Becuase having one person pay extra doesn't help. It's the principle, and he knows there are more in his situation that would not be paying. They're all being allowed to short change the country and he believes it's wrong.
HE shouldn't have to pay more, EVERYONE in his situation should have to pay more. That's his point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So he's not worried so much about what he's paying but rather what the other guy's paying. And why should they pay more? When you have Uncle Sam's bite at 50% or more you are no longer talking about a simple tax but the confiscation of capital.
[quote]<strong>Dividends are taxed twice? Are salaries taxed twice? Just curious.</strong><hr></blockquote>
BRussell gave a list of ways we are all taxed twice. But his examples had to do with the way various levels of government pile on the taxpayer. Some of those taxes are deductable at the federal level and they aren't as egregious as the double taxation of dividends.
(Sorry it took so long to reply. I got sidetracked in another thread on another board.)
<strong>So he's not worried so much about what he's paying but rather what the other guy's paying. And why should they pay more?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why? Because poor people pay lots of taxes that are equal to those of their rich neighbors and this is unfair. Car stickers, phone line taxes, 911, 3% on food, 8-10% on clothes, etc.
That's an unfair burdern on the poor. It should be leveled out by the rich.
I say we go with my plan. 100% inheritance tax on anything over 50k. This way that guy would have nothing to worry about. Inheritance is the death of capitalism.
I'm not gonna go through all the reasons I think the Bush tax plan is ridiculous, but I will say this: War cost money, lots of money. Bush is trying to go to war, and trying to cut taxes at the same time. Am I the only person who see's this as an ASS BACKWARDS idea?
<strong>I'm not gonna go through all the reasons I think the Bush tax plan is ridiculous, but I will say this: War cost money, lots of money. Bush is trying to go to war, and trying to cut taxes at the same time. Am I the only person who see's this as an ASS BACKWARDS idea?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dems tax and spend. Reps borrow and spend. There really is little difference between the two parties.
Bunge was the one who thought this guy had something to say about Bush's tax bill - not me. But I ask once again: if he's so upset about his tax bill, why wouldn't he respond in the way I suggested? And you too failed to respond to the rest of my post.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There wasn't much else to reply to. I just don't believe human nature would lead this guy to reacting that way.
Also I thing of the times I asked you a question and you didn't respond.
Speculating on how any given person would react doesn't address what's wrong with the Bush plan.
There wasn't much else to reply to.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure there was. The letter to the Chicago Tribune was about a guy who said his tax bill would go from $40k to $5k. I claimed that wasn't true. That's a pretty fundamental disagreement.
[quote]<strong>I just don't believe human nature would lead this guy to reacting that way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So he wasn't REALLY upset. He was just pretending to be upset so other people will think better of him. That's human nature too.
[quote]<strong>Also I thing of the times I asked you a question and you didn't respond.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All the times? I'm sure it's happened a few times but not very often. Still, when you call my post lame without responding to the heart of what I wrote, well, I'm not going to cut you any slack.
[quote]<strong>Speculating on how any given person would react doesn't address what's wrong with the Bush plan. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Duh. Why would I want to address that? I don't think there's anything wrong with this particular aspect of the Bush plan.
<strong>The letter to the Chicago Tribune was about a guy who said his tax bill would go from $40k to $5k. I claimed that wasn't true.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why bother claiming it's not true? It's a letter that established a valid point whether it's true or not.
[quote]that's only the part he sees<hr></blockquote>
This is really one of the Worst Arguments Ever(tm). Income is taxed many times over as it changes hands, and while some of those taxes are obvious, others aren't. I see the 10% federal tax on my paltry income, and the 7% FICA tax. I don't see the other 7% FICA tax my employer is paying. I don't really see the 9.75% sales tax I pay on the majority of my income that goes towards goods purchases. I don't see the higher prices I pay at the store as a result of their tax burdens being passed onto me. I don't see the property taxes that get passed onto me in the form of extra rent. I don't really see the myriad state and local taxes (car tabs, phone taxes, licenses, etc) that take a further chunk from my already-overtaxed income.
Money is taxed over and over again as it flows around the economy. There's no reason to focus on the divedend tax as "unfair". Bottom line is, taxes should fall most heavily on those able to pay. Any cute tricks, trying to modify personal or group behavior with tax rules (as most of our tax code does) need to fit this basic premise.
[quote]When you have Uncle Sam's bite at 50% or more you are no longer talking about a simple tax but the confiscation of capital<hr></blockquote>
None of this has anything to do with capital. A tax on dividends is a tax on the profits earned by investing your capital - nothing touches the capital itself. Similarly, the capital gains tax taxes only the gains - not the capital. If anything, one could argue for bringing the dividend tax in line with the capital gains tax (or taxing capital gains as regular income, like dividends currently are). And of course, Uncle Sam's bite never comes close to 50% - it maxes out as 39.6%, and only that for the income far above the level where the 15% FICA tax has phased out.
It's difficult not to contrast this era with the 30's. Back then, in a true economic crisis, the government was in desperate need of revenue - to keep people from starving, among other tasks. So they raised income taxes on the rich, rather than reducing them. As high as 90%. Retroactive. (Ouch!) And you know what? People actually paid them! It destroyed many a family fortune, including the Vanderbilts', but it surely kept the government going.
Why bother? Because if it isn't true, it establishes nothing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Absolutely not true.
And if you can't shed any light on the veracity of the letter then your not adding anything to the conversation. You can try to derail an argument by undermining its legitimacy, but when you have absolutely no idea or any way to back up your claim then you're just avoiding and ignoring the issues.
Comments
<strong>
Becuase having one person pay extra doesn't help. It's the principle, and he knows there are more in his situation that would not be paying. They're all being allowed to short change the country and he believes it's wrong.
HE shouldn't have to pay more, EVERYONE in his situation should have to pay more. That's his point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So he's not worried so much about what he's paying but rather what the other guy's paying. And why should they pay more? When you have Uncle Sam's bite at 50% or more you are no longer talking about a simple tax but the confiscation of capital.
[quote]<strong>Dividends are taxed twice? Are salaries taxed twice? Just curious.</strong><hr></blockquote>
BRussell gave a list of ways we are all taxed twice. But his examples had to do with the way various levels of government pile on the taxpayer. Some of those taxes are deductable at the federal level and they aren't as egregious as the double taxation of dividends.
(Sorry it took so long to reply. I got sidetracked in another thread on another board.)
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
<strong>So he's not worried so much about what he's paying but rather what the other guy's paying. And why should they pay more?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why? Because poor people pay lots of taxes that are equal to those of their rich neighbors and this is unfair. Car stickers, phone line taxes, 911, 3% on food, 8-10% on clothes, etc.
That's an unfair burdern on the poor. It should be leveled out by the rich.
<strong>I'm not gonna go through all the reasons I think the Bush tax plan is ridiculous, but I will say this: War cost money, lots of money. Bush is trying to go to war, and trying to cut taxes at the same time. Am I the only person who see's this as an ASS BACKWARDS idea?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dems tax and spend. Reps borrow and spend. There really is little difference between the two parties.
<strong>
Bunge was the one who thought this guy had something to say about Bush's tax bill - not me. But I ask once again: if he's so upset about his tax bill, why wouldn't he respond in the way I suggested? And you too failed to respond to the rest of my post.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There wasn't much else to reply to. I just don't believe human nature would lead this guy to reacting that way.
Also I thing of the times I asked you a question and you didn't respond.
Speculating on how any given person would react doesn't address what's wrong with the Bush plan.
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
There wasn't much else to reply to.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure there was. The letter to the Chicago Tribune was about a guy who said his tax bill would go from $40k to $5k. I claimed that wasn't true. That's a pretty fundamental disagreement.
[quote]<strong>I just don't believe human nature would lead this guy to reacting that way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So he wasn't REALLY upset. He was just pretending to be upset so other people will think better of him. That's human nature too.
[quote]<strong>Also I thing of the times I asked you a question and you didn't respond.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All the times? I'm sure it's happened a few times but not very often. Still, when you call my post lame without responding to the heart of what I wrote, well, I'm not going to cut you any slack.
[quote]<strong>Speculating on how any given person would react doesn't address what's wrong with the Bush plan. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Duh. Why would I want to address that? I don't think there's anything wrong with this particular aspect of the Bush plan.
[ 01-24-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
<strong>The letter to the Chicago Tribune was about a guy who said his tax bill would go from $40k to $5k. I claimed that wasn't true.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why bother claiming it's not true? It's a letter that established a valid point whether it's true or not.
<strong>
Why bother claiming it's not true? It's a letter that established a valid point whether it's true or not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why bother? Because if it isn't true, it establishes nothing.
This is really one of the Worst Arguments Ever(tm). Income is taxed many times over as it changes hands, and while some of those taxes are obvious, others aren't. I see the 10% federal tax on my paltry income, and the 7% FICA tax. I don't see the other 7% FICA tax my employer is paying. I don't really see the 9.75% sales tax I pay on the majority of my income that goes towards goods purchases. I don't see the higher prices I pay at the store as a result of their tax burdens being passed onto me. I don't see the property taxes that get passed onto me in the form of extra rent. I don't really see the myriad state and local taxes (car tabs, phone taxes, licenses, etc) that take a further chunk from my already-overtaxed income.
Money is taxed over and over again as it flows around the economy. There's no reason to focus on the divedend tax as "unfair". Bottom line is, taxes should fall most heavily on those able to pay. Any cute tricks, trying to modify personal or group behavior with tax rules (as most of our tax code does) need to fit this basic premise.
[quote]When you have Uncle Sam's bite at 50% or more you are no longer talking about a simple tax but the confiscation of capital<hr></blockquote>
None of this has anything to do with capital. A tax on dividends is a tax on the profits earned by investing your capital - nothing touches the capital itself. Similarly, the capital gains tax taxes only the gains - not the capital. If anything, one could argue for bringing the dividend tax in line with the capital gains tax (or taxing capital gains as regular income, like dividends currently are). And of course, Uncle Sam's bite never comes close to 50% - it maxes out as 39.6%, and only that for the income far above the level where the 15% FICA tax has phased out.
It's difficult not to contrast this era with the 30's. Back then, in a true economic crisis, the government was in desperate need of revenue - to keep people from starving, among other tasks. So they raised income taxes on the rich, rather than reducing them. As high as 90%. Retroactive. (Ouch!) And you know what? People actually paid them! It destroyed many a family fortune, including the Vanderbilts', but it surely kept the government going.
[ 01-25-2003: Message edited by: Towel ]</p>
<strong>
Why bother? Because if it isn't true, it establishes nothing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Absolutely not true.
And if you can't shed any light on the veracity of the letter then your not adding anything to the conversation. You can try to derail an argument by undermining its legitimacy, but when you have absolutely no idea or any way to back up your claim then you're just avoiding and ignoring the issues.