Knights of Glory and Beer

Serving the online community since 1997

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
#103868 - 08/29/12 11:18 PM Re: China [Re: Sini]  
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 579
RedKGB Offline
KGB Knight

**Please note**
This members Signature
was altered by KGB
leadership against this
members will due to
extreme content
RedKGB  Offline
KGB Knight

**Please note**
This members Signature
was altered by KGB
leadership against this
members will due to
extreme content

**

Joined: May 2008
Posts: 579
Alright, I can see that. To me a true flat tax will not happen. Any varation paid by anyone, rich or poor would make progressive to me. Since we do allready have a progressive tax in place, we just need to tweak what we have.

I relized after I posted that it would still be a tarriff.

Pres. Teddy Rosevelot, setup the anti-monoply laws to protect the US from any one bussiness being in the position to hold the Nation hostage. Banks and corps that have been deemed to big to fail should also have these laws applied to them. How do you feel about that?

#103875 - 08/29/12 11:59 PM Re: China [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,574
Derid Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
Derid  Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court

****

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,574

I think sales and VAT taxes are bad ideas, what you seemed to describe sinij was a sales tax since you said spend.

Though I still obviously disagree with you on the causes and ramifications of wealth.

One of my biggest problems with your scenario regarding eliminating any and all ultra rich is what means do you use to do so. If you start raising income taxes extremely high, what about corporate taxes? Its pretty easy to use corporate tax structure to just keep your money in the company, and have company cars, planes, houses, etc. This is common in parts of the world with high personal tax rates but more reasonable corporate tax rates.

Though in some respects you could argue that as a good thing. In countries and cultures and periods of US history where personal wealth was tied up in the company - it kept the principle owners very engaged, and the management very motivated. Unlike todays world of looting the shareholders and escaping via golden parachute. In the past if you lost your company you could lose everything. You still can if you are small business, but the people at the heart of this discussion find ways to make millions no matter what happens.

But nonetheless, it still does not address the "problem" ( I will assume it is a problem for the sake of this discussion ) of concentration of wealth. All extreme personal progressive taxation does in that regard is alter the way the well off use legal structures.

If you start making corp tax rates extremely high and start messing around with corporate legal structures... then you really start to directly impact competitiveness. Even the more "socialist" countries have far lower corporate tax rates than the US. And before you start talking about the loopholes, using foreign countries is a big part of many of those. Other stem from various sorts of political corruption. Plus the legal/accountant manpower required to pull it off is not cheap either. Even Google , which is a partisan leftist company uses foreign tax havens and says they are necessary in the current environment.

Perhaps an argument could be made that personal tax rates on wealthier individuals should go up while corporate rates should go down? Of course certain loopholes being closed would have to coincide with a lessening of the tax burden.


I think there are issues with that argument as well,I think the only answer is lessening federal expenditure. The reality is, that even if the left was correct regarding vastly increased social spending is that social spending will never see efficient increases... it will either be industry-sponsored big govt pork like Obamacare , but even more likely is future revenues will just continue to feed the police state.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
#103878 - 08/30/12 12:34 AM Re: China [Re: Sini]  
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 579
RedKGB Offline
KGB Knight

**Please note**
This members Signature
was altered by KGB
leadership against this
members will due to
extreme content
RedKGB  Offline
KGB Knight

**Please note**
This members Signature
was altered by KGB
leadership against this
members will due to
extreme content

**

Joined: May 2008
Posts: 579
Loopholes need tobe the first thing closed. Working fromt he top down closing them. And let those being effected know a year in advance, there will still be those that bitch and whine, but fore warned is fore knowledge.

Take me for example. I payed 2.15 in federal income taxs last year. Claiming the stanard deducations of 3 childeren, spouse, and myself. But thanks to variuos pork slipped into the tax law over the years I also get earned income credit, and 5 other credits, cant rember them off the top of my head. But I got a check back from the feds for over 4,000 dollars. These loopholes, and credits, and pork need to be closed, canceled, and cutoff. And this is something that effects me directly. As long as it can be used, I will use it; take it way and I wont bitch or complain about. But close them for the top earners first, and work your way down the income brackets.

#103884 - 08/30/12 01:13 AM Re: China [Re: Derid]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,216
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,216
Originally Posted By: Derid
One of my biggest problems with your scenario regarding eliminating any and all ultra rich is what means do you use to do so.


My trusty magic wand? Yes, you are absolutely right I have no means to "eliminate" ultra rich that would also not destroy democracy. I could hope to put regulations and legislation in place, that given time would decrease number and magnitude of ultra rich.


#103911 - 08/30/12 03:31 AM Re: China [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 327
Cheerio Offline
KGB Knight
Cheerio  Offline
KGB Knight
***

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 327
most rich people earned their own money. im sure that some, despite claiming libertarian sympathies, will dismiss this link, but here it is:
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/real-1-percent

80% of millionaires are the first in their families to do so. by eliminating the rich you are destroying the people who work. your precious goverment needs someone to tax to make it run. simple math lesson:

i am a govt employee. my compensation is about $100,000 per year all told. i pay about $20k in taxes- property, state, federal. that leaves a hole of $80k. people who generate wealth must make up the difference. we cant all be govt employees


KGB Darkfall
#103914 - 08/30/12 03:41 AM Re: China [Re: Sini]  
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 579
RedKGB Offline
KGB Knight

**Please note**
This members Signature
was altered by KGB
leadership against this
members will due to
extreme content
RedKGB  Offline
KGB Knight

**Please note**
This members Signature
was altered by KGB
leadership against this
members will due to
extreme content

**

Joined: May 2008
Posts: 579
Damn dude, I am a mailman and make 36k a year. Thank you for making up for me not putting in a dime.

We need rich people, they give us hope to strive to that level. An icon we can point at for kids to aspire to, so they do better then their parents.

We need poor people, to learn compasion for those that have less then us. To be thankful for what we do have, and to strive to share what we have with them.

#103924 - 08/30/12 04:57 AM Re: China [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,574
Derid Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
Derid  Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court

****

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,574

Another article worth reading, since we are linking CATO today -

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obama-is-no-clinton

Obama is no Clinton.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
#103953 - 08/30/12 10:03 PM Re: China [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 939
Daye Offline
KGB Supreme Knight
Daye  Offline
KGB Supreme Knight
*****

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 939
League City, TX
"but considering how little is made in the US"

Actually, the US is still near or at the top of the manufacturing list to be honest. ( $1.7T in 2009 )

What we DON'T manufacture is the cheap and easy goods. Countries with low labor costs handle that now. We do specialized and crazy complex goods. Aircraft, health care stuff, industrial products, etc.

So while the general idea is that the US doesn't manufacture anything of their own anymore, it's not entirely the whole truth. :D

#103963 - 08/31/12 12:59 AM Re: China [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 327
Cheerio Offline
KGB Knight
Cheerio  Offline
KGB Knight
***

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 327
i guess what im counting is jobs. from about 25% of the workforce to about 10%. also, is that 1.7 T the value of the goods manufactured? does it include military contracts?

the reason i ask is because it takes a lot of shirts to equal the value of an F-22


KGB Darkfall
#103970 - 08/31/12 01:40 AM Re: China [Re: Cheerio]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,216
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,216
Originally Posted By: Cheerio
i am a govt employee. my compensation is about $100,000 per year all told.


Your political views took a whole new, morbidly weird light.


Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Derid 

Page Time: 0.039s Queries: 16 (0.008s) Memory: 3.1380 MB (Peak: 3.2485 MB) Zlib disabled. Server Time: 2018-10-17 01:35:43 UTC