WakeWorld

WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Non-Wakeboarding Discussion (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=4387)
-   -   I found this interesting.... (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=787055)

fly135 04-20-2011 12:36 PM

I found this interesting....
 
Just found out about this...

http://www.crimeandfederalism.com/20...-flat-tax.html

The web site came up as the first hit on a search. But other sites seem to verify the info.

04-20-2011 12:54 PM

People complain about taxes, but paying 35% in income taxes is a nice problem to have. I'd rather pay 35% of 100,000 than 10% of 50,000. Wouldn't you?

When 100% of your income resulted from government hand-outs, keeping giving back just over one-third seems like the right thing to do.

Nevertheless, it's unlikely that the tax loophole will be closed. Republicans, the party of Jesus Christ, have rewritten the Gospels: Little will be required from everyone to whom much has been given.


Figures that you find this interesting...

"The right thing to do?"

There should be no tax loopholes for anyone. There should be no tax on anyone's income, it is the money that they earned and no one else has a right to it. We should all pay for any services that we use.

Do I have a better idea? Why yes, I do...

Item #2
Getting rid of the income tax will knock out much of the federal revenues, and taking out all payroll "contributions" would take us into the realm of "unserious." Note that in 2007, even without the personal and corporate income tax, the federal government still took in more than $1 trillion in receipts.

We still have over $1 trillion in receipts in 2010... but somehow, people who don't work get to benefit from those who do...

fly135 04-20-2011 1:04 PM

Since the obvious seems to escape you, it was this part.....

"Hedge Fund Managers Pay Only A 15% Income Tax"


Quote:

but somehow, people who don't work get to benefit from those who do...
In more ways than you seem to think.

04-20-2011 1:07 PM

Well golly gee... I guess I'm just ignorant and can't read...

Maybe that is why I said EVERYONE...

and it could have something to do with RISK and REWARD...

fly135 04-20-2011 1:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIngram (Post 1673398)
Figures that you find this interesting...

Ahh I get it... you meant "you" as in "everyone".

So you agree that fund managers should be taxed lower because of the"risk" and "reward" of managing other people's money?

04-20-2011 1:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fly135 (Post 1673406)
Ahh I get it... you meant "you" as in "everyone".

So you agree that fund managers should be taxed lower because of the"risk" and "reward" of managing other people's money?

NO! I don't think anyone should be taxed on their income, including ME and YOU. I am sorry that I am so ignorant an can't write in a fashion that you can comprehend.

There should be no tax loopholes for anyone. There should be no tax on anyone's income, it is the money that they earned and no one else has a right to it. We should all pay for any services that we use.

fly135 04-20-2011 1:37 PM

Not being taxed on our income is an entirely different topic. We are taxed on our income and I found the article interesting because it "seems" to highlight that govt panders to people who have money. Indicating once again that our govt is bought and sold by the people we elect. This isn't a partisan bitch as I believe the buying and selling occurs on both sides.

The fact that that particular web page plants the blame for this particular selling of America on Republicans may be right or wrong I don't know. That's one reason why I posted "it was the first hit". That and it seems to explain the issue more clearly than the other hits.

WRT just paying for services, I guess that leaves the miltary pretty much unfunded. And the FDA, and Homeland security, and FEMA, and the SEC. What exactly are services at the federal level?

04-20-2011 1:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fly135 (Post 1673413)
WRT just paying for services, I guess that leaves the miltary pretty much unfunded. And the FDA, and Homeland security, and FEMA, and the SEC. What exactly are services at the federal level?

So the military, the FDA, Homeland Security, FEMA, and the SEC don't offer any services... hmm.. ok.

fly135 04-20-2011 2:12 PM

How do they get paid for their services? If I don't want their services do I pay? When it comes time to pay the bill for ongoing operations in Iraq or Afghanistan Iwill decline those services. Is that OK?

When the FDA wants to give an exclusive contract to produce a drug at hundreds per pop when compounding pharmacies produced it for $15, can I decline those services? Or when the FDA wants to tell Diamond walnuts that they can't say walnuts are good for your heart, can I decline to chip in for FDA lawyers?

It seems like what you are trying to say without saying it... is that everyone should pay an equal amount to the govt. That simply isn't possible. If you are saying that it should be a consumption tax, then that is not representatives of the services you use any more than an income tax reflects the services you use.

When you purchase services, they need to be services you want. I don't want services that prevent trade or tourism with Cuba or send billions to overseas countries like Egypt or Pakistan.

fly135 04-20-2011 2:16 PM

OTOH, if you are trying to say I can not pay for anything I disagree with, then sign me up.

04-21-2011 10:10 AM

Hey John,
I have a bet with someone regarding your answer....

If you knew who I was, and saw me at your local lake in my boat that ran out of gas, would you help me?

guido 04-21-2011 10:13 AM

What I object to is being taxed on income and being taxed on goods and services. My favorite is being taxed on goods that have already been taxed (I.E. DMV taxing on re-sold vehicles) Tell me how this is just. Pick one or the other. If you're taxing goods, great. If you're taxing income, then why not a flat tax? Just because you make more money (by being industrious or working hard) doesn't mean you should be penalized for it. And those making extremely large amounts of money shouldn't get their own set of rules. C'mon. This seems pretty basic and American.

fly135 04-21-2011 10:39 AM

Absolutely. Not sure which is arguing I wouldn't but I'd be curious to hear the rationale.

fly135 04-21-2011 2:22 PM

Here's another good one...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...0110411?page=2


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 6:27 AM.