so this...
you really didn't mean that then?
it was more of a ... of a what?
edit: ooops. shoulda kept reading
so this...
you really didn't mean that then?
it was more of a ... of a what?
edit: ooops. shoulda kept reading
Funny, I don't recall making such a claim. I think you're confusing my economic views with politics.
Please review your previous posts.
And as long as government has the power to tax and spend and regulate, economics and politics are not independent.
Ugh, I'd like to avoid derailing this but for the last time, socialism isn't about oppression of high taxation. Individual politicians may advocate such things but it's not ideological.
OK. But saying that it is not a necessary consequence of socialism even though it is an extremely common (universal?) feature tends to put form over function. We live in a real world no an ideological world (well, we have people trying to impliment ideologies but none survive in pure forms outside of labs, econ or poli-sci papers)
My point, high taxation and state socialism are damn near impossible to untangle from one another. (captilsim either for that matter...taxes and states... that's how they get their money. It sucks but such is the world we live in)
Since I am an Anarchist, and if I could implement an Anarchism of my own design, no taxes would be necessary. However, the path to that social order is far too complex for a forum such as this, so I will give the tax structure that I would emplace on the US. I would use Jefferson?s favorite, tariffs, and then, in addition, I would use a net worth tax. The population?s net worth would be totaled and the total would be taxed to the degree necessary to pay the national budget less tariffs. I am not at all fond of credit, either personal or national. In addition, one percent of the taxes would go to fund a rainy day fund.
However, the state would not do the totaling, the taxpayer would do that. If the government detected a real bargain, they would buy the taxpayer out for the value that he assigned to his net worth. The penalty for hiding assets would be the forfeiture of all assets.
Tariffs would be based on the national interest, not income. The goal would be to maximize the total prosperity of the nation across all class lines.
The more complex the structure, the more difficult to implement and the more prone it is to abuse by tax evaders (legal and illegal) and politicians.
A net worth tax is grossly unfair in that it taxes unrealized income. Property taxes on a principle home is the best example. The home value may appreciate significantly but until the homeowner sells the home, the increase is on paper only and the home owner does not benefit from it. His tax increases, but he does not have the increased income to pay the tax. Also, the value of his home is affected by many factors outside of his control - as a home is surrounded by new development, what was once a modest property becomes extremely valuable.
And a third factor, the homeowner must pay a wealth the tax repeatedly on the same property. In effect, your property is never truly your own because you must pay an annual fee to the govt in order to own property. It is similar to renting property from the govt, fail to pay the tax (the rental fee) and the govt takes the property.
This is the problem faced by many middle and lower income people in South Florida and California. These people bought modest houses decades ago, but over the years real estate development surrounded them and their property value increased trmemndously. They became millionaires on paper. Unfortunately, they could not afford the property tax and were forced to sell their homes.
This sounds like social engineering through the tax code. That's a sure road to curruption.
I couldn?t agree more. I realize that with video, reading has become a lost art. I didn?t say the end result would be complex, I said that the path to it would be complex. Demolition can be a bit demanding at times, especially when you want to keep the casualties down.
We can string words together, but what is unrealized income? If I have a metric ton of gold, is that unrealized income?
What a net worth tax does is tax what you have.
Income taxes tax what you make, hopefully when you are doing something productive.
A net worth tax taxes what you have. Is it unfair to tax someone busting his ass creating jobs and producing goods while letting another person sit on his ass with billions in hereditary wealth.
Remember, if you were a small businessman at one time, you probably had a negative net worth. The average American has negative net worth.
The average person who lives in a single dwelling residence doesn?t own it. The bank does. Equity determines whether he has a positive or negative net worth as well as other factors.
He has to pay property taxes even if he doesn?t own the property. I?m removing the property taxes. However, if the equity is such that he has a heavy tax burden, I should have such problems. Let him borrow on his property, and then, he will have a negative net worth. Then the person who owns the deed will have the net worth to pay taxes on.
Yeah, if you buy stock, you might get lucky and it might go up in value. Sad, isn?t it? The problems people have. If it becomes extremely valuable, and the person who owns it can?t afford it, then selling it will solve the problem nicely. Funny how people worry about the problems of the wealthy but not the poor.
Yeah, so people don?t have to pay real estate taxes now. So I?m changing things for the worse, how? Of course your property is never your own. Don?t you know what real estate means?
And when they sold their homes, they become millionaires for real. Life is hard. The problems of the rich. Let?s shed a tear for Paris Hilton.
In California they put in Proposition 13 to fix this problem. The state went from having a multibillion dollar surplus to where it is now, unable to pay it?s bills and laying off teachers and running the state on IOUs with part time employees. Yeah, clever, but fortunately it?s always somebody else?s fault, that way, you never have to learn from your mistakes.
Which we don?t have with the present system. Of course, we also have a downward spiraling economy with an exported industrial base. Yes, the way we are doing it now is so much better. Borrow and spend will solve all of our problems. What borrow and spend won?t fix, economic treason will. Now all we need to do to solve our energy problem is to install perpetual motion machines.
Obviously government can?t get it right, let?s turn it over to business. Of course, we must stand ready to bail out business when they fail, but not to worry, that never happens. Even if it does, we will blame the government for forcing them to take the bailouts. Often wondered why the bribed are so much moral than the bribers. It must be similar to the John and hooker thing. Yes, whores and their customers, that?s rather apt.
This is not academic "stringing words togethor".
I'll go back to the home owner because that is exactly what you propose with a "wealth tax".
A persons house is not always just an investment. There is more to life than money. To many people, there house is their home, the place they raised their children and lived their life. It may have been the home they grew up in and was passed to them by their parents. The property value may have increased to a point that the tax is more than they can afford, and they are forced to sell. They don't want to sell for any price, it's not a matter of money.
In South Florida, people were being forced to sell because of this exact situation. Can a low income person afford an annual tax of $5,000? What about $10,000? Bear in mind the median income today is $51,000. That is why Florida changed the tax law in the 1990's, to stop the forced relocation of poor people. California had a similar problem, as did Colorado.
Also, people start with a negative net worth, work hard, and earn a positive net worth. Very few people win the inheritance lottery. People earn what they have, they paid for it along the way, and they should not be punished for being successful.
Heck, I left New York because of the taxes. I'm on a limited income (not Social Security, because I refuse to accept welfare of any sort). Between state, county, city, town, school, fire district, and road district taxes I paid $3,800 in property taxes in 2008 on a 1880s Rust Belt home I sold for $32,500 in 2009. Pretty steep, I thought. My taxes on my shack and acreage here were $18 last year. Fixing a one-lane bridge down the road this summer will up my annual bill (not the mil rate) to a bit under $20 for 2010. On the other hand, in NY I had better access to medical services, but trade offs are a part of life. Much better to choose how to spend money I've worked for.
And jobs never pay cost of living unless you're management in some white collar place so even the well payed tend to come up short.
And I'm with you on the welfare thing. I'm over 12K under the poverty line but you don't see me asking for handouts. But then I people with EBT (food stamps) use the grocery money the Feds gave them for lobster and drive off in Mustangs and Hummers.
Jobs do pay the cost of living, at least mine always did, and I've been both management and grunt at various times in my life. I've owned a couple of successful small businesses over the years, and almost went bankrupt once because of medical expenses (my wife's and daughters, not my own at that time). Sometimes you just have to adjust your standard of living to meet your income ("Yeah, sure, Dad," my daughters reply while rolling their eyes. Oops, sorry, I was experiencing a real-life flashback -- Ha! That was yesterday morning). Sometimes a fellow eats rice and noodles. Other times, he eats moose steak or salmon or crab. Sometimes a fellow catches crabs, or just gets crabby. Such is life.
I'm not against welfare. I am against mandated welfare. For a lot of years in this country families and churches and local organizations managed to support the old and the infirm without being forced to do so by the federal government, and we were better off then.
Oh I know what you mean but I and most of the people I know are at or just above min wage. Far under the cost of living here in Florida. I'm actually at the whole noodle stage atm.
I agree, that was my point. People take gov't handouts then live large, I disagree with that. Since my job (barely) pays my rent and food, I see taking handouts, despite being in actual poverty, as dishonest. I'm not going to take someone's hard earned money (in the form of taxes) so the gov't can support me when I can at least wobble on my own. Now if it gets to be a choice between homelessness and starvation, I'll reconsider. If more people thought that way, a major reason for our debt would be solved. But we're getting off topic, another thread maybe?
Minimum wage is not intended to be a wage people can live on forever, to say nothing about raising a family on it.
Minimum wage jobs are about putting in your time and building a resume.
Too few people get that anymore. They feel it is beneath them.
Anyway... our family makes good coin but I eat plenty of cheapass noodles because they're fucking tasty. I eat lots of fish and game because I like to fish and hunt. That and it pisses off some of my animal loving friends who've never spent a day outside the city.
Oh I know what you mean but I and most of the people I know are at or just above min wage. Far under the cost of living here in Florida. I'm actually at the whole noodle stage atm.
I agree, that was my point. People take gov't handouts then live large, I disagree with that. Since my job (barely) pays my rent and food, I see taking handouts, despite being in actual poverty, as dishonest. I'm not going to take someone's hard earned money (in the form of taxes) so the gov't can support me when I can at least wobble on my own. Now if it gets to be a choice between homelessness and starvation, I'll reconsider. If more people thought that way, a major reason for our debt would be solved. But we're getting off topic, another thread maybe?
My opinion isn't worth the ink used to spell it out, especially because there's no ink involved these days, but if I was a youngster living in a relatively expensive environment and earning low wages, I'd move -- I'd hitchhike elsewhere if possible, and walk if I couldn't get a ride. Heck, a few of my recent ancestors left Poland and Germany because conditions were not friendly there. My grandfather and his parents left North Dakota for California in 1914 because they wanted a better life, and they created it. I left California for Alaska in 1983 because I knew I could make a better living there (don't even ask how I later ended up in New York -- we all make mistakes).
Anyway, yes, maybe another thread. I'm really good at derailing them.
Since nobody is interested in my option, folks are pretty much stuck with taxes. The standard solution seems to be to get the other guy to pay them.
Funny, home owners rate utopia, but apartment renters, well, screw them.
There is more to life than money, but we are talking taxes here. They are usually paid with money. Again, there is so much compassion for the affluent, so little for the poor.
First of all, this seems a bit like a strawman argument. Net worth tax, not a wealth tax, and my target isn?t the home owner. Since I?m removing all taxes except for tariffs and the net worth tax, the home owner could come out ahead under my system. Most likely, if he has a home, he?s making more than average income. In addition, if he owes more than the house is worth, not uncommon now a days, he?s off the hook. Finally, he?s not paying property taxes which all of your examples deal with. In other words, your arguments are based on taxes which are part of the existing system, not my system. And if the net worth tax is onerous, all he has to do is borrow some money and spend it. Most likely, the interest would be less than the taxes.
Under my system, the lender can?t charge the property taxes to the borrower, there aren?t any property taxes.
I am after capital, however, my motive is two fold, one, to raise income which is needed. Two, to keep capital moving. If you leave capital in one spot, it will get taxed under my system.
Sooner or later, somebody is going to have to pay taxes, yes. Unlike you, I prefer it to be those who can afford it. It seems only fair to me that those who benefit the most from the system, pay the most. I know, that?s downright un-american.
You argument as to wealth being the product of hard work can easily be refuted by picking the two richest men in America. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet came from affluence and built their enormous wealth doing what to them were essentially hobbies.
Also I find the idea that Florida did anything to benefit poor people humorous. I wonder if it was similar to Proposition 13 in California which was aimed at helping poor people.
Since nobody is interested in my option, folks are pretty much stuck with taxes. The standard solution seems to be to get the other guy to pay them.
Funny, home owners rate utopia, but apartment renters, well, screw them.
There is more to life than money, but we are talking taxes here. They are usually paid with money. Again, there is so much compassion for the affluent, so little for the poor.
First of all, this seems a bit like a strawman argument. Net worth tax, not a wealth tax, and my target isn?t the home owner. Since I?m removing all taxes except for tariffs and the net worth tax, the home owner could come out ahead under my system. Most likely, if he has a home, he?s making more than average income. In addition, if he owes more than the house is worth, not uncommon now a days, he?s off the hook. Finally, he?s not paying property taxes which all of your examples deal with. In other words, your arguments are based on taxes which are part of the existing system, not my system. And if the net worth tax is onerous, all he has to do is borrow some money and spend it. Most likely, the interest would be less than the taxes.
Under my system, the lender can?t charge the property taxes to the borrower, there aren?t any property taxes.
I am after capital, however, my motive is two fold, one, to raise income which is needed. Two, to keep capital moving. If you leave capital in one spot, it will get taxed under my system.
Sooner or later, somebody is going to have to pay taxes, yes. Unlike you, I prefer it to be those who can afford it. It seems only fair to me that those who benefit the most from the system, pay the most. I know, that?s downright un-american.
You argument as to wealth being the product of hard work can easily be refuted by picking the two richest men in America. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet came from affluence and built their enormous wealth doing what to them were essentially hobbies.
Also I find the idea that Florida did anything to benefit poor people humorous. I wonder if it was similar to Proposition 13 in California which was aimed at helping poor people.
I agree, in a sense. Only those who can afford to pay taxes should have to do so; and only they should be permitted to vote. "No representation without taxation" would make a nice motto. The founders of this nation thought much the same way as I do.
Would slavery and the expropriation of the lands of supposedly inferior peoples by killing them and/or removing them be part of that commonality of agreement?
Since voting for one label or another of the Democrat-Republican party seems to be an exercise in political impotence, taking away the right of the poor to participate in meaningless political activities should have no effect on our present political system.
When the limits of tolerance have been exceeded, then perhaps the poor will find another way to express their will, one somewhat in accordance with the practices of our founding fathers. However, for that to happen, it will probably be necessary for the percentage of the impoverished to increase in number. That process seems to be well under way.
Okay, it's well before last call for we Depends folks, so I'll take a few minutes to address your points one by one, Ignoramus.
Would slavery and the expropriation of the lands of supposedly inferior peoples by killing them and/or removing them be part of that commonality of agreement?
No, I wouldn't agree that killing or removing supposedly inferior peoples is proper moral behavior. A number of recent ancestors in my family, and a vast number of my people dating back for several millennia, have been so treated. On the other hand, not all Native Americans were the peace-loving souls today's primary-school history texts make them out to be, and the people who were here upon contact had displaced others before them in many (or most) cases. There is no practical way to right all wrongs of displacement, and even if we were able to do so, all it would mean is that the whole lot of us would be huddled in a starving mass in Africa.
Since voting for one label or another of the Democrat-Republican party seems to be an exercise in political impotence, taking away the right of the poor to participate in meaningless political activities should have no effect on our present political system.
Both parties have failed us in this by perpetuating poorness, and enabling people to live generation to generation without contributing shit to society. A poll tax, or perhaps the idea of no taxation, no representation that I mentioned earlier, would encourage a few folks to move on up. Do you have children, Ignoramus? If so, do you reward them for crappy grades in school, or pay them allowances for not doing their chores? That is exactly what the federal government does, but on a grand scale.
When the limits of tolerance have been exceeded, then perhaps the poor will find another way to express their will, one somewhat in accordance with the practices of our founding fathers. However, for that to happen, it will probably be necessary for the percentage of the impoverished to increase in number. That process seems to be well under way.
Our founding fathers were not beggars. Not all of them were wealthy, but most of them were landed men who had a stake in what they were fighting for. They had invested time, energy, sweat and years of work in many cases to earn what they owned, and by doing so they earned the right to protect what they owned. There is no logical way to compare their efforts to those of people who live in subsidized housing; who eat food they neither grew nor paid for with earned wages; who ride public transportation they didn't pay for and are not willing to maintain; who receive medical care they will never pay for and which they consider a right; and who receive tax refunds (in the form of EIC and other credits) of monies they neither earned nor paid.
An elitist attitude on my part? Maybe. But I can afford to be elitist because I'm not asking anything from anyone except the right to enjoy my life and the fruits of my labors without having to pay for those who neither labor nor produce anything. By extension, those who produce nothing and have worked for nothing should not have the right to, essentially, vote to tax those of us who do.
You seem to be arguing that it's acceptable for beggars to complain about the quality of alms received, and that they should be allowed to elect more charitable almsgivers. That entire concept has been the major failing of this nation for decades.
Cheers --
AK
Similar threads
