Tax discrimination

Yes, you seem to have had a lot of practice not understanding facts that prove your beliefs are false and evil.

For one thing, a uniform rate prevents wasteful maneuvers to exploit differing rates.

Privileges aren't the same for Bill and Joe by definition, that's just a stupid lie on your part, as you know very well. If they were the same for everyone, they'd be rights, not privileges, so stop lying.

No, that's just another idiotic lie from you. Taxing personal wealth in the form of privileges and assets whose value is based on privileges is indisputably more fair, because:

1. The value of privileges comes from government and society in the first place, not their owners.
2. Privileges confer an unfair advantage on their owners, so it is more fair to neutralize those advantages through taxation than not to neutralize them.
3. Recovering some or all of the publicly created value of privileges removes the incentive to engage in wasteful and destructive rent seeking behavior.

Sure it is. It's automatically affordable if we simply find a willingness to ask those who actually get the benefits of those entitlements -- the privileged -- to pay for them.

It's true that to be absolutely fair, the tax base should be the value of privileges owned. But what's really dishonest is trying to pretend that there is anything at all unfair about recovering publicly created value for public purposes and benefit by taxing it in the hands of those are are being given it.

Yes, but the privileged are enabled to get much, much more wealth, WITHOUT providing anything useful to their neighbors.

 

But that position is unfortunately contradicted by the facts of economics. A flat fee is unrelated either to ability to pay or beneficiary pay, the two most fundamental and widely accepted principles of fair and economically sound taxation policy. And "metered services" just makes those whom government has failed pay for it rather than requiring those who actually get the benefit to pay for it.

So your ACTUAL position is that government should steal from producers and give the money to rich, greedy, evil, privileged parasites in return for nothing.

By any chance would you happen to BE a rich, greedy, evil, privileged parasite....?

You know that is a lie. You are just lying. Privileges are not equal by definition. The privileged have privileges, the rest of us don't. Government gives wealth to the privileged by stealing it from the productive.

Stop telling such evil and disgraceful lies.

It would at least be fairer than the current system, which forces those who CAN'T afford it to pick up the slack for the rich and privileged who can.

 

It's neither necessary nor fair to tax income at all.

It is self-evidently and indisputably far fairer to tax what people get from society than what they contribute to society.

It would be far easier than measuring income. Corporate assets (including almost all debt instruments) are a matter of record, as are shareholdings. All property deeds are a matter of public record, which is why property taxes can be levied at such low cost. Vehicles, ships, aircraft, etc. all have registered owners. Ownership of all the significant wealth is already a matter of record.

Why would you want to impose a per capita cost, rather than requiring those who actually get the benefits to pay for them?

As if we both don't know very well why...

 

You can if you want to.

Nope. Most assets can't effectively be moved out of the country, and whoever owns them is going to end up paying the tax on them. You can't even dodge the tax by selling them, because the buyer will know he has to pay the tax on them and will consequently pay you that much less for them, ensuring that you merely end up paying all the future wealth tax on them in advance.

 

I have no idea why you continue to lie about the equality of privileges. You know it is not true. You think the corporate interests are spending billions of dollars to secure equal rights? Well, they are not, and you know it. They are spending billions upon billions of dollars to secure special rights, aka: privileges. Those who receive favoritism through government policy should be taxed at an excruciating rate, and those harmed should be paid compensation.

 

they should be much lower as it now takes 8.5 times the amount of dollars to buy the same item as it did in 1952.

similar income levels should be taxed much lower compared to 1952

 

I could agree with you in a vacuum of special pleading or in a truer socialist or communist economy where people in a profession may be paid the same, regardless. Or, if anyone could buy a yacht at a dollar store that may have been called Sachs yacht sales department in a more capital based economy.

Why do you believe that progressive forms of taxation is inherently "unfair" in any political economy where such economic discrimination is both legal and socially acceptable?

 

what do legality and social acceptance have to do with fairness ?

Burning witches was legal and socially acceptable.

 

It is a hell of a lot easier for a witch to be a richer witch if born with witch powers instead of having to learn all of it. And since anyone can learn rich witch powers, and since those who inherit rich witch cook books have an unfair advantage on those that do not. There is nothing unfair about taxing rich witch powers progressively, which everyone can fairly qualify for, to prevent a rich witch aristocracy with all the power and principle means of production of Eye of Newt.

 

that is why we stick it to the upper income workers ?
And you still haven't demonstrated the correlation between legality, social acceptance and fairness.

 

It depends on what you are referring to regarding "fairness". It would not be "fair" to deny and disparage the privileges and immunities of those civil persons without due process.

It is "fair" to discriminate based capital or money in our capital and money based markets. It is a fundamental feature of Capitalism, but not Socialism.

 

We stick it to upper income workers because everyone can qualify to be an upper income worker, so we are sticking it to our potential selves--or in fantasy land everyone can ONLY qualify to be an upper income worker if they inherited a 13 million dollar sign company when daddy blew his brains out--so there is no unfairness there. If you do not want to pay higher taxes, stay poor, give away the inheritance...

Fairness is the vote for more taxes when we can make more, which is legal under equal protections (nobody is forbidden to "learn rich witch powers" or make more income property that is taxed more than it would be if fairly FLAT taxed by Net Worth at a flat percentage of what property you want the government to protect from barbarian hordes wont to rape, pillage, and plunder it), and social acceptance is what you get when your State does not call on all its citizens to exercise the Second Amendment.

"The correlation between legality, social acceptance and fairness," is the fact that everyone qualifies equally to be potentially taxed.

But, some do not have the same inheritance, or advantage with regard to the principle means of production, so see page 2 quotes of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine.

If you have no potential to be rich, such as taxing the same dollar amount, or taxing the inheritor less than the percentage the inventor paid for the same income, then it would be tax discrimination.

Now, if no inequity is socially acceptable, no discrimination is, keep it up, I cover that on page 2, where you will find the quotes.

 

nothing like sticking a little hyperbole into the conversation.

You have no clue who the heavily taxed upper income worker is.

 

I assume most upper income workers live in a little hyperbole, because when they live in a big hyperbole, like the Biltmore House and Gardens, property taxes can be killer.

Of whom I was assuming works hard for it or did not have to work a day in their life to get the "work," which could be self sustaining by the existing employees; kind of like how a president can be a fracking buffoon come into possession of a major Auto Maker, and if everyone just does what they usually do nobody notices.

"No results found for 'heavily taxed upper income worker'." That was Google.

Under Bing and Yahoo the first to pop up were UAW workers.

So I guess I am not alone.

Considering Bing and Yahoo...it might be the guy who went from the bottom of the two-tier income discrimination to the top of the human tier overnight, and after all the hoopla seemed to only bring home the same amount. Sometimes the effects of two-tier slavery, where there is clearly no equal pay for equal work, can distort perceptions. Or maybe I just decided to dump more into the savings plan where previously I needed it to eat, because at the time a was living with two chicks in my bed. In my opinion slaves should not have to pay any taxes.

I guess some of them or those guys that stick their fingers in your guts while you call them God, and you really do not want them to be upset over their pay.

You, tell me?

Personally I would love to cut the corporate taxes way down. On the other hand if the corporate dudes make more than two million a year managing, the company into the gutter of Obama owning it, you are going to have a hard time making me care about their taxes being too high.

 

you really googled that ?, .......Really?

lets investigate shall we ? Who earns in the top bracket that might fit the bill of not possessing a large amount of wealth ?

HMMMM ?

Wait, ............

.......I got it. What about the guy who comes from nothing, works his ass off, sacrificing a significant amount of his life from age 18 to 32, accumulates a large amount of debt in the process, and now manages to land himself his first job, making several hundred K, and who has a lot of years of long hours, nights and weekends ahead of him in order to break even, buy his own home, pay for his own kid's college and put together his own retirement ?

Think perhaps he could be a heavily taxed upper income worker ?

 

Huh?? Few people have any hope of qualifying to be upper income workers. By contrast, everyone CAN qualify to be an upper income parasite: just use your welfare check to buy a Powerball ticket.

That makes zero (0) sense. You need to think about what "fair" means.

That also makes zero (0) sense. As a society, we do not want people to stay poor, because that means they are not producing the goods and services or investing in the productive capital goods society depends on.

If that meant anything (it doesn't), it would be wrong. Fairness has nothing to do with any "vote for more taxes." It has to do with taxes that are applied impartially to recover the value government spending creates to pay for the spending that creates it, rather than confiscating privately created value to pay for public spending, and then giving the resulting value away to privileged private interests in return for nothing.

That is not a fact. If "everyone qualifies equally to be potentially taxed" meant anything, it would be wrong.

They certainly make a lot more sense than what you have written. In fact, I'm not sure you understand them.

Cannot parse.

Cannot parse.

 

They are. The point is that high taxation of very high incomes does not harm the economy as expected, because very high incomes tend to consist almost entirely of economic rent, not the earnings of productive working people.

 

No, they can't, because property taxes mostly just reduce the acquisition cost of land. Only where land value is extremely low compared to improvement value, such as in Detroit, can property taxes be killer.

Cannot parse.

'Shrooms...?

Finally, something sensible.

 

Oh, that guy.

Yeah, there are lots of those guys who did not think that the debt was going to kill many dreams, and I guess it makes them think their taxes are too high when they are paying less than those before them who did it without so much slavery to debt.

I know of one contractor that last year scarfed up 15 acres and a house for $16,000; I guess that guy had accumulated a large amount of debt in the process too.

"Who earns in the top bracket that might fit the bill of not possessing a large amount of wealth?"

Probably the guy with the one year plan, going to work every day in a suit while living in a large orange tent at Elijah Clark State Park back when Jimmy Cotter Pin was Governor, moving it every two weeks down to another campsite to keep the park ranger happy, while his wife fished, to save enough money to buy a house outright. Now, I wonder what his tax rate was?

Oh, yeah, 70 year old Phil in New Zealand in the early 80's was doing two jobs and paying 60% on a $22,000 income; then again one of my girlfriends was on a six year waiting list for cancer, those waiting lists are expensive.

So, I guess these poor guys who accumulate a large amount of debt in the process are just being screwed more than the other generation.

No, it is not the guy making several hundred K++, and who has a lot of years of long hours, nights and weekends on vacation ahead of him, while at the same time more than breaking even off the sucker's debts, without breaking a sweat, because he has the sucker's wealth.

I need some Shrooms.

 

I was talking about those that are not damaged. I guess a defeatist attitude in a majority is as good as any for people who cannot parse this.

 

only a moron would consent to a screwing because those before him were screwed. Of course you never plan on working hard enough to make any more anyway.

obviously you are too jealous of his income to understand the realities of the situation.

it doesn't appear that you have handled the ones you have already taken very well.

 

he just can't figure out that the guys making a few hundred K are not those guys, but he want to right the wrong by taxing them more anyway.

 

I said:

"If you have no potential to be rich, such as taxing the same dollar amount, or taxing the inheritor less than the percentage the inventor paid for the same income, then it would be tax discrimination."

Roy L said, "Cannot parse."

There are ways to reword things, like by simply adding "()" instead of a comma:

"If you have no potential to be rich (such as taxing the same dollar amount) or taxing the inheritor less than the percentage the inventor paid for the same income, then it would be tax discrimination."

Two things that I guess must be parsed for the unwashed:

1) A Waffle House lady paying the same dollar amount in tax as a maker making a few hundred K, revenue neutral, the Waffle House lady will be so far in the Red she will be in Hell squeezing blood out of stone, and that would be tax discrimination.

2) An inheritor paying less tax than the inventor or maker on the same income, and in both cases it is incoming property, would be tax discrimination.

"The guys making a few hundred K," as the word "making" is operative so is the word "inventor" operative, and if the inheritor paid the same tax for their income as the inventor or maker, the maker's income from invention or work might be able to go down, assuming revenue neutral, but I guess that is too hard for some to figure or parse.

 

what are you trying to say ? the maker's income from invention or work might be able to go down ?

Are you saying that taxing two individuals of the same income at the same rate, despite a large wealth disparity is wrong ?