Fair Tax

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Paying a higher tax rate for making more money = penalty

Not in the least. Taxes are NOT a "penalty". Much like a nice club, taxes are the dues one pays for membership. In general, the people who pay the greatest dues also receive the greatest benefits. Also like a club, membership is optional. Someone who feels the dues are too high can join a different club, i.e., move to another country with lower dues. Of course doing so means sacrificing some of the amenities and opportunities one takes for granted in the U.S., but life is a series of choices.

In a sense, taxes are an example of the free market at work. Set your taxes too high, and you lose customers, i.e., taxpayers, to your competitors. Cut your taxes too low -- cutting services and infrastructure to match -- and you lose customers who are willing to pay more for a better product. Unless the rich start fleeing the country to escape high dues, it seems obvious taxes are not too high at all.

(On a side note, I've always found it fascinating that the people who whine the most about "high" taxes on the rich are not themselves rich, but rich wanna-be's. They mostly seem to be people who think they could be rich too, if only "high" taxes weren't in the way. They're kidding themselves, of course, but they are useful tools for the greedy elite who have figured out how subsidize their bread and circuses from the pockets of the serfs.)

This guy cracks me up everytime. In Communist Russia they would have called him a "useful idiot" ...

Yawn. At least I'm useful.

If this country is a 'club' and the government collects its 'dues,' tell me something. Were the men who were drafted into the Vietnam War and who came back in body bags, paying their 'dues?'

:roll:

Red herring, much?

Your analogy is also deeply flawed in other places (such as how did the 'government' get the right to collect 'dues' without everyone's consent in the first place?) ...

The government got that right through a process called "democracy," by electing (and in almost all cases, endlessly re-electing) representatives who, on the public's behalf, levied taxes to pay for the extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure that enabled America's success (and enabled techno-anarchist loons to post their nonsensical missives for our amusement, usually while they sit in their government-subsidized parent's home or dorm room and attend publically-funded schools, etc. )


Edit: typo

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Safety Regulation, Roads, Traffic management, Drinking Water, Military, Border Patrol, Policing, Fire Protection.

And for the more compassionate: Adequate Healthcare, Schooling for those not born into fiscally sound families.

Throughout history all of those services have been provided by the free market extortion free.

For the more 'compassionate' we pile on more government bureaucracy? I have found the bureaucracies I have dealt with to be anything but compassionate, especially the government school system.

The border patrol is an interesting case. This is something that people perceive we 'need' because of the very existence of the government itself. If every piece of land were privately owned, there would be no need for a border patrol at all. Think about it. Every land owner, including those on the border could decide whether or not they wanted immigrants on their property (i.e. they would have the option of excluding them). In today's Hobbesian government patrolled street jungle, they can roam wherever they want.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Paying a higher tax rate for making more money = penalty

Not in the least. Taxes are NOT a "penalty". Much like a nice club, taxes are the dues one pays for membership. In general, the people who pay the greatest dues also receive the greatest benefits. Also like a club, membership is optional. Someone who feels the dues are too high can join a different club, i.e., move to another country with lower dues. Of course doing so means sacrificing some of the amenities and opportunities one takes for granted in the U.S., but life is a series of choices.

In a sense, taxes are an example of the free market at work. Set your taxes too high, and you lose customers, i.e., taxpayers, to your competitors. Cut your taxes too low -- cutting services and infrastructure to match -- and you lose customers who are willing to pay more for a better product. Unless the rich start fleeing the country to escape high dues, it seems obvious taxes are not too high at all.

(On a side note, I've always found it fascinating that the people who whine the most about "high" taxes on the rich are not themselves rich, but rich wanna-be's. They mostly seem to be people who think they could be rich too, if only "high" taxes weren't in the way. They're kidding themselves, of course, but they are useful tools for the greedy elite who have figured out how subsidize their bread and circuses from the pockets of the serfs.)

This guy cracks me up everytime. In Communist Russia they would have called him a "useful idiot" ...

Yawn. At least I'm useful.

If this country is a 'club' and the government collects its 'dues,' tell me something. Were the men who were drafted into the Vietnam War and who came back in body bags, paying their 'dues?'

:roll:

Red herring, much?

A red herring? I think not. Answer my question: Is being forced into foreign wars and being killed part of paying the 'club dues?'

Your analogy is also deeply flawed in other places (such as how did the 'government' get the right to collect 'dues' without everyone's consent in the first place?) ...

The goevernment got that right through a process called "democracy," by electing (and in almost all cases, endlessly re-electing) representatives who, on thei public's behalf, levied taxes to pay for the extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure that enabled America's success (and enabled techno-anarchist loons to post their nonsensical missives for our amusement, usually while they sit in their government-subsidized parent's home or dorm room and attend publically-funded schools, etc. )

So you are saying that the government has rights that 'regular folk' don't have? Interesting. Democracy is an ad hoc ritualistic system based on supernatural beliefs in absolute authority. It is nothing else. It doesn't give anyone any 'rights.' If putting pieces in a box with names checked off gives people 'rights' then slap me silly and call me the King of the Universe, because I think I'm going to go set up a big ole box right here in my 'government subsidized' home and fill it with paper.

BTW, the periods of greatest growth in this country were when the government was a fraction of the size it is now.

Oh yeah, if you still want that bumper sticker, I'll make it and give it to you for free. Maybe while you are driving down the road you will get pulled over by a big cop, and he will give you the ride of your life. Bend over slap happy, Uncle Sam has a hard-on.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Paying a higher tax rate for making more money = penalty

Not in the least. Taxes are NOT a "penalty". Much like a nice club, taxes are the dues one pays for membership. In general, the people who pay the greatest dues also receive the greatest benefits. Also like a club, membership is optional. Someone who feels the dues are too high can join a different club, i.e., move to another country with lower dues. Of course doing so means sacrificing some of the amenities and opportunities one takes for granted in the U.S., but life is a series of choices.

In a sense, taxes are an example of the free market at work. Set your taxes too high, and you lose customers, i.e., taxpayers, to your competitors. Cut your taxes too low -- cutting services and infrastructure to match -- and you lose customers who are willing to pay more for a better product. Unless the rich start fleeing the country to escape high dues, it seems obvious taxes are not too high at all.

(On a side note, I've always found it fascinating that the people who whine the most about "high" taxes on the rich are not themselves rich, but rich wanna-be's. They mostly seem to be people who think they could be rich too, if only "high" taxes weren't in the way. They're kidding themselves, of course, but they are useful tools for the greedy elite who have figured out how subsidize their bread and circuses from the pockets of the serfs.)

This guy cracks me up everytime. In Communist Russia they would have called him a "useful idiot" (i.e. someone who supports the 'cause' but really has no clue what is going on).

If this country is a 'club' and the government collects its 'dues,' tell me something. Were the men who were drafted into the Vietnam War and who came back in body bags, paying their 'dues?'

Your analogy is also deeply flawed in other places (such as how did the 'government' get the right to collect 'dues' without everyone's consent in the first place?), but I thought I would leave you with that little question.

Oh yeah. Also, I think we should get this guy a new bumper sticker that says: "Rape me again Uncle Sam, I really love it."

More on involuntary servitude

werd, anyone that can seriously argue higher taxes are good for the economy doesn't know economics...and comparing the country to a club is ridiculous, clubs are voluntary. Taxes are not, higher marginal rates punish those who produce the most, period, this thread is getting absurd, people can't seem to read, or grasp basic economics.

First, I didn't say "higher taxes are good for the economy". That is a straw man. Second, I suspect your apparent belief that taxes cannot be good for the economy is based solely on simplistic partisan dogma, untempered by a whit of actual economics knowledge. Third, I already explained how taxes are "voluntary", a point you ignored in your attack (i.e., the "you're wrong because I say you're wrong, but I'm not going to offer any thoughts or evidence to support my claim" approach). Fourth, ditto on your "higher marginal rates punish ..." propaganda point. Finally, if you expect us to believe you have any actual economics knowledge, you'll have to demonstrate it. So far, you offer nothing but parroted dogma.

 

[dmcowen674]

Quite a discussion going on in here. :thumbsup:

Too bad it will never happen.

The rich have worked to hard to skirt on paying their fair share and never will allow this.

 

[zendari]

What is the rich's "fair share" Dave?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: zendari
What is the rich's "fair share" Dave?

Actually paying.

You think it is OK that they get a free Hummer???

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Paying a higher tax rate for making more money = penalty

Not in the least. Taxes are NOT a "penalty". Much like a nice club, taxes are the dues one pays for membership. In general, the people who pay the greatest dues also receive the greatest benefits. Also like a club, membership is optional. Someone who feels the dues are too high can join a different club, i.e., move to another country with lower dues. Of course doing so means sacrificing some of the amenities and opportunities one takes for granted in the U.S., but life is a series of choices.

In a sense, taxes are an example of the free market at work. Set your taxes too high, and you lose customers, i.e., taxpayers, to your competitors. Cut your taxes too low -- cutting services and infrastructure to match -- and you lose customers who are willing to pay more for a better product. Unless the rich start fleeing the country to escape high dues, it seems obvious taxes are not too high at all.

(On a side note, I've always found it fascinating that the people who whine the most about "high" taxes on the rich are not themselves rich, but rich wanna-be's. They mostly seem to be people who think they could be rich too, if only "high" taxes weren't in the way. They're kidding themselves, of course, but they are useful tools for the greedy elite who have figured out how subsidize their bread and circuses from the pockets of the serfs.)

This guy cracks me up everytime. In Communist Russia they would have called him a "useful idiot" ...

Yawn. At least I'm useful.

If this country is a 'club' and the government collects its 'dues,' tell me something. Were the men who were drafted into the Vietnam War and who came back in body bags, paying their 'dues?'

:roll:

Red herring, much?

A red herring? I think not. Answer my question: Is being forced into foreign wars and being killed part of paying the 'club dues?'

Yes, a red herring. Kindly demonstrate what it has to do with the subject of discussion: taxes. (And I suggest you reread what I actually wrote, to reduce the chance of you veering off into further (il)logical fallacies.)

Your analogy is also deeply flawed in other places (such as how did the 'government' get the right to collect 'dues' without everyone's consent in the first place?) ...

The government got that right through a process called "democracy," by electing (and in almost all cases, endlessly re-electing) representatives who, on the public's behalf, levied taxes to pay for the extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure that enabled America's success (and enabled techno-anarchist loons to post their nonsensical missives for our amusement, usually while they sit in their government-subsidized parent's home or dorm room and attend publically-funded schools, etc. )

So you are saying that the government has rights that 'regular folk' don't have?

In a sense. We, the citizens as a whole, have granted the government the ability, indeed the responsibility, to take actions collectively that we cannot or should not individually. If you disagree with specific policies or priorities, it is incumbent upon you to convince enough of your fellow citizens to get it changed (or to pay enough bribes ... err, contributions ... to politicians to get it changed anyway. One can legitimately express disagreement with government actions. It is sheer anarchist nonsense, however, to claim the government has no "right" to collect taxes. Like it or not, your opinions do not reflect the consensus of the people.

Interesting. Democracy is an ad hoc ritualistic system based on supernatural beliefs in absolute authority. It is nothing else. It doesn't give anyone any 'rights.' If putting pieces in a box with names checked off gives people 'rights' then slap me silly and call me the King of the Universe, because I think I'm going to go set up a big ole box right here in my 'government subsidized' home and fill it with paper.

That would be one of those "nonsensical missives" I mentioned earlier. Thanks for an example.

BTW, the periods of greatest growth in this country were when the government was a fraction of the size it is now.

Great misdirection. Microsoft's greatest growth was when it was a fraction of its current size too. It's easy to show dramatic growth when you're small.

Oh yeah, if you still want that bumper sticker, I'll make it and give it to you for free. Maybe while you are driving down the road you will get pulled over by a big cop, and he will give you the ride of your life. Bend over slap happy, Uncle Sam has a hard-on.

That's one of the most asinine, most infantile, and least relevant things I've ever read here -- no mean feat. Grow up, junior. You're acting like an idiot ... and not a "useful" one.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
What is the rich's "fair share" Dave?

Actually paying.

You think it is OK that they get a free Hummer???

who is getting free hummers?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
What is the rich's "fair share" Dave?

Actually paying.

You think it is OK that they get a free Hummer???

who is getting free hummers?

You didn't take your massive SUV Tax break??? :shocked:

Oh, maybe you got a wannabe SUV.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
What is the rich's "fair share" Dave?

Actually paying.

You think it is OK that they get a free Hummer???

who is getting free hummers?

You didn't take your massive SUV Tax break??? :shocked:

Oh, maybe you got a wannabe SUV.

IF i Had business I might had used it the accelerated deprecation, but that still does not equate to a free hummer or suv.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
What is the rich's "fair share" Dave?

Actually paying.

You think it is OK that they get a free Hummer???

who is getting free hummers?

You didn't take your massive SUV Tax break??? :shocked:

Oh, maybe you got a wannabe SUV.

IF i Had business I might had used it the accelerated deprecation, but that still does not equate to a free hummer or suv.

Oh come on, a little honesty wouldn't hurt.

There was an article in here showing the massive amount of people that got their just about as close to free as you can get Hummers a while back.

I understand they made the break a little smaller this last Tax cycle but it is still there.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
What is the rich's "fair share" Dave?

Actually paying.

You think it is OK that they get a free Hummer???

who is getting free hummers?

You didn't take your massive SUV Tax break??? :shocked:

Oh, maybe you got a wannabe SUV.

IF i Had business I might had used it the accelerated deprecation, but that still does not equate to a free hummer or suv.

Oh come on, a little honesty wouldn't hurt.

There was an article in here showing the massive amount of people that got their just about as close to free as you can get Hummers a while back.

I understand they made the break a little smaller this last Tax cycle but it is still there.

Accelerated depreciaiton does not equal a free hummer.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
What is the rich's "fair share" Dave?

Actually paying.

You think it is OK that they get a free Hummer???

who is getting free hummers?

You didn't take your massive SUV Tax break??? :shocked:

Oh, maybe you got a wannabe SUV.

IF i Had business I might had used it the accelerated deprecation, but that still does not equate to a free hummer or suv.

Oh come on, a little honesty wouldn't hurt.

There was an article in here showing the massive amount of people that got their just about as close to free as you can get Hummers a while back.

I understand they made the break a little smaller this last Tax cycle but it is still there.

Accelerated depreciaiton does not equal a free hummer.

Bahhahahaa then why have it???

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Paying a higher tax rate for making more money = penalty

Not in the least. Taxes are NOT a "penalty". Much like a nice club, taxes are the dues one pays for membership. In general, the people who pay the greatest dues also receive the greatest benefits. Also like a club, membership is optional. Someone who feels the dues are too high can join a different club, i.e., move to another country with lower dues. Of course doing so means sacrificing some of the amenities and opportunities one takes for granted in the U.S., but life is a series of choices.

In a sense, taxes are an example of the free market at work. Set your taxes too high, and you lose customers, i.e., taxpayers, to your competitors. Cut your taxes too low -- cutting services and infrastructure to match -- and you lose customers who are willing to pay more for a better product. Unless the rich start fleeing the country to escape high dues, it seems obvious taxes are not too high at all.

(On a side note, I've always found it fascinating that the people who whine the most about "high" taxes on the rich are not themselves rich, but rich wanna-be's. They mostly seem to be people who think they could be rich too, if only "high" taxes weren't in the way. They're kidding themselves, of course, but they are useful tools for the greedy elite who have figured out how subsidize their bread and circuses from the pockets of the serfs.)

This guy cracks me up everytime. In Communist Russia they would have called him a "useful idiot" ...

Yawn. At least I'm useful.

If this country is a 'club' and the government collects its 'dues,' tell me something. Were the men who were drafted into the Vietnam War and who came back in body bags, paying their 'dues?'

:roll:

Red herring, much?

A red herring? I think not. Answer my question: Is being forced into foreign wars and being killed part of paying the 'club dues?'

Yes, a red herring. Kindly demonstrate what it has to do with the subject of discussion: taxes. (And I suggest you reread what I actually wrote, to reduce the chance of you veering off into further (il)logical fallacies.)

It has to do with your 'analogy,' which you used to justify taxes. Talk about logical fallacies. Your entire speel is really no different than Mike Huben's Non-Libertarian FAQ which has been thoroughly ripped to shreds by respected economist David Friedman here.. Huben has yet to reply to Friedman's rebuttal. Look at David's #10 rebuttal. Look familiar Mr. Logical?

Your analogy is also deeply flawed in other places (such as how did the 'government' get the right to collect 'dues' without everyone's consent in the first place?) ...

The government got that right through a process called "democracy," by electing (and in almost all cases, endlessly re-electing) representatives who, on the public's behalf, levied taxes to pay for the extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure that enabled America's success (and enabled techno-anarchist loons to post their nonsensical missives for our amusement, usually while they sit in their government-subsidized parent's home or dorm room and attend publically-funded schools, etc. )

So you are saying that the government has rights that 'regular folk' don't have?

In a sense. We, the citizens as a whole, have granted the government the ability, indeed the responsibility, to take actions collectively that we cannot or should not individually. If you disagree with specific policies or priorities, it is incumbent upon you to convince enough of your fellow citizens to get it changed (or to pay enough bribes ... err, contributions ... to politicians to get it changed anyway. One can legitimately express disagreement with government actions. It is sheer anarchist nonsense, however, to claim the government has no "right" to collect taxes. Like it or not, your opinions do not reflect the consensus of the people.

Interesting. Democracy is an ad hoc ritualistic system based on supernatural beliefs in absolute authority. It is nothing else. It doesn't give anyone any 'rights.' If putting pieces in a box with names checked off gives people 'rights' then slap me silly and call me the King of the Universe, because I think I'm going to go set up a big ole box right here in my 'government subsidized' home and fill it with paper.

That would be one of those "nonsensical missives" I mentioned earlier. Thanks for an example.

Hmm, I guess it would be nonsensical to someone who went through a government school system. I guess the arguments in in this book would be way over your head as well.

BTW, the periods of greatest growth in this country were when the government was a fraction of the size it is now.

Great misdirection. Microsoft's greatest growth was when it was a fraction of its current size too. It's easy to show dramatic growth when you're small.

This particular growth happened to surpass Europe in short order.

Oh yeah, if you still want that bumper sticker, I'll make it and give it to you for free. Maybe while you are driving down the road you will get pulled over by a big cop, and he will give you the ride of your life. Bend over slap happy, Uncle Sam has a hard-on.

That's one of the most asinine, most infantile, and least relevant things I've ever read here -- no mean feat. Grow up, junior. You're acting like an idiot ... and not a "useful" one.

Are you sure? I swear your 'taxes as club dues' analogy took the cake.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
What is the rich's "fair share" Dave?

Actually paying.

You think it is OK that they get a free Hummer???

who is getting free hummers?

You didn't take your massive SUV Tax break??? :shocked:

Oh, maybe you got a wannabe SUV.

IF i Had business I might had used it the accelerated deprecation, but that still does not equate to a free hummer or suv.

Oh come on, a little honesty wouldn't hurt.

There was an article in here showing the massive amount of people that got their just about as close to free as you can get Hummers a while back.

I understand they made the break a little smaller this last Tax cycle but it is still there.

Accelerated depreciaiton does not equal a free hummer.

Bahhahahaa then why have it???

On that we can agree. The tax code is filled with giveways, including this one, but that still does not mean hummer are free.

The tax code needs to be simplified. Let the tax code be about collecting taxes and economic/social engineering. No tax breaks for anyone and lower marginal rates for all.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
What is the rich's "fair share" Dave?

Actually paying.

You think it is OK that they get a free Hummer???

who is getting free hummers?

You didn't take your massive SUV Tax break??? :shocked:

Oh, maybe you got a wannabe SUV.

IF i Had business I might had used it the accelerated deprecation, but that still does not equate to a free hummer or suv.

Oh come on, a little honesty wouldn't hurt.

There was an article in here showing the massive amount of people that got their just about as close to free as you can get Hummers a while back.

I understand they made the break a little smaller this last Tax cycle but it is still there.

Accelerated depreciaiton does not equal a free hummer.

Bahhahahaa then why have it???

On that we can agree.

The tax code is filled with giveways, including this one, but that still does not mean hummer are free.

The tax code needs to be simplified. Let the tax code be about collecting taxes and economic/social engineering. No tax breaks for anyone and lower marginal rates for all.

OMG, didn't think that was possible.

So you are actually for the Fair Tax???

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
What is the rich's "fair share" Dave?

Actually paying.

You think it is OK that they get a free Hummer???

who is getting free hummers?

You didn't take your massive SUV Tax break??? :shocked:

Oh, maybe you got a wannabe SUV.

IF i Had business I might had used it the accelerated deprecation, but that still does not equate to a free hummer or suv.

Oh come on, a little honesty wouldn't hurt.

There was an article in here showing the massive amount of people that got their just about as close to free as you can get Hummers a while back.

I understand they made the break a little smaller this last Tax cycle but it is still there.

Accelerated depreciaiton does not equal a free hummer.

Bahhahahaa then why have it???

On that we can agree.

The tax code is filled with giveways, including this one, but that still does not mean hummer are free.

The tax code needs to be simplified. Let the tax code be about collecting taxes and economic/social engineering. No tax breaks for anyone and lower marginal rates for all.

OMG, didn't think that was possible.

So you are actually for the Fair Tax???

The fair or flat would be a good alternative to the crap we have for tax collection now. I am against an income on the grounds that it lets the goverment know too much about it citizens. Why should the goverment know where its citizens work and how much they make. I have never understood why people allow this great invasion of personal privacy.


I would much prefer the fair tax over the flat tax. You buy it, you pay taxes on it. You dont buy it, you dont pay taxe. Simple.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
What is the rich's "fair share" Dave?

Actually paying.

You think it is OK that they get a free Hummer???

who is getting free hummers?

You didn't take your massive SUV Tax break??? :shocked:

Oh, maybe you got a wannabe SUV.

IF i Had business I might had used it the accelerated deprecation, but that still does not equate to a free hummer or suv.

Oh come on, a little honesty wouldn't hurt.

There was an article in here showing the massive amount of people that got their just about as close to free as you can get Hummers a while back.

I understand they made the break a little smaller this last Tax cycle but it is still there.

Accelerated depreciaiton does not equal a free hummer.

Bahhahahaa then why have it???

On that we can agree.

The tax code is filled with giveways, including this one, but that still does not mean hummer are free.

The tax code needs to be simplified. Let the tax code be about collecting taxes and economic/social engineering. No tax breaks for anyone and lower marginal rates for all.

OMG, didn't think that was possible.

So you are actually for the Fair Tax???

The fair or flat would be a good alternative to the crap we have for tax collection now. I am against an income on the grounds that it lets the goverment know too much about it citizens. Why should the goverment know where its citizens work and how much they make. I have never understood why people allow this great invasion of personal privacy.

I would much prefer the fair tax over the flat tax. You buy it, you pay taxes on it. You dont buy it, you dont pay taxe. Simple.

Interesting, you are the exception rather than the norm in Republican circles.
Most prefer having that control factor.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
What is the rich's "fair share" Dave?

Actually paying.

You think it is OK that they get a free Hummer???

Link? Where do I get a free hummer?

Bush paid his share in taxes.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
What is the rich's "fair share" Dave?

Actually paying.

You think it is OK that they get a free Hummer???

who is getting free hummers?

You didn't take your massive SUV Tax break??? :shocked:

Oh, maybe you got a wannabe SUV.

IF i Had business I might had used it the accelerated deprecation, but that still does not equate to a free hummer or suv.

Oh come on, a little honesty wouldn't hurt.

There was an article in here showing the massive amount of people that got their just about as close to free as you can get Hummers a while back.

I understand they made the break a little smaller this last Tax cycle but it is still there.

Accelerated depreciaiton does not equal a free hummer.

Bahhahahaa then why have it???

On that we can agree.

The tax code is filled with giveways, including this one, but that still does not mean hummer are free.

The tax code needs to be simplified. Let the tax code be about collecting taxes and economic/social engineering. No tax breaks for anyone and lower marginal rates for all.

OMG, didn't think that was possible.

So you are actually for the Fair Tax???

The fair or flat would be a good alternative to the crap we have for tax collection now. I am against an income on the grounds that it lets the goverment know too much about it citizens. Why should the goverment know where its citizens work and how much they make. I have never understood why people allow this great invasion of personal privacy.

I would much prefer the fair tax over the flat tax. You buy it, you pay taxes on it. You dont buy it, you dont pay taxe. Simple.

Interesting, you are the exception rather than the norm in Republican circles.
Most prefer having that control factor.

And here is where you are wrong. Most republicans would be more than happy to scrap the tax code and replace it with something far more simple.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: charrison
The fair or flat would be a good alternative to the crap we have for tax collection now. I am against an income on the grounds that it lets the goverment know too much about it citizens. Why should the goverment know where its citizens work and how much they make. I have never understood why people allow this great invasion of personal privacy.


I would much prefer the fair tax over the flat tax. You buy it, you pay taxes on it. You dont buy it, you dont pay taxe. Simple.

The flat tax would tell the government how much and what you are spending your money on. How is that any less an invasion of privacy than the flat tax (knowing a person's income)?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
What is the rich's "fair share" Dave?

Actually paying.

You think it is OK that they get a free Hummer???

who is getting free hummers?

You didn't take your massive SUV Tax break??? :shocked:

Oh, maybe you got a wannabe SUV.

IF i Had business I might had used it the accelerated deprecation, but that still does not equate to a free hummer or suv.

Oh come on, a little honesty wouldn't hurt.

There was an article in here showing the massive amount of people that got their just about as close to free as you can get Hummers a while back.

I understand they made the break a little smaller this last Tax cycle but it is still there.

Accelerated depreciaiton does not equal a free hummer.

Bahhahahaa then why have it???

On that we can agree.

The tax code is filled with giveways, including this one, but that still does not mean hummer are free.

The tax code needs to be simplified. Let the tax code be about collecting taxes and economic/social engineering. No tax breaks for anyone and lower marginal rates for all.

OMG, didn't think that was possible.

So you are actually for the Fair Tax???

The fair or flat would be a good alternative to the crap we have for tax collection now. I am against an income on the grounds that it lets the goverment know too much about it citizens. Why should the goverment know where its citizens work and how much they make. I have never understood why people allow this great invasion of personal privacy.

I would much prefer the fair tax over the flat tax. You buy it, you pay taxes on it. You dont buy it, you dont pay taxe. Simple.

Interesting, you are the exception rather than the norm in Republican circles.
Most prefer having that control factor.

And here is where you are wrong. Most republicans would be more than happy to scrap the tax code and replace it with something far more simple.

Really? If that were true then how come they haven't pushed it through in all these years in full power now???

Too busy spending and phoney wars perhaps?

 

[piasabird]

Some people have intimated that the current tax system is only advantageous to people that can afford to hire accountants and lawyers to help set up loopholes so they do not have to pay about half of their taxes. Flat tax with no loopholes and some changes in what people can claim against their taxes would actually raise the tax revenues collected.

The best thing is that all those people that live off the tax system like tax preparers and lawyers will be out of work.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: charrison
The fair or flat would be a good alternative to the crap we have for tax collection now. I am against an income on the grounds that it lets the goverment know too much about it citizens. Why should the goverment know where its citizens work and how much they make. I have never understood why people allow this great invasion of personal privacy.


I would much prefer the fair tax over the flat tax. You buy it, you pay taxes on it. You dont buy it, you dont pay taxe. Simple.

The flat tax would tell the government how much and what you are spending your money on. How is that any less an invasion of privacy than the flat tax (knowing a person's income)?

Yes but it does lower marginal rates and remove deductions.