Poor Person: Take a working class guy with a couple of kids. Lets say it's the $20,000 a year household income family. Regardless of the incentive, he's just barely scraping by and simply has no money to save. So he pays, you know, taxes on everything he buys.
So we understand each other, the $ amount isn't relative to this, it's just a number used for illustrative purposes, right? As for paying taxes on everything he buys, he already does that, only difference is the rate. Oh, and right now, if he DOES have any savings, that's also taxed, so there's no incentive for him to do so at all right now, unless he has some goal in mind and will do so regardless of the fact that his savings are taxed.
Under our current tax laws, how much WOULD this guy pay? Is that a fixed item, or will it fluctuate from year to year at the whims of Mr Tax Code Inventor and Mr Politician? I'm making his "expense" a known amount that he is in control of lowering. He has a wonderful option of finding a part-time job, socking the money away, not paying a dime in taxes on that money, and reducing his taxes. Right now, Joe Taxpayer has no idea of what he will owe or get back at the end of the year (although that's another topic) and relies on our fine government to give him back the money he
had (his tax refund) until it was removed from his check. And did I also add that they give him this money back with no interest (unlike letting him save it through the year and earn interest on it). Under my plan (I just wanted you to shudder at thinking of me running for office
) he has control of his money. Now, this guy moves up in "class" at whatever pace he decides to do so. If he wants to shoot for a house or car, he picks up a second part-time job. Remember, he can put it all in savings, reducing his year-end taxes too. Win/win. Can't get a part-time job? Give up some of those luxuries we Americans have come to consider as "necessities", such as food or clothing. Anyone without a sense of humor, please insert McDonald's or Tommy Hilfiger for those two words...and laugh a little, wouldja?
It's putting the power of your own destiny back into your own hands rather than relying on the government to be your "bank" for the year and "graciously" giving us the "overpayment" back at the end of the year (according to the rules they set up at whatever whim they so choose).
Rich Person: Here's a wealthy guy. Let's say he married a ketchup heiress (who is not a billionair -- worth like 450 million, I think).
I was talking about Mrs. Hunts...is there another ketchup heiress you had in mind
His ketchup company is paying him a cool million dollars a year. But he realizes, that he already owns a bunch of houses, a plane, a great boat, cars. He can totally get by on spending just 500,000 a year. Now he just puts the other $500,000 in savings and not pay any taxes. That's pretty cool, because he used to pay about a third of that million bucks in taxes and now he pays nothin'.
I know you addressed that I spoke of a limit, and I understand you're just making your point.
At some point, there would be a limit, as there isn't a politician in the world willing to give a never ending tax break and give up all that revenue. The end result of such a tax would be to lower his total tax, thereby giving him incentive to further spend to make more money, such as starting a business. If Joe Richguy can now make/create more money for himself and pay less in taxes, where would that money he makes/creates go? Why, to Joe Taxpayer...maybe even two, three, or several thousand Joe Taxpayers. He thereby gets a break, gives others a similar (if smaller) break, and he still pays a majority of the tax burden of the country, thereby continuing to fund our government. Let's say he DOES decide to bank his 500,000...so now he's putting (let's say MORE) in the bank to escape paying taxes. Does that money just sit in the bank, or does the bank do something with it? We all know the answer to that...they use that money to turn around and make money for themselves and pay you a tenth of a percent of what they make. They make money by putting it into investments (allowing the businesses they invest in to enlarge - more Joe Taxpayers coming into the equation).
When you say the poor guy gets nothing, you must know hundreds of people who don't want to better themselves. This gives them whatever opportunity they want to make for themselves, period. If they don't want to improve their lives, that's their choice, and the sad fact is that, while 95% of Americans work to improve their lives every day, there
is that apathetic 5% who could care less if their life never changes.
You look at Joe Richguy as getting a giant tax break, while dismissing the fact that, the more he isn't penalized severely, the more willing he is to reinvest it, thereby making potentially more money, thereby paying more taxes, and giving others employment in the process, and if he decides to save all of it, it then goes to the bank, which leads to....and so on...and so on.
This would be a tax break that pretended to apply the same to everybody but, of course, it only applies to people with disposable income.
kind of hard to give a tax break to someone who doesn't pay that much in taxes to begin with. Remember how everyone ridiculed Bush for "giving a tax cut that equates to a new muffler for your car"?
You've already stated that you're for the redistribution of wealth, but at what point do you stop redistributing it? At some point, you'll no longer have "poor", but you'll also no longer have "rich" to take from to give to that "poor".
Anyway, since when did we want to encourage savings? Doesn't the economy go into recession when people save, rather than spend?
yeah, I guess if that "poor" person has $10,000 in the bank, he's gonna let it sit there, and never spend a dime of it...ever...not even on food, clothing, shelter, gas, cars, houses....encouraging someone to save will eventually lead them to see that they can (despite all they're fed about how they can't get ahead for one reason or another) afford those things that seemed out of reach...show them how they can afford better things than what they have...in short, do what Americans do best...anger foreigners...wait...spend money to better thier lives.
If the "outcome" is punitive to the poor, it is so regardless of whether the results were known beforehand.
You see the result as taxing the snot out of the poor, I see it as telling them they'll be taxed "x" amount of dollars so they can plan how they will overcome that, rather than having them think they're going to be taxed "x", and instead be taxed "y" and spend the rest of the next year trying to recover from that, only to have the cycle start all over again the following year.
I don't believe it would be punitive at all, rather, it would be probably be either the same or less than what they currently have to pay, and gives them the option to LOWER that amount! You believe otherwise, and that's why it makes no sense to you. That's ok. It's just a difference in our views.
I'm sure you are aware of the fact that in spite of accountants and money managers, rich people do in fact pay the bulk of the tax burden in America.
do I sense facetiousness in your words?! I've got to wonder why, if the rich do pay the bulk of the tax burden, these "rich" tax cuts don't just shut our economy down altogether, since they just save it and put it in the bank.
billionaire ketchup heiress
This is my favorite thing about politics. As soon as there is an obscenely rich democrat, conservatives suddenly think that there is something immoral about having loads of money. What ever happened to the trickle down theory?
not a darn thing...but let's just see those tax records so we can tell how much "trickled down" and how much was put into "fat-cat tax shelters". I don't think it's immoral to have loads of money. What I think is immoral is to carp about those who don't "pay their fair share" while practising the very same things you rail against. The conservative viewpoint is not to rail against the fact that they aren't getting enough tax breaks, it's to strive to give everyone the opportunity to work their way up to the point where they reach "fat-cat" status. We both want the same thing - for everyone to be as successful as can be - we just differ on what route we should take to get there.
Put your money where your mouth is (read: send me some money for airfare).
AHEM...I have already POSTED my plans for your air fare and it's use Oh, and those who abhor Floy'd random posts and the time it saps from their life to read 'em...you owe me BIG TIME now that I shot 'im dead.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
Send this topic
Print
Topic: Farenheit/Michael Moore links/Lies (Read 13011 times)
