Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Let's Be Fair about Taxation (It's always about punishing those who do very well)
American Thinker ^ | 01/27/2012 | Dale Bandy

Posted on 01/27/2012 4:48:26 AM PST by SeekAndFind

When I hear others say "fair share," I know what is coming -- a diatribe against the wealthy followed by recommendations to more heavily tax "millionaires and billionaires."

The specifics usually follow. I learn that it isn't just millionaires and billionaires who are targeted. The actual income threshold is $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for married couples, and it is business and investment income that constitute the real target. You know: the evil capitalists.

Today, the current top tax rate of 15% for capital gains and dividends is getting a lot of attention because of the recent release of Mitt and Ann Romney's tax returns. They reported millions of capital gains and dividend income and paid a tax of around 15%.

Let's take a look at fairness in the context of investment income. We will see a very different picture of their tax situation and the taxes paid by others with investment income.

If an individual purchased stock 20 years ago for $600,000 and sells it today for $1,000,000, we say the investor has a $400,000 gain. If the top tax rate for capital gains of 15% applies, the tax is $60,000. The question is, just how much tax should this investor pay? Is 15% too little if wages and many other types of income are taxed at rates as high as 35%?

Advocates of lower tax rates for capital gains often rely on the need for investment incentives as the primary reason for lower capital gains taxes. That is a very valid reason, but there are two other even more persuasive reasons that are rarely mentioned in public discussions.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: fairness; taxation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last
HERE's AN EXAMPLE TO CONSIDER FROM THE ARTICLE:

Consider the individual with the $400,000 gain. The investor actually lost money if the inflation rate averaged 2.6% or higher over the 20 years. That fact doesn't stop the government from taxing the nonexistent $400,000 gain at 15%. You call that fair? Isn't it supposed to be a tax on income?

1 posted on 01/27/2012 4:48:30 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I love how Great Leader is allowed to frame the discussion. We talk about ‘fair share’. Why don’t we ever talk about lowering taxes and why don’t we talk about those who never pay taxes? Remember the 53% who pay taxes? That means 47% at the bottom pay none. What is ‘fair’ about that crap?!


2 posted on 01/27/2012 4:54:10 AM PST by AD from SpringBay (We deserve the government we allow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; xzins

FWIW I think the top tax rate for working your ass off 60 hours a week should not exceed the top tax rate for sitting on your ass and letting your money work for you. If the top rate for Capital gains is 15% then the top rate for wages should be 15%. Income is income. Work is more honorable that leisure. Capital gains and dividends are the fruit of the labor of others.

All income should be taxed at the same rate.


3 posted on 01/27/2012 5:11:39 AM PST by P-Marlowe (NEWT!!! Because everyone else is just average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
FWIW I think the top tax rate for working your ass off 60 hours a week should not exceed the top tax rate for sitting on your ass and letting your money work for you. If the top rate for Capital gains is 15% then the top rate for wages should be 15%. Income is income. Work is more honorable that leisure. Capital gains and dividends are the fruit of the labor of others. All income should be taxed at the same rate.

To include those paying payroll taxes counting their 14% taxation as part of their tax rate. Someone will complain that they will draw down money from social security when they retire. Fine, let them continue to pay 14% on that.

Someone will complain that those over the 108,000 limit will not get near their share of social security tax. Fine, get them out of the system altogether. Let them fund their own retirement. But, like everyone else, they pay 15% on everything period.

4 posted on 01/27/2012 5:18:45 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Buffet and Gates are sanguine about “the rich”, ie other peopel” paying more tax on their income- Buffet only “takes” a salary of $100K doncha know

he and Bill Gates and the rest of the trust fund crowd (both parties) stash wealth safely away from the socialist crowd like obama in tax sheltered nonprofits and family trusts that preserve their luxurious lifestyles while making them feel all moist eyed about helping the poor

Taxes are for little people who have to work for their money instead of their money working for them


5 posted on 01/27/2012 5:28:26 AM PST by silverleaf (Common sense is not so common- Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Since FICA is an income tax, we should give credit for FICA against the 15% tax limit on all income. IOW we tax the first $108,000 at 2% and all income after that at the Capital gain rate.

People who dig ditches or pick strawberries should not have a higher effective overall fax rate than a guy who forgets he has 3 million dollars in a Swiss bank account.


6 posted on 01/27/2012 5:30:33 AM PST by P-Marlowe (NEWT!!! Because everyone else is just average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

While I agree with your conclusion....a flat tax....I don’t agree with your description of capital gains. Investing in business is not leisure nor ‘sitting on your ass’. The vast majority of business investment requires intense work to select the right places to put money. Never mind the many layers of tax paid before the final 15% at the investment level. The company pays tons of payroll taxes, property taxes, state, local taxes, taxes built into the products they buy, federal corporate taxes if they make a profit and then finally the investor is taxed 15% IF they get a retun on their investments.


7 posted on 01/27/2012 5:30:52 AM PST by ilgipper (Everything you get from the government was taken from someone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

As I read it what they were trying to do in 1913 was to implement Alexander Hamilton’s ideas about using govt. debt as a basis for money i.e. establish an income tax to pay interest and roll the principle over in perpetuity. So long as the debt was used to finance productive projects the idea had some chance of working particularly since there is a multiplier effect in the picture, but when a clown like Bork Obunga waltzes in and spends $5T with nothing to show for it at all, something is gonna have to change. We no longer have 20 years to think about what we want to do.


8 posted on 01/27/2012 5:39:12 AM PST by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

I agree with that. It will work.

As always, I’d prefer a sales tax and no income tax at all. Check your freepmail.

Santorum prevailed big last night.


9 posted on 01/27/2012 5:39:23 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If that individual plunked down $600,000, it was most likely in after income tax dollars.


10 posted on 01/27/2012 5:47:09 AM PST by Adder (Say NO to the O in 2 oh 12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper; xzins
tax....I don’t agree with your description of capital gains. Investing in business is not leisure nor ‘sitting on your ass’. The vast majority of business investment requires intense work to select the right places to put money.

Should earnings from horserace betting be taxed at a lower effective rate than the earnings of the the guy who shovels the horse shit out of the stable stalls?

We accept these stupid notions about how investment income should be taxed at a lower rate because we have been fed this load of crap by wall street and their bought and paid for politicians since we were born.

I am not denigrating those who gamble and win in the market, but the income they earn in the market is not more noble than the income earned from shoveling horse shit.

All income should be taxed at the same rate. Government should not be picking and choosing which kinds of income should be punished and which should be rewarded.

11 posted on 01/27/2012 5:47:45 AM PST by P-Marlowe (NEWT!!! Because everyone else is just average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; ilgipper; wmfights
All income should be taxed at the same rate. Government should not be picking and choosing which kinds of income should be punished and which should be rewarded.

Amen!

Middle class America is going to have to get it's head out of the political rhetoric about class warfare and realize that this is not about "economic classes" but is about power groups seeking to impose their vision on America.

As near as I can tell, a lowly private in the American army calling King George a tyrant was not "class warfare" but was recognizing "opposing powerful interests."

There are powerful interests in America today: media, entertainment, labor, banks, investment, insurance, health, law, and on and on.

I am an average American voter, not vested in any power group, who doesn't want to be fleeced by any of those groups or enslaved to any of those groups. How do I best maximize my outcomes?

You will notice that those groups have huge money and are the primary donors to political campaigns. They expect a return on their investment. It can even be sinister.

I'm so sure of this that I think Romney is running for the presidency for some covert objective of his regarding Bain Capital (and other investment houses). I don't think you spend multi-millions to get a 200,000 a year job without some hidden agenda.

That is not class warfare. It is healthy suspicion of a man who represents a powerful interest group(s).

12 posted on 01/27/2012 6:09:19 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

“People who dig ditches or pick strawberries should not have a higher effective overall fax rate than a guy who forgets he has 3 million dollars in a Swiss bank account.”

Who has created more wealth and opportunities for others? The ditch digger or the inventor of the back hoe?


13 posted on 01/27/2012 6:42:36 AM PST by CSM (Keeper of the "Dave Ramsey Fan" ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

“Should earnings from horserace betting be taxed at a lower effective rate than the earnings of the the guy who shovels the horse shit out of the stable stalls?”

Absolutely they should. The gambler has already paid an income tax on the money that he then uses for gambling. In addition, he can not fully claim his gambling losses and be reimbursed from the government.


14 posted on 01/27/2012 6:45:53 AM PST by CSM (Keeper of the "Dave Ramsey Fan" ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CSM; xzins; ilgipper; wmfights
Who has created more wealth and opportunities for others? The ditch digger or the inventor of the back hoe?

Non sequitor.

The earnings of the back hoe inventor should be taxed at the same rate as the ditch digger who he just put out of work and the heavy equipment operator who replaced him.

15 posted on 01/27/2012 6:54:06 AM PST by P-Marlowe (NEWT!!! Because everyone else is just average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CSM; xzins; ilgipper; wmfights
The gambler has already paid an income tax on the money that he then uses for gambling.

So? The earnings he gets from the after tax income is new income that hasn't been taxed.

This nonsense about double taxation is just nonsense designed to placate the sheeple. Income is Income.

My savings income is taxed at the top rate (over 30%). It should be taxed at the same rate as Capital Gains, which should be taxed at the same rate as wages.

Your system has the government picking and choosing winners and losers. I guess you like that because you think it is "Capitalism" at work.

It is capitalism. It is CRONY Capitalism.

16 posted on 01/27/2012 7:04:28 AM PST by P-Marlowe (NEWT!!! Because everyone else is just average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CSM; P-Marlowe; ilgipper
“Should earnings from horserace betting be taxed at a lower effective rate than the earnings of the the guy who shovels the horse shit out of the stable stalls?”

Absolutely they should. The gambler has already paid an income tax on the money that he then uses for gambling. In addition, he can not fully claim his gambling losses and be reimbursed from the government.

I've gotta disagree for the most part CSM. If the gambler at the horse track puts down 10 bucks at the $10 window and receives $2000, then I'm perfectly willing to allow him to remove from that the $10 he already paid tax on.

The other $1990 has not yet been taxed.

And there's no reason to tax it at a rate different than the stableboy OTHER THAN political intrading.

17 posted on 01/27/2012 7:04:45 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CSM; P-Marlowe; ilgipper; wmfights

Let’s expand this discussion a bit.

The Founder’s rejected any notion of an income tax, and I think it was for just this reason....that it would empower government to reward some and punish others.

They believed in a sales tax. With a sales tax, the gambler would go to the $10 window, pay $12.00 for his ticket, and then collect his 2000 bucks. If he spent some of it for gas, for a restaurant, for some batteries, and then stopped to pick up an IPad for his kid, then he would simply be paying the sales tax as he goes.

Anytime he buys he pays the sales tax. If he socks it all away, then it is all his.

Wealthy people will buy more and more expensive things than poor people. They will pay more tax. The tax they each pay will be whatever the sales tax rate is....fair...the same for each of them.

HR Block will hate this system, but it’s the most fair of all tax systems.


18 posted on 01/27/2012 7:26:08 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
"FWIW I think the top tax rate for working your ass off 60 hours a week should not exceed the top tax rate for sitting on your ass and letting your money work for you"

totally, totally agree, but we're probably in the minority here....

"It's always about punishing those who do very well"

well no, its not about punishing people who do very well......its about punishing people that do "okay"....are a little bit above the curve...who have a little extra income...

IOWS....the working middle class....no big business expenses to claim, no golfing outings to deduct for "clients"..no superbowl tickets to deduct...no nothing...

enough money to do better than the average bear, but not enough to live richly or to avoid taxes...

19 posted on 01/27/2012 9:34:41 AM PST by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“I’ve gotta disagree for the most part CSM. If the gambler at the horse track puts down 10 bucks at the $10 window and receives $2000, then I’m perfectly willing to allow him to remove from that the $10 he already paid tax on.”

Yet, the horse track would not exist without a series of losing gamblers that made the $10 outlay that allowed them to pay the $2000 winnings. Those other bettors, 200 of them, alredy paid income tax on the $12 they had to earn to allow them to take the $10 to the track to bet.

However, since you are all for taxing any percieved “income” then you must be convinced and allow all loses to be deducte from all types of income. That is ALL losses! Not a limited amount, to protect the government revenues, but ALL losses.

That is a major difference here. Investment income has a lower rate because a very small amount of losses are allowed as deductions.


20 posted on 01/27/2012 10:03:27 AM PST by CSM (Keeper of the "Dave Ramsey Fan" ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

“The earnings of the back hoe inventor should be taxed at the same rate as the ditch digger who he just put out of work and the heavy equipment operator who replaced him.”

And the construction contractors who hire multiple crews to build the manufacturing plant, and the assembly workers he hires to build the equipment, and the suppliers who hire construction crews and then assembly workers and then the restaurants that open in the neighborhood of the new industry’s neighborhood, and the new teachers brought to the area to teach the children of all the new employees.

The inventor of the backhoe certianly benefits society to a much higher degree than a ditch digger. Besides, any ditch digger worth his weight is an apprentice and was in a temporary job anyway....

I do agree that there is way to much complexity in our tax code and I would favor aboloshing it all together in favor of the FairTax. However, this is limited to a discussion of why a tax rate is different for capital gains than labor related income.

1. Capital investments are not possible without some labor or intellectual earnings that were already taxed. The lower rate is already an admission that this situation creates a double taxation.

2. Once the capital is invested, it frees up beneficial activities that benefits society in a much broader sense than my daily earnings.


21 posted on 01/27/2012 10:10:13 AM PST by CSM (Keeper of the "Dave Ramsey Fan" ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cherry

“IOWS....the working middle class....no big business expenses to claim, no golfing outings to deduct for “clients”..no superbowl tickets to deduct...no nothing...”

Go ahead and remove those deductions and you will either see leisure activity (golf courses, lunch eateries, etc.) business close up shop or your prices for the goods produced by the companies you reference increase. I do admit that you would not see a reduction in the super bowl ticket sales, but that comes to a town only once in awhile...

BTW, most of the beneficaries of those types of activities in my area are the working middle class. It is more likely the $100K gross wage sales person taking out the $90K union shop steward, line supervisor, crib supervisor, etc. to those events. The richest folks have their own gigs that we will never even fathom!


22 posted on 01/27/2012 10:18:55 AM PST by CSM (Keeper of the "Dave Ramsey Fan" ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CSM

It wasn’t a loss. It was a purchase.


23 posted on 01/27/2012 10:34:14 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
This might interest some on the thread.

The Income Tax in 1913


24 posted on 01/27/2012 10:38:35 AM PST by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CSM; xzins; wmfights; cherry
The inventor of the backhoe certianly benefits society to a much higher degree than a ditch digger. Besides, any ditch digger worth his weight is an apprentice and was in a temporary job anyway....

So the government should recognize that contribution by giving him a break on his taxes, while the guy in the ditch breaks his back.

There is a word for that kind of system. It is called CRONY CAPITALISM.

I think all Americans should pay the Mitt Romney rate. Romney should not have to pay more than 15% of his income in income taxes. Neither should anyone else!

I would favor aboloshing it all together in favor of the FairTax.

Define "a Fair Tax". Who gets to decide what is "Fair".

All men are created EQUAL, but life is not FAIR. Every man should be treated as an equal to other men. But our government picks and chooses who gets favorable treatment. You seem to want to continue that practice.

If I say that the Ditch Digger should pay the same favorable tax rate as the inventor of the back hoe (and vice versa), then I am arguing for equal treatment under the law.

If you argue that the inventor is of more value to society and therefore should pay a more favorable tax rate than the ditch digger, then you are arguing a socialist world view. That the individual is only valuable in relation to his contribution to society.

Now who's the Capitalist and who is the socialist?

25 posted on 01/27/2012 11:04:42 AM PST by P-Marlowe (NEWT!!! Because everyone else is just average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: CSM

I was thinking sales tax when I answered. I should have read your post a bit more carefully. You are on the income tax side of the discussion and not on the sales tax side.

If one person is permitted to deduct his $10 from his gambling, then every person should be able to. That is your point, if I understand it correctly.

Now, actually, I agree with that. In my opinion, every household should be treated as a corporation and have all the exclusions that corporations have. Since a gambler makes his living gambling, then the $10 would be a business expense for him. The two thousand would be taxable to the extent that other business expenses reduce it: transporation to and from the track, ticket to enter, any business-related lunch purchased, and of course food, clothing, shelter, etc.

I don’t expect that to happen.

In the meantime, we’re stuck with a system where 2000 of income is taxed one way for some and a different way for others. As Marlowe says, that 2000 is no different than the stableboy’s 2000 monthly income, and if he has to pay 15%, then so should the gambler.

All of which are reasons I prefer a sales tax only.


26 posted on 01/27/2012 11:05:28 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CSM; P-Marlowe

I was thinking sales tax when I answered. I should have read your post a bit more carefully. You are on the income tax side of the discussion and not on the sales tax side.

If one person is permitted to deduct his $10 from his gambling, then every person should be able to. That is your point, if I understand it correctly.

Now, actually, I agree with that. In my opinion, every household should be treated as a corporation and have all the exclusions that corporations have. Since a gambler makes his living gambling, then the $10 would be a business expense for him. The two thousand would be taxable to the extent that other business expenses reduce it: transporation to and from the track, ticket to enter, any business-related lunch purchased, and of course food, clothing, shelter, etc.

I don’t expect that to happen.

In the meantime, we’re stuck with a system where 2000 of income is taxed one way for some and a different way for others. As Marlowe says, that 2000 is no different than the stableboy’s 2000 monthly income, and if he has to pay 15%, then so should the gambler.

All of which are reasons I prefer a sales tax only.


27 posted on 01/27/2012 11:05:45 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; CSM; cherry; wmfights

By FairTax, I believe CSM is talking about the sales tax only plan. So, he, too, like me is saying we wouldn’t have these twisted arguments about equality if everyone paid a sales tax of X% on every purchase or transfer.


28 posted on 01/27/2012 11:08:57 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
If an individual purchased stock 20 years ago for $600,000 and sells it today for $1,000,000, we say the investor has a $400,000 gain. If the top tax rate for capital gains of 15% applies, the tax is $60,000. The question is, just how much tax should this investor pay? Is 15% too little if wages and many other types of income are taxed at rates as high as 35%?

IMHO, we should be under a sales tax system, and he should pay the 20% on a 600,000 dollar purchase. What he gets on return is his money. If he spends any of it, then he'll pay that sales tax on it. It's the most fair system.

29 posted on 01/27/2012 11:12:01 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins; CSM; cherry; wmfights
By FairTax, I believe CSM is talking about the sales tax only plan. So, he, too, like me is saying we wouldn’t have these twisted arguments about equality if everyone paid a sales tax of X% on every purchase or transfer.

I don't like the idea of a Federal Income tax simply because it makes everyone an agent of the Federal Government. When you transfer title to any good, then you become the agent of the government and are required to collect the tax and then forward it to the Feds.

Frankly the best method would be to have the Federal Government tax the States based on population. The government would determine it's annual budget and send the bill to the states to pay their pro-rata portion of the budget and the States could then figure out how to come up with the money.

But as long as the individual is responsible for paying his share of the tax burden, then each individual should be taxed at the same rate. No picking and choosing of winners and losers.

30 posted on 01/27/2012 11:21:48 AM PST by P-Marlowe (NEWT!!! Because everyone else is just average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Your interpretation of the "created equal" clause is obviously not what Jefferson intended. He--and Adams & Franklin--were explaining the compact theory of Government, before setting forth the grievances that led them to call for a new Government. (See Declaration Of Independence--With Study Guide.)

The Constitution reflected the concepts in the Declaration--hence the prohibition in Article I, Sec. 9, against anything but a per capita tax, as a direct tax on citizens. That means not a percentage of income but a flat amount, both on your inventor & your ditch digger. (Constitution.)

Under the Founders' precepts we throve as no people before or since.

William Flax

31 posted on 01/27/2012 11:22:34 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

“I think all Americans should pay the Mitt Romney rate. Romney should not have to pay more than 15% of his income in income taxes. Neither should anyone else!”

You sure? Lets see, in order to get money to invest, person A (Romney) makes gross $100 and nets $65 in order to invest $65. Then over time he makes 10% a year for 10 years so that $65 grows to $176. Now $176 - $65 = $111 and now person A owes $111 x 0.15 = $17 more in taxes. So person A earned income of gross $100 and has paid $52 taxes or 52%.

If the investment is for only 1 year, then with a 10% return it is $6.50 x 0.15 or $0.975 owed in additional tax, so his effective rate on $100 earnings is $35+$1 or 36%.

Person B (average Joe) grosses $100 and does not invest anything, so he pays his 15% (according to Buffet’s secretary). He earned $100 and paid $15.

It should be all of our goals to invest enough over time that eventually our investments are making more in the market than we can make on the job.

“There is a word for that kind of system. It is called CRONY CAPITALISM.”

Your thinking is reversed. If I pay taxes on my earnings, and then invest it and still owe more taxes because my investments were successful, that is not crony capitalism. It is called self reliance.

“Define “a Fair Tax”. Who gets to decide what is “Fair”.”

Are you being purposely obtuse or are your emotions getting in the way? I said FairTax, as in the abolishment of the income tax, cap gains tax, soc security tax, etc, etc, to be replaced by a national sales tax.

“If I say that the Ditch Digger should pay the same favorable tax rate as the inventor of the back hoe (and vice versa), then I am arguing for equal treatment under the law.”

Go back and look at that “favorable” rate you are so upset about. Both earned an income of $100 and paid an income tax, at progressive rates, then the investor pays again...his true rate is about 52% over that 10 year example.

“If you argue that the inventor is of more value to society and therefore should pay a more favorable tax rate than the ditch digger, then you are arguing a socialist world view. That the individual is only valuable in relation to his contribution to society.”

That is not what I said at all. What I said is that the “second bite at the apple” by the government drives the total “rate” the inventor pays to be well above what you would find acceptable for the ditch digger. Both are already paying their different rates on their earnings, then they do different activities with their net wages. One spends it all and the other invests it all. The reality is that each is probably somewhere along that range and not completely at the “spend it all or invest it all” extremes of the range.

All I am doing is pointing out that the totality paid by one is already MUCH higher than the other. If you want to give in to the twisting of the leftist, then more power to you. Just don’t be shocked when Atlas Shrugs.


32 posted on 01/27/2012 11:29:10 AM PST by CSM (Keeper of the "Dave Ramsey Fan" ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Then it is not a gain, it is a purchase.


33 posted on 01/27/2012 11:30:36 AM PST by CSM (Keeper of the "Dave Ramsey Fan" ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“By FairTax, I believe CSM is talking about the sales tax only plan.”

True. But until we get there, we can not fall into the left’s traps. We need to keep in mind the totality of the “rates” being discussed.


34 posted on 01/27/2012 11:33:16 AM PST by CSM (Keeper of the "Dave Ramsey Fan" ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

“Frankly the best method would be to have the Federal Government tax the States based on population.”

Only if we repeal the 17th Ammendment. If I mixed that one up with womans suffrage, I apologize. I am referencing the direct election of State Senators. If we could repeal that one as well as the establishment of the income tax ammendment, then we would greatly diminish the fed monster.

In lieu of that, then I want the entirety of our citizenry smacked in the face every day, with every purchase, with the cost of their government largesse. How different would the Obamacare discussion have been if it could have been spoken in plain economics. Such as, “Sure, we can afford to have government provided ‘free’ health care. It will just mean a 15% increase in the sales tax rate.”


35 posted on 01/27/2012 11:37:55 AM PST by CSM (Keeper of the "Dave Ramsey Fan" ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: CSM; xzins
It should be all of our goals to invest enough over time that eventually our investments are making more in the market than we can make on the job......

So you think it is the job of the government to punish the financially inept and reward the financially frugal?

Tell me, is FICA a tax or a retirement program?

36 posted on 01/27/2012 12:21:46 PM PST by P-Marlowe (NEWT!!! Because everyone else is just average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: CSM; xzins
It will just mean a 15% increase in the sales tax rate.”

Would that be on goods and services? Food and Medicine? Charitable contributions?

What if you don't use money? How do you tax barter?

What if I trade my gold or silver or wheat or corn for your goods and services? How are they going to tax that?

If the Feds instituted a 15% additional tax on goods and services, how much more of our economy would go underground?

37 posted on 01/27/2012 12:26:09 PM PST by P-Marlowe (NEWT!!! Because everyone else is just average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: CSM

The 19th was the women’s suffrage amendment,
and frankly, I don’t understand. Why in the world would we pass an amendment to make women suffer more? I mean, they got it hard enough with all the biological stuff and childbearing and stuff, and here we targeted them with a specific amendment to make things worse.

End women’s suffage now!


38 posted on 01/27/2012 12:27:07 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

“So you think it is the job of the government to punish the financially inept and reward the financially frugal?”

That would be much preferable to the current situation of rewarding the financially inept and punishing the frugal. If you want more of something, tax it less. Now the discussion has shifted to further punishing the frugal to reward the inept. If you want less of something, tax it more.

“Tell me, is FICA a tax or a retirement program?”

It is most definitely at tax and a very detrimental one at that. Madoff couldn’t be more proud.


39 posted on 01/27/2012 12:55:36 PM PST by CSM (Keeper of the "Dave Ramsey Fan" ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

I should have also added that my comment of, “It should be all of our goals to invest enough over time that eventually our investments are making more in the market than we can make on the job......”

Is irrelevent of the tax code being discussed. If you want to remain empowered and free, then you need to position yourself to not have to count on the tax code to survive.


40 posted on 01/27/2012 12:57:03 PM PST by CSM (Keeper of the "Dave Ramsey Fan" ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

All of the answers to your questions can be found at FairTax.org ....

It advocates the sales tax on all new taxes, therefore trade, barter and buying of used items is irrelevent. They would have been taxed when purchased as new items. Again, the government should only get one bite at the apple.


41 posted on 01/27/2012 12:59:06 PM PST by CSM (Keeper of the "Dave Ramsey Fan" ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MrB

hehe, exactly.


42 posted on 01/27/2012 1:00:06 PM PST by CSM (Keeper of the "Dave Ramsey Fan" ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: CSM
▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ ▒▓███▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ ▒▓█▓▓██▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ ▒▓█▒▒███▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ ▒▓███▒▒█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ ▒▓███▒▒█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ ▒▓██▒░▒█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ ▒▓█▓░▒▒█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ ▒▓█▓▒▒▒█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ ▒▓█▓▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ ▒▓█▓▒▒▒▒██▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ ▒▓█▓▒▒▒▒▒██████████████████████▓▒▒▒ ▒▓█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓█████████████████████▒▒ ▒▓█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░. ▓█▓▒ ▒▓█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓███▒▒ ▒▓█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓█████████████████▒▒ ▒▓█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓█▓▒ ▒▓█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓█▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▒▒ ▒▓█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█████████████████▒▒ ▒▓█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓█▓▒ ▒▓█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓█▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▒▒ ▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█████████████████▒▒ ▒▒▓██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░▓█▓▒ ▒▒▒▓███▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒██▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒██▓▒ ▒▒▒▒▒▓██████████████████████████▒▒▒ ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
43 posted on 01/27/2012 1:00:39 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

Something is wrong with your graphic. It is just a blur of greys.....which is certainly better than a red x!

;-)


44 posted on 01/27/2012 1:03:05 PM PST by CSM (Keeper of the "Dave Ramsey Fan" ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: CSM

Yeah, it was supposed to be 2 thumbs up in text art.

Didn’t work too well...


45 posted on 01/27/2012 1:04:37 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

Oops..but after thinking about it, it does fit the theme of the thread. Blurs of grey is very applicable to our current tax code...


46 posted on 01/27/2012 1:08:06 PM PST by CSM (Keeper of the "Dave Ramsey Fan" ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: CSM
It is most definitely at tax and a very detrimental one at that.

Then every wage earner in America already pays a higher effective income tax rate than Mitt Romney.

47 posted on 01/27/2012 1:10:49 PM PST by P-Marlowe (NEWT!!! Because everyone else is just average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Except the earnings used for the investments already had FICA applied. Your class envy might be supportive of increasing Mitt’s capital gains tax, but it will be to the detriment of my retirement investments. Envy is destructive and you are oozing it.


48 posted on 01/27/2012 4:28:55 PM PST by CSM (Keeper of the "Dave Ramsey Fan" ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: CSM; xzins
Your class envy might be supportive of increasing Mitt’s capital gains tax, but it will be to the detriment of my retirement investments. Envy is destructive and you are oozing it.

Hey xzins, get a load of this post. Didn't I tell you that if I made the case that common laborers should pay taxes at the same rate as guys like Romney, that I would be accused of playing the "politics of envy"?

Just for the record, CSM, I never once said that Romney should pay more in taxes. Never. He is paying just about the right amount of taxes, with about 15% of his income from all sources being paid in Federal Income tax. Right now, with all my deductions and expenses I pay at about 15% too (not counting the 15% on the first $108,000, but I'm not going to get worked up about it).

I bet I make twice as much money as CSM and I bet my tax rate is lower than his. But because I argue that ditch diggers shouldn't have to pay a higher effective tax rate than Romney or me, then I am somehow playing the envy card.

CSM, what is your effective income tax rate. Mine is probably about 20% if you include FICA. My daughter who works as a waitress has an effective tax rate of about 25% including FICA and if you throw in the State tax, then she probably pays closer to 30%. Every year I get back about $10,000 in tax refunds and every year I have to help my daughter out because they didn't take enough out of her paycheck to cover the taxes she owes.

But since she doesn't make enough money to pay her bills and then invest in Venture Capitalist schemes, she pays roughly twice in as much in taxes on every dollar earned as Romney.

She's not envious of Romney. She's working too hard trying to stay alive and pay her bills to think about it. If 15% of her gross income was used to pay all her Federal Taxes, I'm sure she would be a happy camper.

49 posted on 01/27/2012 6:21:30 PM PST by P-Marlowe (NEWT!!! Because everyone else is just average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; CSM

The numbers are the numbers. I forget the exact FICA/Med amount but it’s a little under 7% for the individual. Supposedly the employer is taxed 7% also, for a combined 14%. We know that business pass the expense on, so that expense is passed on to the employee in the form of lower wages than they could be. The employee is paying 14%. Businesses build all their expenses, including taxes, into the price of their goods/services or out of the salary/benefits of their employees. It only make sense to do so. An expense is an expense.

Therefore, I pay 14% (which I actually do taxed as self-employed for SS purposes) AND I pay income tax on the income as well. I definitely pay more than 1%, so I pay more than Romney.

That is not class envy. That is math.

I want a better deal. Actually, being honest, the FairTax would establish a single tax rate for all of us, and I consider that equality under the law. I think a flat tax of 15% would also be equality under the law provided the Fica/med were counted in for the first 108,000 for everyone.

Again. It’s not class envy. It’s mathematics.


50 posted on 01/27/2012 6:37:12 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson