- This topic has 1 reply, 17 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
[quote=”DavidCMurray”]Making profit, interest, dividend, rent and other unearned income taxfree would certainly be a godsend for the already uberrich, loraine. Those are the greatest sources of their incomes. So you and I could pay to educate their children, pave their roads, provide their security and a thousand other public functions while they’d be free to spend all their wealth on expensive trinkets.
It’d be Paradise on Earth (if you were one of the lucky few).
[/quote]David, are you opposed to a flat tax? Whereas everyone pays the same rate? Do away with deductions, loopholes and the like? To me, someone making $1,000,000 pays $150,000 and someone making $50,000 pay $7,500 is “fair”. Just because someone has been more succesful than someone else, should they pay a different tax rate? Just thinking out loud there.
[quote=”kwhite1″][quote=”DavidCMurray”]Making profit, interest, dividend, rent and other unearned income taxfree would certainly be a godsend for the already uberrich, loraine. Those are the greatest sources of their incomes. So you and I could pay to educate their children, pave their roads, provide their security and a thousand other public functions while they’d be free to spend all their wealth on expensive trinkets.
It’d be Paradise on Earth (if you were one of the lucky few).
[/quote]David, are you opposed to a flat tax? Whereas everyone pays the same rate? Do away with deductions, loopholes and the like? To me, someone making $1,000,000 pays $150,000 and someone making $50,000 pay $7,500 is “fair”. Just because someone has been more succesful than someone else, should they pay a different tax rate? Just thinking out loud there.[/quote]
David
truthfully I hope they try and tax the rich as much as they can because those people will just get fed up and leave leaving everyone else again
in a fetal position with thier thumbs in mouth wimpering
help me… help me please..:)
taxing the rich is so asinine it’s not funny
why ?
because it does NOTHING to help the U.S. out of the hole and it gives the politicians to redirect focus.
which is a great strategy for them
[quote=”DavidCMurray”]Making profit, interest, dividend, rent and other unearned income taxfree would certainly be a godsend for the already uberrich, loraine. Those are the greatest sources of their incomes. So you and I could pay to educate their children, pave their roads, process their water and sewage, provide their security, build their airports, and a thousand other public functions while they’d be free to spend all their wealth on expensive trinkets.
But why stop with not taxing their unearned income? How about we exempt them from sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, gas taxes, as well as all taxes on earned income, too? After all, they’re God’s chosen people, right?
It’d be Paradise on Earth (if you were one of the lucky few).
[/quote]David
If I RISK and invest MY MONEY in a venture and work my ass off for 10 years and made many sacrifices
and one day I became wealthy because of this
so what your saying
is that I should be penalized more because I am successful???
what if I lost everything on that venture???
can I call you and you can support me??? maybe i can dip into your retirement fund since your living the costa rican good life.
heck that makes alot of sense :shock::shock::shock::shock::shock::shock::shock::shock::shock::shock::shock::shock::shock:
Yes, I am vehemently opposed to all the existing flat taxes (of which there are plenty) and any new ones. It isn’t a matter of fairness, which they are not. It’s a matter of the remaining disposable income.
Consider a family living on (say) $30,000 a year. If they paid the 17% Steve Forbes proposed in 1999, they’d have about $25,000 left to meet their living expenses. Contrast that family with one earning (say) $300,000 per year who would have to eke out an existence on just $250,000. The latter might be constrained to belonging to just two country clubs while the former would be living on Gravy Train — the dog food, that is. Would the impact on the children, innocent in this scenario, meet your definition of fairness?
(As an aside, responsible economists calculated that Forbes’ rate would have to be closer to 22% to equal then-current government revenues.
Try this simple experiment: from your last year’s federal income tax return, write down your total gross income, the income the flat taxers would propose to tax. Then write down your own net tax. Now, compare the net tax you actually paid to 22% (or 17%, if you prefer) of your total gross and tell us (honestly, now) which amount you’d rather pay.
And if you divide your actual income tax payment by your gross income, you’ll get your “flat tax” rate. I’ll bet you’ll be shocked at how much less than 17 or 22 percent you paid.)
[quote=”DavidCMurray”]Yes, I am vehemently opposed to all the existing flat taxes (of which there are plenty) and any new ones. It isn’t a matter of fairness, which they are not. It’s a matter of the remaining disposable income.
Consider a family living on (say) $30,000 a year. If they paid the 17% Steve Forbes proposed in 1999, they’d have about $25,000 left to meet their living expenses. Contrast that family with one earning (say) $300,000 per year who would have to eke out an existence on just $250,000. The latter might be constrained to belonging to just two country clubs while the former would be living on Gravy Train — the dog food, that is. Would the impact on the children, innocent in this scenario, meet your definition of fairness?
(As an aside, responsible economists calculated that Forbes’ rate would have to be closer to 22% to equal then-current government revenues.
Try this simple experiment: from your last year’s federal income tax return, write down your total gross income, the income the flat taxers would propose to tax. Then write down your own net tax. Now, compare the net tax you actually paid to 22% (or 17%, if you prefer) of your total gross and tell us (honestly, now) which amount you’d rather pay.
And if you divide your actual income tax payment by your gross income, you’ll get your “flat tax” rate. I’ll bet you’ll be shocked at how much less than 17 or 22 percent you paid.)[/quote]
I paid more than 17%.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on taxes my friend. I still do not think people that have taken risk, maybe worked harder, maybe went into the right field of work, or just plain got lucky should be penalized for thier success. A little story, (even true), I had a very nice position with a worldwide construction equipment company, making a very nice living. Took a chance and started my own company (not related to my previous job), took a 75% paycut, paid myself just the bare minimum to get by, for sveral years until the business could support my salary (to this day there are times when I skip a paycheck so my employees can get paid). If I am to understand you, because of my hard work, dedication, and sacrifices, I should have to pay more percentage in taxes than someone working a 9-5 job, that does not support 15 families every week? I would still pay a higher dollar amount than that guy, but it shoulds be the same percentage, in my opinion.
[quote=”kwhite1″][quote=”DavidCMurray”]Yes, I am vehemently opposed to all the existing flat taxes (of which there are plenty) and any new ones. It isn’t a matter of fairness, which they are not. It’s a matter of the remaining disposable income.
Consider a family living on (say) $30,000 a year. If they paid the 17% Steve Forbes proposed in 1999, they’d have about $25,000 left to meet their living expenses. Contrast that family with one earning (say) $300,000 per year who would have to eke out an existence on just $250,000. The latter might be constrained to belonging to just two country clubs while the former would be living on Gravy Train — the dog food, that is. Would the impact on the children, innocent in this scenario, meet your definition of fairness?
(As an aside, responsible economists calculated that Forbes’ rate would have to be closer to 22% to equal then-current government revenues.
Try this simple experiment: from your last year’s federal income tax return, write down your total gross income, the income the flat taxers would propose to tax. Then write down your own net tax. Now, compare the net tax you actually paid to 22% (or 17%, if you prefer) of your total gross and tell us (honestly, now) which amount you’d rather pay.
And if you divide your actual income tax payment by your gross income, you’ll get your “flat tax” rate. I’ll bet you’ll be shocked at how much less than 17 or 22 percent you paid.)[/quote]
I paid more than 17%.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on taxes my friend. I still do not think people that have taken risk, maybe worked harder, maybe went into the right field of work, or just plain got lucky should be penalized for thier success. A little story, (even true), I had a very nice position with a worldwide construction equipment company, making a very nice living. Took a chance and started my own company (not related to my previous job), took a 75% paycut, paid myself just the bare minimum to get by, for sveral years until the business could support my salary (to this day there are times when I skip a paycheck so my employees can get paid). If I am to understand you, because of my hard work, dedication, and sacrifices, I should have to pay more percentage in taxes than someone working a 9-5 job, that does not support 15 families every week? I would still pay a higher dollar amount than that guy, but it shoulds be the same percentage, in my opinion.[/quote]
yep
the world according to David
your risk…
your sacrifices
means nothing.
it means nothing dealing with the stress to make payroll.
if your a business owner.
YOU are the last one to get paid…
and
if by chance you do make it.. which by new company statistics the odds are against you.
you should feel obligated to pay more taxes.
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
it’s obvious that David had been a w-2 employee all his life
which is OK!!! nothing wrong with that BUT i see differences in people who
work for a company as opposed to having a small business.
David
UPDATE: David I was just made aware that you had a government job.. which is fine.. in fact it seems the only job growth occurring right now are government jobs. which is exactly what we need more of
more government jobs!!!! bigger government!!
last month 75% of new jobs were government jobs!!!:D
here is a nice example of the direction of the new americahttp://cnsnews.com/blog/terence-p-jeffrey/obamas-america-will-become-detroit
I believe that the only real moral thing to do is
OPT OUT of paying taxes
I remember years ago I was 23 and in sales and were on a team and I busted my hump to do really well while many on the team did just enough to do OK.
one of the lazy salepersons had the luck of getting a call in which they lost the sale out of pure incompentance. this was a $25000 commission.
I later tried to rekindle the relationship.. and in 3 months after following up again and phone calls and hand holding and on saturdays meeting them for a round of golf ( which I hate)
finally one of the owners looked at me and said. hey i finally realized that we never even signed up with you guys and you spent all this time with us.
so right there he had his company write a check for $102,000. $25000 commission :D:D:D:D:D
I was so proud!!!! I mean I busted my ass and spent alot of time on this account and after 3 months my individual efforts paid off.
so here I show up monday morning to the office with a $102,000 check in my hands :D:D:D:D:D all happy and excited
and in our monday morning meeting
the other 3 original lazy ass salespeople.. starting complaining that that was their sale!!!
and after whining how unfair.. the general manager decided it would be best to split the commision
between myself and the other 3 salespeople!!!
I was never let down so much and that was my very first introduction to this mentality of distributing wealth all around because we have to be fair.
forget all what it took to make that sale.. all the sacrifices..
so to end the story
I told these guys.. fine
here is what I will do
I ripped the check into 4 parts.. here is your piece of the check and here is your piece and your piece.
I QUIT right there
and the look on the faces when I ripped that check into pieces was worth the $25000 commission.
they never got that account when I left
in fact they signed up with me with another company 6 months later.
so.. david.. i would do the same with you
here is your piece of the check
god speed.
[quote=”DavidCMurray”]Yes, I am vehemently opposed to all the existing flat taxes (of which there are plenty) and any new ones. It isn’t a matter of fairness, which they are not. It’s a matter of the remaining disposable income.
Consider a family living on (say) $30,000 a year. If they paid the 17% Steve Forbes proposed in 1999, they’d have about $25,000 left to meet their living expenses. Contrast that family with one earning (say) $300,000 per year who would have to eke out an existence on just $250,000. The latter might be constrained to belonging to just two country clubs while the former would be living on Gravy Train — the dog food, that is. Would the impact on the children, innocent in this scenario, meet your definition of fairness?
(As an aside, responsible economists calculated that Forbes’ rate would have to be closer to 22% to equal then-current government revenues.
Try this simple experiment: from your last year’s federal income tax return, write down your total gross income, the income the flat taxers would propose to tax. Then write down your own net tax. Now, compare the net tax you actually paid to 22% (or 17%, if you prefer) of your total gross and tell us (honestly, now) which amount you’d rather pay.
And if you divide your actual income tax payment by your gross income, you’ll get your “flat tax” rate. I’ll bet you’ll be shocked at how much less than 17 or 22 percent you paid.)[/quote]
David, I truly respect your opinion on a lot of things but you need to read the book on the flat tax. It will explain the program and answer all your questions. The flat tax could be our best option.
I knew I liked you. Fantstic move on the ripped check!
As I have said, the US has turned the corner on more takers than givers, with that there is no way to recover, the givers will take thier money somewhere else or become takers as well. That leaves no givers! Jesus was the only man I know of that could take a few fish and loaves of bread and feed the masses.
It will be interesting to see how this thing plays out, hopefully from a far enough away vantange point.
[quote=”kwhite1″]I knew I liked you. Fantstic move on the ripped check!
As I have said, the US has turned the corner on more takers than givers, with that there is no way to recover, the givers will take thier money somewhere else or become takers as well. That leaves no givers! Jesus was the only man I know of that could take a few fish and loaves of bread and feed the masses.
It will be interesting to see how this thing plays out, hopefully from a far enough away vantange point.
[/quote]
I will never forget the childlike let down gut feeling when I pursued that deal with a persistence of a honey badger. and feeling so proud..
and actually expecting the pats on the back.. great job praises.
only to learn a very important life lesson when it comes to individual drive and ambition VS the collective. 🙂
but your right!!! the givers will just take their money and go elsewhere.
and all will be left will be these types of situations
http://cnsnews.com/blog/terence-p-jeffrey/obamas-america-will-become-detroit
when you have 73% of job growth coming from government. the masses see this as a good thing because they do NOT understand that the government does NOT create anything
They TAX!!!
that is all they know how to do.
and in between the cracks are opportunities that are revealed only to the politicians and this is what they exploit to their benefit.
it turns my stomach.
think about this.. you and I are tied into certain economic realities. for example. if personally
you have a credit card with $10,000 and you go out and spend it all and max it out.
then you get another credit card and you pay the minimum from one credit card from the other credit card.
then you go and max that one also. so you get another credit card and pay the minimum to both credit cards from the new credit card.
but then you max out the new one also.
very soon this will come to an end with bankruptcy.
same in business if we ran it this way. this is fiscally irresponsible.
it would be paying your payroll with cash advances from your credit cards and you keep doing this over and over again until you go out of business.
BUT Government seems NOT to be part of this reality and there is NO accountability.
they just keep spending $$$$$$$$$$..
weeeeeeeee!!!! lets spend more money
heck it’s NOT thier money.. its the stupid taxpayers..
one thing I have observe is that Liberals love to spend other peoples money :D:D:D:D
and thsy use code words. Like
[b]”we”[/b][size=200][/size] need to help these people or “WE” need to save this or that.
never [b]”I”[/b][size=][size=200][/size][/size] need to do something
crazy
Loraine, I was answering Scott’s question “Is the estate tax fair?” Period! I understand taxes very well, thank you very much.
DUH Where is my head? The Fair Tax book (not flat tax, duh)
Must have been a senior moment. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it 🙂
Since David C is certain that the estate tax taking the family farm is a myth, perhaps he could solve my family dilemma. My Mom owns a beautiful place on the river that has been in my family for 150 years. When the new estate tax hits on January 1, 2013, the rate is set to be 55% with an exemption of $1 million. The close to 300 acres is valued on county tax rolls at $1.8 million. So if my 85 year old Mom dies in January, how do I pay the $440,000 that is due? And the government deserves to benefit–how?
[quote=”puravidatexan”]Since David C is certain that the estate tax taking the family farm is a myth, perhaps he could solve my family dilemma. My Mom owns a beautiful place on the river that has been in my family for 150 years. When the new estate tax hits on January 1, 2013, the rate is set to be 55% with an exemption of $1 million. The close to 300 acres is valued on county tax rolls at $1.8 million. So if my 85 year old Mom dies in January, how do I pay the $440,000 that is due? And the government deserves to benefit–how?[/quote]
puravidatexan
I would also like to hear Davids solution to this.
maybe you could divide the land up and give it to the poor.
heck.. who needs that much land anyway.?? i mean how much land can one live on comfortably.
maybe if you asked nicely you would be allowed to keep a few acres.
or best yet
maybe David can help out and chip in with the $440,000 taxes due.
either way you will need to pay that tax otherwise it can be repoed!!!
my suggestion and this would be a very [b]BOLD[/b] move!!!
take out a huge loan mortgage against the property.. to the hilt.
being that the property had been in the family for that long you probably have a huge enough profit margin to withstand a loss of the amount a crooked bank would loan you against the land.
then migrate those funds to another country where you feel you would like to enjoy your retirement.
then after 2 or 3 payments
default!!
and let them have thier way.
and enjoy the fruits of your family’s labor spent the way YOU WANT
your credit would be shot.. but thats OK
because you can start a new credit file in that country and start again.
[quote=”puravidatexan”]Since David C is certain that the estate tax taking the family farm is a myth, perhaps he could solve my family dilemma. My Mom owns a beautiful place on the river that has been in my family for 150 years. When the new estate tax hits on January 1, 2013, the rate is set to be 55% with an exemption of $1 million. The close to 300 acres is valued on county tax rolls at $1.8 million. So if my 85 year old Mom dies in January, how do I pay the $440,000 that is due? And the government deserves to benefit–how?[/quote]
I certainly have no professional expertise in estate planning, so I can’t offer any concrete suggestions other than to get with a tax professional and start working out a plan now. I think I know, however, that family assets are often put into revocable trusts so that when the current owner dies, there is no taxable event.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
