Yes, we can. - Page 24

Alex · 02-15-2008, 07:14 PM

Interesting to note, also, that if we did go back in time and expand the definition so that all income taxes fell under the geographic apportionment, this would really screw the red states which tend to be poorer.

Just to use really rough figures, let's say the government wanted to collect $1 trillion in revenue from income taxes.

Based on population apportionment this would mean that Mississippi and Connecticut would each need to contribute approximately $10 billion (really, 0.95% and 1.15% but let's round off).

Mississippi has 1.12 million households with an average household income of $34,000 for a total of $38.08 billion in income available for taxing.

Connecticut has 1.37 million households with an average household income of $60,500 for a total of $82.89 billion in income available for taxing.

So, for each state to contribute its $10 billion to the federal revenues, Mississippi income would be taxed at 26% and Connecticut income at 12%.

Let's go back to that method and see how quickly the fine people of Missisippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Utah, etc. suddenly realize that it would be a good idea to pass the 16th Amendment again.

Yes, I did just post three times in a row. I suck at the internets.

JWBear · 02-15-2008, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

....the wealthiest are carrying a smaller tax burden by proportion than the tax brackets below them. They may account for a larger gross portion of the intake, however they are individually paying a smaller portion of their wealth than an individual in middle to lower class.

We should raise taxes on the wealthy so that that are paying the same percentage of their wealth as everyone else. Poor rich people... Boo-hoo.....

Alex · 02-15-2008, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

We should raise taxes on the wealthy so that that are paying the same percentage of their wealth as everyone else. Poor rich people... Boo-hoo.....

I'm in favor of that. My sister pays 0% of her wealth in income taxes every year. I'd settle for that.

€uroMeinke · 02-15-2008, 07:45 PM

I don't see why there needs to be taxes at all, the government can just print more dollars and we all win

Kevy Baby · 02-15-2008, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

I suck at the internets.

Well, I wish you would learn how to use them and stop breaking them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

We should raise taxes on the wealthy so that that are paying the same percentage of their wealth as everyone else. Poor rich people... Boo-hoo.....

The reason you don't tax "wealth" is that this is income that was ALREADY taxed when it was earned.

And that is only presuming that it is cash. "Wealth" could also include fixed assets such as real estate, of which property taxes are paid on. If someone realizes capital gains from real estate, they are taxed on that.

Taxing wealth is double taxation. And the wealthy would not be the only ones subject to it.

mousepod · 02-15-2008, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mousepod

They never showed up on the site yesterday. The site just went down for maintenance, so I'll bet they turn up any second...

You might still have a chance.

link

They're up now. One per customer. Less than $40 with tax and shipping.

Snowflake · 02-15-2008, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mousepod

They're up now. One per customer. Less than $40 with tax and shipping.

waiting for the page to load........

got as far as the cart, then bombed out

scaeagles · 02-15-2008, 09:50 PM

Amen, Kevy.

This is why I despise the inheritance tax. Already paid taxes on it once, why the hell should I pay to give it to my kids? My CEO stareted a company in his garage. He's now a multimillionaire. That's just great that he gets to give his hard earned money to the government when he dies instead of all of it to his kids.

All this goes away if we go to a comsumption tax and eliminate the income tax, but that's not going to happen. Too much power in the hands of congress writing tax law would be given back to the people.

Morrigoon · 02-16-2008, 03:26 AM

If he was smart he'd use his annual gifting allowance to pay into a permanent life insurance policy. They wouldn't be taxed on that. Hold the insurance under a trust and name the kids as the beneficiaries.

innerSpaceman · 02-16-2008, 07:49 AM

well, of course there are tons of ways for rich individuals and wealthy entities to avoid taxes.

But those hoops shouldn't have to be jumped thru. Of course, then, the economy of accountants, tax advisors and attorneys would suffer. So everything remains in place to grease the wheels of greasing the palms.

02-15-2008, 07:14 PM	#231
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Interesting to note, also, that if we did go back in time and expand the definition so that all income taxes fell under the geographic apportionment, this would really screw the red states which tend to be poorer. Just to use really rough figures, let's say the government wanted to collect $1 trillion in revenue from income taxes. Based on population apportionment this would mean that Mississippi and Connecticut would each need to contribute approximately $10 billion (really, 0.95% and 1.15% but let's round off). Mississippi has 1.12 million households with an average household income of $34,000 for a total of $38.08 billion in income available for taxing. Connecticut has 1.37 million households with an average household income of $60,500 for a total of $82.89 billion in income available for taxing. So, for each state to contribute its $10 billion to the federal revenues, Mississippi income would be taxed at 26% and Connecticut income at 12%. Let's go back to that method and see how quickly the fine people of Missisippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Utah, etc. suddenly realize that it would be a good idea to pass the 16th Amendment again. Yes, I did just post three times in a row. I suck at the internets.
	Submit to Quotes

02-15-2008, 07:45 PM	#234
€uroMeinke L'Hédoniste Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: A.S.C.O.T. Posts: 8,671	I don't see why there needs to be taxes at all, the government can just print more dollars and we all win __________________ I would believe only in a God that knows how to Dance. Friedrich Nietzsche
	Submit to Quotes

02-15-2008, 09:50 PM	#238
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Amen, Kevy. This is why I despise the inheritance tax. Already paid taxes on it once, why the hell should I pay to give it to my kids? My CEO stareted a company in his garage. He's now a multimillionaire. That's just great that he gets to give his hard earned money to the government when he dies instead of all of it to his kids. All this goes away if we go to a comsumption tax and eliminate the income tax, but that's not going to happen. Too much power in the hands of congress writing tax law would be given back to the people.
	Submit to Quotes

02-16-2008, 03:26 AM	#239
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	If he was smart he'd use his annual gifting allowance to pay into a permanent life insurance policy. They wouldn't be taxed on that. Hold the insurance under a trust and name the kids as the beneficiaries. __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes

02-16-2008, 07:49 AM	#240
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	well, of course there are tons of ways for rich individuals and wealthy entities to avoid taxes. But those hoops shouldn't have to be jumped thru. Of course, then, the economy of accountants, tax advisors and attorneys would suffer. So everything remains in place to grease the wheels of greasing the palms.
	Submit to Quotes