Don't ever complain about progressive taxes again - Page 2

Suddenly people who work for the government aren't actually people, so they don't count...

I did not say or imply that "people who work for the government aren't actually people." You have inferred that.

They don't count because a) the government is not a for-profit organization in which stock would make any sense, and more importantly, b) they don't really pay taxes...they only appear to pay taxes.

P.S. Do you have some numbers to share here to support your "huge majority" claim?

Well, I haven't said that (nor do I think that) but if that's how you feel or what you think.

BR, I feel your anger and bitterness is getting the best of you and spilling out here again.

If you want to dispute the claim I've made with some login and reason or even disagree with my perspectives that went into the claim that might make for a healthy, respectful and interesting discussion. Let me know if you want to do that. I hope you will.

BR, you are trying too hard. Ease up man. \

Well there certainly are some cases where the rolling eyes is the most appropriate response. As far as not answering questions, you're not really in a position to throw stones on that. Finally, I understand that my desire to seek thoughts an opinions on another topic in another thread has frustrated and even angered you. I'm sorry about that. You'll have to come to terms with it I guess.



I'm not fighting with you.

Back to the post, which made sense, and was dismissed by the man without an opinion with a nonsensical post that some people don't count...

The vast majority of people don't work for traded companies. And anyway, it's not the workers' decision how to take their salary, anyway, even if they wanted to. So Trumptman's claim that Warren Buffett's power to pay lower taxes isn't an inherent problem with the system that allows rich people to pay lower taxes is idiotic.

And which was grossly misinterpreted...but then further explained by the original poster, and yet to be refuted by any logical or reasonable argument...



Do you have some numbers to share here? Some references to support your "vast majority" claim? What is a "vast majority?" Does that amount have some numerical value so that we can determine whether this claim is correct or just some Made Up Shit(tm)?



What makes this claim "idiotic?" Why is this structure an "inherent problem with the system?"

The "logical and reasonable argument" is that we're talking about all people who pay taxes here. Some of those people work for the Government. They count. To say they don't count is neither logical nor reasonable in the context of the discussion.

Then you go on with some idiotic idea that "people who work for the government don't pay taxes -- they only appear to"... and I suppose you have something more than some hilariously vague anti-government conspiracy theory to back that up?


Your own fucking numbers said 70%! That's a vast majority to me. And that doesn't count the unemployed.[/quote]

The system allows the rich to pay lower taxes than the middle class. The context of this thread (in case you've forgotten) is that it isn't unfair to expect the rich to pay higher taxes. A system that allows the rich to pay lower taxes is a broken system.

I'm afraid you're wrong. They don't really pay taxes. They only appear to pay taxes. As such they aren't really relevant to the discussion about who is paying taxes.



I notice you prefer to use that word "idiotic" frequently instead of engaging in logical and reasoned argument. Be that as it may, perhaps an analogy will help:

If I pay my kid an allowance and then charge them rent...they aren't really paying rent. Not in any real sense. It's just an accounting gimmick that looks like they're paying me rent. In reality I am paying the rent, because I'm paying their allowance. The income comes from the same place as the rent (taxes) is paid to.



Your need for profanity aside...Actually, they don't. My numbers are no where near a reliable count for this question. They're quick "back of the envelope" numbers. They're based on a very quick search and include some major (stated) guessing:


But I have no way of knowing. You have made this claim. Do you have any source to support the claim?



Based on an opinion. It is begging the question to assume that this opinion is correct without question. You just happen to agree with that opinion.

If I pay my kid for painting the house and then make him pay rent for living in the house, then yes, he's really paying rent.

Nearly every thread here is about opinion. One of the most pronounced opinions among free market economists is that everybody should listen to what Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations.

You can say our opinions suck and we can say that yours suck.

Now, there are some people who actually share their opinions to contribute to meaningful discussion. You know... communicate?

It is the source and target of the money that is the relevant issue, not what is done between the transactions.



It is true that people should read and understand what Adam Smith wrote in the Wealth of Nations. He made some very good and important observations and insights in that book. Observations and insights that were new at that time and set a foundation for further important economic observations and insights up to this day. Any person wishing to have an informed discussion about economics and economic issues (which pervade much of what happens in the world) would do well to read and understand this book.



Yes, I know. And you claim (and seem to imply in this statement) that I don't which is interesting because a) I have shared my opinion on many topics in these forums, b) those opinions have been routinely dismissed by you and some others as kooky or extreme or naive or simplistic. And yet, ironically, you claim I never share my opinions.

Now I try not to share my opinions and imply they are unarguable fact. I'll admit I may fail on this occasionally. I also try to ask questions to get clarification on the basis of other's opinions. This too is part of communication.

45% don't owe U.S. income tax:

Does this mean they will not pay any taxes at all, or just not pay taxes during tax season?

That doesn't even accurately describe it. Not only will they not owe any taxes this year, many will receive thousands of dollars from the EITC. It is pure income transfer of almost $6,000.

I'm guessing no federal income tax at all. These percentages pretty much line up with other similar statistics we know about, like the fact that the bottom 50% of tax payers only pay about 3% of of all federal income tax revenue.

Although these mostly underprivileged people will not pay income taxes, they will still pay a much higher percentage of their earnings as sales tax than the wealthy. They will also pay Social Security tax, unless they are unemployed. It's not like they don't pay any tax at all.

By who's standard ???
Perhaps a better word would be "under-motivated".

I know. The post and article was only about federal income tax.

Also, thanks for pointing out how damaging taxes are to the poor. The size, scope and spending of government and taxes should be reduced to benefit the poor.

So now we need a progressive sales tax? How will that be managed and run to make it fair for all people? Anything else that we should late to make it fair for the mostly underprivileged who are so bad off? It's not like they don't use social services, roads, schools, and other public facilities at all, and pay less overall for that use. (To toss an argument back over the fence.). \

No, we need to eliminate sales tax.

We need taxes. But whatever taxes that we have should be used to discourage job loss. Corporation makes a profit and cuts jobs? Tax the HELL out of them. Corporation holds billions in cash without using it to create jobs? Tax the HELL out of them.

A CEO buys a pleasure yacht or a five carat diamond instead of putting his dollar toward the economy more efficiently? Tax the HELL out of the purchase.

A corporation moves production or investment overseas? Tax the HELL out of them.

Put your billions in overseas bank accounts or off shore holding companies to avoid taxes? Tax the hell out of anything else you have.

Determine exactly how much health costs are associated with smoking, and make sure that the cigarette taxes collected can pay for it 100%.

Auto registration taxes should be fully based on distance traveled and axle weight, and those taxes should cover the costs of all public roadworks.

Gas tax should fully cover environmental protection costs, contribute to health costs, and research into clean fuel technologies.

Garbage collection should be charged based on non-recyclable garbage production, and the proceeds should fully pay for landfills and garbage collection services.

Shall I go on?

Go back to China.

At what point did it become the federal governments responsibility to create jobs???
A corporation is a private entity, run by it's board and shareholders. It should be able to spend it's profits as they see fit... If they want to pay their execs hugely and not hire unnecessary workers, then that's their business. If YOU don't like it, then DON'T BUY THEIR PRODUCTS.

The federal government is not responsible for creating jobs!... If a person can't "find" a "job" on their own, then go into business for yourself!... Show some initiative... go out and DO something or create something that other people find useful. They'll PAY you for it.

lol... Lmfao!

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY TRICKLE-DOWN DOESN'T WORK!!!!! You're learning... you're learning.

No, I think you have made your position quite clear. The government is there to ensure that things are fair for everyone and they should use taxes as the club to enforce that fairness. I guess the only question now is, what effect do you suppose his taxation will have on those companies and services you are taxing the hell out of?

My first guess is, they will initially fall into line, just long enough to move operations. My employer very nearly moved all operations out of the area they were headquartered in due to a similar policy. And it would have taken a lot to move as they had their datacenter and mainframe operations there as well as production facilities. It would have cost dearly to do so and only stopped when the idiots in the government backed down. Open your eyes.

Logical leap?

It has nothing to do with "trickle down" or "trickle up" or "trickle sideways". ANY time the government uses "job creation" as an excuse to do something, they're grasping at straws. Creating jobs just isn't supposed to be their function. That's a function of the private sector... where efficiency demands that they utilize as few employees as possible to meet their goals.

Agreed. Which is why 'trickle down' doesn't work.

Tonton you're starting to sound like a broken record.

If you took some more time to educate yourself on the subject of economics perhaps you can expand your vocabulary beyond simplistic, broad, sloppy, lazy, political terms like 'trickle down' and start using proper and correct economic terms to make your case.

Wait 'til summer. Then I rape the taxpayer for a few months



Disagree. We need to replace income taxes with sales taxes.


So you want the government to target individual corporations? That's illegal.


It's already taxes to hell. Also, you want the government to be allowed to decide what a "more efficient" purchase is? Are you kidding, sir? Also, has it occurred to you that someone had to build that yacht? Someone has to maintain it, sell it, market it, etc.


You miss the point. Why would they want to move production or investment overseas? Answer: Because they can make more money that way, partially due to TAXES. History has shown that corporations will act in their own interests. We've tried punishing them---it doesn't work. The answer to make America the best place in the world to do business. Low taxes, less regulation consistent with consumer protections and safety.


Closing loopholes should do the trick.


Cig taxes are already more than 50% of the price. The government depends on revenue to operate, tax revenue that it turns around and spends telling people to stop smoking. WTF?


Not the worst idea, but then I have the government tracking where I drive.


Right. so $20 a gallon, then?


There again, not a terrible idea, but then I have the government going through my trash can. In some cases they are already doing this.


Let the lunacy continue.

Tonton lives in Hong Kong. The tax rate there is basically nothing because they free-ride on the Chinese. They used to free-ride on the Brits. It's easy to love the government when you pay 8% tax.

Actually, no money from China gets diverted here in the public sector. Hong Kong is a good example of economic success in conjunction with low poverty and high basic standard of living due to social policy, like no sales tax, and a high standard tax deduction (which means the poor and middle class pay no taxes, while the rich pay their fair share), heavily government subsidized housing, free universal healthcare without means testing, full welfare protection, additional benefits for the elderly, free school, multiple forms of cheap government subsidized transportation, etc.

And before you claim Hong Kong is a tax heaven, consider this...

Automobile import taxes are about 100%, meaning a new Toyota costs about US$40,000.

Cigarette taxes are 150%.

There are very few corporate tax loopholes (although we do allow offshore holding companies). You make a profit in Hong Kong, you pay your full share of tax in Hong Kong. Period. It's not like the US.

Perhaps if the US had those things, local commerce would increase because of the increased demand and economic mobility of the middle and working class, and then consequently, the richer would get richer because of that increased local commerce, and we would see further economic success that benefits people of all income levels, not just the rich. Then we could cut taxes to Hong Kong levels.

Of course I know Hong Kong doesn't have any defense needs, and infrastructure maintenance and development is much less expensive, obviously.

So, what you're telling me is that Hong Kong has a better tax model than the USA. I agree -- everyone has a better tax model than the USA. The one ace in the hole is that they don't have to worry about defense. Most of NATO thinks the same way, unfortunately, because as an american I don't like subsidizing the defense of the EU.

Considering HK in particular, there are more excise taxes and fewer income taxes. This is exactly the model tea party republicans are pushing. If the non-tea part of the party would relent to reductions in defense spending, they would probably be able to pass these changes, too.

Read again. Hong Kong has NO regressive taxation. There is NO sales tax. There is effectively no tax for anyone earning less than US$20,000 a year, while above that amount, taxes are up to 20%. The rich cannot get away with paying less than 20%, no loopholes. The poor pay nothing. Is that what the Tea Party are pushing?

There is also no import and export tax except for cigarettes, cars and alcohol, and a few other things. So your claim that hong kong has more excise taxes is wrong.

In 2011, 46% of the US population pays no income tax. Federal taxes are up to 40%, plus state taxes. Realistically, we pay more taxes than most. Cap gains are 15%, but if you cash-in within a year, you pay income. If you lump all your earnings into stock, then you pay the tax when you withdraw. The only real loopholes are for charitable donations, but you wouldn't know that because you haven't paid US taxes as long as I've known you on AI, and probably longer.

In the states, cigarettes, cars, and alcohol are not taxed as highly (barely at all). These are excise taxes that in the states would affect the lower classes tremendously. If I were not absolutely sure about the situation, I would not have posted. I rarely post on PO because it is just a stupid squabble 99% of the time.

You may have a knee-jerk reaction against the new version of the republican party, but as far as I can tell, the tea party is, strangely, much more aligned with international interests than any US party has been for a long time.