|
|
#111
08-25-2005, 10:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Slow shower
And this is all part of the shell game that has everyone believing someone else is paying for their benefits. In the end, nobody could ever calculate what they actually pay in taxes because so many of them are hidden. Needless to say, if the government spends 2.1 trillion and there are 150 million workers, they're picking up 14,000 a head from somewhere (or deficits which will be hidden in inflation). If nothing else, we should be more honest -- and everyone should have to write a check to the gov't. Even if we have to give people the money to pay it -- I'd like everyone to actually have the money in their hands and have to fork it over.
|
|
#112
08-25-2005, 10:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Slow shower
One of the biggest myths is that we have a progressive tax system. The federal income tax is progressive. State income taxes, in states that have them are mostly progressive. But when you add in payroll taxes, which fund medicare and social security, property taxes and sales taxes, which fund state and local government and public schools, the tax system as a whole is really not progressive, and may actually be regressive. Payroll taxes are regressive because they are only charged on the first $xxxx (I don't remember the number) of pay. Sales taxes are regressive because lower income people generally spend all or nearlyof their income on consumable goods, whereas people with higher incomes are usually saving or investing a higher fraction of their income. Many low income people rent and are not directly paying property taxes, but their landlords are paying poperty taxes, which ceratinly has an impact on the rent they pay.
|
|
#113
08-25-2005, 10:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Flat Tax?
No, he's saying in essence the corparate tax rate is 0 because anything the corps. pay for taxes is passed on to customers. So they use the customers money to pay the taxes. Individuals are the only ones who pay tax.
|
|
#116
08-25-2005, 02:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Regressive/Progressive
[ QUOTE ]
... the tax system as a whole is really not progressive, and may actually be regressive. [/ QUOTE ] That's carrying your illusion a bit too far. It's just not as progressive as we think. This is the shell game I speak of. The federal tax alone as a percentage of tax paid would prove it's not regressive. [ QUOTE ] Payroll taxes are regressive because they are only charged on the first $xxxx (I don't remember the number) [/ QUOTE ] Payroll taxes cannot be regressive since liberals insist they are not taxes. They are voluntary contributions toward an insurance premium which entitles the recipient to benefits. If you charged a premium on anything above the "first $xxxx", that would be a tax. Can't do that. Property taxes are clearly progressive, and in most cases at a much steeper rate than income taxes. They primarily pay for education, police and fire protection -- and are based upon property value. If you district the costs of education, police and fire protection, you will find that the costs are inversely proportional to value. Those who pay the most, use the least -- those who pay the least, use the most.
|
|
#118
08-25-2005, 03:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
La Terrace
[ QUOTE ]
We agree on where the money comes from, and how it's spent -- ... the money comes from the rich (because they have it), half of the people pay nothing (because they don't have it), and it is spent for the benefit of all. But that's not wealth redistribution in your mind. [/ QUOTE ] Which of those government creations that I mentioned do you think should not exist, NORAD, the FBI, or federal highways? If you believe that they (and a myriad of others "gov't-funded" things) should exist, then you need to explain your position as to how such things should be funded. Do we divide the cost of new Highway XYZ by the number of tax payers and each one of them pays an equal amount of money? But then the poorest taxpayers would not desire to have Highway XYZ constructed at all because, even if it is deemed necessary for motoring, it would represent a big hit on their fortune! It would not be worth it. I am not denying that progressive taxation is wealth-redistributive. Which is equivalent to taking something from A and giving it to B, roughly speaking. All I'm challenging is the notion that A only gives and B only receives - neither of which notions is accurate at all. And the equally false notion that a flat tax is "fairer" (when actually it's "redistributing" wealth the other way around, the "wrong" way)! [ QUOTE ] You comment reminded me of a story - [/ QUOTE ] You were actually baited into that! [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] The "restaurant bill" fable is standard right-wing fare. Being around for ages! (And it's based on false notions as well.) Thanks for the memory.
|
|
#119
08-25-2005, 03:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speak
[ QUOTE ]
Payroll taxes cannot be regressive since liberals insist they are not taxes. [/ QUOTE ] Right. So now we are using the label that suits us, only because our ideological opponents supposedly do that.
|
|
#120
08-25-2005, 03:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dividend
[ QUOTE ]
That's why corporations don't pay dividends. When they do, it's a sign the end is near. [/ QUOTE ] I always thought that owning stock amounted to expecting to share in the company profits (through getting paid a dividend) rather than participating in a Ponzi-like scheme whebey I expect to gain only by selling my property at a higher price. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] (I had quite an argument with none other than Don Schlesinger about this very subject!)
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
