The honeymoon is ALREADY over? Shocking numbers

[sjt18]

OTOH, if someone makes billions and billions, well, we can probably tax them (say) 20%, and it won't be a killer for them.

You operate under the assumption that the economy and taxes are a zero sum game. That billionaire won't eat more or really consume that much more if he makes another million... he'll invest it. That creates wealth that can then be pursued by the labors of the person making nothing.

It's a reasonable, natural, and fair thing to do, and it is not tantamount to "stealing."

I don't think I said stealing but it is not "fair" and equal treatment. It is not honest, blind justice for all. It is wrong in every respect that charging you more for a gallon of gas than your neighbor who happens to make a little less than you would be.

You keep skipping my major objection though. The income tax in every form gives gov't too much power over people.

 

[BeecherVol]

You operate under the assumption that the economy and taxes are a zero sum game. That billionaire won't eat more or really consume that much more if he makes another million... he'll invest it. That creates wealth that can then be pursued by the labors of the person making nothing.



I don't think I said stealing but it is not "fair" and equal treatment. It is not honest, blind justice for all. It is wrong in every respect that charging you more for a gallon of gas than your neighbor who happens to make a little less than you would be.

You keep skipping my major objection though. The income tax in every form gives gov't too much power over people.

Absolutely.

 

[StepCross]

That billionaire won't eat more or really consume that much more if he makes another million... he'll invest it.

I agree 100%.

Which means he can make billions upon billions and never pay a dime of taxes on any of it.

A pastor, or teacher, or police officer, or engineer, or even a lawyer or doctor will end up paying 35% of his salary in taxes, while your billionaire will pay some 5% or less.

And you call that "fair"?

 

[StepCross]

The wealth represented by that money is consumed by that person while they contribute nothing. This is truly as simple is 1-1=0.

Wait, why "contribute nothing"? We're talking about someone who is working, making money, and paying bills, right? We agreed to throw out the free-riders.

And, the MONEY ISN'T GONE! When they spend it, the MERCHANT gets it! It doesn't disintegrate. It's not, NOT gone. It's in the economy, creating jobs and profit for someone.

Why do you keep insisting the money disappears? It doesn't do that, it stays in the economy.

If you purified it then it would only make it harder to climb each rung. Once you reached another one of your income levels more of what you needed to go higher would be confiscated.

But if you're sitting at level 1, it's harder than chinese arithmetic to get to level 2, because life is really expensive at that level. I want to make THAT level easy.

You want to make level 2 hard, level 3 hard, and level 9 easy, and then claim that you're creating upward mobility.

 

[StepCross]

I don't think I said stealing but it is not "fair" and equal treatment. It is not honest, blind justice for all.

And you think "fair" is taxing a 50k earner at 25% (that'd be 12,500--a fourth of his salary) and taxing a billionaire at--what--1%?

That doesn't sound fair to me, it sounds like the elite preying on the middle class.

 

[droski]

And you think "fair" is taxing a 50k earner at 25% (that'd be 12,500--a fourth of his salary) and taxing a billionaire at--what--1%?

That doesn't sound fair to me, it sounds like the elite preying on the middle class.

If that billionare is still paying 20 times the taxes as the 50k guy id say the 50k guy is getting the better deal
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[MG1968]

And you think "fair" is taxing a 50k earner at 25% (that'd be 12,500--a fourth of his salary) and taxing a billionaire at--what--1%?

That doesn't sound fair to me, it sounds like the elite preying on the middle class.

simple math will tell you that 1% of 1 billion is a lot more than 25% of 50 thousand.

once again, the Constitution calls for uniform taxation. If we can't have a consumption based Fair Tax, then a flat tax is far more equitable than the current progressive system.

 

[sjt18]

I agree 100%.

Which means he can make billions upon billions and never pay a dime of taxes on any of it.

A pastor, or teacher, or police officer, or engineer, or even a lawyer or doctor will end up paying 35% of his salary in taxes, while your billionaire will pay some 5% or less.

And you call that "fair"?

Yes. As long as the same law is applied in the same way to each and every one blindly.

When you go to the store and buy a coat with sales tax... do you feel guilty or that an injustice has been done since obvioulsy there are others buying that same coat who aren't as rich as you? Do you write an additional check and send it into the dept of revenue because your wealth was unfair to other shoppers?

Didn't think so.

There's something else that you seem to be missing... it isn't YOUR money. It does not belong to you and it does not belong to you or any 51% of citizens who might want to use force to take it.

Freedom whether you like it or not allows that some people will by effort, skill, or providence end up with more than others.

 

[sjt18]

Wait, why "contribute nothing"? We're talking about someone who is working, making money, and paying bills, right? We agreed to throw out the free-riders.

OK... Like you I was using an extreme but it works just as well for degrees.

And, the MONEY ISN'T GONE! When they spend it, the MERCHANT gets it! It doesn't disintegrate. It's not, NOT gone. It's in the economy, creating jobs and profit for someone.

Why do you keep insisting the money disappears? It doesn't do that, it stays in the economy.

The money as a physical object does not disappear/diminish. The wealth it represented DOES disappear because it was consumed with no or, in the case you demand, less of a return.

Again, this is 3rd grade math. If you take from your wealth generators and transfer it to those who produce much less or not at all then you hurt the whole group. The sum of their wealth becomse smaller so there is less to share within the process of the economy.

But if you're sitting at level 1, it's harder than chinese arithmetic to get to level 2, because life is really expensive at that level. I want to make THAT level easy.

By taxing away the capital needed to attain and sustain at the next level? That is what the progressive income tax does.

You want to make level 2 hard, level 3 hard, and level 9 easy, and then claim that you're creating upward mobility.

How is that? I am not proposing that lower incomes be taxed more. I am proposing A) that we reintroduce more economic freedom by eliminating the system that enables gov't to control and bog down economic decisions, B) that we simplify taxation and make it more efficient, and C) that we don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg by taxing capital that could be invested to create more wealth and transferring it to activities that consume it with no residual benefit to the economy as a whole.