|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 01/31/2003 : 11:42:17
|
I think 20% is a pretty fair percentage, but I'm open for suggestions.
Comments and criticisms?
[edited for formatting on homepage issue]
|
|
|
Fireballn
Skeptic Friend
Canada
179 Posts |
 Posted - 01/31/2003 : 16:32:36 [Permalink]
|
| If you live in Canada, you might want to multiply line 1 by .5...... |
If i were the supreme being, I wouldn't have messed around with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers 8 o'clock day one!
-Time Bandits- |
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2003 : 17:03:49 [Permalink]
|
Mmmmmm, my dream is to live in Canada and gladly pay that tax.
What do you mean by "fair" TD? I would think it fair for billionaires to pay more because they get the benefit of the work of their employees and the society that allowed them to amass such a large fortune. Fair is also paying back and investing in society. Wealthy people often have businesses that utilize the roads, dirty our waters, exploit workers etc. Many emplyoers don't pay their employess enough to live even if they work 2 full time jobs. I have no sympathy for them as they cry because they can't afford another SUV while their workers live in tenements.
Regardless of all this: taxes should be enough to cover what the government is spending. Right now we have a huge deficit so to me it is more than obvious that taxes need to increase to cover this. Personally, I plan to someday move to Canada and enjoy the higher standard of living that somehow accompanies the higher tax rates. It's funny how that works out. Higher taxes mean a higher standard of living. Makes it an easy choice doesn't it?
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2003 : 01:15:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tokyodreamer
I think 20% is a pretty fair percentage, but I'm open for suggestions.
Comments and criticisms?
My comment is the fucking polititions can go to Hell. I think (and they think) it's their job to invent new ways to get our money by raising taxes to support their idotic programs. They don't represent us as they are supposed to do.
They want to treat people as if they were babies and don't know how to manage their own affairs. Give me MY money and I won't need no stupid Social Security or health care. Believe it or not I know how to make my own choices as to what I want.
People wouldn't have to complain about not having money if they could keep the money THEY earn instead of the government deciding what to do with it. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2003 : 01:39:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
Mmmmmm, my dream is to live in Canada and gladly pay that tax.
What do you mean by "fair" TD? I would think it fair for billionaires to pay more because they get the benefit of the work of their employees and the society that allowed them to amass such a large fortune. Fair is also paying back and investing in society. Wealthy people often have businesses that utilize the roads, dirty our waters, exploit workers etc. Many emplyoers don't pay their employess enough to live even if they work 2 full time jobs. I have no sympathy for them as they cry because they can't afford another SUV while their workers live in tenements.
Regardless of all this: taxes should be enough to cover what the government is spending. Right now we have a huge deficit so to me it is more than obvious that taxes need to increase to cover this. Personally, I plan to someday move to Canada and enjoy the higher standard of living that somehow accompanies the higher tax rates. It's funny how that works out. Higher taxes mean a higher standard of living. Makes it an easy choice doesn't it?
@tomic
Sorry @ but you just don't know what you are talking about. At the very least you are not seeing the big picture.
I have a couple of on line friends in Canada and from what I hear the health care system is terrible.
The 'Wealthy' you mention in many cases are very charitable. And it's not they (individualy) who "utilize the roads, dirty our waters, exploit workers etc." You sound too emotional and are not separating a person from a company.
Any tax that is charged to a company is passed down to the consumer, one way or another. Any tax that us consumers have to pay IMO, takes away from the economy. For example, the proposed raise here in California for car license fees (and we all know they can call it a fee or whatever but it's a TAX), how many people are going to think twice before getting a new car because of that?
Businessmen, rich if you want to call them that, employ people too. Raise their tax, how many people will they have to fire?
Businessmen get hit with a lot of problems because of the governments regulations. Martinity(sp.) leave.....give me a break. They want employers to hold jobs open for mothers OR fathers who have a baby!!! That costs the company money, who pays for that?
If a worker wastes his money and doesn't save, is that the employers fault. People are not taught in school to budget and spend, Americans are caught up in advertizing and having the latest...whatever. If someone can't afford something they need to learn to save and not get into debt to buy it.
How is it that people come here from other countries, don't speak the language, have nothing, but get educated, start business and advance? Everyone has that chance if they'd stop complaining, stop expecting hand-outs and start doing. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2003 : 04:15:39 [Permalink]
|
Social programs are a pittance compared to the money that goes to the wealthy via huge programs like the Defense Department. There is no reason the Defense Department should be so large.
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
Were it not for that, we could actually have some social programs in the U.S. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2003 : 10:33:00 [Permalink]
|
I pay 45 cents in the dollar on tax....it goes up to 55 cents (even more sometimes) if I have the audacity to work overtime to try to get ahead.
In fact, once I worked 68 hours in a week, only to get 250 dollars gross more than I usually do on a 40 hour week. I earned 2645 dollars for the week, of that I got taxed 1438 dollars just because that week I happened to go up two tax brackets for wages earnt that week...
Welcome to Australia, the highest taxing nation in the world....you work overtime for the government. |
Mistakes are a part of being human. Appreciate your mistakes for what they are: precious life lessons that can only be learned the hard way. Unless it's a fatal mistake, which, at least, others can learn from.
Al Franken |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2003 : 14:47:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by gezzam
I pay 45 cents in the dollar on tax....it goes up to 55 cents (even more sometimes) if I have the audacity to work overtime to try to get ahead.
In fact, once I worked 68 hours in a week, only to get 250 dollars gross more than I usually do on a 40 hour week. I earned 2645 dollars for the week, of that I got taxed 1438 dollars just because that week I happened to go up two tax brackets for wages earnt that week...
LOL. I figured that out a long time ago when I worked for the phone company. I never accepted overtime. People said it wasn't good for advancement if the company saw that you didn't like to do that but I never thought I'd have a career there anyway. It just wasn't worth my time for the money I got and what the govenment took away.
I'd rather be having fun. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2003 : 14:58:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Social programs are a pittance compared to the money that goes to the wealthy via huge programs like the Defense Department. There is no reason the Defense Department should be so large.
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
Were it not for that, we could actually have some social programs in the U.S.
Social programs???
Don't you think people can arrange their own social benifits, IF given the chance and without the government forcing them into it.
What social programs do you think we need? Or should I ask, what do you think the government thinks we should do that we aren't capable of taking care of for ourselves? Subsidies for farmers? The tabaco companies? Affrimitive action? This new nonsense that says girls have to have as many sports programs in schools as the boys? IRA's that don't allow us to invest enough money for the future so we HAVE to depend on the government? Why can't the government stay OUT of our lives so things could run better and less complicated?
Defense is one of the only few things the government is supposed to take care of for it's people. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2003 : 04:34:01 [Permalink]
|
Actually, since the government largely exists to make sure the wealthy get wealthier and the poor get poorer, there is a need for much greater social programs than what exist now, yes.
Defense, I suppose would be reasonable. However, the Pentagon system is not about defense, and the size of the Pentagon itself shows that it is not about defense. You can't complain about the small cost of Social Security and not complain about the Pentagon system.
To get back on topic, I don't know what a "fair" system would be. I see no need for sales taxes which are extremely regressive. Income taxes for those who make less than 40 or 50 grand or so is ridiculous. The rest should be paid by those who benefit most from the system. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 02/02/2003 04:38:51 |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2003 : 02:11:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Actually, since the government largely exists to make sure the wealthy get wealthier and the poor get poorer, there is a need for much greater social programs than what exist now, yes.
Gorgo,
You know I've always respected your opinion but....you don't, you can't really believe that?
1st of all what does one point (the rich getting richer) have to do with the other (social programs)?
Ok, I will give you that....maybe as it is now the taxes are not fair, they are preventing me (being in a very low income bracket) from gaining more wealth, without much sacrifice but that's not really how the govenment is supposed to work. If they'd stay out of our lives and not tax us for programs we don't need then we'd all have a better chance of using our OWN money to our own benefit.
quote:
Defense, I suppose would be reasonable. However, the Pentagon system is not about defense, and the size of the Pentagon itself shows that it is not about defense.
That I do agree. They do way over spend. But if our tax money was only for defence, a reasonable amount of course, we wouldn't have to complain about the other bad choice in spending.
quote:
You can't complain about the small cost of Social Security and not complain about the Pentagon system.
Ok, I didn't.
quote:
To get back on topic, I don't know what a "fair" system would be. I see no need for sales taxes which are extremely regressive. Income taxes for those who make less than 40 or 50 grand or so is ridiculous. The rest should be paid by those who benefit most from the system.
It's not fair to tax people just because they bothered to get a better education to be able to make more money. Or because they are more ambisish and try harder to do a better job.
Sales or useage tax is the better than income. That way people have a choice if they want to pay it or not.
(I'm trying to hurry, before my computer freezes so I hope that explains most of what I'm trying to say)
Thank you. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2003 : 05:33:31 [Permalink]
|
Well, you left out half of the idea. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It's a complete statement. The government exists to, as James Madison put it, protect the minority of the opulent from the majority. They keep unemployment high and wages low. They do R & D (via the Defense Department for one) and give it away to corporations, for an example. They gave away the public's airwaves for another. They make sure that NIKE has slaves in places like Haiti.
[quoteYou know I've always respected your opinion but....you don't, you can't really believe that?
1st of all what does one point (the rich getting richer) have to do with the other (social programs)?
Ok, I will give you that....maybe as it is now the taxes are not fair, they are preventing me (being in a very low income bracket) from gaining more wealth, without much sacrifice but that's not really how the govenment is supposed to work. If they'd stay out of our lives and not tax us for programs we don't need then we'd all have a better chance of using our OWN money to our own benefit. [/quote] |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2003 : 09:37:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tokyodreamer
I think 20% is a pretty fair percentage, but I'm open for suggestions.
Comments and criticisms?
I think Steve Forbes thought that 15% was fair and equitable and also removed all deductions. Could be good. Flat taxes could work for the upper, middle, and upper lower class. But would we still have to make exceptions on how far down that goes? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
chainsaw
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2003 : 12:13:52 [Permalink]
|
There are several issues that must be covered if you are going to really discuss the tax issue.
1. What is preferable: a progressive tax, flat tax, or regressive tax. The first being that your tax liability % increases with increasing income and the last being you tax liability % decreases with increasing income. No one really argues for the latter, however, when all taxes (sales, excise, user fees, etc) are taken into consideration, our tax system is effectively regressive today. Many support the flat tax as most fair. However, the economic law of marginal utility of money says that a progressive tax system is most fair.
2. Historically, government projects have provided the most significant positive impact on our economic lives. This is contrary to most current talking heads. The transcontinental railroad, interstate highway system, space program, rural electrification, social security, and medicare are a few that come to my mind. Even the private initiatives of most impact, which pale in comparison, had government funding for military or public purposes.
3. For those who say it's my money, and I spend it best, fail to fully appreciate the beneficial economic climate that our tax dollars provide. If you want to stay in the best hotel, you have to pay the price; if you want to live in the most advanced economy, you have to pay the taxes. It doesn't hold up without it.
4. The most legitimate public issue related to taxes is not how and how much we are taxed but to what types of projects should our taxes go. You all have heard of atrocities and wasteful spending by our bureaucrats, e.g. million dollar studies of the sex habits of ants or something to that effect. I must point out however, that in the shadow of trillion dollar budget, they miniscule. I've worked in a fortune 50 company for 20 years, and the private waste and horrible spending decisions far exceed any waste I've seen in government. The difference is government is public and all eyes see it. We have to accept the fact that humans are wasteful by nature. We just have to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. |
You can "believe" what you want, but you do have to get your science right or you'll flunk science. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2003 : 14:31:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
But would we still have to make exceptions on how far down that goes?
Yeah, I was trying to think about what I'd do about low incomes. I mean, $4000 out of a $20,000 a year income seems kinda harsh.
My wife had a good idea. She suggested gross - SomeBaseNumber x 20%. The base number would be around $20,000 - $30,000. (Maybe just for @tomic, we can say that if you are an evil dirty rich exploiter person, you don't get to subtact the base number.  )
I think getting rid of just about any and all chances of fraud, and getting rid of the IRS, and all loopholes would more than make up for letting some people get by without paying federal taxes. A flat tax would do that. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2003 : 14:44:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My wife had a good idea. She suggested gross - SomeBaseNumber x 20%. The base number would be around $20,000 - $30,000. (Maybe just for @tomic, we can say that if you are an evil dirty rich exploiter person, you don't get to subtact the base number. )
This is not nearly enough for the worst offenders. There are corporations that employ vast numbers of people and pay them wages so low that they need public assistance. Basically, that is how they get the goverment to pay for needs these people have that their employer should cover. This is no small group of exploiters. This is corporate America and smaller operations. A little subtraction like that for a corporation is laughable. I find it interesting that back in the 60's when corporate taxes were far above what they are now the USA made it's greatest achievments and built much of the infrastructure we enjoy today. I think the argument is weighted towards more taxation to have the best environment. And that "It's my money" crap is bullshit when everyone uses the services and enjoys what these taxes produce. Our civilization cannot survive without building and maintaining infrastructure and services that individuals and private companies would never commit to.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
