Agreed. It just seems fair to some folks that the rich should pay more since they are leaching more from the system in one way or another.
I have mixed feelings about this. My 'capitalist' said screams unfairness because I happen to pay a GREAT deal of tax due to my situation. However, the 'compassionate' side tells me that I should pay more than a struggling single mom or dad, or a working student that is learning something that will help the country.
It's a tough situation. Personally, I like the idea of abolishing income tax and going to straight federal sales tax. This has many benefits, including capturing tax dollars from people that have been able to avoid it, like illegal immigrants. It establishes a graduated tax burden (the more you have and thus the more you spend, the more tax you pay) ... and it puts YOU squarely in control of your tax payout.
Which appears to be about 80% of the country but then agaon, with your bias, I can see why you would believe this.
And you know different how?????
No, it was the wisdom of the public and the fact that the republican party has long lost their way.
The problem here is that NONE of the methods that Max mentioned cost any HUMAN lives and the point he was trying to make was that too many (like yourself) automatically associate stem cell with abortions and this argument by you more than proves his point.
Then I guess that makes you a liberal too then, huh, Budd. According the the conservative mind set, everything that happens to someone is completely the responsibility of that person and since you claim to be a conservative, suck it up and take responsibility for you situation.
If all of the problems are due to the liberals, what happened during the 12 years that the conservatives have been in charge???
Not sure what you mean. Taxes are based on a % of (income - deductions). If you are referring to corporate taxes then its % of (income - expenses - deductions). We already have a graduated tax rate system. The more you earn the higher the % in taxes. Raising rates too high on a graduated basis reduces the incentive to grow. Thats not good in the long run.
Who is taking the most possible? Just because someone makes a great product that people want to buy does not mean they are taking too much from someone. Raise their taxes sky high and they stop growing which means fewer jobs. If you're just going to tax the crap out of them for expanding then why would they?
Redistribution will cause slower growth. Too high will stop it all together. Without incentive to grow a company won't!
Making a great product and being successful is what you define as greed.
Good gried!! You don't know? Look up communism. You know, the result of what grows out of socialism.
Taxing the crap out of anyone who is successful removes the incentive for doing so. It halts the very reason for growth. Nobody is going to increase investments in growth if they will be forced to give up returns on that investment in the form of high taxes.
You seem to think it is wrong for someone to earn a return on an investment into their own company. However, you see nothing wrong with someone investing in another company in the form of stocks and getting a decent return for retirement. Your absurd logic says investing in your own company is greed. Investing in another company is sound investing. You logic that you have stated here many times makes no sense at all. A persons own company IS their retirement investment or at least a substantial part of it.
Why should be put a cap on a persons salary? Once again you'll put a stop to the very reasons for growth...returns on investments.
The rich already do pay vastly more than a struggling single mom or dad or working student. The rich pay the majority of all taxes paid. When is enough enough?
I like the idea of usage taxes but liberals say it punishes the poor. Perhaps a reverse graduated system of tax refunds based on salary would improve that.
If we make it extremely difficult to afford luxuries then the incentive to work towards them vanishes. I don't want a society where everyone just has their basic needs met and nothing more. Pretty boring society that will become stagnant with zero growth. Taxes should be based on needed services performed by government. Not as a form of punishment for those that are successful.
Just about every upper exec in these large companies.
Yea, and in your fantasy world that might be true but in most cases it is not a great product, it is a required product and the ones raising the cost are not usually the ones who actually make or provide it, it is the rich execs running these companies and their HUGE salaries than need to be paid driving up the cost, sometimes to the point where many of the people that actually need it can't afford it.
More complete crap and if the jobs being created don't pay a living wage because all of the profits are going to the top few, who cares if these companies grow or not.
This is exactly what I mean about you and your GREED. The only incentive that you see to do anything is $$$$$$. Maybe what we need is a limit on how big a company can grow so that competition survives. In todays world, a company grows to the point that they kill all new competition (MS) so that the execs can stay fat and rich and this actually costs jobs and creativity.
No, business owners and corporate execs that pay themselves outrageous salaries while paying their workers next to nothing for the work that they do is what I define as greed. You OTOH, attempt to redefine this greed as success.
Well, since you seemed to rename greed with success, that would be a good thing.
No, it only halts one reason for growth. To bad its the only one that means anything to you.
Good, that will prevent companies from growing to point of becoming monopolies that kills competition and results in job losses, higher prices, and losses in innovation and unless the tax rate reaches or exceeds 100%, they will still get a return on their investment. Maybe it will even pull the compensation reigns in on these extremely overpaid CEO's and corporate execs.
No, I think that is it is wrong for employers to screw their employees and customers to bring in an exaggerated return or for execs in large PUBLIC companies to pay themselves huge salaries with no investment at all for no other reason other than they can and again, screw the employees and customers to pay for it. BTW, how is any of this an investment????
If you cannot see the difference then I doubt that you are who you claim to be and how does your and those like you taking every dime you possibly can equate to investing in anything other than your own greed.
I don't have a problem with someone "investing" in their company but ripping off the employees and customers is hardly investing in anything and anyone who puts all of their eggs in one basket is an idiot and deserves to get burned. Investing in another company costs it or its customers nothing which is very different from your warped definition.
Sure it does. It is just your complete bias toward greed that prevents you from understanding it.
Anyone who does that is a friggen idiot and deserves to wind up on the street if their singular investment craps out. The second problem with your misdirection based argument is that we are not talking about just small companies like you keep bringing up, we are talking about large corporations where many of the upper execs pay themselves huge dollars and have no ownership in it at all. In fact, many of them have golden parachutes so even if they screw up, they still get the huge $$$$$. Is this your redefinition of investment now???
Then why should we put a cap on the level of taxation? If everyone was paid a fair amount, there would be no need to slam high taxes on those with more money as everyone would be able to pay their fair share as well as be able to afford to buy more which increases growth. But as long as the select few insist on taking a vastly disproportionate share of the money, they should pay the lions share of what is needed to keep the society functional. The funny thing is that their greed is what winds up driving up the costs of everything else which requires a higher payout from the government which results in higher taxes.
Very small number of people. So hang them and then what? No more jobs. Good job.
Sounds like you prefer the communist method of a controlled market. You won't admit that but it's actually where you are leaning towards. More control of the market, how much profit one makes, industry regulation etc.
Or they move overseas. Your desire to crush them isn't a good thing. It won't get you what you want.
Sorry TBone, thats the way it works. People create business to make money. Not to just be nice to you. In your fantasy world people would work for very little, give everything they have away and pay everyone above market wages so everyone is all happy. It's a fantasy TBone. Whether it is greed or not it is what it is. Without incentive there would be zero growth in the economy and job market. You seem quite happy if that is the case. Everyone poor as long as there are no rich.
It will kill all growth. Nobody is going to invest in a company that can't grow.
If the Fed would only spend on the things which the Constitution empowers, then we'd have a lot less discussion of who to tax. Cause we'd have a lot less Federal revenue needs.
They do because of the vastly different levels of income. They take the most, therefore they pay the most.
When is enough enough when it comes to what they take from society???
That is because it does. The rich only spend a small amount of the money that they take while the poor spend every dime just to survive which would put the majority of the burden on those who can afford it the least, pretty much like our current tax cuts do.
Actually, what would improve that would be a graduated system for this tax itself. Under a certain item value there would be no tax and as the value increases, so does the tax percentage on it.
According to you its not enough until they are crushed into submission and punished to your liking.
We already have various luxury taxes on many items. It doesn't always solve the issue intended. It has to be balanced with the economy the particular items market serves. In otherwords, an items value is relative to other items in the same market. You can't say tax everything higher that costs more than X $'s. It has to be a higher tax on higher priced items in a given market. A $200,000 car should be taxed higher than a $200,000 house.
all i know is that the tax system is totally screwed up. it is about as complex a thing as you can imagine. it has been added to everytime some fatcat needed help from his or her congress person. there is no justice in the tax code and it seems like that is what you two are arguing about. your argument over who it is the most unjust for is a little lame, don't you think? the whole thing needs to be redone, simplified and made more fair. that is what you two should argue for. lets get the pos code written again and done right this time.
I agree. It needs to be fair. However, TBones concept of fair is anything but. His view is to crush and destroy anyone who has more than his perceived level of enough.
I was disappointed with the election results this year. There is one major reason why I do not vote Democrat: Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of abortion, which I believe is murder of unborn babies. Because I am steadfast on this issue, I will NOT vote Democrat. But that pretty much leaves me with only one other choice. Believe me, I am completely against tax breaks for major corporations and rich people, but to me, this is the lesser of two evils. Another thing, I am frustrated that the majority of Americans let the war in Iraq dictate their voting. Yes, the war is a very important issue, and yes, we all would like to get out, but face it: it's not going to happen anytime soon, no matter who is in power. Personally, I believe that our next President will be a Democrat due to the unpopularity of the war. But I would not be a bit surprised if we're still in Iraq by the end of his (or her) term. Why? Our government takes way too stinking long to do anything. Take the Republicans over the past few years for example. They had control of the House and Senate, along with the President. What did they accomplish? Pretty much nothing! I could go on, but I'm tired of typing for now.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.