Rich, poor, workers, owners...

[Hondo]

I see so much on here about poor workers, poor abused workers, workers, owners, rich owners, rich people, etc., so what is rich? What do you consider rich? Is rich anybody that has more than you do? Is rich anybody that makes $5,000.00 more a year than you do? Is a man that wants more and works 2 or 3 jobs to pay for it rich, or motivated, or just stupid?

I look at Rollo and Eki on here, and some others always going back to that poor worker argument. Most on here lean towards socialism and thats understandable because you were raised under the promise that the umbrella would always be there for your protection and well being. Depending on where a society is in it's development, I can see where all forms of government would have their good points. The trick I think, is knowing when a change or modification is in order for the society to survive or if the price of survival is too dear, allow the society to collapse and rebuild itself.

I also see Hazell on here. Over the years, we have watched and heard about her business and it's ups and downs. She has expanded her business and in doing so has also incurred financial risk to herself. She has taken out loans, signed leases, and contracts obligating her to purchase products that she hopes she can sell or use to her profit. She puts in long hours and frequently works at least one day of the weekend. I would guess that, at least indirectly, she also creates jobs for others. She seems to constantly be on the lookout for new opportunities. I doubt she does all this with the thought of bailing out the NHS or getting a bigger benefit for those pool souls riding the dole. I think she does it because she wants more for herself and she wants the choice of to whom she is charitable. These figures are only for example because I don't know your rates and feel free to read the dollar sign as pounds. Just for fun, let's say Hazell makes $95,000 a year and is taxed at 20% and has to pay $19,000 in taxes. Now some group of jokers decides that anyone making over $100,000 is rich and has to pay the new rich tax of 40%. Hazell, through her small business expansion makes $107,000 but is now taxed at 40% meaning her tax bill is now $42,800. So for all her hard work and extra risk, she actually put less money in her pocket which may cause her to miss obligations and lose her entire business. If she does survive, she will have to scale back and watch her income or make a big enough jump in revenue to cover the tax increase and still make her profit.

So come on and step up to the plate, get on the list and tell Hazell how much of her earnings you deserve, her being a rich business owner and such.

Fiero- Nothing for me thanks, you don't owe me a damn thing.

[Dave B]

So come on and step up to the plate, get on the list and tell Hazell how much of her earnings you deserve, her being a rich business owner and such.

Fiero- Nothing for me thanks, you don't owe me a damn thing.
If we are to use her as an example then nothing - she doesn't work for me.

If I worked for her I'd negotiate a fair wage and if I didn't like it I wouldn't take the job. If in the course of our business she became staggeringly rich then good luck to her. People who work hard deserve the fruits of their labour.

I am socialist in that I believe the state should come to the assistance of the genuinely needy, but I'm also in favour of a free capitalist economy that lets inviduals earn whatever they can. If a boss earns a massive salary then bravo. They've either earned it through hard graft, or they've convinced somebody higher up the chain that they're worth more than they really are!

What riles me is those people with no ambition stuck in dead-end jobs who say stupid things like "nobody should be paid more than £30,000 per year, it's obscene" when what they really mean is "I wish I could earn what they're on but I lack ambition, skills and motivation".

[Dave B]

Just for fun, let's say Hazell makes $95,000 a year and is taxed at 20% and has to pay $19,000 in taxes. Now some group of jokers decides that anyone making over $100,000 is rich and has to pay the new rich tax of 40%. Hazell, through her small business expansion makes $107,000 but is now taxed at 40% meaning her tax bill is now $42,800. So for all her hard work and extra risk, she actually put less money in her pocket which may cause her to miss obligations and lose her entire business.
PS: your example is flawed, at least in the UK.

We have a series of thresholds above which you pay a higher rate on earnings above that threshold. Here you can earn £37,400 at before you start paying 40% so in your example you'd only pay the higher rate on £69,600 of it. :)

[Alexamateo]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't she be taxed ot 40% only on the $7000 she earned past $100,000?

That said I have no problems with progressive taxes per se. If I were designing it, It would be done by quintiles with the bottom 20% paying nothing or getting everything back, then each quintile would be taxed at 8.25%, 16.5%, 24.75%, and the top marginal rate would be 33%. It would be progressive, meaning that if the bottom household quintile is $30,000, no one pays any taxes on their first $30,000, then everyone pays 8.25% of their income to the next level, and so on.

33% is the top rate because I think any higher is tantamount to robbery. (actually, I think the top rate should be 25% but I am willing to compromise, heck the Bible only asked for 10%, why should government take more, really?)

[Alexamateo]

Also, the question of socialism or not, it's really the role government should play.

I want federal government to provide armies, protect the coasts and borders, regulate interstate trade and disputes between the states, provide infrastructure (communications, transportation) maintain a good and fair court system. In other words, set a level playing field, but make no value judgements as to what is done on that or where or how it is done. I will concede to the federal government environmental laws, because for the life of me I don't see how the market protects the environment without damage first being done to the environment. (of course the particulars are still up for debate. ;) ) At a federal level, they really don't have any business IMO meddling in health and education, those are local issues, along with local police and fire protection etc.

[chuck34]

Also, the question of socialism or not, it's really the role government should play.

I want federal government to provide armies, protect the coasts and borders, regulate interstate trade and disputes between the states, provide infrastructure (communications, transportation) maintain a good and fair court system. In other words, set a level playing field, but make no value judgements as to what is done on that or where or how it is done. I will concede to the federal government environmental laws, because for the life of me I don't see how the market protects the environment without damage first being done to the environment. (of course the particulars are still up for debate. ;) ) At a federal level, they really don't have any business IMO meddling in health and education, those are local issues, along with local police and fire protection etc.

RIGHT WING EXTREMIST! RIGHT WING EXTREMIST! You actually expect the Federal Government to stick to the roles layed out in the US Constitution? How 19th Century of you. Don't you know that we've "evolved" past that now? Don't you know that the Constitution is a living document to be interpreted to fit the moods of whoever is reading it that day? Silly little right winger. :-)

[Mark]

Ah the old fundamental misunderstanding of the tax system! People who are "taxed at 40%" have part of their earnings attracting no tax, part at 20% and the rest at 40%. Income tax will never leave you worse off for earning more.

[BeansBeansBeans]

As a UK taxpayer I'm not particularly concerned about the amount of Govt money lost to benefit fraud. The figures pale in comparison to the amount lost through tax-avoidance by Britain's super-rich.

[anthonyvop]

Income tax will never leave you worse off for earning more.
Isn't the fact that they Tax your income making you worse off? The only people who truly benefit from an income tax are those who earn little or no income.

[GridGirl]

Vop, if you are a higher rate tax payer you pay £0.40p tax in the higher rate whether you earn £1 over the higher tax rate band or £100k for example. Sure you pay more taxes if you earn more but your still getting that £0.60p more purely because you earn more.

Although this argument is largely irrelevant in terms of Hazell. On the presumtion that Hazell is currently trading as a sole trade Hazell will pay income tax on her income (the name is self explanatory). If Hazell starts making alot of money it would be sensible for Hazell to turn her business into a limited company and pay tax at 21% or whatever the small companies corporation tax is at the minute. She could then pay herself a wage and be subject to the above said income tax or she could pay a dividend. Tax planning is important but I think I'm making this thread too technical.

[Eki]

I also see Hazell on here. Over the years, we have watched and heard about her business and it's ups and downs. She has expanded her business and in doing so has also incurred financial risk to herself. She has taken out loans, signed leases, and contracts obligating her to purchase products that she hopes she can sell or use to her profit. She puts in long hours and frequently works at least one day of the weekend. I would guess that, at least indirectly, she also creates jobs for others. She seems to constantly be on the lookout for new opportunities. I doubt she does all this with the thought of bailing out the NHS or getting a bigger benefit for those pool souls riding the dole. I think she does it because she wants more for herself and she wants the choice of to whom she is charitable. These figures are only for example because I don't know your rates and feel free to read the dollar sign as pounds. Just for fun, let's say Hazell makes $95,000 a year and is taxed at 20% and has to pay $19,000 in taxes. Now some group of jokers decides that anyone making over $100,000 is rich and has to pay the new rich tax of 40%. Hazell, through her small business expansion makes $107,000 but is now taxed at 40% meaning her tax bill is now $42,800. So for all her hard work and extra risk, she actually put less money in her pocket which may cause her to miss obligations and lose her entire business. If she does survive, she will have to scale back and watch her income or make a big enough jump in revenue to cover the tax increase and still make her profit.

So come on and step up to the plate, get on the list and tell Hazell how much of her earnings you deserve, her being a rich business owner and such.

Fiero- Nothing for me thanks, you don't owe me a damn thing.
Hazell is a good example of an employer who treats her workers like dogs (mainly because they are dogs).

Seriously, I don't believe Hazell is rich moneywise, but she's rich in the sense that she's doing what she enjoys for living and makes sufficiently to afford that.

[Eki]

Isn't the fact that they Tax your income making you worse off? The only people who truly benefit from an income tax are those who earn little or no income.
Really? Do you only use private roads and other infrastructure? Do you have your own army, police force, prison and fire brigade to protect you from the pi$$ed off proletarians?

[anthonyvop]

Really? Do you only use private roads and other infrastructure? Do you have your own army, police force, prison and fire brigade to protect you from the pi$$ed off proletarians?

If you think I get government services in return equal to the amount I pay in Taxes then you are a bigger fool than I thought you were.

I believe I am safe in stating that I probably paid more in Income, Sales and Property taxes last year than you earned.

Last year I paid $41,000 in property taxes alone.

[Eki]

If you think I get government services in return equal to the amount I pay in Taxes then you are a bigger fool than I thought you were.

Who said anything about equal? It seems to me that you're not a big believer of equality.

[BeansBeansBeans]

I believe I am safe in stating that I probably paid more in Income, Sales and Property taxes last year than you earned.

Do you want a medal?

[Eki]

Do you want a medal?
Only if it's not paid by tax-money but by his own.

[Hondo]

In the USA , The federal income tax you pay is based upon a fixed formula according to your final taxable income amount. At a higher dollar amount, you break out of the tables and the entire thing is figured by a fixed formula. I t is progressive only in the sense of what your final income was. Some states do use a progressive state income tax of so many percent for this amount, then another percentage for everything over that amount, and onwards.
Once upon a time, after having to leave early one day, I noticed that on my check stub for that week, I actually took home more money on 38.5 hours than I did on 40 hours. Somewhere in the money I was making in that extra 1.5 hours kicked me into a higher tax bracket to where I was earning more, but keeping less. Bummer.

[Hondo]

Hazell is a good example of an employer who treats her workers like dogs (mainly because they are dogs).

Seriously, I don't believe Hazell is rich moneywise, but she's rich in the sense that she's doing what she enjoys for living and makes sufficiently to afford that.


I don't know if Hazell is rich or not and nobody has defined what rich is to them. I do know that what Hazell is doing is how many people become rich. I also know that what Hazell is doing is how some people loss their ass.

[Alexamateo]

In the USA , The federal income tax you pay is based upon a fixed formula according to your final taxable income amount. At a higher dollar amount, you break out of the tables and the entire thing is figured by a fixed formula. I t is progressive only in the sense of what your final income was. Some states do use a progressive state income tax of so many percent for this amount, then another percentage for everything over that amount, and onwards.
Once upon a time, after having to leave early one day, I noticed that on my check stub for that week, I actually took home more money on 38.5 hours than I did on 40 hours. Somewhere in the money I was making in that extra 1.5 hours kicked me into a higher tax bracket to where I was earning more, but keeping less. Bummer.

Fiero, it is progressive in that you are taxed at 10% to $8350 of taxable income, 15% from $8350 to $33950, 25% from $33950 to $82250 etc etc.

It is true that different withholding rates take effect on your take-home from week to week depending on the amount earned in a particular week, but that will not affect your final total tax bill for the year.

[Camelopard]

.....crap.......


Just proves once again what a shallow person you are.........

If you think that your statement makes you a better person than anyone else on this forum, then you really are a bigger idiot than I had ever given you credit for being. :confused:

[Alexamateo]

I don't know if Hazell is rich or not and nobody has defined what rich is to them. I do know that what Hazell is doing is how many people become rich. I also know that what Hazell is doing is how some people loss their ass.

I'll define rich as the top 20%, and the top marginal rate should be no greater than 33%, and preferably only 25%, as laid out in an earlier post.

[anthonyvop]

Who said anything about equal? It seems to me that you're not a big believer of equality.
I am a huge proponent of equality.

I believe in an equal playing field. I believe in laws that treat everyone equally.
I believe that any law the supports or gives preferred treatment to a group over others is morally wrong. I believe a person should be judged on what he does not on what his excuse is for not succeeding.

It is you who doesn't believe in equality.

[anthonyvop]

Do you want a medal?
Nah...have enough. Never meant much to me.

[anthonyvop]

If you think that your statement makes you a better person than anyone else on this forum,
It is just one of many reasons why i am better than most.

[Camelopard]

It is just one of many reasons why i am better than most.


Yep, a legend in your own lunch time and you are a classic case of a person with a narcissistic personality disorder.

[Eki]

I don't know if Hazell is rich or not and nobody has defined what rich is to them. I do know that what Hazell is doing is how many people become rich. I also know that what Hazell is doing is how some people loss their ass.
I have nothing against rich, I just have objections on how some people get rich, Hazell's way is not among them.

[Eki]

I am a huge proponent of equality.

I believe in an equal playing field. I believe in laws that treat everyone equally.
I believe that any law the supports or gives preferred treatment to a group over others is morally wrong. I believe a person should be judged on what he does not on what his excuse is for not succeeding.

Then you must agree that everything you leave behind should go to the government instead of your offspring or other relatives. Then everyone would have more equal start to life when they start from nothing.

Take for example Paris Hilton, do you think she's rich because what she has done or simply because she is who she is?

[Hondo]

I'll define rich as the top 20%, and the top marginal rate should be no greater than 33%, and preferably only 25%, as laid out in an earlier post.

Thanks but I'm looking for a fixed figure in pounds dollars or Euros in yearly income, above which some one is "rich" and should be victim to sharply increased taxes.
Also for the USA don't forget the same tax tables are used throughout the country. So while $80,000 is taxed the same in California as it is in Louisiana, the person in Louisiana is still going to have more disposable income due to a lower cost of living.

So, in the USA, is $200,000.00 taxable income on a joint return rich?

[Jag_Warrior]

Thanks but I'm looking for a fixed figure in pounds dollars or Euros in yearly income, above which some one is "rich" and should be victim to sharply increased taxes.
Also for the USA don't forget the same tax tables are used throughout the country. So while $80,000 is taxed the same in California as it is in Louisiana, the person in Louisiana is still going to have more disposable income due to a lower cost of living.

So, in the USA, is $200,000.00 taxable income on a joint return rich?

I understand your question, Fiero. And I see what you're trying to get an answer to. But I've never thought of "rich" as being (necessarily) related to income. Though not in the government's eyes when it comes to setting tax policy, but (true) wealth and riches usually relate more to net worth, not income. Who is "richer", the person who makes $500K/year and has a net worth of $1 million or the person who makes $100K/year and has a net worth of $5 million? One has 5 times the income of the other, but only 1/5 the net worth. Net worth better describes how wealthy (or rich) a person is.

My biggest problem with the tax system, as it stands now, is its complexity and the fact that the laws change too often... too many damn sunsets and grandfather clauses and what not. I have an MBA and I've been in financially related fields for most of my adult life. Even when I've worked for outside firms, I've owned my own business since I was in my early 20's. But I'll tell you right now, when it comes to taxes and tax planning, I barely have a clue. IMO, too much money is wasted on tax attorneys and tax based financial planning (shelters) that have NO real financial or economic value.

[Hondo]

I hear you Jag, but I want to know from the disgruntled proletariat out there at what fixed amount of yearly income do you consider someone rich. Or maybe better asked what is the maximum amount of money anybody should be paid in a year?

[Hondo]

Then you must agree that everything you leave behind should go to the government instead of your offspring or other relatives. Then everyone would have more equal start to life when they start from nothing.

Take for example Paris Hilton, do you think she's rich because what she has done or simply because she is who she is?

I wouldn't agree with that, It's ridiculous, counterproductive, and unworkable without the additional creation of more government at huge expense. There is nothing to keep individuals from "selling" their assests to family members before they die. There shouldn't be any inheiritance taxes at all. I don't begrudge someone being born under a lucky star. It could've been me.

[raybak]

I hear you Jag, but I want to know from the disgruntled proletariat out there at what fixed amount of yearly income do you consider someone rich. Or maybe better asked what is the maximum amount of money anybody should be paid in a year?

I don't think you can put an amount on what someone is paid per year to say that they are rich. I could say that I am rich by my assets that I have built up over the last 20 years that I have been in the workforce, yet I'm not on a super high salary.

You could also say that I'm rich because of all the things I do such as travel and competing rallies all over the world. But this is all possible if you manage your money well.

I have made a lot of sacrifices over the years so that I can enjoy my sport. I could have paid my house off sooner but chose to do the ARC instead. I could have not done any rallies and had a quite substantial bank balance. But to me being rich is being able to do the things that I love, building some security for my retirement and hopefully I can look back on my life in 40 years time and be satisfied.

Ray

[Jag_Warrior]

I hear you Jag, but I want to know from the disgruntled proletariat out there at what fixed amount of yearly income do you consider someone rich. Or maybe better asked what is the maximum amount of money anybody should be paid in a year?

You're talking more about tax fairness than income disparity, I think. I can't say that I have a real opinion on that. I believe there is a new income tax that's hitting certain high earners (bankers and traders) in London now. Maybe someone from the UK can speak to that.

[Hondo]

You're talking more about tax fairness than income disparity, I think. I can't say that I have a real opinion on that. I believe there is a new income tax that's hitting certain high earners (bankers and traders) in London now. Maybe someone from the UK can speak to that.

I'm fine. The angry proletariat seems to run on the income figure so thats why I want the figure. I'm aware of the complexities of value, assets, wealth, property and so forth. I'm getting tired of hearing people get too much. I want to know what too much is. There are a lot of people that appear to be wealthy due to visible assets, but are cash poor. Everything they make goes for payments on those assets. Then you have people that may look poor or lower class that are banking or investing thousands every month because what they own is paid for and they don't feel a need to put on a show of wealth.

[BDunnell]

Yep, a legend in your own lunch time and you are a classic case of a person with a narcissistic personality disorder.

Agreed. And I mean that seriously, rather than as a cheap means of point-scoring or a weak joke.

[BDunnell]

I don't begrudge someone being born under a lucky star. It could've been me.

'Born under a lucky star'? I hate to tell you that no such thing happens.

[Garry Walker]

'Born under a lucky star'? I hate to tell you that no such thing happens.

Would you rather be born to a prisoner in a siberia or to a millionaire in Monaco?

[BDunnell]

Would you rather be born to a prisoner in a siberia or to a millionaire in Monaco?

I was saying that there is no such thing as a 'lucky star', which doesn't strike me as an overly controversial point to make.

[Hondo]

I was using it as a figure of speech.
I don't begrudge someone being born into wealth.

There, you feel better now?

[markabilly]

FUNNY YOU SHOULD ASK----

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/20/the-fortunate-400-and-why-they-need-a-tax-haircut/
read the studies cited in the article, and the rich get richer and the poor get poorer as in 2007 compared to 2006, they got $1.5 million more a week compared to $75 a week more for the average working guy, yet pay a tax rate of about 16%, compared to that greedy Capitalist Hazell


According to tax authorities (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07intop400.pdf), the richest 400 taxpayers each received the equivalent of an $82 million bonus in 2007. These households had an average $345 million income, a 30 percent increase from the previous year, when they made $263 million.the richest 400 taxpayers received an extra $1.5 million each week in 2007, compared with 2006. By contrast, the median full-time worker earned an additional $75 more each week over the same period.



Part of the reason these top taxpayers --- professor Joel Slemrod of the University of Michigan calls them the "Fortunate 400" -- did so well in 2007 is because they faced a relatively low tax burden. Even though the top tax rate in 2007 was 35 percent and applied to taxable income above roughly $350,000, none of the top 400 taxpayers actually paid that rate. Most of the income of these 400 households was in the form of capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at a preferential 15 percent rate, rather than the 35 percent that applies to ordinary "sweat" income. Thus, although these 400 taxpayers paid more than $22 billion in income taxes, their average tax rate was just 16 percent in 2007. This rate is nearly 10 percentage points lower than it was in 1992, when the IRS began collecting these data.

But what about the oft-heard argument that cutting taxes stimulates growth -- that putting money back in the hands of the wealthy in fact raises everyone's economic boat because the wealthy create demand for goods, and therefore, create more jobs as well?
Well, it's time to examine some of those assumptions.
In particular, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2908) reported, the top 1 percent of households held a larger share of income in 2007 than at any time since 1928. Moreover, just after these households earned those record amounts, the U.S. economy fell into its worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Real economic growth slowed from 2.1 percent growth in 2007 to just 0.4 percent in 2008 and fell by 2.4 percent, or by $324 billion, in 2009. Meanwhile, unemployment rose by more than 5.5 million to exceed 14 million, or roughly 10 percent of the labor force.
The negative impact of this income inequality may be more pervasive than understood. As neurologist William Bernstein wrote (http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/how-big-of-a-deal-is-income-inequality-a-guest-blog/?scp=1&sq=how%20big%20of%20a%20deal%20is%20income%20inequ ality&st=cse), a growing body of research shows that income inequality imposes high social and medical costs. Income inequality may explain the rise in obesity, low economic growth, and high rates of homicide in America, compared with other countries. Other studies show that wide disparities in income make everyone -- not just the poor -- worse off. For example, Harvard professor of public policy and epidemiology Lisa Berkman found (http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/07/unequal-america) that the wealthiest people in countries with less income disparity live longer than the wealthiest Americans. Other researchers have looked at the impact of player salaries on team performance and found that not only did baseball teams with wider pay dispersion do less well than other teams, but the individuals on those teams also performed relatively poorly.
While correlation certainly is not causation, these figures provide pretty convincing evidence that we all could benefit from taking another look at whether low tax rates and high income inequality are helping or, as seems may be the case, hurting the U.S. economy.
After all, that aforementioned $75 more per week that a median-income household started seeing in 2007 is barely enough to go out with the family to dinner and a movie, much less pay for a checkup with the pediatrician (http://www.aap.org/research/ImmandPrevCareCost.pdf). That somewhat more essential item than a movie will set the typical family back about $95.








It is very difficult to take a family of five to McDonald's and not pay at least $35, counting sales taxes and then to the movies, it is another 25 to 35 for tickets, and if you get popcorn and so forth.....you are pushing a 100.

Meanwhile the average family health insurance, not counting deductibles paid out of pocket, but just employer contribution amd employee contribution directly into the pocket of health carriers is around $14,000 per year where my spouse used to work before her job, along with the entire group of 300 employees, was outsourced to India, at a company that was a wall street sweetheart (or whore) of the so-called "job stimulus" (so they could ship more jobs overseas!!!!!!!) Meanwhile the top dogs recieved even larger bonuses per head at the end of 2009, then in 2008 and the bonuses in 2008 were larger than 2007 and any year before....... :down:

(and to pay the 14 k insurance works out to about an hourly rate of between 8 to 9 dollars per hour....and meanwhile the insurance companies were loving the idae of the so called health bill reforms which should tell you something, along with the fact that law schools produce four times more lawyers per year than american med schools produce doctors

[anthonyvop]

Then you must agree that everything you leave behind should go to the government instead of your offspring or other relatives. Then everyone would have more equal start to life when they start from nothing.

Take for example Paris Hilton, do you think she's rich because what she has done or simply because she is who she is?

How did you arrive at that ridiculous conclusion?
Whatever I earn belongs to me. I am the only person who decides what happens to that income. Not the state and definitely not you.

[anthonyvop]

Yep, a legend in your own lunch time and you are a classic case of a person with a narcissistic personality disorder.

Thank you Dr. Phil.

Tell me...how is the weather up on that pedestal you sit on?

[markabilly]

Whatever I earn belongs to me. I am the only person who decides what happens to that income. Not the state and definitely not you.

HAHAHAHAHA
give me your address and let me make some money ratting u out , so you can tell that to the IRS....if you ain't in the fortunate 400 group and got a sh*tload of road buzzard tax lawyers, everything you earn will belong to them if you ain't been paying the buzzards their blood money

[markabilly]

Whatever I earn belongs to me. I am the only person who decides what happens to that income. Not the state and definitely not you.




I believe I am safe in stating that I probably paid more in Income, Sales and Property taxes last year than you earned.

Last year I paid $41,000 in property taxes alone.

Must be a road kill eating buzzard aka lawyer as you just done contradicted your self....and never noticed. Key trait of a great lawyer :rolleyes:

or multi-personality paranoid schzoid....u do not own any airplanes do you?????

or live close to any IRS buildings????

[Eki]

How did you arrive at that ridiculous conclusion?
Whatever I earn belongs to me.
Of course, but you don't need it or can use it when you're dead. Of course what you earn belongs to you, but it doesn't mean it should belong to your family. They should earn their own money. Right?

[Hondo]

Of course, but you don't need it or can use it when you're dead. Of course what you earn belongs to you, but it doesn't mean it should belong to your family. They should earn their own money. Right?
Nope, not if you want to give them yours.

[Hondo]

It's just like that damn Hazell to start a ruckus like this. Outta ban her.

[Eki]

Nope, not if you want to give them yours.
True, but that ruins anthonyvop's principle that everyone should be on their own and make their own fortune, no excuses.

[driveace]

I think the answer someone was looking for as regards tax on bankers,IS that the government said it would outlaw bank bonuses,BUT they cannot,even though the government bailed out most banks in the UK.SO what they are now saying is that ANY bonuses paid will atract a 50% tax on it
I do believe that what money ,property,investment that are mine whilst I am alive,that I have earned,through my work,investments,or being a clever boxer,I can leave to any one I wish,be it family or freind.The government gets enough from death duties ,that I believe are unfair,and I do believe the threashold for death duties should be raised to above 1 million at least

[anthonyvop]

True, but that ruins anthonyvop's principle that everyone should be on their own and make their own fortune, no excuses.

How?

I said that everyone should be treated equally. get it?
That means no penalty for success. If I want to leave my income to my family it is my right just like you have the right to leave it to yours.

That is equality. Taking someones income to give it to another who didn't earn it isn't equality....it is theft.

[markabilly]

How?
Taking someones income to give it to another who didn't earn it isn't equality....it is theft.

Yes U are right.


The current tax rate subsidizes the wealthy in the USA. The capital gains and bouses as shown above are taxed at a mere 15% while those who arre actually working are taxed at a far higher rate, (yes those actually working with the the sweat of their brow), and were not born with a silver spoon in their mouth, and they spend far more of their money and income on the very basic necessities of life, to say nothing of the "luxury" of going to MacDonald's to feed their family.

So to make up for the lack of tax income to the government, a government that takes the tax income to turn it into expenditures that has a very high percentage going to industries funded by the government, including BANKS, Wall Street, military industry, etc, the workers and wage eaners pay a far higher percentage of their income to make up the difference (and even that is not enough).

Then throw in the tax breaks that primarily only benefit the wealthy......

THAT is THEFT

[anthonyvop]

Yes U are right.


The current tax rate subsidizes the wealthy in the USA. The capital gains and bouses as shown above are taxed at a mere 15% while those who arre actually working are taxed at a far higher rate, (yes those actually working with the the sweat of their brow), and were not born with a silver spoon in their mouth, and they spend far more of their money and income on the very basic necessities of life, to say nothing of the "luxury" of going to MacDonald's to feed their family.

So to make up for the lack of tax income to the government, a government that takes the tax income to turn it into expenditures that has a very high percentage going to industries funded by the government, including BANKS, Wall Street, military industry, etc, the workers and wage eaners pay a far higher percentage of their income to make up the difference (and even that is not enough).

Then throw in the tax breaks that primarily only benefit the wealthy......

THAT is THEFT

You have it totally wrong.
To demand a higher percentage of money from one group because they are more successful is theft.
The Only fair and moral tax is a Flat Tax. There is no moral argument against that fact.

As for those born with a "silver Spoon" in their mouths....


# In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

# The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

# Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.

Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

# The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.

# The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.

# The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 27 percent as compared to a 13 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.

[Eki]

The Only fair and moral tax is a Flat Tax. There is no moral argument against that fact.

I'd be all for flat tax, if it didn't have two problems: If you set the flat percentage high, the low income population will starve to death or become beggars or criminals, if you set the flat percentage low, you can't afford modern infrastructure and level of public services.

[markabilly]

You have it totally wrong.
To demand a higher percentage of money from one group because they are more successful is theft.
The Only fair and moral tax is a Flat Tax. There is no moral argument against that fact.

As for those born with a "silver Spoon" in their mouths....
Not exactly correct....and Life is really tough when you have to make do, on a mere $$945,000 per day .........Gee, that ain't even a million

and on top of that, you got to pay a 16% tax rate, . :eek:

what is a poor boy to do??? :confused: :confused:


But let us not talk about the fact that many others, making a 100k per year, are paying a higher percentage

There is no moral argument against that fact.


That is only true if you have the morals of a sewer rat.

[BDunnell]

That is only true if you have the morals of a sewer rat.

Quite right. Still, how are we to argue with the head honcho of the South Florida Motorsport Report, an august media outlet whose professionalism we can but hopelessly aspire to?

[donKey jote]

;) :laugh:

[Rollo]

You have it totally wrong.
To demand a higher percentage of money from one group because they are more successful is theft.
The Only fair and moral tax is a Flat Tax. There is no moral argument against that fact.

Please define your "flat tax" and how the mechanics of this would be implimented.

[Rollo]

Also, the question of socialism or not, it's really the role government should play.

I want federal government to provide armies, protect the coasts and borders, regulate interstate trade and disputes between the states, provide infrastructure (communications, transportation) maintain a good and fair court system. In other words, set a level playing field, but make no value judgements as to what is done on that or where or how it is done. I will concede to the federal government environmental laws, because for the life of me I don't see how the market protects the environment without damage first being done to the environment. (of course the particulars are still up for debate. ;) ) At a federal level, they really don't have any business IMO meddling in health and education, those are local issues, along with local police and fire protection etc.

This is probably the most sensible post I've read in this thread so far. My difference is that the provision of education and health services as well as the ownership of the infrastructure that provides public services should be in the domain of government.
Public Health and Education need to be in realms of government because of the principles of equity.

I'm not really in favour of a resdistribution of income, but I certainly think that wage rates and conditions should be subject to some sort of regulation; mainly because of the legal consequences involved.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I see so much on here about poor workers, poor abused workers, workers, owners, rich owners, rich people, etc., so what is rich? What do you consider rich? Is rich anybody that has more than you do? Is rich anybody that makes $5,000.00 more a year than you do? Is a man that wants more and works 2 or 3 jobs to pay for it rich, or motivated, or just stupid?

I remember a while back we had a thread trying to define 'what is poor?' and I think we decided that anyone who has access to a computer to answer that question isn't really poor.

But what is rich? Well, the average wage in the UK is about £30,000 p/a, but this includes the super rich so the median is probably more like £20,000 p/a.

I'd say a six figure salary is when i'd class someone as rich. But from a personal perspective money isn't my biggest motivator. I'd much prefer to have a job that I enjoy and can forget about when I get home, than just doing something to make me rich. I have no entrepreneurial aspirations at all.

When it comes to taxes I am all for the progressive taxing system over a flat tax. But I'm all for inheritance freedom. I get a sense of bitterness or maybe jeolousy from people who believe in high taxes on inheritance.

[Rollo]

But I'm all for inheritance freedom. I get a sense of bitterness or maybe jealousy from people who believe in high taxes on inheritance.

An inheritance tax is a simply evil idea. As it is, an estate is taxed on the income that the assets of the deceased generate, but the transference of those assets is hardly what you'd call a deliberate profit generating enterprise.

In the vast majority of cases, those assets are either sold and the proceeds distributed, or the assets which aren't sold are the personal effects of the deceased, or capital assets like their house or motor cars. Whatever the case, the fact remains that nobody deliberately dies in order to make a profit.

[Lousada]

An inheritance tax is a simply evil idea. As it is, an estate is taxed on the income that the assets of the deceased generate, but the transference of those assets is hardly what you'd call a deliberate profit generating enterprise.

In the vast majority of cases, those assets are either sold and the proceeds distributed, or the assets which aren't sold are the personal effects of the deceased, or capital assets like their house or motor cars. Whatever the case, the fact remains that nobody deliberately dies in order to make a profit.

Which is not the point. The point is that when you have income you should be taxed for it. Whether that comes from working, from capital gains, or from somebody else dying.
It also makes sure large fortunes are broken down. Which means you really have to work for your own wealth. But from your other post I gather you do not believe in redistribution of income.

[chuck34]

But from your other post I gather you do not believe in redistribution of income.

So you believe in redistribution of income? I'm curious as to why you think that it's ok for government to sieze one man's property and hand it over to someone who has no right to it.

[Lousada]

So you believe in redistribution of income? I'm curious as to why you think that it's ok for government to sieze one man's property and hand it over to someone who has no right to it.

In my opinion everybody should have equal opportunities. In order to achieve this, you'll take money from people who least need it (the rich) to people who most need it (the poor).

[chuck34]

In my opinion everybody should have equal opportunities. In order to achieve this, you'll take money from people who least need it (the rich) to people who most need it (the poor).

I have a very big problem with this line of thinking. And your line of thinking seems to be gaining popularity quite rapidly. That scares the hell out of me.

Equal opportuninties does not guaruntee equal results. But by FORCING equal results you are DESTROYING equal rights.

[Rollo]

The point is that when you have income you should be taxed for it. Whether that comes from working, from capital gains, or from somebody else dying.
It also makes sure large fortunes are broken down. Which means you really have to work for your own wealth. But from your other post I gather you do not believe in redistribution of income.

I ask, is an inheritance actually income?

The usual definition of income, revolves around the awards for the factors of production ie/ land, labour, capital or enterprise. Broadly it takes on the form of wages, salaries, interest, dividends, or income in kind such as shares.
An inheritance, doesn't fit that definition. Furthermore, if the person hadn't died, there wouldn't be a liability for tax. The assets which form someone's estate are bought using net income after tax. Taxing an inheritance is in effect, double taxation.

As for redistribution of income, in broad terms:
No sir, I don't like it.

http://www.janegoodwin.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/mrhorse.jpg

There is a case to be made for genuine disability or genuine unemployment, but especially for the latter, it should only be a safety net (and cut off after a certain period).

[Lousada]

I have a very big problem with this line of thinking. And your line of thinking seems to be gaining popularity quite rapidly. That scares the hell out of me.

Equal opportuninties does not guaruntee equal results. But by FORCING equal results you are DESTROYING equal rights.

I said equal opportunities, not equal results. If I meant equal results I would have said equal results and not equal opportunities. You draw a conclusion where there is none.

[Lousada]

I ask, is an inheritance actually income?

The usual definition of income, revolves around the awards for the factors of production ie/ land, labour, capital or enterprise. Broadly it takes on the form of wages, salaries, interest, dividends, or income in kind such as shares.
An inheritance is a form of capital transfer.



An inheritance, doesn't fit that definition. Furthermore, if the person hadn't died, there wouldn't be a liability for tax. The assets which form someone's estate are bought using net income after tax. Taxing an inheritance is in effect, double taxation.
Maybe inheritance tax is calculated differently in the UK. Over here the inheritance tax is calculated individually at the inheritors. So if the person hadn't died, of course there is no liability for tax because there is no capital transfer.
It's only double taxation if you view it from the goods perspective. Individually the first time it is taxed is at the deceased, the second time at the inheritor. So one person only pays tax over it once.

[Rollo]

Specifically an inheritance is a non-voluntary, not-for-profit, form of capital transfer.


It's only double taxation if you view it from the goods perspective. Individually the first time it is taxed is at the deceased, the second time at the inheritor. So one person only pays tax over it once.

If you had a daughter and you gave her a motor car, should she pay tax on it? If not, then if you were to die, is that mechanically different. Same car, going to the same person.
You've already paid the applicable sales taxes on it, why then should she be subject to an additional tax just because you've died.

A similar argument exists for the payment of dividends by private companies. If they pay a dividend from a franked source, why then should you be liable again for that income.

[Lousada]

Specifically an inheritance is a non-voluntary, not-for-profit, form of capital transfer.

An inheritance is voluntary because you can refuse it.



If you had a daughter and you gave her a motor car, should she pay tax on it? If not, then if you were to die, is that mechanically different. Same car, going to the same person.
You've already paid the applicable sales taxes on it, why then should she be subject to an additional tax just because you've died.
Yes I think gifts should be taxed exactly the same as an inheritance. But I would advocate for a taxfree level. Over here, the first 5000 euros of a gift or inheritance are taxfree (there are some more special exemptions for various family members and so on). In my opinion this is fair enough.

[Hondo]

Yup, no matter how little you think you have, there's always going to be somebody that thinks you have too much.

[chuck34]

I said equal opportunities, not equal results. If I meant equal results I would have said equal results and not equal opportunities. You draw a conclusion where there is none.

You are wrong. You did SAY equal opportunities, but what you really meant was equal results. Think about your words again.


In order to achieve this, you'll take money from people who least need it (the rich) to people who most need it (the poor).

Just because someone is poor does NOT mean that he has not had the same opportunities in life. Do you think that guys like Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs really hade more opportunities than you or I? No they just had better results with what God gave them. Now you want to confiscate their property and give it to "the poor". That is not granting equal opportunities, that is forcing equal results.

As a bit of a side note your quote above is EXACTLY the Communist creed, incase you were unaware.

[Garry Walker]

Quite right. Still, how are we to argue with the head honcho of the South Florida Motorsport Report, an august media outlet whose professionalism we can but hopelessly aspire to?

You act all holy and try to look as if you are better than others, but in reality you are nothing but a hypocrite who keeps on going with personal insults, yet pretends to be above that.


But from your other post I gather you do not believe in redistribution of income.
Anyone with an IQ over 15 and any decency, does not believe in that.

So of course the socialists are all for it.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Why are the right-wing types on here always so angry?

[Garry Walker]

Why are the right-wing types on here always so angry?

Because the lefties are so stupid :D

But dont worry, I am in a very good mood and not even slightly angry.

[BDunnell]

Because the lefties are so stupid :D

But dont worry, I am in a very good mood and not even slightly angry.

The fact that these posts are representative of you on a good day proves my opinion of you - albeit not a professional medical one, admittedly - as expressed before.

[Garry Walker]

The fact that these posts are representative of you on a good day proves my opinion of you - albeit not a professional medical one, admittedly - as expressed before.

I am pretty sure you have far more medical conditions than me :D

[BDunnell]

I am pretty sure you have far more medical conditions than me :D

Well, that's that one sorted. Excellent.

[chuck34]

Why are the right-wing types on here always so angry?

I'm not sure if you are descibing me as either right-wing or as angry. I can live with being called right-wing, but I am not angry.

That is until you try to confiscate any of my property. Then you'll see me get angry.

[Hazell B]

Hazell is a good example of an employer who treats her workers like dogs (mainly because they are dogs).

Seriously, I don't believe Hazell is rich moneywise, but she's rich in the sense that she's doing what she enjoys for living and makes sufficiently to afford that.


:laugh:

Fiero, my are in trouble my man. Me earning enough to be rich. Rich? RICH?

Eki's right. I'm in no way rich money-wise. I'm on a very low income in fact. Tax, let us say, is not much of an issue for me. In fact, the government owe me money this year (which I won't be claiming as they've paid out enough on my behalf in the past) and I doubt I'll even be a tax payer next year.

However, I'm able to eat, run a vehicle and keep horses. That makes me rich. I own stuff and have no debts at all. I've never had a loan in my life except the mortgage and I can pay my bills on time. Some was saved and has now bought another house with a mortgage's help.

I indirectly employ, but not directly (except for the dogs. They're unpaid labour and frankly deserve nothing more :p : ). That's important to me. Given a choice, I go for locally made products that employ people in this area who will then spend their money with me in turn.

An example is Wagg petfood employees buying Pointer Pet Food in my shop. I sell both and both are fairly local to me. The woodburning stove briquettes I sell are locally grown and made, etc.

In short, I strongly believe everyone has a roll to play in earning and spending in a way that employs those who can then earn and spend as near to home as possible .... helping yet more earn and spend like a rippling pond. That's how some areas became rich and some poor and long may it reign!

Buy British :up: