Total Posts:109|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

My way to do Taxes

AStevenson
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 8:36:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
While Obama would be an equivalent of Robespierre in today's modern French Revolution, but he does not seem to have the balls to attack Versailles (stock market). I don't want to be to hard on him, Obama has gigantic balls, but there not colossal. Let's look at taxes. Many of the liberals here I assume want a progressive tax system. The conservatives and libertarians argue for an idiotic flat tax system. I got a better system. This is called the Gospel of Wealth Tax Plan. Andrew Carnegie wrote the Gospel of Wealth, where he argues the rich should use their wealth to enrich society. That is why Carnegie is the best rich man ever, he is not half the parasite as people like Trump and the Kochs are today.

If Carnegie was alive today, I would likely make him my Secretary of State. In order to achieve his dream, government acts as the middle man in giving the money to society. Government is what society needs. Here is the current BS tax plan:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here is mine:

Lowest 20%: 0%
Second 20%: 0%
Middle 20%: 0%
Fourth 20%: 0%
Next 10%: 60%
Next 5%: 70%
Next 4%: 80%
Top 1%: 90%

Corporate Tax: 35%

As you can see, this is probably the greatest tax system ever. The poor and middle class pay nothing. This means they spend on more things. The demand-side gives money to the supply-side, thus giving the government more revenue than before. I can here conservatives crying that I'm killing the rich, but the US in fact had a 90% rate in the 1950s. Thank you.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 11:01:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 8:36:40 AM, AStevenson wrote:
While Obama would be an equivalent of Robespierre in today's modern French Revolution, but he does not seem to have the balls to attack Versailles (stock market). I don't want to be to hard on him, Obama has gigantic balls, but there not colossal. Let's look at taxes. Many of the liberals here I assume want a progressive tax system. The conservatives and libertarians argue for an idiotic flat tax system. I got a better system. This is called the Gospel of Wealth Tax Plan. Andrew Carnegie wrote the Gospel of Wealth, where he argues the rich should use their wealth to enrich society. That is why Carnegie is the best rich man ever, he is not half the parasite as people like Trump and the Kochs are today.

If Carnegie was alive today, I would likely make him my Secretary of State. In order to achieve his dream, government acts as the middle man in giving the money to society. Government is what society needs. Here is the current BS tax plan:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here is mine:

Lowest 20%: 0%
Second 20%: 0%
Middle 20%: 0%
Fourth 20%: 0%
Next 10%: 60%
Next 5%: 70%
Next 4%: 80%
Top 1%: 90%

Corporate Tax: 35%

As you can see, this is probably the greatest tax system ever. The poor and middle class pay nothing.
So you would have the rich pay everything? Way to attack the minority; last I checked America was a republic, where the government serves everyone in the community, not just the majority or minority. A democracy is just two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for dinner. This would be a violation of the 14th amendment.

This system would wreck havoc on the economy. In addition, this would severely limit tax revenues. Taxing the bottom 90% at a 15% rate would produce more revenue than taxing the top 10% at a 100% rate. This rate would severely lower receipts from income taxes.

The to 10% is anyone making more than $116,623 a year. The top 5% is anyone making more than $161,579 a year. The top 1% is anyone making more than $369,691 a year. The top 10% currently have a tax rate of 28%, and you want to shoot it up to 60%. The top 5% currently have a tax rate of 28% to 33%, and you want to shoot it up to 70%. The top 1% currently have a tax rate of 33 to 35%, and you want to shoot it up to 90%. You would be more than doubling their tax burden overnight. This would result in mass unemployment, and a mass investment in tax shelters (such as deferred income plans, and municipal bonds).

This means they spend on more things.
It does not follow. Just because you have more money, does not mean you will spend more money.
The demand-side gives money to the supply-side, thus giving the government more revenue than before.
First off, more money in the consumer's pockets does not increase demand. The money is not necessarily spent. Disposable income could either be used on consumption of local goods, used on imports, or put into private savings.
If put into private savings, that money is not spent on consumption. If spent on imports, that money does not end up in government hands, it ends up in foreign hands. If local firms and firm owners are taxed more, than the local firms would be less likely to compete with foreign firms, resulting in more imports.

I can here conservatives crying that I'm killing the rich, but the US in fact had a 90% rate in the 1950s. Thank you.

Do you mean "hear". Don't you think there is a reason we lowered it? There was also a point in time when we had no income taxes; why don't you advocate going back to that?

A better plan would be a 10% flat tax, with no joint filing, deductions, exemptions, or tax credits.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
My-Self
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 11:14:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Before you can dictate who should pay what % tax, you first have to justify the use of taxation. Go ahead.
"Genesis could be compatible with anything. Theologians are great at mental gymnastics." ~ phantom
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 11:19:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You just killed the country.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
AStevenson
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 11:29:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 11:01:10 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2013 8:36:40 AM, AStevenson wrote:
While Obama would be an equivalent of Robespierre in today's modern French Revolution, but he does not seem to have the balls to attack Versailles (stock market). I don't want to be to hard on him, Obama has gigantic balls, but there not colossal. Let's look at taxes. Many of the liberals here I assume want a progressive tax system. The conservatives and libertarians argue for an idiotic flat tax system. I got a better system. This is called the Gospel of Wealth Tax Plan. Andrew Carnegie wrote the Gospel of Wealth, where he argues the rich should use their wealth to enrich society. That is why Carnegie is the best rich man ever, he is not half the parasite as people like Trump and the Kochs are today.

If Carnegie was alive today, I would likely make him my Secretary of State. In order to achieve his dream, government acts as the middle man in giving the money to society. Government is what society needs. Here is the current BS tax plan:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here is mine:

Lowest 20%: 0%
Second 20%: 0%
Middle 20%: 0%
Fourth 20%: 0%
Next 10%: 60%
Next 5%: 70%
Next 4%: 80%
Top 1%: 90%

Corporate Tax: 35%

As you can see, this is probably the greatest tax system ever. The poor and middle class pay nothing.
So you would have the rich pay everything? Way to attack the minority; last I checked America was a republic, where the government serves everyone in the community, not just the majority or minority. A democracy is just two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for dinner. This would be a violation of the 14th amendment.

So what? Congress breaks constitutional amendments all the time, why can't I?

This system would wreck havoc on the economy. In addition, this would severely limit tax revenues. Taxing the bottom 90% at a 15% rate would produce more revenue than taxing the top 10% at a 100% rate. This rate would severely lower receipts from income taxes.

No it would not because the rich get more money from capital gains. I don't put a tax on that.

The to 10% is anyone making more than $116,623 a year. The top 5% is anyone making more than $161,579 a year. The top 1% is anyone making more than $369,691 a year. The top 10% currently have a tax rate of 28%, and you want to shoot it up to 60%. The top 5% currently have a tax rate of 28% to 33%, and you want to shoot it up to 70%. The top 1% currently have a tax rate of 33 to 35%, and you want to shoot it up to 90%. You would be more than doubling their tax burden overnight. This would result in mass unemployment, and a mass investment in tax shelters (such as deferred income plans, and municipal bonds).


This means they spend on more things.
It does not follow. Just because you have more money, does not mean you will spend more money.

Yes it does. People want stuff. A nice house, a nice car, everything. So people naturally want stuff, the businesses get more money.
The demand-side gives money to the supply-side, thus giving the government more revenue than before.
First off, more money in the consumer's pockets does not increase demand. The money is not necessarily spent. Disposable income could either be used on consumption of local goods, used on imports, or put into private savings.
If put into private savings, that money is not spent on consumption. If spent on imports, that money does not end up in government hands, it ends up in foreign hands. If local firms and firm owners are taxed more, than the local firms would be less likely to compete with foreign firms, resulting in more imports.

I can here conservatives crying that I'm killing the rich, but the US in fact had a 90% rate in the 1950s. Thank you.

Do you mean "hear". Don't you think there is a reason we lowered it? There was also a point in time when we had no income taxes; why don't you advocate going back to that?


A better plan would be a 10% flat tax, with no joint filing, deductions, exemptions, or tax credits.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 11:30:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 11:29:00 AM, AStevenson wrote:
At 3/30/2013 11:01:10 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2013 8:36:40 AM, AStevenson wrote:
While Obama would be an equivalent of Robespierre in today's modern French Revolution, but he does not seem to have the balls to attack Versailles (stock market). I don't want to be to hard on him, Obama has gigantic balls, but there not colossal. Let's look at taxes. Many of the liberals here I assume want a progressive tax system. The conservatives and libertarians argue for an idiotic flat tax system. I got a better system. This is called the Gospel of Wealth Tax Plan. Andrew Carnegie wrote the Gospel of Wealth, where he argues the rich should use their wealth to enrich society. That is why Carnegie is the best rich man ever, he is not half the parasite as people like Trump and the Kochs are today.

If Carnegie was alive today, I would likely make him my Secretary of State. In order to achieve his dream, government acts as the middle man in giving the money to society. Government is what society needs. Here is the current BS tax plan:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here is mine:

Lowest 20%: 0%
Second 20%: 0%
Middle 20%: 0%
Fourth 20%: 0%
Next 10%: 60%
Next 5%: 70%
Next 4%: 80%
Top 1%: 90%

Corporate Tax: 35%

As you can see, this is probably the greatest tax system ever. The poor and middle class pay nothing.
So you would have the rich pay everything? Way to attack the minority; last I checked America was a republic, where the government serves everyone in the community, not just the majority or minority. A democracy is just two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for dinner. This would be a violation of the 14th amendment.

So what? Congress breaks constitutional amendments all the time, why can't I?

This system would wreck havoc on the economy. In addition, this would severely limit tax revenues. Taxing the bottom 90% at a 15% rate would produce more revenue than taxing the top 10% at a 100% rate. This rate would severely lower receipts from income taxes.

No it would not because the rich get more money from capital gains. I don't put a tax on that.

The to 10% is anyone making more than $116,623 a year. The top 5% is anyone making more than $161,579 a year. The top 1% is anyone making more than $369,691 a year. The top 10% currently have a tax rate of 28%, and you want to shoot it up to 60%. The top 5% currently have a tax rate of 28% to 33%, and you want to shoot it up to 70%. The top 1% currently have a tax rate of 33 to 35%, and you want to shoot it up to 90%. You would be more than doubling their tax burden overnight. This would result in mass unemployment, and a mass investment in tax shelters (such as deferred income plans, and municipal bonds).


This means they spend on more things.
It does not follow. Just because you have more money, does not mean you will spend more money.

Yes it does. People want stuff. A nice house, a nice car, everything. So people naturally want stuff, the businesses get more money.
The demand-side gives money to the supply-side, thus giving the government more revenue than before.
First off, more money in the consumer's pockets does not increase demand. The money is not necessarily spent. Disposable income could either be used on consumption of local goods, used on imports, or put into private savings.
If put into private savings, that money is not spent on consumption. If spent on imports, that money does not end up in government hands, it ends up in foreign hands. If local firms and firm owners are taxed more, than the local firms would be less likely to compete with foreign firms, resulting in more imports.

I can here conservatives crying that I'm killing the rich, but the US in fact had a 90% rate in the 1950s. Thank you.

Do you mean "hear". Don't you think there is a reason we lowered it? There was also a point in time when we had no income taxes; why don't you advocate going back to that?


A better plan would be a 10% flat tax, with no joint filing, deductions, exemptions, or tax credits.

Since you didn't tax capital gains you do know the rich will just "invest" every penny they have therefore making it untaxable. There are handy banking tricks to make your money capital investment thus making it untaxable. Good plan.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 11:32:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 8:36:40 AM, AStevenson wrote:
While Obama would be an equivalent of Robespierre in today's modern French Revolution, but he does not seem to have the balls to attack Versailles (stock market). I don't want to be to hard on him, Obama has gigantic balls, but there not colossal. Let's look at taxes. Many of the liberals here I assume want a progressive tax system. The conservatives and libertarians argue for an idiotic flat tax system. I got a better system. This is called the Gospel of Wealth Tax Plan. Andrew Carnegie wrote the Gospel of Wealth, where he argues the rich should use their wealth to enrich society. That is why Carnegie is the best rich man ever, he is not half the parasite as people like Trump and the Kochs are today.

If Carnegie was alive today, I would likely make him my Secretary of State. In order to achieve his dream, government acts as the middle man in giving the money to society. Government is what society needs. Here is the current BS tax plan:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here is mine:

Lowest 20%: 0%
Second 20%: 0%
Middle 20%: 0%
Fourth 20%: 0%
Next 10%: 60%
Next 5%: 70%
Next 4%: 80%
Top 1%: 90%

Corporate Tax: 35%

As you can see, this is probably the greatest tax system ever. The poor and middle class pay nothing. This means they spend on more things. The demand-side gives money to the supply-side, thus giving the government more revenue than before. I can here conservatives crying that I'm killing the rich, but the US in fact had a 90% rate in the 1950s. Thank you.

Three words: NINE NINE NINE!
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
AStevenson
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 11:48:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 11:32:10 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 3/30/2013 8:36:40 AM, AStevenson wrote:
While Obama would be an equivalent of Robespierre in today's modern French Revolution, but he does not seem to have the balls to attack Versailles (stock market). I don't want to be to hard on him, Obama has gigantic balls, but there not colossal. Let's look at taxes. Many of the liberals here I assume want a progressive tax system. The conservatives and libertarians argue for an idiotic flat tax system. I got a better system. This is called the Gospel of Wealth Tax Plan. Andrew Carnegie wrote the Gospel of Wealth, where he argues the rich should use their wealth to enrich society. That is why Carnegie is the best rich man ever, he is not half the parasite as people like Trump and the Kochs are today.

If Carnegie was alive today, I would likely make him my Secretary of State. In order to achieve his dream, government acts as the middle man in giving the money to society. Government is what society needs. Here is the current BS tax plan:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here is mine:

Lowest 20%: 0%
Second 20%: 0%
Middle 20%: 0%
Fourth 20%: 0%
Next 10%: 60%
Next 5%: 70%
Next 4%: 80%
Top 1%: 90%

Corporate Tax: 35%

As you can see, this is probably the greatest tax system ever. The poor and middle class pay nothing. This means they spend on more things. The demand-side gives money to the supply-side, thus giving the government more revenue than before. I can here conservatives crying that I'm killing the rich, but the US in fact had a 90% rate in the 1950s. Thank you.

Three words: NINE NINE NINE!

That tax plan is bad. Herman Cain is evil.
AStevenson
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 11:49:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 11:30:48 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 3/30/2013 11:29:00 AM, AStevenson wrote:
At 3/30/2013 11:01:10 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2013 8:36:40 AM, AStevenson wrote:
While Obama would be an equivalent of Robespierre in today's modern French Revolution, but he does not seem to have the balls to attack Versailles (stock market). I don't want to be to hard on him, Obama has gigantic balls, but there not colossal. Let's look at taxes. Many of the liberals here I assume want a progressive tax system. The conservatives and libertarians argue for an idiotic flat tax system. I got a better system. This is called the Gospel of Wealth Tax Plan. Andrew Carnegie wrote the Gospel of Wealth, where he argues the rich should use their wealth to enrich society. That is why Carnegie is the best rich man ever, he is not half the parasite as people like Trump and the Kochs are today.

If Carnegie was alive today, I would likely make him my Secretary of State. In order to achieve his dream, government acts as the middle man in giving the money to society. Government is what society needs. Here is the current BS tax plan:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here is mine:

Lowest 20%: 0%
Second 20%: 0%
Middle 20%: 0%
Fourth 20%: 0%
Next 10%: 60%
Next 5%: 70%
Next 4%: 80%
Top 1%: 90%

Corporate Tax: 35%

As you can see, this is probably the greatest tax system ever. The poor and middle class pay nothing.
So you would have the rich pay everything? Way to attack the minority; last I checked America was a republic, where the government serves everyone in the community, not just the majority or minority. A democracy is just two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for dinner. This would be a violation of the 14th amendment.

So what? Congress breaks constitutional amendments all the time, why can't I?

This system would wreck havoc on the economy. In addition, this would severely limit tax revenues. Taxing the bottom 90% at a 15% rate would produce more revenue than taxing the top 10% at a 100% rate. This rate would severely lower receipts from income taxes.

No it would not because the rich get more money from capital gains. I don't put a tax on that.

The to 10% is anyone making more than $116,623 a year. The top 5% is anyone making more than $161,579 a year. The top 1% is anyone making more than $369,691 a year. The top 10% currently have a tax rate of 28%, and you want to shoot it up to 60%. The top 5% currently have a tax rate of 28% to 33%, and you want to shoot it up to 70%. The top 1% currently have a tax rate of 33 to 35%, and you want to shoot it up to 90%. You would be more than doubling their tax burden overnight. This would result in mass unemployment, and a mass investment in tax shelters (such as deferred income plans, and municipal bonds).


This means they spend on more things.
It does not follow. Just because you have more money, does not mean you will spend more money.

Yes it does. People want stuff. A nice house, a nice car, everything. So people naturally want stuff, the businesses get more money.
The demand-side gives money to the supply-side, thus giving the government more revenue than before.
First off, more money in the consumer's pockets does not increase demand. The money is not necessarily spent. Disposable income could either be used on consumption of local goods, used on imports, or put into private savings.
If put into private savings, that money is not spent on consumption. If spent on imports, that money does not end up in government hands, it ends up in foreign hands. If local firms and firm owners are taxed more, than the local firms would be less likely to compete with foreign firms, resulting in more imports.

I can here conservatives crying that I'm killing the rich, but the US in fact had a 90% rate in the 1950s. Thank you.

Do you mean "hear". Don't you think there is a reason we lowered it? There was also a point in time when we had no income taxes; why don't you advocate going back to that?


A better plan would be a 10% flat tax, with no joint filing, deductions, exemptions, or tax credits.

Since you didn't tax capital gains you do know the rich will just "invest" every penny they have therefore making it untaxable. There are handy banking tricks to make your money capital investment thus making it untaxable. Good plan.

Your wrong.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 11:59:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 11:49:01 AM, AStevenson wrote:
At 3/30/2013 11:30:48 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 3/30/2013 11:29:00 AM, AStevenson wrote:
At 3/30/2013 11:01:10 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2013 8:36:40 AM, AStevenson wrote:
While Obama would be an equivalent of Robespierre in today's modern French Revolution, but he does not seem to have the balls to attack Versailles (stock market). I don't want to be to hard on him, Obama has gigantic balls, but there not colossal. Let's look at taxes. Many of the liberals here I assume want a progressive tax system. The conservatives and libertarians argue for an idiotic flat tax system. I got a better system. This is called the Gospel of Wealth Tax Plan. Andrew Carnegie wrote the Gospel of Wealth, where he argues the rich should use their wealth to enrich society. That is why Carnegie is the best rich man ever, he is not half the parasite as people like Trump and the Kochs are today.

If Carnegie was alive today, I would likely make him my Secretary of State. In order to achieve his dream, government acts as the middle man in giving the money to society. Government is what society needs. Here is the current BS tax plan:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here is mine:

Lowest 20%: 0%
Second 20%: 0%
Middle 20%: 0%
Fourth 20%: 0%
Next 10%: 60%
Next 5%: 70%
Next 4%: 80%
Top 1%: 90%

Corporate Tax: 35%

As you can see, this is probably the greatest tax system ever. The poor and middle class pay nothing.
So you would have the rich pay everything? Way to attack the minority; last I checked America was a republic, where the government serves everyone in the community, not just the majority or minority. A democracy is just two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for dinner. This would be a violation of the 14th amendment.

So what? Congress breaks constitutional amendments all the time, why can't I?

This system would wreck havoc on the economy. In addition, this would severely limit tax revenues. Taxing the bottom 90% at a 15% rate would produce more revenue than taxing the top 10% at a 100% rate. This rate would severely lower receipts from income taxes.

No it would not because the rich get more money from capital gains. I don't put a tax on that.

The to 10% is anyone making more than $116,623 a year. The top 5% is anyone making more than $161,579 a year. The top 1% is anyone making more than $369,691 a year. The top 10% currently have a tax rate of 28%, and you want to shoot it up to 60%. The top 5% currently have a tax rate of 28% to 33%, and you want to shoot it up to 70%. The top 1% currently have a tax rate of 33 to 35%, and you want to shoot it up to 90%. You would be more than doubling their tax burden overnight. This would result in mass unemployment, and a mass investment in tax shelters (such as deferred income plans, and municipal bonds).


This means they spend on more things.
It does not follow. Just because you have more money, does not mean you will spend more money.

Yes it does. People want stuff. A nice house, a nice car, everything. So people naturally want stuff, the businesses get more money.
The demand-side gives money to the supply-side, thus giving the government more revenue than before.
First off, more money in the consumer's pockets does not increase demand. The money is not necessarily spent. Disposable income could either be used on consumption of local goods, used on imports, or put into private savings.
If put into private savings, that money is not spent on consumption. If spent on imports, that money does not end up in government hands, it ends up in foreign hands. If local firms and firm owners are taxed more, than the local firms would be less likely to compete with foreign firms, resulting in more imports.

I can here conservatives crying that I'm killing the rich, but the US in fact had a 90% rate in the 1950s. Thank you.

Do you mean "hear". Don't you think there is a reason we lowered it? There was also a point in time when we had no income taxes; why don't you advocate going back to that?


A better plan would be a 10% flat tax, with no joint filing, deductions, exemptions, or tax credits.

Since you didn't tax capital gains you do know the rich will just "invest" every penny they have therefore making it untaxable. There are handy banking tricks to make your money capital investment thus making it untaxable. Good plan.

Your wrong.

I'm wrong? Explain to me how you'll prevent the rich from either:
A) leaving [like they're doing in France]
or
B) hiding their money in investing accounts
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 11:59:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 11:49:01 AM, AStevenson wrote:
At 3/30/2013 11:30:48 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 3/30/2013 11:29:00 AM, AStevenson wrote:
At 3/30/2013 11:01:10 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2013 8:36:40 AM, AStevenson wrote:
While Obama would be an equivalent of Robespierre in today's modern French Revolution, but he does not seem to have the balls to attack Versailles (stock market). I don't want to be to hard on him, Obama has gigantic balls, but there not colossal. Let's look at taxes. Many of the liberals here I assume want a progressive tax system. The conservatives and libertarians argue for an idiotic flat tax system. I got a better system. This is called the Gospel of Wealth Tax Plan. Andrew Carnegie wrote the Gospel of Wealth, where he argues the rich should use their wealth to enrich society. That is why Carnegie is the best rich man ever, he is not half the parasite as people like Trump and the Kochs are today.

If Carnegie was alive today, I would likely make him my Secretary of State. In order to achieve his dream, government acts as the middle man in giving the money to society. Government is what society needs. Here is the current BS tax plan:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here is mine:

Lowest 20%: 0%
Second 20%: 0%
Middle 20%: 0%
Fourth 20%: 0%
Next 10%: 60%
Next 5%: 70%
Next 4%: 80%
Top 1%: 90%

Corporate Tax: 35%

As you can see, this is probably the greatest tax system ever. The poor and middle class pay nothing.
So you would have the rich pay everything? Way to attack the minority; last I checked America was a republic, where the government serves everyone in the community, not just the majority or minority. A democracy is just two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for dinner. This would be a violation of the 14th amendment.

So what? Congress breaks constitutional amendments all the time, why can't I?

This system would wreck havoc on the economy. In addition, this would severely limit tax revenues. Taxing the bottom 90% at a 15% rate would produce more revenue than taxing the top 10% at a 100% rate. This rate would severely lower receipts from income taxes.

No it would not because the rich get more money from capital gains. I don't put a tax on that.

The to 10% is anyone making more than $116,623 a year. The top 5% is anyone making more than $161,579 a year. The top 1% is anyone making more than $369,691 a year. The top 10% currently have a tax rate of 28%, and you want to shoot it up to 60%. The top 5% currently have a tax rate of 28% to 33%, and you want to shoot it up to 70%. The top 1% currently have a tax rate of 33 to 35%, and you want to shoot it up to 90%. You would be more than doubling their tax burden overnight. This would result in mass unemployment, and a mass investment in tax shelters (such as deferred income plans, and municipal bonds).


This means they spend on more things.
It does not follow. Just because you have more money, does not mean you will spend more money.

Yes it does. People want stuff. A nice house, a nice car, everything. So people naturally want stuff, the businesses get more money.
The demand-side gives money to the supply-side, thus giving the government more revenue than before.
First off, more money in the consumer's pockets does not increase demand. The money is not necessarily spent. Disposable income could either be used on consumption of local goods, used on imports, or put into private savings.
If put into private savings, that money is not spent on consumption. If spent on imports, that money does not end up in government hands, it ends up in foreign hands. If local firms and firm owners are taxed more, than the local firms would be less likely to compete with foreign firms, resulting in more imports.

I can here conservatives crying that I'm killing the rich, but the US in fact had a 90% rate in the 1950s. Thank you.

Do you mean "hear". Don't you think there is a reason we lowered it? There was also a point in time when we had no income taxes; why don't you advocate going back to that?


A better plan would be a 10% flat tax, with no joint filing, deductions, exemptions, or tax credits.

Since you didn't tax capital gains you do know the rich will just "invest" every penny they have therefore making it untaxable. There are handy banking tricks to make your money capital investment thus making it untaxable. Good plan.

Your wrong.

you're*
My-Self
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 12:19:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 11:14:19 AM, My-Self wrote:
Before you can dictate who should pay what % tax, you first have to justify the use of taxation. Go ahead.
"Genesis could be compatible with anything. Theologians are great at mental gymnastics." ~ phantom
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 12:32:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 11:29:00 AM, AStevenson wrote:
At 3/30/2013 11:01:10 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2013 8:36:40 AM, AStevenson wrote:
While Obama would be an equivalent of Robespierre in today's modern French Revolution, but he does not seem to have the balls to attack Versailles (stock market). I don't want to be to hard on him, Obama has gigantic balls, but there not colossal. Let's look at taxes. Many of the liberals here I assume want a progressive tax system. The conservatives and libertarians argue for an idiotic flat tax system. I got a better system. This is called the Gospel of Wealth Tax Plan. Andrew Carnegie wrote the Gospel of Wealth, where he argues the rich should use their wealth to enrich society. That is why Carnegie is the best rich man ever, he is not half the parasite as people like Trump and the Kochs are today.

If Carnegie was alive today, I would likely make him my Secretary of State. In order to achieve his dream, government acts as the middle man in giving the money to society. Government is what society needs. Here is the current BS tax plan:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here is mine:

Lowest 20%: 0%
Second 20%: 0%
Middle 20%: 0%
Fourth 20%: 0%
Next 10%: 60%
Next 5%: 70%
Next 4%: 80%
Top 1%: 90%

Corporate Tax: 35%

As you can see, this is probably the greatest tax system ever. The poor and middle class pay nothing.
So you would have the rich pay everything? Way to attack the minority; last I checked America was a republic, where the government serves everyone in the community, not just the majority or minority. A democracy is just two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for dinner. This would be a violation of the 14th amendment.

So what? Congress breaks constitutional amendments all the time, why can't I?
Two wrongs don't make a right

This system would wreck havoc on the economy. In addition, this would severely limit tax revenues. Taxing the bottom 90% at a 15% rate would produce more revenue than taxing the top 10% at a 100% rate. This rate would severely lower receipts from income taxes.

No it would not because the rich get more money from capital gains. I don't put a tax on that.
There are already capital gain taxes. And once again, it would lower receipts from income taxes. You are conflating the two taxes.

The to 10% is anyone making more than $116,623 a year. The top 5% is anyone making more than $161,579 a year. The top 1% is anyone making more than $369,691 a year. The top 10% currently have a tax rate of 28%, and you want to shoot it up to 60%. The top 5% currently have a tax rate of 28% to 33%, and you want to shoot it up to 70%. The top 1% currently have a tax rate of 33 to 35%, and you want to shoot it up to 90%. You would be more than doubling their tax burden overnight. This would result in mass unemployment, and a mass investment in tax shelters (such as deferred income plans, and municipal bonds).


This means they spend on more things.
It does not follow. Just because you have more money, does not mean you will spend more money.

Yes it does. People want stuff. A nice house, a nice car, everything. So people naturally want stuff, the businesses get more money.
Does not mean they will spend ever dime they have to get more stuff. Simply putting more money in the hands of the poor does not increase the demand for "stuff". The "stuff" has to be desirable to begin with. Otherwise you could sell a bag of dog sh!t to a millionaire for $5.
The demand-side gives money to the supply-side, thus giving the government more revenue than before.
First off, more money in the consumer's pockets does not increase demand. The money is not necessarily spent. Disposable income could either be used on consumption of local goods, used on imports, or put into private savings.
If put into private savings, that money is not spent on consumption. If spent on imports, that money does not end up in government hands, it ends up in foreign hands. If local firms and firm owners are taxed more, than the local firms would be less likely to compete with foreign firms, resulting in more imports.

I can here conservatives crying that I'm killing the rich, but the US in fact had a 90% rate in the 1950s. Thank you.

Do you mean "hear". Don't you think there is a reason we lowered it? There was also a point in time when we had no income taxes; why don't you advocate going back to that?


A better plan would be a 10% flat tax, with no joint filing, deductions, exemptions, or tax credits.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 12:42:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm gonna post here what I posted in another idiotic taxation forum and hope for a reply:

Whether they "need" it is irrelevant. You are operating under the false paradigm that The People, who are presumably represented by the State, have an inherent right to everything that an individual earns. In other words, individuals are solely part of the collective, with all of their actions going towards collective (presumably) benefit. The concept of a tax allows the potentiality for the reach to 100% of income; whether anybody has actually advocated for this is irrelevant- potentiality is the critical factor here. Thus, the State allows individuals to keep some of their earnings, instead of actually recognizing that the earnings are theirs.

Fundamentally, this is wrong because the State has no justification to the earnings of an individual, because even if the State provides public goods for the use of individuals, these goods were payed for using coercion. The individual did not express his agreement for the payment for these goods, and thus he cannot be legitimately charged. Taxes, under this paradigm, are equivalent to theft.

If an mafia boss came to your house and said that they were going to offer you "protection" in exchange for X amount of dollars and said that this was a non-negotiable offer, the payment for those services is illegitimate because you did not agree to it.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
My-Self
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 1:15:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 11:14:19 AM, My-Self wrote:
Before you can dictate who should pay what % tax, you first have to justify the use of taxation. Go ahead.
"Genesis could be compatible with anything. Theologians are great at mental gymnastics." ~ phantom
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 1:32:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I feel it would be a good start to calculate tax brackets not by percentile of household incomes, but by breaking the total income of everyone combined into 5 equally-sized pools of money. Similar to how this chart is divided:
http://xkcd.com...
This chart actually does a great job of showing the class division we have today. The poorer half of our country has a total household income equal to that of the top 1.3%. This is a problem.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 2:32:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 1:32:21 PM, drhead wrote:
I feel it would be a good start to calculate tax brackets not by percentile of household incomes, but by breaking the total income of everyone combined into 5 equally-sized pools of money. Similar to how this chart is divided:
http://xkcd.com...
This chart actually does a great job of showing the class division we have today. The poorer half of our country has a total household income equal to that of the top 1.3%. This is a problem.

Why the hell do rabbits cost so much to keep?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 2:53:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 8:36:40 AM, AStevenson wrote:
While Obama would be an equivalent of Robespierre in today's modern French Revolution, but he does not seem to have the balls to attack Versailles (stock market). I don't want to be to hard on him, Obama has gigantic balls, but there not colossal. Let's look at taxes. Many of the liberals here I assume want a progressive tax system. The conservatives and libertarians argue for an idiotic flat tax system. I got a better system. This is called the Gospel of Wealth Tax Plan. Andrew Carnegie wrote the Gospel of Wealth, where he argues the rich should use their wealth to enrich society. That is why Carnegie is the best rich man ever, he is not half the parasite as people like Trump and the Kochs are today.

If Carnegie was alive today, I would likely make him my Secretary of State. In order to achieve his dream, government acts as the middle man in giving the money to society. Government is what society needs. Here is the current BS tax plan:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here is mine:

Lowest 20%: 0%
Second 20%: 0%
Middle 20%: 0%
Fourth 20%: 0%
Next 10%: 60%
Next 5%: 70%
Next 4%: 80%
Top 1%: 90%

Corporate Tax: 35%

As you can see, this is probably the greatest tax system ever. The poor and middle class pay nothing. This means they spend on more things. The demand-side gives money to the supply-side, thus giving the government more revenue than before. I can here conservatives crying that I'm killing the rich, but the US in fact had a 90% rate in the 1950s. Thank you.

This is idiotic.
First, how does the government earn more revenue? Yes, the rich are taxed more, but how does increased spending turn into tax revenue? It does, ONLY if the top 20% get the profits.

Second, no one would know how much their taxes are until everyone completes some form, so they know who is in what bracket.

Third, the upper tiers (especially business owners in the simpler sense, like SP, LLC) could simply increase their expenses to avoid taxation. Going from 0% on everything to 60% on everything is a HUGE incentive not to be the guy with $1 too many dollars. This will result in a race to the bottom.

...Unless you mean that 80% is $X, so I only pay 60% on the money over $X, but the result will still be a race to flatten out everything, as the motive now would be to get the 79% income up.

Fourth, your point of 1950 taxation rates is moot, as you neglect the fact that the bottom bracket was 15-20%.

Out of curiousity, have you run your numbers?
In 2010, this will lead to almost $3 trillion, without the 60% tax group or the corporate tax. How much money is needed??? Only about $1 trillion is generate from individual income taxes, and you want to more than triple it?

Furthermore, did you ever consider that taxing at 90% would actually leave people with nothing? There are a few states where the top income bracket is 10%, which means the 1% would have $0 for themselves.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 3:06:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 12:42:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I'm gonna post here what I posted in another idiotic taxation forum and hope for a reply:

Whether they "need" it is irrelevant. You are operating under the false paradigm that The People, who are presumably represented by the State, have an inherent right to everything that an individual earns. In other words, individuals are solely part of the collective, with all of their actions going towards collective (presumably) benefit. The concept of a tax allows the potentiality for the reach to 100% of income; whether anybody has actually advocated for this is irrelevant- potentiality is the critical factor here. Thus, the State allows individuals to keep some of their earnings, instead of actually recognizing that the earnings are theirs.

Your premise is flawed, as there is no way one could be taxed at 100%. If they were, how would they eat or have shelter? This would only work if we were socialist (or is it communist?), but in that case, there are no earnings, as it is all the state's to begin with.

Fundamentally, this is wrong because the State has no justification to the earnings of an individual, because even if the State provides public goods for the use of individuals, these goods were payed for using coercion. The individual did not express his agreement for the payment for these goods, and thus he cannot be legitimately charged. Taxes, under this paradigm, are equivalent to theft.

Under that narrow paradigm, yes. But, there are other taxes besides income. Are these sales taxes agreed upon by the individual? Does the individual have more say in how these revenues are spent than he does with income tax revenue?

Your premise here, again, is flawed as any tax is coersion, and this runs afoul of the purpose of taxes: to fund the government. If income taxes are theft, so are sales taxes, tariffs, and others.

If an mafia boss came to your house and said that they were going to offer you "protection" in exchange for X amount of dollars and said that this was a non-negotiable offer, the payment for those services is illegitimate because you did not agree to it.

The analogy is flawed only in the sense that the government is agreed to, and the protection isn't a threat; the government's protection is law and order, military, and the like.
My work here is, finally, done.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 3:10:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 12:42:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I'm gonna post here what I posted in another idiotic taxation forum and hope for a reply:

Whether they "need" it is irrelevant. You are operating under the false paradigm that The People, who are presumably represented by the State, have an inherent right to everything that an individual earns. In other words, individuals are solely part of the collective, with all of their actions going towards collective (presumably) benefit. The concept of a tax allows the potentiality for the reach to 100% of income; whether anybody has actually advocated for this is irrelevant- potentiality is the critical factor here. Thus, the State allows individuals to keep some of their earnings, instead of actually recognizing that the earnings are theirs.

Fundamentally, this is wrong because the State has no justification to the earnings of an individual, because even if the State provides public goods for the use of individuals, these goods were payed for using coercion. The individual did not express his agreement for the payment for these goods, and thus he cannot be legitimately charged. Taxes, under this paradigm, are equivalent to theft.

If an mafia boss came to your house and said that they were going to offer you "protection" in exchange for X amount of dollars and said that this was a non-negotiable offer, the payment for those services is illegitimate because you did not agree to it.

Do you think way more attention is paid toward the idea of taxation with representation than the idea of spending with representation?

After all, taxation with representation was one of our founding ideas....
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 3:25:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 3:06:55 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/30/2013 12:42:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I'm gonna post here what I posted in another idiotic taxation forum and hope for a reply:

Whether they "need" it is irrelevant. You are operating under the false paradigm that The People, who are presumably represented by the State, have an inherent right to everything that an individual earns. In other words, individuals are solely part of the collective, with all of their actions going towards collective (presumably) benefit. The concept of a tax allows the potentiality for the reach to 100% of income; whether anybody has actually advocated for this is irrelevant- potentiality is the critical factor here. Thus, the State allows individuals to keep some of their earnings, instead of actually recognizing that the earnings are theirs.

Your premise is flawed, as there is no way one could be taxed at 100%. If they were, how would they eat or have shelter? This would only work if we were socialist (or is it communist?), but in that case, there are no earnings, as it is all the state's to begin with.

You answered your own question. The only time when you would be "taxed" at 100% would be in a communist system. Note that I said that under the paradigm of taxation the potentiality for the State have a right to all that an individual has produced exists. In essence, if the State taxes 1% of income, it has the potentiality to tax ALL of the income. Thus, any sort of taxes presumes that the State is entitled to ALL of an individual's income.

Fundamentally, this is wrong because the State has no justification to the earnings of an individual, because even if the State provides public goods for the use of individuals, these goods were payed for using coercion. The individual did not express his agreement for the payment for these goods, and thus he cannot be legitimately charged. Taxes, under this paradigm, are equivalent to theft.

Under that narrow paradigm, yes. But, there are other taxes besides income. Are these sales taxes agreed upon by the individual?

No.

Does the individual have more say in how these revenues are spent than he does with income tax revenue?

Hardly.

Your premise here, again, is flawed as any tax is coersion, and this runs afoul of the purpose of taxes: to fund the government. If income taxes are theft, so are sales taxes, tariffs, and others.

Correct.

If an mafia boss came to your house and said that they were going to offer you "protection" in exchange for X amount of dollars and said that this was a non-negotiable offer, the payment for those services is illegitimate because you did not agree to it.

The analogy is flawed only in the sense that the government is agreed to,

Really? I have a choice about whether I pay taxes?

Inb4 you can move

and the protection isn't a threat; the government's protection is law and order, military, and the like.

Whether the protection is effective or ineffective is irrelevant. I don't have a choice onto whether I want the protection. Therefore, it is illegitimate.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 3:28:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 3:10:41 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/30/2013 12:42:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I'm gonna post here what I posted in another idiotic taxation forum and hope for a reply:

Whether they "need" it is irrelevant. You are operating under the false paradigm that The People, who are presumably represented by the State, have an inherent right to everything that an individual earns. In other words, individuals are solely part of the collective, with all of their actions going towards collective (presumably) benefit. The concept of a tax allows the potentiality for the reach to 100% of income; whether anybody has actually advocated for this is irrelevant- potentiality is the critical factor here. Thus, the State allows individuals to keep some of their earnings, instead of actually recognizing that the earnings are theirs.

Fundamentally, this is wrong because the State has no justification to the earnings of an individual, because even if the State provides public goods for the use of individuals, these goods were payed for using coercion. The individual did not express his agreement for the payment for these goods, and thus he cannot be legitimately charged. Taxes, under this paradigm, are equivalent to theft.

If an mafia boss came to your house and said that they were going to offer you "protection" in exchange for X amount of dollars and said that this was a non-negotiable offer, the payment for those services is illegitimate because you did not agree to it.

Do you think way more attention is paid toward the idea of taxation with representation than the idea of spending with representation?

I think that too much attention is paid to taxation.

After all, taxation with representation was one of our founding ideas....

So was slavery. Doesn't mean it's correct, though.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 3:29:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 8:36:40 AM, AStevenson wrote:
While Obama would be an equivalent of Robespierre in today's modern French Revolution, but he does not seem to have the balls to attack Versailles (stock market). I don't want to be to hard on him, Obama has gigantic balls, but there not colossal. Let's look at taxes. Many of the liberals here I assume want a progressive tax system. The conservatives and libertarians argue for an idiotic flat tax system. I got a better system. This is called the Gospel of Wealth Tax Plan. Andrew Carnegie wrote the Gospel of Wealth, where he argues the rich should use their wealth to enrich society. That is why Carnegie is the best rich man ever, he is not half the parasite as people like Trump and the Kochs are today.

If Carnegie was alive today, I would likely make him my Secretary of State. In order to achieve his dream, government acts as the middle man in giving the money to society. Government is what society needs. Here is the current BS tax plan:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here is mine:

Lowest 20%: 0%
Second 20%: 0%
Middle 20%: 0%
Fourth 20%: 0%
Next 10%: 60%
Next 5%: 70%
Next 4%: 80%
Top 1%: 90%

Corporate Tax: 35%

As you can see, this is probably the greatest tax system ever. The poor and middle class pay nothing. This means they spend on more things. The demand-side gives money to the supply-side, thus giving the government more revenue than before. I can here conservatives crying that I'm killing the rich, but the US in fact had a 90% rate in the 1950s. Thank you.

I stop reading at this point.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 4:05:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 3:25:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/30/2013 3:06:55 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/30/2013 12:42:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Whether they "need" it is irrelevant. You are operating under the false paradigm that The People, who are presumably represented by the State, have an inherent right to everything that an individual earns. In other words, individuals are solely part of the collective, with all of their actions going towards collective (presumably) benefit. The concept of a tax allows the potentiality for the reach to 100% of income; whether anybody has actually advocated for this is irrelevant- potentiality is the critical factor here. Thus, the State allows individuals to keep some of their earnings, instead of actually recognizing that the earnings are theirs.

Your premise is flawed, as there is no way one could be taxed at 100%. If they were, how would they eat or have shelter? This would only work if we were socialist (or is it communist?), but in that case, there are no earnings, as it is all the state's to begin with.

You answered your own question. The only time when you would be "taxed" at 100% would be in a communist system. Note that I said that under the paradigm of taxation the potentiality for the State have a right to all that an individual has produced exists. In essence, if the State taxes 1% of income, it has the potentiality to tax ALL of the income. Thus, any sort of taxes presumes that the State is entitled to ALL of an individual's income.

I didn't quite answer my own question. In a communist society, there would be no income, no paychecks are given. So, 100% of income cannot ever be taxed.

Fundamentally, this is wrong because the State has no justification to the earnings of an individual, because even if the State provides public goods for the use of individuals, these goods were payed for using coercion. The individual did not express his agreement for the payment for these goods, and thus he cannot be legitimately charged. Taxes, under this paradigm, are equivalent to theft.

Under that narrow paradigm, yes. But, there are other taxes besides income. Are these sales taxes agreed upon by the individual?

No.

Does the individual have more say in how these revenues are spent than he does with income tax revenue?

Hardly.

Your premise here, again, is flawed as any tax is coersion, and this runs afoul of the purpose of taxes: to fund the government. If income taxes are theft, so are sales taxes, tariffs, and others.

Correct.

What is the purpose of government if not, in the least, to protect against force from other, both domestic (courts) and foriegn (military)? How, then, is the government suppose to finance these, if not through taxes?

If an mafia boss came to your house and said that they were going to offer you "protection" in exchange for X amount of dollars and said that this was a non-negotiable offer, the payment for those services is illegitimate because you did not agree to it.

The analogy is flawed only in the sense that the government is agreed to,

Really? I have a choice about whether I pay taxes?
Yes.
Income tax is volunantary, so you could attempt to never pay and see if you are ever caught.

Sales taxes are only if you engage in commerce. Elect not to. Grow your own food, then.

Plus, you can elect politicians to eliminate all taxes.

Inb4 you can move

and the protection isn't a threat; the government's protection is law and order, military, and the like.

Whether the protection is effective or ineffective is irrelevant. I don't have a choice onto whether I want the protection. Therefore, it is illegitimate.

Except, protection is one of the few legitimate purposes of government.
My work here is, finally, done.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 4:06:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 8:36:40 AM, AStevenson wrote:
While Obama would be an equivalent of Robespierre in today's modern French Revolution, but he does not seem to have the balls to attack Versailles (stock market). I don't want to be to hard on him, Obama has gigantic balls, but there not colossal. Let's look at taxes. Many of the liberals here I assume want a progressive tax system. The conservatives and libertarians argue for an idiotic flat tax system. I got a better system. This is called the Gospel of Wealth Tax Plan. Andrew Carnegie wrote the Gospel of Wealth, where he argues the rich should use their wealth to enrich society. That is why Carnegie is the best rich man ever, he is not half the parasite as people like Trump and the Kochs are today.

If Carnegie was alive today, I would likely make him my Secretary of State. In order to achieve his dream, government acts as the middle man in giving the money to society. Government is what society needs. Here is the current BS tax plan:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here is mine:

Lowest 20%: 0%
Second 20%: 0%
Middle 20%: 0%
Fourth 20%: 0%
Next 10%: 60%
Next 5%: 70%
Next 4%: 80%
Top 1%: 90%

Corporate Tax: 35%

As you can see, this is probably the greatest tax system ever. The poor and middle class pay nothing. This means they spend on more things. The demand-side gives money to the supply-side, thus giving the government more revenue than before. I can here conservatives crying that I'm killing the rich, but the US in fact had a 90% rate in the 1950s. Thank you.

The Swiss would love it if you got in control.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 4:22:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 4:05:37 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/30/2013 3:25:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/30/2013 3:06:55 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/30/2013 12:42:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Whether they "need" it is irrelevant. You are operating under the false paradigm that The People, who are presumably represented by the State, have an inherent right to everything that an individual earns. In other words, individuals are solely part of the collective, with all of their actions going towards collective (presumably) benefit. The concept of a tax allows the potentiality for the reach to 100% of income; whether anybody has actually advocated for this is irrelevant- potentiality is the critical factor here. Thus, the State allows individuals to keep some of their earnings, instead of actually recognizing that the earnings are theirs.

Your premise is flawed, as there is no way one could be taxed at 100%. If they were, how would they eat or have shelter? This would only work if we were socialist (or is it communist?), but in that case, there are no earnings, as it is all the state's to begin with.

You answered your own question. The only time when you would be "taxed" at 100% would be in a communist system. Note that I said that under the paradigm of taxation the potentiality for the State have a right to all that an individual has produced exists. In essence, if the State taxes 1% of income, it has the potentiality to tax ALL of the income. Thus, any sort of taxes presumes that the State is entitled to ALL of an individual's income.

I didn't quite answer my own question. In a communist society, there would be no income, no paychecks are given. So, 100% of income cannot ever be taxed.

That's just semantics. Whether the government taxes 100% of the income or it inherently owns all of the income is irrelevant to the argument.

Fundamentally, this is wrong because the State has no justification to the earnings of an individual, because even if the State provides public goods for the use of individuals, these goods were payed for using coercion. The individual did not express his agreement for the payment for these goods, and thus he cannot be legitimately charged. Taxes, under this paradigm, are equivalent to theft.

Under that narrow paradigm, yes. But, there are other taxes besides income. Are these sales taxes agreed upon by the individual?

No.

Does the individual have more say in how these revenues are spent than he does with income tax revenue?

Hardly.

Your premise here, again, is flawed as any tax is coersion, and this runs afoul of the purpose of taxes: to fund the government. If income taxes are theft, so are sales taxes, tariffs, and others.

Correct.

What is the purpose of government if not, in the least, to protect against force from other, both domestic (courts) and foriegn (military)? How, then, is the government suppose to finance these, if not through taxes?

It's not.

If an mafia boss came to your house and said that they were going to offer you "protection" in exchange for X amount of dollars and said that this was a non-negotiable offer, the payment for those services is illegitimate because you did not agree to it.

The analogy is flawed only in the sense that the government is agreed to,

Really? I have a choice about whether I pay taxes?
Yes.
Income tax is volunantary, so you could attempt to never pay and see if you are ever caught.

Voluntary means without coercion. Coercion exists in the form of government violence. Ergo, any choice regarding paying or not paying income taxes is influenced by coercion.

Sales taxes are only if you engage in commerce. Elect not to. Grow your own food, then.

As well as my own car, plastic, house, etc...., right?

Plus, you can elect politicians to eliminate all taxes.

Yeah, like that's gonna happen.


Inb4 you can move

and the protection isn't a threat; the government's protection is law and order, military, and the like.

Whether the protection is effective or ineffective is irrelevant. I don't have a choice onto whether I want the protection. Therefore, it is illegitimate.

Except, protection is one of the few legitimate purposes of government.

I'm an anarchist.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 4:35:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 4:22:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/30/2013 4:05:37 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/30/2013 3:25:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/30/2013 3:06:55 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/30/2013 12:42:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Whether they "need" it is irrelevant. You are operating under the false paradigm that The People, who are presumably represented by the State, have an inherent right to everything that an individual earns. In other words, individuals are solely part of the collective, with all of their actions going towards collective (presumably) benefit. The concept of a tax allows the potentiality for the reach to 100% of income; whether anybody has actually advocated for this is irrelevant- potentiality is the critical factor here. Thus, the State allows individuals to keep some of their earnings, instead of actually recognizing that the earnings are theirs.

Your premise is flawed, as there is no way one could be taxed at 100%. If they were, how would they eat or have shelter? This would only work if we were socialist (or is it communist?), but in that case, there are no earnings, as it is all the state's to begin with.

You answered your own question. The only time when you would be "taxed" at 100% would be in a communist system. Note that I said that under the paradigm of taxation the potentiality for the State have a right to all that an individual has produced exists. In essence, if the State taxes 1% of income, it has the potentiality to tax ALL of the income. Thus, any sort of taxes presumes that the State is entitled to ALL of an individual's income.

I didn't quite answer my own question. In a communist society, there would be no income, no paychecks are given. So, 100% of income cannot ever be taxed.

That's just semantics. Whether the government taxes 100% of the income or it inherently owns all of the income is irrelevant to the argument.

Fundamentally, this is wrong because the State has no justification to the earnings of an individual, because even if the State provides public goods for the use of individuals, these goods were payed for using coercion. The individual did not express his agreement for the payment for these goods, and thus he cannot be legitimately charged. Taxes, under this paradigm, are equivalent to theft.

Under that narrow paradigm, yes. But, there are other taxes besides income. Are these sales taxes agreed upon by the individual?

No.

Does the individual have more say in how these revenues are spent than he does with income tax revenue?

Hardly.

Your premise here, again, is flawed as any tax is coersion, and this runs afoul of the purpose of taxes: to fund the government. If income taxes are theft, so are sales taxes, tariffs, and others.

Correct.

What is the purpose of government if not, in the least, to protect against force from other, both domestic (courts) and foriegn (military)? How, then, is the government suppose to finance these, if not through taxes?

It's not.


If an mafia boss came to your house and said that they were going to offer you "protection" in exchange for X amount of dollars and said that this was a non-negotiable offer, the payment for those services is illegitimate because you did not agree to it.

The analogy is flawed only in the sense that the government is agreed to,

Really? I have a choice about whether I pay taxes?
Yes.
Income tax is volunantary, so you could attempt to never pay and see if you are ever caught.

Voluntary means without coercion. Coercion exists in the form of government violence. Ergo, any choice regarding paying or not paying income taxes is influenced by coercion.

Sales taxes are only if you engage in commerce. Elect not to. Grow your own food, then.

As well as my own car, plastic, house, etc...., right?

Plus, you can elect politicians to eliminate all taxes.

Yeah, like that's gonna happen.


Inb4 you can move

and the protection isn't a threat; the government's protection is law and order, military, and the like.

Whether the protection is effective or ineffective is irrelevant. I don't have a choice onto whether I want the protection. Therefore, it is illegitimate.

Except, protection is one of the few legitimate purposes of government.

I'm an anarchist.

So, as an anarchist, if I were to overpower you and take all of your belongings, what is going to stop me? I can tax you 100%, government can, or you can tax yourself by hiring someone to protect you, who could then potentially charge you 100% of your income. As you said, there is no difference in principle as long as it can happen, just replace the word "state" with "protection company".

There is no difference, as I see it. You pay for protection, in one way or another.
It sounds like your whole argument is semantical, hinging on active choice between protection firms (which have the potential to convolute prices) or a less active one of "hiring" government.
My work here is, finally, done.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 4:55:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 8:36:40 AM, AStevenson wrote:
While Obama would be an equivalent of Robespierre in today's modern French Revolution,

Oh this will be fun to read...

but he does not seem to have the balls to attack Versailles (stock market). I don't want to be to hard on him, Obama has gigantic balls, but there not colossal.

????

Let's look at taxes. Many of the liberals here I assume want a progressive tax system. The conservatives and libertarians argue for an idiotic flat tax system. I got a better system. This is called the Gospel of Wealth Tax Plan. Andrew Carnegie wrote the Gospel of Wealth, where he argues the rich should use their wealth to enrich society. That is why Carnegie is the best rich man ever, he is not half the parasite as people like Trump and the Kochs are today.

If Carnegie was alive today, I would likely make him my Secretary of State. In order to achieve his dream, government acts as the middle man in giving the money to society. Government is what society needs. Here is the current BS tax plan:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I wouldnt exactly call that total BS but ok.

Here is mine:

Lowest 20%: 0%
Second 20%: 0%
Middle 20%: 0%
Fourth 20%: 0%
Next 10%: 60%
Next 5%: 70%
Next 4%: 80%
Top 1%: 90%

Corporate Tax: 35%

As you can see, this is probably the greatest tax system ever.

As a liberal even I have to say that thats hands down one of the worst tax systems ever..... Literally 80% of the country pays absolutely nothing while the other 20% are taxed at an average of 70%???? Thats just ludicrous!

The poor and middle class pay nothing. This means they spend on more things. The demand-side gives money to the supply-side, thus giving the government more revenue than before. I can here conservatives crying that I'm killing the rich, but the US in fact had a 90% rate in the 1950s. Thank you.

It was 90% in the 50's yeah, but thats not even close to how much rich people actually paid due to loopholes they could exploit!....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
AStevenson
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 5:41:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 4:55:28 PM, imabench wrote:
At 3/30/2013 8:36:40 AM, AStevenson wrote:
While Obama would be an equivalent of Robespierre in today's modern French Revolution,

Oh this will be fun to read...

but he does not seem to have the balls to attack Versailles (stock market). I don't want to be to hard on him, Obama has gigantic balls, but there not colossal.

????

Let's look at taxes. Many of the liberals here I assume want a progressive tax system. The conservatives and libertarians argue for an idiotic flat tax system. I got a better system. This is called the Gospel of Wealth Tax Plan. Andrew Carnegie wrote the Gospel of Wealth, where he argues the rich should use their wealth to enrich society. That is why Carnegie is the best rich man ever, he is not half the parasite as people like Trump and the Kochs are today.

If Carnegie was alive today, I would likely make him my Secretary of State. In order to achieve his dream, government acts as the middle man in giving the money to society. Government is what society needs. Here is the current BS tax plan:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I wouldnt exactly call that total BS but ok.

Here is mine:

Lowest 20%: 0%
Second 20%: 0%
Middle 20%: 0%
Fourth 20%: 0%
Next 10%: 60%
Next 5%: 70%
Next 4%: 80%
Top 1%: 90%

Corporate Tax: 35%

As you can see, this is probably the greatest tax system ever.

As a liberal even I have to say that thats hands down one of the worst tax systems ever..... Literally 80% of the country pays absolutely nothing while the other 20% are taxed at an average of 70%???? Thats just ludicrous!

The poor and middle class pay nothing. This means they spend on more things. The demand-side gives money to the supply-side, thus giving the government more revenue than before. I can here conservatives crying that I'm killing the rich, but the US in fact had a 90% rate in the 1950s. Thank you.

It was 90% in the 50's yeah, but thats not even close to how much rich people actually paid due to loopholes they could exploit!....

Exactly, we need a more efficient IRS. I would get rid of all loopholes. There bad. Tell me, do you disagree with Andrew Carnegie, a rich person, that the rich have a responsibility to help the greater group of society?
AStevenson
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 5:47:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 11:59:01 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 3/30/2013 11:49:01 AM, AStevenson wrote:
At 3/30/2013 11:30:48 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 3/30/2013 11:29:00 AM, AStevenson wrote:
At 3/30/2013 11:01:10 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/30/2013 8:36:40 AM, AStevenson wrote:
While Obama would be an equivalent of Robespierre in today's modern French Revolution, but he does not seem to have the balls to attack Versailles (stock market). I don't want to be to hard on him, Obama has gigantic balls, but there not colossal. Let's look at taxes. Many of the liberals here I assume want a progressive tax system. The conservatives and libertarians argue for an idiotic flat tax system. I got a better system. This is called the Gospel of Wealth Tax Plan. Andrew Carnegie wrote the Gospel of Wealth, where he argues the rich should use their wealth to enrich society. That is why Carnegie is the best rich man ever, he is not half the parasite as people like Trump and the Kochs are today.

If Carnegie was alive today, I would likely make him my Secretary of State. In order to achieve his dream, government acts as the middle man in giving the money to society. Government is what society needs. Here is the current BS tax plan:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here is mine:

Lowest 20%: 0%
Second 20%: 0%
Middle 20%: 0%
Fourth 20%: 0%
Next 10%: 60%
Next 5%: 70%
Next 4%: 80%
Top 1%: 90%

Corporate Tax: 35%

As you can see, this is probably the greatest tax system ever. The poor and middle class pay nothing.
So you would have the rich pay everything? Way to attack the minority; last I checked America was a republic, where the government serves everyone in the community, not just the majority or minority. A democracy is just two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for dinner. This would be a violation of the 14th amendment.

So what? Congress breaks constitutional amendments all the time, why can't I?

This system would wreck havoc on the economy. In addition, this would severely limit tax revenues. Taxing the bottom 90% at a 15% rate would produce more revenue than taxing the top 10% at a 100% rate. This rate would severely lower receipts from income taxes.

No it would not because the rich get more money from capital gains. I don't put a tax on that.

The to 10% is anyone making more than $116,623 a year. The top 5% is anyone making more than $161,579 a year. The top 1% is anyone making more than $369,691 a year. The top 10% currently have a tax rate of 28%, and you want to shoot it up to 60%. The top 5% currently have a tax rate of 28% to 33%, and you want to shoot it up to 70%. The top 1% currently have a tax rate of 33 to 35%, and you want to shoot it up to 90%. You would be more than doubling their tax burden overnight. This would result in mass unemployment, and a mass investment in tax shelters (such as deferred income plans, and municipal bonds).


This means they spend on more things.
It does not follow. Just because you have more money, does not mean you will spend more money.

Yes it does. People want stuff. A nice house, a nice car, everything. So people naturally want stuff, the businesses get more money.
The demand-side gives money to the supply-side, thus giving the government more revenue than before.
First off, more money in the consumer's pockets does not increase demand. The money is not necessarily spent. Disposable income could either be used on consumption of local goods, used on imports, or put into private savings.
If put into private savings, that money is not spent on consumption. If spent on imports, that money does not end up in government hands, it ends up in foreign hands. If local firms and firm owners are taxed more, than the local firms would be less likely to compete with foreign firms, resulting in more imports.

I can here conservatives crying that I'm killing the rich, but the US in fact had a 90% rate in the 1950s. Thank you.

Do you mean "hear". Don't you think there is a reason we lowered it? There was also a point in time when we had no income taxes; why don't you advocate going back to that?


A better plan would be a 10% flat tax, with no joint filing, deductions, exemptions, or tax credits.

Since you didn't tax capital gains you do know the rich will just "invest" every penny they have therefore making it untaxable. There are handy banking tricks to make your money capital investment thus making it untaxable. Good plan.

Your wrong.

I'm wrong? Explain to me how you'll prevent the rich from either:
A) leaving [like they're doing in France]
or
B) hiding their money in investing accounts

So you think Andrew Carnegie was wrong to have the rich, which he is among, to take care of the poor.