Register to reply

Right to vote = minimum of $1.00 federal tax.

by WhoWee
Tags: $100, federal, minimum, vote
Share this thread:
SixNein
#55
Feb11-12, 01:18 AM
PF Gold
SixNein's Avatar
P: 194
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
Because $1.00 is the difference between contributing to the system or taking from the system - quite symbolic IMO.
Why not restrict voting rights to a privilege of conservatives?
ParticleGrl
#56
Feb11-12, 01:46 AM
P: 685
Why? Why punish investments? Why punish retirees who prudently invested in the economy and saved instead of spent? Why punish people that save so they don't need to be a burden on society in their old age? Who do you think actually benefits from dividends, interest, and capital gains?
First, lets strip out the loaded word punish. Now, lets ask why tax investments? Because the alternative is to tax people without investments more. You have to get the money from somewhere.

Also- taxing investments like normal income doesn't hurt Grandpa- yes he is now realizing some capital gains, but he isn't drawing a salary now. Its not like he'll be pulling in millions in realized capital gains- so taxing like normal income won't leave most of his gains in a high marginal bracket. You can play games with the numbers and find situations where a retiree could pay less with capital gains taxed as normal income.
Jasongreat
#57
Feb11-12, 05:06 AM
P: 75
ThomasT;3757665]The tax burden should be carried primarily by the people with the largest incomes, which it is. Seems fair to me.
You get no disagreemaent from me, that was the way it was for quite a long time, the income tax is relatively new invention. But there is a difference on the wealthy paying for government, and the poor voting to take more from the rich.


Additionally, it would be quite fair to tax income from dividends, interest, capital gains at much higher than current rates, imo.
I also agree, profits should be taxed, income not at all. I would like to ask though, do you have a portfolio? Since it seems that is the point of this thread, voting to increase taxes on things one does not own.
MarcoD
#58
Feb11-12, 05:08 AM
P: 98
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
Because $1.00 is the difference between contributing to the system or taking from the system - quite symbolic IMO.
I've been looking at this thread, wondering whether to respond since it is US local, but anyway, your 'feelings' just don't make sense.

Say someone is poor, he/she has two or three odd jobs, but doesn't make enough income to pay federal taxes. Then that person is generating wealth others profit off. So why take away his/her voting right? He/she is generating wealth/income for other people who are then taxed.

Looks to me that there's nothing wrong with the system. You're almost proposing a return to 'slavery' IMO.
Jasongreat
#59
Feb11-12, 05:11 AM
P: 75
Quote Quote by SixNein View Post
Why not restrict voting rights to a privilege of conservatives?
Does a dollar restrict voting? Or are you implying that only conservatives can afford to pay the dollar? Your other post about increasing the amount to 1,000,000 dollars, shows that you have not been paying attention to the thread, only having emotional outbursts. WhoWee, in the op, and never since has said anything about using money to keep people out of the polls, only that those voting to take from others, should also have skin in the game. Which I dont think is a bad idea at all.
Jasongreat
#60
Feb11-12, 05:28 AM
P: 75
Quote Quote by MarcoD View Post
I've been looking at this thread, wondering whether to respond since it is US local, but anyway, your 'feelings' just don't make sense.

Say someone is poor, he/she has two or three odd jobs, but doesn't make enough income to pay federal taxes. Then that person is generating wealth others profit off. So why take away his/her voting right? He/she is generating wealth/income for other people who are then taxed.

Looks to me that there's nothing wrong with the system. You're almost proposing a return to 'slavery' IMO.
As has been pointed out everyone in the US making money pays federal income taxes, but there is a large percentage that gets that money back some even with additional monies.

It seems to me your argument is that since the poor make money for the rich, they can then turn around and confiscate a portion of that money the rich made.

If the rich have to pay everything, either through income taxes, and corporate taxes, then those who pay nothing can take even more for thier 'benefit' by voting, it is you that thinks that the rich should be the slaves of poor, or the few the slaves of the many.

I would love for to people read up on Andrew Mellon and Harding as well as Coolidge, and explain to me how thier thinking was wrong. The rich can afford to hide their money, the rich can afford to go without an income. When taxes become oppressive, money disappears from the economy. Seems pretty logical to me.
MarcoD
#61
Feb11-12, 06:15 AM
P: 98
Quote Quote by Jasongreat View Post
It seems to me your argument is that since the poor make money for the rich, they can then turn around and confiscate a portion of that money the rich made.
Of course not. I am saying it really doesn't matter. If people make that small amount of money that they can't really pay federal taxes, then that only means that wealth was moved to higher-income individuals. I.e., you could tax taxi drivers more, but it would only mean you'ld end up paying more for getting around.
MarcoD
#62
Feb11-12, 06:26 AM
P: 98
Quote Quote by Jasongreat View Post
When taxes become oppressive, money disappears from the economy. Seems pretty logical to me.
Money can't disappear. Taxes are nothing else then redistributing/spending a part of a person's income on something else. You can disagree with the amount of taxing, or whether you need a government, or on what it is being spend, but money can't disappear. It's just milled around in another fashion than an individual would do.
Ryan_m_b
#63
Feb11-12, 06:29 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,459
Quote Quote by MarcoD View Post
Money can't disappear. Taxes are nothing else then redistributing/spending a part of a person's income on something else. You can disagree with the amount of taxing, or whether you need a government, or on what it is being spend, but money can't disappear. It's just milled around in another fashion than an individual would do.
Money can easily disappear by moving it abroad.
MarcoD
#64
Feb11-12, 06:34 AM
P: 98
Quote Quote by Ryan_m_b View Post
Money can easily disappear by moving it abroad.
Yeah, that's a bit (more) true for the US. Normally, moving money abroad usually just means it has to return to the economy in some fashion.
mege
#65
Feb11-12, 06:51 AM
P: 193
Quote Quote by MarcoD View Post
I've been looking at this thread, wondering whether to respond since it is US local, but anyway, your 'feelings' just don't make sense.

Say someone is poor, he/she has two or three odd jobs, but doesn't make enough income to pay federal taxes. Then that person is generating wealth others profit off. So why take away his/her voting right? He/she is generating wealth/income for other people who are then taxed.

Looks to me that there's nothing wrong with the system. You're almost proposing a return to 'slavery' IMO.
It's a thought exercise more than any actual advocacy. Part of the exercise is to think about: why is 1/2 of a country's population not paying income taxes? This is a form of corruption, IMO, and it seems to be overlooked because there's so many that benefit from it. This isn't about 'attacking disabled folks' or the like - it's about democracy gone wrong where an majority is allowed to dictate to a minority what to do with their personal property.

Fill in the blanks: The _____ person in the majority told the _____ person in the minority that he had to pay more taxes.
If that is white/black, straight/gay, Natural-born/immigrant - people are up in arms. The moment it becomes not-rich/rich - it's OK?

Maybe 'social status' or 'income' needs to be added to the list of discrimination protection?

Ultimately, I don't blame the 'entitlement-voters' at all - they're acting in their own short-term self interest. I think it's a scam, though, that elected officials are allowed to campaign using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money under the guise of 'helping people' when they know it's not sustainable. It's passing the buck, but at least they got into power to help their friends out!* The only thing it really sustains is their own elevation of power.
*(Anyone else notice that Warren Buffett made a few hundred million in profit off of this BoA mortgage deal? Everyone thought he was crazy for investing that much in them last year, but now it all make sense!)
MarcoD
#66
Feb11-12, 06:56 AM
P: 98
I wouldn't know. To be honest, taxes are that low in the US that as a European I hardly understand what all the fuss is about. It's been a long time since I visited the US, but I think I can guarantee the net effect of lower incomes not paying a lot of taxes: labor is incredibly cheap in the US. That means that buying a Latte, or groceries, or getting around by taxi, or whatever, should be dirt cheap.

You can tax the lower incomes more, but it would ultimately just mean that life for the 'rich' would become more expensive.
mege
#67
Feb11-12, 07:10 AM
P: 193
Quote Quote by MarcoD View Post
I wouldn't know. To be honest, taxes are that low in the US that as a European I hardly understand what all the fuss is about. It's been a long time since I visited the US, but I think I can guarantee the net effect of lower incomes not paying a lot of taxes: labor is incredibly cheap in the US. That means that buying a Latte, or groceries, or getting around by taxi, or whatever, should be dirt cheap.

You can tax the lower incomes more, but it would ultimately just mean that life for the 'rich' would become more expensive.
Just federal taxes are lower in the US. Add in the other layers of government in the US (state income taxes are high-single digits, property taxes are a wealth-tax, etc) and the difference isn't as stark. Another factor is that the average American works more (total and per week) than the average European - so if services were the same per person (I know they're not...) then Americans would need to pay lower taxes proportional to the difference in time worked anyhow.

And for the most part - stuff is cheaper is significantly cheaper in the US. Most of the impoverished in the US own appliances, TVs, and a car... in Europe that's not the case.

Finally, it isn't about 'taxing the lower incomes more' it's about having a responsible government that doesn't just pay capable people to live. In any system, there are going to be rich and poor - but that doesn't mean that the rich have to be giving up their life to pay for the poor. Intrinsically - I don't think that the fight is really about '1/2 not paying any taxes.' What grinds my gears, is that part of this 50% which isn't paying taxes is also demanding that the rich pay more. Fair is fine... but that's far from fair.
MarcoD
#68
Feb11-12, 07:33 AM
P: 98
That. I think the taxes problem is an entire economical problem and that the US economists don't really care about what the population think. It may seem unfair, but I expect the average rationale to be something like: US external debt is lousily huge, but US net investment position isn't too bad. I.e., assets abroad largely make up for foreign owned assets in the US. But assets owned abroad are largely owned by the rich, and taxing the rich would just drive them out of the US, and the US would end up with only an enormous debt. So the US simply cannot tax the rich, even if people would like to.

Similarly, keeping wages low is good for the US's international competitiveness, so nothing will change there either.

It's a lot of speculation on my part, but I don't think anything will change since it cannot.
WhoWee
#69
Feb11-12, 08:18 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
The tax burden should be carried primarily by the people with the largest incomes, which it is. Seems fair to me. Additionally, it would be quite fair to tax income from dividends, interest, capital gains at much higher than current rates, imo.
Be careful what you wish for - it's not a very big leap from this point to a point where the Government grabs 30% of 401K's over some random level that sounds "rich" - maybe $100,000? That will also sound fair to the "poor" - won't it?
WhoWee
#70
Feb11-12, 08:27 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by SixNein View Post
Why not restrict voting rights to a privilege of conservatives?
That would not be reasonable - would it?
WhoWee
#71
Feb11-12, 08:29 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by ParticleGrl View Post
First, lets strip out the loaded word punish. Now, lets ask why tax investments? Because the alternative is to tax people without investments more. You have to get the money from somewhere.

Also- taxing investments like normal income doesn't hurt Grandpa- yes he is now realizing some capital gains, but he isn't drawing a salary now. Its not like he'll be pulling in millions in realized capital gains- so taxing like normal income won't leave most of his gains in a high marginal bracket. You can play games with the numbers and find situations where a retiree could pay less with capital gains taxed as normal income.
Do we really want the politicians plating any more games with the tax code - isn't it long and complicated enough?
WhoWee
#72
Feb11-12, 08:38 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by MarcoD View Post
I've been looking at this thread, wondering whether to respond since it is US local, but anyway, your 'feelings' just don't make sense.

Say someone is poor, he/she has two or three odd jobs, but doesn't make enough income to pay federal taxes. Then that person is generating wealth others profit off. So why take away his/her voting right? He/she is generating wealth/income for other people who are then taxed.

Looks to me that there's nothing wrong with the system. You're almost proposing a return to 'slavery' IMO.
Slavery (?) - your 'feelings' just don't make sense to me. If someone works two or three odd jobs they might make enough to pay $1.00 in net taxes - if they receive a redistribution of income taxes they probably don't?

As a business owner - I don't let the employees decide compensation and benefit levels - I base those decisions on the overall business plan/budget, the competitive market, and of course the Government's mandates.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
What is the Federal Reserve? Social Sciences 17
The Federal Insurance Office Current Events 9
Federal Reserve Current Events 73
Federal Tax on Cigarettes Social Sciences 3