Paying a "fair share"

It's pretty clear that there are many (too many) people who think that they are entitled to the property of their fellow man, simply because they feel they have too much. No doubt, these folks would have been the one's happily feeding Madame Guillotine the heads of those who have an extra loaf of bread.

 

Yes, resentment politics inevitably leads to the pitchfork, tar, feathers, pogroms, gas and killing fields. They know this. They don't care.

 

It's just sad how uncivilized it is. Using the gun and club against one's fellow man never leads to anything good.

 

which is why the income redistribution movement tends to be made up of the same people who want to ban honest people being armed

 

Yeah, the two goals are linked.

 

Assuming everything else is equal, that means you have less adjustments and itemized deducitons than they do.

Still, it is hard to say because I do not think your AGI is in the same ballpark as theirs. Second, a better analysis would be to compare similar incomes and deductiions of other taxpayers who are similar to Obama from across the nation and see where they lie in a comparison analysis.

 

YOu have pretty much demonstrated you have no clue about the history of tax policy much less the aspects of tax policy.

For starters, Adam Smith was the first to propse a income tax. You might want to read Book 5, Wealth Of Nations as your reference. However, Mr Smith's concept and definition of capital and labor led him that suh a concept would not benefit society. Second, the income tax was first proposed in 1812. It was designed as a revenue source to help pay for the war. This was not a left v right issue. President Lincoln actually proosed and used an income tax to help pay for the Civil War. This income tax, along with the estate tax, funded the war and allowed the Union to victory. After the war, it was overturned by the Supreme Court. The next stap came in 1877 and that was overturned by the Supreme Court. By 1913, the 16th amendment was drafted, pass in the House and Senate and eventually passed by the required number of state legislatures which an income tax The Form 1040 is basically the same in 1913 as it is today, except for the number of lines.

That being said, the only thing you are doing is trying to define a tax system that would benefit you and punish everyone else. That is not how tax policy works. And as a result, if you want a use tax, then you would need to pay a tax for the use of that money sitting in a bank account somewhere. Rate would be the same for all other uses.

Or you can let the experts handle this. The experts are the CPA and the tax attorneys who know what we are doing, not some person who cannot handle the wealth they already have.

 

A fair share would be a flat tax period. Tax all income including welfare payments. Let EVERYONE be taxed.

 

one: Adam smith has ZERO relevance to AMERICA 2015.

two: You might want to compare your understanding of economics with me. Like many income redistributionists you are unable to understand the difference between philosophical differences and history. I advocate a tax policy that restricts the growth of government which I see as the most pernicious problem facing America
the main push for the income tax was by prohibitionists who were questioned about doing away with the excise tax on booze.
If you are paying for others and they are not paying for themselves, it is the person who is overtaxed who is being punished

- - - Updated - - -

we need to stop having representation without taxation. People who don't contribute to the public treasury should not be in a position to vote themselves a a share of the pie when they didn't contribute to it

 

Buffet's secretary has a salary of about $75k. The remaining amount came in from NSQ, or non qualified stock option. I think she had some ISO's, but she did not exercise the option and hold onto the stock for the required vested period.

AS for dividends, the so called double tazation is based on two separate principles. If a corporate does distribute a dividend, it is after tax by the corporation, which means that it cannot deduect the expense. For those who receive the dividend, it is based on what the definition of income is. Even corporations who receive dividends have to report it on their corporate tax return. However, there is a special deduction, called the dividend received deduction, that allows the corporation to deduction from 70% to 100% of the dividend received based on the corporate ownershoip of that company.

The arguments you are making have no bearing on the reality of tax policy. Tax policy is not a left v right issue. It is a revenue issue only. Those that are in favor or not in favor of a tax policy base that design on a sub set of policy decision. Some are very foolish. Some are not.

 

the information I saw was 300K

the fact is dividends are taxed twice.

you again confuse political philosophy as to how the tax system should be changed versus how it works now. Tax policy is a political issue and is the biggest source of extra-constitutional power in Congressional history. congress uses the tax code to reward and punish people. Clinton and Obama has used the IRS to harass enemies. So telling me that tax policy is only about revenue demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding about tax politics in the USA.

 

Adam Smith is still relevant today. If you want to have any understanding of economics, you need to understand Adam Smith first. Then you can move on to Keynes and Friedman.

Oh good god. For starters, any system redistributes wealth. How effective or ineffective it is will not be based on the idocy that you put forward in your argument.

In addition, you are not citing a philosophical difference. You are citing a pure selfish motive for the sole benefit of you.

Finally, the government increases and decreases based on political will. Tax polcy is simpy a tool for that political will. It is not the root casue. You can have a government 90% less than what we have today and still have the same tax polcy and revenue generated. The problem is that over the long run, the idea of tax evasion will creep into the populace and that revenue stream will go down.

You are represented by either your congressman or your senator. The idea of :"taxation without representation" dies with the Revolutionary War.

 

I have a suspicicion you have no idea what NSQ is or how it works.

So is the sales tax a form of double taxation. The sales tax is a tax on you and income to the other party, which is also taxed.

You are not citing a political philosophy. You are citing your own personal belief on how things should benefit you and only you. That is the probem with the "new millionaires."

 

You seem to labor under the delusion that I don't understand things because I don't like the current system.

Liberals always pretend their envy and desire to take the money of others isn't selfish but for the Public good. I don't buy that BS anymore. and keeping what you make is hardly as selfish as demanding others fund your desires.

its funny that you worship adam smith and pretend that the philosophy of the revolutionary war is dead. that seems like convenient hypocrisy to me

your discussion of the political will is simplistic and not accurate

I note one of the things I find most amusing is that those who tend to fail real world economics 101 often are those who want to lecture those who achieved "summa cum laude" on personal economics about how economics work. Its like PhD economists at some ivory tower lecturing a guy who made millions starting his own company.

I guess it comes back to those who cannot do-teach

- - - Updated - - -

we don't' have a federal sales tax so you fail. the dividend taxation goes to the federal government both times

New millionaire? LOL

 

The implications of the two different statements are far different.

Imagine if you own a business, and you pay your 10 employees $100,000 each. Would you say that the company's income is $1,000,000? Their gross personal income would be $1,000,000, but it certainly isn't the company's income any more than it is the nation's income.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you have a way to measure subjective feelings?

- - - Updated - - -

Well, of course not. But we hear rhetoric like "1%", but what makes the 1% immoral and the 99% moral? Why not 1.1%, or 2.3%? Where and how is the line objectively drawn?

Of course not. How would the government spend more money than it takes in without it?

 

Just where is this "pie" located, and how is it created?

Persistent and intentional mis-characterization of another's position is intellectually dishonest and the sign of someone who cannot fairly defend their own positions.

What do investments produce?

 

Subjective feelings? Simple math.
Rent is around 800$ for a 1 bedroom .
The guy making 10k would have to pay about his entire salary just for rent, the guy making 100k about 10%

Now deduct 10%

The first guy cant even afford this average rent, the second guy still has plenty to pay for it.

 

But Romney is an advocate of low taxes. I think it was President Obama who said it was time to "spread the wealth around a little." Yet he has the nerve to pay only 18% in taxes??

 

Sticky-fingers Romney is an advocate for low tax on the rich. He doesn't give a stuff about the 99%.

 

you miss the point: Obama is a hypocrite for only paying 18%. Romney is not.

 

What delusion? It is all there in black and white in the posts you made.

this is just another poster who advocates for the Austiran School of economics, err idiocy.

For starters, nothing in what you posted is dealt in the real world. In the real world, they do not give a crap about your politics, only the green you carry and whether or not it will benefit them.

Second, political will is a must for change. The best chance to change the tax code was last seen in 2005. But even the JCT negated a federal sales tax even in a hybrid system.

Third, blaming lefts just shows how incapable you are in arging a philosoloy you know nothing about.

Fourth, it is quite easy that your only concen is you. That is fine. But that does not mean jealousy or envy. Why would I be jealous of someone who is not the best and brightest in the room but smply a low dim bulb in a sea of billions.

Finally, I never said a federal sales tax and you failed to understand the concept. Sure, dividends are the best kwon example of double taxation, but they are not the only example. The example I gave is another using the same philosophy of double taxation, which you seem nto have no clue about.

.

 

you seem to think taxation by two different entities-the federal government taxing income and the state government taxing sales is THE SAME as the federal government taking two cuts at the corporate profits that are owned by the shareholders and you howl about "errors"

I really tire of people that I doubt have all that much education in this area pretending they know more than those of us who manage corporations and pay hundreds of thousands in taxes. Of course you never said a federal sales tax-we don't have one

 

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1 Table 2.1

Income produce by US workers.

Prove it is a mischaracterization.

Returns.

 

I simply explained my statement.

Why would you think I'd say the company's income is $1,000,000?

- - - Updated - - -

Why should he or anyone pay more than they are legally required?

- - - Updated - - -

"Fair" if your idea of fair is to shift more of the tax burden on middle class and poorer folks so the billionaires can buy bigger megayachts. Which is about right, is it not?

 

Because he told Joe the Plumber that it was time to "spread the wealth around a little bit." He is a hypocrite for only paying 18% when I - someone who makes substantially less than him - pays more than double that rate.