Taxing them at a lower rate is not a "massive tax break." The government didn't aid in their rise to wealth because the government didn't give them anything. The government simply stated out of the way. .
From your comments, I get the impression that taxation is always punitive as if the government doesn't really need to fund the services it's populace has demanded.
Also, let's avoid semantics. I'm not sure if I ever said that the government "gave" the poor anything, but regardless of the phrasing (let's use "lessening the tax burden while they are poor") if you reduce taxes in one place you have to raise them in another.
And IF (so far you have not debated this "if") the US is still a place where we expect the majority of poor to routinely rise out of poverty, THEN it is completely reasonable (and advantageous to us all) to shift the bulk of their tax obligations until they are rich.
Nothing you have said challenges the validty of this.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
That is why I said it is a philosophy that wouldn't sit well with the founders. They did not envision an government that was "helpful" by not taxing you punitively. Rather they wanted limited government.
As I recall the founding fathers did not intend a lot of things (blacks or woman having equal rights, citizens owning nuclear bombs), but with respect to property they did actually decide against considering property a "right."
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
All these make assumptions that rights flow from the government and the government not taking them from you is a "benefit." Our rights are inalienable. They cannot be taken or given back later.
Nothing I have said suggest that our rights flow from the government, or we work for the government, or any of the other repeated Rushisms. If suggesting that an F-22 costs X dollars, and we must collect X dollars to pay for it, somehow fits your characterization, let me know, otherwise, let's move on.
Regarding inalienable rights. Property is most definately alieanable, at least according to my Websters.
I said that simply because we made the same point and it would be presumptious of me to 'take' the idea as my own. It's called humility.
More like gang ignorance.
Quote:
Buying a car is an 'investment' too. It's just a really bad one. You resell the car, you pay tax. That's the way it should be.
Buying a car is not an investment. It is consumption plain and simple. Again when you resell it, you don't pay the tax. The buyer does. You simply collect it for the state. (Or at least you are supposed to do so. This seldom happens in private matters) You are selling something you own. It is not income. You are not taxed on it. That is the point I keep putting across that you really don't understand. You and Billy have cited numerous examples where you claim tax is paid, and it simply isn't. Get your facts straight if you want to persuade at all.
Quote:
Your arrogance is sad.
The only things sad is the financial mis-education and envy that keep people poor. I don't contribute to that mindset. You do. I don't find that just sad. I find it borderline abusive.
Quote:
You can call me ignorant but you don't understand a simple point. You want investment to be taxed less because it's a method of accruing money that you enjoy. You can label anything as an investment and that's the problem with your point. What you want to label as an investment gets taxed less because it helps you.
Wow. You're selfish. What a surprise.
Your "simple point" has been factually wrong in all the multitudes of examples you have cited. You then personalize what you cannot understand or explain. Investment is good for the economy because it allows people to start, grow and participate in businesses which generate money. I don't have to enjoy or not enjoy that. It is simply reality. I can't just label anything I want as an investment. In fact I have argued quite the opposite, that very few people understand what investing or an asset truly is. You did it yourself. My definition of an investment/asset is quite narrow.
As for it being taxed less, that doesn't "help" me. As usual your rhetoric hurts those you claim to help. Lack of investment will always hurt the poor before it ever hurts the rich.
Quote:
My poor money assumptions? Why are you so close minded to believe that what I argue in an intellectual discussion is how I use my money? You're foolish.
People argue for the solution that they believe best, correct or right. You are basically saying, do as I say, not as I do. For me to assume that you are not hypocritical might be foolish, but I simple thought it polite. You are welcome to go ahead and tell me you are hypocritical and I was foolish for assuming otherwise.
Buying a car is not an investment. It is consumption plain and simple. Again when you resell it, you don't pay the tax. The buyer does. You simply collect it for the state. (Or at least you are supposed to do so. This seldom happens in private matters) You are selling something you own. It is not income. You are not taxed on it. That is the point I keep putting across that you really don't understand. You and Billy have cited numerous examples where you claim tax is paid, and it simply isn't. Get your facts straight if you want to persuade at all.
Uhmm this is wrong. If you turn a profit on the sale of a car you can be made to pays taxes on that profit. When you do your income taxes at the end of the year you have to report the "PROFIT" as income and pay taxes on said profit. Now, this is a rare thing because vehicles rarely turn a profit on resale thus are a net loss for the seller. The same principle apples to the book my wife bought tonight. Borders doesn't pay taxes on the entire purchase price. They pay taxes on the profit resulting from the sale while my wife payed a sales tax on the $30 book.
Quote:
The only things sad is the financial mis-education and envy that keep people poor. I don't contribute to that mindset. You do. I don't find that just sad. I find it borderline abusive.
Financial mis-education is not the only thing that keeps poor people poor. Lack of education and lack of opportunity also contribute. Arnold Schwartzeniger used to believe that hard work was all that was required for success. He's since changed his view because of volunteer work with poor children. Its narrow minded to think that envy and financial mis-education are the problems that ill the poor.
Quote:
Your "simple point" has been factually wrong in all the multitudes of examples you have cited. You then personalize what you cannot understand or explain. Investment is good for the economy because it allows people to start, grow and participate in businesses which generate money. I don't have to enjoy or not enjoy that. It is simply reality. I can't just label anything I want as an investment. In fact I have argued quite the opposite, that very few people understand what investing or an asset truly is. You did it yourself. My definition of an investment/asset is quite narrow.
What economists, governments, and bean counters use is what's important because their definition is what the tax code uses to base the level of taxation on.
Most of trumptman?s threads on economics share common underlying premises:
1) Wealth is deservedly in the hands of those who earn it (and ?hands off? to the government who may wish to take some if it to, in part, help those less fortunate).
and
2) People who are less fortunate could do a lot better if they only worked harder and invested wisely; those who don?t do better generally have only themselves to blame.
Both premises are flawed. Wealth and opportunity is disproportionately a matter of class: money, and the opportunity to create it, feeds on itself. While some of lower economic classes can indeed transcend, there is actually surprisingly little class mobility in the United States. ?Get a job? ? ?Start a business? are the familiar refrains, but as any number of articles about being poor in America have recently shown, a lot of poor people (and especially African-American poor) are lucky if they can get a bus to pick them up in their neighbourhood or to have access to a bank. And many of those who are using intelligence and hard work to pick themselves up out of poverty are only an extended illness, a factory closing, or a bad business deal away from destitution. Those who make it are lucky in a society that is increasingly devoid of a social safety net.
So are taxes too high on the wealthy? Considering how most of them arrived where they are (with a lot of help from ?Daddy?s? money, all the way down the line) and considering what they have even after the taxman comes?I say ?NO?.
Uhmm this is wrong. If you turn a profit on the sale of a car you can be made to pays taxes on that profit. When you do your income taxes at the end of the year you have to report the "PROFIT" as income and pay taxes on said profit. Now, this is a rare thing because vehicles rarely turn a profit on resale thus are a net loss for the seller. The same principle apples to the book my wife bought tonight. Borders doesn't pay taxes on the entire purchase price. They pay taxes on the profit resulting from the sale while my wife payed a sales tax on the $30 book.
You are welcome to take an extreme example and attempt to prove a general rule with it. Just remember it is a logical fallacy. To be even more specific you could say that if you depreciated the car for business use, and then managed to sell the car for more than the taxable depreciated value, you have a gain as well and could be taxed on it. Of course when we all find the magical cars that don't lose 20% of their value when driven off the lot, and instead gain 20%, I'll be happy to talk about the exceptions to the rule.
Quote:
Financial mis-education is not the only thing that keeps poor people poor. Lack of education and lack of opportunity also contribute. Arnold Schwartzeniger used to believe that hard work was all that was required for success. He's since changed his view because of volunteer work with poor children. Its narrow minded to think that envy and financial mis-education are the problems that ill the poor.
Hey another fallacy. Endorsement fallacy, Arnold sez, so it must be true. I really don't care about Arnolds photo-ops and what he says afterwards. I've worked with poor children for about 15 years. In the United States financial upward mobility is the norm. Not everyone gets rich, but for most, poverty is a temporary stage. We toss more enough opportunity in terms of education, programs, etc. at children. In 99% of the cases, the only thing holding someone back is themselves. The 1%, see except to prove the rule above.
Last I checked, economists, bean-counters and certainly politicians weren't guaranteed to be rich. Someone can consider their golf clubs an asset. The clubs aren't going to put any money in their pocket, contribute anything toward their retirement, or likely even help them secure a loan. I already stated quite plainly that my definition of asset is much narrower than most. Proving what I already stated is not especially convincing. As for it being consequencial, not everyone is rich. I prefer to use the definition of those who have a high net-worth as opposed to those who have ..say.. golf clubs, two car payments, a McMansion and no chance of retiring.
Most of trumptman?s threads on economics share common underlying premises:
1) Wealth is deservedly in the hands of those who earn it (and ?hands off? to the government who may wish to take some if it to, in part, help those less fortunate).
and
2) People who are less fortunate could do a lot better if they only worked harder and invested wisely; those who don?t do better generally have only themselves to blame.
Both premises are flawed. Wealth and opportunity is disproportionately a matter of class: money, and the opportunity to create it, feeds on itself. While some of lower economic classes can indeed transcend, there is actually surprisingly little class mobility in the United States. ?Get a job? ? ?Start a business? are the familiar refrains, but as any number of articles about being poor in America have recently shown, a lot of poor people (and especially African-American poor) are lucky if they can get a bus to pick them up in their neighbourhood or to have access to a bank. And many of those who are using intelligence and hard work to pick themselves up out of poverty are only an extended illness, a factory closing, or a bad business deal away from destitution. Those who make it are lucky in a society that is increasingly devoid of a social safety net.
So are taxes too high on the wealthy? Considering how most of them arrived where they are (with a lot of help from ?Daddy?s? money, all the way down the line) and considering what they have even after the taxman comes?I say ?NO?.
Believe what you want. Believe you are not financially mobile and amazingly enough you will prove your own belief.
Believe what you want. Believe you are not financially mobile and amazingly enough you will prove your own belief.
This is generally true. But for the poor, the reverse is often not true - believing in their own financial mobility does not get them out of poverty. And while believing may be a necessary first step for those few who do 'make it', it is much more difficult even to believe when you are poor. So congratulations to the hard work of those who do make it (and give thanks for their equal portion of good luck), but let that not blind anyone to the realties.
This is generally true. But for the poor, the reverse is often not true - believing in their own financial mobility does not get them out of poverty. And while believing may be a necessary first step for those few who do 'make it', it is much more difficult even to believe when you are poor. So congratulations to the hard work of those who do make it (and give thanks for their equal portion of good luck), but let that not blind anyone to the realties.
You are blind to the realities. You are welcome to produce any sort of statistic that shows the percentage of people who are born into poverty and never leave it during their entire lifetime in the United States. Please feel free to post a link.
[B]You are welcome to take an extreme example and attempt to prove a general rule with it. Just remember it is a logical fallacy. To be even more specific you could say that if you depreciated the car for business use, and then managed to sell the car for more than the taxable depreciated value, you have a gain as well and could be taxed on it. Of course when we all find the magical cars that don't lose 20% of their value when driven off the lot, and instead gain 20%, I'll be happy to talk about the exceptions to the rule.
This is a diversionary argument. I took your quote and showed you that you were wrong to wit you built a straw man. The point was the sale of a car is taxable on the buyer and the seller if a profit results.
Quote:
Hey another fallacy. Endorsement fallacy, Arnold sez, so it must be true. I really don't care about Arnolds photo-ops and what he says afterwards. I've worked with poor children for about 15 years. In the United States financial upward mobility is the norm. Not everyone gets rich, but for most, poverty is a temporary stage. We toss more enough opportunity in terms of education, programs, etc. at children. In 99% of the cases, the only thing holding someone back is themselves. The 1%, see except to prove the rule above.
Last I checked, economists, bean-counters and certainly politicians weren't guaranteed to be rich. Someone can consider their golf clubs an asset. The clubs aren't going to put any money in their pocket, contribute anything toward their retirement, or likely even help them secure a loan. I already stated quite plainly that my definition of asset is much narrower than most. Proving what I already stated is not especially convincing. As for it being consequencial, not everyone is rich. I prefer to use the definition of those who have a high net-worth as opposed to those who have ..say.. golf clubs, two car payments, a McMansion and no chance of retiring.
Again, An assett is anything of value by law, tax code, and accounting. The level of wealth associated with lawmakers or bean counters means nothing. They make the laws. They decide whan an asset is. And, they are usually wealthy to boot. Your personal view is as inconsequential to the defenition as a lion is to a monk seal. You can repeat your personal view 'till your fingers bleed but that doesn't change how corporations account for assets. Your house is an asset. Your car is an asset. Your dishes are assets. Like it or not your idea of an asset is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
Also, I applaude those who work with the poor. Kudos.
The last link is the most telling> It shows that people working their way out of poverty (if only marginally above the legal definition) but slipping back into poverty when they enter the ranks of the elderly. And don't try to espouse theories of fiscal responsability because when your making $8 bucks an hour (about 16,500 a year before taxes) there isn't a whole lot left over to throw into that Janus 20 or Fidelity Magelin Roth IRA.
This is a diversionary argument. I took your quote and showed you that you were wrong to wit you built a straw man. The point was the sale of a car is taxable on the buyer and the seller if a profit results.
Last one for me since I'm gone on vacation when I awake.
I didn't build a straw man. All you did is use one conclusion to prove another. All gains are taxed. You just took a depreciating asset and said, well what if it were an appreciating asset. The answer is that of course you would treat it as any other appreciating asset. The reality of course is that it is not an appreciating asset. It is depreciating. Depending upon how you want to define it, it is a fallacy on several different levels. It is akin to saying sure gravity would pull a glass to the ground, but what if there were no gravity.
That is because we keep changing how we redefine poverty. Do you even read your own links?
Quote:
Many researchers believe that the official method of measuring poverty is flawed. Some argue that poverty is a state of relative economic deprivation, that it depends not on whether income is lower than some arbitrary level, but whether it falls far below the incomes of others in the same society. But if we define poverty to mean relative economic deprivation, then no matter how wealthy everyone is, there will always be poverty. Others believe the official method is conceptually correct but errs by omission. For example, official poverty figures take no account of the value of noncash government transfers like food stamps and housing vouchers, which serve as income for certain purchases. The Census Bureau estimates that the inclusion of the market value of these benefits in family income would have reduced the measured poverty rate by 1.4 percentage points (or by approximately 10 percent) in 1990.
The official definition also ignores the value of assets like owner-occupied housing and consumer durables that do not generate money income but increase household resources nonetheless. According to one study based on data from the early eighties, 31 percent of the poor owned their own homes and 48 percent owned a motor vehicle, and the average net worth of poor families was thirty thousand dollars. The Census Bureau estimates that if the net imputed return on equity in owner-occupied housing were included in income, the poverty rate would have been 1.2 percentage points lower in 1990.
We be measuring poverty in a nonrelative manner. When you measure it relatively, there will always be about the same amount of poverty. Also the paragraphs mentioned the wide array of things they will not count including assets, government cash transfers, etc.
Quote:
Again, An assett is anything of value by law, tax code, and accounting. The level of wealth associated with lawmakers or bean counters means nothing. They make the laws. They decide whan an asset is. And, they are usually wealthy to boot. Your personal view is as inconsequential to the defenition as a lion is to a monk seal. You can repeat your personal view 'till your fingers bleed but that doesn't change how corporations account for assets. Your house is an asset. Your car is an asset. Your dishes are assets. Like it or not your idea of an asset is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
Get over yourself. The debate wasn't about the definition of asset. The debate is over whether investment should be taxed at the same rate as income. I have said that people investing in assets for a return should not have their gains taxed at the same rate as salary. That is the clear context that I was addressing before you decided to drag the discussion off to never, never land. I made clear my personal definition was narrower than the norm and I gave it context. I wasn't arguing that people who buy dishes for their home should be taxed at a lower rate for example. If you are going to argue, at least have a rational. My rational is clear, investment should be encouraged and this encouragement should be done via lower taxation.
The last link is the most telling> It shows that people working their way out of poverty (if only marginally above the legal definition) but slipping back into poverty when they enter the ranks of the elderly. And don't try to espouse theories of fiscal responsability because when your making $8 bucks an hour (about 16,500 a year before taxes) there isn't a whole lot left over to throw into that Janus 20 or Fidelity Magelin Roth IRA.
You seriously need to read your own links. The first one basically claims that poverty hasn't grown. Marriage has declined. It even has a nice graph showing that there would be no growth in poverty of if marriage had not declined.
This is from your third link.
Quote:
38% of all the observed spells of poverty began with a decline in the labor income of the household head (58% for male-headed families with children; 14% for female-headed families). Bane and Ellwood argue that this figure is significant not because it is large, but because it is small, suggesting that most poverty is not explained by fluctuations in the head of household's earnings.
The other factor besides the head of household losing a job that contributed to half of all poverty? Family breakup or transition to a single female headed household.
Newsflash, one person can't do the job of two. Second newsflash is that the government nor the rich are forcing people to get divorced.
And again as mentioned with the first article, they will only look at income. The mother who is in "poverty" could have kept the house, and car from the divorce, be receiving the EITC, and child tax credit, WIC, food stamps and general assistance. None of those things will be counted as income nor towards taking her out of "poverty."
You fourth link...
Quote:
"We've known for almost twenty years now that a substantial proportion of American poor escape from poverty," says Duncan. "What is surprising is that there is so much mobility in tradition-bound, class-conscious, welfare-state European countries."
Poverty is not an life-long condemnation in the U.S. The surprise of your study is that it isn't in Europe either. Nice to know, but doesn't disprove my assertion that poverty is most often a temporary state.
The fifth link is essentually a rant. It provides not a single figure about poverty.
From your next link...
Quote:
Overall, the evidence suggests that the playing field is becoming more level in the United States. Socioeconomic origins today are less important than they used to be. Further, such origins have little or even no impact for individuals with a college degree, and the ranks of such individuals continue to increase. This growth in access to higher education represents an important vehicle for expanding opportunity. Still, family background continues to matter. While the playing field may be becoming more level, family factors still significantly shape the economic outcomes of children.
Wow that sure convinced me that poverty is permanant.
That's enough for now. I'm tired. It's 12:30 am here and I will see you all in two weeks.
[B]Last one for me since I'm gone on vacation when I awake.
I didn't build a straw man. All you did is use one conclusion to prove another. All gains are taxed. You just took a depreciating asset and said, well what if it were an appreciating asset. The answer is that of course you would treat it as any other appreciating asset. The reality of course is that it is not an appreciating asset. It is depreciating. Depending upon how you want to define it, it is a fallacy on several different levels. It is akin to saying sure gravity would pull a glass to the ground, but what if there were no gravity.
You did. Your replay assumed that all cars depreciate which I said in most cases they do. The point with this line of argument was that why is the sale of a care less important to an economy than taxing an investment. Your initial respons was to immediatly shoot down the idea of a rsale of a used car (sell a '69 Charger and see how much it has appreciated) as an invalid analogy. It is not. Why should I get taxed on the profit derived from the sale of My '79 T/A and not form the dividends on my stock? In both cases I have earned $$. I made an investment. When I withdrew from that investment I had more $$ than when I entered. Why is one sale more sacrosanct than the other? Because wealthy people have made it so.
Quote:
That is because we keep changing how we redefine poverty. Do you even read your own links?
We be measuring poverty in a nonrelative manner. When you measure it relatively, there will always be about the same amount of poverty. Also the paragraphs mentioned the wide array of things they will not count including assets, government cash transfers, etc.
Read the entire article not the first few paragraphs. The last paragraph, the summary, is more to the point and states that the poverty rate in the US is relatively unchanged even afer corrections are made.
Quote:
Get over yourself. The debate wasn't about the definition of asset. The debate is over whether investment should be taxed at the same rate as income. I have said that people investing in assets for a return should not have their gains taxed at the same rate as salary. That is the clear context that I was addressing before you decided to drag the discussion off to never, never land. I made clear my personal definition was narrower than the norm and I gave it context. I wasn't arguing that people who buy dishes for their home should be taxed at a lower rate for example. If you are going to argue, at least have a rational. My rational is clear, investment should be encouraged and this encouragement should be done via lower taxation.
Nick
This is the core of the debate because the sale of an asset is taxable if a profit is made. The holding of stock is an asset and should be taxed at the same rate as the sale of a car, or a set of Cobra golf clubs. Taxing returns does not discourage investment. How about supplying a link to support your argument instead of starting a thread using a poorly constructed alagory.
You seriously need to read your own links. The first one basically claims that poverty hasn't grown. Marriage has declined. It even has a nice graph showing that there would be no growth in poverty of if marriage had not declined.
This is from your third link.
The other factor besides the head of household losing a job that contributed to half of all poverty? Family breakup or transition to a single female headed household.
Newsflash, one person can't do the job of two. Second newsflash is that the government nor the rich are forcing people to get divorced.
And again as mentioned with the first article, they will only look at income. The mother who is in "poverty" could have kept the house, and car from the divorce, be receiving the EITC, and child tax credit, WIC, food stamps and general assistance. None of those things will be counted as income nor towards taking her out of "poverty."
You fourth link...
Poverty is not an life-long condemnation in the U.S. The surprise of your study is that it isn't in Europe either. Nice to know, but doesn't disprove my assertion that poverty is most often a temporary state.
The fifth link is essentually a rant. It provides not a single figure about poverty.
From your next link...
Wow that sure convinced me that poverty is permanant.
That's enough for now. I'm tired. It's 12:30 am here and I will see you all in two weeks.
Nick [/B]
Wow, no shit sherlock. Poverty wouldn't grow either if poor people all got rich!!! The point was to counter YOUR assertion that generally we are an upwordly mobile nation. That's not the case as the links I've supplied state. The levels of poverty have remained constant for 40 years. At no time have I said it was permanint. Good straw man (imparting ideas contrary to the view expressed by another to that person). let me remind you what you said:
Quote:
Hey another fallacy. Endorsement fallacy, Arnold sez, so it must be true. I really don't care about Arnolds photo-ops and what he says afterwards. I've worked with poor children for about 15 years. In the United States financial upward mobility is the norm. Not everyone gets rich, but for most, poverty is a temporary stage. We toss more enough opportunity in terms of education, programs, etc. at children. In 99% of the cases, the only thing holding someone back is themselves. The 1%, see except to prove the rule above.
The links I provided indicate the trend now is more wage stagnation, unchanged levels of child poverty and increase in elderly poverty. The UMich blurb was used to counter the typical argument that helping the poor isn't beneficial to the economy when it is. The more working purchasers we have the better our economic situation.
But this all goes back to taxation now doesn't it. Sure wealthy people pay more in Federal taxes; however, as has been stated already, the miriad other taxes on daily life are more burdensome on the poor because they represent a larger portion of the yearly income. We all know that the wealthy are sooo overburdened though are we not.
I like how you mentioned the EITC. How much is that BTW? What $118. Child tax credit is available to most parents. WIC is not income in the same fashion as a dividend nor are food stamps. If you believe they are your in a sad state of affairs.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
In a word. No.
Taxing them at a lower rate is not a "massive tax break." The government didn't aid in their rise to wealth because the government didn't give them anything. The government simply stated out of the way. .
From your comments, I get the impression that taxation is always punitive as if the government doesn't really need to fund the services it's populace has demanded.
Also, let's avoid semantics. I'm not sure if I ever said that the government "gave" the poor anything, but regardless of the phrasing (let's use "lessening the tax burden while they are poor") if you reduce taxes in one place you have to raise them in another.
And IF (so far you have not debated this "if") the US is still a place where we expect the majority of poor to routinely rise out of poverty, THEN it is completely reasonable (and advantageous to us all) to shift the bulk of their tax obligations until they are rich.
Nothing you have said challenges the validty of this.
Originally posted by trumptman
That is why I said it is a philosophy that wouldn't sit well with the founders. They did not envision an government that was "helpful" by not taxing you punitively. Rather they wanted limited government.
As I recall the founding fathers did not intend a lot of things (blacks or woman having equal rights, citizens owning nuclear bombs), but with respect to property they did actually decide against considering property a "right."
Originally posted by trumptman
All these make assumptions that rights flow from the government and the government not taking them from you is a "benefit." Our rights are inalienable. They cannot be taken or given back later.
Nothing I have said suggest that our rights flow from the government, or we work for the government, or any of the other repeated Rushisms. If suggesting that an F-22 costs X dollars, and we must collect X dollars to pay for it, somehow fits your characterization, let me know, otherwise, let's move on.
Regarding inalienable rights. Property is most definately alieanable, at least according to my Websters.
Originally posted by bunge
I said that simply because we made the same point and it would be presumptious of me to 'take' the idea as my own. It's called humility.
More like gang ignorance.
Buying a car is an 'investment' too. It's just a really bad one. You resell the car, you pay tax. That's the way it should be.
Buying a car is not an investment. It is consumption plain and simple. Again when you resell it, you don't pay the tax. The buyer does. You simply collect it for the state. (Or at least you are supposed to do so. This seldom happens in private matters) You are selling something you own. It is not income. You are not taxed on it. That is the point I keep putting across that you really don't understand. You and Billy have cited numerous examples where you claim tax is paid, and it simply isn't. Get your facts straight if you want to persuade at all.
Your arrogance is sad.
The only things sad is the financial mis-education and envy that keep people poor. I don't contribute to that mindset. You do. I don't find that just sad. I find it borderline abusive.
You can call me ignorant but you don't understand a simple point. You want investment to be taxed less because it's a method of accruing money that you enjoy. You can label anything as an investment and that's the problem with your point. What you want to label as an investment gets taxed less because it helps you.
Wow. You're selfish. What a surprise.
Your "simple point" has been factually wrong in all the multitudes of examples you have cited. You then personalize what you cannot understand or explain. Investment is good for the economy because it allows people to start, grow and participate in businesses which generate money. I don't have to enjoy or not enjoy that. It is simply reality. I can't just label anything I want as an investment. In fact I have argued quite the opposite, that very few people understand what investing or an asset truly is. You did it yourself. My definition of an investment/asset is quite narrow.
As for it being taxed less, that doesn't "help" me. As usual your rhetoric hurts those you claim to help. Lack of investment will always hurt the poor before it ever hurts the rich.
My poor money assumptions? Why are you so close minded to believe that what I argue in an intellectual discussion is how I use my money? You're foolish.
People argue for the solution that they believe best, correct or right. You are basically saying, do as I say, not as I do. For me to assume that you are not hypocritical might be foolish, but I simple thought it polite. You are welcome to go ahead and tell me you are hypocritical and I was foolish for assuming otherwise.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You and Billy have cited numerous examples where you claim tax is paid, and it simply isn't. Get your facts straight if you want to persuade at all.
Home.
Originally posted by bunge
Nick, are you drunk? Your grammer is mixed up.
I'm not drunk. My grammar is fine. Grammar is spelled with an "a" and not an "e".
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Buying a car is not an investment. It is consumption plain and simple. Again when you resell it, you don't pay the tax. The buyer does. You simply collect it for the state. (Or at least you are supposed to do so. This seldom happens in private matters) You are selling something you own. It is not income. You are not taxed on it. That is the point I keep putting across that you really don't understand. You and Billy have cited numerous examples where you claim tax is paid, and it simply isn't. Get your facts straight if you want to persuade at all.
Uhmm this is wrong. If you turn a profit on the sale of a car you can be made to pays taxes on that profit. When you do your income taxes at the end of the year you have to report the "PROFIT" as income and pay taxes on said profit. Now, this is a rare thing because vehicles rarely turn a profit on resale thus are a net loss for the seller. The same principle apples to the book my wife bought tonight. Borders doesn't pay taxes on the entire purchase price. They pay taxes on the profit resulting from the sale while my wife payed a sales tax on the $30 book.
The only things sad is the financial mis-education and envy that keep people poor. I don't contribute to that mindset. You do. I don't find that just sad. I find it borderline abusive.
Financial mis-education is not the only thing that keeps poor people poor. Lack of education and lack of opportunity also contribute. Arnold Schwartzeniger used to believe that hard work was all that was required for success. He's since changed his view because of volunteer work with poor children. Its narrow minded to think that envy and financial mis-education are the problems that ill the poor.
Your "simple point" has been factually wrong in all the multitudes of examples you have cited. You then personalize what you cannot understand or explain. Investment is good for the economy because it allows people to start, grow and participate in businesses which generate money. I don't have to enjoy or not enjoy that. It is simply reality. I can't just label anything I want as an investment. In fact I have argued quite the opposite, that very few people understand what investing or an asset truly is. You did it yourself. My definition of an investment/asset is quite narrow.
Your definition of asset is inconsequential. http://www.legal-definitions.com/asset.htm
What economists, governments, and bean counters use is what's important because their definition is what the tax code uses to base the level of taxation on.
Originally posted by trumptman
I'm not drunk. My grammar is fine. Grammar is spelled with an "a" and not an "e".
Nick
You see, I'm drunk. That's the differance. (JK)
1) Wealth is deservedly in the hands of those who earn it (and ?hands off? to the government who may wish to take some if it to, in part, help those less fortunate).
and
2) People who are less fortunate could do a lot better if they only worked harder and invested wisely; those who don?t do better generally have only themselves to blame.
Both premises are flawed. Wealth and opportunity is disproportionately a matter of class: money, and the opportunity to create it, feeds on itself. While some of lower economic classes can indeed transcend, there is actually surprisingly little class mobility in the United States. ?Get a job? ? ?Start a business? are the familiar refrains, but as any number of articles about being poor in America have recently shown, a lot of poor people (and especially African-American poor) are lucky if they can get a bus to pick them up in their neighbourhood or to have access to a bank. And many of those who are using intelligence and hard work to pick themselves up out of poverty are only an extended illness, a factory closing, or a bad business deal away from destitution. Those who make it are lucky in a society that is increasingly devoid of a social safety net.
So are taxes too high on the wealthy? Considering how most of them arrived where they are (with a lot of help from ?Daddy?s? money, all the way down the line) and considering what they have even after the taxman comes?I say ?NO?.
Originally posted by faust9
Uhmm this is wrong. If you turn a profit on the sale of a car you can be made to pays taxes on that profit. When you do your income taxes at the end of the year you have to report the "PROFIT" as income and pay taxes on said profit. Now, this is a rare thing because vehicles rarely turn a profit on resale thus are a net loss for the seller. The same principle apples to the book my wife bought tonight. Borders doesn't pay taxes on the entire purchase price. They pay taxes on the profit resulting from the sale while my wife payed a sales tax on the $30 book.
You are welcome to take an extreme example and attempt to prove a general rule with it. Just remember it is a logical fallacy. To be even more specific you could say that if you depreciated the car for business use, and then managed to sell the car for more than the taxable depreciated value, you have a gain as well and could be taxed on it. Of course when we all find the magical cars that don't lose 20% of their value when driven off the lot, and instead gain 20%, I'll be happy to talk about the exceptions to the rule.
Financial mis-education is not the only thing that keeps poor people poor. Lack of education and lack of opportunity also contribute. Arnold Schwartzeniger used to believe that hard work was all that was required for success. He's since changed his view because of volunteer work with poor children. Its narrow minded to think that envy and financial mis-education are the problems that ill the poor.
Hey another fallacy. Endorsement fallacy, Arnold sez, so it must be true. I really don't care about Arnolds photo-ops and what he says afterwards. I've worked with poor children for about 15 years. In the United States financial upward mobility is the norm. Not everyone gets rich, but for most, poverty is a temporary stage. We toss more enough opportunity in terms of education, programs, etc. at children. In 99% of the cases, the only thing holding someone back is themselves. The 1%, see except to prove the rule above.
Your definition of asset is inconsequential. http://www.legal-definitions.com/asset.htm
Last I checked, economists, bean-counters and certainly politicians weren't guaranteed to be rich. Someone can consider their golf clubs an asset. The clubs aren't going to put any money in their pocket, contribute anything toward their retirement, or likely even help them secure a loan. I already stated quite plainly that my definition of asset is much narrower than most. Proving what I already stated is not especially convincing. As for it being consequencial, not everyone is rich. I prefer to use the definition of those who have a high net-worth as opposed to those who have ..say.. golf clubs, two car payments, a McMansion and no chance of retiring.
Nick
Originally posted by Chinney
Most of trumptman?s threads on economics share common underlying premises:
1) Wealth is deservedly in the hands of those who earn it (and ?hands off? to the government who may wish to take some if it to, in part, help those less fortunate).
and
2) People who are less fortunate could do a lot better if they only worked harder and invested wisely; those who don?t do better generally have only themselves to blame.
Both premises are flawed. Wealth and opportunity is disproportionately a matter of class: money, and the opportunity to create it, feeds on itself. While some of lower economic classes can indeed transcend, there is actually surprisingly little class mobility in the United States. ?Get a job? ? ?Start a business? are the familiar refrains, but as any number of articles about being poor in America have recently shown, a lot of poor people (and especially African-American poor) are lucky if they can get a bus to pick them up in their neighbourhood or to have access to a bank. And many of those who are using intelligence and hard work to pick themselves up out of poverty are only an extended illness, a factory closing, or a bad business deal away from destitution. Those who make it are lucky in a society that is increasingly devoid of a social safety net.
So are taxes too high on the wealthy? Considering how most of them arrived where they are (with a lot of help from ?Daddy?s? money, all the way down the line) and considering what they have even after the taxman comes?I say ?NO?.
Believe what you want. Believe you are not financially mobile and amazingly enough you will prove your own belief.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
You see, I'm drunk. That's the differance. (JK)
Alright, the ruffies worked. Time for the reach-around.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Believe what you want. Believe you are not financially mobile and amazingly enough you will prove your own belief.
This is generally true. But for the poor, the reverse is often not true - believing in their own financial mobility does not get them out of poverty. And while believing may be a necessary first step for those few who do 'make it', it is much more difficult even to believe when you are poor. So congratulations to the hard work of those who do make it (and give thanks for their equal portion of good luck), but let that not blind anyone to the realties.
Originally posted by Chinney
This is generally true. But for the poor, the reverse is often not true - believing in their own financial mobility does not get them out of poverty. And while believing may be a necessary first step for those few who do 'make it', it is much more difficult even to believe when you are poor. So congratulations to the hard work of those who do make it (and give thanks for their equal portion of good luck), but let that not blind anyone to the realties.
You are blind to the realities. You are welcome to produce any sort of statistic that shows the percentage of people who are born into poverty and never leave it during their entire lifetime in the United States. Please feel free to post a link.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
[B]You are welcome to take an extreme example and attempt to prove a general rule with it. Just remember it is a logical fallacy. To be even more specific you could say that if you depreciated the car for business use, and then managed to sell the car for more than the taxable depreciated value, you have a gain as well and could be taxed on it. Of course when we all find the magical cars that don't lose 20% of their value when driven off the lot, and instead gain 20%, I'll be happy to talk about the exceptions to the rule.
This is a diversionary argument. I took your quote and showed you that you were wrong to wit you built a straw man. The point was the sale of a car is taxable on the buyer and the seller if a profit results.
Hey another fallacy. Endorsement fallacy, Arnold sez, so it must be true. I really don't care about Arnolds photo-ops and what he says afterwards. I've worked with poor children for about 15 years. In the United States financial upward mobility is the norm. Not everyone gets rich, but for most, poverty is a temporary stage. We toss more enough opportunity in terms of education, programs, etc. at children. In 99% of the cases, the only thing holding someone back is themselves. The 1%, see except to prove the rule above.
Wrong: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/P...tedStates.html try again. The incidence of poverty has seen little change in forty years. http://www.plu.edu/~poverty/stats/graph1.jpg
Last I checked, economists, bean-counters and certainly politicians weren't guaranteed to be rich. Someone can consider their golf clubs an asset. The clubs aren't going to put any money in their pocket, contribute anything toward their retirement, or likely even help them secure a loan. I already stated quite plainly that my definition of asset is much narrower than most. Proving what I already stated is not especially convincing. As for it being consequencial, not everyone is rich. I prefer to use the definition of those who have a high net-worth as opposed to those who have ..say.. golf clubs, two car payments, a McMansion and no chance of retiring.
Again, An assett is anything of value by law, tax code, and accounting. The level of wealth associated with lawmakers or bean counters means nothing. They make the laws. They decide whan an asset is. And, they are usually wealthy to boot. Your personal view is as inconsequential to the defenition as a lion is to a monk seal. You can repeat your personal view 'till your fingers bleed but that doesn't change how corporations account for assets. Your house is an asset. Your car is an asset. Your dishes are assets. Like it or not your idea of an asset is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
Also, I applaude those who work with the poor. Kudos.
http://www.brook.edu/views/testimony...l/19990629.htm
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-222.pdf
http://www.poverty.smartlibrary.org/...m?segment=1620
good little nuget of info:
http://www.research.umich.edu/resear...w/welfare.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0127/p21s01-coop.html
http://www.urban.org/Template.cfm?Na...icationID=6177
Note the rise in elderly povert rates in the following:
http://www-cpr.maxwell.syr.edu/facul...pers/appam.pdf
The last link is the most telling> It shows that people working their way out of poverty (if only marginally above the legal definition) but slipping back into poverty when they enter the ranks of the elderly. And don't try to espouse theories of fiscal responsability because when your making $8 bucks an hour (about 16,500 a year before taxes) there isn't a whole lot left over to throw into that Janus 20 or Fidelity Magelin Roth IRA.
Originally posted by faust9
This is a diversionary argument. I took your quote and showed you that you were wrong to wit you built a straw man. The point was the sale of a car is taxable on the buyer and the seller if a profit results.
Last one for me since I'm gone on vacation when I awake.
I didn't build a straw man. All you did is use one conclusion to prove another. All gains are taxed. You just took a depreciating asset and said, well what if it were an appreciating asset. The answer is that of course you would treat it as any other appreciating asset. The reality of course is that it is not an appreciating asset. It is depreciating. Depending upon how you want to define it, it is a fallacy on several different levels. It is akin to saying sure gravity would pull a glass to the ground, but what if there were no gravity.
Wrong: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/...itedStates.html try again. The incidence of poverty has seen little change in forty years. http://www.plu.edu/~poverty/stats/graph1.jpg
That is because we keep changing how we redefine poverty. Do you even read your own links?
Many researchers believe that the official method of measuring poverty is flawed. Some argue that poverty is a state of relative economic deprivation, that it depends not on whether income is lower than some arbitrary level, but whether it falls far below the incomes of others in the same society. But if we define poverty to mean relative economic deprivation, then no matter how wealthy everyone is, there will always be poverty. Others believe the official method is conceptually correct but errs by omission. For example, official poverty figures take no account of the value of noncash government transfers like food stamps and housing vouchers, which serve as income for certain purchases. The Census Bureau estimates that the inclusion of the market value of these benefits in family income would have reduced the measured poverty rate by 1.4 percentage points (or by approximately 10 percent) in 1990.
The official definition also ignores the value of assets like owner-occupied housing and consumer durables that do not generate money income but increase household resources nonetheless. According to one study based on data from the early eighties, 31 percent of the poor owned their own homes and 48 percent owned a motor vehicle, and the average net worth of poor families was thirty thousand dollars. The Census Bureau estimates that if the net imputed return on equity in owner-occupied housing were included in income, the poverty rate would have been 1.2 percentage points lower in 1990.
We be measuring poverty in a nonrelative manner. When you measure it relatively, there will always be about the same amount of poverty. Also the paragraphs mentioned the wide array of things they will not count including assets, government cash transfers, etc.
Again, An assett is anything of value by law, tax code, and accounting. The level of wealth associated with lawmakers or bean counters means nothing. They make the laws. They decide whan an asset is. And, they are usually wealthy to boot. Your personal view is as inconsequential to the defenition as a lion is to a monk seal. You can repeat your personal view 'till your fingers bleed but that doesn't change how corporations account for assets. Your house is an asset. Your car is an asset. Your dishes are assets. Like it or not your idea of an asset is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
Get over yourself. The debate wasn't about the definition of asset. The debate is over whether investment should be taxed at the same rate as income. I have said that people investing in assets for a return should not have their gains taxed at the same rate as salary. That is the clear context that I was addressing before you decided to drag the discussion off to never, never land. I made clear my personal definition was narrower than the norm and I gave it context. I wasn't arguing that people who buy dishes for their home should be taxed at a lower rate for example. If you are going to argue, at least have a rational. My rational is clear, investment should be encouraged and this encouragement should be done via lower taxation.
Nick
Originally posted by faust9
More info on poverty rates and life long poverty:
http://www.brook.edu/views/testimony...l/19990629.htm
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-222.pdf
http://www.poverty.smartlibrary.org/...m?segment=1620
good little nuget of info:
http://www.research.umich.edu/resear...w/welfare.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0127/p21s01-coop.html
http://www.urban.org/Template.cfm?Na...icationID=6177
Note the rise in elderly povert rates in the following:
http://www-cpr.maxwell.syr.edu/facul...pers/appam.pdf
The last link is the most telling> It shows that people working their way out of poverty (if only marginally above the legal definition) but slipping back into poverty when they enter the ranks of the elderly. And don't try to espouse theories of fiscal responsability because when your making $8 bucks an hour (about 16,500 a year before taxes) there isn't a whole lot left over to throw into that Janus 20 or Fidelity Magelin Roth IRA.
You seriously need to read your own links. The first one basically claims that poverty hasn't grown. Marriage has declined. It even has a nice graph showing that there would be no growth in poverty of if marriage had not declined.
This is from your third link.
38% of all the observed spells of poverty began with a decline in the labor income of the household head (58% for male-headed families with children; 14% for female-headed families). Bane and Ellwood argue that this figure is significant not because it is large, but because it is small, suggesting that most poverty is not explained by fluctuations in the head of household's earnings.
The other factor besides the head of household losing a job that contributed to half of all poverty? Family breakup or transition to a single female headed household.
Newsflash, one person can't do the job of two. Second newsflash is that the government nor the rich are forcing people to get divorced.
And again as mentioned with the first article, they will only look at income. The mother who is in "poverty" could have kept the house, and car from the divorce, be receiving the EITC, and child tax credit, WIC, food stamps and general assistance. None of those things will be counted as income nor towards taking her out of "poverty."
You fourth link...
"We've known for almost twenty years now that a substantial proportion of American poor escape from poverty," says Duncan. "What is surprising is that there is so much mobility in tradition-bound, class-conscious, welfare-state European countries."
Poverty is not an life-long condemnation in the U.S. The surprise of your study is that it isn't in Europe either. Nice to know, but doesn't disprove my assertion that poverty is most often a temporary state.
The fifth link is essentually a rant. It provides not a single figure about poverty.
From your next link...
Overall, the evidence suggests that the playing field is becoming more level in the United States. Socioeconomic origins today are less important than they used to be. Further, such origins have little or even no impact for individuals with a college degree, and the ranks of such individuals continue to increase. This growth in access to higher education represents an important vehicle for expanding opportunity. Still, family background continues to matter. While the playing field may be becoming more level, family factors still significantly shape the economic outcomes of children.
Wow that sure convinced me that poverty is permanant.
That's enough for now. I'm tired. It's 12:30 am here and I will see you all in two weeks.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
[B]Last one for me since I'm gone on vacation when I awake.
I didn't build a straw man. All you did is use one conclusion to prove another. All gains are taxed. You just took a depreciating asset and said, well what if it were an appreciating asset. The answer is that of course you would treat it as any other appreciating asset. The reality of course is that it is not an appreciating asset. It is depreciating. Depending upon how you want to define it, it is a fallacy on several different levels. It is akin to saying sure gravity would pull a glass to the ground, but what if there were no gravity.
You did. Your replay assumed that all cars depreciate which I said in most cases they do. The point with this line of argument was that why is the sale of a care less important to an economy than taxing an investment. Your initial respons was to immediatly shoot down the idea of a rsale of a used car (sell a '69 Charger and see how much it has appreciated) as an invalid analogy. It is not. Why should I get taxed on the profit derived from the sale of My '79 T/A and not form the dividends on my stock? In both cases I have earned $$. I made an investment. When I withdrew from that investment I had more $$ than when I entered. Why is one sale more sacrosanct than the other? Because wealthy people have made it so.
That is because we keep changing how we redefine poverty. Do you even read your own links?
We be measuring poverty in a nonrelative manner. When you measure it relatively, there will always be about the same amount of poverty. Also the paragraphs mentioned the wide array of things they will not count including assets, government cash transfers, etc.
Read the entire article not the first few paragraphs. The last paragraph, the summary, is more to the point and states that the poverty rate in the US is relatively unchanged even afer corrections are made.
Get over yourself. The debate wasn't about the definition of asset. The debate is over whether investment should be taxed at the same rate as income. I have said that people investing in assets for a return should not have their gains taxed at the same rate as salary. That is the clear context that I was addressing before you decided to drag the discussion off to never, never land. I made clear my personal definition was narrower than the norm and I gave it context. I wasn't arguing that people who buy dishes for their home should be taxed at a lower rate for example. If you are going to argue, at least have a rational. My rational is clear, investment should be encouraged and this encouragement should be done via lower taxation.
Nick
This is the core of the debate because the sale of an asset is taxable if a profit is made. The holding of stock is an asset and should be taxed at the same rate as the sale of a car, or a set of Cobra golf clubs. Taxing returns does not discourage investment. How about supplying a link to support your argument instead of starting a thread using a poorly constructed alagory.
Originally posted by trumptman
You seriously need to read your own links. The first one basically claims that poverty hasn't grown. Marriage has declined. It even has a nice graph showing that there would be no growth in poverty of if marriage had not declined.
This is from your third link.
The other factor besides the head of household losing a job that contributed to half of all poverty? Family breakup or transition to a single female headed household.
Newsflash, one person can't do the job of two. Second newsflash is that the government nor the rich are forcing people to get divorced.
And again as mentioned with the first article, they will only look at income. The mother who is in "poverty" could have kept the house, and car from the divorce, be receiving the EITC, and child tax credit, WIC, food stamps and general assistance. None of those things will be counted as income nor towards taking her out of "poverty."
You fourth link...
Poverty is not an life-long condemnation in the U.S. The surprise of your study is that it isn't in Europe either. Nice to know, but doesn't disprove my assertion that poverty is most often a temporary state.
The fifth link is essentually a rant. It provides not a single figure about poverty.
From your next link...
Wow that sure convinced me that poverty is permanant.
That's enough for now. I'm tired. It's 12:30 am here and I will see you all in two weeks.
Nick [/B]
Wow, no shit sherlock. Poverty wouldn't grow either if poor people all got rich!!! The point was to counter YOUR assertion that generally we are an upwordly mobile nation. That's not the case as the links I've supplied state. The levels of poverty have remained constant for 40 years. At no time have I said it was permanint. Good straw man (imparting ideas contrary to the view expressed by another to that person). let me remind you what you said:
Hey another fallacy. Endorsement fallacy, Arnold sez, so it must be true. I really don't care about Arnolds photo-ops and what he says afterwards. I've worked with poor children for about 15 years. In the United States financial upward mobility is the norm. Not everyone gets rich, but for most, poverty is a temporary stage. We toss more enough opportunity in terms of education, programs, etc. at children. In 99% of the cases, the only thing holding someone back is themselves. The 1%, see except to prove the rule above.
The links I provided indicate the trend now is more wage stagnation, unchanged levels of child poverty and increase in elderly poverty. The UMich blurb was used to counter the typical argument that helping the poor isn't beneficial to the economy when it is. The more working purchasers we have the better our economic situation.
But this all goes back to taxation now doesn't it. Sure wealthy people pay more in Federal taxes; however, as has been stated already, the miriad other taxes on daily life are more burdensome on the poor because they represent a larger portion of the yearly income. We all know that the wealthy are sooo overburdened though are we not.
I like how you mentioned the EITC. How much is that BTW? What $118. Child tax credit is available to most parents. WIC is not income in the same fashion as a dividend nor are food stamps. If you believe they are your in a sad state of affairs.
Originally posted by faust9
Why is one sale more sacrosanct than the other? Because wealthy people have made it so.
Thanks faust9.