The Goat Pen

Who ever said you should tax wealth?

If you are wealthy you paid taxes accumulating that wealth. It's not right to tax it again.

Earnings show up on paper too. That's what you tax, earnings.

No I don't mean appreciation such as property value increasing or anything like that, taxes were paid on that when it was sold.

Intrest is earnings etc etc etc.

the wealthy do a pretty good job of hiding or sheltering incloime in this system

An advantage of wealth

If you are wealthy you paid taxes accumulating that wealth. It's not right to tax it again.

Two strikes.

Income is just an imaginary fucking accounting trick. Income doesnt mean anything, saying "nobody said dey shud tax wealth!" is just stupid, because the alternative was that someone did say they should tax income and there was a reason behind it. The "reason" of course being that it was too hard to do it right and tax wealth, but much easier to just shortcut onto "income" which also had the advantage that you could define it anyway you wanted.

All income is just a derivative of wealth and wealth creation. The entire purpose of government as stated by the founding fathers were to protect life, liberty, and property.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Every citizen has one life, and the government is charged to provide defense, keep the peace, enforce justice to preserve it. Every person has their own liberty and freedom that the government is charged to ensure. Then there's property. The government is tasked with the defense, preservation, protection of the property of the US and all its citizens. Now heres the issue, this the first item where not all men are equal. The US has a lot more to do to protect John Hancock, rich asshole, than John the wharf rat running around the docks at Boston Harbor. The rich should pay in proportion to the property that they own. Using "income" is just a cheap shortcut to simulate the ideal scenario, "income" or "earnings" weren;t used because "thats what's right!" or anything idiotic like that.

it's not often you see aTm so angry.

And frankly, even that power, I believe, was reserved to the states. Its my opinion that the national "income" tax is basically just a big fraud to get around that whole unfortunate direct tax constitution thing.

And Mook said I was on a roll...

aTm wrote:And frankly, even that power, I believe, was reserved to the states. Its my opinion that the national "income" tax is basically just a big fraud to get around that whole unfortunate direct tax constitution thing.

The 16th Amendment gives the federal government the right to collect income taxes.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

aTm wrote:Income is just an imaginary fucking accounting trick. Income doesnt mean anything, saying "nobody said dey shud tax wealth!" is just stupid, because the alternative was that someone did say they should tax income and there was a reason behind it. The "reason" of course being that it was too hard to do it right and tax wealth, but much easier to just shortcut onto "income" which also had the advantage that you could define it anyway you wanted.

All income is just a derivative of wealth and wealth creation. The entire purpose of government as stated by the founding fathers were to protect life, liberty, and property.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Every citizen has one life, and the government is charged to provide defense, keep the peace, enforce justice to preserve it. Every person has their own liberty and freedom that the government is charged to ensure. Then there's property. The government is tasked with the defense, preservation, protection of the property of the US and all its citizens. Now heres the issue, this the first item where not all men are equal. The US has a lot more to do to protect John Hancock, rich asshole, than John the wharf rat running around the docks at Boston Harbor. The rich should pay in proportion to the property that they own. Using "income" is just a cheap shortcut to simulate the ideal scenario, "income" or "earnings" weren;t used because "thats what's right!" or anything idiotic like that.

Absolutely positively NOT. So would you have the gubment stealing your moms car after it's paid off because they determined that 55 chevy was worth a goodly sum and she has to pay 15000 dollars a year tax on her chevy? That's just stupidity.

Income/ernings are the only thing that make sense. As for it being a level playing field, you can't get any more level than a flat, across the board percentage of earnings. I also disagreeon another point. I bet the gubment spends more on the lower income earners per year than they do for "the rich". The rich don't use social services, the rich don't use the roads more than anyone else, and are more likely to pay for their own kids education etc.

The punnish the producers mentality is nothing more than jealousy is just plain wrong.

aTm wrote:Income is just an imaginary fucking accounting trick. Income doesnt mean anything, saying "nobody said dey shud tax wealth!" is just stupid, because the alternative was that someone did say they should tax income and there was a reason behind it. The "reason" of course being that it was too hard to do it right and tax wealth, but much easier to just shortcut onto "income" which also had the advantage that you could define it anyway you wanted.

All income is just a derivative of wealth and wealth creation. The entire purpose of government as stated by the founding fathers were to protect life, liberty, and property.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Every citizen has one life, and the government is charged to provide defense, keep the peace, enforce justice to preserve it. Every person has their own liberty and freedom that the government is charged to ensure. Then there's property. The government is tasked with the defense, preservation, protection of the property of the US and all its citizens. Now heres the issue, this the first item where not all men are equal. The US has a lot more to do to protect John Hancock, rich asshole, than John the wharf rat running around the docks at Boston Harbor. The rich should pay in proportion to the property that they own. Using "income" is just a cheap shortcut to simulate the ideal scenario, "income" or "earnings" weren;t used because "thats what's right!" or anything idiotic like that.

excriment

it is aTm's logic, that concludes, a retired couple in their early 70s living in Orange County California (in the same 3-bedroom, 2-bath ranch they bought 37 years ago) are now morally obligated to pay $20,000/year in property taxes because the house they raised their children in (that they paid $28,500 for in 1974) is now worth $750,000.

aTm, they don't have $20,000 a year. they have a mortgage-free house, a tiny nest egg, and a social security check. and your horrific, un-American logic, means they are now forced to sell the house they own free-and-clear.

Owlman wrote:

aTm wrote:And frankly, even that power, I believe, was reserved to the states. Its my opinion that the national "income" tax is basically just a big fraud to get around that whole unfortunate direct tax constitution thing.

The 16th Amendment gives the federal government the right to collect income taxes.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

I know. It was largely brought about because the rich weren't being taxed on investment income because that could be determined to be a property tax.

I think I figured out why aTm is so testy. He must have lost a bundle in the market.

Perhaps he's just dealt with people who owned businesses before. Anyone that owns a business knows that earnings are fungible. Most small businesses only show a profit every 5 years (and that's because if the IRS requires them to show a profit every 5 years). You expense everything you can through the business, something employees can't do. Expense 100% of your health insurance, GPS, automobile, living arrangements in part, etc.

Makes it hard to get money for a home mortgage though, so you have to manipulate your return the year you are applying for a mortgage.

[youtube]EPcjkgYS-cU[/youtube]

Professor Tiger wrote:I think I figured out why aTm is so testy. He must have lost a bundle in the market.

I'm sure I did, but I havent checked.

sheesh, where do I start?

1. VAT tax is regressive because poor people pay out more as a percentage of their income.

2. Business owners pay both sides of FICA on their income whereas an employee does not. An employee can deduct unreimbursed employee business expenses based on the same criteria as business owners deduct their business expenses.

3. if grandma and grandpa can't afford the property tax on a $750K home then they should sell. no country can promise the perfect life.

An employee can deduct unreimbursed employee business expenses based on the same criteria as business owners deduct their business expenses.

In theory yes, in practice no.

[youtube]xaG4A0Bm8c4[/youtube]

I bet Johnny Rotten and Sid Vicious are proud...