Go Back   Professional Soldiers > At Ease > General Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-16-2004, 10:31   #31
brownapple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by QRQ 30

Less payroll equals less spending. This reduces the income of states and local government.

Less payroll means les consumer spending which leads to less need for sales personnel, which leads to further un-employment.

Less spending leads to reduced production, again increasing un-employment and goverrnment income. It's a horrible tail-spin. The solution may eventually be to return to an agrarian society. The question will no longer be: "How are you going to keep them down on the farm?"
People aren't guaranteed jobs. But if people are spending less on taxes, they are more likely to be investing in the economy (either by actual investment, by saving or by consumer spending).
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2004, 15:18   #32
Ockham's Razor
Guerrilla
 
Ockham's Razor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 108
GH, first off, I want to get this out of the way for those that might not know. You realise that I respect you and that this is simply a discussion of a difference of opinion. You have yours, and I have mine. Just so we have that cleared up. We would probably strangle each other over a baseball game but on this issue I just want to present my opinion of it as I see it.


The Flat tax ignores how the majority of big time wealth is distributed. Capital Gains, Dividends, Accumulated interest. That is the language of those at the upper tier. If someone making $28k is paying his flat tax of 17-20% how is that supposed to be "equal" to those who may make $200-50mil yet have assets in the hundreds of millions?

The guy making $28k does not have the ability to appreciate the forgiveness of a system that allows a $20 million profit on a land sale to not be taxed.

I've looked at the flat tax plans, everyone who makes their living through gains in investment are completely untouched. Perhaps that is why people like Steve Forbes advocate such a system.

Can I just relate to you that I get to see far more of the seriously rich than most people. I have been to their weddings, done their corporate events and seen the system. I've talked to the people and have seen how they skirt the system. It's almost become a game. "How much were you able to hide from the government last year?" What is even more hysterical is the fact that many of these people do not attain their wealth by wages, it is done through investment arms.

How in the hell are we going to generate the revenue we need to sustain our government if we exclude all of these sources of revenue. Payroll is BS to this class. Wow, we can tax their cheque from Goldman Sachs as 20% (flat tax) but their real wealth of land and securities are totally off limits.

I guess it sucks that those that earn more pay more, I just don't see how you wish to fund our government without those funds. It seems like we are trying that now and are awash in red-ink. I'm tired of the war argument with regards to revenue. Even Johnson raised taxes in the midst of a war. He also had his social programs to pay for, agreed, but we needed money and he raised it.

We NEED money in our governmental system right now. Deficits of the scale we are faced with are NOT good. There is no positive spin to put on it. Especially with the current state of our international paper we are not doing very well in that arena at the moment.

If we exclude people from paying susbstantial amounts of their wealth into the coffers of our system it will collapse. The funny thing is that pure capitalism would be exactly as effective as pure socialism. We have struck a balance between the two in our system. The wealthy pay more into the system, and we have what we have because of it.

I'm going to break down your questions now, but I would like you to tell me how the system is better off with Warren Buffett paying as much as his secretary under such a system because he "pays" himself a small sum and relies on his capital investments.

I know it sounds good, the flat tax, it's not. Time to break it down, bear with me as I do so.
Ockham's Razor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2004, 15:29   #33
Roguish Lawyer
Consigliere
 
Roguish Lawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: People's Republic of CA
Posts: 8,667
OK, Ockham, we now know that you and NDD both have this bumper sticker on your cars.

I'll let Greenhat strangle you. It would take a while to respond to all of the incorrect statements you've made, and he has more patience than I do. LOL
Attached Images
File Type: jpg eatrich.jpg (4.0 KB, 46 views)
Roguish Lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2004, 15:57   #34
Roguish Lawyer
Consigliere
 
Roguish Lawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: People's Republic of CA
Posts: 8,667
Oh, what the hell. Just a few points:

1. One of the central purposes of a flat tax is to eliminate the tax avoidance you're complaining about. Most deductions would be eliminated in this system.

2. The more you tax savings and investment, the less you will see people saving and investing. Savings and investment grow the economy and create jobs. This is why, generally speaking, we should minimize taxation of savings and investment, rather than eat the rich as you propose.

3. Rich people will pay more under a flat tax system. Illustration at rate of 15%:

Income Taxes Paid
$10,000 $1,500
$50,000 $7,500
$100,000 $15,000
$1,000,000 $150,000

4. You are incorrect in suggesting that "pure" capitalism and "pure" socialism are equally "effective." Find me a socialist state in history that produced positive social results. One. Good luck.
Roguish Lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2004, 16:35   #35
Ockham's Razor
Guerrilla
 
Ockham's Razor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally posted by Greenhat
Show evidence of that.


Well, under a system of the flat-tax we would wind up taxing income only at a rate of 17-20% right? Everyone pays the same? Horse poopy. It does not address capital investment and the profits derived therefrom. Therefore, people can invest in huge tracks of land, business, paper securities and pass them down each generation with absolutely no taxation on that accumulation of wealth. Therein lies the birth of an aristocracy. If this were allowed to happen we would wind up with a situation where certain families controlled entire sections of our country. Does it not even strike anyone as odd that both Kerry and Bush are cousins? We are a free Republic, we are supposed to not have iconoclastic families with undue influence. Otherwise what is the point of America? If we allow the unchecked accumulation of wealth the government will almost totally be out-checked.

We can see this even today. I'll give you a local experience. We have a company here that is family owned. They do a decent job and such. I am friends with several of them. Yet, they are able to get around local and state laws on many things simply because of their largesse. That angers me. That means the guy down the street can't compete simply because he does not have that influence of acquired wealth. That is NOT what America is supposed to be about.

If you honestly think that a flat-tax will benefit the man on the street, you are not paying attention to the systems of how wealth is really accumulated. It has NOTHING to do with payrolls whatsoever, it has to do with capital investment. Every plan for the flat tax I have seen leave capital wealth totally alone. Without that inclusion we will never be able to pay for our current system.

When you ask for evidence, this may seem to obfuscate the question, but I'm not trying to do that... Are you asking me to show you that people such as Warren Buffett make little in payroll yet have most of their wealth in accumulated form? How does a flat tax tap into that source of revenue?


You mean like the Kennedy's? Oops, guess it doesn't work too well, does it?

Wow. Well, I guess we can thank the 18th amendment for that, right? Perhaps the single most moronic amendment to the constitution ever. That amendment created the wealth of the Kennedy family. They invested it and they are where they are. I don't know if you recognised my avatar or not but it is a picture of JFK in a boat on the beach of Newport. I am a huge fan of his. As well as his brother. I hear much talk of how the Kennedy's are evil, yet aside from my own Congressman, I have never been hurt by a single action they have made whilst in public office. My congressman is an anti-depressant popping sayer of the line "I have never worked a day in my life" etc etc type of person, and does no good to our district aside from bring us pork.

The one question I would like to pose to you would be, do the Kennedy's have more or less power than they did years ago? They blew their wad many ages ago, they have fine homes and lifestyles, yet do they control an entire region? The answer is no.


Really? Prove that.

Winslow, Morgan, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, William Randolph Hearst... Shall I continue? The only obsfucation that has been done is that most of the current families are now incorporated. Therefore it is called "good business" rather than aristocracy, which is what it is in actuality. Can't you see that they have adapted to the system and are using it for their own gain? Even with 60,000 pages in the tax code these "companies" shirk almost all of their tax obligations. How is that fair and equitable. Further, how would them even paying 17-20% of their "payroll wages" help to narrow that gap?

That's why we have monopoly laws. Nothing to do with Estate tax.

I guess that movement towards relaxing percentage ownership in media is a good thing? Why do you think this has anything to do with the Flat Tax? Under such a system this is a natural outgrowth. If there is to be allowed the unchecked growth of wealth there will be natural and unatural (legal and illegal) monopolies. The inherent power created by such accumulation of wealth will superceed our laws and enforcement of said laws. This is not theory, this is fact. When small numbers of people control entire regions, laws almost become secondary to their desires.

Oh, bullshit. Justify that with facts and not with socialist fear tactics.

Do I really have to? I mean seriously. You honestly believe that if there is this flat tax on "pay-rolls" that those with accumulated wealth will not soon own vast sections of our economy? There is no taxation on their wealth. They can continue to grow their empire and control entire sections of the country and economy. What more proof do I need. That man is inherently good? Why do you want to see if we learned our lessons from the past and re-impose a system that allows the minority to rule the many. This is not fear-tactics. We TRIED it before. Would you like to come over for a visit and see the fruit of their spoils. Buildings which were built on the back of .5 per hour wages? I thought we moved away from that. In fact, I thought that our current system has proven to be the best in the entire world, why would you like to change it?

And we are well on our way to bankruptcy, although the western European powers will beat us there.

Considering the gravitation of the typical American consumer to over-extend their buying power through the use of credit, I'd actually say we are closer than they are. Have you seen the consumer credit numbers lately? They are frightening. Not only that, but in reality, we have mortgaged today for tomorrow. We are seeing growth, not because of tax cuts, not because of increased employment, simply because of the increased willingness to buy now pay later. Eventually this will bite us in the ass. When I hear about the tax rebate checkes my first response to that is "how much will be allocated to repaying debt." Repaying debt does not increase the consumer economy one red cent. Some point to Europe and laugh at them with their unemplyment and defecit numbers, all the while ignoring the fact that Americans have such a high level of consumer debt that it could very well be the ruin of us all.

Yep. To get votes and amass power.

So, basically, what you are saying is that you believe if we have a flat tax there would be no accumulation of wealth and that there will be no creation of aristocratic powers that are able to usurp the laws and run things as they see fit? I'll stick to my belief that men of power ask for only one thing... more power. The flat tax would be the quickest way to get from there to here. Also, there is a reason it has been completely ignored by most in our country, it is wrong, and it will harm our country. Bad ideas sit on the woodpile, this is one of them.

Ockham's Razor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2004, 16:40   #36
Ockham's Razor
Guerrilla
 
Ockham's Razor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
[B]Oh, what the hell. Just a few points:

1. One of the central purposes of a flat tax is to eliminate the tax avoidance you're complaining about. Most deductions would be eliminated in this system.

Fascinating, does this address accumulated wealth as well as paper securities? Aside from that you are spot on.

Quote:
2. The more you tax savings and investment, the less you will see people saving and investing. Savings and investment grow the economy and create jobs. This is why, generally speaking, we should minimize taxation of savings and investment, rather than eat the rich as you propose.
That is total bullshit. You are telling me that people would stop investing? What else are they going to do with their money? Stuff it into mattresses? Guess what, eating the rich pays for the country we have. I like my country. Why do you hate America? (tongue in cheek)
Quote:
3. Rich people will pay more under a flat tax system. Illustration at rate of 15%:

Income Taxes Paid
$10,000 $1,500
$50,000 $7,500
$100,000 $15,000
$1,000,000 $150,000
hahahaha... That is teh funay (SIC) So, those making a million pay $150,000 what about their capital gains and dividends gains? No, nothing? Free money? They have to pay a share to continue the size of the government we have. You are talking about eliminating billions in revenue, where do we make that up?

Quote:
4. You are incorrect in suggesting that "pure" capitalism and "pure" socialism are equally "effective." Find me a socialist state in history that produced positive social results. One. Good luck.
Iceland. You are welcome.

Better??

Last edited by Ockham's Razor; 04-16-2004 at 16:52.
Ockham's Razor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2004, 16:48   #37
Roguish Lawyer
Consigliere
 
Roguish Lawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: People's Republic of CA
Posts: 8,667
Ockham:

Fix your post so I can quote it and explain to you the errors in your thinking.
Roguish Lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2004, 16:50   #38
Ockham's Razor
Guerrilla
 
Ockham's Razor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
OK, Ockham, we now know that you and NDD both have this bumper sticker on your cars.

I'll let Greenhat strangle you. It would take a while to respond to all of the incorrect statements you've made, and he has more patience than I do. LOL
Why are you bringing NDD into this thing? He can handle himself quite well, me thinks. Is it because we have placed socialist elements into our society that have helped to further our capitalist goals? It has. Nothing you can say or do will refute that.

We have very strong socialist elements in our system no matter how many people say we are capitalist. We've found a common ground between the two that have allowed us to grow to the amazing scale that we have.

Incorrect statements? Please elaborate. Also, please tell me how we would sustain our present budget numbers under a flat-tax system. No one else before has been able to do that, so consider it a challenge.

GH will strangle me, I know how he feels on the economy as well as other things. I just happen to have some divergent views on a few things. The thing is that he realises that we can discuss things, sometimes agree to disagree, and still hold one thing true... No matter what we think, we both agree the American Economy is the greatest economy in the world and there is no damn substitute.

Though, I can only imagine the response I'll get to my reply. It's what I believe, it's what I've seen and experienced. There is a two-class system in place, and many people can't see it. A flat tax is going to simply make the top tier much more powerful than they already are.
Ockham's Razor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2004, 16:54   #39
Ockham's Razor
Guerrilla
 
Ockham's Razor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 108
Repeat, -2 gold stars

Last edited by Ockham's Razor; 04-16-2004 at 16:59.
Ockham's Razor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2004, 17:00   #40
QRQ 30
Quiet Professional
 
QRQ 30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Williamston, SC
Posts: 2,018
Dayem!! This is better than a Soggie VS A-Team debate.



No one has as yet explained how Government income can be reduced without cutting spending. The only suggestion I have seen yet amounts to the un-employment of thousands of government employees. Hardly a solution.
__________________
Whale

Pain and suffering are inevitable,
misery is optional.

http://tadahling.com/memoriesofaspecialforcessoldier/
QRQ 30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2004, 17:01   #41
Roguish Lawyer
Consigliere
 
Roguish Lawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: People's Republic of CA
Posts: 8,667
Quote:
Originally posted by Ockham's Razor
Fascinating, does this address accumulated wealth as well as paper securities? Aside from that you are spot on.
We do not tax these things now. You pay taxes on an investment when you realize a gain. You want to take a percentage of people's savings accounts and investment holdings? Commie.


Quote:
Originally posted by Ockham's Razor
That is total bullshit. You are telling me that people would stop investing? What else are they going to do with their money? Stuff it into mattresses? Guess what, eating the rich pays for the country we have. I like my country. Why do you hate America? (tongue in cheek)
Yes, they would avoid paying taxes by doing this kind of stuff. You've already demonstrated this to be true.


Quote:
Originally posted by Ockham's Razor
hahahaha... That is teh funay (SIC) So, those making a million pay $150,000 what about their capital gains and dividends gains? No, nothing? Free money? They have to pay a share to continue the size of the government we have. You are talking about eliminating billions in revenue, where do we make that up?
I would not tax capital gains at all.


Quote:
Originally posted by Ockham's Razor
Iceland. You are welcome.
Bad example. Not a pure socialist country.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/ic.html
Roguish Lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2004, 17:03   #42
Ockham's Razor
Guerrilla
 
Ockham's Razor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 108
The flat tax is a tax cut. It's as simple as that. Sometimes tax cuts are a good thing, yet not so good when we are increasing governmental spending, how are we supposed to pay for it?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg taxpix.jpg (30.3 KB, 34 views)
Ockham's Razor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2004, 17:08   #43
Roguish Lawyer
Consigliere
 
Roguish Lawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: People's Republic of CA
Posts: 8,667
Quote:
Originally posted by Ockham's Razor
The flat tax is a tax cut. It's as simple as that. Sometimes tax cuts are a good thing, yet not so good when we are increasing governmental spending, how are we supposed to pay for it?
You are ignoring deductions, which tend to benefit only high-income taxpayers. Earlier, you said that your rich friends aren't paying any taxes. Are you changing your position?
Roguish Lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2004, 17:12   #44
Ockham's Razor
Guerrilla
 
Ockham's Razor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
We do not tax these things now. You pay taxes on an investment when you realize a gain. You want to take a percentage of people's savings accounts and investment holdings? Commie.

ooooh you called me the "C" word. You are not understanding this at all. You want a system whereby all people can hand down wealth from generation to generation with zero taxation under the flat tax, I do not. I'm not talking about raiding people's accounts or holdings, simply making sure the system that is in place stays in place. Hell yes it needs reforms, though it should not be abolished. You are talking about taxing payroll and not anything else, this will generate huge shortfalls in our monetary needs.



Yes, they would avoid paying taxes by doing this kind of stuff. You've already demonstrated this to be true.


Fine, where would they put their money? The Euro? Seems as if they are already doing that now.

I would not tax capital gains at all.


Then you would wind up with a gaping whole that is called a budget deficit. Has not the tax cut proven this to ANYONE? Do you realise how much money the government has not taken in because of just such thinking? We need that money to sustain our government. Unless you are ok with our continuation to print paper debt that is passed on to future generations. Eventually, someone, somewhere is going to have to pay that back.

Bad example. Not a pure socialist country.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/ic.html

Sweden? Norway? Denmark? What more Socialist do you want?

Ockham's Razor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2004, 17:17   #45
Ockham's Razor
Guerrilla
 
Ockham's Razor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
You are ignoring deductions, which tend to benefit only high-income taxpayers. Earlier, you said that your rich friends aren't paying any taxes. Are you changing your position?
Not at all. I never said "they never pay taxes" I insinuated they did not pay their fair share. Are you losing some reading comprehension skills there counselor?

I'm ignoring deductions? WTF? Where in the flat-tax allows for deductions? I'm ignoring them because in the consideration of a flat tax there are NO deductions. It's payroll, remember?

Can't you realise that people in the top-tier actually pay less under such a system into our government? Why does 2+2=5 to you on this issue? There is a reason why the flat tax was laughed at, it makes absolutely NO sense!
Ockham's Razor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 00:42.



Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies