The Glade 4.0

So we should sit around on the dole until the economy comes around to jobs that "add value"? If you're endorsing that (I know you're not) then where do I sign up!

_________________

Then perhaps you should convey that you agree with him. As you always say, speak to your reader; failure to get your message across is your fault, etc. etc.

Live by what you preach.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Yep, that's why I clarified. Then you, being you, continued to argue. So I clarified further. So, how exactly am I not living by what I preach? Keep it up, man, you're on a roll.

Which clarification was that? The one in between the ad homs?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

The general conservative position on this issue is that families should go back to living on one income and simply live on less. That is the way it used to work, 60 years ago women in general did not work and families had a LOT more children to support as well.

Of course, you can see why this position is not popular. The far-right tells the poor and middle classes that they are the ones who need to sacrifice and live on far less, while insisting on nothing but tax cuts and other benefits for the wealthy, in effect saying that they're far better than everyone else and the rest of us plebes should be happy to bask in the reflective glory.

You should probably refrain from further comment, seeing as how nothing you have said reflects any sort of truth or economic actuality. More to the point, since you seem to be listening to the Obama Administration rhetoric, let me remind you that 1,470,000 Americans paid 92% of total income taxes collected in 2009 (which is roughly 1% of the total taxable population of this nation). So, if you want to continue spouting gross inaccuracies and using loaded rhetoric when you do not understand either the political or economic position, I'm taking, I shall find myself having to correct your flawed assumptions.

_________________

Focusing specifically on income taxes is pretty dishonest. As you know, there are also payroll taxes, which the wealthy basically do not pay at all. The general figure I've read is that households making $250,000 or more annually pay 59% of all taxes. Given this, they're actually underpaying substantially when you consider how much wealthier they are than everyone else.

Also, I didn't say that this position was the absolute truth, I said it was the general conservative position. Which it is. The need to return to one-income households is a very common one put forward by the majority of conservatives on this board, and as far as I've experienced is a pretty popular position amongst conservatives elsewhere. (as opposed to Republicans)

Xequecal:

We can use your numbers: 10,000,000 Americans account for 45% of total government revenues (59% of all income/payroll taxes combined). That's 3% of the total population, 8% of the working population. And you don't think they pay enough?

Are you **** delusional?

_________________

My position is that if you have X% of the total wealth you should pay X% of the total taxes.

Because you have accepted that you and your progeny will never be among the wealthy?

_________________

Holy **** ...

How many Che Guevarra T-shirts do you own? Or did you go straight for the Comrade Lenin collection?

_________________

I fail to see what is unfair about the government taking X% of every dollar earned by everyone, equally.

Income and wealth are different things. I'm all for a flat tax, though. I just don't think it would shift the burden the direction you think it would.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I don't see anything unfair about it either.

A fair tax, say 12% across the board with an exemption of.. ohh, the first $25K would be Ideal I think.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Because wealth and income aren't synonymous? You obviously have no idea what you're saying, because you aren't even agreeing with yourself, Xeq.

That said, a flat tax would be awesome.

_________________

If we use the same definition of "income" that the federal government uses now, you'd be right. In my opinion, income and capital gains should be taxed at the same rate, these rates should be the same for everyone, and there should be a process to prevent people from having to pay both income and capital gains tax on the same money. I don't see how it can be more fair than that. AFAIK, you can't really increase your wealth without generating either income or capital gains, so this would result in what I said.

Capital gains are not wealth, either. They are another form of revenue.
Wealth is an accumulated number.

Put another way, Income is to Wealth as the Deficit is to the Debt. When you talk about taxing wealth, you upset a whole lot of people, because you start taxing people based on what they've managed to save or accumulate, not what they're earning. Two people can earn the same money, but due to spending and investing decisions, one ends up wealthy, while the other is broke. Nevertheless, they should pay the same tax.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Yes, I get that, but if every year's deficit had been 20% smaller, the debt would also be 20% smaller today. So if you tax someone's income and capital gains at a constant rate from the day they're born, you end up with that percentage of the person's personal wealth.

Obviously, it would not be immediately fair when implemented, because people have already had the opportunity to generate wealth from without said tax in place. But for everyone else going forward from that point, it would be an X% wealth tax.

It would be interesting to see what the tax breakdown looks like based on actual income, instead of wealth.

The reason why the wealthy are taxed in this country is because they have access to so many outs and loopholes for their income, that they actually pay much less on their income than the vast majority of the rest of the population as a percentage.

Not really. As I said, two people can have the same money, while one ends up with nothing and the other with a fortune. Taxing wealth would screw the latter and shift burden away from the former, while taxing income is fair. Even if you tax capital gains at the same level as income (which I'm against, unless you entirely eliminate corporate taxation, since double taxation sucks. If the company has already paid tax on its revenue, its shareholders should not pay tax on it again, since the tax has already come out of the value of their shares), wealth and income are not the same thing, ever.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Maybe if you ignorantly discount considerations such as opportunity costs and time value of money.

and



Is what Khross means when he says you are contradicting yourself and don't know what you are talking about. In the first, taxes are taken from your income, which assumes that in order for you to be paying taxes, you have to be earning money.

The second statement just flat says the government is entitled to x% of your possessions/wealth, regardless if you are making any money or not.... hypothetically, I have $1 million in the bank but no job, so according to you the government can tax this money that already taxed once before, just because I have it?

I consider myself conservative and I've never heard that argument.

That said I wholly agree with the tax policy you laid out below.

_________________

I should have been more clear that you can't retroactively tax existing wealth. That would not be fair, because that's already been taxed once. But you can tax a percentage of all wealth generated from the point the system is implemented. It wouldn't be fair immediately but it would eventually level out.

This is a myth.

_________________