What's new
By:

Taxes and beer

balli said:
Where's the part about the tenth man going home to a mega-mansion after the night at the bar, only to log into his online banking and find he still has millions of dollars... while the fifth guy goes 'home' to find out his meager west-side house has been re-possesed cause his wife got cancer?

Cause that's the part that's missing.
Click to expand...

balli said:
Really? All of his wealth? That's the argument I was making?

Huh.... Weird take...
Click to expand...

First I said IMPLYING. Check it out at dictionary.com.

And if that is not what you were implying, that we need to balance the wealth, then please clarify.
 
LogGrad98 said:
First I said IMPLYING. Check it out at dictionary.com.

And if that is not what you were implying, that we need to balance the wealth, then please clarify.
Click to expand...

All [of his] wealth? No, that's not what I was implying.

And please don't haggle/condescend over semantics.
 
LogGrad98 said:
That has nothing to do with our tax system. The story was to illustrate how our tax system works and it is correct. The argument are you are implying is that the rich man needs to give all of his wealth to the poor man so no one is rich and no one is poor. This is also known as communism. I am not making a judgement about communism, just pointing out that this model fits the tenets of communism.
Click to expand...

balli said:
All [of his] wealth? No, that's not what I was implying.

And please don't haggle/condescend over semantics.
Click to expand...

Not sure where the hostility is coming from. Hmm.

Well actually you are the one arguing semantics. Notice the bold above. Implies that only enough of the rich man's wealth is given away to balance the wealth. You want to get hung up on the word "all" without taking the rest of the post into account, that is up to you I guess. I can edit it to say "most" or "some" or "enough to balance the wealth", since that was the core of the sentence.

I just wondered if you would clarify then what you meant by your highly sarcastic post.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Not sure where the hostility is coming from. Hmm.

Well actually you are the one arguing semantics. Notice the bold above. Implies that only enough of the rich man's wealth is given away to balance the wealth. You want to get hung up on the word "all" without taking the rest of the post into account, that is up to you I guess. I can edit it to say "most" or "some" or "enough to balance the wealth", since that was the core of the sentence.

I just wondered if you would clarify then what you meant by your highly sarcastic post.
Click to expand...

What I meant was that the tax system, as constituted, seems fair given the vast lifestyle differences that each man's socio-economic position allows.
 
balli said:
Where's the part about the tenth man going home to a mega-mansion after the night at the bar, only to log into his online banking and find he still has millions of dollars... while the fifth guy goes 'home' to find out his meager west-side house has been re-possesed cause his wife got cancer?

Cause that's the part that's missing.
Click to expand...

balli said:
What I meant was that the tax system, as constituted, seems fair given the vast lifestyle differences that each man's socio-economic position allows.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Guess I missed that balanced view buried in the sarcasm of the first post. My bad.
 
What this country REALLY needs is a tax on people that make nothing. And the constitution. And guns, lots of guns. Everyone with guns. Guns. And socialist fascist birth certificate.
 
NUMBERICA said:
What this country REALLY needs is a tax on people that make nothing. And the constitution. And guns, lots of guns. Everyone with guns. Guns. And socialist fascist birth certificate.
Click to expand...

The tax on people who make nothing is called hunger. Government intervention is not necessary.
 
What the first post leaves out is that the tax system in this country is written for the rich folk...I mean, why would it be any different than any other piece of legislation? Its not going to benefit the lower tiered people of this country?

The guy that is paying the 59 bucks on that beer can tax defer, use a tax shelter, write it off as a business expense, etc, etc.
 
Every time I read these types of threads I wait for the 2 or 3 extra-angry-at-society folks to either add the tiniest bit of substance to their pure emotional appeal, or, to get into incentives and how they relate to advancement. It never happens.
 
VINYLONE said:
What the first post leaves out is that the tax system in this country is written for the rich folk...I mean, why would it be any different than any other piece of legislation? Its not going to benefit the lower tiered people of this country?

The guy that is paying the 59 bucks on that beer can tax defer, use a tax shelter, write it off as a business expense, etc, etc.
Click to expand...

Really.

The top fifth of households made 56% of pre-tax income in 2006 but paid 86% of all individual income tax revenue collected, according to the most recent data available from the Congressional Budget Office. Narrowing in further: The top 1% of households, which made 19% of pre-tax income, paid 39% of all individual income taxes.
Click to expand...

And

The Tax Policy Center estimates that for 2009, 43% of tax units (most of which are lower income households that may or may not file a return) will have no income tax liability or will have a negative income tax liability, meaning the government will actually pay them.
Click to expand...

https://money.cnn.com/2009/04/15/pf/taxes/who_pays_most_least/

If I were the rich people making the tax policy I would certainly make sure that I paid no higher a proportion of the tax than I made. I would make sure I only paid 19% of the total tax or less as I make 19% of the pre-tax income.
 
franklin said:
Every time I read these types of threads I wait for the 2 or 3 extra-angry-at-society folks to either add the tiniest bit of substance to their pure emotional appeal, or, to get into incentives and how they relate to advancement. It never happens.
Click to expand...

In my experience even most CPA's have difficulty with the tax code. The average person can't fill out a 1040A form, yet the average fool ends up ranting on how the tax code is skewed to the rich, how rich people deduct everything, etc, yet they have zero idea what they are talking about, it is simply populist nonsense. They don't know the difference between a deduction, a credit, a shelter, a business expense, a non business related expense, a phase out, a capital gain or interest income.
 
VINYLONE said:
What the first post leaves out is that the tax system in this country is written for the rich folk...I mean, why would it be any different than any other piece of legislation? Its not going to benefit the lower tiered people of this country?

The guy that is paying the 59 bucks on that beer can tax defer, use a tax shelter, write it off as a business expense, etc, etc.
Click to expand...


The same basic rules apply to everybody regardless of income. In fact the tax laws actually are skewed in favor of the low income individuals. That is why a large % of wage earners pay no income tax. I am no expert, but I would guess that there no specific "tax breaks" written in the IRS code available to only high income earners that kick in when they reach a level of income.
 
The Pearl said:
In my experience even most CPA's have difficulty with the tax code. The average person can't fill out a 1040A form, yet the average fool ends up ranting on how the tax code is skewed to the rich, how rich people deduct everything, etc, yet they have zero idea what they are talking about, it is simply populist nonsense. They don't know the difference between a deduction, a credit, a shelter, a business expense, a non business related expense, a phase out, a capital gain or interest income.
Click to expand...

Do you like either of the Fair Tax or Flat Tax?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top