MrRodgers
Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nnanji
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nnanji
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: Blank101
It's sad how we've entered a time where certain wealthy people can now be classified as 'ultrawealthy'.
Well not only that even though that's highly subjective but pay federal tax at only 1/2 the rate their highly paid staff pays.
The very idea that the manager of a partnership whose job is really nothing that much different than any other desk job there and who has no skin in the game, can create such a tax category right out of thin air...is immoral. I regard something called 'capital gains' as the same...immoral, prima facie.
Tell me what is immoral. Base it in some moral system please.
Because there are no grounds, rationale or justification for such tax favoritism. It is immoral because morally. ALL income is to be treated the same. if we are all equal before govt. equal before the courts, then we are all equal and all income is to be treated equally by the tax code.
As a conservative, one should seek just such equalities and the rest is social engineering or blatant favoritism usually purchased in our plutocracy. And yes, the same applies to 'capital gains.'...whatever that is.
So you're against a progressive tax rate? You think that income that has already been taxed once shouldn't be taxed a second time when it's invested? You think property that's been acquired and has all taxes paid on it can be passed tax free tby who ever accumulated the property? You still haven't mentioned a moral system for your belief.
First you claim to know what I am or may not be against without knowing (reading apparently) my former posts on the subject. A progressive tax code is morally justified on two grounds. One is that it is a form of insurance premium to purchase insurance against foreign invasion, i.e., defense and also the protection of law and the courts. The more you earn and the more you have (property) to lose, requires a higher premium.
Secondly, given that the poor need to spend essentially all or almost all of their money on survival and the wealthy do not and have sufficient means to accumulate more wealth, it is also morally justifiable to claim a higher tax rate on that basis and the luxuries that wealth and accumulation affords them. (Adam Smith BTW) A higher rate to the society that provides them the protection of the private means and pursuits to attain that wealth.
Furthermore, if one does pay an income tax on earnings and then seeks additional earnings through investment, then yes, the profits on that investment should be taxed at least equally to all other income...no matter the source.
Show me any investment capital that hasn't been taxed prior to any reinvestment. There isn't any except capitals gains not taxed on a home that is reinvested only... in another home. As long as the code uses the word gains, their are two types of gains really. Labor gains and capital gains, two different investments, each owing a tax. That tax however derived...should be equal.
Property tax is a local tax issue and required to support the services provided every bit as much in the interest and to the benefit of the property owner.
The passing of wealth is subject to estate taxes which is actually in fact, an income tax on the heir who did little or nothing to 'earn' it but pick the right estate. (parents or.....?)
_____________________________
You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith
|
RE: Where are the non-partisan conservatives ? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread