- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
That is your opinion which you have NEVER been able to substantiate with any verifiable evidence.
As Shakespeare said in his play ACCOUNTANTS, LIARS and OTHER ROGUES - "a tax is a tax is a tax".
It is interesting to not that for all your carping and complaining about the nature of the income tax today, your insistence that we go back 150 years gives us a income tax which exempts lower income workers, provides for taxation of higher income workers at a graduated level and hits the rich earner far harder than anyone else.
And 150 years ago was the date YOU selected.
As to a temporary war....... as a nation grows, its standing in the world changes, its agenda changes, its priorities change and its needs and demands change. We no longer wear those stupid tri-cornered hats of the Revolutionary period and few Americans today could cope with life in 1860 America. Ch...ch... cha .... changes. Get used to it.
The point is simply that the income tax you so hate today was structured similarly in the time you chose - 150 years ago.
and as usual you miss the main point-it was a temporary measure to pay for what was an extremely costly war. it was never intended to be permanent.
You fell for the trap. It was temporary and your continued support for the government taking more income from people is all that remains consistentThat is irrelevant and something you introduced to cover your own behinds exposure when you made the fatal mistake of challenging me to look at 150 years ago. We did. And we found that there was an income tax and it was structured with many of the features you find so loathsome today.
When the federal government needed money to pay for obligations above and beyond what they had been used to, they went to the same system we had today. And then fifty years after then we repeat it again and have kept at it for the last century. The concept of income tax on those who have the most income while exempting those with the least income is hardly temporary Turtle.
If we did as you suggested, and begin 150 years ago and draw a line through today, over two thirds of that line would be shaded with the income tax system your hate and loathe.
I suppose we should thank you for that start date of 150 years ago.
Try to get the basics straight. People are not taxed under the Sixteenth Amendment. Income is. From whatever source derived. Obviously, inheritance is one of those sources.Why do you not understand that a constitutional amendment cannot violate another without repeal. All you do is get into diversion games without actually backing anything up, high school civics classes have more points than you have landed here. Again, why is it not discrimination to tax a persons work?
No, it may be a little clumsy, but it is in fact an accurate representation of the fact I just pointed out above. People are not taxed. Income is. In order to press any sort of Constitutional challenge you have to show standing, and that includes a showing that you have personally incurred some sort of qualified injury that some judicially imposed remedy would exist for. Paying taxes according to the same set of rules and regulations as everyone else does isn't going to cut the msutard.This may be the stupidest point I've ever seen. "Rich people aren't being taxed more, only higher earners" Do you even realize how ****ing stupid that sounds in playback?
Taxes are at their lowest levels in decades. Such inflation as can currently be found in the economy is a welcome relief from the deflation and near-deflation of recent years. Indeed, the value of a dollar held has recently increased, even if it was earning no interest at all the entire time.I do agree here. As for the discretionary income argument, my goal in debating is to get to a point where people understand that there is a depreciation effect on the dollar right now which is caused by spending and other government induced factors all paid for by unjust taxation.
This isn't religion. Personal beliefs shouldn't enter into it. It is mathematically correct that over longish periods of time, a consumption tax will be more efficient than an equivalent income tax. That is, GDP at the end of the longish period of time would be slightly higher under the former than under the latter. We could move the current income tax closer to being a consumption tax simply by allowing all deposits to qualified accounts to be counted as deductions, while all withdrawals from those accounts were counted as additions to taxable income.I personally believe a consumption tax is the best way to go.
There are no brackets above $388K for those married and filing jointly. The "wealthy" as they are talked about here all confront a single-bracket tax structure. You may need to overlay the effects of the AMT, but the same sort of situation will still apply.Sure, being wealthy people can "pay more" at this particular moment, but there is a threshold and frankly the way it's structured now leads to people shutting things down if they are at the borderline between brackets.
Try to get the basics straight. People are not taxed under the Sixteenth Amendment. Income is. From whatever source derived. Obviously, inheritance is one of those sources.
There will not be a referendum on changes to the tax code. As always, Congress will decide that on our behalf regardless of how any of us might have voted if given the chance. That is their job, after all -- to represent our INTERESTS, not our OPINIONS.I think the progressive income tax is the way to go-- it just needs to be reformed to correct for the undesirable factors, such as negative tax burdens and the ability for people to vote for tax increases that don't affect their tax rates.
This is exactly correct.The reality is a simple one and cannot be denied: The wealthy are not taxed as a class of people. Income is taxed as an amount earned on a schedule and the individual earning it is responsible for making their tax payment.
Well they could have some income, as long as it was offset in full by the very same exemptions, deductions, and credits that cause low-income AND low-wealth workers to avoid taxation.In fact, to say that the rich are the target is simply not true. One can be rich... very rich.... dripping with wealth in fact ...... but if one has no income for that year, they pay no income tax for that year.
These classes are a product of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 et seq., so might or might not be relevant. Essentially, what a taxpayer would have to prove against the tax code was that he or she was being treated differently from another similarly situated taxpayer -- that is, one with the same income and expenditure patterns. That would constitute a justiciable injury alright, but under the tax code as it actually exists, it's a pretty much impossible case to make.A racial minority is a racial minority each and every year and belongs to an identified class over which they have no control. The same with gender and ethnicity (sex change surgery noted but it is statistically insignificant). Age changes with the calendar but one has no control over it. Religion is a protected class as it falls under the first amendment. None of those characteristics apply to a person making money on the income tax schedule.
I'm actually okay with a slightly higher luxury goods rate than necessary ones. I'm fine with the full rate taxed on electronics, cars, etc. and a basic rate on food, utilities, basic housing, and other needs. To me the rate discussed in the "fair tax" book seems a little high but it was around 22%, the thing is they proved that we're already paying that along the chain in hidden taxes. So if it's 22% on luxury goods I'd say maybe around 5-10% on necessities depending on the current earnings climate.My problem with consumption taxes is that unless necessary goods are exempted, they disproportionately affect the poor and middle class and have almost no effect at all upon the wealthy-- who largely consume only about as much as the upper middle class, with the bulk of their economic activity being either charitable or investment. We shouldn't discourage investment, but we absolutely cannot afford to discourage consumption, even of luxury goods. Especially luxury goods, considering the role that the various entertainment industries play in our overall economy.
I think the progressive income tax is the way to go-- it just needs to be reformed to correct for the undesirable factors, such as negative tax burdens and the ability for people to vote for tax increases that don't affect their tax rates.
Okay. 1) People drive income, there is no income to tax without people so you are wrong. 2) Inheritance is not income. It goes Income, Dividends, Capital Gains, Inheritance and they are all different types of monetary transactions with very specific definitions. Under any honest definition income has already been taxed. For the purposes of today's tax code dividends come from investment and capital gains are a secondary tax, which is fine because there has been a value transaction. The Inheritance is off of the estate which is all monies and items pertaining to the deceased including properties, items of value, investments, and money all of which has been taxed already and is not a value transaction but merely a transferrence. So if you are equating it to income you are wrong.Try to get the basics straight. People are not taxed under the Sixteenth Amendment. Income is. From whatever source derived. Obviously, inheritance is one of those sources.
You want to back that? You cannot be in a higher earning bracket without a higher income. So that was in fact a stupid assertion, do you actually want to deny that people with more money are being hijacked by the tax code because they earn more?No, it may be a little clumsy, but it is in fact an accurate representation of the fact I just pointed out above. People are not taxed. Income is. In order to press any sort of Constitutional challenge you have to show standing, and that includes a showing that you have personally incurred some sort of qualified injury that some judicially imposed remedy would exist for. Paying taxes according to the same set of rules and regulations as everyone else does isn't going to cut the msutard.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the so-called Fair Tax is a poorly crafted welfare-for-the-wealthy scheme that is unworkable by its own assumptions and definitions. The proclaimed 23% rate is actually 30%, and that is nowhere near enough to achieve the promised revenue-neutrality. It creates huge incentives for fraud as between what is a "new" and "used" good, and there is nowhere near the claimed collection mechanism already in place to cover 100% of transactions, given that state and local sales tax regimes cover only about 50% of all transactions. If there are some beneficial ideas embedded in the Fair Tax proposal, those will have to be stripped out and housed within an entirely different vehicle in order to make any actual economic sense.And THIS point is what makes the Fair Tax a "fair" tax plan. Through the prebate it eliminates the tax on necessary expenses (i.e. the poverty line) and taxes only disposable income.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the so-called Fair Tax is a poorly crafted welfare-for-the-wealthy scheme that is unworkable by its own assumptions and definitions. The proclaimed 23% rate is actually 30%, and that is nowhere near enough to achieve the promised revenue-neutrality. It creates huge incentives for fraud as between what is a "new" and "used" good, and there is nowhere near the claimed collection mechanism already in place to cover 100% of transactions, given that state and local sales tax regimes cover only about 50% of all transactions. If there are some beneficial ideas embedded in the Fair Tax proposal, those will have to be stripped out and housed within an entirely different vehicle in order to make any actual economic sense.
The rich seem to be paying about 20% LESS per dollar than they were just a decade or so ago. These last years have been like a tax holiday for the wealthy. More and more low-income workers meanwhile fall off the rolls because their incomes are stagnant enough to render them unqualified to pay taxes anymore.the 5% increase on everyone has some merit but only after the rates are more fair. The rich are paying too much right now and half of America not enough
still waiting on that proof of votes being bought ......what makes sense is a tax system that prevents the masses' votes being bought by a system that allows politicians to promise them more government paid for by tax hikes on others
Income taxes were first enacted during the War of 1812. But the war ended before they went into effect, so they were rescinded. Income taxes were both passed and implemented during the Civil War. They were repealed after the conflict was over. They were again passed in the 1890's but the Supreme Court inexplicably ruled against portions of the act, triggering the ensuing stampede to the Sixteenth Amendment.and I suspect a review of history finds far more support of use taxes than income taxes
You fell for the trap. It was temporary and your continued support for the government taking more income from people is all that remains consistent
politicians quickly realized how much extra constitutional power they were able to derive from being able to play tax payers against tax consumers and are never going to give up that power
and in the long run its going to destroy this country because too many people want too much government and because they have never received proper feedback about the cost of government
lets go back merely 150 years
and I suspect a review of history finds far more support of use taxes than income taxes
what makes sense is a tax system that prevents the masses' votes being bought by a system that allows politicians to promise them more government paid for by tax hikes on others
still waiting on that proof of votes being bought ......
hmmmmm...yellow batterIts been over a year now has it now randel?
We need a birthday cake. Chocolate or yellow batter?
Income taxes were first enacted during the War of 1812. But the war ended before they went into effect, so they were rescinded. Income taxes were both passed and implemented during the Civil War. They were repealed after the conflict was over. They were again passed in the 1890's but the Supreme Court inexplicably ruled against portions of the act, triggering the ensuing stampede to the Sixteenth Amendment.
hmmmmm...yellow batter
hell, why not? lolOkay - yellow batter it is. Can we have chocolate frosting on it? I love chocolate frosting on yellow batter.
You are not your estate. You and your estate do not exist as contemporaries. An estate is an entirely separate legal entity that enters into existence upon your death. It is comprised of assets. Those may include income-earning assets, and if so, the estate (not you) will be liable for any income tax applicable to its earnings under law. Taxes are meanwhile not levied against an estate but against the uses and distributions of the assets contained within it. Using them to build a new surgical unit at your typical local hospital or to endow a new chair at the typical local university will not incur tax. Dumping some mega-windfall profit onto darling Biff and Muffy will incur tax. Consult with a knowledgeable tax advisor or estate attorney in the unlikely event that this would appear to be a problem for you.massive fail. the estate is taxed as an estate not income
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?