They Don’t Pay Their Fair Share

[sjt18]

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.

Without the incentives to corporations, you could very well see the development of an "air" limousine business. Most corporations would not want to own their own but would have need on occasion.

 

[McDad]

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.

I am not arguing it isn't just. I believe after the punishment is done rights (provisional, conditional, or full) should be restored. If felons are denied voting, I don't think they should pay income tax. The money could be deducted according to their "bracket" and sent to the victims or families, though.

 

[Orangeburst]

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.

You don't own squat. You lease it. The gov can arbitrarily make your PT so excessive, you cannot afford it, this relinquishing, Yet here we are

 

[sjt18]

Idiocracy was a mockery of hypercapitalism and a warning against making academia/public education an enemy of the state.

LOL... no it isn't. It does include some shots at big, dominating corporations... but that's a creation of progressivism... not free markets. Most conservatives make the mistake of paralleling American progressives/liberals/leftists with socialists/communists. Socialism requires that government OWN the means of production. The left rightly rejects that charge. What they parallel is fascism. The fascists didn't want government to own everything... just to control everything including the media and public education for the purposes of indoctrination and control (on full display in Idiocracy). The best modern description of the fascist economic model is "crony capitalism" where political favor is more important than actual merit.

You probably also think that people can "pull themselves up by their bootstraps".

Well... seeing that people when free have so often done so... yeah. Seeing what many of my friends who also grew up in one of the poorest counties in the country have done through good values and hard work... there's no doubt.

Does pretty much everyone get help from others along they way? yeah. The question is whether that should be a free interaction between free people or a coerced transfer of wealth because YOU think you are morally superior.

You probably think you have a "right" to the wealth the belongs to someone else... right? Well, you need to learn what good parents teach their toddlers.

 

[sjt18]

I am not arguing it isn't just. I believe after the punishment is done rights (provisional, conditional, or full) should be restored. If felons are denied voting, I don't think they should pay income tax. The money could be deducted according to their "bracket" and sent to the victims or families, though.

I don't think anyone should pay income tax. The definition of a slave is someone whose labor as a commodity does not belong to them. If the government can confiscate part of our wages... then what does that make us?

Otherwise, I think it is a difficult argument since the victims often never fully recover. If someone gets mugged for $20... the costs are much greater than $20. How can we say that felon has the "right" to vote himself money out of that person's check?

If we returned to a fundamentally "libertarian" society then I would have no issue with what you propose.... except that we probably should have some means of restitution.

 

[sjt18]

What a stupid agreement for five neighbors to make - they wouldn't be neighborly for long - so that probably is a better example of our current system.

Oh, since we're talking about "stupid"... who would make their 5 year old daughter and 76 year old grandmother move rock in the first place? You'd really do that? And would requiring your son to help be simply to move rocks... or would there be something bigger at stake?

I mean if we're going to pick apart an analogy... let's go ahead and get "stupid" with it.

 

[McDad]

I don't think anyone should pay income tax. The definition of a slave is someone whose labor as a commodity does not belong to them. If the government can confiscate part of our wages... then what does that make us?

Otherwise, I think it is a difficult argument since the victims often never fully recover. If someone gets mugged for $20... the costs are much greater than $20. How can we say that felon has the "right" to vote himself money out of that person's check?

If we returned to a fundamentally "libertarian" society then I would have no issue with what you propose.... except that we probably should have some means of restitution.

When we got the thread mostly back on track, we chose to discuss 'what is' rather than what 'should be'. There is an income tax. It is never going away. We accepted that reality and discussed what we consider to be better approaches to it..

 

[volfanhill]

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.

The judge takes all sorts of factors, including the victim, before issuing sentence. Once they serve they should have 100% of their rights restored.

 

[sjt18]

When we got the thread mostly back on track, we chose to discuss 'what is' rather than what 'should be'. There is an income tax. It is never going away. We accepted that reality and discussed what we consider to be better approaches to it..

This is one of the many traps then inherent in that "what is". The system is unjust so someone must bear the burden of that injustice. If those are the constraints then the felon should NEVER be able to cancel the vote of his victim. His obligation to pay the income tax has to do with the "common welfare" benefits he gets... not his ability to vote.

 

[lawgator1]

The judge takes all sorts of factors, including the victim, before issuing sentence. Once they serve they should have 100% of their rights restored.

A bright line rule would help on that. Having there be nuance yo who does, and doesn't get rights restored seems potential for bad motives.

 

[sjt18]

The judge takes all sorts of factors, including the victim, before issuing sentence. Once they serve they should have 100% of their rights restored.

So you are saying that it is OK for the victim to suffer perhaps for life... but the criminal should be "restored"? Have you ever known a rape victim? Should child sexual predators have a "right" to vote for politicians who lessen the punishment for sexual abuse of minors?

I don't necessarily have a great answer except that you guys seem to be pretty dismissive of the "rights" that can never be restored to some victims

 

[McDad]

This is one of the many traps then inherent in that "what is". The system is unjust so someone must bear the burden of that injustice. If those are the constraints then the felon should NEVER be able to cancel the vote of his victim. His obligation to pay the income tax has to do with the "common welfare" benefits he gets... not his ability to vote.

Taxation without representation is unjust. The felon committed a crime, yes. If the crime is deemed so severe as to have lifetime nullification of rights, specifically the right to vote, the felon should not pay income taxes.

 

[McDad]

The judge takes all sorts of factors, including the victim, before issuing sentence. Once they serve they should have 100% of their rights restored.

If they are not trustworthy of restoration of their rights, how can they be trustworthy to be restored back into free society?

 

[sjt18]

Taxation without representation is unjust. The felon committed a crime, yes. If the crime is deemed so severe as to have lifetime nullification of rights, specifically the right to vote, the felon should not pay income taxes.

Raping a woman who spends a lifetime looking over her shoulder and having nightmares when the rapist gets out in 6 years on good behavior... is just?

 

[VOLS INC.]

A bright line rule would help on that. Having there be nuance yo who does, and doesn't get rights restored seems potential for bad motives.

Really? This entire 600 post and counting thread started because of your ridiculousness, and when you finally pop in, this is all you offer LG??

 

[McDad]

Raping a woman who spends a lifetime looking over her shoulder and having nightmares when the rapist gets out in 6 years on good behavior... is just?

I have not made comment on sentencing or what is just for the victim. This is a thread on income tax. Either taxation without representation is unjust or thos rabble rousers in Boston were misguided.

 

[sjt18]

I have not made comment on sentencing or what is just for the victim. This is a thread on income tax. Either taxation without representation is unjust or thos rabble rousers in Boston were misguided.

But it is relevant... at least as relevant as arguing about whether felons pay their fair share or not... The gist of the OP was "the rich", right?

 

[Vol8188]

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.

That’s a lot of wealth. Thanks for calculating. I wonder how many people complaining about their “misfortune” have bought a pack of cigarettes, Starbucks coffee, or an energy drink most days of their life

 

[McDad]

But it is relevant... at least as relevant as arguing about whether felons pay their fair share or not... The gist of the OP was "the rich", right?

The gist of the OP was answered fairly quickly into the thread. Thread took a detour for 18 hours. Since then, it has been more of a general conversation on income taxes. The part you're on (felons) was one of 3 different demographics which could pay income tax but not have representation because they cannot vote. My only objection to hog's plan.
I offer it is unjust to require taxation without representation.

 

[hog88]

Raping a woman who spends a lifetime looking over her shoulder and having nightmares when the rapist gets out in 6 years on good behavior... is just?

If the crime was so heinous that a person should be punished for life and I consider rape to be, the perpetrator should never leave prison. If it’s not then all rights should be restored at the completion of the sentence.

 

[volfanhill]

So you are saying that it is OK for the victim to suffer perhaps for life... but the criminal should be "restored"? Have you ever known a rape victim? Should child sexual predators have a "right" to vote for politicians who lessen the punishment for sexual abuse of minors?

I don't necessarily have a great answer except that you guys seem to be pretty dismissive of the "rights" that can never be restored to some victims

The criminal has served their time. Why are we still punishing them? Perhaps they continue to commit crimes bc they are never able to fully rejoin society. I have full sympathy for the victim. The prep served the time sentenced. The price for violating the victims rights should be the sentence they serve. Part of the reason recidivism rates are so high, IMO, is bc we refuse to fully restore these people after they are released.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

You understand that the mansion is valued at a higher amount than the shack?
The equivalent property tax plan to your tax plan would be that the person living in the shack would pay the exact same amount of property tax as the person living in the mansion. (Budget divided by number of buildings)

You lost me.

 

[Vol8188]

If the crime was so heinous that a person should be punished for life and I consider rape to be, the perpetrator should never leave prison. If it’s not then all rights should be restored at the completion of the sentence.

Sex crimes are a tough issue. Ten years ago I would’ve said just shoot all rapists. But Mike Tyson, of all people, has surprisingly changed my mind on that. It’s a terrible crime and our punishment should reflect that, but I think we should leave room for redemption.

 

[lawgator1]

Really? This entire 600 post and counting thread started because of your ridiculousness, and when you finally pop in, this is all you offer LG??

I can count on no fingers the number of posters who have changed their mind on tax policy due to this thread. I can count on the same no fingers on posters who have even paused to consider another point of view for 20 seconds without knee jerk telling the other poster why he's an idiot.

 

[Dergibvol]

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.

You can challenge assessments here in MI. Sure it takes $ but it can be done. I actuslly prefer our property taxes over any other as I can see exactly what they go to unlike my fed or state.