Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Pretending for a moment that Solitary hadn't just owned you, its perfectly legitimate for them to do as you depict.
Obama Is Smart At Least Regarding Taxes
- Thread starter Annie
- Start date
Pretending for a moment that Solitary hadn't just owned you, its perfectly legitimate for them to do as you depict.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
A luxury tax may not only apply to the rich, but it mostly targets the rich. Same concept with an unearned income tax, like the capital gains tax. Half the nation may own stocks, but it's the richest half. And the ultra-rich own by far the most of them. There are people making billions of dollars a year who pay 15% taxes on 99.9999% of their income. Whatever universe you live in, that just ain't right.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
It doesn't seperate people into groups. You pay 10% or so on the first 50k, 15% on the second 50k, or whatever. Everyone pays that. Everyone goes by that formula.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
And we should fix that by vastly simplifying the tax code. The progressiveness of the tax code will be trivial to calculate after we've chunked out the millions of deductions.
C
Cancel3
Guest
The fact is that everytime the capital gains taxes have been raised there was a decrease in tax revenue. And every time the capital gains taxes have been lowered there was an increase in tax revenue.
So if you actually want to raise money to run the government, you should lower the capital gains taxes.
But if you think its ok to punish success and think it is the government's job to redistribute income from those who earned it to those who didn't, then raising the capital gains taxes is a great idea.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Absolutely absurd. The only example you probably have is the cutting of the tax in 1996, which did nothing but create a bubble that fell apart. A ridiculously low tax on unearned income compared to earned income just supports foolhardy investing.
C
Cancel3
Guest
Have there been any examples of raising the capital gains taxes and tax revenues increasing?
What is this idea that the governmentg should soak the rich just because the rich have more to be soaked?
The idea that those who earned more should fund the lives of people who earned little or nothing is just wrong. Its theft.
And just because someone else earns more doesn't remove the responsibility from the others to fund their share of the government.
If a rich man is expected to have 35% or 45% of his income taken, then so should the middle class and others. To expect any different is just sour grapes and theft.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Well go cry to the rich about their rights and how they're abused. I can't believe we're having this 16th century conversation in 2008. Go back to your feudalist masters and leave us be. Every civilized nation belives in a progressive tax for one reason - it works. Tax is theft. Get over it. It's a necessary evil. And it should be done in the most efficient way possible that leaves the general populace with the most happiness afterward.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
That doesn't make it right.
Corporations entities which have special rights people don't have
need to be abolished.
The corporation and it's structure merely provides an end run around any form of morality.
Shareholders are not responsible for the operation of the company, that's the board and the officers, the officers are bound to only one duty, to make money. Nobody is required to make a moral judgement about the activities of the company, because everyone can pass the blame. the officers can blame their abstract commitment to profit. Shareholder can blame the officers. "I don't run the company.
A corporation is merely an abstraction which protects a runaway train of mass moral wrecklessness.
But I'm not against trade. People can conducts trade as people. As individuals. The corporate abstraction is man slouching toward hate.
Last edited:
Kamala Trump
Verified User
Wow. Congratulations on the full glory of your naked fascist apolojism.
This is what is considered "enlightened" these days. Sad.
Good Luck
New member
What is absurd is your age old differentiation between "unearned" income and "earned" income.
If a bank loans you money, they expect the money back, plus interest. The interest is a cost to you for borrowing the money, and business income to the bank for being in the business of lending you money.
When a person invests in a business in the form of stock purchases, they are effectively lending that business money. Like a bank, the investor has a reasonable expectation to be paid for loaning their money to the business. The resulting investment income is no more "unearned" than is the money banks earn for loaning individuals money.
We agree on one principle: the tax system should be as efficient and as painless as possible. But you seem to think efficient is making it painless as possible for low and middle income by screwing with what you call unearned income. Problem is many middle income people have investment income, so your aim is lousy when it comes to taxing investment income. Second, treating people unequally just because you think they can afford it is not what this country is supposed to be about. Third, the simplest (ie: least paperwork, least number of rules to worry about, simplest calculations to find one's appropriate tax burden) is also the most efficient because making complex tax codes wastes time (and time is money even in government) creates an unnecessarily large bureaucracy (wasting more money) and depresses revenues by discouraging investment from income brackets other than the highest.
As for what "every civilized nation" believe in, I don't give a ripe fart. We need to be doing what is best for our nation, and operating government - to include the tax system - according to the principles our society is founded on. Treating people differently according to economic class is no different than allowing people to be treated different because of any other distinguishing characteristic they display that can be used to separate people into groups. It is wrong to treat people unequally for any reason - that is a base principle of our society. Therefore it is wrong to treat people unequally for economic reasons.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
Lending money is not working, especially in the case of fiat currency and fractional reserve lending. Considering the questionable basis of the entire system, your faux outrage is ineffective.
C
Cancel3
Guest
He didn't say anything about working, he said "earned". The profits from a loan are because of the risk taken, not physical work done.
Good Luck
New member
Deficit spending is a risky endeavor and shold be avoided as much as possible. Sometimes it is a necessity, such as buying a home, for most buying a car for individuals, or engaging in war on the part of government.
Borrowing money is most prevalent in business, but is a normal part of doing business, especially when a new business is starting up or an established business is expanding. But using the investment profile instead of going to a bank allows for more expansion at lower overall cost for the process of borrowing money from investors. Investors benefit, being essentially paid for assisting the companies to expand in ways they could not do without investments.
But my example has nothing to do with your paranoid delusions of conspiracy, nor with your age old harping on fiat currency. The purpose was to demonstrate that the term "unearned income" is a liberal tax-the-rich-because-they-deserve-it boogie. Investment income is no more "unearned" than interest on a loan. And that principle would be true whether we were using a fiat currency, or a commodity standard currency.