stock such that the private owners can recover some of the monies they have invested (and hopefully some equity resulting from the increased value of the corporation)
that increase in equity would constitute a "profit" for the seller of the stock, but the notice that the corporation does not enjoy a profit from that sale of equity. only if the corporation itself owned stock could it directly realize a potential profit from the sale of those shares

If the company pays *more* to their stock-holders than their stock-holders ever invest over the course of time then doesn't that defeat the purpose?
actually, that is the purpose. why would anyone invest in a corporation's stock with the intent of realizing upon its sale less than they have invested?

Thus - dividend payouts are always controlled, capped or otherwise limited and not all stock-portions are for public-investment. Much is reserved for the use of the company itself.
if you are speaking of retained earnings, which were elected by the Board of Directors not to be distributed as dividends, then we are in agreement
but recognize, the profits not distributed as dividends become the capital of the company, enhancing its balance sheet/net worth. that usually enhances the perceived value of the underlying stock of the corporation

(When a stock-holder gains a substantial amount of profits they are no longer a mere mouse in the game of the market - they are lifted to a different level in which their opinions and thoughts about the business are considered . . . this is *no longer* a routine "market shareholder position" - this is beyond that and this is no longer related to my point)
i am guessing you are distinguishing between an active and a passive investor here, so we can agree that this discussion focuses on the passive investor

Aside that - those in the stock market don't receive all of a company's excessive profits as dividends - they purchase the stock knowing that they *might* receive a set % of profit as a dividend. Their amount fluctuates according to profit, growth, liquidity, overall market stability and other factors. . . none of which they have a direct hand in - the only money they invest is their purchase of said stock.
but what we are addressing is the distribution of profits to the corporation's employees instead of to the corporation's stockholders (aka 'the owners')
if the profits were to be distributed to the employees instead of as dividends to the shareholds, then you would be taking the profits of the owners and giving them instead to the employees. the employees have no 'right' to those profits (unless this distribution of corporate profits has been agreed to by management)
the amount given over to the employees is taken from the value the stockholders/owners would otherwise have rightfully enjoyed

For most investors their true interest is *not* the company's business-goals and purpose but it is the *company's* value and a very self-centered "how much will this profit *me*"
the investors are usually making a calculated investment, based on the expected return they will realize from the investment. the profits you do not give to the owners of the corporation to instead hand over to the employees diminishes the return those investors would realize
if the business is engaging in practices that increase or decrease risk to the investor, that would be factored into their decision to buy/sell corporate stock, based on the level of risk/exposure they were willing to assume
and there are a number of investors who do discriminate among corporations when building their portfolios. the nature of the business and the business operations should be of critical concern to an investor

Unlike the employee - not all - but there are many which *do* care about the company's bottom line, reputation and overall success, not just how much they might profit from it.
certainly we would expect a rational employee to be concerned about the profitability and longevity of its employer corporation. they have selfish reason for being so concerned. an unprofitable business will likely be considering cutbacks, in employee numbers/wages/bonuses/hours/perks. it is in the employee's self interest to want the corporation to do well enough to continue to fairly compensate the employee for his/her work
but notice that if you substitute the word "compensation" for "profit", both the investor and the employee are looking for the same result ... they both are interested because of what it will yield for them

Without these employees the company/business would not exist ...
with few exceptions, employees are fungible
you have an employee who does not like that they are not adequately compensated - to continue your theme - because they did not get their perceived "fair share" of the corporation's profits. either that employee sucks it up or they leave. and if they leave, they are quickly replaced ... especially in this present economy

... - while stock-market investors are somewhat important - they are not necessary and many argue that they aren't actually beneficial to the company *at all*
we disagree here. probably because of our fundamental differences in opinion about the purpose of stock sales. unless one can fund the corporation out of their wallet, or is able to leverage the funds they do have to secure a business loan to fund operations, the corporation will necessarily have to sell stock to capitalize the business' operations.
in those instances, if there are inadequate investors, then there can be no corporation (or expanison of the corporation or salvaging a corporation bleeding capital)

Also, Not all companies reward their stock-investors with dividends, too boot; for the majority of stocks the only way to make money is to buy low/sell high - and literally play the game. And this isn't paid for *by* the company - this is paid for *by* other investors - the company in a buy/sell ONLY stock is merely profiting a portion from each sale of stock.
if the corporation had the profits avilable and chose not to make distribution to the shareholders, then those surplus profits would be retained earnings, which would enhance the corporation's financial statement. those retained earnings would make the corporation's value increase dollar for dollar of retained earnings. that should (ordinarily) force the corporation's stock price upward
so, if instead of keeping the surplus profits as retained earnings, and distributing them to the employees, the enhancement of the stock value would be eliminated because there would be no retained earnings to bolster the stock value. that distribution would be treated as an expense of operations, which expense would reduce the corporation's profitability

Aside that - employees are always offered a company-stock option that they can invest in if they wish - ...
not always. some corporations are privaely/closely held. all but one NFL team is closely held, as an example. so, by distributing shares to the employees, they would lose their advantages of owning closely held corporate stock

... which often isn't from the market-pool but the reserved-pool of stocks that the company sets aside for itself.
sometimes corporation buy back shares of their stock when they believe the shares are being sold below value and the corporation has the liquidity to invest in its own shares. other times, the corporation will distribute unsold shares, or will authorize the sale of additional shares (the latter of which dilutes the value of each previously owned share)

Thus - I still stand firm and always will in my belief that the employees which keep a company going, make all the money and magic happen, ...
it is my belief that you are standing firmly in quickstand with that unshakable stance
the employees certainly are one of the essential ingredients to the corporations ability to generate a profit, but there are other factors, such as the leadership of the corporation, taking/keeping it in a profitable arena

... should be respected and given the highest reward and appreciation from their employers - without employees working hard - there would be no company, there would be no profit in stocks.
employees are plentiful. that employee who is no longer satisfied with the agreed upon compensation they receive is entitled to and should walk away from the corporation if they believe they can realize a better compensation elsewhere. but as i said earlier, the reality is employees are fungible. there are plenty - estimated these days at 40 to 100 applicants for every open position. someone would be found to do the job that disgruntled former employee left ... because they did not get the share of corporate profits they wrongly felt they were entitled to enjoy

Often when this "giving back to the employee" is done it's called a bonus, by the way, which many profitable companies fully believe in and give to their employees as a thank you for their hard work.
i doubt that every employee performed well enough to deserve a bonus, from my years in the work force prior to retirement. many did only enough to get by. i don't see that as bonus-worthy; in fact, it may somewhat demean the bonus the deserving realize when they see the slackers enjoy the same bonus result
that said, i would surmise that a bonus is often the best money an employer can spend to enhance the operation. that opportunity to qualify for and receive a bonus, usually just a few percent of their annual income, drives many employees to better than average performance. which enhanced performance may likely not have been achieved but for the bonus. so, for a small percentage of its payroll expense, the corporation can realize substantial increases in performance by its staff
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
50,416
Reaction score
32,170
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If I were in charge, the tax form would be one page long and 3 lines.

1. Enter your total gross income.
2. Subtract money given to charity.
3. Take 20% of line 1 minus line 2 and send it to the IRS.

Done.
i like the simplicity of it, but here is what i view as the flaw of this process

a business that has very low margins on its product because of competitive factors may not generate a gross income of 20% ... even before expensing administrative costs
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
i like the simplicity of it, but here is what i view as the flaw of this process

a business that has very low margins on its product because of competitive factors may not generate a gross income of 20% ... even before expensing administrative costs
Yes, it would have to be on net income.
subtract all wages paid out, all money put back into co., charity, then pay the government 20%.
Your employees would pay the government 20% of what you paid them.
Simple.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Seriously, redistributing the wealth straight back to the rich seriously doesn't bother them somehow.

How much is redistributed to the wealthy and the corporate and how much goes to jobless john?
Depends on their marginal propensity to spend.

Anyways, the rich should be upset about corporate welfare. Effectively, that money is going to subsidize all sorts of products for the rest of the country. Without the subsidies (and associated tax) I suspect the rich would be better off. The higher costs would be offset by the reduction in taxes. Effectively, the rest of America is freeloading. Corporations use the money to reduce prices for everyone and the rich pay for it. But at the same time, if lower prices increase purchases, that should increase dividend payouts. And if you own enough stock, that may offset the taxes. Hard to say.
 

Sandokan

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
3,875
Reaction score
466
Location
Los Angels, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
What really puzzle me is that those on the left side of the spectrum, who don’t produce anything of value to satisfy a demand, have contempt for those who are successful. This is very common among the intellectual elite.

The intellectual elite accuse those who are successful and make "enough money" of being greedy. Envy, the feeling of resentment aroused by pride and fear, with the desire for the possessions or qualities of others, is a very disturbing pattern of behavior.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,625
Reaction score
74,602
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I support a corporate structure that distributes the profit of the business equally - I don't support it being stipulated *by* the government (like capping wages) - but if a company earns 9billion annually . . . then the employees who made that happen should get a much larger cut - rather than the CEO (etc) getting a golden mansion.
shouldn't those who own the company make that decision? and if you agree to work for a corporation for 8 bucks an hour what have you to complain about? Don't you believe that you are smart enough to contract wisely?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,625
Reaction score
74,602
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
What really puzzle me is that those on the left side of the spectrum, who don’t produce anything of value to satisfy a demand, have contempt for those who are successful. This is very common among the intellectual elite.

The intellectual elite accuse those who are successful and make "enough money" of being greedy. Envy, the feeling of resentment aroused by pride and fear, with the desire for the possessions or qualities of others, is a very disturbing pattern of behavior.
many of them are well educated but the market doesn't value say having a PhD in Art History or the sexual mannerisms of transvestite dairy farmers over say people with engineering degrees or small business owners. So these elite damn the system that doesn't give them the sort of rewards they think they deserve. It is also cultural-in some societies, it was expected that the brightest young man in a ghetto or village was to be married to the daughter of the richest man so that the boy could spend his life expanding his knowledge without having to work a trade. that sense of entitlement has remained with some groups-it was an explanation I heard about trial attorneys.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Whatever Obamas enough money means, say 250,000 a yr. That's enough, so you give anything over to the government or just stop because you have enough? That's what it sounded like he meant. So who is ever going to make over that?
I wish we had a president who didn't think he was the only one entitled to live a life of luxury.
I'm pretty poor myself, but I'm fine with that. I have what I need and pretty much what I want. However some people desire more and if they are willing to work for it they should be able to get as wealthy as they want without being demonized by our president.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,625
Reaction score
74,602
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Whatever Obamas enough money means, say 250,000 a yr. That's enough, so you give anything over to the government or just stop because you have enough? That's what it sounded like he meant. So who is ever going to make over that?
I wish we had a president who didn't think he was the only one entitled to live a life of luxury.
I'm pretty poor myself, but I'm fine with that. I have what I need and pretty much what I want. However some people desire more and if they are willing to work for it they should be able to get as wealthy as they want without being demonized by our president.
people like bambi have to say that crap in order to stay rich. He uses class envy to get into the positions of power where he can become rich without really doing anything of value
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
If I were in charge, the tax form would be one page long and 3 lines.

1. Enter your total gross income.
2. Subtract money given to charity.
3. Take 20% of line 1 minus line 2 and send it to the IRS.

Done.
And you'd have lots of people deferring income to pay nothing while sneaking it back under expense accounts and non-gross income methods.
 
Top Bottom