|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 2:30 pm
Son of Axeman Problem:
A flat tax is VERY hard on the lower and middle classes, and VERY easy on the rich.
Family A makes 10 000$/year. Family B makes 100 000$.
Both families have about 9000$/year on necissary expenses.
Family A is left with 1000$ of disposeable income.
Family B is left with 90 000$.
...anybody else see an issue with this?
Of course, abolishing all taxes save income tax wouldn't work, either, seeing as Apple's CEO officially gets paid 1$/year. Unless laws could be implimented that stop payment with anything but money...
Descisions, descisions.... Instead of giving people welfare, people with low incomes could get anuual tax reduction, Tax ID numbers for items that would qualify as necissary. There is an issue yes, but it seems to work well in other countries, we should give it a try.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 6:30 pm
blue_odessy Illeagle Immigration wouldnt be such a problem if we could make them all pay taxes... IDEA! 17% sales tax and the aboliton of all other taxes! Just like England! It seems to be working there... (at least while I was over there...) 17%= laughale. Even when inclusive, nd not accounting for the budget deficit, it would take 26% sales tax to match current govt income. Still a good idea
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 6:51 pm
DarthNader blue_odessy Illeagle Immigration wouldnt be such a problem if we could make them all pay taxes... IDEA! 17% sales tax and the aboliton of all other taxes! Just like England! It seems to be working there... (at least while I was over there...) 17%= laughale. Even when inclusive, nd not accounting for the budget deficit, it would take 26% sales tax to match current govt income. Still a good idea I dont really know how much it would take... but I do think it would be a good idea non-the-less. A dude in the Us. Reps. (i think he's from ga. actually), proposed a 23% national sales tax... probably didnt fly. Atleast not yet...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 11:56 pm
Here's an idea (that I think I may have given before in this guild):
Eliminate income tax from the poorest income brackets completely, and raise taxes on the rich, to make up for it. This benefits the poor, as they have more money to spend. It benefits the rich because, even though they have to pay more taxes, they are the ones who own the buisnesses that the poor are spending money on. So, the rich get more buisness, the profits of which are taxed, and the poor put more money into the economy which, (surprise, surprise!) gets taxed. All of these extra taxes go straight to the federal piggy bank.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 05, 2006 3:54 pm
Son of Axeman Here's an idea (that I think I may have given before in this guild):
Eliminate income tax from the poorest income brackets completely, and raise taxes on the rich, to make up for it. This benefits the poor, as they have more money to spend. It benefits the rich because, even though they have to pay more taxes, they are the ones who own the buisnesses that the poor are spending money on. So, the rich get more buisness, the profits of which are taxed, and the poor put more money into the economy which, (surprise, surprise!) gets taxed. All of these extra taxes go straight to the federal piggy bank. Great idea! Tax the people that worked hard to get where they are today, the ones that worked there a** off. Yes yes the poor people do the same, but why must we seperate them? This is SUPPOSED to be land of equality, how can make the better off community suffor?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 05, 2006 8:55 pm
Drewser Great idea! Tax the people that worked hard to get where they are today, the ones that worked there a** off. Yes yes the poor people do the same, but why must we seperate them? This is SUPPOSED to be land of equality, how can make the better off community suffor? Well then, I suppose you'd be all for ramping up the estate tax then? After all, it'd "equalise" the playing field, and it's not like the trust-fund kids have actually earned it via their "boxcars" roll on the lucky-sperm club. (The reason for "taxing the rich" is because they can, you know, afford it. As opposed to a flat tax, which wouldn't affect the obscenely rich much at all, while crippling the ******** it. I'm sick. Someone else explain this incredibly basic concept to Drewser, again.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 05, 2006 10:08 pm
I'll cover it.
The rich can afford to live more than comfortably with higher taxes (I'm not going to get into the whole "trust-fund kids" thing...it just serves to complicate matters, and derail the conversation). Therefore, they should pay taxes based on that. The lower classes, who get their tax break, have more money to spend on buisnesses, that are owned BY THE RICH. So, in the end, the lower classes are happy with thier tax break, and the higher classes are happy with having more profits in, thanks to more buisness. The government is happy because all of this extra money gets taxed, and some of it goes into the federal piggy bank, where it can be used to fix roads, fund research and development, et cetera. Everybody's happy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 2:10 pm
A_L_R Drewser Great idea! Tax the people that worked hard to get where they are today, the ones that worked there a** off. Yes yes the poor people do the same, but why must we seperate them? This is SUPPOSED to be land of equality, how can make the better off community suffor? Well then, I suppose you'd be all for ramping up the estate tax then? After all, it'd "equalise" the playing field, and it's not like the trust-fund kids have actually earned it via their "boxcars" roll on the lucky-sperm club. (The reason for "taxing the rich" is because they can, you know, afford it. As opposed to a flat tax, which wouldn't affect the obscenely rich much at all, while crippling the ******** it. I'm sick. Someone else explain this incredibly basic concept to Drewser, again.) You guys have blinded version of the "rich". Not every "rich" person is a kobe bryant who owns three mansions and 6 lambos... Most people who fall into the "rich" category of taxation are business owners who dump over 75% of their earnings back into their business. The "rich" by themselves could not carry the finacial wieght of this country. This would also destroy any incentive to become "rich".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 2:28 pm
blue_odessy A_L_R Drewser Great idea! Tax the people that worked hard to get where they are today, the ones that worked there a** off. Yes yes the poor people do the same, but why must we seperate them? This is SUPPOSED to be land of equality, how can make the better off community suffor? Well then, I suppose you'd be all for ramping up the estate tax then? After all, it'd "equalise" the playing field, and it's not like the trust-fund kids have actually earned it via their "boxcars" roll on the lucky-sperm club. (The reason for "taxing the rich" is because they can, you know, afford it. As opposed to a flat tax, which wouldn't affect the obscenely rich much at all, while crippling the ******** it. I'm sick. Someone else explain this incredibly basic concept to Drewser, again.) You guys have blinded version of the "rich". Not every "rich" person is a kobe bryant who owns three mansions and 6 lambos... Most people who fall into the "rich" category of taxation are business owners who dump over 75% of their earnings back into their business. The "rich" by themselves could not carry the finacial wieght of this country. And not every "rich" person comes anywhere near qualifying, it's still just the upper one percent. But hey, good job repeating decades-old Reaganomics talking points. They sure seem even more legitimate after their utter failure both times they've been implemented! blue_odessy This would also destroy any incentive to become "rich". The ******** are you smoking that you think "gee, I'd like to centuple my income, but then I'd have to pay a higher percentage of taxes which still leaves me with dozens of times more money than I'm making now!" is ever uttered, or even thought?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 5:43 am
That, and the extra buiness the rich would get from the poor spending more money on them. In the end, blue, both the rich and the poor win.
Why is it that you fail to see this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 8:50 pm
Son of Axeman That, and the extra buiness the rich would get from the poor spending more money on them. In the end, blue, both the rich and the poor win.
Why is it that you fail to see this? Question if I got rich off of Microsoft, investment banking, being a lawyer, doctor, starting a business with an upper class niche cliental, how am I benefiting as it is the rich that are my best clients.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 9:09 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 5:47 pm
dartalian Son of Axeman That, and the extra buiness the rich would get from the poor spending more money on them. In the end, blue, both the rich and the poor win.
Why is it that you fail to see this? Question if I got rich off of Microsoft, investment banking, being a lawyer, doctor, starting a business with an upper class niche cliental, how am I benefiting as it is the rich that are my best clients.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 5:49 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 8:55 pm
Eratosthenes Yondara the ChaosMage Eratosthenes If you come to our country, you must speak the native language, and understand that even though we are a "salad bowl" or "melting pot" that our street signs are not in Arabic, Russian, or Chinese. When you go to a restaurant, the movies, or even the post office, expect zero service if you cannot speak English. Welcome to America... we have no "official language," but newsflash, our currency, Constitution, and mode of communication is English. Native language my a**. Did the colonists choose to learn any of the N.A. languages when they came over, because it was the NATIVE AMERICAN'S land first? I don't think so... rolleyes You know that victors always write and re-write history... who needs to know the Native American linguistics? Will they be used? Were they ever needed? President Jackson took care of it; so go cry to him. Why would the colonists even "need" to learn the native language? All they needed to do was sneeze and cough and then the indians were no more. holy crap man, you're not just a xenophobe, your a superiorist. Chaos just litterally reversed the situation of immigration and you reversed your situation. So it's ok to kick out people it they aren't you or people exactly like you, but if your the immigrant/colonist then it's perfectly fine for you to give the heave ********' hoe to the, at the time, techincally, the 'legal' residents of the time. so the immigrants/colonists now should learn what you think is our native language, but because you think differenly of the English immigrants/colonists you say they shouldn't have learned the native language at the time? You are so full of bullshit man. And actually, have you ever heard of the Windtalkers? Those who used a native american language as a code during WWII and it was never broken during the war. Oh, and also, the native americans used the same superior idealology against many bigots just like you. Like when they fooled a camp into thinking they were celebrating a holiday with a lacross game to honor their gods. They mande them drop their guard and them they killed most of the soldiers and took the camp from them. All because they were thought of as stupid savages. How much more prejudice can you have in you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
