[davelj]

[quote=asianautica][quote=davelj]
Our system is one of democracy. Democracy is one of “majority rules.” Thus, the majority, via the legislative process, gets to define things such as “fair share” and “equal and fair treatment.” You do not. I do not. The majority does. That you don’t agree with the majority is, in a democracy, known as “tough shit.” I, personally, may agree with you. But that’s irrelevant. Democracy is no place for idealists such as yourself. Some of your comments are like those of a child who clings to a belief in Santa Clause. You’re going to be a very bitter person if you don’t just accept democracy’s injustices (by your definition) and move on.[/quote]
By this argument, all of us on this site who are oppose to the bailouts should just accept the democracy’s injustice of bailouts and move on since the majority want it. Just like how people now should accept the idea that gay marriage is not acceptable because the majority say so, or 40 years ago, the majority say interracial were illegal. We all should just hold our tongues and say “tough shit” huh?[/quote]

Look, it’s fine if someone wants to voice their opinion on some matter. No one has a problem with that (at least, I don’t). Hell, write your congressman. My problem is when someone assumes that their personal opinion is the “right” one and gets outraged when the majority disagrees. One can complain all one wants, but that won’t necessarily change public opinion. And you have to be prepared to accept that. Or be bitter for your whole life because the world doesn’t work the way you want it to. I say, complain all you want. Occasionally it gets you somewhere, but for the most part it doesn’t. My advice: Take a shit in one hand and put all of your “hope” in the other hand – see which one fills up faster.

[davelj]

[quote=asianautica][quote=davelj]
Our system is one of democracy. Democracy is one of “majority rules.” Thus, the majority, via the legislative process, gets to define things such as “fair share” and “equal and fair treatment.” You do not. I do not. The majority does. That you don’t agree with the majority is, in a democracy, known as “tough shit.” I, personally, may agree with you. But that’s irrelevant. Democracy is no place for idealists such as yourself. Some of your comments are like those of a child who clings to a belief in Santa Clause. You’re going to be a very bitter person if you don’t just accept democracy’s injustices (by your definition) and move on.[/quote]
By this argument, all of us on this site who are oppose to the bailouts should just accept the democracy’s injustice of bailouts and move on since the majority want it. Just like how people now should accept the idea that gay marriage is not acceptable because the majority say so, or 40 years ago, the majority say interracial were illegal. We all should just hold our tongues and say “tough shit” huh?[/quote]

Look, it’s fine if someone wants to voice their opinion on some matter. No one has a problem with that (at least, I don’t). Hell, write your congressman. My problem is when someone assumes that their personal opinion is the “right” one and gets outraged when the majority disagrees. One can complain all one wants, but that won’t necessarily change public opinion. And you have to be prepared to accept that. Or be bitter for your whole life because the world doesn’t work the way you want it to. I say, complain all you want. Occasionally it gets you somewhere, but for the most part it doesn’t. My advice: Take a shit in one hand and put all of your “hope” in the other hand – see which one fills up faster.

[davelj]

[quote=asianautica][quote=davelj]
Our system is one of democracy. Democracy is one of “majority rules.” Thus, the majority, via the legislative process, gets to define things such as “fair share” and “equal and fair treatment.” You do not. I do not. The majority does. That you don’t agree with the majority is, in a democracy, known as “tough shit.” I, personally, may agree with you. But that’s irrelevant. Democracy is no place for idealists such as yourself. Some of your comments are like those of a child who clings to a belief in Santa Clause. You’re going to be a very bitter person if you don’t just accept democracy’s injustices (by your definition) and move on.[/quote]
By this argument, all of us on this site who are oppose to the bailouts should just accept the democracy’s injustice of bailouts and move on since the majority want it. Just like how people now should accept the idea that gay marriage is not acceptable because the majority say so, or 40 years ago, the majority say interracial were illegal. We all should just hold our tongues and say “tough shit” huh?[/quote]

Look, it’s fine if someone wants to voice their opinion on some matter. No one has a problem with that (at least, I don’t). Hell, write your congressman. My problem is when someone assumes that their personal opinion is the “right” one and gets outraged when the majority disagrees. One can complain all one wants, but that won’t necessarily change public opinion. And you have to be prepared to accept that. Or be bitter for your whole life because the world doesn’t work the way you want it to. I say, complain all you want. Occasionally it gets you somewhere, but for the most part it doesn’t. My advice: Take a shit in one hand and put all of your “hope” in the other hand – see which one fills up faster.

[davelj]

[quote=asianautica][quote=davelj]
Our system is one of democracy. Democracy is one of “majority rules.” Thus, the majority, via the legislative process, gets to define things such as “fair share” and “equal and fair treatment.” You do not. I do not. The majority does. That you don’t agree with the majority is, in a democracy, known as “tough shit.” I, personally, may agree with you. But that’s irrelevant. Democracy is no place for idealists such as yourself. Some of your comments are like those of a child who clings to a belief in Santa Clause. You’re going to be a very bitter person if you don’t just accept democracy’s injustices (by your definition) and move on.[/quote]
By this argument, all of us on this site who are oppose to the bailouts should just accept the democracy’s injustice of bailouts and move on since the majority want it. Just like how people now should accept the idea that gay marriage is not acceptable because the majority say so, or 40 years ago, the majority say interracial were illegal. We all should just hold our tongues and say “tough shit” huh?[/quote]

Look, it’s fine if someone wants to voice their opinion on some matter. No one has a problem with that (at least, I don’t). Hell, write your congressman. My problem is when someone assumes that their personal opinion is the “right” one and gets outraged when the majority disagrees. One can complain all one wants, but that won’t necessarily change public opinion. And you have to be prepared to accept that. Or be bitter for your whole life because the world doesn’t work the way you want it to. I say, complain all you want. Occasionally it gets you somewhere, but for the most part it doesn’t. My advice: Take a shit in one hand and put all of your “hope” in the other hand – see which one fills up faster.

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette][quote=davelj][quote=jficquette]Allan, I was referring to our system of Government as outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights standing for fair and equal treatment. I was not suggesting that the tax code was intended to be fair. I wasn’t clear about that.

John[/quote]

First of all, I’m not Allan. Second, democracy isn’t about “fair and equal treatment.” (How can a system of “majority rules” possibly lead to “fair and equal treatment”?) It’s about redistribution. Until you accept that fact, you’re going to be one unhappy fellow.
[/quote]

Our system of goverment was designed and built on due process and equal treatment. Our tax code doesn’t follow that theme.

My point is that making people pay more in tax then their share violates equal and fair treatment.

If its ok to tax people beyond their equal share what does that morph into 25 years from now?

John

[/quote]

Our system is one of democracy. Democracy is one of “majority rules.” Thus, the majority, via the legislative process, gets to define things such as “fair share” and “equal and fair treatment.” You do not. I do not. The majority does. That you don’t agree with the majority is, in a democracy, known as “tough shit.” I, personally, may agree with you. But that’s irrelevant. Democracy is no place for idealists such as yourself. Some of your comments are like those of a child who clings to a belief in Santa Clause. You’re going to be a very bitter person if you don’t just accept democracy’s injustices (by your definition) and move on.

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette][quote=davelj][quote=jficquette]Allan, I was referring to our system of Government as outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights standing for fair and equal treatment. I was not suggesting that the tax code was intended to be fair. I wasn’t clear about that.

John[/quote]

First of all, I’m not Allan. Second, democracy isn’t about “fair and equal treatment.” (How can a system of “majority rules” possibly lead to “fair and equal treatment”?) It’s about redistribution. Until you accept that fact, you’re going to be one unhappy fellow.
[/quote]

Our system of goverment was designed and built on due process and equal treatment. Our tax code doesn’t follow that theme.

My point is that making people pay more in tax then their share violates equal and fair treatment.

If its ok to tax people beyond their equal share what does that morph into 25 years from now?

John

[/quote]

Our system is one of democracy. Democracy is one of “majority rules.” Thus, the majority, via the legislative process, gets to define things such as “fair share” and “equal and fair treatment.” You do not. I do not. The majority does. That you don’t agree with the majority is, in a democracy, known as “tough shit.” I, personally, may agree with you. But that’s irrelevant. Democracy is no place for idealists such as yourself. Some of your comments are like those of a child who clings to a belief in Santa Clause. You’re going to be a very bitter person if you don’t just accept democracy’s injustices (by your definition) and move on.

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette][quote=davelj][quote=jficquette]Allan, I was referring to our system of Government as outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights standing for fair and equal treatment. I was not suggesting that the tax code was intended to be fair. I wasn’t clear about that.

John[/quote]

First of all, I’m not Allan. Second, democracy isn’t about “fair and equal treatment.” (How can a system of “majority rules” possibly lead to “fair and equal treatment”?) It’s about redistribution. Until you accept that fact, you’re going to be one unhappy fellow.
[/quote]

Our system of goverment was designed and built on due process and equal treatment. Our tax code doesn’t follow that theme.

My point is that making people pay more in tax then their share violates equal and fair treatment.

If its ok to tax people beyond their equal share what does that morph into 25 years from now?

John

[/quote]

Our system is one of democracy. Democracy is one of “majority rules.” Thus, the majority, via the legislative process, gets to define things such as “fair share” and “equal and fair treatment.” You do not. I do not. The majority does. That you don’t agree with the majority is, in a democracy, known as “tough shit.” I, personally, may agree with you. But that’s irrelevant. Democracy is no place for idealists such as yourself. Some of your comments are like those of a child who clings to a belief in Santa Clause. You’re going to be a very bitter person if you don’t just accept democracy’s injustices (by your definition) and move on.

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette][quote=davelj][quote=jficquette]Allan, I was referring to our system of Government as outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights standing for fair and equal treatment. I was not suggesting that the tax code was intended to be fair. I wasn’t clear about that.

John[/quote]

First of all, I’m not Allan. Second, democracy isn’t about “fair and equal treatment.” (How can a system of “majority rules” possibly lead to “fair and equal treatment”?) It’s about redistribution. Until you accept that fact, you’re going to be one unhappy fellow.
[/quote]

Our system of goverment was designed and built on due process and equal treatment. Our tax code doesn’t follow that theme.

My point is that making people pay more in tax then their share violates equal and fair treatment.

If its ok to tax people beyond their equal share what does that morph into 25 years from now?

John

[/quote]

Our system is one of democracy. Democracy is one of “majority rules.” Thus, the majority, via the legislative process, gets to define things such as “fair share” and “equal and fair treatment.” You do not. I do not. The majority does. That you don’t agree with the majority is, in a democracy, known as “tough shit.” I, personally, may agree with you. But that’s irrelevant. Democracy is no place for idealists such as yourself. Some of your comments are like those of a child who clings to a belief in Santa Clause. You’re going to be a very bitter person if you don’t just accept democracy’s injustices (by your definition) and move on.

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette][quote=davelj][quote=jficquette]Allan, I was referring to our system of Government as outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights standing for fair and equal treatment. I was not suggesting that the tax code was intended to be fair. I wasn’t clear about that.

John[/quote]

First of all, I’m not Allan. Second, democracy isn’t about “fair and equal treatment.” (How can a system of “majority rules” possibly lead to “fair and equal treatment”?) It’s about redistribution. Until you accept that fact, you’re going to be one unhappy fellow.
[/quote]

Our system of goverment was designed and built on due process and equal treatment. Our tax code doesn’t follow that theme.

My point is that making people pay more in tax then their share violates equal and fair treatment.

If its ok to tax people beyond their equal share what does that morph into 25 years from now?

John

[/quote]

Our system is one of democracy. Democracy is one of “majority rules.” Thus, the majority, via the legislative process, gets to define things such as “fair share” and “equal and fair treatment.” You do not. I do not. The majority does. That you don’t agree with the majority is, in a democracy, known as “tough shit.” I, personally, may agree with you. But that’s irrelevant. Democracy is no place for idealists such as yourself. Some of your comments are like those of a child who clings to a belief in Santa Clause. You’re going to be a very bitter person if you don’t just accept democracy’s injustices (by your definition) and move on.

[davelj]

[quote=bubba99]The numbers are misleading. They are for “adjusted gross income”, not total income. Most wealth accumulation is not included in “adjusted gross income” until a taxable event occurs – like the sale of a stock.

The Top 5 percent of the earners accumulate 90 percent of all the wealth increase each year. For example, Bill Gates who makes a gizillion dollars each year, only pays taxes on the Microsoft Shares he sells, not the ones he has been granted, nor on their appreciation. He also takes advantage of considerable deductions for his charitable foundation.

I am surprised at how little the supposedly smart posters on this forum actually know about taxes, income, and income distribution across american earning classes. The wage earners in California (marginal rates)pays about 23% fed tax, 9% state tax, and 8.5% social security tax plus another 8.5% ssn by the employeer (payroll tax). That is about 47% depending on how you calculate in the payroll tax.

I guarantee, that the top 1% earners pay nowhere close to that on their wealth appreciation each year. And none of this includes property tax, sales tax, et. al. [/quote]

A CA couple earning $80K paid the following percentages in income tax (assuming a $10,700 standard deduction) as a percentage of their $80K gross income in 2007:
20.3% Federal Taxes
5.8% State Taxes
7.2% SS & Medicare

That’s 33.3%, which is a big percentage.

A CA Couple earning $150,000 paid the following:
27.5% Federal Taxes
7.4% State Taxes
5.8% SS & Medicare

That’s 40.7%… an even bigger percentage.

Where the “wealth appreciation” argument goes – and company stock, specifically – don’t the corporations themselves (which are owned by the stockholders) already pay taxes at the corporate level?

And since wealth is down meaningfully between real estate and stocks over the last few years, would you also argue that the wealthy get a tax break under current circumstances (to be consistent)?

Just curious.

[davelj]

[quote=bubba99]The numbers are misleading. They are for “adjusted gross income”, not total income. Most wealth accumulation is not included in “adjusted gross income” until a taxable event occurs – like the sale of a stock.

The Top 5 percent of the earners accumulate 90 percent of all the wealth increase each year. For example, Bill Gates who makes a gizillion dollars each year, only pays taxes on the Microsoft Shares he sells, not the ones he has been granted, nor on their appreciation. He also takes advantage of considerable deductions for his charitable foundation.

I am surprised at how little the supposedly smart posters on this forum actually know about taxes, income, and income distribution across american earning classes. The wage earners in California (marginal rates)pays about 23% fed tax, 9% state tax, and 8.5% social security tax plus another 8.5% ssn by the employeer (payroll tax). That is about 47% depending on how you calculate in the payroll tax.

I guarantee, that the top 1% earners pay nowhere close to that on their wealth appreciation each year. And none of this includes property tax, sales tax, et. al. [/quote]

A CA couple earning $80K paid the following percentages in income tax (assuming a $10,700 standard deduction) as a percentage of their $80K gross income in 2007:
20.3% Federal Taxes
5.8% State Taxes
7.2% SS & Medicare

That’s 33.3%, which is a big percentage.

A CA Couple earning $150,000 paid the following:
27.5% Federal Taxes
7.4% State Taxes
5.8% SS & Medicare

That’s 40.7%… an even bigger percentage.

Where the “wealth appreciation” argument goes – and company stock, specifically – don’t the corporations themselves (which are owned by the stockholders) already pay taxes at the corporate level?

And since wealth is down meaningfully between real estate and stocks over the last few years, would you also argue that the wealthy get a tax break under current circumstances (to be consistent)?

Just curious.

[davelj]

[quote=bubba99]The numbers are misleading. They are for “adjusted gross income”, not total income. Most wealth accumulation is not included in “adjusted gross income” until a taxable event occurs – like the sale of a stock.

The Top 5 percent of the earners accumulate 90 percent of all the wealth increase each year. For example, Bill Gates who makes a gizillion dollars each year, only pays taxes on the Microsoft Shares he sells, not the ones he has been granted, nor on their appreciation. He also takes advantage of considerable deductions for his charitable foundation.

I am surprised at how little the supposedly smart posters on this forum actually know about taxes, income, and income distribution across american earning classes. The wage earners in California (marginal rates)pays about 23% fed tax, 9% state tax, and 8.5% social security tax plus another 8.5% ssn by the employeer (payroll tax). That is about 47% depending on how you calculate in the payroll tax.

I guarantee, that the top 1% earners pay nowhere close to that on their wealth appreciation each year. And none of this includes property tax, sales tax, et. al. [/quote]

A CA couple earning $80K paid the following percentages in income tax (assuming a $10,700 standard deduction) as a percentage of their $80K gross income in 2007:
20.3% Federal Taxes
5.8% State Taxes
7.2% SS & Medicare

That’s 33.3%, which is a big percentage.

A CA Couple earning $150,000 paid the following:
27.5% Federal Taxes
7.4% State Taxes
5.8% SS & Medicare

That’s 40.7%… an even bigger percentage.

Where the “wealth appreciation” argument goes – and company stock, specifically – don’t the corporations themselves (which are owned by the stockholders) already pay taxes at the corporate level?

And since wealth is down meaningfully between real estate and stocks over the last few years, would you also argue that the wealthy get a tax break under current circumstances (to be consistent)?

Just curious.

[davelj]

[quote=bubba99]The numbers are misleading. They are for “adjusted gross income”, not total income. Most wealth accumulation is not included in “adjusted gross income” until a taxable event occurs – like the sale of a stock.

The Top 5 percent of the earners accumulate 90 percent of all the wealth increase each year. For example, Bill Gates who makes a gizillion dollars each year, only pays taxes on the Microsoft Shares he sells, not the ones he has been granted, nor on their appreciation. He also takes advantage of considerable deductions for his charitable foundation.

I am surprised at how little the supposedly smart posters on this forum actually know about taxes, income, and income distribution across american earning classes. The wage earners in California (marginal rates)pays about 23% fed tax, 9% state tax, and 8.5% social security tax plus another 8.5% ssn by the employeer (payroll tax). That is about 47% depending on how you calculate in the payroll tax.

I guarantee, that the top 1% earners pay nowhere close to that on their wealth appreciation each year. And none of this includes property tax, sales tax, et. al. [/quote]

A CA couple earning $80K paid the following percentages in income tax (assuming a $10,700 standard deduction) as a percentage of their $80K gross income in 2007:
20.3% Federal Taxes
5.8% State Taxes
7.2% SS & Medicare

That’s 33.3%, which is a big percentage.

A CA Couple earning $150,000 paid the following:
27.5% Federal Taxes
7.4% State Taxes
5.8% SS & Medicare

That’s 40.7%… an even bigger percentage.

Where the “wealth appreciation” argument goes – and company stock, specifically – don’t the corporations themselves (which are owned by the stockholders) already pay taxes at the corporate level?

And since wealth is down meaningfully between real estate and stocks over the last few years, would you also argue that the wealthy get a tax break under current circumstances (to be consistent)?

Just curious.

[davelj]

[quote=bubba99]The numbers are misleading. They are for “adjusted gross income”, not total income. Most wealth accumulation is not included in “adjusted gross income” until a taxable event occurs – like the sale of a stock.

The Top 5 percent of the earners accumulate 90 percent of all the wealth increase each year. For example, Bill Gates who makes a gizillion dollars each year, only pays taxes on the Microsoft Shares he sells, not the ones he has been granted, nor on their appreciation. He also takes advantage of considerable deductions for his charitable foundation.

I am surprised at how little the supposedly smart posters on this forum actually know about taxes, income, and income distribution across american earning classes. The wage earners in California (marginal rates)pays about 23% fed tax, 9% state tax, and 8.5% social security tax plus another 8.5% ssn by the employeer (payroll tax). That is about 47% depending on how you calculate in the payroll tax.

I guarantee, that the top 1% earners pay nowhere close to that on their wealth appreciation each year. And none of this includes property tax, sales tax, et. al. [/quote]

A CA couple earning $80K paid the following percentages in income tax (assuming a $10,700 standard deduction) as a percentage of their $80K gross income in 2007:
20.3% Federal Taxes
5.8% State Taxes
7.2% SS & Medicare

That’s 33.3%, which is a big percentage.

A CA Couple earning $150,000 paid the following:
27.5% Federal Taxes
7.4% State Taxes
5.8% SS & Medicare

That’s 40.7%… an even bigger percentage.

Where the “wealth appreciation” argument goes – and company stock, specifically – don’t the corporations themselves (which are owned by the stockholders) already pay taxes at the corporate level?

And since wealth is down meaningfully between real estate and stocks over the last few years, would you also argue that the wealthy get a tax break under current circumstances (to be consistent)?

Just curious.

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette]Allan, I was referring to our system of Government as outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights standing for fair and equal treatment. I was not suggesting that the tax code was intended to be fair. I wasn’t clear about that.

John[/quote]

First of all, I’m not Allan. Second, democracy isn’t about “fair and equal treatment.” (How can a system of “majority rules” possibly lead to “fair and equal treatment”?) It’s about redistribution. Until you accept that fact, you’re going to be one unhappy fellow.

[Author]

Posts