-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Tax Revolt:Revolutionary War Part II:4-12 Updated added Maine
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
everything.
at one time i was beyond poor did not own a house, besides anything else. so instead of sitting around bitching about how other people were better off than me or bitching about the govt, i got off my @$$ and worked to change it. i did not depend on a govt. program, i did not depend on others to do everyhting for me, and it took a long time, but now i am better off..thanks to the many realizations i had that i just outlined for you.
of course in this day where instant gratification is demanded, i am sure they are not popular. all i can say is see #11 again.
Spencer278
Diamond Member
Again what does that have to do with determining the tax on a house based on the way to was purchased.
Spencer278
Diamond Member
Ignoring the problem with people not finance their house your system would not work. Once a house has been paid off the town would recive no more money from the owner but would still have to plow and maintain the roads, the police and other vitial services. It would in effect be a form of welfare and would end up like SS where the younger generation is required to fund older generations.
much more than your comment that i originally posted in reaction to did...
"Would that be the neo-cons second prinicple of taxetion only the poor should have to pay taxes? A rich person could go out and buy a 500k dollar houses, but that poor working bastered has to take out a loan to get the same house. The rich person would have to pay a tax bill once and the poor would have to pay it 30 times."
let me try to simplify it further...
it is a matter of course that a rich person can buy a 500k house...he is after all, RICH...and a rich person spending 500k is contributing more to the economy than a "poor" person spending $20,000 a corporation spending 10 million a year will do more to enhance the economy than you or i spending 10-15k a year. the truth is the top 1% of wage earners pay 37% of the taxes, that seems to me more than fair.
besides, one does not have to be "rich" to buy a 500k house, but merely upper middle class.
the very valid point i raised is that a person who does not make much money can do one of two things when it comes down to it.
1. complain and do nothing, blaming "rich" people for all thier problems.
2. spend thier energy working to improve themselves and thier situation.
#2 worked for me.
Spencer278
Diamond Member
The person buying the house without a loan gives less back to the economy then the person that takes out a loan because the person borrowing money pays like 10% but the seller gets 100% right away so their is a net increase in the money supply. Both people would need the same serives from the town so why should one get away with paying 1/30 of the tax?
Florida still has no state income tax, right? Just wondering. While in the Army, I changed my state residency to FL after my mother moved down there to avoid paying Kentucky state income tax.
Yes, the property taxes are high in FL. But so is our property tax here in TX. In fact, we contest the property tax assessment every year.
that is an oversimplification, you are not factoring in the freed capital that otherwise would have went to a house payment still finding it's way into the economy in am myriad of ways... buying a boat, home additions, starting a business..etc...etc.
revenue would be increased by sales taxes, businesses would benefit through the increased revenue...on and on.
or we could make that "rich" guy pay alot of taxes to the point to where he moves somewhere else.
dmcowen674
No Lifer
In other words a "real" shot at "real" trickle down economics, not this tax cut for the wealthy crap we've had the few years.
how is it you are combining taxes and the economy when the government receiving tax revenue is not the "economy" in total?
why should the rich person pay more taxes on roads he uses the same as everyone else does?
also he is contributing more to the economy...how? very easy, he is spending more money! a construction company had to build the house right? that gave people jobs. a architect had to design it... not to mention money going to landscapers, and the interior designers, the swimming pool company, furniture store....
dmcowen674
No Lifer
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
In other words a "real" shot at "real" trickle down economics, not this tax cut for the wealthy crap we've had the few years.
I guess you beleive we can tax ourself into prosperity as well....
Ooops, no I'm with you on this, I just saw I hit quote on the wrong post.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
In other words a "real" shot at "real" trickle down economics, not this tax cut for the wealthy crap we've had the few years.
"trickle down" economics is reality, not a theory.
where do you get your money from? where do most people that have jobs get their money?
dmcowen674
No Lifer
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
In other words a "real" shot at "real" trickle down economics, not this tax cut for the wealthy crap we've had the few years.
"trickle down" economics is reality, not a theory.
where do you get your money from? where do most people that have jobs get their money?
I admit Trickle Down used to work but no longer with the current "sheltered, scamming" environment set up for the uber wealthy Corp Thugs.
The current system only benefits those at the very top not the peasants below and there is no between.
Spencer278
Diamond Member
So to make up for the falling property tax we would raise the local sales tax. The problem with offseting the property tax with a sales tax is that property taxes are local but sales tax isn't. I can't just pick up my peace of property if I want to pay less taxes but I can easly drive across state lines to avoid sales tax. You think companys are not going to move if sales tax starts increasing or their property tax goes thro the roof when people no long have to pay tax.
dmcowen674
No Lifer
Ahahahaha hysterical, like every store would close down in Florida and everywhere else, yeah right.
That Bridge has long been sold, that dog sure ain't hunting anymore.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
In other words a "real" shot at "real" trickle down economics, not this tax cut for the wealthy crap we've had the few years.
"trickle down" economics is reality, not a theory.
where do you get your money from? where do most people that have jobs get their money?
Well...kind of. "Trickle down" isn't and was never an economic theory. The label of "trickle down" is a political buzz word created to try to demonize other Economic theories. It by itself was never a theory. The left likes to label Reagan's economic plan as such but in truth it was not - it was a label they tried to pin on it.
CkG
dmcowen674
No Lifer
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
In other words a "real" shot at "real" trickle down economics, not this tax cut for the wealthy crap we've had the few years.
"trickle down" economics is reality, not a theory.
where do you get your money from? where do most people that have jobs get their money?
Well...kind of. "Trickle down" isn't and was never an economic theory. The label of "trickle down" is a political buzz word created to try to demonize other Economic theories. It by itself was never a theory. The left likes to label Reagan's economic plan as such but in truth it was not - it was a label they tried to pin on it.
CkG
You have got to be a Politician or should run for Office, absolutely an expert on saying a bunch of words that come out to saying absolutely nothing. Quite a gift. 😀
Dissipate
Diamond Member
No, they shouldn't be dismantled, they should merely be sold to a private company. Community colleges are great but they should charge a market price for the classes, when they don't, overcrowding and overuse of materials occurs. This is known as a shortage. Education is no different than any other good or service in the economy, the creation of these institutions distorts the market for them incredibly. However, your statement is illogical because it says: "all parents should be able to pay unsubsidized ivy league fee's." Nope, I never said that, your statement assumes that all private universities charge the same as an ivy league school, which they don't.
My sister went to a UC school here in California which my dad paid for, but when she transferred to New York University which is private, my dad ended up paying taxes here in California which go to the universities here and the high tuition of New York University. He got no tax breaks for the tuition he paid for NYU, so essentially he paid twice for my sister's education. This is a truly insidious system because it limits a student's choice on where to go to college because their parents often cannot afford private universities because their parents had to pay taxes for the public universities. If they were allowed to save that money they would have been able to send their kid anywhere they wanted, or at least have a larger choice. This goes for all institutions of public education. Under the current system in California if a student wishes to go to a private university or school their parents take on an enormous financial burden. How this can be called fair is beyond me.
How do you know that community colleges wouldn't exist without subsidies? Yes, some parts of the community colleges wouldn't but a lot of people who go to community college are people who didn't get accepted to a university out of high school and want another way in. I think these people would be more than willing to pay to go to a 2 year school which would eventually grant them access to a university. Education in many forms would still exist without subsidies because like I said before, education is a good in the economy just like anything else.
i did not say "raise the sales tax" that would not be needed.
this is what i said "revenue would be increased by sales taxes, businesses would benefit through the increased revenue...on and on."
the more money is spent, the more tax money is collected...taxes do not have to be raised(or even if they are not much) when increased spending alone increases tax revenue.
i agree taxing corps gives them incentive to move...what was it you were wanting to with taxes again?
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
In other words a "real" shot at "real" trickle down economics, not this tax cut for the wealthy crap we've had the few years.
"trickle down" economics is reality, not a theory.
where do you get your money from? where do most people that have jobs get their money?
I admit Trickle Down used to work but no longer with the current "sheltered, scamming" environment set up for the uber wealthy Corp Thugs.
The current system only benefits those at the very top not the peasants below and there is no between.
your dodging the question with slogans from your A.N.S.W.E.R. meeting.
where do you get your money from? do you get it from your place of employment like most people?
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: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
