A History of Taxes

[JS80]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: JS80
well sad part is super wealthy people barely pay any taxes to begin with. the only people raising taxes affect are middle class (who have no access to tax shelters) and the poor (who get screwed by slowing of the economy).

I don't blame them for sheltering their taxes. Reagans tax cuts increase tax revenues for the government...because it helped the economy and the rich were actually willing to pay a fair amount instead of trying to get out of it.

I don't blame them either. Just trying to drive the point that the only people that hurts by raising taxes are middle and lower class (and there is absolutely no net gain from it elsewhere).

 

[mugs]

The AMT was not intended to PUNISH the rich, it was targeted at some wealthy people who made a whole ton of money but used loopholes to pay no or next to no taxes.

 

[Sluggo]

Interesting tax theory I read in Malcolm Berko's column the other day.

Among the 1,200-plus folks who attended the Town Hall Lecture Series that morning, you are the umpteenth-plus person who has written to ask that I reiterate this unusual economic theme.

So listen closely. It might sound elitist or snobbish but that's not my intent; rather it's what I call thinking outside the box and it makes more economic sense than anything I've heard so far. It's a brilliant concept that derived from discussion groups a few years ago. Here's how it buries.

Business activity cannot be sustained unless the rich get richer. And the best way for this to happen is to give more money to the poor! This is where Uncle Sam becomes a modern day Robin Hood and it works like this.

Uncle Sam borrows money from the rich so it can be given to the poor so the poor can continue losing it to the rich. This is the reason why there will always be a budget deficit and an increasing national debt.

To illustrate, let's assume that there are two classes of people: The rich and the poor. Rich folks are those with above-median incomes and the poor folks are every one below. And the simple reason the rich must get richer is that they must make an after-tax profit if they wish to continue employing the poor to produce goods and services.

The rich cannot profit from traditional trading among themselves. For example, if there are 10 rich people in a closed room and they have a total of $10 million in cash, they can wheel and deal and trade among themselves to their heart's content. But at year's end they still only have $10 million dollars. The value of their real estate or stocks may rise or fall but that $10 million dollars won't increase unless another group loses money to them.

Think about it. Capitalism is like a game of poker. The strong players win from the weak or the rich win from the poor.

However, only the poor have a finite amount of money to lose, which means our poker game would come to a halt unless a designated patsy can be found. And that designated patsy is the U.S. government. I know this sounds farfetched, but listen up and watch the bouncing ball.

Economists who follow money transfers note that in 2004 (for example) the poor paid approximately $780 billion more to the rich for rent, food, cars, health care, tools, beer, etc. than they received for their labors at McDonald's, Wal-Mart, doing yard work, washing dishes or cleaning hotel rooms.

So in order to keep the poor from going completely broke, the government, through taxes, took $320 billion from the rich and returned it to the poor via welfare, myriad Social Security programs and other subsidies. Then to return the additional $460 billion to the poor so their purchasing power remains intact, the government borrows $460 billion from the rich by issuing new Treasury bonds.

So after taxes and transfer payments were complete in 2004, the rich made $460 billion, the government lost $460 billion (which was the deficit) and the poor broke even. In effect, the budget deficit equals what the rich keep after taxes.

So if the budget is balanced the rich can't make any more money. And if the rich can't make more money their incentive to produce will falter, unemployment will skyrocket and the economy will collapse.

I wish I could claim this was my idea because I think this premise may be worth a Nobel Prize in economics.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp
Flat taxes are a nice theory from conservative institutes, just like invading Iraq was a nice theory from a conservative institute. You have to be pretty out of touch with reality to not realize that they aren't workable in the real world, but conveniently a lot of conservatives fit the bill.

you do realize the super wealthy pay a less percentage of their income in the current system than middle class citizens right?

Yes, I do. And I am all for correcting that. We need more progressive taxes.

we have a super progressive tax right now. what the super wealthy ends up doing is moving their money to tax shelters. no matter how much you escalate the progression, you're doing no one any good, poor or "rich."

No we don't have a super progressive tax now. If you include SS taxes, a lot of middle class people pay higher percent of their income in taxes than the wealthy.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp
Flat taxes are a nice theory from conservative institutes, just like invading Iraq was a nice theory from a conservative institute. You have to be pretty out of touch with reality to not realize that they aren't workable in the real world, but conveniently a lot of conservatives fit the bill.

you do realize the super wealthy pay a less percentage of their income in the current system than middle class citizens right?

Yes, I do. And I am all for correcting that. We need more progressive taxes.

So why should someone who is more productive in society and provides jobs to the masses pay a more and more bigger percentage of their income in taxes?

Because we live in a democratic country, and we can vote to make it that way.

<sigh> mob rule, eh?

I seriously hope you don't believe what you are posting.

We're a Representative Republic btw. Not a democracy.

Progressive Income Taxes is one of the founding tenets of Communism.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp
Flat taxes are a nice theory from conservative institutes, just like invading Iraq was a nice theory from a conservative institute. You have to be pretty out of touch with reality to not realize that they aren't workable in the real world, but conveniently a lot of conservatives fit the bill.

you do realize the super wealthy pay a less percentage of their income in the current system than middle class citizens right?

Yes, I do. And I am all for correcting that. We need more progressive taxes.

So why should someone who is more productive in society and provides jobs to the masses pay a more and more bigger percentage of their income in taxes?

Because we live in a democratic country, and we can vote to make it that way.

So in a democratic country it's ok for 51% of the people to vote to steal from the 49% of the people? :roll: it's called a republic.

"Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness" from the Declaration of Independence was meant to say "hey England don't fvcking tax me." With that principle the US was born.

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: JS80
well sad part is super wealthy people barely pay any taxes to begin with. the only people raising taxes affect are middle class (who have no access to tax shelters) and the poor (who get screwed by slowing of the economy).

I don't blame them for sheltering their taxes. Reagans tax cuts increase tax revenues for the government...because it helped the economy and the rich were actually willing to pay a fair amount instead of trying to get out of it.

I don't blame them either. Just trying to drive the point that the only people that hurts by raising taxes are middle and lower class (and there is absolutely no net gain from it elsewhere).

Seriously. Though the Laffer Curve works best in a vacuum, the principle still holds. When we're talking about the effective tax rate on the rich being well over 60%, we're operating at a very inefficient portion of the curve. Hiding or sheltering money becomes much more worthwhile to them.

Too often, this principle is forgotten.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Sluggo
Interesting tax theory I read in Malcolm Berko's column the other day.

Among the 1,200-plus folks who attended the Town Hall Lecture Series that morning, you are the umpteenth-plus person who has written to ask that I reiterate this unusual economic theme.

So listen closely. It might sound elitist or snobbish but that's not my intent; rather it's what I call thinking outside the box and it makes more economic sense than anything I've heard so far. It's a brilliant concept that derived from discussion groups a few years ago. Here's how it buries.

Business activity cannot be sustained unless the rich get richer. And the best way for this to happen is to give more money to the poor! This is where Uncle Sam becomes a modern day Robin Hood and it works like this.

Uncle Sam borrows money from the rich so it can be given to the poor so the poor can continue losing it to the rich. This is the reason why there will always be a budget deficit and an increasing national debt.

To illustrate, let's assume that there are two classes of people: The rich and the poor. Rich folks are those with above-median incomes and the poor folks are every one below. And the simple reason the rich must get richer is that they must make an after-tax profit if they wish to continue employing the poor to produce goods and services.

The rich cannot profit from traditional trading among themselves. For example, if there are 10 rich people in a closed room and they have a total of $10 million in cash, they can wheel and deal and trade among themselves to their heart's content. But at year's end they still only have $10 million dollars. The value of their real estate or stocks may rise or fall but that $10 million dollars won't increase unless another group loses money to them.

Think about it. Capitalism is like a game of poker. The strong players win from the weak or the rich win from the poor.

However, only the poor have a finite amount of money to lose, which means our poker game would come to a halt unless a designated patsy can be found. And that designated patsy is the U.S. government. I know this sounds farfetched, but listen up and watch the bouncing ball.

Economists who follow money transfers note that in 2004 (for example) the poor paid approximately $780 billion more to the rich for rent, food, cars, health care, tools, beer, etc. than they received for their labors at McDonald's, Wal-Mart, doing yard work, washing dishes or cleaning hotel rooms.

So in order to keep the poor from going completely broke, the government, through taxes, took $320 billion from the rich and returned it to the poor via welfare, myriad Social Security programs and other subsidies. Then to return the additional $460 billion to the poor so their purchasing power remains intact, the government borrows $460 billion from the rich by issuing new Treasury bonds.

So after taxes and transfer payments were complete in 2004, the rich made $460 billion, the government lost $460 billion (which was the deficit) and the poor broke even. In effect, the budget deficit equals what the rich keep after taxes.

So if the budget is balanced the rich can't make any more money. And if the rich can't make more money their incentive to produce will falter, unemployment will skyrocket and the economy will collapse.

I wish I could claim this was my idea because I think this premise may be worth a Nobel Prize in economics.

faulty reasoning: the economy is not zero sum. wealth is indeed created.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp
Flat taxes are a nice theory from conservative institutes, just like invading Iraq was a nice theory from a conservative institute. You have to be pretty out of touch with reality to not realize that they aren't workable in the real world, but conveniently a lot of conservatives fit the bill.

you do realize the super wealthy pay a less percentage of their income in the current system than middle class citizens right?

Yes, I do. And I am all for correcting that. We need more progressive taxes.

So why should someone who is more productive in society and provides jobs to the masses pay a more and more bigger percentage of their income in taxes?

Because we live in a democratic country, and we can vote to make it that way.

<sigh> mob rule, eh?

I seriously hope you don't believe what you are posting.

We're a Representative Republic btw. Not a democracy.

Progressive Income Taxes is one of the founding tenets of Communism.

Not mob rule, but rule through our elected representatives as the Founders of our country intended. If they didn't want us to vote for our own benefit, they wouldn't have given us the vote. If they wanted flat tax, they would have written it into the Constitution, and not left it up to the Congress

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp
Flat taxes are a nice theory from conservative institutes, just like invading Iraq was a nice theory from a conservative institute. You have to be pretty out of touch with reality to not realize that they aren't workable in the real world, but conveniently a lot of conservatives fit the bill.

you do realize the super wealthy pay a less percentage of their income in the current system than middle class citizens right?

Yes, I do. And I am all for correcting that. We need more progressive taxes.

we have a super progressive tax right now. what the super wealthy ends up doing is moving their money to tax shelters. no matter how much you escalate the progression, you're doing no one any good, poor or "rich."

No we don't have a super progressive tax now. If you include SS taxes, a lot of middle class people pay higher percent of their income in taxes than the wealthy.

THat's precisely my point. The rich will always have options to move their money to tax shelters. The middle class to not have access to tax shelters so they get fvcked. How is raising taxes helping the middle class and fvcking over the rich?

 

[Dissipate]

I wish I could claim this was my idea because I think this premise may be worth a Nobel Prize in economics.

Lmao. Yeah, the economy is a zero sum game. That theory is a winner!

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp
Flat taxes are a nice theory from conservative institutes, just like invading Iraq was a nice theory from a conservative institute. You have to be pretty out of touch with reality to not realize that they aren't workable in the real world, but conveniently a lot of conservatives fit the bill.

you do realize the super wealthy pay a less percentage of their income in the current system than middle class citizens right?

Yes, I do. And I am all for correcting that. We need more progressive taxes.

So why should someone who is more productive in society and provides jobs to the masses pay a more and more bigger percentage of their income in taxes?

Because we live in a democratic country, and we can vote to make it that way.

<sigh> mob rule, eh?

I seriously hope you don't believe what you are posting.

We're a Representative Republic btw. Not a democracy.

Progressive Income Taxes is one of the founding tenets of Communism.

Not mob rule, but rule through our elected representatives as the Founders of our country intended. If they didn't want us to vote for our own benefit, they wouldn't have given us the vote. If they wanted flat tax, they would have written it into the Constitution, and not left it up to the Congress

The writers of the Consitution did not intend for 51% of the population to be allowed to steal from the remaining 49%. That's preposterous. Please move to Canada/Europe.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp
Flat taxes are a nice theory from conservative institutes, just like invading Iraq was a nice theory from a conservative institute. You have to be pretty out of touch with reality to not realize that they aren't workable in the real world, but conveniently a lot of conservatives fit the bill.

you do realize the super wealthy pay a less percentage of their income in the current system than middle class citizens right?

Yes, I do. And I am all for correcting that. We need more progressive taxes.

So why should someone who is more productive in society and provides jobs to the masses pay a more and more bigger percentage of their income in taxes?

Because we live in a democratic country, and we can vote to make it that way.

So in a democratic country it's ok for 51% of the people to vote to steal from the 49% of the people? :roll: it's called a republic.
"Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness" from the Declaration of Independence was meant to say "hey England don't fvcking tax me." With that principle the US was born.

Taxes are no more stealing than an execution is a murder.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: JS80


The writers of the Consitution did not intend for 51% of the population to be allowed to steal from the remaining 49%. That's preposterous. Please move to Canada/Europe.

Actually, it is not that simple. You basically have a bunch of splinter interest groups stealing from each other.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: JS80


The writers of the Consitution did not intend for 51% of the population to be allowed to steal from the remaining 49%. That's preposterous. Please move to Canada/Europe.

Actually, it is not that simple. You basically have a bunch of splinter interest groups stealing from each other.

rofl touche.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Taxes are no more stealing than an execution is a murder.

A better way to classify taxes would be to say that they are basically extortion.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp
Flat taxes are a nice theory from conservative institutes, just like invading Iraq was a nice theory from a conservative institute. You have to be pretty out of touch with reality to not realize that they aren't workable in the real world, but conveniently a lot of conservatives fit the bill.

you do realize the super wealthy pay a less percentage of their income in the current system than middle class citizens right?

Yes, I do. And I am all for correcting that. We need more progressive taxes.

So why should someone who is more productive in society and provides jobs to the masses pay a more and more bigger percentage of their income in taxes?

Because we live in a democratic country, and we can vote to make it that way.

<sigh> mob rule, eh?

I seriously hope you don't believe what you are posting.

We're a Representative Republic btw. Not a democracy.

Progressive Income Taxes is one of the founding tenets of Communism.

Not mob rule, but rule through our elected representatives as the Founders of our country intended. If they didn't want us to vote for our own benefit, they wouldn't have given us the vote. If they wanted flat tax, they would have written it into the Constitution, and not left it up to the Congress

The writers of the Consitution did not intend for 51% of the population to be allowed to steal from the remaining 49%. That's preposterous. Please move to Canada/Europe.

They did intend for the people to vote for members of Congress who would set tax rates. You may not like it, but that's in the Constitution. If you don't like it, you are going to have to move.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: senseamp

Taxes are no more stealing than an execution is a murder.

A better way to classify taxes would be to say that they are basically extortion.

By that measure, all laws are extortion and blackmail.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: JS80


The writers of the Consitution did not intend for 51% of the population to be allowed to steal from the remaining 49%. That's preposterous. Please move to Canada/Europe.

Actually, it is not that simple. You basically have a bunch of splinter interest groups stealing from each other.

rofl touche.

Well am I right or am I right?

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Sluggo
Interesting tax theory I read in Malcolm Berko's column the other day.

Among the 1,200-plus folks who attended the Town Hall Lecture Series that morning, you are the umpteenth-plus person who has written to ask that I reiterate this unusual economic theme.

So listen closely. It might sound elitist or snobbish but that's not my intent; rather it's what I call thinking outside the box and it makes more economic sense than anything I've heard so far. It's a brilliant concept that derived from discussion groups a few years ago. Here's how it buries.

Business activity cannot be sustained unless the rich get richer. And the best way for this to happen is to give more money to the poor! This is where Uncle Sam becomes a modern day Robin Hood and it works like this.

Uncle Sam borrows money from the rich so it can be given to the poor so the poor can continue losing it to the rich. This is the reason why there will always be a budget deficit and an increasing national debt.

To illustrate, let's assume that there are two classes of people: The rich and the poor. Rich folks are those with above-median incomes and the poor folks are every one below. And the simple reason the rich must get richer is that they must make an after-tax profit if they wish to continue employing the poor to produce goods and services.

The rich cannot profit from traditional trading among themselves. For example, if there are 10 rich people in a closed room and they have a total of $10 million in cash, they can wheel and deal and trade among themselves to their heart's content. But at year's end they still only have $10 million dollars. The value of their real estate or stocks may rise or fall but that $10 million dollars won't increase unless another group loses money to them.

Think about it. Capitalism is like a game of poker. The strong players win from the weak or the rich win from the poor.

However, only the poor have a finite amount of money to lose, which means our poker game would come to a halt unless a designated patsy can be found. And that designated patsy is the U.S. government. I know this sounds farfetched, but listen up and watch the bouncing ball.

Economists who follow money transfers note that in 2004 (for example) the poor paid approximately $780 billion more to the rich for rent, food, cars, health care, tools, beer, etc. than they received for their labors at McDonald's, Wal-Mart, doing yard work, washing dishes or cleaning hotel rooms.

So in order to keep the poor from going completely broke, the government, through taxes, took $320 billion from the rich and returned it to the poor via welfare, myriad Social Security programs and other subsidies. Then to return the additional $460 billion to the poor so their purchasing power remains intact, the government borrows $460 billion from the rich by issuing new Treasury bonds.

So after taxes and transfer payments were complete in 2004, the rich made $460 billion, the government lost $460 billion (which was the deficit) and the poor broke even. In effect, the budget deficit equals what the rich keep after taxes.

So if the budget is balanced the rich can't make any more money. And if the rich can't make more money their incentive to produce will falter, unemployment will skyrocket and the economy will collapse.

I wish I could claim this was my idea because I think this premise may be worth a Nobel Prize in economics.

faulty reasoning: the economy is not zero sum. wealth is indeed created.

Another problem: The US Government, surprisingly one of the most efficient in the world for its size, is just over 20% efficient. For reference, a good charity runs over 90% efficient, and the best ones do over 96%.

This means that for every $100 the government pulls from your wallet, roughly $22-23 actually gets to the projects or people its earmarked to.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: senseamp

Taxes are no more stealing than an execution is a murder.

A better way to classify taxes would be to say that they are basically extortion.

By that measure, all laws are extortion and blackmail.

No, not really. The enforcement of all laws are indeed funded through extortion, however.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp
Flat taxes are a nice theory from conservative institutes, just like invading Iraq was a nice theory from a conservative institute. You have to be pretty out of touch with reality to not realize that they aren't workable in the real world, but conveniently a lot of conservatives fit the bill.

you do realize the super wealthy pay a less percentage of their income in the current system than middle class citizens right?

Yes, I do. And I am all for correcting that. We need more progressive taxes.

So why should someone who is more productive in society and provides jobs to the masses pay a more and more bigger percentage of their income in taxes?

Because we live in a democratic country, and we can vote to make it that way.

<sigh> mob rule, eh?

I seriously hope you don't believe what you are posting.

We're a Representative Republic btw. Not a democracy.

Progressive Income Taxes is one of the founding tenets of Communism.

Not mob rule, but rule through our elected representatives as the Founders of our country intended. If they didn't want us to vote for our own benefit, they wouldn't have given us the vote. If they wanted flat tax, they would have written it into the Constitution, and not left it up to the Congress

The writers of the Consitution did not intend for 51% of the population to be allowed to steal from the remaining 49%. That's preposterous. Please move to Canada/Europe.

They did intend for the people to vote for members of Congress who would set tax rates. You may not like it, but that's in the Constitution. If you don't like it, you are going to have to move.

What are you talking about? Income tax was first implemented during the Civil War. Writers of the Constitution did not intend for me to 50% of income at the age of 24.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: senseamp

Taxes are no more stealing than an execution is a murder.

A better way to classify taxes would be to say that they are basically extortion.

By that measure, all laws are extortion and blackmail.

No, not really. The enforcement of all laws are indeed funded through extortion, however.

All laws are blackmail. You either obey them or the government is gonna hurt you.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: JS80


The writers of the Consitution did not intend for 51% of the population to be allowed to steal from the remaining 49%. That's preposterous. Please move to Canada/Europe.

Actually, it is not that simple. You basically have a bunch of splinter interest groups stealing from each other.

That is one of the reasons why the Fair Tax is so appealing to me. By treating everyone the same and allowing no exceptions (beyond the prebate) all the leverage that special interest groups and lobbyists have been using to convulte our tax code into its current mess is completely obliterated.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: senseamp
Flat taxes are a nice theory from conservative institutes, just like invading Iraq was a nice theory from a conservative institute. You have to be pretty out of touch with reality to not realize that they aren't workable in the real world, but conveniently a lot of conservatives fit the bill.

you do realize the super wealthy pay a less percentage of their income in the current system than middle class citizens right?

Yes, I do. And I am all for correcting that. We need more progressive taxes.

So why should someone who is more productive in society and provides jobs to the masses pay a more and more bigger percentage of their income in taxes?

Because we live in a democratic country, and we can vote to make it that way.

<sigh> mob rule, eh?

I seriously hope you don't believe what you are posting.

We're a Representative Republic btw. Not a democracy.

Progressive Income Taxes is one of the founding tenets of Communism.

Not mob rule, but rule through our elected representatives as the Founders of our country intended. If they didn't want us to vote for our own benefit, they wouldn't have given us the vote. If they wanted flat tax, they would have written it into the Constitution, and not left it up to the Congress

The writers of the Consitution did not intend for 51% of the population to be allowed to steal from the remaining 49%. That's preposterous. Please move to Canada/Europe.

They did intend for the people to vote for members of Congress who would set tax rates. You may not like it, but that's in the Constitution. If you don't like it, you are going to have to move.

What are you talking about? Income tax was first implemented during the Civil War. Writers of the Constitution did not intend for me to 50% of income at the age of 24.

Maybe they did and maybe they didn't, but they left it up to the Congress either way.