Yes, we can. - Page 222

scaeagles · 10-14-2008, 09:56 AM

I don't believe I suggested they shouldn't pay the same percentage as everyone else. I am challanging ISM's assertion that "the tax structure of our nation has ALWAYS been a redistrubution of wealth, from the middle class to the rich. "

As far as what Mousepod pointed out, either the rich paid that percentage or they didn't. I suppose the NTU could be misreporting data from the IRS, but I doubt it.

As a side note, I voted for Forbes in the AZ primary in 2000. He was the biggest proponent for the flat tax that's ever taken the national spotlight.

JWBear · 10-14-2008, 10:18 AM

Taxes are not merely a fee for use of public facilities.

scaeagles · 10-14-2008, 10:35 AM

What are taxes for? To provide for the functions of government.

innerSpaceman · 10-14-2008, 10:51 AM

It is a redistribution. If that data is correct, it's what they paid after the loopholes and shelters that shielded them from the much vaster amount of tax they would have owed without access to those methods unwealthy people have no access to.

And if 1% of the population controls 80% of the wealth, why should that 1% not pay 80% of the taxes? What difference does it make if 80% of the taxes is paid by 1% of the people, if that's their share according to the share of wealth they control?

Ghoulish Delight · 10-14-2008, 10:58 AM

The standard answer to that is because it's income tax, not wealth tax. If you were to already own 25% of the country's wealth, retire, pull it all out of any sort of savings/investments, would you still be expected to pay taxes yearly on it?

Some say yes, some say no.

But regardless, no matter if you look at wealth or income (or, growth of wealth), the top percentile of individuals in this country pay a significantly smaller percentage of their own fortune than those below them do.

scaeagles · 10-14-2008, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

The standard answer to that is because it's income tax, not wealth tax. If you were to already own 25% of the country's wealth, retire, pull it all out of any sort of savings/investments, would you still be expected to pay taxes yearly on it?

Some say yes, some say no.

But regardless, no matter if you look at wealth or income (or, growth of wealth), the top percentile of individuals in this country pay a significantly smaller percentage of their own fortune than those below them do.

For the record, I say no, because that's double taxation. This is the main reason I oppose inheritance taxes as well....the taxes were already paid on the money (whether this includes legal loopholes or not to me is not the issue), so why should the government be allowed to have more just because the dead person left it all to their kid?

This is the main reason I oppose the income tax at all. I think the founders had it right with property taxes. Who possesses the most property? The wealthy. The wealthy can indeed take advantage of loopholes, but the fact is they are there often times passed into law by the very people that decry them as unfair.

I would have no problem with some form of wealth tax....after all, in reality, that's what a property tax is. I also don't oppose some form of national sales tax (both of those are assuming the income tax went away). I like a national sales tax because that is a tax on consumption rather than earning and is much, much more visible to the consumer.

wendybeth · 10-14-2008, 12:21 PM

Surprisingly, I agree with Scaeagles with regards to a national sales tax. It's consumer driven, and those who consume the most will pay the most. It seems more equitable, on paper anyway- it's just the implementation that concerns me. The rich have a way of worming out little loopholes and exceptions for themselves.

3894 · 10-14-2008, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

For the record, I say no, because that's double taxation. This is the main reason I oppose inheritance taxes as well....the taxes were already paid on the money (whether this includes legal loopholes or not to me is not the issue), so why should the government be allowed to have more just because the dead person left it all to their kid?

Now that we have that settled, would someone like to leave me a boatload of money?

scaeagles · 10-14-2008, 12:30 PM

The main argument against it is a legit one....being that since some 30% of people pay no income tax now, they are immediately hit by the national sales tax on all purchases.

I'm sure those smarter than me can come up with some thing, such as a graduated scale based on the purchase price, no tax on food, etc.

scaeagles · 10-14-2008, 01:03 PM

WB and 3894 agree with me in the same thread within a scant couple of posts of each other. I feel.....dirty.

10-14-2008, 09:56 AM	#1
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I don't believe I suggested they shouldn't pay the same percentage as everyone else. I am challanging ISM's assertion that "the tax structure of our nation has ALWAYS been a redistrubution of wealth, from the middle class to the rich. " As far as what Mousepod pointed out, either the rich paid that percentage or they didn't. I suppose the NTU could be misreporting data from the IRS, but I doubt it. As a side note, I voted for Forbes in the AZ primary in 2000. He was the biggest proponent for the flat tax that's ever taken the national spotlight.
	Submit to Quotes

10-14-2008, 10:18 AM	#2
JWBear Worn Romantic Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Long Beach California Posts: 8,435	Taxes are not merely a fee for use of public facilities. __________________ Unrestrained frivolity will lead to the downfall of modern society.
	Submit to Quotes

10-14-2008, 10:35 AM	#3
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	What are taxes for? To provide for the functions of government.
	Submit to Quotes

10-14-2008, 10:51 AM	#4
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	It is a redistribution. If that data is correct, it's what they paid after the loopholes and shelters that shielded them from the much vaster amount of tax they would have owed without access to those methods unwealthy people have no access to. And if 1% of the population controls 80% of the wealth, why should that 1% not pay 80% of the taxes? What difference does it make if 80% of the taxes is paid by 1% of the people, if that's their share according to the share of wealth they control?
	Submit to Quotes

10-14-2008, 10:58 AM	#5
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	The standard answer to that is because it's income tax, not wealth tax. If you were to already own 25% of the country's wealth, retire, pull it all out of any sort of savings/investments, would you still be expected to pay taxes yearly on it? Some say yes, some say no. But regardless, no matter if you look at wealth or income (or, growth of wealth), the top percentile of individuals in this country pay a significantly smaller percentage of their own fortune than those below them do. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

10-14-2008, 12:21 PM	#7
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	Surprisingly, I agree with Scaeagles with regards to a national sales tax. It's consumer driven, and those who consume the most will pay the most. It seems more equitable, on paper anyway- it's just the implementation that concerns me. The rich have a way of worming out little loopholes and exceptions for themselves. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

10-14-2008, 12:30 PM	#9
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	The main argument against it is a legit one....being that since some 30% of people pay no income tax now, they are immediately hit by the national sales tax on all purchases. I'm sure those smarter than me can come up with some thing, such as a graduated scale based on the purchase price, no tax on food, etc.
	Submit to Quotes

10-14-2008, 01:03 PM	#10
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	WB and 3894 agree with me in the same thread within a scant couple of posts of each other. I feel.....dirty.
	Submit to Quotes