Taxing the Rich 37 replies

Please wait...

jeff & eddie

Spreading the Word.

50 XP

12th March 2006

0 Uploads

412 Posts

0 Threads

#31 13 years ago

In a perfect world, the rich would never be taxed. Why take money away from the most wealth, the group of people who invest it wisely and employ others?




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#32 13 years ago
In a perfect world, the rich would never be taxed. Why take money away from the most wealth, the group of people who invest it wisely and employ others?

Why take money away from the poorest portion of the populace, the people struggling to survive with what they have?




Kwould

OK, but wash it first

50 XP

24th November 2003

0 Uploads

1,537 Posts

0 Threads

#33 13 years ago

In the US, if you live near or below the poverty level, you pay no federal income tax (in fact you may receive a "refund" even if you haven't paid any taxes). You pay virtually no state income taxes (of course this varies based on state laws). You pay very little local income taxes. Property taxes are base on value (and are deductible), which is fair for all. Sales tax is a flate rate - also fair (in most, if not all states, unserved food is not taxable), the more you consume the more you pay. My point being, that it is not possible to cut taxes on the poor any more without creating a complex (and unfair) strategy for sales and property taxes or creating bureaucracies at the local level to limit income taxes on the poor (dramatically raising taxes for everyone else).




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#34 13 years ago
In the US, if you live near or below the poverty level, you pay no federal income tax (in fact you may receive a "refund" even if you haven't paid any taxes). You pay virtually no state income taxes (of course this varies based on state laws). You pay very little local income taxes.

Wow. lucky you. In new Zealand the poor have to pay 19.5% tax. Though they are eligible for welfare, and tax refunds. Though it is still far too much.




Kwould

OK, but wash it first

50 XP

24th November 2003

0 Uploads

1,537 Posts

0 Threads

#35 13 years ago

Of course, "poverty level" is subjective - based on family size. If you are single and make $30,000 a year, you are going to pay taxes like the next guy. If you have a family of six however.... I wish I could get away with not paying income taxes. Although I paid very little federal income taxes last year (I had a lot of deductions), between my wife and myself we paid damn near five figures in state income taxes.




homo sine domino

 

50 XP

1st September 2002

0 Uploads

2,739 Posts

0 Threads

#36 13 years ago
jeff & eddie;4039556In a perfect world, the rich would never be taxed. Why take money away from the most wealth, the group of people who invest it wisely and employ others?

I do wish that was an extremely sarcastic comment, but I believe it is not. :Puzzled:

Why should the people who have more than enough money pay none or the least taxes? Instead of the workers on whose back the economy is built?

Edit: Yeah, looking at your prior posts, you really are serious. Looking at this one thread specifically, you are so serious it absolutely sounds sarcastic.




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#37 13 years ago
group of people who invest it wisely and employ others?

Why would rich people employ others out of their own pockets? It comes out of whatever company they are running, not their own assets, which, rest assured, will go well spent on cars, mansions, caviar, boats, maybe a personal jet, overseas trips, etc, while the rest of us are working our asses off trying to provide for our immediate family.




jpd1975

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th November 2007

0 Uploads

13 Posts

0 Threads

#38 13 years ago

There is a key point that I did not mention above: It is imperative to establish an income point somewhat similar to the current cutoff whereby if you make below "X" $ of dollars you are excluded from the tax in some way - a special card (like they use now here in NJ they are called WIC cards I think) where you go to the store and swipe your card and your tax is deducted from your total amount.

In response to a question posed above re: my statement about the unconstitutionality of the Federal income tax - An amendment to the constitution requires that 3/4 of the States in the Union properly ratify it in order for it to become "law." Please see the following for an assertion that there were defects in ratification in a number of the 48 States in the Union during the years 1909 through 1913. These are mostly procedural in nature, differences in wording between the Bill in both houses and also issues with the wording, punctuation, etc. in many states. The Secretary of State Philander Knox was notified of the errors via memo, dismissed the concern and declared the 16th to be "in effect"...

Here's a brief summary of the issues;

  • Eight states (Rhode Island, Utah, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania) did not approve or ratify the amendment.
  • Texas and Louisiana were forbidden by their own state constitutions to empower the federal government to tax.
  • Vermont and Massachusetts rejected the amendment with a recorded vote count, and only later declared it passed without a recorded vote after the amendment was declared ratified by Knox.
  • Tennessee, Ohio, Mississippi, California and Washington violated their state constitutions in their ratification procedures.
  • Minnesota did not send any copy of its resolution to Knox, let alone a signed and sealed one, as required.
  • And Oklahoma, Georgia and Illinois made unacceptable changes in wording. (Some of the above states also made such changes, in addition to their other unacceptable procedures.)

16th Amendment Never Ratified Take 48 states, deduct these 21, and you have proper ratification by only 27 states -- far less than the required 36.

The 16th was meant to get around the wording of Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution "Limits on Congress" which basically stated that Congress had limited power to tax but any taxes levied must be in proportion to the population, because the Federal Income Tax as it stands is not proportional or equal.

Anyway - there's a lot of stuff out on the net, so google at will - and read everything with a grain of salt.

I'll just state that I don't think the current system is fair or legal - there are more and more cases being won in courts across the nation - there are some still being lost... The fight against the income tax goes on and on as it has been since the Civil War...