tax rates and the constitution

tampa · Apr 18, 2003

Quote from okwon:

Not only is the tax code screwed up, the penalties for making errors way too severe. Does it make sense for someone who makes a small mistake on their tax filings to potentially face a long prison sentence? There's nobody on the planet that knows every detail in the tax code that includes the IRS and accountants. Why do they make such stiff penalties to scare people? It's inevitable that people with complicated tax situation will make some mistakes. It's like we're living under a dictator when it comes to filing taxes.

People should get awards for just trying to figure out the confusing tax code.

Would you be kind enough to provide the name of the last person to get a long prison term for making a small mistake on his tax return?

I'll save you the trouble - you can't because your statement was a gross mistatement - and you knew it when you said it.

You and your friends here are ripe pickin' for the Republicans - you speak without thinking, don't mind lies if it will make your case, and only want to hear what you want to hear. And you are getting screwed by the very gods you worship.

tampa · Apr 18, 2003

Quote from max401:

You're comparing the 35G to a 35M owner of a company that relies on government contracts, owns a corporate jet, sells missle defense systems and/or local gov't construction, utilizes gov't data, and apparently also relies on gov't subsistence to educate its employees.

Now, do you think that Oprah (100+ million income) or Helen Walton or siblings (net worth,16.5 billion each) and many more, really gives a crap about all that?

If you insist...

Oprah enjoys the protection of the government via the copywrite laws, as well as mind boggling write offs in the amortization of intellectual property, and goodwill - things not applicable to the 35K guy.

The Walton's enjoy government trademark protection, as well as "right to work" laws that keep costs down, and profits up - up so much that the sons and daughters of old Sam count their net worth in the billions.

Thought you had me, didn't you?

tampa · Apr 18, 2003

Quote from Discipline:

I stand corrected and agree, they should have the equal opportunity to derive the benefit not necessarily have the same benefit.

The problem with people like Tampa is that they want to force equality in outcomes, not equality in opportunity.

No, the problem here is you. You think that anyone who does not think as you do must be some kind of a bed wetting, limp wristed commie.

All I said is that the rich derive far more benefit from the government then the non-rich. But your simpleminded view, a view molded by the rich dudes, has you feeling sorry for them, at the expense of your own kind - simple working class folks who pay more and more of the burden, while receiving far less bang for the buck.

max401 · Apr 18, 2003

Quote from tampa:

If you insist...

Oprah enjoys the protection of the government via the copywrite laws, as well as mind boggling write offs in the amortization of intellectual property, and goodwill - things not applicable to the 35K guy.

The Walton's enjoy government trademark protection, as well as "right to work" laws that keep costs down, and profits up - up so much that the sons and daughters of old Sam count their net worth in the billions.

Thought you had me, didn't you?

Well, lucky for poor Oprah, the only society that wouldn't give her copyright protection is a complete anarchy. And her "amortization" is available to plenty of 35G guys who own their own homes.

The Waltons, du Ponts, Gettys, etc., didn't create their wealth, they are merely inheritors and don't benefit and could care less about "right to work laws."

max401 · Apr 18, 2003

Quote from tampa:

simple working class folks who pay more and more of the burden, while receiving far less bang for the buck.

Pay more and more of the burden? Complete crap, you don't know your facts. The wealthiest 10% pay about 80% of the tax bill.

tampa · Apr 19, 2003

Quote from max401:

Well, lucky for poor Oprah, the only society that wouldn't give her copyright protection is a complete anarchy. And her "amortization" is available to plenty of 35G guys who own their own homes.

The Waltons, du Ponts, Gettys, etc., didn't create their wealth, they are merely inheritors and don't benefit and could care less about "right to work laws."

I suspected that you were a dirt poor neo-conservative living in a cardboard box under a bridge - otherwise you would know that one cannot amortize one's own home.

BTW - the crowd who inherited their wealth enjoy to the fullest extent all of the benefits I pointed out.

Are you just very young and inexperienced, or are you really as stupid as your posts suggest?

Discipline · Apr 19, 2003

Again you blurr the facts with your bad math. Max401 already pointed out your fallacy of who has the burden here.

Should the people who pay be the ones who recieve as you seem to say in your last post? Then why pay? New Yorkers pay far more into the federal system than they receive back. There are other states like that too. You don't hear those pinko commies from NY complaining do you? Neither am I. I appreciate that the lower earners or the people who cannot earn at all must be helped if we are to be a community of Americans not just individuals. Don't lump me in with "simple working class folk" or any other group rich or poor. If you must, include me in the group that takes responsibility for his own situation and accepts that there are people who do better than me. I have been to the bottom of the ladder and worked my way back up. I have been living on friends couches with no expectation of my next meal other than at Happy Hour at the bar down the street. I borrowed 5k, and built it up slowly to 50k over the course of a year by trading disciplined and conservatively. It is the limp wristed commies like you that want to take my money now that I am making way more than you and give it to people who won't work for it. Why do you expect equal outcomes? Why should a slacker be rewarded for laziness or even why should a hard working idiot be rewarded for a low IQ?

You still haven't answered the question -- What is unfair or unjust about a flat tax. The higher earners will still pay more in absolute dollars. Everyone pays the same percentage of their income. Why should the highest earners pay more on a percentage basis? Isn't that a disincentive to make more at the margin?

max401 · Apr 19, 2003

Quote from tampa:

I suspected that you were a dirt poor neo-conservative living in a cardboard box under a bridge - otherwise you would know that one cannot amortize one's own home.

Whaaaat? Excuse me, the purchase price, unless you pay all cash, is most certainly amortized. My point is that there is a tax benefit for that amortization.

max401 · Apr 19, 2003

Quote from Discipline:

It is the limp wristed commies like you that want to take my money now that I am making way more than you and give it to people who won't work for it. Why do you expect equal outcomes? Why should a slacker be rewarded for laziness or even why should a hard working idiot be rewarded for a low IQ?

The latest flap, they want welfare users to pass a piss test and the liberals are up in arms.

tampa · Apr 19, 2003

Quote from max401:

Pay more and more of the burden? Complete crap, you don't know your facts. The wealthiest 10% pay about 80% of the tax bill.

And pray tell, what percentage of the wealth do the 10% you feel so sorry for hold?

And pray tell what percentage do the 90% pay of the 10%'s tax bill through higher prices, and lower wages?

max, allow me to point out an undeniable truth to you - the guy on the bottom of the ladder is the one who ALWAYS gets shit on...plain and simple. Every time you look up, another turd hits you in the face - but you blame the guy on the wrung below you.