How would you create a fair tax system?

[Contradiction]

I have no expectations of a fair tax system. Life in general is not fair, society certainly isnt fair and I wouldnt expect our taxation system to be fair. If we lived in a society where peoples wealth could directly be attributed to their work ethic and contribution to society, then expectation of a fair tax system would sound reasonable. Till that day comes around I am happy to expect that in an imperfect world I expect an imperfect tax system and that its probably not worth discussing changing one without changing the other and my taxes will more than likely be used to educate someone else child. I just hope they use it well.

 

[Harshaw]

It doesn't help that the very definition of "fair" is completely up for grabs.

 

[obvious Child]

No. That doesn't follow at all. It's a statement worthy of aiming your "gun" at. :roll:

Actually it follows percisely. We can take the argument to the final step. Since it's not the government's business, it shouldn't tax at all! :2wave:

 

[Harshaw]

Actually it follows percisely. We can take the argument to the final step. Since it's not the government's business, it shouldn't tax at all! :2wave:

Keep diggin' that hole, Mr. "Anti-Stupid." You just make yourself look sillier.

 

[obvious Child]

Irrelevant. Its STILL not the government's money.

By that reasoning, none of it is the government money, so nothing should be taxed.

It's immoral and a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to 'bracket" people into taxable classifications.

Sure it is. Still think you're God eh?

You mean they obeyed existing law to guide their investments?

This is some kind of crime that necessitates posthumous punishment?

I realize the fall you took caused significant damage to your noggin, but try stay on task (for once in your life). I said nothing about the legality or punishment. Merely proving you are dead wrong about already been taxed.

The implication being that low income workers seek to pay more taxes, or that their too stupid to figure out what to do with their money? Whatever.

Where the hell did that come from?

Have you taken your meds lately?

You still haven't said where the crime was committed that makes differential taxation moral.

Because it's not the subject. Seriously, just because you lack the capacity to hold your own does not mean you constantly change subjects in the hopes you will find SOMETHING you can win on.

You argued wrongly that inheritance has already has been taxed. That ain't true. Especially from estate planning views. Stay on topic for once in your life.

Uh-huh.

Not a thing you said was relevant.

You falsely argued that all inheritance has been already taxed. Again, not true, especially considering the rates of income and assets necessary to be in excess of the deduction.

Stay on the topic for once in your life.

 

[obvious Child]

Keep diggin' that hole, Mr. "Anti-Stupid." You just make yourself look sillier.

Explain to me why it's wrong. If you can. Reliance on insults is not an argument.

 

[obvious Child]

There are no Constitutional limits on federal spending.

Incorrect. There are Constitutional limits of federal spending in the form of what the Federal government can and cannot do. There is nothing in the Constitution allowing the Federal government to finance a space program, therefore there is a limit on spending in that area to the tune of zero dollars. Are we following this? Course not. But it's still there.

 

[obvious Child]

Who cares if they have enough money to never have to work again. What is it to you? If they have enough money to live without having to work they certainly are not going to be using any of the tax money for medical reasons either. Or use up any government welfare.

So it's okay to have a class system where people do nothing but leech off their parents?

Seriously. Am I the ONLY consistent person here?

So it doesn't matter to people who complain about kids who leech of their parents if their parents were rich?

 

[apdst]

How would you create a fair tax system?

Everybody pays 5%. No right offs, no deductions, no breaks, no credits, no nothing. If you make $100, you pay in $5. If you make $1,000 you pay in $50. If you make $1,000,000 you pay in $50,000. You get your W-2, it shows your income for that year and what 5% of that is, you write a check and mail it in. Period, end of story, case closed.

 

[Harshaw]

Incorrect. There are Constitutional limits of federal spending in the form of what the Federal government can and cannot do. There is nothing in the Constitution allowing the Federal government to finance a space program, therefore there is a limit on spending in that area to the tune of zero dollars. Are we following this? Course not. But it's still there.

He was referring to numerical limits, else his post made no sense.

Besides, make NASA part of the military (which it practically is anyway) and you've got no Constitutional issue.

 

[obvious Child]

He was referring to numerical limits, else his post made no sense.

Irrelevant. You are still wrong. Constitutional limits exist in the powers the Federal government has and does not have.

Besides, make NASA part of the military (which it practically is anyway) and you've got no Constitutional issue.

NASA was merely an example. And depending on how literal we want to go, the Air Force in its current form could be deemed unconstitutional. If we go down to absolute literal to where if the program is not specified, then it is prohibited, most spending is not Constitutional.

 

[Harshaw]

Explain to me why it's wrong. If you can. Reliance on insults is not an argument.

It's quite simple, Mr. "Anti-Stupid." (If you don't like that, then you should not have appended that term to yourself. Twice.)

You made a big deal out of the difference between someone, by means of what he leaves to his children, giving his children enough to be happy but not enough so they never have to work again, implying there's something wrong with the latter.

When asked "what business is it of yours or anyone else's," you went off on a tangent about taxing trusts and how he must think "we" should let trusts just keep growing until they eat up "all the wealth."

As in (follow me here), "what business is it of yours what someone leaves his kids?" -- "Aha! So you think all the money in the world should go to some rich guy's trust?!!!"

As I said, Mr. "Anti-Stupid," it doesn't follow. That's not what he said. That's not the logical conclusion of what he said.

 

[Harshaw]

Irrelevant. You are still wrong. Constitutional limits exist in the powers the Federal government has and does not have.

That was NOT what he was referring to, Mr. "Anti-Stupid."

And depending on how literal we want to go, the Air Force in its current form could be deemed unconstitutional.

I said "military," not "Air Force," Mr. "Anti-Stupid." Quite deliberately, actually, exactly for this reason.

If we go down to absolute literal to where if the program is not specified, then it is prohibited, most spending is not Constitutional.

Well, I'm not going down that road, Mr. "Anti-Stupid," and neither did he.

 

[obvious Child]

You made a big deal out of the difference between someone, by means of what he leaves to his children, giving his children enough to be happy but not enough so they never have to work again, implying there's something wrong with the latter.

When asked "what business is it of yours or anyone else's," you went off on a tangent about taxing trusts and how he must think "we" should let trusts just keep growing until they eat up "all the wealth."

As in (follow me here), "what business is it of yours what someone leaves his kids?" -- "Aha! So you think all the money in the world should go to some rich guy's trust?!!!"

As I said, Mr. "Anti-Stupid," it doesn't follow. That's not what he said. That's not the logical conclusion of what he said.

One wonders if you even understand the subject here. Scarecrow's argument was that since it wasn't the government's money or its business, that inheritance shouldn't be taxed. By the same reasoning, trusts which exist for many of the same reasons, inheritance management shouldn't be taxed, thus they should be allowed to accumulate all of the money in the world. Your ignorance as to what a trust is and how it functions is why you made your asinine comment. Understanding the legal and financial terms helps in this. I can forward you a relevant dictionary to help you in future, God knows you need it.

 

[obvious Child]

That was NOT what he was referring to, Mr. "Anti-Stupid."

Still irrelevant. Scarecrow was fundamentally right about there being such limits. You were wrong when you said there were not such limits. Do you reject that you said that?

I said "military," not "Air Force," Mr. "Anti-Stupid." Quite deliberately, actually, exactly for this reason.

And the Constitution literally does specify what Congress can fund. Does COTUS state military or does it say another term like "standing army?"

I think you know. Let's see if you're mature enough to admit you are wrong.

Furthermore, by your reasoning, we can simply group non-allowed COTUS spending into COTUS allowed spending and call it constitutional. I'm pretty sure that won't fly. It's like making a bill that illegally obtains data on citizens under a legal farming bill and saying since the surveillance was done under the legal bill, it's okay!

Well, I'm not going down that road, Mr. "Anti-Stupid," and neither did he.

Good. Most people don't like being proven wrong as many times as you have in the past half an hour.

 

[Harshaw]

One wonders if you even understand the subject here. Scarecrow's argument was that since it wasn't the government's money or its business, that inheritance shouldn't be taxed. By the same reasoning, trusts which exist for many of the same reasons, inheritance management shouldn't be taxed, thus they should be allowed to accumulate all of the money in the world. Your ignorance as to what a trust is and how it functions is why you made your asinine comment. Understanding the legal and financial terms helps in this. I can forward you a relevant dictionary to help you in future, God knows you need it.

I know full well what a trust is and how it works. Your conclusion is still asinine, for the reasons I gave. I realize obstinancy will not allow you to admit stealing a base or three, but nonetheless, you did.

 

[obvious Child]

I know full well what a trust is and how it works.

Like how Truth Detector knows what a "loan" is? :2wave:

Sure you do. Did you get your fake degree in finance with TD flying airplanes upside down?

Yay! Fake degrees. Claim expertise and knowledge, but show absolutely none!

"I have a degree in meteorology, but I don't understand how gases absorb radiation!"

You people are hysterical.

Your conclusion is still asinine, for the reasons I gave. I realize obstinancy will not allow you to admit stealing a base or three, but nonetheless, you did.

No rebuttal to my argument. Thanks for admitting defeat!

 

[Harshaw]

Still irrelevant. Scarecrow was fundamentally right about there being such limits. You were wrong when you said there were not such limits. Do you reject that you said that?

I reject that there are spending limits in the Constitution, yes, Mr. "Anti-Stupid," because even if you limit the SUBJECT MATTER of the spending, Congress can still spend however damn much it wants to spend in the areas where it's permitted to spend -- and THAT'S the kind of limits he was referring to -- NUMERICAL ones.

And the Constitution literally does specify what Congress can fund. Does COTUS state military or does it say another term like "standing army?"

There is no limitation as to how the Army or Navy may be equipped. Whether it's space hardware or nuclear submarines, it's still for the Army or the Navy, Mr. "Anti-Stupid."

I think you know. Let's see if you're mature enough to admit you are wrong.

Except I'm not, Mr. "Anti-Stupid." (That really bugs you, doesn't it? Like I said, you put it on yourself.)

Furthermore, by your reasoning, we can simply group non-allowed COTUS spending into COTUS allowed spending and call it constitutional. I'm pretty sure that won't fly.

:rofl

Then you are woefully, pitiably uneducated on how vast amounts of spending has been justified, Mr. "Anti-Stupid."

Good. Most people don't like being proven wrong as many times as you have in the past half an hour.

If that's what you need to tell yourself to sleep tonight, then so be it, Mr . . . aw, heck; I think I've made my point.

 

[Harshaw]

Like how Truth Detector knows what a "loan" is? :2wave:

Sure you do. Did you get your fake degree in finance with TD flying airplanes upside down?

Yay! Fake degrees. Claim expertise and knowledge, but show absolutely none!

"I have a degree in meteorology, but I don't understand how gases absorb radiation!"

You people are hysterical.



No rebuttal to my argument. Thanks for admitting defeat!

You do realize that in this whole post, you said nothing, don't you?

 

[obvious Child]

I reject that there are spending limits in the Constitution, yes, Mr. "Anti-Stupid," because even if you limit the SUBJECT MATTER of the spending, Congress can still spend however damn much it wants to spend in the areas where it's permitted to spend -- and THAT'S the kind of limits he was referring to -- NUMERICAL ones.

Explain to me how a limit of zero dollars is not a spending limit. What you discussed is that in the areas the federal government is allowed to spend money, there are no numerical limits. That does not address how limits on the ability to even fund a program is not a limit. If COTUS prohibits spending even a penny on a program, how is that not a limit?

You are still wrong about there being no COTUS limits on spending. There are limits. It's called a BAN.

What do you not understand about "YOU CANNOT FUND SUCH A PROGRAM?" as not being a limit?

There is no limitation as to how the Army or Navy may be equipped. Whether it's space hardware or nuclear submarines, it's still for the Army or the Navy, Mr. "Anti-Stupid."

But in terms of constitutionality, which by the way is the focus of this discussion, you are merely taking programs not allowed under COTUS and hiding them. All you did was ignore COTUS. I don't disagree with your statement on limitations on the standing army. Just that constitutionally, you are wrong.

Scarecrow's method of tangents doesn't make for good debate. Stay on the topic please.

Except I'm not, Mr. "Anti-Stupid." (That really bugs you, doesn't it? Like I said, you put it on yourself.)

Except you are.

Tell me, does COTUS say "military" or "standing army?"

Or at this point considering how non-Constitutional your argument is, you'd like to pretend COTUS doesn't exist?

Then you are woefully, pitiably uneducated on how vast amounts of spending has been justified, Mr. "Anti-Stupid."

Incorrect. What we do now is merely ignore COTUS entirely as if it did not matter. What you argued was different. That we can abide to COTUS by hiding programs. Looking at it through COTUS, your argument is crap. Constitutionally (ignoring that we more or less treat COTUS like toliet paper), hiding illegal program funding in legal program funding is not constitutional.

Please learn the difference.

If that's what you need to tell yourself to sleep tonight, then so be it, Mr . . . aw, heck; I think I've made my point.

You won't ever admit you are wrong.

Tell me again, is a spending limit of $0 a limit?
Does COTUS say "standing army" or "military?"

 

[obvious Child]

You do realize that in this whole post, you said nothing, don't you?

Which was the same thing you did. Just with less humor