A tax analogy, who's really paying their fair share?

[Mr Neutron]

That's the thing, socialism isn't far and never will be. Pro-socialists can attempt to justify their ignorance from any angle, and it always comes back to being the opposite of "fair".

They fail to realize that life is not fair, hence they do nothing more than attempt justify their own ignorance. It's somewhat like a cult mentality... delusional, but justified in their own minds.

And while one has a right to practice cultism, they don't have the right in forcing others to join, for their own potential benefit.

Fairness, the mantra of socialism. Instead of fairness, we should focus on mobility and I am not talking about riding around in cars. I mean the mobility for one to improve his status, to move up the economic ladder. Rather than taking from some to give to others, free up the barriers that keep the poor, poor.

 

[Total Head]

something that hasn't been mentioned...

i may not pay 25% income tax to the FEDS, but i do pay a state income tax that combined with the federal tax actually comes out to about 25% of my income. i also pay a 6.5% sales tax on everything i buy that isn't unprepared food or clothes. when i eat at a restaurant i pay a sales tax, a prepared food tax, and a municipal "eatery tax", or in other words, 13% of the bill, BEFORE tip. i also pay a yearly excise tax for the privilege of owning a car that i already paid a sales tax on when i purchased, and a whole slew of other taxes that most of the people to whom i'm being compared don't pay. taxachusetts isn't just some cutsey term cooked up by whiny people. there's a reason why so many chain restaurants and stores just aren't found within our borders.

so we can argue about federal taxes all we want. it will never be an accurate comparison. i get raped and thrown to the dogs before the federal tax is even taken into account, so to say that i have the same ability to pay the federal tax as someone in a different state is not black and white. at the end of the day if i make 100 bucks a week and someone in another state makes a hundred bucks a week, usually the other guy is going to have a much bigger chunk of change left than me (with a few exceptions). regardless of whether i "choose" to continue living here is beside the point. the point is i personally cannot afford to part with any more of my income.

if all employees only paid tax to their state, and then the fed just taxed the state, we'd see just how "fair" this all is as far as how much of whose income is going where. (i'm not advocating this, i'm just making a point.)

i also get paid hourly and they cut me a check. my money isn't in "investments" which can be diced up and re-labelled as something other than income. all of that "unearned income" escapes that fica tax that i have to pay. how fucking fancy.

so yes, i'm fine with people who make millions of dollars a year having call a spade a spade and acknowledge income as income. you can call it "investments" if you want, just as long as you explain where the ferarri came from and take your share of rape, because i don't get to re-label MY income.

 

[InCognition]

Fairness, the mantra of socialism. Instead of fairness, we should focus on mobility and I am not talking about riding around in cars. I mean the mobility for one to improve his status, to move up the economic ladder. Rather than taking from some to give to others, free up the barriers that keep the poor, poor.

People have plenty of mobility to improve their status. I've seen people come from the slums, who have turned into very successful doctors and business people, and they did it with their own intellect and will power.

There is plenty of opportunity for everyone, but if one doesn't have the god given intellect or the self-prescribed will power, one not going to accomplish what they "want", simple because they think they should have an easier ride at achieving that goal.

Let's face it, not everyone can have everything, and that's just the game of life. Some have much more than others because others have less. That's just how it is, and always will be.

The notion that we should essentially take from those who have (whether or not they rightfully earned it), and give to those who don't have, just to open their barriers (make their journey a little easier), is a very unjust way of ensuring mobility or fairness.

 

[Mr Neutron]

People have plenty of mobility to improve their status. I've seen people come from the slums, who have turned into very successful doctors and business people, and they did it with their own intellect and will power.

There is plenty of opportunity for everyone, but if one doesn't have the god given intellect or the self-prescribed will power, one not going to accomplish what they "want", simple because they think they should have an easier ride at achieving that goal.

Let's face it, not everyone can have everything, and that's just the game of life. Some have much more than others because others have less. That's just how it is, and always will be.

The notion that we should essentially take from those who have (whether or not they rightfully earned it), and give to those who don't have, just to open their barriers (make their journey a little easier), is a very unjust way of ensuring mobility or fairness.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

 

[UncleBuck]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

give the kid a break, he's got acne to worry about.

 

[InCognition]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

Maybe I did.

But, freeing up barriers in order to give the poor more mobility, is ultimately going to do what though? It's going to take from those who have higher mobility to begin with, and shrink it. That's not just.

For every action there is a reaction. "Freeing up barriers" for the poor is a lot more complicated than that statement, and it ultimately involves the sacrifice of those who have more, in some way or another.

 

[Mr Neutron]

Maybe I did.

But, freeing up barriers in order to give the poor more mobility, is ultimately going to do what though? It's going to take from those who have higher mobility to begin with, and shrink it. That's not just.

For every action there is a reaction. "Freeing up barriers" for the poor is a lot more complicated than that statement, and it ultimately involves the sacrifice of those who have more, in some way or another.

Well, then, we just disagree. I do not feel that freeing up the barriers to people starting businesses and innovating, takes away anything from anybody except the statists.

 

[beenthere]

if all employees only paid tax to their state, and then the fed just taxed the state, we'd see just how "fair" this all is as far as how much of whose income is going where. (i'm not advocating this, i'm just making a point.)

This is the way our founding fathers intended taxes to be paid, and the main reason we now have a bloated federal government.

i also get paid hourly and they cut me a check. my money isn't in "investments" which can be diced up and re-labelled as something other than income. all of that "unearned income" escapes that fica tax that i have to pay. how fucking fancy.

so yes, i'm fine with people who make millions of dollars a year having call a spade a spade and acknowledge income as income. you can call it "investments" if you want, just as long as you explain where the ferarri came from and take your share of rape, because i don't get to re-label MY income.

Most all the "rich" pay all the same taxes as you, they just pay more.
You are also taxed a lower rate on your capital gains (if you wish to invest) so as far as taking their share of rape, they do and then some. Where I live we pay a 7.75% sales tax on all goods other than food products. You really don't notice the 39 cent tax on a six pack of beer, but go buy a new truck and the $4,000 sales tax slaps you upside the head. So saying the rich don't pay their fair share when they're forking out $30k plus in taxes for a Ferrari is straight up wrong.

My 02

 

[UncleBuck]

You really don't notice the 39 cent tax on a six pack of beer, but go buy a new truck and the $4,000 sales tax slaps you upside the head. So saying the rich don't pay their fair share when they're forking out $30k plus in taxes for a Ferrari is straight up wrong.

My 02

so someone like myself who spends almost all of what he makes on taxable goods gets 90% of his income taxed at 5-10% (sales tax).

but a millionaire who spends nowhere neat what he makes on taxable goods only gets 10-20% of his income taxed at 5-10%.

totally "fair", LOL

 

[beenthere]

so someone like myself who spends almost all of what he makes on taxable goods gets 90% of his income taxed at 5-10% (sales tax).

but a millionaire who spends nowhere neat what he makes on taxable goods only gets 10-20% of his income taxed at 5-10%.

totally "fair", LOL

Do you think it's fair for a guy like you, that had just as much chance to succeed in life but for what ever reason did not, pay only $2,500 annual federal income tax. While a person who did succeed pays $2million in federal income taxes ?
Who's contributing the most and who is helping the country more?
And if that "rich" guy paid triple that amount in taxes, how does it effect your life?

 

[UncleBuck]

Do you think it's fair for a guy like you, that had just as much chance to succeed in life but for what ever reason did not, pay only $2,500 annual federal income tax. While a person who did succeed pays $2million in federal income taxes ?

depends.

if i pad at 22% and the millionaire pays at 13%, i wouldn't call that particularly fair. i would say the deck is stacked against the little guy.

not to mention the millionaire has more power to lobby congress to keep their tax rate low, not the case for the little guy.

 

[beenthere]

depends.

if i pad at 22% and the millionaire pays at 13%, i wouldn't call that particularly fair. i would say the deck is stacked against the little guy.

not to mention the millionaire has more power to lobby congress to keep their tax rate low, not the case for the little guy.

But you don't pay 22%, closer to 7-9%, and people making in excess of $1million a year are paying at least 15% or more.
You never addressed my questions of who contributes more to his country, the rich guy or the guy like you, and how would taxing them more effect your life.

Oh, and did you notice you said "pad" instead of paid and didn't capitalize your I's ?
I wouldn't have brought that up, but I know things like that bother you!

 

[UncleBuck]

But you don't pay 22%, closer to 7-9%, and people making in excess of $1million a year are paying at least 15% or more.
You never addressed my questions of who contributes more to his country, the rich guy or the guy like you, and how would taxing them more effect your life.

me: paid 22% last time i was a full timer making about $28k.

romney: makes $20 million: pays 13%.

romney: responsible for extracting profit from companies, closing down the company, declaring bankruptcy, then making taxpayers foot the bill for pensions. narrows tax base by thousands of workers. takes advantage of situations where reward is personalized and risk is socialized. shelters the money from taxes, hides it overseas. lobbied congress to keep his tax rate artificially low.

me: never extracted wealth in the millions at the expense of others, sheltered it from taxes, hid it overseas, and lobbied for the tax rate to be lower than a schlub making $28k. takes advantage of situation where reward is personalized and risk is very personalized. if someone falls off those treadmills, i'm in for it.

as far as making the country a better place with more equal opportunity, i would say i have done less to hurt the american dream than the romney type guy out there.

romney doesn't even produce anything. he make hundreds of millions by buying up companies, extracting the profit, shutting them down, firing all the workers, sticking the taxpayer with the bill for firing all the workers, and calls it a day.

i labor my ass off to produce treadmills for a living. in fact, my treadmill production is often responsible for me being able to employ others to help trim treadmills or look after my treadmills when i go on vacation. and i pay well, $15 an hour to trim treadmills, $80 a day just to sit there and make sure the treadmills don't catch on fire.

Oh, and did you notice you said "pad" instead of paid and didn't capitalize your I's ?
I wouldn't have brought that up, but I know things like that bother you!

Yes, I caught the misspelling of "paid". I did not bother correcting it.

 

[UncleBuck]

i forgot to answer how fairer tax structure would effect my life.

not so much is the answer. but it would help safeguard against a banana republic style plutocracy, which is good overall to maintain the great nation we have. upward mobility is still possible for anyone who wants it, although the middle class is shrinking. as more wealth flows to the top, the american dream becomes more and more of that: a dream.

not to mention the accompanying fascist police state which we are already seeing creep in. the wealthy will use their wealth to protect their new status quo.

remember, periods of extreme income inequality are accompanied by extremely volatile and vulnerable economic times.

i don't want anything even close to full income equality, that's retarded. what i want is for the little guys to still be able to band together to make their needs and desires heard as much as the big guys can. pursuing policies that increase rather than narrow or maintain the shocking levels of income equality we have is contradictory to the goal of an america where all voices are heard, not just the wealthy who can afford to make their voices heard.

 

[Total Head]

This is the way our founding fathers intended taxes to be paid, and the main reason we now have a bloated federal government.


Most all the "rich" pay all the same taxes as you, they just pay more.
You are also taxed a lower rate on your capital gains (if you wish to invest) so as far as taking their share of rape, they do and then some. Where I live we pay a 7.75% sales tax on all goods other than food products. You really don't notice the 39 cent tax on a six pack of beer, but go buy a new truck and the $4,000 sales tax slaps you upside the head. So saying the rich don't pay their fair share when they're forking out $30k plus in taxes for a Ferrari is straight up wrong.

My 02

i just have beef with the fica tax, mostly. i know what it's for and i pay it and all, but those investments (the bulk of the rich's "income") are exempt from that tax. it reminds me of that episode of cheers where sam bet the rich guy in a game of chess or whatever. the rich guy bet a week of his salary against a week of sam's pay. the punchline was that even though sam won he only won a dollar, because according to the irs, that was the rich guy's "pay" for a week. that's the "income" i'm talking about. the one that gets taxed to shit. the one that most of the rich do not rely on to feed and clothe themselves.

and if i could afford to invest, i would be delighted to find out that i get taxed at a lower rate. it's the least they could do after leaving me penniless.

and when i buy beer, i pay a sales tax AND an alcohol tax. it adds almost a dollar to a 6 pack, and i most certainly do notice it. my point with the tax is that i, the regular guy actually get affected by these nickles and dimes where the rich (although they "also pay") do not. obviously we all pay the same percentage of sales tax, and i know that the tax on a $1000 item adds up to more than a $10 item, that was not my point with the ferarri example. my point with the car is that one could in theory be driving an expensive car while not cashing a single payroll check, and the standard payroll taxes are what i am referring to when i say rape.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

What UB consistently misses in his statement of the rich guy only paying 13%, is that he has already been taxed at the higher rate on the money he's investing. He then pays again on the fruits of that investment, the investment that he could choose not to make and simply hoard in the form of gold or some other valuable asset. I don't invest a great deal of money myself, but I agree with the government making investment as attractive as possible by keeping the tax rate low.

There is NO justification for a progressive tax rate, I barely find a flat tax to be fair. The argument is basically the the US government is due a percentage almost like a franchise agreement, you do all the work, but make sure you send us our cut for providing you the environment to succeed.

Except the franchisee would never agree to a progressive percentage. If you make 100k you pay 15%, but if you make 2 million, well then you gotta pay 35%. It's laughable in it's stupidity and unfairness and thanks to the insanity of Hoover and FDR, it has led to the current, outrageous level of inequity.

 

[kelly4]

Buck, you are argueing for lower taxes for the poor, but are for raising cigarette taxes to subsidise stadiums for billionaires.
Raising cigerette taxes will definately hurt the poor more than the rich.
Please explain your position.

 

[Mr Neutron]

so someone like myself who spends almost all of what he makes on taxable goods gets 90% of his income taxed at 5-10% (sales tax).

but a millionaire who spends nowhere neat what he makes on taxable goods only gets 10-20% of his income taxed at 5-10%.

totally "fair", LOL

millionaires are messy?

 

[Mr Neutron]

depends.

if i pad at 22% and the millionaire pays at 13%, i wouldn't call that particularly fair. i would say the deck is stacked against the little guy.

not to mention the millionaire has more power to lobby congress to keep their tax rate low, not the case for the little guy.

How do you like your iPad?
As far as the second line goes, that's not the rich guy's fault that congress is corrupt and the sheeple keep sending the same guys back to congress.

 

[beenthere]

me: paid 22% last time i was a full timer making about $28k.

romney: makes $20 million: pays 13%.

romney: responsible for extracting profit from companies, closing down the company, declaring bankruptcy, then making taxpayers foot the bill for pensions. narrows tax base by thousands of workers. takes advantage of situations where reward is personalized and risk is socialized. shelters the money from taxes, hides it overseas. lobbied congress to keep his tax rate artificially low.

me: never extracted wealth in the millions at the expense of others, sheltered it from taxes, hid it overseas, and lobbied for the tax rate to be lower than a schlub making $28k. takes advantage of situation where reward is personalized and risk is very personalized. if someone falls off those treadmills, i'm in for it.

as far as making the country a better place with more equal opportunity, i would say i have done less to hurt the american dream than the romney type guy out there.

romney doesn't even produce anything. he make hundreds of millions by buying up companies, extracting the profit, shutting them down, firing all the workers, sticking the taxpayer with the bill for firing all the workers, and calls it a day.

i labor my ass off to produce treadmills for a living. in fact, my treadmill production is often responsible for me being able to employ others to help trim treadmills or look after my treadmills when i go on vacation. and i pay well, $15 an hour to trim treadmills, $80 a day just to sit there and make sure the treadmills don't catch on fire.





Yes, I caught the misspelling of "paid". I did not bother correcting it.

I guess it's your ignorance about taxation that leads you to believe you pay the marginal tax rates you see on charts. LOL
For a guy that puts himself out there by complaining what others pay in taxes, it's embarrassing that you have no clue what you pay yourself.

Does the Daily Kos tell you that big bad greedy businessmen like Romney buy up failing companies that were already on the path of BK just to fire the employees for a profit? And are you that gullible to believe it? LMAO

Why don't you mention the companies he restructures that become successful and hire more employees, a bit disingenuous wouldn't you say.

i forgot to answer how fairer tax structure would effect my life.

not so much is the answer. but it would help safeguard against a banana republic style plutocracy, which is good overall to maintain the great nation we have. upward mobility is still possible for anyone who wants it, although the middle class is shrinking. as more wealth flows to the top, the american dream becomes more and more of that: a dream.

not to mention the accompanying fascist police state which we are already seeing creep in. the wealthy will use their wealth to protect their new status quo.

remember, periods of extreme income inequality are accompanied by extremely volatile and vulnerable economic times.

i don't want anything even close to full income equality, that's retarded. what i want is for the little guys to still be able to band together to make their needs and desires heard as much as the big guys can. pursuing policies that increase rather than narrow or maintain the shocking levels of income equality we have is contradictory to the goal of an america where all voices are heard, not just the wealthy who can afford to make their voices heard.

BTW, a plutocracy cannot exist without a corrupt government as it's partner, we need to get government out of capitalism in order to restore the free market.
This is where OWS got it wrong, they were protesting Wall Street instead of the White House.