Didnt anyone watch Michelle Obama? Did anyone care?

[an]

[quote=CA renter]
AN,

That would be a regressive tax, causing the rich to get richer (they spend far less of their income on necessities) and the poor to become poorer (most of their income goes to consumption). Since the majority of workers are not “rich,” work would be punished while gambling would be rewarded (trading/investing for a profit — taking money OUT of the economy and into the wealthy person’s account).

Exactly how does that make for a better society where the greatest number of people can live in a healthy, safe, productive environment?

“Taxing the rich” is not class warfare. It is trying to maintain a balance of power between capital and labor.

The “rich” control money flow, and always direct the flow back to themselves, leaving less for the productive workers.

By taxing the workers and not taxing the rich, you concentrate money/power into fewer and fewer hands — those with money will accumulate at staggering rates without cap gains and higher rates for higher incomes, while the workers will have nothing.

Sounds like a third-world country to me.
[/quote]
Why would you consider this as regressive? Rich people will always spend more. So they will pay more taxes. How is that regressive? How many J6pack will you see buying unnecessary junk at the mall vs a millionaire? J6pack (and maybe your) definition of necessity is very out of whack. If you want to get ahead, you spend less and work more. It’s plain and simple. Many immigrants can do it, so why can’t the people who grew up here? It will reward the frugal and the hard worker and put the burden on the lavish spenders. I don’t see how you can say no income tax = taxing the workers.

When you increase income tax, you’re taxing the workers. Which would give them less incentive to work. Why should one work harder to make more when he/she would get taxed even more once he/she cross over to the next tax bracket? You’re getting a diminishing return on the work you do. Exactly how does that make for a better society?

We’re talking about income tax here, not cap gain. You’re making a big leap to connect your argument to a third-world country. Here in US, we reward capital much more than European countries like Sweden. Guess what? I rather live here than over there, where over 1/2 of my income would go to income tax and their sales tax is over 2X more than ours. But they do have a smaller gap between the rich and the poor. So I guess that’s a good thing in your eyes.

[afx114]

[quote=asianautica]But they do have a smaller gap between the rich and the poor. So I guess that’s a good thing in your eyes.[/quote]

They also have a higher standard of living and higher lifespan. Coincidence?

[afx114]

[quote=asianautica]But they do have a smaller gap between the rich and the poor. So I guess that’s a good thing in your eyes.[/quote]

They also have a higher standard of living and higher lifespan. Coincidence?

[afx114]

[quote=asianautica]But they do have a smaller gap between the rich and the poor. So I guess that’s a good thing in your eyes.[/quote]

They also have a higher standard of living and higher lifespan. Coincidence?

[afx114]

[quote=asianautica]But they do have a smaller gap between the rich and the poor. So I guess that’s a good thing in your eyes.[/quote]

They also have a higher standard of living and higher lifespan. Coincidence?

[afx114]

[quote=asianautica]But they do have a smaller gap between the rich and the poor. So I guess that’s a good thing in your eyes.[/quote]

They also have a higher standard of living and higher lifespan. Coincidence?

[Coronita]

[quote=asianautica][quote=CA renter]
AN,

That would be a regressive tax, causing the rich to get richer (they spend far less of their income on necessities) and the poor to become poorer (most of their income goes to consumption). Since the majority of workers are not “rich,” work would be punished while gambling would be rewarded (trading/investing for a profit — taking money OUT of the economy and into the wealthy person’s account).

Exactly how does that make for a better society where the greatest number of people can live in a healthy, safe, productive environment?

“Taxing the rich” is not class warfare. It is trying to maintain a balance of power between capital and labor.

The “rich” control money flow, and always direct the flow back to themselves, leaving less for the productive workers.

By taxing the workers and not taxing the rich, you concentrate money/power into fewer and fewer hands — those with money will accumulate at staggering rates without cap gains and higher rates for higher incomes, while the workers will have nothing.

Sounds like a third-world country to me.
[/quote]
Why would you consider this as regressive? Rich people will always spend more. So they will pay more taxes. How is that regressive? How many J6pack will you see buying unnecessary junk at the mall vs a millionaire? J6pack (and maybe your) definition of necessity is very out of whack. If you want to get ahead, you spend less and work more. It’s plain and simple. Many immigrants can do it, so why can’t the people who grew up here? It will reward the frugal and the hard worker and put the burden on the lavish spenders. I don’t see how you can say no income tax = taxing the workers.

When you increase income tax, you’re taxing the workers. Which would give them less incentive to work. Why should one work harder to make more when he/she would get taxed even more once he/she cross over to the next tax bracket? You’re getting a diminishing return on the work you do. Exactly how does that make for a better society?

We’re talking about income tax here, not cap gain. You’re making a big leap to connect your argument to a third-world country. Here in US, we reward capital much more than European countries like Sweden. Guess what? I rather live here than over there, where over 1/2 of my income would go to income tax and their sales tax is over 2X more than ours. But they do have a smaller gap between the rich and the poor. So I guess that’s a good thing in your eyes.[/quote]

AN,

Still considering the dark side? 🙂 It’s not too late…Cross on over young Skywalker.

Actually, I’m learning (per suggestion of some folks here) that owning a small biz owner is prime for having a field day for tax breaks, irrespective of which elected head it will be. Being on W2 stinks, no matter how much you make.

Now where was that rule about writing off up to $75k for a overly obese SUV/truck such as a Ford Expedition or Hummer…..(just kidding…sort of. I think the rule actually enables this gnormous gross tonnage truck, not that I would do this because I hate those things).

[Coronita]

[quote=asianautica][quote=CA renter]
AN,

That would be a regressive tax, causing the rich to get richer (they spend far less of their income on necessities) and the poor to become poorer (most of their income goes to consumption). Since the majority of workers are not “rich,” work would be punished while gambling would be rewarded (trading/investing for a profit — taking money OUT of the economy and into the wealthy person’s account).

Exactly how does that make for a better society where the greatest number of people can live in a healthy, safe, productive environment?

“Taxing the rich” is not class warfare. It is trying to maintain a balance of power between capital and labor.

The “rich” control money flow, and always direct the flow back to themselves, leaving less for the productive workers.

By taxing the workers and not taxing the rich, you concentrate money/power into fewer and fewer hands — those with money will accumulate at staggering rates without cap gains and higher rates for higher incomes, while the workers will have nothing.

Sounds like a third-world country to me.
[/quote]
Why would you consider this as regressive? Rich people will always spend more. So they will pay more taxes. How is that regressive? How many J6pack will you see buying unnecessary junk at the mall vs a millionaire? J6pack (and maybe your) definition of necessity is very out of whack. If you want to get ahead, you spend less and work more. It’s plain and simple. Many immigrants can do it, so why can’t the people who grew up here? It will reward the frugal and the hard worker and put the burden on the lavish spenders. I don’t see how you can say no income tax = taxing the workers.

When you increase income tax, you’re taxing the workers. Which would give them less incentive to work. Why should one work harder to make more when he/she would get taxed even more once he/she cross over to the next tax bracket? You’re getting a diminishing return on the work you do. Exactly how does that make for a better society?

We’re talking about income tax here, not cap gain. You’re making a big leap to connect your argument to a third-world country. Here in US, we reward capital much more than European countries like Sweden. Guess what? I rather live here than over there, where over 1/2 of my income would go to income tax and their sales tax is over 2X more than ours. But they do have a smaller gap between the rich and the poor. So I guess that’s a good thing in your eyes.[/quote]

AN,

Still considering the dark side? 🙂 It’s not too late…Cross on over young Skywalker.

Actually, I’m learning (per suggestion of some folks here) that owning a small biz owner is prime for having a field day for tax breaks, irrespective of which elected head it will be. Being on W2 stinks, no matter how much you make.

Now where was that rule about writing off up to $75k for a overly obese SUV/truck such as a Ford Expedition or Hummer…..(just kidding…sort of. I think the rule actually enables this gnormous gross tonnage truck, not that I would do this because I hate those things).

[Coronita]

[quote=asianautica][quote=CA renter]
AN,

That would be a regressive tax, causing the rich to get richer (they spend far less of their income on necessities) and the poor to become poorer (most of their income goes to consumption). Since the majority of workers are not “rich,” work would be punished while gambling would be rewarded (trading/investing for a profit — taking money OUT of the economy and into the wealthy person’s account).

Exactly how does that make for a better society where the greatest number of people can live in a healthy, safe, productive environment?

“Taxing the rich” is not class warfare. It is trying to maintain a balance of power between capital and labor.

The “rich” control money flow, and always direct the flow back to themselves, leaving less for the productive workers.

By taxing the workers and not taxing the rich, you concentrate money/power into fewer and fewer hands — those with money will accumulate at staggering rates without cap gains and higher rates for higher incomes, while the workers will have nothing.

Sounds like a third-world country to me.
[/quote]
Why would you consider this as regressive? Rich people will always spend more. So they will pay more taxes. How is that regressive? How many J6pack will you see buying unnecessary junk at the mall vs a millionaire? J6pack (and maybe your) definition of necessity is very out of whack. If you want to get ahead, you spend less and work more. It’s plain and simple. Many immigrants can do it, so why can’t the people who grew up here? It will reward the frugal and the hard worker and put the burden on the lavish spenders. I don’t see how you can say no income tax = taxing the workers.

When you increase income tax, you’re taxing the workers. Which would give them less incentive to work. Why should one work harder to make more when he/she would get taxed even more once he/she cross over to the next tax bracket? You’re getting a diminishing return on the work you do. Exactly how does that make for a better society?

We’re talking about income tax here, not cap gain. You’re making a big leap to connect your argument to a third-world country. Here in US, we reward capital much more than European countries like Sweden. Guess what? I rather live here than over there, where over 1/2 of my income would go to income tax and their sales tax is over 2X more than ours. But they do have a smaller gap between the rich and the poor. So I guess that’s a good thing in your eyes.[/quote]

AN,

Still considering the dark side? 🙂 It’s not too late…Cross on over young Skywalker.

Actually, I’m learning (per suggestion of some folks here) that owning a small biz owner is prime for having a field day for tax breaks, irrespective of which elected head it will be. Being on W2 stinks, no matter how much you make.

Now where was that rule about writing off up to $75k for a overly obese SUV/truck such as a Ford Expedition or Hummer…..(just kidding…sort of. I think the rule actually enables this gnormous gross tonnage truck, not that I would do this because I hate those things).

[Coronita]

[quote=asianautica][quote=CA renter]
AN,

That would be a regressive tax, causing the rich to get richer (they spend far less of their income on necessities) and the poor to become poorer (most of their income goes to consumption). Since the majority of workers are not “rich,” work would be punished while gambling would be rewarded (trading/investing for a profit — taking money OUT of the economy and into the wealthy person’s account).

Exactly how does that make for a better society where the greatest number of people can live in a healthy, safe, productive environment?

“Taxing the rich” is not class warfare. It is trying to maintain a balance of power between capital and labor.

The “rich” control money flow, and always direct the flow back to themselves, leaving less for the productive workers.

By taxing the workers and not taxing the rich, you concentrate money/power into fewer and fewer hands — those with money will accumulate at staggering rates without cap gains and higher rates for higher incomes, while the workers will have nothing.

Sounds like a third-world country to me.
[/quote]
Why would you consider this as regressive? Rich people will always spend more. So they will pay more taxes. How is that regressive? How many J6pack will you see buying unnecessary junk at the mall vs a millionaire? J6pack (and maybe your) definition of necessity is very out of whack. If you want to get ahead, you spend less and work more. It’s plain and simple. Many immigrants can do it, so why can’t the people who grew up here? It will reward the frugal and the hard worker and put the burden on the lavish spenders. I don’t see how you can say no income tax = taxing the workers.

When you increase income tax, you’re taxing the workers. Which would give them less incentive to work. Why should one work harder to make more when he/she would get taxed even more once he/she cross over to the next tax bracket? You’re getting a diminishing return on the work you do. Exactly how does that make for a better society?

We’re talking about income tax here, not cap gain. You’re making a big leap to connect your argument to a third-world country. Here in US, we reward capital much more than European countries like Sweden. Guess what? I rather live here than over there, where over 1/2 of my income would go to income tax and their sales tax is over 2X more than ours. But they do have a smaller gap between the rich and the poor. So I guess that’s a good thing in your eyes.[/quote]

AN,

Still considering the dark side? 🙂 It’s not too late…Cross on over young Skywalker.

Actually, I’m learning (per suggestion of some folks here) that owning a small biz owner is prime for having a field day for tax breaks, irrespective of which elected head it will be. Being on W2 stinks, no matter how much you make.

Now where was that rule about writing off up to $75k for a overly obese SUV/truck such as a Ford Expedition or Hummer…..(just kidding…sort of. I think the rule actually enables this gnormous gross tonnage truck, not that I would do this because I hate those things).

[Coronita]

[quote=asianautica][quote=CA renter]
AN,

That would be a regressive tax, causing the rich to get richer (they spend far less of their income on necessities) and the poor to become poorer (most of their income goes to consumption). Since the majority of workers are not “rich,” work would be punished while gambling would be rewarded (trading/investing for a profit — taking money OUT of the economy and into the wealthy person’s account).

Exactly how does that make for a better society where the greatest number of people can live in a healthy, safe, productive environment?

“Taxing the rich” is not class warfare. It is trying to maintain a balance of power between capital and labor.

The “rich” control money flow, and always direct the flow back to themselves, leaving less for the productive workers.

By taxing the workers and not taxing the rich, you concentrate money/power into fewer and fewer hands — those with money will accumulate at staggering rates without cap gains and higher rates for higher incomes, while the workers will have nothing.

Sounds like a third-world country to me.
[/quote]
Why would you consider this as regressive? Rich people will always spend more. So they will pay more taxes. How is that regressive? How many J6pack will you see buying unnecessary junk at the mall vs a millionaire? J6pack (and maybe your) definition of necessity is very out of whack. If you want to get ahead, you spend less and work more. It’s plain and simple. Many immigrants can do it, so why can’t the people who grew up here? It will reward the frugal and the hard worker and put the burden on the lavish spenders. I don’t see how you can say no income tax = taxing the workers.

When you increase income tax, you’re taxing the workers. Which would give them less incentive to work. Why should one work harder to make more when he/she would get taxed even more once he/she cross over to the next tax bracket? You’re getting a diminishing return on the work you do. Exactly how does that make for a better society?

We’re talking about income tax here, not cap gain. You’re making a big leap to connect your argument to a third-world country. Here in US, we reward capital much more than European countries like Sweden. Guess what? I rather live here than over there, where over 1/2 of my income would go to income tax and their sales tax is over 2X more than ours. But they do have a smaller gap between the rich and the poor. So I guess that’s a good thing in your eyes.[/quote]

AN,

Still considering the dark side? 🙂 It’s not too late…Cross on over young Skywalker.

Actually, I’m learning (per suggestion of some folks here) that owning a small biz owner is prime for having a field day for tax breaks, irrespective of which elected head it will be. Being on W2 stinks, no matter how much you make.

Now where was that rule about writing off up to $75k for a overly obese SUV/truck such as a Ford Expedition or Hummer…..(just kidding…sort of. I think the rule actually enables this gnormous gross tonnage truck, not that I would do this because I hate those things).

[PatentGuy]

Renterclint says:

“Today’s WSJ said by 2010, the outlays will exceed the tax revenue generated. What is your answer to this issue? The privatization angle doesn’t help the elderly who may currently live mostly on SS.”

Fair question. At a minimum, the age for going on retirement welfare (soc sec and medicare) needs to be raised to at least 70. People live a lot longer than they used to. We also have a culture in the U.S. that old folks live on their own through death. Back in the day, they lived with their kids, and extended families shared to make do.

The real change needs to be in people’s expectation that a comfortable old age should be paid for by the government by taxing the current workers and/or wealthy. IMO “social security” should be, at most, a safety net that is needs-based; not supplemental golf money.

Rather than save for retirement, people spend it all (plus take on ridiculous debt) to live it up while they are working; retirement planning to most people means “if/when I get old enough, the government will pay for everything I need/want.”

Baby boomers (of which I am one) are a self-centered bunch with no regard for their legacy to their children and grandchildren. Lip service is given to “global warming” or “sustainability” or whatever feel-good crapola of the month. But, ask a baby boomer to pass on uneeded govermnment hand-outs in order to make their country a better place for the future?? No freakin way. Their entitled to have it all. FU kids.

How’s that for my answer?

[PatentGuy]

Renterclint says:

“Today’s WSJ said by 2010, the outlays will exceed the tax revenue generated. What is your answer to this issue? The privatization angle doesn’t help the elderly who may currently live mostly on SS.”

Fair question. At a minimum, the age for going on retirement welfare (soc sec and medicare) needs to be raised to at least 70. People live a lot longer than they used to. We also have a culture in the U.S. that old folks live on their own through death. Back in the day, they lived with their kids, and extended families shared to make do.

The real change needs to be in people’s expectation that a comfortable old age should be paid for by the government by taxing the current workers and/or wealthy. IMO “social security” should be, at most, a safety net that is needs-based; not supplemental golf money.

Rather than save for retirement, people spend it all (plus take on ridiculous debt) to live it up while they are working; retirement planning to most people means “if/when I get old enough, the government will pay for everything I need/want.”

Baby boomers (of which I am one) are a self-centered bunch with no regard for their legacy to their children and grandchildren. Lip service is given to “global warming” or “sustainability” or whatever feel-good crapola of the month. But, ask a baby boomer to pass on uneeded govermnment hand-outs in order to make their country a better place for the future?? No freakin way. Their entitled to have it all. FU kids.

How’s that for my answer?

[PatentGuy]

Renterclint says:

“Today’s WSJ said by 2010, the outlays will exceed the tax revenue generated. What is your answer to this issue? The privatization angle doesn’t help the elderly who may currently live mostly on SS.”

Fair question. At a minimum, the age for going on retirement welfare (soc sec and medicare) needs to be raised to at least 70. People live a lot longer than they used to. We also have a culture in the U.S. that old folks live on their own through death. Back in the day, they lived with their kids, and extended families shared to make do.

The real change needs to be in people’s expectation that a comfortable old age should be paid for by the government by taxing the current workers and/or wealthy. IMO “social security” should be, at most, a safety net that is needs-based; not supplemental golf money.

Rather than save for retirement, people spend it all (plus take on ridiculous debt) to live it up while they are working; retirement planning to most people means “if/when I get old enough, the government will pay for everything I need/want.”

Baby boomers (of which I am one) are a self-centered bunch with no regard for their legacy to their children and grandchildren. Lip service is given to “global warming” or “sustainability” or whatever feel-good crapola of the month. But, ask a baby boomer to pass on uneeded govermnment hand-outs in order to make their country a better place for the future?? No freakin way. Their entitled to have it all. FU kids.

How’s that for my answer?

[PatentGuy]

Renterclint says:

“Today’s WSJ said by 2010, the outlays will exceed the tax revenue generated. What is your answer to this issue? The privatization angle doesn’t help the elderly who may currently live mostly on SS.”

Fair question. At a minimum, the age for going on retirement welfare (soc sec and medicare) needs to be raised to at least 70. People live a lot longer than they used to. We also have a culture in the U.S. that old folks live on their own through death. Back in the day, they lived with their kids, and extended families shared to make do.

The real change needs to be in people’s expectation that a comfortable old age should be paid for by the government by taxing the current workers and/or wealthy. IMO “social security” should be, at most, a safety net that is needs-based; not supplemental golf money.

Rather than save for retirement, people spend it all (plus take on ridiculous debt) to live it up while they are working; retirement planning to most people means “if/when I get old enough, the government will pay for everything I need/want.”

Baby boomers (of which I am one) are a self-centered bunch with no regard for their legacy to their children and grandchildren. Lip service is given to “global warming” or “sustainability” or whatever feel-good crapola of the month. But, ask a baby boomer to pass on uneeded govermnment hand-outs in order to make their country a better place for the future?? No freakin way. Their entitled to have it all. FU kids.

How’s that for my answer?

[Author]

Posts