They Don’t Pay Their Fair Share

#627
#627
McDad said:
Yes, I do. Making sure you appreciate you are using an scenario incongruous with your preferred system of graduated taxation rates.
Click to expand...
It's the midpoint between what I propose and what you propose. More in line with hog's proposal.
I think it's an appropriate system from property.
 
#631
#631
AshG said:
So they should be absolved of federal taxes.
Click to expand...
Yes. Federal employees, including military, should not pay income taxes if they do not vote.

In reality, it is ignorantly inefficient for the federal government to pay people and then process their income tax. They should be paid 20-30% lower than private sector for analogous work and simply skip the income tax process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, Vol8188 and NEO
#632
#632
luthervol said:
I would replace equally with equitably.
An equal sharing of the burden does not mean everyone pays the same.
Let me try this analogy (just thinking it up on the fly)
You have a truckload of rock delivered to your house that you want to use to line the bottom of your fence in the back yard. They dump the rock at the top of your driveway. On Saturday you plan to have family work day to more the rocks. You, your wife, your 17 year old sun, your 5 year old daughter, and your 76 year old mother in law all show up in overalls ready to work and do their fair share. Does that mean you should each move the same amount of rocks during the day? Or does that mean that you should each work equally hard to accomplish the job (knowing that each individual will more a vastly different amount of rock)? What is equitable?
Click to expand...

Very excited to answer this hypothetical. And, good on you for sticking to topic and engaging in legit conversation.

Luther's analogy is a beautiful illustration of charity (marxism, social democracy, "each by their abilities") in the private sector. Charity and volunteerism should be based on what one can do. To further illustrate the point, if I were paying for the rock to be moved and the workers were unrelated, I would expect everyone to pull their weight. If they couldn't, they would either not be hired or they would be fired. Doing me a favor has a certain set of expectations. Doing a job has a different set of expectations.

We have a tax system which is not volunteer. It is compulsory which carries a set of expectations as well. I suggest an income tax system which is like an HOA. The dues to live in the HOA are the same regardless of the size of your home, your age, your employment status, the number in your household, etc. You have the same access to amenities and benefits as other home owners and your fair share is based on the expenses incurred; not by your means to pay or enjoy the HOA tennis courts (as an example).
 
Last edited:
#633
#633
McDad said:
Yes. Federal employees, including military, should not pay income taxes if they do not vote.

In reality, it is ignorantly inefficient for the federal government to pay people and then process their income tax. They should be paid 20-30% lower than private sector for analogous work and simply skip the income tax process.
Click to expand...

I can't tell you how much sense this makes. Mainly because I'm living the same damn thing right now.

University system of Maryland pays me. I then write a check monthly to the University system of Maryland for my health insurance. Wtf?
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and McDad
#634
#634
luthervol said:
I work in public education. The general assumption here (that was never once stated by me - nor will it be) is that I am a teacher. I do have many years of experience as a teacher and a coach. My wife is a high school calculus teacher.
Click to expand...
Gotcha.

Follow up question. Unrelated to this thread. How do you and your wife feel about the private school option?

We sacrifice quite a bit in order to send our son’s to private school. We see it as an investment and they really enjoy it, though it’s all they know. Both my wife and I went to public schools but we wanted something different for our kids. The only person who has ever really criticized our choice is my wife’s father-in-law. He’s been in education for over 20 years and believes public school should be the only option.

Just curious as to how you feel about the subject.
 
#635
#635
AshG said:
I can't tell you how much sense this makes. Mainly because I'm living the same damn thing right now.

University system of Maryland pays me. I then write a check monthly to the University system of Maryland for my health insurance. Wtf?
Click to expand...
McDad said:
Yes. Federal employees, including military, should not pay income taxes if they do not vote.

In reality, it is ignorantly inefficient for the federal government to pay people and then process their income tax. They should be paid 20-30% lower than private sector for analogous work and simply skip the income tax process.
Click to expand...
20-30%? How much do you think federal workers make? It takes a fair bit of income to get above 24%.
 
#636
#636
hog88 said:
It's definitely worth discussing. Most people under 18 probably get most if not all of the income taxes back when they file and illegals well that's a different sack of cats.
Click to expand...
From an efficiency perspective alone, the under 18 should not be paying taxes then. It is a waste to file, process, record only for them to get most if not all income taxes back.

I specifically said those on work visas. They are here legally and temporarily. They should not pay income taxes.
 
#637
#637
VOLS INC. said:
Gotcha.

Follow up question. Unrelated to this thread. How do you and your wife feel about the private school option?

We sacrifice quite a bit in order to send our son’s to private school. We see it as an investment and they really enjoy it, though it’s all they know. Both my wife and I went to public schools but we wanted something different for our kids. The only person who has ever really criticized our choice is my wife’s father-in-law. He’s been in education for over 20 years and believes public school should be the only option.

Just curious as to how you feel about the subject.
Click to expand...
I support your option and your decision.
My 3 kids all went through public schools and received excellent educations.
If I lived in an area that had poor public schools, I would either move (which was our choice) or send my kids to a private school. From our experiences, most public school systems offer the chance of an excellent education if the the child (and parents) are determined to take advantage of it.
I know many kids who have gone through the schools in our district who went on the the top schools nation wide, often on scholarship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLS INC.
#638
#638
luthervol said:
It's the midpoint between what I propose and what you propose. More in line with hog's proposal.
I think it's an appropriate system from property.
Click to expand...
In theory every household should share equally the burden of governing the city, county. Every home should share the amount equally. Government on the small scale has an advantage over large scale, though. Small scale government should be assessing taxes on the property based on how that property utilizes city and county services. Property tax should be the highest where the police and fire fighters are called most frequently. Households with children should pay more than those with none.
The size of the house doesn't determine the use of city or county services and because it is unrelated to the services used, it is a poor metric for what should be paid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO and Orangeburst
#639
#639
VolStrom said:
20-30%? How much do you think federal workers make? It takes a fair bit of income to get above 24%.
Click to expand...
Wasn't just based on tax rates. But if that payroll was reduced by the tax bracket percentage at a minimum, it would be a ok with me.
 
#640
#640
McDad said:
In theory every household should share equally the burden of governing the city, county. Every home should share the amount equally. Government on the small scale has an advantage over large scale, though. Small scale government should be assessing taxes on the property based on how that property utilizes city and county services. Property tax should be the highest where the police and fire fighters are called most frequently. Households with children should pay more than those with none.
The size of the house doesn't determine the use of city or county services and because it is unrelated to the services used, it is a poor metric for what should be paid.
Click to expand...

I agree, but now we are getting into mileage taxes for highway use. IDK we kinda already got that with fuel tax, unless you drive EV
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#641
#641
Orangeburst said:
I agree, but now we are getting into mileage taxes for highway use. IDK we kinda already got that with fuel tax, unless you drive EV
Click to expand...
Mileage taxes make sense if applied to EV. They use and cause wear and tear on the roads. And I agree with you, use tax is somewhat built into the fuel taxes. Use more fuel because you're travelling more miles, you pay more in fuel taxes.

Imagine if fuel taxes were based on someone's income or net worth? Many don't realize we already have several taxes which are the same for everyone independent of income, wealth, etc.
 
#642
#642
The best thing about EV's is they can tax the living crap out of chargers if they want to. Anyone that thinks they're going to save money driving an EV over gasoline is wrong. Just remember, it's all for the children.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AshG
#643
#643
Vol8188 said:
Can’t do it right now but I’d love to know what that comes out to if invested from 18-65 at 5% a year. The point being leaving the lower class and becoming a millionaire is well within the reach of anyone
Click to expand...
At 5% it would be $429,000 At 7% it is 805,000 At 9% it would be $1.5 million. That was precisely my point as well. Throw your money away on cigs, beer and lottery tickets and thou wildst be broke.

$190/month.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, McDad and Vol8188
#644
#644
AshG said:
According to our laws, it is just.
Click to expand...
And according to our current laws, it is just to deny certain rights and privileges to felons even after they complete their sentence. But some are arguing that isn't just. I don't altogether disagree... I just think you MUST look at the victims of the crime as well.
 
#645
#645
hog88 said:
Luxury taxes are industry killers and have failed every time they have been implemented.
Click to expand...
Have they been tried as a sole solution? I agree that in combination with other factors it's bad, but never seen it on it's own.

Operating costs would go down, and people would have more money to spend. Depending on your location it could easily be 30-50% more money.
 
#648
#648
hog88 said:
Most rich guys don't buy personal jets. Their companies buy the jets because they can write off the expenses and depreciate the assets in addition to easing travel for themselves. A lot of them turn that purchase into a business and offer their jet on a charter service. So tagging a $10mil purchase with another mil and zero way to recoup that cost would severely hurt if not kill the corporate jet market.

The luxury taxes of the early 90s decimated the yacht industry.
Click to expand...
Only if that tax increase occurred without relief elsewhere. I think most of us are advocating for a system that completely replaces what we have now.

As for the corporate jet market... you've accepted the notion that the government should create a profitable industry to supply something that the market does not demand. If the government did not incentivize the purchase and use of corporate jets... who would buy and use one? The answer is only those who truly need one or can afford the luxury of owning one. The market would dictate a more efficient use of capital and resources.

Much of what's already wrong with our economy goes back directly to government attempts to manipulate natural market forces.
 
#649
#649
hog88 said:
Most rich guys don't buy personal jets. Their companies buy the jets because they can write off the expenses and depreciate the assets in addition to easing travel for themselves. A lot of them turn that purchase into a business and offer their jet on a charter service. So tagging a $10mil purchase with another mil and zero way to recoup that cost would severely hurt if not kill the corporate jet market.

The luxury taxes of the early 90s decimated the yacht industry.
Click to expand...
Why couldn't they still charter it?

The company can still buy it, but now they are paying the only taxes they have.

You would see a great reset as priorities change. But change rarely comes without some pain. And we need a lot of change. That means a lot of pain. Any major tax change will create similar issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sjt18
#650
#650
Have any of you actually thought about property taxes and whether they are EVER legitimate? If you have to pay what amounts to rent then who actually owns the property? What happens if you decide not to pay? What legitimate government employee should have the power to set a value for your property arbitrarily?

You guys are arguing about something that should have NEVER been allowed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top