Yes, and they spend at least 10 times the disposable income as a percentage, as does a "rich" person, to do the same thing. But the taxes on smoking and drinking come out to a much lower percentage of disposable income, for a rich person, than for a poor person.
Unless you think rich people spend at least 10 times as much on their smoking and drinking.....
So, you would say, only rich people deserve to smoke and drink??? Hmmm..
what about 12$ cigars and 200$ wine?
no smokeing and drinking is not only a rich mans game, the poor can do it too, but can they afford it, if you have a limited income, then you must cut corners.
let me also say that the poor here have it better than the upper class in other parts of the world.
How much education do you really need to know that smoking and drinking are bad for you? All education would do is give you facts to argue what you should already know. Most alcohol doesn't taste good until the taste is "acquired" via repeated exposure. Most smoking smells like absolute crap.
Finally I've worked at many poor schools. It isn't the education that is bad in almost all instances. Rather it is that not all people nor all cultures value education to the same degree.
Nick
like it or not, Americas youth gets the same 12 years of education rich or poor, and the poor need to pass the same standardized state tests for graduation as their rich counterparts.
yes I understand that inner city schools aren?t in even reasonable shape educationally, but for the past 30 years the only answer that any one wants to talk about is $$$. and a good hunk of the money, no matter what the amount they get goes for two bloated elements, beurocracy and sports.
sports are great bou the education NEEDS to be front and center.
and if I hear one more person complain about cutting the arts in inner city schools, I will pull my hair out. Teaching Janey and Jimmy how to play the trumpet is great and all but, If in the United States of America, our schools are actually granting diplomas to people who don?t posses the basic skills needed to read it, something is horably wrong. It is time we got back to the three R's Reading, wRiteing, and aRithmatic.
Finally I've worked at many poor schools. It isn't the education that is bad in almost all instances. Rather it is that not all people nor all cultures value education to the same degree.
Teachers should be fired for assuming education isn't their problem.* Blaming cultural differences for poor performance in school does have some merit: asian-american parents push their kids while poor african-american parents expect the schools to take care of things. But the teacher must work to raise performance from every student. I'm sure I'll find no argument here.
*(Well, that would create a shortage of teachers. How about "reprimanded?")
Bullshit. There is no cultural bias. That is the biggest pile of utter crap I have heard in the last decade. It angers me every time someone mentions that I have a cultural bias for performing well in school. I chose to pursue academics when i realized in fourth/fifth grade that that was what i was good at (mind you i had barely passed every year prior to those -- its just that the advancement of curriculum in those grades was more to my pace) ... It wasn't my parents, it wasn't the "work ethic" they instilled in me (god, my work ethic is utter crap and i only do things when i need to), it was me. My intelligence, my devotion to understanding the world around me. What my parents did was shorten the barriers, they recommended to me that i attend the elementary/middle school I did after the experience my sister had with our neighborhood school, and they paid for college. This was not because they have a cultural bias towards education, this is simply because they as individuals saw value in education. I know plenty of other people whose parents were as wealthy, as educated, as similar to my parent's cultural background who didn't see value in education and it was still their children who decided to do with or without the education.
Schools in poor areas do poorly because they aren't as well funded, children are expected to work, as well as any number of other more reasonable assertions than a cultural bias. is there a cultural bias to being poor?
Edit: This is directed generally... even the mention of parents pushing/not pushing is really individually determined... Sorry I blew my lid a bit...
weather you are black, white, yellow, broun, or green with pink spots, weather you are from Harlem, Ny Loisville Kt, or Tokyo Japan, or the 3rd moon of saturn you can get a great education if you are willing to do the work, read the books, do the math, and ASK QUESTIONS. furthermore a great deal of education happens outside of the classroom so what are the perants, can we expect 7 yr oldcs to be responsable in educational persuits without the nessisary backing, sure as long as there are no cartoons on TV, no videogames, no computers, nothing to do outside and so on, for the most part, at the elementary and middle school level, KIDS HATE SCHOOL.
Teachers should be fired for assuming education isn't their problem.* Blaming cultural differences for poor performance in school does have some merit: asian-american parents push their kids while poor african-american parents expect the schools to take care of things. But the teacher must work to raise performance from every student. I'm sure I'll find no argument here.
*(Well, that would create a shortage of teachers. How about "reprimanded?")
Education is different than educational performance. You can go to the doctor. He/She can recommend you stop smoking, stop eating fast food three times a day, start an exercise program, give you a sheet for planning proper meals and refer you to a nutritionist.
When you decide not to do any of this, it isn't that the doctor is assuming that your health isn't his/her problem. Rather giving help and knowledge cannot force you to learn or apply it.
It is the same thing for a financial advisor. They can recommend you live within your means, stop using credit, start a savings plan, prioritize wants versus needs, track your daily spending, etc.
When you decide not to do it, it isn't the financial advisor assuming your finances aren't their problem. The advisor cannot live your life for you, or force you to take their advice.
In most classrooms there are very hard working teachers lucidly presenting curriculum. They follow up with work that practices the material and later assesses your mastery of that material. When you are "failing" they recommend additional tutoring, extra classes, repeating the material, extra explanation, etc.
However no teacher can force a child to do the work, especially when the level of material being learned requires additional study and practice at home. They can't even truly force someone to do the work in class. They can report the work missing, show the affect on the grade of the child, and give additional copies and allow additional time for the work to be done. But the cannot FORCE the child to do the work.
They also cannot force the child to come to school. I SARB (send to the school attendance review board) a couple of children per year. This is where the school district works in conjunction with the city district attorney to prosecute parents who don't send their children to school. You can imagine the priority the city gives it compared to other truly criminal matters (from their perspective)
I have at least one child a year who misses 30-50 days out of a 180 day school year. I have several who fall into the cracks, missing an average of 20 days a year. Roughly one day out of every two weeks.
You can raise the level of a child relative to where they started, but the factors the prevent you from raising it to the level of their true ability are not under the control of the teacher.
Is a doctor that gets a obese man to gain only one pound a month instead of four he was gaining before. What if the doctor manages to get the man, via advice to stop gaining, but cannot get him to lose any weight. Seems the obese man won't exercise at all. Is the doctor a failure and uncaring? Should he be fired?
If your rights end at my nose, that also is the end of where the means someone can force change in another person ends as well.
Bullshit. There is no cultural bias. That is the biggest pile of utter crap I have heard in the last decade. It angers me every time someone mentions that I have a cultural bias for performing well in school. I chose to pursue academics when i realized in fourth/fifth grade that that was what i was good at (mind you i had barely passed every year prior to those -- its just that the advancement of curriculum in those grades was more to my pace) ... It wasn't my parents, it wasn't the "work ethic" they instilled in me (god, my work ethic is utter crap and i only do things when i need to), it was me. My intelligence, my devotion to understanding the world around me. What my parents did was shorten the barriers, they recommended to me that i attend the elementary/middle school I did after the experience my sister had with our neighborhood school, and they paid for college. This was not because they have a cultural bias towards education, this is simply because they as individuals saw value in education. I know plenty of other people whose parents were as wealthy, as educated, as similar to my parent's cultural background who didn't see value in education and it was still their children who decided to do with or without the education.
Schools in poor areas do poorly because they aren't as well funded, children are expected to work, as well as any number of other more reasonable assertions than a cultural bias. is there a cultural bias to being poor?
Edit: This is directed generally... even the mention of parents pushing/not pushing is really individually determined... Sorry I blew my lid a bit...
The Amish believe in formal education only through eighth grade. Is that not cultural? You name the actions of all those around you and yet consider it individual.
Suppose your parents had seen little use for formal education. Suppose instead of recommending a school, they recommend you quit school and go work with your uncle mowing lawns.
Now I fully believe in individual initiative. Perhaps you would have discovered you hate lawn work. Maybe you would have gone back to school later, started a business, or self-taught yourself.
But we don't just measure the destination in society, we measure the path. While I will individually credit you with your ultimate destination, society demands that you should have taken the straight and narrow path. The wandering path, where you dropped out at 16, worked at yard work for 5 years, decided to become a real estate agent, open your own office and cater to insuring minority buyers are not vicitmized is not seen as a "success" educationally. Sure it is economically, but educationally you are still measured as "drop out."
Flip side of that is that some parents would value education and find a way to insure their child gets the degree they need. Even if they aren't especially bright. They will pay for the private college, the extra tutors, whatever it takes. They might land a job, they might be financially success or not. Educationally they will be seen as "successful." However financially is no guarantee.
Take this across an entire culture and percentage-wise it can lead to different results.
the fact remains that looking at educational level achieved by children is most directly correlated with the educational level achieved by the parents.
the fact remains that looking at educational level achieved by children is most directly correlated with the educational level achieved by the parents.
How can that not be seen as cultural then? If parents are not the primary transmitters of culture then who is?
there is a disconnect. i don't have my parent's culture, my parents don't have their parent culture. culture doesn't mean very much in individuals who move around a great deal, i was raised in the south, my parents in the north. i am living again in the north. my parents were raised in an ethnic enclave. i was not. culture isn't passed through by parents, it is passed through by community and even then it is loose.
i find it somewhat closed minded to view poor white's educational performance in arkansas as related to the cultural background of the people who settled there. or of southern rural appalachia (mostly scandanavian background). the point remains that culture isn't a decider of whether a parent (contrary to how forceful their parents were) helps their child attend college. it truly is individual by individual. most modern social theories acknowledge with regards to overall education that cultural bias is bullshit...
i should also say that while level of educational attainment is predicted by the level of parent's obtainment, it isn't a perfect correlation so there are many many other factors involved.
for instance, how well the economy is doing is probably a better predictor than the "culture" a person is...
No one said a word about lazy. Financial intelligence is something you can acquire at any age and begin practicing with good results at any age. Most of the rich are self-made. Finally most people don't study money or finances at all. They just do what they saw their parents do. It is like claiming fat kids have to be fat because their parents were. Getting education about nutrition and good eating habits can begin at any age. The same is true for finances.
Then why, pray tell, aren't the poor getting this financial intelligence and why aren't the self made millionaires the norm, not the exception. Is it, perhaps, because they are the exception?
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
It doesn't matter their background because their wealth has far exceeded it. We are talking about self made BILLIONAIRES, in almost every instance. People who have joined the Fotune 500 with a couple decades. The type of upward mobility people claim is often impossible. Gates for example was worth $100 billion a few years ago. He is worth around $50 billion now. He could be at the top and drop off within a generation. Who knows?
I'll gladly stick with your list of examplars of self-made billionares. If you advocate a system which affords everyone the same starting conditions of Gates, Dell, Woz, and Jobs I'd be for it.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
But people are suggesting that there SHOULDN'T be an advantage to investing. They are saying it should be treated the same as income.
I, for one, am certainly not suggesting that their should be no advantage to investing, only that there is no compelling reason why income from investments be completely tax free. It is a demonstrable fact that treating it as income does not eliminate an advantage to investment, since we already do and investment continues.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Amazingly people won't consider this with the rich, and don't consider how it hurts the poor. The history of all taxation is that it starts with the rich, there isn't enough revenue for the program growth or the rich avoid the tax (move away) and then the tax burden begins shifting down the income chain. Property taxes, and income taxes all started as taxes on the super-rich top 1%. They certainly aren't that now.
Hey, no argument here. Of course, I have trouble warming up to a philosophy that only the poor should pay taxes because, unlike the rich, they are defenseless.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I did address this at length. It is because to do the investing takes after tax dollars. It has already been taxed once for everyone. With investing it is taxed a second and even a third time.
So I would guess that lottery earnings should be tax free if that ticket was bought with pre-tax dollars. Seriously though, why stop with exempting investment income. We can track the post-tax dollar it's entire life. Why should your employees have to pay sales taxes if they already paid income tax? Why should the grocer that get's your employee's money have to pay taxes on his earnings?
If we instead base taxes on transcations then we don't run into these problems.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
That is why it is dishonest to claim that investment income is the same as salary. It is already being taxed multiple times.
Of course, it is really quite irrelevant if taxes are being paid once or twice. Obviously, if companies are surviving and investment continues despite this "double taxation" it is not nullifying incentive. Would it put your sensibilities at ease if we simpy doubled the tax that the company originally pays on the profits and eliminated the tax on the investor? That way things wouldn't be taxed twice, but
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
This is a flawed analogy. It assumes we work for the government instead of the government working for us. Lower taxes are a loan to be repaid? You are essentually saying that because the government was LESS intrusive and actually got out of the way long enough for you to live and start your life, that you should repay that lack of intrusiveness later. I really don't think that is the philosophy our founding fathers had in mind.
My analogy makes no such assumptions or conclusions. We do not work for the government, but clearly the government does require funding. IF the united states really is the land of opportunity where we expect the majority of our populace to attain a better quality of life through hard work and investment, then it is quite reasonable to shift their tax burden from when they are poor to when they are better off.
If the rich are predominately composed of the self-made as you suggest, then what is the objection to aiding their ascendacy to the wealthy class by reducing their taxes as they start out?
Actually, we do work for the govt until April 11th
\
Happy Tax Freedom Day, everyone! What you have made thus far (since New Years), theoretically was for Uncle Sam. Whatever you make until Dec 31 is now yours. <opens bottle of Scotch>
Yes, it is very sad. What's even sadder is that no one in our government has the guts to really cut spending, thus reducing the requirement for such high taxes.
I have heard enough of the whining bs associated with taxes. We live in this country, we have to pay for many of our rights and privlages. That is it. Suck it up. The money the government spends goes back into the economy anyhow.
I did address this at length. It is because to do the investing takes after tax dollars. It has already been taxed once for everyone. With investing it is taxed a second and even a third time.
This is completely wrong.
If you buy stock, you no longer have the money. You own a company. When you sell that item, you gain new income. You have money were no money previously existed. That should be taxable. It's new. No matter how you try to spin the truth you no longer have the money when you buy the stock. When you sell the stock you have new money just like a new paycheck brings. And with the new paycheck comes taxation on the new dollars.
You're not being taxed on previous earnings two ore three times. Your previous earnings were spent when you bought the stock. They're gone. You're taxed on new earnings.
I have heard enough of the whining bs associated with taxes. We live in this country, we have to pay for many of our rights and privlages. That is it. Suck it up. The money the government spends goes back into the economy anyhow.
Boston tea party was for a 2%tax, we, the citezenry have no guts.
Comments
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Yes, and they spend at least 10 times the disposable income as a percentage, as does a "rich" person, to do the same thing. But the taxes on smoking and drinking come out to a much lower percentage of disposable income, for a rich person, than for a poor person.
Unless you think rich people spend at least 10 times as much on their smoking and drinking.....
So, you would say, only rich people deserve to smoke and drink??? Hmmm..
what about 12$ cigars and 200$ wine?
no smokeing and drinking is not only a rich mans game, the poor can do it too, but can they afford it, if you have a limited income, then you must cut corners.
let me also say that the poor here have it better than the upper class in other parts of the world.
Originally posted by trumptman
How much education do you really need to know that smoking and drinking are bad for you? All education would do is give you facts to argue what you should already know. Most alcohol doesn't taste good until the taste is "acquired" via repeated exposure. Most smoking smells like absolute crap.
Finally I've worked at many poor schools. It isn't the education that is bad in almost all instances. Rather it is that not all people nor all cultures value education to the same degree.
Nick
like it or not, Americas youth gets the same 12 years of education rich or poor, and the poor need to pass the same standardized state tests for graduation as their rich counterparts.
yes I understand that inner city schools aren?t in even reasonable shape educationally, but for the past 30 years the only answer that any one wants to talk about is $$$. and a good hunk of the money, no matter what the amount they get goes for two bloated elements, beurocracy and sports.
sports are great bou the education NEEDS to be front and center.
and if I hear one more person complain about cutting the arts in inner city schools, I will pull my hair out. Teaching Janey and Jimmy how to play the trumpet is great and all but, If in the United States of America, our schools are actually granting diplomas to people who don?t posses the basic skills needed to read it, something is horably wrong. It is time we got back to the three R's Reading, wRiteing, and aRithmatic.
Originally posted by trumptman
Finally I've worked at many poor schools. It isn't the education that is bad in almost all instances. Rather it is that not all people nor all cultures value education to the same degree.
Teachers should be fired for assuming education isn't their problem.* Blaming cultural differences for poor performance in school does have some merit: asian-american parents push their kids while poor african-american parents expect the schools to take care of things. But the teacher must work to raise performance from every student. I'm sure I'll find no argument here.
*(Well, that would create a shortage of teachers. How about "reprimanded?")
Schools in poor areas do poorly because they aren't as well funded, children are expected to work, as well as any number of other more reasonable assertions than a cultural bias. is there a cultural bias to being poor?
Edit: This is directed generally... even the mention of parents pushing/not pushing is really individually determined... Sorry I blew my lid a bit...
(or willfully ignorant of the problem of educational inequity)
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Teachers should be fired for assuming education isn't their problem.* Blaming cultural differences for poor performance in school does have some merit: asian-american parents push their kids while poor african-american parents expect the schools to take care of things. But the teacher must work to raise performance from every student. I'm sure I'll find no argument here.
*(Well, that would create a shortage of teachers. How about "reprimanded?")
Education is different than educational performance. You can go to the doctor. He/She can recommend you stop smoking, stop eating fast food three times a day, start an exercise program, give you a sheet for planning proper meals and refer you to a nutritionist.
When you decide not to do any of this, it isn't that the doctor is assuming that your health isn't his/her problem. Rather giving help and knowledge cannot force you to learn or apply it.
It is the same thing for a financial advisor. They can recommend you live within your means, stop using credit, start a savings plan, prioritize wants versus needs, track your daily spending, etc.
When you decide not to do it, it isn't the financial advisor assuming your finances aren't their problem. The advisor cannot live your life for you, or force you to take their advice.
In most classrooms there are very hard working teachers lucidly presenting curriculum. They follow up with work that practices the material and later assesses your mastery of that material. When you are "failing" they recommend additional tutoring, extra classes, repeating the material, extra explanation, etc.
However no teacher can force a child to do the work, especially when the level of material being learned requires additional study and practice at home. They can't even truly force someone to do the work in class. They can report the work missing, show the affect on the grade of the child, and give additional copies and allow additional time for the work to be done. But the cannot FORCE the child to do the work.
They also cannot force the child to come to school. I SARB (send to the school attendance review board) a couple of children per year. This is where the school district works in conjunction with the city district attorney to prosecute parents who don't send their children to school. You can imagine the priority the city gives it compared to other truly criminal matters (from their perspective)
I have at least one child a year who misses 30-50 days out of a 180 day school year. I have several who fall into the cracks, missing an average of 20 days a year. Roughly one day out of every two weeks.
You can raise the level of a child relative to where they started, but the factors the prevent you from raising it to the level of their true ability are not under the control of the teacher.
Is a doctor that gets a obese man to gain only one pound a month instead of four he was gaining before. What if the doctor manages to get the man, via advice to stop gaining, but cannot get him to lose any weight. Seems the obese man won't exercise at all. Is the doctor a failure and uncaring? Should he be fired?
If your rights end at my nose, that also is the end of where the means someone can force change in another person ends as well.
Nick
Originally posted by billybobsky
Bullshit. There is no cultural bias. That is the biggest pile of utter crap I have heard in the last decade. It angers me every time someone mentions that I have a cultural bias for performing well in school. I chose to pursue academics when i realized in fourth/fifth grade that that was what i was good at (mind you i had barely passed every year prior to those -- its just that the advancement of curriculum in those grades was more to my pace) ... It wasn't my parents, it wasn't the "work ethic" they instilled in me (god, my work ethic is utter crap and i only do things when i need to), it was me. My intelligence, my devotion to understanding the world around me. What my parents did was shorten the barriers, they recommended to me that i attend the elementary/middle school I did after the experience my sister had with our neighborhood school, and they paid for college. This was not because they have a cultural bias towards education, this is simply because they as individuals saw value in education. I know plenty of other people whose parents were as wealthy, as educated, as similar to my parent's cultural background who didn't see value in education and it was still their children who decided to do with or without the education.
Schools in poor areas do poorly because they aren't as well funded, children are expected to work, as well as any number of other more reasonable assertions than a cultural bias. is there a cultural bias to being poor?
Edit: This is directed generally... even the mention of parents pushing/not pushing is really individually determined... Sorry I blew my lid a bit...
The Amish believe in formal education only through eighth grade. Is that not cultural? You name the actions of all those around you and yet consider it individual.
Suppose your parents had seen little use for formal education. Suppose instead of recommending a school, they recommend you quit school and go work with your uncle mowing lawns.
Now I fully believe in individual initiative. Perhaps you would have discovered you hate lawn work. Maybe you would have gone back to school later, started a business, or self-taught yourself.
But we don't just measure the destination in society, we measure the path. While I will individually credit you with your ultimate destination, society demands that you should have taken the straight and narrow path. The wandering path, where you dropped out at 16, worked at yard work for 5 years, decided to become a real estate agent, open your own office and cater to insuring minority buyers are not vicitmized is not seen as a "success" educationally. Sure it is economically, but educationally you are still measured as "drop out."
Flip side of that is that some parents would value education and find a way to insure their child gets the degree they need. Even if they aren't especially bright. They will pay for the private college, the extra tutors, whatever it takes. They might land a job, they might be financially success or not. Educationally they will be seen as "successful." However financially is no guarantee.
Take this across an entire culture and percentage-wise it can lead to different results.
Nick
Originally posted by billybobsky
the fact remains that looking at educational level achieved by children is most directly correlated with the educational level achieved by the parents.
How can that not be seen as cultural then? If parents are not the primary transmitters of culture then who is?
Nick
i find it somewhat closed minded to view poor white's educational performance in arkansas as related to the cultural background of the people who settled there. or of southern rural appalachia (mostly scandanavian background). the point remains that culture isn't a decider of whether a parent (contrary to how forceful their parents were) helps their child attend college. it truly is individual by individual. most modern social theories acknowledge with regards to overall education that cultural bias is bullshit...
for instance, how well the economy is doing is probably a better predictor than the "culture" a person is...
Originally posted by trumptman
No one said a word about lazy. Financial intelligence is something you can acquire at any age and begin practicing with good results at any age. Most of the rich are self-made. Finally most people don't study money or finances at all. They just do what they saw their parents do. It is like claiming fat kids have to be fat because their parents were. Getting education about nutrition and good eating habits can begin at any age. The same is true for finances.
Then why, pray tell, aren't the poor getting this financial intelligence and why aren't the self made millionaires the norm, not the exception. Is it, perhaps, because they are the exception?
Originally posted by trumptman
It doesn't matter their background because their wealth has far exceeded it. We are talking about self made BILLIONAIRES, in almost every instance. People who have joined the Fotune 500 with a couple decades. The type of upward mobility people claim is often impossible. Gates for example was worth $100 billion a few years ago. He is worth around $50 billion now. He could be at the top and drop off within a generation. Who knows?
I'll gladly stick with your list of examplars of self-made billionares. If you advocate a system which affords everyone the same starting conditions of Gates, Dell, Woz, and Jobs I'd be for it.
Originally posted by trumptman
But people are suggesting that there SHOULDN'T be an advantage to investing. They are saying it should be treated the same as income.
I, for one, am certainly not suggesting that their should be no advantage to investing, only that there is no compelling reason why income from investments be completely tax free. It is a demonstrable fact that treating it as income does not eliminate an advantage to investment, since we already do and investment continues.
Originally posted by trumptman
Amazingly people won't consider this with the rich, and don't consider how it hurts the poor. The history of all taxation is that it starts with the rich, there isn't enough revenue for the program growth or the rich avoid the tax (move away) and then the tax burden begins shifting down the income chain. Property taxes, and income taxes all started as taxes on the super-rich top 1%. They certainly aren't that now.
Hey, no argument here. Of course, I have trouble warming up to a philosophy that only the poor should pay taxes because, unlike the rich, they are defenseless.
Originally posted by trumptman
I did address this at length. It is because to do the investing takes after tax dollars. It has already been taxed once for everyone. With investing it is taxed a second and even a third time.
So I would guess that lottery earnings should be tax free if that ticket was bought with pre-tax dollars.
If we instead base taxes on transcations then we don't run into these problems.
Originally posted by trumptman
That is why it is dishonest to claim that investment income is the same as salary. It is already being taxed multiple times.
Of course, it is really quite irrelevant if taxes are being paid once or twice. Obviously, if companies are surviving and investment continues despite this "double taxation" it is not nullifying incentive. Would it put your sensibilities at ease if we simpy doubled the tax that the company originally pays on the profits and eliminated the tax on the investor? That way things wouldn't be taxed twice, but
Originally posted by trumptman
This is a flawed analogy. It assumes we work for the government instead of the government working for us. Lower taxes are a loan to be repaid? You are essentually saying that because the government was LESS intrusive and actually got out of the way long enough for you to live and start your life, that you should repay that lack of intrusiveness later. I really don't think that is the philosophy our founding fathers had in mind.
My analogy makes no such assumptions or conclusions. We do not work for the government, but clearly the government does require funding. IF the united states really is the land of opportunity where we expect the majority of our populace to attain a better quality of life through hard work and investment, then it is quite reasonable to shift their tax burden from when they are poor to when they are better off.
If the rich are predominately composed of the self-made as you suggest, then what is the objection to aiding their ascendacy to the wealthy class by reducing their taxes as they start out?
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
We do not work for the government
Actually, we do work for the govt until April 11th
Happy Tax Freedom Day, everyone! What you have made thus far (since New Years), theoretically was for Uncle Sam. Whatever you make until Dec 31 is now yours. <opens bottle of Scotch>
Originally posted by Jubelum
Actually, we do work for the govt until April 11th
true and very sad
Originally posted by a_greer
true and very sad
Yes, it is very sad. What's even sadder is that no one in our government has the guts to really cut spending, thus reducing the requirement for such high taxes.
Originally posted by trumptman
I did address this at length. It is because to do the investing takes after tax dollars. It has already been taxed once for everyone. With investing it is taxed a second and even a third time.
This is completely wrong.
If you buy stock, you no longer have the money. You own a company. When you sell that item, you gain new income. You have money were no money previously existed. That should be taxable. It's new. No matter how you try to spin the truth you no longer have the money when you buy the stock. When you sell the stock you have new money just like a new paycheck brings. And with the new paycheck comes taxation on the new dollars.
You're not being taxed on previous earnings two ore three times. Your previous earnings were spent when you bought the stock. They're gone. You're taxed on new earnings.
Originally posted by billybobsky
I have heard enough of the whining bs associated with taxes. We live in this country, we have to pay for many of our rights and privlages. That is it. Suck it up. The money the government spends goes back into the economy anyhow.
Boston tea party was for a 2%tax, we, the citezenry have no guts.