|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 15, 2013 13:44:57 GMT
That's some fancy foot work. I never suggested that anyone living in "poverty" should pay a nickel in taxes. The fact is there will always be "wealthy" people in any society. How they got their wealth and what they do with it ought to be their business. I'd have thought a Libertarian would agree. Rearranging the tax code to take more money from the wealthy and 'redistribute' to those less wealthy isn't going to solve anything in the long run visa vi the lose of a healthy 'middle class'.same wage as they used to get at the job they lost b/c the business moved to Mambi. Bottom line: The US economy is in a race to the bottom. In a decade the 'wealthy' will still be wealthy. The members of the 'middle class' will be a very small club. Eighty percent of workers will be scratching along..........like the populations of second-world countries have for ever.
The claim is made that there was no support for taxing the poor.
At the federal level of taxation I proposed an exemption to ensure that the poor don't pay any federal taxes as well as a proposal that would end Social Security and Medicare by replacing both with personal wealth accumulation through privatization that would virtually eliminate all poverty for the elderly and yet still maintain a safety net.
At the state level I proposed fundamentally the same concept that FairTax.org proposed for a federal tax and that is a "prebate" to offset state taxation that is highly regressive in most states currently to reduce the tax burden on the poor.
In both cases the codes are identical for all Americans and where everyone receives the identical tax exemption at the federal level and the same prebate at the state level and everyone pays the identical tax rates. They eliminates all individual tax loopholes that I'm aware of.
I'm not opposed to people acquiring wealth and my federal tax proposal focused on wealth accumulation for the American people. What I am opposed to are unfair tax codes where the wealthy have a much lower tax burden relative to income than middle and low income workers. The fact that huge personal wealth has been accumulated by a very small percentage of individuals that have benefited from unfair taxation in the past cannot be retroactively undone but we should ensure against it in the future.
Does that mean that a person with millions of dollars in income will pay more taxes in the future? Of course but that's only reflective of how much they've been under-taxed in the past. They will lose their preferential tax advantage and actually have to pay their fair share. Oh well, one thing is sure and that is that their standard of living will not be adversely affected by it. They already have far more income than personal expenditures even with their Lear Jets, luxury yachts, and multi-million dollar homes.
While the US economy is definitely showing signs of slowing and we know why that is. As the national debt goes up it suppresses the growth of the private sector that produces the wealth of America. We've known that would happen because of the deficits and I addressed that. My tax proposals fund the authorized expenditures of our government which is something that neither Democrats or Republicans are advocating.
We can also note that "consumption" and not "investing" is what drives up the GDP. My tax proposals allow the lower 50% of Americans to keep more of their own money (that they earned working producing the wealth of America) by removing draconian taxation and these individuals spend virtually all of their income on consumption. That increases consumption far more than allowing the wealthy, which spend a much smaller percentage on consumption, to keep more of their money simply to invest it into the secondary markets (that produces no wealth at all).
The fact is that I refuse to be a shill for the very wealthy that have accumulated outrageous amounts of personal wealth at the expense of 90% of the American people.
I treat every dollar of income as a dollar of income, I apply the same criteria for taxation to everyone, and I propose a tax where those that can afford to pay taxes carry the burden and that they pay for all of the authorized expenditures of government.
Anyone that wants to challenge my proposals should do so on the appropriate thread instead of making false statements about them here.
|
|
|
|
Post by niff on Sept 17, 2013 13:39:12 GMT
On another thread you posted that (paraphrasing) "The wealthy should pay more in capital gain tax and that money could then go to increase benefits for the long term unemployed". If that isn't redistribution nothing is.
Globalization is the root cause of the economic collapse of the American middle class. If Mr. Lew in China wasn't making those blue jeans for Wally Mart but a 'union shop' in Georgia was, paying each full time employee fifteen bucks an hour with full family medical/dental benefits we wouldn't be having this conversation.
The party's over. No amount of tinkering with the tax code will EVER turn the economy around. Ever.
The explosion of part-time 'service industry' jobs, code for "would you like fries with those fries" is the economic canary in the deep frier.
Better get used to it.
If I had a young family and I was facing a future that any reasonable person knows is coming I'd 'up-stakes' and move to a rural area and learn how to garden and hunt and stop being just another poor sap dependent on some government pencil pusher for my food stamps. Yes yes 'mother' and I would still have to get 'McJobs' but there would be less competition for them and whatever money we made would go farther.
Ironic. Mr. Lew is now selling your kids blue jeans you all are buying with the money you all make from putting on the part time 'monkey suit' and making burgers for minimum wage. If ONLY all the Mr. Lews of the third world hadn't come along everything would be like it used to be.
'Dialing back' one's former extravagant lifestyle is the ONLY way to survive today.
IMO the US economy is on a train heading from a cliff at full speed. Tinkering with the tax code is like some one sticking their foot out trying to stop the train. When the train, not if, goes off the cliff there will be a social Armageddon.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 17, 2013 20:25:41 GMT
On another thread you posted that (paraphrasing) "The wealthy should pay more in capital gain tax and that money could then go to increase benefits for the long term unemployed". If that isn't redistribution nothing is.
worldpf.com/thread/274/on-federal-taxation-united-states
I've also addressed state taxation as well because a person's tax burden is the combined burden of both federal and state taxation.
worldpf.com/thread/350/fixing-state-taxation-united-states
Between the two of them it was my best attempt at addressing improving the financial condition for the lower 50% of American income earners while imposing the identical tax codes for all Americans equalizing the tax burden relative to income and re-establishing the middle class in America.
The improved financial condition for the bottom 50% of income earners would dramatically increase consumption in the United States and consumption drives the US economy creating good paying jobs. Low and middle income households spend the highest percentage of income on consumption while high income households spend the least.
So yes, I did call for an increase in the Capital Gains tax to mitigate the immediate need for assistance by the long-term unemployed for those with over $1 million in income but they would still be paying about 25% less than someone working for a living and earning the same income. Far better that we revise our tax codes that would dramatically expand the US economy and provide the job necessary to meet the increase in consumption in the United States.
|
|
|
|
Post by niff on Sept 18, 2013 13:59:13 GMT
You continue to suggest that 'Congress' (your code for the REPs) need to "address" improving the financial situation for the bottom 50%. Define "address". What you basically want is for the wealthiest to pay more in taxs to the Government so the Government can give the money to the bottom 50%. That is called 're-distribution' by anyone's definition. Don't work. It's never worked. The US is based on a capitalist economy. That's what made it the most powerful economy in world history. Now it's over. Once China and East Indian woke up America went on the decline and will continue to do so no matter how much the wealthy are taxed. Global economic homeostasis has been happening since the beginning of man kind. It was always inevitable that the economic waters on each side of the wall will eventually be the same height. It's the law of nature in all things. Including the US economy. China goes up so the US must come down. Simple concept really.
Tinkering with the tax laws is like polishing the door knobs on a runaway train about to go over the cliff. Might make some one real like they are at least doing something but in reality it's a waste of time.
Here's a little story: Suppose everything could be a 're-do'. Everyone is given a million bucks so no one can claim 'Joe Blow' got more. In ten years some people would have a hundred million and some people would have nothing. In your world you would then want to take from the wealthy and give it to the poor. You could run that social experiment a million times and get the same out come. Why? Human nature. Man is by nature a VERY competitive animal. That's why he's at the top of the food chain.
There will always be 'Makers and Takers'. That's life.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 18, 2013 16:37:29 GMT
You continue to suggest that 'Congress' (your code for the REPs) need to "address" improving the financial situation for the bottom 50%. Define "address". What you basically want is for the wealthiest to pay more in taxs to the Government so the Government can give the money to the bottom 50%. That is called 're-distribution' by anyone's definition.
They're not spending proposals and, in fact, would eliminate about 1/3rd of all federal expenditures by phasing out the Social Security and Medicare welfare programs that we currently have.
It can also be noted that by eliminating taxation for low income workers it would greatly reduce the need for government welfare to mitigate the effects of poverty. People would have their own money from their own jobs to pay for the necessities of life instead of paying that money to government in the different forms of taxation that they're currently subjected to. All-in-all my proposals would dramatically reduce government spending over time.
|
|
|
|
Post by niff on Sept 18, 2013 17:50:19 GMT
You're now having a laugh right?
You claim that your tax proposals don't transfer any money from anyone to anyone right?
Then you claim that by eliminating taxes for low income workers (already 50% of them don't pay a dime in income tax so who else is left) that would reduce welfare.
BTW the "jobs" you refer to don't exist.
Look closely: If about 90% of the income tax is being paid by the top 10% of the population and 50% don't pay any income tax who's left?
You're welcome to your opinions but to be frank the 'model' you propose don't work. If it came anywhere close to working in a practical sense it would have happened.
No offense but your posts IMO consist of an apple in one sentence and an orange then an apple then an orange again. I think you are not really thinking things through in this subject.
Maybe if you just say "Yeah I believe in income redistribution" that's one thing but to keep claiming that increasing taxes on the wealthy to end up helping the less fortunate isn't in fact 're-distribution' is disingenuous.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 18, 2013 20:54:54 GMT
FICA/Payroll/Self-employment taxes are a dedicated federal income tax on gross income that have fully funded about 30% of all federal government expenditures in recent years. These taxes are paid on gross earned income by even the lowest wage earners in America and at 15.3% exceeded the federal tax rate that Mitt Romney paid in 2011 which was about 14% on over $22 million in gross income.
|
|
|
|
Post by niff on Sept 19, 2013 15:01:29 GMT
You keep going on about 'the rich'. In every political system/culture/society since the beginning of time there have been 'the rich' and the poor and those in the middle (every one of those in the middle want to be 'rich' obviously).
YOU want to be 'rich'. If YOU were 'rich' you wouldn't be on this thread.
Stop whining about the 'rich'. They are here to stay.
You want to 'redistribute' the wealth no matter how you spin it.
Ain't going to happen........ever. The 'rich' didn't get 'rich' and stay rich by simply allowing some one to come along and take their money......no matter how they got it. They are currently moving their wealth well away from Obama and people who want to redistribute their wealth....like you. If you really want to help the economy start your own business and employ people. Maybe a home deliver service or a cleaning service. Anything that employees semi illiterates for minimum wage. Did you know the number one job growth category is women working in the 'service industry'? Don't even think about trying to 'manufacture' anything. You'll soon find yourself competing with the 'Mr. Lees' of the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 20, 2013 10:37:43 GMT
I have absolutely no problem with wealthy individuals. What I oppose is unfair taxation. Let me provide an example.
A CEO of a corporation is a "working American" and creating wealth in America. An "Investor" is not a working American and is not creating any wealth in America (they typically invest in secondary financial instruments that don't benefit enterprise).
If both the CEO and the Investor have $10 million in annual income the CEO will be subjected to the maximum 39.5% on their "earned" income while the Investor is taxed a maximum of 20% on their "unearned" income. The "worker" has twice the tax burden when compared to the "investor" even though both have identical incomes.
This isn't about wealth but instead is about different tax rates on the identical income even though both would be considered "wealthy" individuals by anyone's standards. I have absolutely no problem with the CEO and their tax rates should not be changed.
The real difference is between "workers" creating the wealth of American and "investors" that don't create the wealth of America. I don't say the investors should be "punished" but instead that they should be taxed at the same rates as the workers.
When a minimum wage workers has a higher tax burden relative to income when compared to a very high income individual there's obviously something wrong with our tax codes and that is the problem we have today. That is the problem I address and it's not about the "rich v poor" in America. It's about fair taxation where a low income worker can have upward financial mobility that is currently denied because of unfair tax codes that are highly favorable to high income investors and highly oppressive to low income workers.
|
|
|
|
Post by niff on Sept 20, 2013 13:26:56 GMT
To simplify: A man makes a million bucks running his own business. He is taxed on the million bucks. He takes some of that million and puts it into the stock market/real estate whatever. Then he makes say fiftyK profit on these investments and he is taxed on those profits right?
And you want to raise his taxes on his original income and/or the profit he made from his investments?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 20, 2013 15:24:59 GMT
To simplify: A man makes a million bucks running his own business. He is taxed on the million bucks. He takes some of that million and puts it into the stock market/real estate whatever. Then he makes say fiftyK profit on these investments and he is taxed on those profits right? And you want to raise his taxes on his original income and/or the profit he made from his investments?
A small business owner works six days a week, probably 10-12 hours per day, and has a net income of $100,000 for the year. He pays $22,000 in income taxes plus at least $15,300 in Self-employment taxes for a total of $37,300 in federal taxes alone.
Another person invested in the secondary stock markets (that don't fund enterprise) sits on the beach in Florida all year long and also has $100,000 in net income from his "capital gains" but he only pays about $10,000 in federal taxes for the year based upon the Capital Gains tax codes. He might pay a little more but we know that the highest tax rate under the capital gains tax codes is 20% which is still just a fraction of the 37% that the small business owner pays on just $100,000 in net income.
In any case there is a clear disparity where the person working for a living everyday has a much higher federal income tax burden than a person living the life of leisure doing nothing.
Are Republicans really so dense that they can't see the difference?
|
|
|
|
Post by maniacalhamster on Sept 24, 2013 6:54:21 GMT
this whole bourgeoisie tasteless swath of people known as the middle class are nothing more than workers with little regard for their mental salvation.
one walks the malls and sees the purveyors of Carny Slum, (look it up) and the masses buy into it , go in debt for it,and think they are living the dream, then onto their vacation spots where booze is the main ingredient ...
they have driven themselves into the gutter of nothing...they don;t deserve proper health care Obama wants to give them for they are brain washed into thinking it's some commie plot.
|
|
|
|
Post by niff on Sept 24, 2013 12:39:47 GMT
What's wrong with you? The guy "sitting on the beach" already paid taxes on the money he originally made. Then he was smart enough to invest some of the money he saved in whatever the hell he wanted to. It's HIS MONEY! after all. So he puts it in the stock market and he makes a profit on it, in this case 100K and then the Government taxes him AGAIN on his profits. Notice they don't have the gall to tax him higher than 20%......yet.
You're not 'happy' that he's only paying 20%. You want him to pay more so the 'Takers' will be able to 'up-size' their HD TVs.
There's about 47 million people on food stamps now and climbing. The number of 'permanent disability' claims have sky-rocketed after they ran out of Unemployment benefits.
The only 'new jobs' being created are in the "would you like fries with your fries" sector. Hundreds of thousands of full time employees are getting their hours cut so their employer doesn't have to get stuck paying for Obamacare.
And you seriously believe increasing the tax on 'capital gains' is the answer. Wake up pal.
Th 'answer' is every American better get used to the idea that the US is headed for a huge recession and no amount of tinkering with the tax code will help at this point. Obamacare simply throws gas on the fire AKA th complete collapse of the economy. I believe Obama is delighted. His 'handlers' like Alinsky and Ayers are delighted. They all want to see a Socialist country ruled by autocrats. Never mind Socialism has never worked for any country......ever. And virtually every person presently living in any Socialist country today would gladly welcome Capitalism.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 27, 2013 12:37:49 GMT
What's wrong with you? The guy "sitting on the beach" already paid taxes on the money he originally made. Then he was smart enough to invest some of the money he saved in whatever the hell he wanted to. It's HIS MONEY! after all. So he puts it in the stock market and he makes a profit on it, in this case 100K and then the Government taxes him AGAIN on his profits. Notice they don't have the gall to tax him higher than 20%......yet. You're not 'happy' that he's only paying 20%. You want him to pay more so the 'Takers' will be able to 'up-size' their HD TVs. There's about 47 million people on food stamps now and climbing. The number of 'permanent disability' claims have sky-rocketed after they ran out of Unemployment benefits. The only 'new jobs' being created are in the "would you like fries with your fries" sector. Hundreds of thousands of full time employees are getting their hours cut so their employer doesn't have to get stuck paying for Obamacare. And you seriously believe increasing the tax on 'capital gains' is the answer. Wake up pal. Th 'answer' is every American better get used to the idea that the US is headed for a huge recession and no amount of tinkering with the tax code will help at this point. Obamacare simply throws gas on the fire AKA th complete collapse of the economy. I believe Obama is delighted. His 'handlers' like Alinsky and Ayers are delighted. They all want to see a Socialist country ruled by autocrats. Never mind Socialism has never worked for any country......ever. And virtually every person presently living in any Socialist country today would gladly welcome Capitalism.
A person making a personal capital investment in their own enterprise is not taxed on their investment either as it was assumed to be previously taxed but they do pay taxes on net income (i.e. the gross income minus the costs of the enterprise) at twice the tax rates of the investor and they cannot avoid paying taxes on their income by funneling it through an off-shore paper corporation.
Yes, today we see more low paying jobs, especially part time jobs, because Americans are losing purchasing power. We see more people qualifying for government assistance because they're earning less money as consumption dwindles because the "real income" of 90% of Americans decreases while the "real income" of the top 10% is dramatically increasing.
I will also note that I've made tax proposals that I believe would reverse this trend while those that simply cite facts about the increasing poverty in America haven't made any proposals to restore the Middle Class in America.
I point to the facts "real income" for 90% of Americans is decreasing and poverty is increasing and make proposals to address it. Others simply point to the fact that poverty is increasing while "real income" is decreasing and propose nothing.
My proposals subject everyone to the same tax codes and tax rates. There is no favoritism in it and it's based upon what the person earns for themselves and not what someone else earns. It also funds 100% of authorized government expenditures that no one but me is proposing. Eventually my proposals will also cut federal expenditures by over 30% by basically replacing the most costly welfare programs in America (Social Security/Medicare) with personal wealth growth based upon the earnings of the individual.
So what are "conservatives" or "liberals" proposing that will restore the Middle Class, increase the personal wealth of Americans, fund the authorized expenditures of government, and replace the most costly welfare programs in America without adversely affecting the standard of living of ANY American?
|
|
