Is this about federal income tax or the estate tax? Federal income tax does not cover estates. Which one is it? If it's the estate tax, perhaps you should take federal income tax out of it. If it's federal income tax, get death out of there.
Estate tax is calculated depending on the size of your estate, not on how much you pay in income tax or what your rate is. And when you say rate, do you mean hwo much you pay in taxes, how much you earn, or the percentage?
eliminate ALL exemptions, including:
mortgage
children
collage
etc.
If you allow one you open the door for special interests to add more.
If you want to subsidies collage and children do it directly: that way we're honest and people know they are on welfare.
mortgage
children
collage
etc.
If you allow one you open the door for special interests to add more.
If you want to subsidies collage and children do it directly: that way we're honest and people know they are on welfare.
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
HuH? Who is we? I would like to know the nature of this "we" group of yours. They must possess a godly nature to lay divine claim to to the wealth of others.
More on that Text
Instead of redistributing wealth, why not just let people keep the fruit of their own labor? Why do we need big government programs & spending? What happend to individual responsibility?
I believe that the source of your problem in comprehending politics is that you actually believe all those government "services" are free. In fact they are not free, they have an enormous price tag. First price tag is man's right to his own creation i.e. wealth. This is an unwarrented exercise of force against the productive, tax paying members of society. There are many other economic price tags for such "services" as well, and they are all discussed in that book Capitalism I linked to earlier.
You are in no way a libertarian. As I said before you are a true blue statist and now it is clear you are a true blue collectivist. In fact after your little speel I find it quite hilarious that you would try to get me to believe you are a "libertarian at heart".
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Zebo
Then I hope you're not going for the man who increased the size of goverment at an all time high at 2.4Trillion and 5 million federal employees.
As far as "statists" why do you think there was so much prosperity under Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton? They wern't statists any more or less than Republicans..actually they were less so. But Their policies put money in the pockets of the people on the bottom, creating demand and stimulating investment.
Zebo,
Has the number of civil service jobs increased or decreased under Pres. Bush?
Federal jobs increased by 1M since bush took office bringing the totals to around ~12Million "federal employees" http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/gs/cps/light20030905.pdf
Bush mearly shifted the desination while growing the size.
The answer is
"civil service employment actually fell by almost 50,000 jobs from 1999 to 2002."
Choose 15% across the board but meant to make it 5% or 0 for the 20K and under crowd. Other than that I like the idea of a flat rate tax. Thank goodness I live in Texas so I only get nailed by the Feds and not by the State.
CrazyHelloDeli
Platinum Member
- Jun 24, 2001
- 2,854
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Zebo
Then I hope you're not going for the man who increased the size of goverment at an all time high at 2.4Trillion and 5 million federal employees.
As far as "statists" why do you think there was so much prosperity under Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton? They wern't statists any more or less than Republicans..actually they were less so. But Their policies put money in the pockets of the people on the bottom, creating demand and stimulating investment.
No, I am not voting for Bush. He is a statist as well. I'm voting for Badnarik.
Prosperity has only one source and one source alone: free & peaceful exchange. Government policies, government programs, government bureaucracy doesn't produce one red cent or as I would say one speck of gold.
If you think that Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton enacted policies that created wealth and prosperity you are living in a dream world.
Sorry my friend it's historical fact. If you took the time to look at GDP growth and unemployment numbers, you'll notice something. The best economic times are toward the end of Democratic administrations. Democrats inherit weak economies and strengthen them. Republican then come in and thier policy tears them down.
Every democratic admistration left office with *lower* unemployment than when he came in except carter with the same rate. Almost every republican Left office with *higher* unemployment numbers than when he came in only Reagan left office with lower unemployment than he inherited. One of those republicans, when they controlled both houses, gave us 25% unemployment. Then Roosvelt came in finally dying with 2%.
Generally the reason the democrats end their terms with good economies is because generally there is a republican congress. This creates gridlock in government which means the government can't fvck everything up. Now when you have a republican president with a democrat/republican congress, all types of spending gets through which means that we'll either have to pay for that increased spending through higher taxes or we'll get a large deficit and have to pay for it sometime down the road.
Anyways, for the poll I put 0% - 15% - 15% - 15%.
earthman
Golden Member
- Oct 16, 1999
- 1,653
- 0
- 71
The people who rail most strongly against the government, in my experience, are the ones who depend most shamelessly on it. Its funny how many people are dead set against subsidizing schools, housing, jobs, health care, etc., but when it comes to subsidizing their mortgage, their failing business, or Iraq and Saudia Arabia so they can have cheap gas for their fat-ass SUV, they are all for it.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
I agree. Who do these multi-millionaire CEOs think they are, taking the wealth produced by their employees? Who do they think they are, exploiting our extraordinary economic and physical infrastructure for their selfish personal gain?
Again, I agree. When will corporations accept responsibility for their profitability instead of demanding corporate welfare from hard-working taxpayers?
I believe that the source of your problem in comprehending capitalism is that you actually believe all that economic and physical infrastructure is free. In fact they are not free, they have an enormous price tag. The first price tag is the responsibility of the wealth-hoarders to pay for the foundation and services that enable their success. (etc. ...)
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
10% across the board. I'd be willing to go 15% if we really did need that much money to run our gov't but I don't believe that to be the case.
"Taxes on consumption, like those on capital or income, to be just, must be uniform."
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government."
CkG
"Taxes on consumption, like those on capital or income, to be just, must be uniform."
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government."
CkG
Bzzzzzt!
Sorry, wrong answer. You lose!
Let's look at the whole paragraph from which you selectively quoted:
And, let's look at the change from 1999 - 2002:
the important thing is that in these times of economic trouble we don't expand the size of the bureaucracy without essential need.
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
Wanted to vote 0, 10, 20, 40
Hit the button too quick, and voted 0, 0, 20, 40.
Recount?
As you look at the money as your pay scales down below $20K, each dollar gets more and more critical. At some point, even a 5% tax can be too much. Try someone earning near minimum wage, getting $12K/year gross. That $600 could be a rent/utility payment, medication bill, or car insurance payment. It can mean quite a lot.
If you're earning $100K a year, you can afford $20K out of that. $80K a year is living pretty damn comfortably.
A million a year? Come on. You could pay a 90% tax and still live well. But I think that that is a bit too much, especially knowing how the government has a bad habit of squandering taxpayer money. I mean, why save it? You're just going to get more of it next year, right?
Hit the button too quick, and voted 0, 0, 20, 40.
Recount?
As you look at the money as your pay scales down below $20K, each dollar gets more and more critical. At some point, even a 5% tax can be too much. Try someone earning near minimum wage, getting $12K/year gross. That $600 could be a rent/utility payment, medication bill, or car insurance payment. It can mean quite a lot.
If you're earning $100K a year, you can afford $20K out of that. $80K a year is living pretty damn comfortably.
A million a year? Come on. You could pay a 90% tax and still live well. But I think that that is a bit too much, especially knowing how the government has a bad habit of squandering taxpayer money. I mean, why save it? You're just going to get more of it next year, right?
20% flat tax across the board. No need to give anyone a free ride (or even return more to them then they spend) and no need to punish those that are successful. After all, America was developed around the idea that anyone can make. Why use high taxes as a tool to prevent this, or as a toold of social stratification for votes (Democrats).
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter