What about people earn no wages, but use our infrastructure and consume our natural resources?
They pay nothing?
Socialist Playbook-this isn't about politics, it's about overthrowing the USA.
- Thread starter XJEEPER
- Start date
What about people earn no wages, but use our infrastructure and consume our natural resources?
They pay nothing?
- Location
- Wasatch Range
You are referring to the illegal alien population? I support a portion of the flat tax I will pay to keep our borders secure using armed troops. I also support reforming the immigration laws so that honest, hardworking individuals who want to become a hyphen-less American can do so in a timely manner.
No. I am talking about people who don't earn wages... but use our infrastructure and our resources...
So, I suppose, yes, that group might include illegals, but many of them do earn wages, which should be taxed.
But, I was referring to others...
trust fund kids or legacies... Steve Jobs now that he is retiring...
people with wealth but no income.
That's why I was asking earlier... what is more fair... wealth tax or income tax? A trust fund kid may never pay a cent of taxes in his life (outside sales tax).... yet live much more lavishly than someone who works hard every day and gives 30% of his income to the government.
- Location
- Wasatch Range
Really? I would think that you would have a bigger issue with the 50% of Americans who pay zero income taxes and are collecting additional government assistance and consuming resources.
By your assertion, and per popular Socialist opinion, I have no right to the property/wealth that I will inherit from my parents when they pass, without first paying the federal government "their share", of which they have done nothing to earn?
By your assertion, and per popular Socialist opinion, I have no right to the property/wealth that I will inherit from my parents when they pass, without first paying the federal government "their share", of which they have done nothing to earn?
Not particularly... as those folks do share in the national burden. There are many many more taxes than just income taxes which those folks do participate in.
I do not know what percent of the national burden they contribute via other taxes, but it isn't zero, as some tyr and paint it.
First of all, what assertion? The only assertions I made were that income is the metric which we have generally assume is the fair way to divide up the national burden...because we've always done it that way.
All I am doing is questioning the "fairness" of in "income" based tax system... and suggesting that income based isn't any more or less fair than wealth based.
If you want to simply pass off the notion as "Socialist", so then you can readily dismiss it, that's fine, but not really a valid argument. I was more interested in discussing "fairness" in the system... the merits of each system... possibly discussing other system.
You do bring up a good point. Your parents worked hard, earned money, paid income taxes on that money, and how is it "fair" for they governemnt to take any MORE when your folks pass.
On the other hand... is it "fair" that, through careful planning, generations of children in a family can live lavishly without ever paying a cent of taxes (except sales tax), while someone is busting their ass working long days, and then paying income taxes, and a slew of payroll taxes and sales tax? Menawhile the wealth that is supporting those generations of trust fund kids was generated in a time when the US was accumulaing significnat debt... and now that wealth is not helping pay for that debt. The laboror is paying down that debt, and the trust fund kids, aren't. That doesn't seem fair. Those kids are benefitting from that accumulation of national debt, but aren't helping pay that debt.
I think that whatever system is employed, being it income based, or wealth based, or some combination of both (which is kind of what we have with the estate tax on large inheritances), there will always be an identifiable inequity.
So, my actual assertion is that we need to change our perspective of tyring to come up with a "fair" system, because such a system is unacheivable.
- Location
- Wasatch Range
I'm interested in a real discussion on the issue, but when you make comments that closely resemble/mimic the "rich need to pay more, we need to take their wealth" talking points of those who also align themselves with active Socialist/Marxist agendas in our country/government......sorry if I jumped to this conclusion.
There are many different kinds of trusts, what trust fund are you specifically referring that provides for this scenario to exist?
Also, please provide some factual data which clearly identifies the percentage of US citizens who are living solely on a trust fund, yet are avoiding paying any taxes on the assets contained therein or any monetary increase generated through investment of the assets contained within their trust?
Not only did my parents work hard on this ranch, (which as been in the family now for 4 generations), I was raised on this ranch and helped my father run the operation, for no wages. My parents payed inheritance taxes on this estate when my grandfather passed, as there was no will or trust in place at the time.
I agree. Life is not fair, some folks will have more than you, as you will have more than others. The great thing about America and capitalism is, one doesn't have to be stuck in a "class" for generation upon generation, all one needs to do is put forth true individual effort to improve ones socio-economic situation.
Last edited:
Well, it did seem to me that your comments closely resembled/mimiced the "poor are a bunch of free loaders and they aren't paying their fair share" talking points of those who also align themselves with extremist wing-nut/Fascist agendas in our country... sorry if I jumped to that conclusion.
And when I see such comments, I always wonder how exactly are people are defining "fair" when it comes to the tax code... hence why I asked, why is "income tax" more fair than "wealth tax".
But forget "fairness" in the tax code for now... let's talk about socialism in the tax code. Just how much socialism are you o.k. with in the tax code? In your opinion, is the ideal state to move toward removing all elements of socialism from the tax code?
- Location
- Wasatch Range
No interest in providing data to back up your trust fund comments?
Last edited:
Not particularly. It's not overly relevant. Even if the magnitude of the inequity is small, there is still in inequity.
What about socialism in the tax code?
You dismiss a wealth tax as being "socialist and Marxist".
So, how much socialism is ok in the tax system?
In your opinion, is the ideal state to move toward removing all elements of socialism from the tax code?
Alienspecimen
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Best Coast RI
I have no idea what you are talking about. Lived in a communist country for 24 years...
Last edited:
Alienspecimen
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Best Coast RI
I think you are going in a wrong direction...
Here:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/269517/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-thu-aug-18-2011
You will find some interesting facts in there...And yes, FOX News got it right-Warren Buffet is a rotten socialist, but you already knew that...
Insider Report: Obama Administration Intends to Unionize U.S. Military with Executive Order
"The Ulsterman Report, known for their White House insider reports, has published an interview from a Wall Street insider that, if accurate, threatens to fundamentally change the make up and loyalties of the United States Military. According to a Wall Street insider with first-hand knowledge of the goings on in the Obama administration, there are interests within the White House – perhaps going as high as President Obama himself – that are positioning to unionize the entire military..."
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-ne...ze-u-s-military-with-executive-order_09122011
"The Ulsterman Report, known for their White House insider reports, has published an interview from a Wall Street insider that, if accurate, threatens to fundamentally change the make up and loyalties of the United States Military. According to a Wall Street insider with first-hand knowledge of the goings on in the Obama administration, there are interests within the White House – perhaps going as high as President Obama himself – that are positioning to unionize the entire military..."
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-ne...ze-u-s-military-with-executive-order_09122011
Intersting read, thanks for posting.
The entire interview is here:
http://newsflavor.com/politics/us-politics/wall-street-insider-the-complete-interview/
Interesting discussion on the Fed and how it's pushing us to the abyss...
You want to sit and complain about this nation creeping toward socialism (and it's a valid concern)...but meanwhile the Fed continues to print money to pay an ever increasing national debt. There will be no nation for socialism to take over if we keep on down this path..
Seriously... we're all fu(ked. We owe some 40-50 TRILLION dollars and our shrinking economy simply cannot support that level of indebtedness.
The USA is bankrupt. NOW. We are currently a bankrupt nation... and we are doing nothing to change that.
Last edited:
- Location
- Wasatch Range
If you read and understand Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, of which many in Congress and the Obama Admin agree with and are using as their playbook, then it's clear to see that driving the country to the edge of bankruptcy fits right in to the model, as does printing money to devalue the dollar and creating a state where the majority (greater than 50%) of the population are reliant on the government for some form of assistance to sustain them.
Obama's community organization skills are based on the Alinsky model.
For those who aren't familiar with or have never heard of Alinsky, time to familiarize yourself and recognize the actions of our leaders who are implementing rules of the model.
It is the polar opposite to the US Constitution.
What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm
For Alinsky, organizing is the process of highlighting what is wrong and convincing people they can actually do something about it. The two are linked. If people feel they don’t have the power to change a bad situation, they stop thinking about it.
According to Alinsky, the organizer — especially a paid organizer from outside — must first overcome suspicion and establish credibility. Next the organizer must begin the task of agitating: rubbing resentments, fanning hostilities, and searching out controversy. This is necessary to get people to participate. An organizer has to attack apathy and disturb the prevailing patterns of complacent community life where people have simply come to accept a bad situation. Alinsky would say, “The first step in community organization is community disorganization.”
Through a process combining hope and resentment, the organizer tries to create a “mass army” that brings in as many recruits as possible from local organizations, churches, services groups, labor unions, corner gangs, and individuals.
Obama's community organization skills are based on the Alinsky model.
For those who aren't familiar with or have never heard of Alinsky, time to familiarize yourself and recognize the actions of our leaders who are implementing rules of the model.
It is the polar opposite to the US Constitution.
What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm
For Alinsky, organizing is the process of highlighting what is wrong and convincing people they can actually do something about it. The two are linked. If people feel they don’t have the power to change a bad situation, they stop thinking about it.
According to Alinsky, the organizer — especially a paid organizer from outside — must first overcome suspicion and establish credibility. Next the organizer must begin the task of agitating: rubbing resentments, fanning hostilities, and searching out controversy. This is necessary to get people to participate. An organizer has to attack apathy and disturb the prevailing patterns of complacent community life where people have simply come to accept a bad situation. Alinsky would say, “The first step in community organization is community disorganization.”
Through a process combining hope and resentment, the organizer tries to create a “mass army” that brings in as many recruits as possible from local organizations, churches, services groups, labor unions, corner gangs, and individuals.
Does it take the whole "who's paying their fair share of taxes" question off the table?
The way I understand a flat tax, is a flat rate applied to all wages.
So, as an example, if that rate is 20%, and Bill Gates makes $1 billion in 2011, he would pay $200 million in taxes.
On the other hand, if XJEEPER, you make $100,000 in 2011, you would pay $20,000 in taxes.
How is it fair that Bill Gates pays 10,000 times more than you do?
- Location
- Rainy side of Washington
First of all, Bill Gates has a high net worth, but I don't think he makes a billion a year except possibly in unrealized capital gains.
And second, it's fair because (using your example) he makes 10,000 times more than you do, as well.
- Location
- Wasatch Range
Read:
U.S. taxpayers will spend $431 billion just complying with the tax code this year, according a new study by Arthur Laffer, Wayne Winegarden, and John Childs. That’s not money collected by the Internal Revenue Service; that figure represents just the value of the time taxpayers will spend keeping records and filling out tax forms, and the cost of paying professional tax preparers to do it for them, plus the cost of the bureaucracy needed to administer the tax code. That $431 billion amounts to 30 percent of the total of income taxes collected.
Why does it cost so much to comply with tax laws? For starters, the tax code is long. It contains 3.8 million words as of 2010. And the task of figuring it out is all the more impossible because the law is constantly changing. In 2001, the tax code contained “only” 1.4 million words, but since then there have been approximately 4,428 changes to the tax laws. There were 579 changes in 2010 alone. The National Taxpayer Advocate routinely identifies tax law complexity as the number one problem facing taxpayers.
One tax system that’s easier to comply with would be a flat tax system that features one low rate and many fewer deductions and credits.
Why doesn’t Congress adopt such a system? Probably because that would mean abandoning the idea of using the tax code to advance social agendas, and politicians like the idea of trying to change people’s behaviors.
The Laffer paper is “The Economic Burden Caused by Tax Code Complexity,” published by the Laffer Center for Supply-Side Economics. For an overview of the flat tax, see “A Brief Guide to the Flat Tax,” by Daniel J. Mitchell, published by The Heritage Foundation, July 7, 2005.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2005/07/A-Brief-Guide-to-the-Flat-Tax
So, you support a flat tax, not because it is any more "fair" than the current system, but because it is easier, and it prevents "social engineering".
But you didn't comment on "fairness"....
You mentioned before that a flat tax takes the question of tax fairness off the table.
Why is the flat tax on income more "fair"... how does it take the question of fairness off the table, when you end up with one citizen paying so much more than another?
Last edited:
- Location
- Wasatch Range
You think fairness in the tax code means that all taxpayers should pay the same dollar amount in taxes? Please explain your logic.
Did you read the link that I provided that addresses simplification, removal of loopholes, avoiding double taxation and fairness in the tax code? I'm in support of this type of solution. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Rep...o-the-Flat-Tax
