- Joined
- Jan 12, 2012
- Messages
- 5,939
- Reaction score
- 2,795
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
They would have no case at all. There is no relevant injury to claim unless your million dollars is taxed differently from the million dollars of someone else similarly situated. Keep in mind that you pay the same taxes on your first $100K of income that someone who only makes $100K does. No case to be made there either.According to the sixteenth it does. As I said earlier economic discrimination is still discrimination and if someone wanted to press the issue using the equal protections clause they would have a decent case.
More third-grade thinking. First of all, the number you cite is the percentage of 1040's filed showing a positive AGI but no NET tax owed. If that wasn't enough to lose you, consider that better than 20% of them are from full-time students who file a 1040 just to get back the taxes that were withheld while they worked summer or other part-time jobs. Did you ever do that? Further, the bottom 20% actually pays an average of 16.3% of their income in federal, state and local taxes, despite the fact that their federal income tax rates become negative due to the EITC and ACCC WORKFARE programs that we administer through the IRS.same with everyone else-especially the 50% or so who pay NO INCOME TAX. Guess what, the rich pay a higher percentage of the income tax now than at any time in the last 60 years.
Yes, if we had left income taxes the way they were under Clinton, a lot of these problems could have been avoided.are you unaware of the fact that the income tax structure is a main reason why we have a deficit?
Another ridiculous claim. A great many corporations end up owing no income tax, but not continuously. Zero tax this year, lots next year. Do some research. Corporations are not stupid. They contribute to both sides while leaning toward candidates who appear likely to win. That may indeed stand to hurt Republicans a good bit.As a matter of fact, the largest bank in America Golman Sachs paid almost nothing as well as General Electric and both contribute enormous sums of money exclusively to Democrat candidates.
I guess you would support a system under which everyone paid taxes, but then the government turned around and sent everyone a check for the exact same amount. That would be "fair" in your eyes, but anything else it seems would not.only spending and much of that spending is because those who demand it aren't taxed to pay for it
The two basic functions of any society are risk-sharing and redistribution of income. Can't handle it? Don't live in a society.your opinions I call psychobabble along with your claims that "we the people"=a justification for income redistribution
The Constitution in Article I-Section 8 calls on the new federal government to establish post offices and post roads. These enable mail to move efficiently around the new country. The bulk of the new country's residents are illiterate and have no use for mail. This is a transfer of wealth to the purposes of the already wealthy and well-educated.More psychobabble. Nothing in the constitution, its preamble etc suggests that income redistribution is a proper function of the federal government. The only thing I am unhappy with is the amount of parasites who think they have a claim to the wealth of others
They don't OWE anything. Most of them make less than $20 THOUSAND per year. These are the big horses you think should be carrying the load??? That's a crackpot notion.the whining left complains that Mitt only pays 14% (and millions) while being mum about the millions who pay nothing
LOL! It seems that more than one lily has been gilded around here!As an experienced attorney trained at one of the nations best law schools...
LOL! It seems that more than one lily has been gilded around here!
The Constitution in Article I-Section 8 calls on the new federal government to establish post offices and post roads. These enable mail to move efficiently around the new country. The bulk of the new country's residents are illiterate and have no use for mail. This is a transfer of wealth to the purposes of the already wealthy and well-educated.
The two basic functions of any society are risk-sharing and redistribution of income. Can't handle it? Don't live in a society.
There are permissible and impermissible forms of discrimination. You don't seem hep to the differences.You haven't discredited anything, all you have done is presented an appeal to authority. You haven't even satisfactorily countered how wealth based taxation and taxation on earnings isn't discrimination. Later.
The hypothetical implies myriad possible criminal indictments against past or present officers of this corporation. Tampering with corporate pension funds is no more permissible than tampering with union pension funds.The fulfillment of a contract by both sides is rather dependent upon a) the continued existence of either party, and b) the ability of either party to fulfill the contract. If the company goes under and no longer exists then where is that pension money supposed to come from? Pensions, unlike IRA's, are paid out of a company's income. No income means no pension payments. Secondly if the money is not there, well then the money is not there.
How long have you been in this country? We talk by convention here of income tax rates on an inclusive basis and sales tax rates on an exclusive basis. Nobody gets confused. That is, until the Fair Tax people come along and deliberately state what is actually a 30% sales tax at its inclusive rate of 23.08%. This was an act of deliberate deception undertaken after focus groups showed massive resistance to such flat-tax schemes once the rate went above 25%.I agree that the number in and of itself can be misleading IF one does not explain where it comes from. You cannot effectively compare an inclusive tax (income tax) to and exclusive tax (sales tax) unless you convert one to the other. It's the same as comparing miles to KM. You need to convert one to the other to see the real difference. So if you want to go with the 30% tax rate (which is the exclusive rate) then you need to convert all the income tax rates (which are inclusive) to exclusive and they will all jump up similarly.
Well, we lose about 15% of federal income taxes actually owed each year to fraud, the largest shares of that through the shady returns of small businesses. This is why expansion of the 1099 regime was proposed in the health care bill. Also why there was opposition to that. These people do not want to stop cheating the taxman.The current system has huge incentives for fraud and under the table wages are a lot easier to hide.
Try again. How is the big, new super-bureaucracy going to send you your monthy prebate check unless they know where you are at all times? And how are they going to know if you are really eligible to receive a check unless they pry into every detail of your personal life. Warrantless wiretapping will seem a lesser intrusion than what the Fair Tax will produce.Right now the government has to track all citizens AND all business. Under Fair Tax, they only have to track business.
It doesn't exist now unless you somehow manage to die still owning an estate worth many millions of dollars.However, we may want to be careful not to go off topic too fully here as this really ends up not dealing with inheritance taxes save that under Fair Tax such a tax would not exist.
The estate files its own tax return. Some forms of bequest will be reportable on an heir's tax return. In competent hands, an estate can also be used to generate deductions that will be reportable on an heir's return. So it's all of the above.NOw clear this up for those who may not be clear on this. Does the estate get taxed for giving the money to Biff and Muffy and THEN Biff and Muffy have to pay income tax on that or is it just one or the other?
Well, after the entertainment value wears off, see if you can uncover a way to counter the actual substance of those posts. These little quippies aren't going to get the job done.I'm always fascinated by what people invent when they're grasping at straws. Must admit, this is very entertaining bull****.
Well, after the entertainment value wears off, see if you can uncover a way to counter the actual substance of those posts. These little quippies aren't going to get the job done.
Yes, I'm familair with the breed. Also with the one that ought be drive-by's, but whose cars seem to break down, causing them to become stuck in some thread or other endlessly looking like fools. Have you ever come across any of those?There is a type of poster who can best be described as a drive-by poster. They enter quickly, say something fast and seemingly pithy, and get the hell out as fast as they can. The whole idea is to let others know they disagreee and feel strongly but to give little than can actually be debated with. It is the antithesis of actual debate.
Yes, I'm familair with the breed. Also with the one that ought be drive-by's, but whose cars seem to break down, causing them to become stuck in some thread or other endlessly looking like fools. Have you ever come across any of those?
your opinions I call psychobabble along with your claims that "we the people"=a justification for income redistribution
More psychobabble. Nothing in the constitution, its preamble etc suggests that income redistribution is a proper function of the federal government. The only thing I am unhappy with is the amount of parasites who think they have a claim to the wealth of others
I've said before that I think the simplest solution would be for the feds to issue 50 tax bills, one to each state. Each state gets billed for their share (apportioned by population) of the federal tax burden. Done. No IRS, no tax law, no deductions. Just 50 tax bills.Let's just face it, folks. The system we have now sucks a lot of ass. I hope we can all agree on that much. So the question remains: do we really need a system where the US tax code has over 71,000 pages? Why not simply tax everyone exactly the same regardless of income? No deductions, no loopholes, nothing. The exact same across the board. Then no one can bitch about people paying more or less than others. The states themselves can collect the income tax reducing our need for federal bureaucracy. Billions are spent each year by the IRS simply collecting the taxes because of unnecessary bureaucracy. Just consider it. :shrug:
That could work. Then again the states would find a way to make their own taxes ridiculous and then we're essentially back at square one.I've said before that I think the simplest solution would be for the feds to issue 50 tax bills, one to each state. Each state gets billed for their share (apportioned by population) of the federal tax burden. Done. No IRS, no tax law, no deductions. Just 50 tax bills.
You have a point. But one could always leave a ridiculous state for a less ridiculous state.That could work. Then again the states would find a way to make their own taxes ridiculous and then we're essentially back at square one.
True. To play devil's advocate though, at some point the federal could jack the rates up to a point that the other states may not have a choice but to get every dollar they can. Some sort of maximum would have to be set nationally.You have a point. But one could always leave a ridiculous state for a less ridiculous state.
That could work. Then again the states would find a way to make their own taxes ridiculous and then we're essentially back at square one.
True. To play devil's advocate though, at some point the federal could jack the rates up to a point that the other states may not have a choice but to get every dollar they can. Some sort of maximum would have to be set nationally.
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?