RE: Born Rich

RE: Born Rich (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

juliaoceania -> RE: Born Rich (9/25/2010 7:00:27 AM)
fast reply For those on this thread arguing about taxing wealth, when this country started we taxed property to generate revenue, now we tax people's wages. Wealth used to be measured in the property one owned, and we had a gold standard to make wealth fluid and transferable, now we have a fiat currency. If we really want to keep in the same spirit as the founders had, we would be taxing the wealth of the wealthy, not the wages of the slaves

ScaryJello -> RE: Born Rich (9/25/2010 7:00:50 AM)
So let me get this straight. Mnottertail you are angry at trust fund babies because their parents were successful enough to put away enough money that they don't have to work? Isn't that the American dream? I thought it was. To make enough money to provide for our children so that they could live in better conditions then we did. Also privately held corporations? Are you even aware of how LARGE some of those corporations are? Like, here is one you may have heard of, Chrysler. 47.6 billion in revenue with 45k employees. Or how about Cargill? They make farm products (meaning they didn't get a bail out) and their revenue was 106.3 BILLION dollars. They also employ over 150,000 people. What happens when the owner of those companies dies? Are they also liquidated? Are all of their employees out of work because you are angry that someone else was more successful then you? Oh and here is the link to more privately held corporations. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/21/private-companies-09_Americas-Largest-Private-Companies_Revenue.html I agree taxes need to be changed, but not in the fashion you have it listed. Simply make it a flat 10% tax on income for individuals and on profit for all businesses (10% of their profit from sales in the USA.)

ScaryJello -> RE: Born Rich (9/25/2010 7:04:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania fast reply For those on this thread arguing about taxing wealth, when this country started we taxed property to generate revenue, now we tax people's wages. Wealth used to be measured in the property one owned, and we had a gold standard to make wealth fluid and transferable, now we have a fiat currency. If we really want to keep in the same spirit as the founders had, we would be taxing the wealth of the wealthy, not the wages of the slaves A pound from few is less then an ounce from many. Also slaves don't have wages....hence why they are slaves. At least unless I missed a meeting changing the definition of the word.

mnottertail -> RE: Born Rich (9/25/2010 7:13:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ScaryJello So let me get this straight. Mnottertail you are angry at trust fund babies because their parents were successful enough to put away enough money that they don't have to work? No. As for the rest of your post.......Look, I know what Cargill is, I am from MN for fucks sake. A flat tax across the board? Have you paid any attention at all? How would that be a better deal for small business, which is the engine that drives this economy day in and out? Waltz me thru that ...

juliaoceania -> RE: Born Rich (9/25/2010 7:15:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ScaryJello quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania fast reply For those on this thread arguing about taxing wealth, when this country started we taxed property to generate revenue, now we tax people's wages. Wealth used to be measured in the property one owned, and we had a gold standard to make wealth fluid and transferable, now we have a fiat currency. If we really want to keep in the same spirit as the founders had, we would be taxing the wealth of the wealthy, not the wages of the slaves A pound from few is less then an ounce from many. Also slaves don't have wages....hence why they are slaves. At least unless I missed a meeting changing the definition of the word. There was a system in the South after the fall of slavery in which former slaves would buy everything they needed from their former masters at the local store. They were not only over charged, but they were charged interest on everything they purchased. The same is the case for coal miners who would buy their necessities from the company store, indebting them to the point they could never leave their job... we have a similar circumstance arising today from those who have a 1040 tax form... To argue that rich people should not pay their share of the tax debt when the monied class has benefited the most from this system is an invalid argument. Why shouldn't they pay their fair share? Why should they be able to buy the influence to ditch their tax debt? In any case, even if you don't buy the ethically principled argument, the bottom line is that tax cuts for the extraordinarily rich at a time we need to balance our budget makes zero economic sense...

ScaryJello -> RE: Born Rich (9/25/2010 7:20:14 AM)
How would that be better? A flat tax will increase the amount of money that the government receives in taxes, allowing it to improve the quality of its other services and to reduce our ever mounting debt. How does it help small businesses? It doesn't directly. What it does do is streamline the process of paying taxes as a business. However it doesn't harm them either. Also your proposals don't help the small business owner either. So are you going to respond to anything else in my post or just ignore the things that don't agree with you? What about those big private corporations? What happens to them when their owner dies? Do you want to put their employees out of work? Because that is what your proposal does.

ScaryJello -> RE: Born Rich (9/25/2010 7:28:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania There was a system in the South after the fall of slavery in which former slaves would buy everything they needed from their former masters at the local store. They were not only over charged, but they were charged interest on everything they purchased. The same is the case for coal miners who would buy their necessities from the company store, indebting them to the point they could never leave their job... we have a similar circumstance arising today from those who have a 1040 tax form... To argue that rich people should not pay their share of the tax debt when the monied class has benefited the most from this system is an invalid argument. Why shouldn't they pay their fair share? Why should they be able to buy the influence to ditch their tax debt? In any case, even if you don't buy the ethically principled argument, the bottom line is that tax cuts for the extraordinarily rich at a time we need to balance our budget makes zero economic sense... I am having trouble seeing the correlation between that system and the 1040 tax form. And where did I say that rich people shouldn't pay taxes? EVERYONE would pay 10%. period. end of discussion. No way to reduce the amount paid. Also you didn't make an ethics argument there.

mnottertail -> RE: Born Rich (9/25/2010 7:29:36 AM)
What brilliant shit did you post you expect me to respond to? You didn't understand my point at the outset, and from that failed understanding, you want me to comment on further issues you do not understand that I already pointed out prior, just for you? Look, for example, I haul around about a 100k in investment for my business that you ain't got, so you and me are otherwise even? 10% for me, and 10% for you? Or are you saying 10% for everyone with write-offs still as they are? Love that idea, you will owe me alotta money at the end of the year, bring that bitch on, there won't be a fuckin dime collected and we will be beyond bankrupt in a year.

mnottertail -> RE: Born Rich (9/25/2010 7:36:36 AM)
And what the hell, I wasn't going to answer, but --- in large private companies? Yep, put em on the auction block, just like my small private company will have to be. Someone inside wants to buy them, great. Taxable event just like mine.

ScaryJello -> RE: Born Rich (9/25/2010 7:37:10 AM)
I was wondering (AGAIN) what would happen to those large companies when their owner died, under your plan that is. And yes it is a flat 10% regardless of amount earned. For businesses it would be 10% of their profits for the year. For an individual it would be 10% of their yearly salary/wage. There would be NO system of write-offs or deductions. None, zero, zip.

mnottertail -> RE: Born Rich (9/25/2010 7:40:29 AM)
Who is going to go into business then? Why would I pay two light bills, do my books, buy equipment or hire your ass if that is not offset? Where do you work? And don't bother telling me you are an independantly wealthy whatever, you don't understand the value of a buck, if you got money, daddy gave it to you. End of that joke.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Born Rich (9/25/2010 7:48:17 AM)
A Flat Tax is the dumbest idea since the Laffer Curve.

ScaryJello -> RE: Born Rich (9/25/2010 9:23:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Who is going to go into business then? Why would I pay two light bills, do my books, buy equipment or hire your ass if that is not offset? Where do you work? And don't bother telling me you are an independantly wealthy whatever, you don't understand the value of a buck, if you got money, daddy gave it to you. End of that joke. Those are costs of doing business. Whenever you look at expanding your business either by buying equipment or hiring personnel you run a cost-benefit analysis. How much will it cost me versus the how much I will benefit from the acquisition of said resource. So if hiring another person costs you more then you are willing to expend then it isn't a financially sound move to make. You are right, I am not independently wealthy. I'm a business owner. I own and run a rental property business and I am in the process of starting up an IT consulting company and a hookah lounge. Who is going to go into business? Same people who always have. People who think that they have something other people want and can make a profit selling. Simple as that.

mnottertail -> RE: Born Rich (9/25/2010 9:32:07 AM)
LOL. You don't want me to insult you by believing this do you?

DarkSteven -> RE: Born Rich (9/25/2010 10:06:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk Quit growing? When are are able to care for everyone in our society. When a child or a grandparent doesn't have to worry about the cost of the prescription or the next doctors appointment or whether their school is falling down around them. When the size of a CEO's salary deoesn't equal the size of most State Gov't budgets. When I can say my country is an advocate to help the problems of the world rather than creating more. ......Just a start but if we got there. I think we'd be headed in the right direction. Can you honestly tell me that looking at the foreclosure list in the paper and the amount of people looking for work makes you think things are going well? You seem to have made the assumption that the government social programs work. LBJ expanded them and things have not gotten better since, so I'm not making that assumption at all. One of the issues I have with government is that it tends to be less disciplined than the private sector. In the private sector, you have ongoing scrutiny to see of things could be done better, to save costs, to improve efficiency... that happens far less in the public sector. In other words, you can never assume that a targeted problem will be solved. You are equating money spent on a program with results and assuming that if we spend more money we will get better results. I do not make that assumption at all. And that's based on decades of working with the DoE, the DoD, and state regulatory bodies. And I do get worried about the foreclosures and unemployment rates. But I'm not sure what can be done about them except to ensure that bubbles do not occur again.

juliaoceania -> RE: Born Rich (9/25/2010 10:27:10 AM)
quote: And that's based on decades of working with the DoE, the DoD, and state regulatory bodies. Isn't the DoD the Department of Defense? I would not call that a "regulatory body" Also, social security is one of the most successful programs ever, as has been the Veterans Administration... both social programs

DarkSteven -> RE: Born Rich (9/25/2010 10:33:56 AM)
Yes, the DoD is the Defense Department. I didn't intend to imply that it is a regulatory body - I was just mentioning my experience with government. I'm not disagreeing with you, Julia, but amu curious - on what basis would you consider a program successful or not? I'd look st benefits paid out divided by program cost, and AFAIK nobody's done that for the programs you mentioned.

Musicmystery -> RE: Born Rich (9/25/2010 12:46:14 PM)
quote: What about those big private corporations? What happens to them when their owner dies? You don't understand what a corporation is.

Musicmystery -> RE: Born Rich (9/25/2010 12:47:42 PM)
quote: LBJ expanded them and things have not gotten better Nonsense. Comparing poverty levels alone, especially in the South and among the elderly, would dispel such a claim.

DarkSteven -> RE: Born Rich (9/25/2010 12:52:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ScaryJello What about those big private corporations? What happens to them when their owner dies? Corporations are "owned" by stockholders, although creditors do have claims. If each and every stockholder died, then their ownership would transfer to their heirs. That's a legal answer, although the practical answer is that all the company's top brass would have to die for that to occur, and the company would have a huge bump in the road while the new top management was learning the ropes.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875