- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,719
- Reaction score
- 35,498
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Shouldn't we tax capital gains more since they're not working for it? Shouldn't we be rewarding hard work?
We should "reward" hard work in general. However, we shouldn't reward *only* hard work, we shouldn't punish intelligent work, and we shouldn't ignore risk and scope. Not to mention "hard work" is a nebulous idea that has no real honest definition that can be used as an accurate measuring tool. My 6 months working in baggage at TSA felt like "harder" work than the time I spent in the Computer Networking field...and yet I'd absolutely suggest somehow the former needs to be "rewarded" because it's "harder" comparitive to the latter. The level of knowledge, expertise, critical thought involved, and scope for the latter were all far greater despite the work itself perhaps not being as "hard".
We must not just accept the propaganda, and rhetoric that is dominating the conversation today.
It is reported that the increase we have been hearing Obama repeat since Jan 20th, 2009 about "fair share" and "taxing families over $250K per year" would be around $80 billion. That is a drop in the bucket in terms of doing anything concerning Obama's run away spending vision. So what gives? Is this just a 'get even' measure? though up by progressives that are jealous that they didn't become successful? or is it a pillar of communism?
Communist Manifesto 10 Planks
It is a sad time in history we are seeing here folks, hopefully we can endure, and fix what this progressive shift to the planks of Marx is attempting.
Here's a perfect example of what the right is always talking about - our system and government do not reward work. What you're basically advocating is for people to sit on their ass and live off of their investments tax free. The government should incentivize hard work for the poor, but not if you're rich?
You are incorrect. MOst of us who have investments have saved and worked hard to have money to invest.
If the choice is honor what elected officials do, or dont. Then I choose dont. It is pretty obvious by now that the Supreme Court, and govt in general can be wrong and abusive. Saying that anything they do must be legal because no one has said otherwise yet is a recipe for disaster.
So if we accept that there is no power in the constitution for the govt to run either a medical insurance program, retirement insurance, nutrition assistance, education loans, or own a auto company, then once you strip the functions of govt down to what is actually in the constitution, the federal cost is significantly lower. If you then further accept that every citizen who is able to pay for these services should at the very least contribute the same share of what they are able to (flat tax), that number is probably 10% or less.
It just again shows how messed up the tax system is. Too few people paying in, using arbitrary rules to tax them, and using the tax code to try and force behavior. Its really not understandable how anyone can like the system and not support a total overhaul.
Laziness combined with greed have prevented a overhaul, even though the public seems to want one.
Here in cincinnati, many people work their lives with Proctor and Gamble and retire on P&G stock the parasites want those people to suffer huge tax increases on dividends.
I'm sure there are many others who feel as you do. However, your feelings and reality have taken divergent courses.
Assuming you work, I'm confident that you do pay taxes. If you don't work, I'm (assuming) that you receive free money from the USG. Declaring your independence means nothing.
The progressive tax system has become the default because its the only strategy that has at least some element of fairness to it. You could argue that we have a head tax, a flat tax, or even the brilliant Speckle-tax BUT the fact is, none of these alternate systems have any chance of becoming law.
And yes, your Government does many things that are not outlined in the Constitution. The original Constitution and its subsequent Bill Of Rights and other amendments have long since been modified, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. But trying to use the Constitution as a point of debate, is just hopeless.
So, since the government engages in many activities and maintains the largest military in the world, and you don't have a choice, these activities must be funded some way. Since my idea of no taxes, kust prnt the money, has been met with a deafening silence, the current tax system is the best we have go so far. The major flaw is the thousands of loopholes created by corrupt politicians in collusion with their donor beneficiaries. Just eliminating ALL deductions and loopholes would provide more than enough funding but this peculiar empathy we show to the Daddy Warbucks set and the absence of income from The Little Orphan Annie set, seems to preclude any such logical action. So, taxes will have to increase ands new loopholes will b3 created or discovered to reward certain beneficiaries.
A flat tax is as utterly regressive as the so called "Fair Tax" and I''ve never understood the advocacy for this.
That is the ironic part to me. Workers are more likely to need dividends for their retirement than Bill Gates but let's punish everybody with a mutual fund in the name of leveling the playing field against the wealthy. I feel like I am trying to protect democrats from themselves sometimes with this crap because they tow the Obama line without any concept of what it will really mean to them.
Its not regressive because the rich still pay more. 10% of a million is more than 10% of 40,000. And we do have a choice. The voters choose to continue punishing a minority of the country for the benefit of the majority. I choose not to, which is why I dont vote, and I avoid the federal govt wherever possible.
It is regressive. I make $10K and pay $1K leaving me with $9K. You make $1M and pay $100K leaving you with $900K. We both need a car. I can't buy one with a year of income, you can buy 20 of them (but you won't).
Nobody advocates total equality. But yes, higher incomes can and should pay a higher percentage. The taxes we have now and are under discussion are not unreasonable.
It is regressive. I make $10K and pay $1K leaving me with $9K. You make $1M and pay $100K leaving you with $900K. We both need a car. I can't buy one with a year of income, you can buy 20 of them (but you won't).
Nobody advocates total equality. But yes, higher incomes can and should pay a higher percentage. The taxes we have now and are under discussion are not unreasonable.
Why should capital gains be taxed at all? Hasn't the money being invested already been taxed at the normal rates?
Who owns my labor?
Considering the money invested came from work there doesn't appear to be any sort of problem.
Why should capital gains be taxed at all? Hasn't the money being invested already been taxed at the normal rates?
Who owns my labor?
So we are not equal?
So we are not equal?
Because tax is imposed whenever value changes hands. If we are in agreement that a Corporation is a separate entity, why shouldn't distributions from the corporation be taxed separately on the recipient?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?