At tax time, lots of money under table (Article)

[grimel]

no B&M within 3hrs (maybe not that close). I know Tunica for sure, maybe Cincinati.

SUPOSEDLY, the Cherokee Casinos in (strangely enough) Cherokee NC are getting live dealers and tables this spring. Put me in the I'll believe it when I see it bracket. Right now it's 1,873,287.1 slot machines with another 375,213.72 video poker machines.

[grimel]

I really have to ask, how many small businesses have you started? How long have you been self employeed? What real life experiance dealing with the current tax/regulatory structure? The CFR alone is impossible for any one to be in 100% compliance.

[grimel]

NO justification. None, nada, zip, zilch, zero.

Graduated income tax rates are just a means of some elected official to be re-elected - tax 1000 and 1000 don't vote for you; tax 1000000 and 1000000 don't vote for you.

It creats class warfare. Gives a supermajority NO reason to worry about Fed spending (they are NOT paying anything so why should they care?).

[grimel]

[ QUOTE ]

This is a horrible analogy which has absolutely nothing to do with what we are debating over. Yes I do think a progressive tax is fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's exactly what happens with the current tax system.

If you think a progressive tax is fair, you need to lookup fair.

[ QUOTE ]
They might invest it one way or another to make even more money. This may or may not have an affect on our economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Investing money to make money does spur the economy - VENTURE CAPITAl.

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, governement redistribution of wealth (what you advocate) has NEVER worked long term.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you mean by long term and can you provide some examples where redistribution doesn't work?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pick your favorite government non-defense program. We (the US) have transfered BILLIONS from the rich to the poor in the last 4 decades.

The education dept is a joke. Take money from state X give it to state Y - NOT working. More money is rarely the answer. Centralized control doesn't work.

1) the government's inefficiency is matched only by it's excess.
2) like money won gambling, money given isn't nearly as precious as money earned.
3) there is zero incentive for a person being GIVEN housing, food stamps, welfare check, etc to work. Add it up and it's not a bad after tax (for those that do work) income requiring zero skills and/or education.

[ QUOTE ]
Even my 19yr old daughter understood this example enough to question why people b!tch about lowering taxes.


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
WHO CARES

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it shows even a college freshman can see the basic economic cycle and understands where the real increases in purchasing originates.

[grimel]

The plan does NOT lower the burden on the poor you can't make it lower than getting back more than they paid.

1) the illegals, drug dealers, blackmarketers, and poor would all be paying something (the first three alone would be a MASSIVE infusion of cash while the later would just be paying some small portion).

2) NO bill alive has a net reduction. It works out to a net wash.

3) unlike the current never see it (for most people) the sales tax would be an immediate hit for EVERYONE when Congress decides to raise it. They couldn't do the current "raise the taxes on the rich" mantra - EVERYONE would be effected, thus paying more attention. Possibly to the point of booting the spending monkeys OUT of D.C. (check on the state of Tn sometime for what happened when they started screaching for an income tax and/or more sales tax [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] we now have a Rep Sentate for the first time).

Taxation is not a zero sum game. HISTORICAL data supports lowering taxes to increase revenue. It will always result in more money for the government if top marginal rates are cut. Look it up, it's easy to find.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
because the crap reason "it shifts tax burden to the poor". Yeah, so?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure exactly what point you're responding to here, but if its that, yes there is a justification for a graduated tax structure (as opposed to your: there is no justification for such a structure) then, no that's not the justification.

I had thought that you were probably saying you didn't agree with the justification when you said there was no justification. Now I'm begining to think you honestly don't see it. If so thats, well, kinda sad. Guess the govm't doesn't provide a very good education after all...we better raise taxes. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]


1) it ain't the governments job to provide an education (local, maybe the state, but not the fed).



[/ QUOTE ] Ah, my poor deluded friend, in our democracy the governments job is whatever we, that majority, decide it is, consistent with our constitution. You may find some fellow travelers in your anti-income tax rant. I suspect though, you'll find yourself on a very lonely mountain top arguing to the wind, if you stake out the position that the government shouldn't provide educations. And are you saying that state's aren't government?

[ QUOTE ]
2) why bring up the government using income tax and returns as a matter of wealth redistribution? Oh, maybe because that alone is enough justification to stop the insanity of the current system. People should NOT be punished for producing and rewarded (getting something for nothin IS a reward) for not producing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough (not that I agree), but if its one of your arguments for changing the tax system then don't say it has no bearing on the issue.

--Zetack

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
Taxation is not a zero sum game. HISTORICAL data supports lowering taxes to increase revenue. It will always result in more money for the government if top marginal rates are cut. Look it up, it's easy to find.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interestingly enough the proponents of this thinking have historically produced massive budget deficits when allowed to put it into effect. Look that up.

--Zetack

[obsidian]

[ QUOTE ]
NO justification. None, nada, zip, zilch, zero.

Graduated income tax rates are just a means of some elected official to be re-elected - tax 1000 and 1000 don't vote for you; tax 1000000 and 1000000 don't vote for you.

It creats class warfare. Gives a supermajority NO reason to worry about Fed spending (they are NOT paying anything so why should they care?).

[/ QUOTE ]
Yea, and we all know that the poor are the ones who run government and created these tax rates to benefit themselves.

[LinusKS]

Yeah. And the poor are the ones giving all that money to the politicians, and funding their reelection campaigns, along with the PACS, and all those lobbyists on Capital Hill.

[Elijah Bailey]

A national sales tax would exclude basic necessities such as food at th grocery store. One major sticking point would be gasoline and utilities. Any item required for a very basic lifestyle needs to be excluded. Anyone stating that a usage tax is regressive (assuming a basic lifestyle is factored into exclusions) is ill informed. The wealthy do not pay their fair share in the current system. The poor pay nothing in the current system. The middle class working stiff is footing a vast majority of the bill.