[RenegadeRick]

...schools, healthcare, police, firefighters, internet, bike trails, air travel, etc.?

Schools are typically paid for by property taxes. Since the rich often live in nicer properties, they pay more in property taxes. However the IRS allows you to deduct this amount from your income. Just one more way the rich avoid income taxes. Police and Fire typically work the same way. Bike trails too.

Healthcare may be subsidized by the federal government, but the rich actually pay less of these costs since they have (almost) no income.

As mentioned before the internet is still entirely private. So are the airlines... not that the government hasn't tossed a bone that way recently.

 

[Westy]

Isn't the first $600,000 exempt?

And everything is doubly taxed, so that's not a valid argument either.

Look, it may not be very fair that the rich pay most of the taxes, but this country would go to sh!t if they didn't. The rich should look at the taxes they pay as an investment to their continued success.

The current estate tax does not touch estates under $2,000,000 and there are ways to pass on large sums of an inheritance beyond that if planned ahead. You can gift up to $1,000,000 tax free in a lifetime and any single year gifts less than $12,000/year to an idividual person don't have to be reported and counted towards the $1,000,000.

 

[LordOpie]

...

ok, so how, where and why do you compensate for the lost revenues from removing the estate tax or any other tax you disagree with?

 

[RenegadeRick]

The current estate tax does not touch estates under $2,000,000 and there are ways, if planned ahead, to pass on large sums of an inheritance beyond that if planned ahead.

yep. that is what the rich do.

 

[dan-o]

However the IRS allows you to deduct this amount from your income. Just one more way the rich avoid income taxes.

You can deduct your mortgage interest but not the value of your house. This deduction is available to all homeowners.

 

[RenegadeRick]

You can deduct your mortgage interest but not the value of your house. This deduction is available to all homeowners.

You can deduct the mortgage interest AND the amount paid in property taxes.

No, you cannot deduct the value of your home. Not even the rich can do this.

 

[Silver]

You can deduct the mortgage interest AND the amount paid in property taxes.

What really sucks is the fact that you can deduct mortgage interest on a SECOND home, as long as you stay under the cap.

I want to know who lobbied to get that little nugget tossed into the tax code. Probably those goddamn welfare moms...

 

[LordOpie]

Y'all are missing the point.

You're nitpicking individual elements and you simply can't do that with the tax system the way it currently is setup.

Again, if you eliminate one form of tax -- as this discussion started out, removing income tax -- where do you get the money from? Or what services do you eliminate?

Bush is doing just that, eg. eliminating estate taxes or reducing income taxes. But he's not reducing spending, nor increasing tax revenue in another way. That's irresponsible.

 

[dan-o]

ok, so how, where and why do you compensate for the lost revenues from removing the estate tax or any other tax you disagree with?

By increasing/adding a tax that effects all citizens equally/proportionately.
There is no tax on groceries or clothing (under some $$ limit) here in MA and we make up for it elsewhere.

 

[dan-o]

You can deduct the mortgage interest AND the amount paid in property taxes.

Thanks for the correction. But, all income levels have access to these deductions which was my point.

 

[Silver]

Thanks for the correction. But, all income levels have access to these deductions which was my point.

Really?

You have to be able to buy a house first. And there are lots of income levels that don't allow you to buy a second home and deduct the mortgage interest...

 

[dan-o]

You have to be able to buy a house first.

if you don't own a house you don't pay property taxes or mortgage interest to begin with.

 

[Westy]

if you don't own a house you don't pay property taxes or mortgage interest to begin with.

I'm sure property owners leasing homes pay those taxes out of their own pockets.

 

[RenegadeRick]

if you don't own a house you don't pay property taxes or mortgage interest to begin with.

Instead, you pay them for your landlord. And they take the deduction for you. Isn't that thoughtful?

They save you the trouble of having to fill out that long, complicated US1040 form too!

 

[LordOpie]

By increasing/adding a tax that effects all citizens equally/proportionately.
There is no tax on groceries or clothing (under some $$ limit) here in MA and we make up for it elsewhere.

What you fail to understand is that the tax system is a balancing act.

If you increase sales tax, you reduce the consumer's desire to spend. If you increase income tax, you reduce the worker's interest to work. If you increase capital gains taxes, you reduce the company's interest in paying dividends, thereby reducing income from those stocks.

See what I'm getting at? You can't simply remove a form of tax without considering the consequences. And you're simply not being realistic

 

[dan-o]

Instead, you pay them for your landlord. And they take the deduction for you. Isn't that thoughtful?

That's outrageous! Maybe we should switch to an economy based on group hugs.

 

[LordOpie]

That's outrageous! Maybe we should switch to an economy based on group hugs.

He's trying to politely point out that you have your head up your ass

It's so easy to say, "I hate this tax, let's eliminate it" without thinking. That's what our wonderful PotUS is doing. So, hey, you could run in '08!!

 

[dan-o]

stuff (

No, I get it.

Encouraging people to save for future generations would have a positive impact via less dependence on the government.
Not gutting these savings with an inheritance tax, imo, makes sense.

Do you have issues with IRA/401k investments being deducted from taxable income?

 

[dan-o]

He's trying to politely point out that you have your head up your ass

No, he's insinuating that making a profit is wrong. People own property to either live in or as an investment but not for charity.

Bush could cut all the taxes he wants if he'd stop wasting cash in iraq. Balancing his budget has nothing to do with how taxes in this country should be addressed.

 

[RenegadeRick]

No, he's insinuating that making a profit is wrong. People own property to either live in or as an investment but not for charity.

Nope that isn't my point. I am all for making a profit. Just making the point that the rich are wise enough to not let their profits turn into income. This is simply backing up my argument that the common people bear the bulk of the tax burden... not the rich.

Profits are neither right or wrong.

 

[LordOpie]

No, he's insinuating that making a profit is wrong.

Whatever he might have been insinuating, he and others proved quite clearly that you're not thinking any of this through.

To say that renters don't pay property taxes proves that you're not thinking. Please don't vote in the next or any election. Go riding with n8 instead.

 

[dan-o]

This is simply backing up my argument that the common people bear the bulk of the tax burden... not the rich.

Did you happen to catch this article?
From the NYT 1/8/07:
The report shows that a comparatively small number of very wealthy households account for a very big share of total tax payments, and their share increased in the first four years after Mr. Bush’s tax cuts.

The top 1 percent of income earners paid about 36.7 percent of federal income taxes and 25.3 percent of all federal taxes in 2004. The top 20 percent of income earners paid 67.1 percent of all federal taxes, up from 66.1 percent in 2000, according to the budget office.

By contrast, families in the bottom 40 percent of income earners, those with incomes below $36,300, typically paid no federal income tax and received money back from the government. That so-called negative income tax stemmed mainly from the earned-income tax credit, a program that benefits low-income parents who are employed.

Put another way: rich families were the undisputed winners from President Bush’s tax cuts, but people in the bottom half of the earnings scale were not paying much in taxes anyway.

 

[rockwool]

Gee, thanks :roll:

My conclusions were based on ceteris paribus, for that's the only way to evaluate the situation.

Otherwise, it's not really the same circumstance at all, is it?

I mean, if you dump income taxes and put the burden on corporate taxes, then all goods and services increase in price. If they don't, then you've added other variables. Variables outside the discussion. If you want to add them, cool, but then it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, is it?

You're wellcome!

Nah, I meant that you were drawing to conclusions about that the film was a is a conspiracy from the rich. Otherwise your reasoning is logical.

I came to think of that if we don't pay incometaxes then we are also cheaper to employ, aren't we? As an example: Here in the Stockholm area the incometax starts at 29-32% (depending on which part you live in). That percentage is payed directly by the employer. Isn't that a cost that the employer won't have if incometax is abolished? That saved sum could partially or wholly go to the corporate taxes insted, no?

Have I understood the system correct here?

 

[dan-o]

To say that renters don't pay property taxes proves that you're not thinking.

A bold statement from someone who said income tax pays for the internet and air travel.

 

[Demomonkey]

so I only watched 5 minutes of the 1:50 long movie. Who wants to bring me up to speed about the movie?

Seems to me that Income tax is unconstitutional? Ok, then how do we fund govt projects?

The Fed Reserve is running by a few individuals? Ok, but then how do we fund projects, how do we control inflation, how do we maximize the multiplier effect with a static amount of currency?

The Federal Reserve is a Private Bank. It is not a Government organisation. It was founded by the wealthy eastern establishment banking families to control the flow / cost of money. The govt at the time made it legal for a private conglomerate to control the finances of the United States. Very few central banks worldwide are Govt organisations. Its is another of the shams pulled over the peoples eyes, like the legality of income tax you mention above.

What was that that one of the Rothschilds said a coupla hundred years ago....something like "if I can control a nations currency, you can vote in whoever you like...." or something like that.

 

[rockwool]

Did you happen to catch this article?
From the NYT 1/8/07:
The report shows that a comparatively small number of very wealthy households account for a very big share of total tax payments, and their share increased in the first four years after Mr. Bush’s tax cuts.

The top 1 percent of income earners paid about 36.7 percent of federal income taxes and 25.3 percent of all federal taxes in 2004. The top 20 percent of income earners paid 67.1 percent of all federal taxes, up from 66.1 percent in 2000, according to the budget office.

By contrast, families in the bottom 40 percent of income earners, those with incomes below $36,300, typically paid no federal income tax and received money back from the government. That so-called negative income tax stemmed mainly from the earned-income tax credit, a program that benefits low-income parents who are employed.

Put another way: rich families were the undisputed winners from President Bush’s tax cuts, but people in the bottom half of the earnings scale were not paying much in taxes anyway.

It's not all to important how much you pay in taxes, but how much is left after paying them. If a family of two working parents just have enough, or just above enough, to pay for the most fundamental of things; housing bills, food, basic clothes and such, then something is wrong!

How many aren't those families where both parents work and still need some financial support from the government/community to get by? These people deserve salaries that they can actually live on. That is way more important to adress than to bother with if well to do families can afford to build up wealth.

To satisfy the greed of human nature is not a priority for a society to adress. That is a luxury to bother with when the basic stuff have already been cared for.

 

[LordOpie]

Nah, I meant that you were drawing to conclusions about that the film was a is a conspiracy from the rich.

just being sarcastic

I came to think of that if we don't pay incometaxes then we are also cheaper to employ, aren't we?

Correct. As you followed up with, the system isn't as simple as others would suggest. And the thing about the line of thought you took was, the people who made less money and paid less taxes would wind up paying more under a system that abolished income taxes... unless further variables were considered.

A bold statement from someone who said income tax pays for the internet and air travel.

Wow, you really missed the point, no matter how clearly spelled out it was. It's frustrating trying to discuss economics with self-serving, agenda pushing republicans. It's all a matter of what's good for them, instead of society as a whole. It's sad that they never really understand that what's good for everyone eventually pays of to individuals.

Your Federal Reserve...

umm, yes, I believe that was made clearly previously.

Its is another of the shams pulled over the peoples eyes, like the legality of income tax you mention above.

I never said income tax was legal, just that it's necessary. And as for "shams", so what? Shams happen everyday (eg. WMDs, Enron, whatever) the world goes on. When a sham actually has some sort of positive value, can't we accept and appreciate the positive on it's own?

 

[rockwool]

A bold statement from someone who said income tax pays for the internet and air travel.

Don't incomtax pay for the infrastructure? I know Swedish airports aren't private. I know that laying out fibre in the streets is part of an infrastructure investment for a country, and over here it's being paid by my taxes.
Now, the fibre that branches from the street and into my house is another thing. That is payed by the company that invested in that work.

 

[LordOpie]

To satisfy the greed of human nature is not a priority for a society to adress. That is a luxury to bother with when the basic stuff have already been cared for.

Well said!

 

[RenegadeRick]

Did you happen to catch this article?
From the NYT 1/8/07:
The report shows that a comparatively small number of very wealthy households account for a very big share of total tax payments, and their share increased in the first four years after Mr. Bush’s tax cuts.

The top 1 percent of income earners paid about 36.7 percent of federal income taxes and 25.3 percent of all federal taxes in 2004. The top 20 percent of income earners paid 67.1 percent of all federal taxes, up from 66.1 percent in 2000, according to the budget office.

By contrast, families in the bottom 40 percent of income earners, those with incomes below $36,300, typically paid no federal income tax and received money back from the government. That so-called negative income tax stemmed mainly from the earned-income tax credit, a program that benefits low-income parents who are employed.

Put another way: rich families were the undisputed winners from President Bush’s tax cuts, but people in the bottom half of the earnings scale were not paying much in taxes anyway.

Yes I did.

Did you happen to miss the words "income earners" in the article? The really, really rich do not have income. This is what prompted me to speak up in the first place.

The article is designed to make people feel good about paying income taxes and includes some questionable statements like:

"the earned-income tax credit, a program that benefits low-income parents who are employed."

I received this credit while in college, and I was not a parent at the time.

and

"people in the bottom half of the earnings scale were not paying much in taxes anyway."

but does not qualify what kind of taxes they are or are not paying. If you don't have income, then you don't pay income taxes.


The entire article is based on the flawed assumption that having income is what makes someone wealthy, and nothing could be further from the truth.

Having a lot of income simply means that you are taking in lots of money and can't figure out how to justify it as an expense of some kind. In other words it makes you stupid. Funk, if you are making that much cash, and you can't figure out what to do with it, hire an accountant. They will help you figure out how to put your money in a tax shelter and protect your assets from the IRS. This is the American way.

 

[rockwool]

just being sarcastic

K, now will you watch the stupid documentary dammit.

Correct. As you followed up with, the system isn't as simple as others would suggest. And the thing about the line of thought you took was, the people who made less money and paid less taxes would wind up paying more under a system that abolished income taxes... unless further variables were considered.

Could be, that is a lot of figures to consider. The possibilities of it should seriously be looked into though.

It's sad that they never really understand that what's good for everyone eventually pays of to individuals.

WÖRD! If you rase the bottom standard of the people in a society, both economicly aswell as intellectually, it will have a positive spin off to the society as a whole; Poor people won't have to steal well to do republicans material ****, and better educated/higher common knowledged people are going to perform better as the republican business owners employees.

 

[RenegadeRick]

When a sham actually has some sort of positive value, can't we accept and appreciate the positive on it's own?

Absolutely not.
If something has a positive value, say so. Don't lie and scam to justify it.

Take Iraq for example. Everyone knew we were going there for oil. But instead they manufactured the WMD threat. "Oh, there is going to be a mushroom cloud!" Give me a break.

Now the talk in the news (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132574.ece) is of how the multinational oil giants will be able to take as much as 70% of the profits from Iraqi oil.

So what does that make the WMD pushers? Liars.
But alas, I digress....

If something has a positive value, say so. Don't lie and scam to justify it.

 

[LordOpie]

K, now will you watch the stupid documentary dammit.

probably not

 

[rockwool]

Yes I did.

Did you happen to miss the words "income earners" in the article? The really, really rich do not have income. This is what prompted me to speak up in the first place.

The article is designed to make people feel good about paying income taxes and includes some questionable statements like:

"the earned-income tax credit, a program that benefits low-income parents who are employed."

I received this credit while in college, and I was not a parent at the time.

and

"people in the bottom half of the earnings scale were not paying much in taxes anyway."

but does not qualify what kind of taxes they are or are not paying. If you don't have income, then you don't pay income taxes.


The entire article is based on the flawed assumption that having income is what makes someone wealthy, and nothing could be further from the truth.

Having a lot of income simply means that you are taking in lots of money and can't figure out how to justify it as an expense of some kind. In other words it makes you stupid. Funk, if you are making that much cash, and you can't figure out what to do with it, hire an accountant. They will help you figure out how to put your money in a tax shelter and protect your assets from the IRS. This is the American way.

Damn, you can read! Now I can read, but you also understand what you are reading.. That's a big difference!!!

 

[LordOpie]

Absolutely not.
If something has a positive value, say so. Don't lie and scam to justify it

no no, I meant... yes, it was a lie and a scam. Yes, a few select people benefitted from it unjustly. BUT some positive came from it and to throw away the positive just because of how it came about it (from a scam) is a waste.

Take Iraq for example. Everyone knew we were going there for oil. But instead they manufactured the WMD threat. "Oh, there is going to be a mushroom cloud!"

That's a whole 'nother thread and oil was a secondary reason to expanding the American Empire.

 

[RenegadeRick]

That's a whole 'nother thread...

but a similar concept. Honesty is always the best policy.

Say GW stood up and said to America, "We are going to Iraq. We are gonna take their oil, and you all will be able to fill up those Hummers on the cheap."

How many Americans would have objected? Very few, I think.

Today we would be on the verge of success instead of the brink of failure.





any mods around that could break this off into a whole 'nother thread?

 

[LordOpie]

Except we didn't go to Iraq for oil and the real reason is far more scary and globally unacceptable... which is why it wasn't mention except in 'scholarly' papers in the late 90s.

But you'll say, "It was about oil." And I'm not in the mood... so go search this forum for past discussions.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Y'all are missing the point.

You're nitpicking individual elements and you simply can't do that with the tax system the way it currently is setup.

Again, if you eliminate one form of tax -- as this discussion started out, removing income tax -- where do you get the money from? Or what services do you eliminate?

Bush is doing just that, eg. eliminating estate taxes or reducing income taxes. But he's not reducing spending, nor increasing tax revenue in another way. That's irresponsible.

shake the money tree????
minting more coin, biatch?

i heard t3h hyperinflation roxxorz.

 

[RenegadeRick]

so go search this forum for past discussions.

I am far too rich and lazy to do so. Linky please.

 

[JRogers]

Going back a bit to the original point of discussion- the income tax...I am not quite understanding the central issue. Let's assume for a minute that the income tax is, in some sense, illegal or technically voluntary. Does that mean that the tax is somehow unjust or immoral or that that laws need to be fixed to reflect reality?