Taxes, are we ready for these new ones?

[swansont]

No! Only that there is enough BS streaming from both sides to make anything believable.

 

What was believable about that claim? That a tax on high-income people was breaking a promise to only raise taxes on high-income people?

[rigney]

You mean the George H W Bush who actually DID raise taxes and recently said "The circumstances change and you can’t be wedded to some formula by Grover Norquist. It’s -- who the hell is Grover Norquist, anyway?"? Or do you mean a different one?

This may be the guy he was speaking of?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist#Muslim_Brotherhood_Controversy

 

 

There's clearly orders of magnitude of difference in the amounts of BS coming from each side. Even fact checking sites that go out of their way to bend over backward to try to make it even can't do so.

I will certainly give you an "attaboy" on your last statement. Edited July 25, 2012 by rigney

[ParanoiA]

Tax is a public system, and the public (i.e. everybody) is what matters. An average is a decent measure for that. We cannot go about having a tax system based only on the wishes of the rich. Luckily, a democracy is a system where once every while the entire population is asked for their opinion, and often the new government or president will then rule the country based on a sort of average of the population's wishes.

 

To listen only to the rich few percent is called an "oligarchy". I don't want that.

 

I'm extremely confused. How did we get from their inclusion to everyone else's exclusion? Where did the word "only" come from? Dick Morris is speaking to a certain segment of the population, which you have "warned" about. How does that equate to "only the wishes of the rich"?

 

Seriously, this is weird man. If someone comes out to warn low income earners that Bush is about to raise taxes on them, wouldn't you find it strange for me to come by and say "careful, he's only speaking to a certain part of the population. And you can't have tax policy based solely on the wishes of the working poor"? Hopefully you would say, "ParanoiA, dude, you're totally awesome and I could never be as cool as you, but nobody said anything about "only" listening to the working poor - we're just talking to them at this particular moment since this concerns them".

 

WOW! What blatant fear mongering, yeah, gotta fight giving money to poor people so they can get heath care and decent schools so they can have a chance to move up in the world... we persecuted rich people can't allow that... horse feathers...

 

The failure to stand for others liberties facilitates divide and conquer. Grouping ourselves into mini-collectives "fighting" for some narrow set of rights is the direct result of disrespect for others choices and freedoms. It's folded into our culture now, probably permanently, that your political and personal opinion be exactly the same - a unification of your personal will and what you demand of others. People seem to think that laws should reflect their personal choices and they have no duty to anyone else to provide room for different choices.

 

More fear mongering, yes those poor persecuted rich people, i feel bad for them now for sure...

 

I didn't know Ben Franklin was a fear monger. Learn something new everyday.

 

I feel bad for upcoming entrepreneurs that are discouraged observing a group being increasingly vilified, and now increasingly justified to disproportionately take from. The government is certainly trying very hard to keep this young man from upward mobility into that class.

 

[Moontanman]

The failure to stand for others liberties facilitates divide and conquer. Grouping ourselves into mini-collectives "fighting" for some narrow set of rights is the direct result of disrespect for others choices and freedoms. It's folded into our culture now, probably permanently, that your political and personal opinion be exactly the same - a unification of your personal will and what you demand of others. People seem to think that laws should reflect their personal choices and they have no duty to anyone else to provide room for different choices.

 

How does insisting that people pay a fair share of taxes in anyway disrespect them? Why should the wealthy pay less in taxes than the middle class?

 

 

 

I didn't know Ben Franklin was a fear monger. Learn something new everyday.

 

The very wealthy do not put anything like what they get out of our society back in, there is no reason why they should pay less in taxes than the middle class.

 

I feel bad for upcoming entrepreneurs that are discouraged observing a group being increasingly vilified, and now increasingly justified to disproportionately take from. The government is certainly trying very hard to keep this young man from upward mobility into that class.

 

 

 

That you tube video has nothing to do with tax equality between the wealthy and the middle class and everything to do with local zoning laws, definitely a strawman.

[rigney]

How does insisting that people pay a fair share of taxes in anyway disrespect them? Why should the wealthy pay less in taxes than the middle class?

 

The very wealthy do not put anything like what they get out of our society back in, there is no reason why they should pay less in taxes than the middle class.

 

That you tube video has nothing to do with tax equality between the wealthy and the middle class and everything to do with local zoning laws, definitely a strawman.

I believe ParanoiA's video shed some light on it. It's the will to do rather than a desire to loll. But usurping the law in any sense, even with what you feel is good intent; can get you prosecuted. Edited July 26, 2012 by rigney

[swansont]

I feel bad for upcoming entrepreneurs that are discouraged observing a group being increasingly vilified, and now increasingly justified to disproportionately take from. The government is certainly trying very hard to keep this young man from upward mobility into that class.

 

This has nothing to do with income tax. And it's an interesting take for you say it's "the government". I strongly suspect that it was the local restaurant owners who lobbied for the zoning law in the first place, to protect their businesses from competition. That's the stated reason for the law. And the law can be changed, too. It would be a matter if whether the people can exert as much influence as a few business owners.

[ParanoiA]

It's terribly convenient to write this off as hatred of the rich, but the main problem in that attribution is that it permits one to simply ignore any of the arguments (which can be written off as rationalizations) put forth. Poisoning the well tends to do that.

 

I'm glad to know that you possess this opinion. I trust you rattle that line off in the presence of racist arguments against conservatives about illegal immigration?

 

But why should the employment of persons in a foreign country be our concern? Again, it's convenient to write this off as bigotry and xenophobia, but that's just more poisoning the well.

 

It is in the national security and economic interests that we globalize. We send aid to foreign countries, so we apparently are concerned. Employment and self empowerment become a relevant topic when talking about welfare. And to assign negative value to the inclusion of the desperate poor in this global economy is to suddenly dishonor humanitarianism, which I thought was a universally positive value.

 

It is also blatant hypocrisy. The lefty logic that drives the importance of the American over the destitute Indian masks the ugly specter of greed. It would appear that the rich are not the only Americans that could be described as greedy sons of bitches. I can't help it if some Americans think they're poor.

 

Since this is a discussion about income and taxes, that's the attribute that is relevant. Someone in the 90th percentile or above is not typical (or normal).

 

So gay people are not normal? They only make up 4% of the population, and when speaking about sexual orientation that's the attribute that is relevant. And that's the phrase you'd choose? Not normal? I don't think so. I think the word "normal" carries baggage which is always seized upon when used by those suspected of bigotry against virtually any other popularly recognized minority group other than the rich.

 

This has nothing to do with income tax. And it's an interesting take for you say it's "the government". I strongly suspect that it was the local restaurant owners who lobbied for the zoning law in the first place, to protect their businesses from competition. That's the stated reason for the law. And the law can be changed, too. It would be a matter if whether the people can exert as much influence as a few business owners.

 

No, you're exactly right. I believe this is a case of crony capitalism. 8 restaurant owners do not want to compete so they use the government to help create zoning laws using the property tax excuse. The mobile food vendors do not have air conditioned seating facilities, rest rooms and etc. The advantage to each business model is obvious and not conflicting. It's flimsy. It's discouraging to this young man, although he seems pretty determined.

 

I brought this up as an example of vilification, not taxation. But it's not a good one, I was just a little peeved about it and wanted to find an excuse to share it. There should be no better place on earth more welcome to this young man's intentions than here in America. But we have so many rules created by bureaucrats and small handfuls of crony capitalists that new business and thus new upward mobility seem to be largely unwelcome and discouraged.

The very wealthy do not put anything like what they get out of our society back in, there is no reason why they should pay less in taxes than the middle class.

 

Yes they do. Guys like Romney have been infusing capital for motivated people with no money. Their risky pursuits for profits provide secure pursuits for labor profits. Because rich people take risk and build businesses and infuse capital, I can get a job where I don't have to take any risks to make a living. I have a choice that I didn't have before. If these businesses did not exist, I would have to grow my own food, slaughter my own cows, spend disproportionate amounts of time trying to acquire resources, hustling every day. That sucks. I'd rather just clock in and clock out and get groceries on the way home after a simple eight hour day.

 

Most of the modern advancements you enjoy was made possible by people with more money than you and I. Look around you, how much of that was made possible by some poor guy in their garage? If there were no rich people, or groups of rich people, no concentration of wealth, then advancements and products that require such investment would never have been realized.

 

Their money doesn't sit in a shoe box. When it's working for them it's working for you too. Another important reminder: when they're money is working for them, they have no access to it. And yet another: when they're money is working for them, it is money that was already taxed before. After all, where does the money come from that one invests in capital gains, investment based profits?

 

I wish I could take more time and get to all these posts, but the quality of my posts are already deteriorating trying to rush through this. You'd think I'd have more time now that I work for the government. Yes, seriously.

Edited July 26, 2012 by ParanoiA

[CaptainPanic]

So gay people are not normal?

Google definition:

Normal: The usual, average, or typical state or condition.

Rich: Having a great deal of money or assets; wealthy.

 

So, strictly speaking, gay people are not normal. And neither are rich. In a statistical sense <-- that needs to be stressed here.

They are a small group which is not centered around an average value.

 

Obviously, you can now accuse me and swansont of discimination against gays (and rich people), but that's just silly. swansont clearly mentioned a number of words related to statistics. You use the word normal as if opposed to stupid, dumb, or "special" or whatever. That's twisting someone else's words and a fallacy.

 

Now, let's get back on the topic of taxes.

[Phi for All]

It is also blatant hypocrisy. The lefty logic that drives the importance of the American over the destitute Indian masks the ugly specter of greed. It would appear that the rich are not the only Americans that could be described as greedy sons of bitches. I can't help it if some Americans think they're poor.

I think you miss the point, at least my point. I'm not against US companies offshoring jobs, I'm against also giving them further taxpayer subsidies and incentives while they save money on their workforce. If you're not going to contribute to your own economic system fully, you shouldn't be able to get such assistance from it.

 

Having your cake + eating it² = our present economy.

[ParanoiA]

Google definition:

Normal: The usual, average, or typical state or condition.

Rich: Having a great deal of money or assets; wealthy.

 

So, strictly speaking, gay people are not normal. And neither are rich. In a statistical sense <-- that needs to be stressed here.

They are a small group which is not centered around an average value.

 

Obviously, you can now accuse me and swansont of discimination against gays (and rich people), but that's just silly. swansont clearly mentioned a number of words related to statistics. You use the word normal as if opposed to stupid, dumb, or "special" or whatever. That's twisting someone else's words and a fallacy.

 

Now, let's get back on the topic of taxes.

 

No, I would not accuse you and Swansont of such things. The context of this use of "normal" came from Swansont's defense of John Cuthber's post where he claimed rich people were not normal. I pointed out to him that the use of such a word - and you admit yourself needs to be qualified as a more formal statistical description - betrays a prejudice.

 

If someone openly states "gay people are not normal", I'm going to suspect prejudice. I think most would too. I wanted John Cuthber to realize how he sounds.

 

And that's important to this discussion because I believe it's this prejudice that fuels a progressive tax code, and the rationales, as opposed to purely objective analysis of economic benefit. The American poor are mostly not poor in my opinion. They merely compare themselves to the wealthy. Our standard of living is ridiculously high.

 

Listening to Americans wax on about the poor and the help they need is like listening to someone trying to convince me that a millionaire in a neighborhood of billionaires is poor.

[ParanoiA]

I think you miss the point, at least my point. I'm not against US companies offshoring jobs, I'm against also giving them further taxpayer subsidies and incentives while they save money on their workforce. If you're not going to contribute to your own economic system fully, you shouldn't be able to get such assistance from it.

 

Having your cake + eating it² = our present economy.

 

Well of course I'd agree with that. Taxpayer subsidies is theft, basically. Are you suggesting there are always subsidies and incentives associated with offshoring jobs?

 

But your argument is unique, using the subsidy/incentive qualifier. Most people see outsourcing as bad because it's sending jobs "out of the country".

 

It's like the whole import/export business - it's a political statement, and that's it. We plant a flag and draw a crappy shaped circle around it and say that everything made inside it is magically more beneficial to me than stuff made outside of it. The global market doesn't recognize those silly lines and our economies are merging and it is beneficial to us all - including the never mentioned attribute of national security. Entangling business relationships makes it unattractive and costly to kill each other.

 

In reality, there's what I produce, and then what everyone else produces. Imports and exports to me mean stuff I make and sell, and stuff I buy. The whole world is a potential importer, and I export to whoever will take it.

 

And most people operate that way. Today, it's almost impossible to make something in one country. This reason article is very interesting, although perhaps a bit off topic I think it fits in this hyper-nationalism economic vein.

 

Shenoy emphasizes that Chinese workers do the final assembly of many products, but final assembly is but the tip of the iceberg of production. When you look at the full manufacturing process, you find a system of worldwide cooperation. Most of the materials and machines the Chinese use in assembly were made somewhere else: sewing machines in Japan, Korea, and the United States; dyes in Germany; button-making machinery in the United States, Taiwan, and Hong Kong; zippers in Japan; spinning and weaving machinery in the United Kingdom; raw cotton in Uzbekistan, Egypt, and the United States (subsidized by the government); cotton gins in the United States; and steel in Japan and Korea.

 

Once assembled, the goods have to be moved to the docks for transport to the United States. The trucks that do the moving are made in Japan. The ships and containers are made in Korea, Japan, America, and Britain. The shipping services are Greek and Norwegian.

 

“When you read a label which says ‘made in China,’ it is not made in China,” Shenoy says. “It is made by the world economy, by the globe as a whole. . . . It is impossible to make anything in one country. And that is why, as Mises pointed out, the market economy does not respect political frontiers. Its field is the world.”

[swansont]

I'm glad to know that you possess this opinion. I trust you rattle that line off in the presence of racist arguments against conservatives about illegal immigration?

 

That's a red herring and probably a straw man. Not going to bite.

 

It is in the national security and economic interests that we globalize. We send aid to foreign countries, so we apparently are concerned. Employment and self empowerment become a relevant topic when talking about welfare. And to assign negative value to the inclusion of the desperate poor in this global economy is to suddenly dishonor humanitarianism, which I thought was a universally positive value.

 

It is also blatant hypocrisy. The lefty logic that drives the importance of the American over the destitute Indian masks the ugly specter of greed. It would appear that the rich are not the only Americans that could be described as greedy sons of bitches. I can't help it if some Americans think they're poor.

 

The government sends aid to foreign countries, not businesses. One of the goals of that aid is opening markets, because it's in our interest to do so.

 

I don't see any evidence in support of your claim that this is xenophobia or bigotry, and you now ascribe it to greed. Are you admitting that my observation was accurate, or are you going to present some argument?

 

So gay people are not normal? They only make up 4% of the population, and when speaking about sexual orientation that's the attribute that is relevant. And that's the phrase you'd choose? Not normal? I don't think so. I think the word "normal" carries baggage which is always seized upon when used by those suspected of bigotry against virtually any other popularly recognized minority group other than the rich.

 

You will please note I substituted typical for normal in my statement. Any group that comprises 4% of the population is not typical. As CaptainPanic has noted, this is a statistical distinction.

 

No, you're exactly right. I believe this is a case of crony capitalism. 8 restaurant owners do not want to compete so they use the government to help create zoning laws using the property tax excuse. The mobile food vendors do not have air conditioned seating facilities, rest rooms and etc. The advantage to each business model is obvious and not conflicting. It's flimsy. It's discouraging to this young man, although he seems pretty determined.

 

I brought this up as an example of vilification, not taxation. But it's not a good one, I was just a little peeved about it and wanted to find an excuse to share it. There should be no better place on earth more welcome to this young man's intentions than here in America. But we have so many rules created by bureaucrats and small handfuls of crony capitalists that new business and thus new upward mobility seem to be largely unwelcome and discouraged.

 

So is it likely that these restaurant owners are closer to the top 10% of the income spectrum? That they have a level of influence with the local government that they can get laws like this passed? Crony capitalism is one reason they should pay higher taxes — they get more benefit from they system, simply because of their wealth.

[padren]

 

So is it likely that these restaurant owners are closer to the top 10% of the income spectrum? That they have a level of influence with the local government that they can get laws like this passed? Crony capitalism is one reason they should pay higher taxes — they get more benefit from they system, simply because of their wealth.

Cronyism is not the reason higher income tax payers "get more benefit" they just use more.

 

I could get renter's insurance to cover my assets through the private sector, and I have maybe $2000 worth of total assets, all in my apartment.

 

Should my rate be the same as what someone with $1,000,000 of assets in their home would pay?

 

I would suspect not, as the million dollar plan gives the millionaire a whole lot more. Same product, different benefit levels.

 

 

Of course, if someone was getting $1,000,000 of coverage for the same price as $2000, I would suspect someone influenced the local government and got laws like passed.

 

I do not like the idea of picking the rich apart under a microscope every time [we decide] we need to pay more for something and I would say that it's wrong, but some of the current tax laws are just wrong period. They were passed by wrong people for wrong reasons, and have aggravated much of our budget problems at this point. Not all the rich people asked for those laws or celebrated them, and many who have been trying to do nothing but mind their business(es) will suffer from the umpteenth update on whatever bureaucracy of forms are now required and how much income has to go with them.

These aren't "villainous rich" out to screw people - just people worried about how to keep their businesses afloat, if not grow. The problem is when they get breaks that are unfair to everyone because they happen to share a demographic with those who do completely game the system every chance they get and we have to say "no" and fix those breaks, and that does disrupt the tax code for everyone in the bracket, not just those trying to dodge their fair share of taxes.

 

It sucks that they did nothing wrong and will suffer over the tax code disruptions, but the alternative to is leave the festering bad tax laws on the books. Honestly, they should be angry that Bush singled them out for that ridiculous wartime tax break in the first place and angry that it ended up being extended so long.

 

After all, if it's prejudicial to target people making over a specific income bracket for tax hikes, then it should be equally prejudicial to target them for tax breaks.

[swansont]

Cronyism is not the reason higher income tax payers "get more benefit" they just use more.

 

I could get renter's insurance to cover my assets through the private sector, and I have maybe $2000 worth of total assets, all in my apartment.

 

Should my rate be the same as what someone with $1,000,000 of assets in their home would pay?

 

I would suspect not, as the million dollar plan gives the millionaire a whole lot more. Same product, different benefit levels.breaks[/b].

 

I think there are laws that exist that can only benefit you if you have a certain amount of money, and I think that needs to be taken into account when one discusses marginal income tax rates. It's also why only focusing on the marginal rate, instead of the overall tax rate, is a deception.

[uncool]

I think there are laws that exist that can only benefit you if you have a certain amount of money,

Which laws?

and I think that needs to be taken into account when one discusses marginal income tax rates. It's also why only focusing on the marginal rate, instead of the overall tax rate, is a deception.

How so? The reason for focusing on marginal quantities in almost all of economics is mostly sound - because any rational decision-making depends only on the margin, not on the total.

=Uncool-

[swansont]

Which laws?

 

You get to deduct interest on mortgages. You need to have enough money to buy a house to get this treatment.

 

Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than wages/salary. You need to have enough money to invest to hope to have capital gains.

 

Recent news described how Mitt Romney has an IRA worth millions, because he is able to use investments not available to people with something closer to the median income. This shields his investments from taxes.

 

Own a huge property? Put a couple of cows out to graze and it's a farm, and your property taxes go down. Or hunt on it. It's popular in Texas.

 

Depreciation on investment and business properties are a write-off. You need to be wealthy enough to own such a property.

[ParanoiA]

The government sends aid to foreign countries, not businesses. One of the goals of that aid is opening markets, because it's in our interest to do so.

 

I don't see any evidence in support of your claim that this is xenophobia or bigotry, and you now ascribe it to greed. Are you admitting that my observation was accurate, or are you going to present some argument?

 

There's about as much "evidence" of the left's cloaked xenophobia and bigotry as there is "evidence" of the right's racist anti illegal immigration position. If there was evidence, liberalism and conservatism would have died a long time ago and I would be a much happier person.

 

Instead, we have inconsistent "reasons", specious logic that betrays other motives. Like the point I raised about the left's long standing value of humanitarianism, and this inconsistency between charity and economic participation. Xenophobia and bigotry fit rather well. They don't want to see them, employ them, have anything to do with them, just give them money so they'll go away and they can feel altruistic. Which matches what we see here in America as well, with conservatives being more charitable than liberals, and prefering direct allocation over faceless programs. Lefties don't appear to want to mingle with needy people, just give them stuff so they'll go away.

 

Businesses don't employ rock and dirt, they are made up of people. People who would like to participate in markets with us. Giving aid in order to open markets? Please explain how giving money away creates markets - further sustainable markets. I suppose if I toss out 20 dollar bills everyday, eventually there will be a gathering of people there every morning to collect them and go buy stuff. Is this the kind of market you're talking about? I've never seen charity sold as market creation, if so. Which of course, sounds terrible since it will require a constant introduction of resources since charity is not self sustaining, nor wealth creation. But it does keep them dependent, destitute, and marginalized which is exactly what Americans want when they eschew other Americans giving them work.

 

What else am I or anyone else to think?

 

You will please note I substituted typical for normal in my statement. Any group that comprises 4% of the population is not typical. As CaptainPanic has noted, this is a statistical distinction.

 

Yes and you will please note that point is directed to John Cuther's use of "normal" over "typical" during your defense of the term. You would be wise to note such vocabulary when dealing with a homophobe, yet you reject the criticism depending on what kind of minority we're talking about. Calling gay people "not normal" reveals one's bias, though it does not prove such things, and John's use of the rich being "not normal" reveals his bias. Having a bias against rich people is the same as having a bias against gay people - it's ugly, divisive, broadly applied ignorance to the entire group. All the hallmarks of racism, sexism, and all the other ism's we go through.

 

To be clear, taking a position against the rich in the context of a tax argument is not bias. Claiming a group as "not normal" however, is.

 

So is it likely that these restaurant owners are closer to the top 10% of the income spectrum? That they have a level of influence with the local government that they can get laws like this passed? Crony capitalism is one reason they should pay higher taxes they get more benefit from they system, simply because of their wealth.

 

First sentence is pure speculation, and probably belongs in Speculations, not in Politics.

 

And that second bit is like saying hitmen should have to pay higher taxes because they murder people. No, crony capitalism is something you eliminate, not invest in. It is not possible for these businessmen to do this without government force. The marriage of government force and business is called crony capitalism and is the number one conflated issue with libertarians. Free markets, not regulated ones. That means no favors, no hurdles - just honest competition.

 

Unlike the gun control argument, we actually could eliminate all laws. We don't need to be armed with regulatory law when the criminals aren't armed with it either.

 

This kid got screwed by the grownups. The grownups that opted for security over freedom decades ago and are now totally conditioned to crank out law after law, micro managing their business sector into a slow crawl. You can open a business in Hong Kong in one day, but that same business takes a week in Delaware - the "easist" city to open a business. Permits, licenses, corporate subsidies, all work against the little guy that wants to start his own business. Government and crony caplitalism did that. They love each other.

 

You get to deduct interest on mortgages. You need to have enough money to buy a house to get this treatment.

 

Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than wages/salary. You need to have enough money to invest to hope to have capital gains.

 

Recent news described how Mitt Romney has an IRA worth millions, because he is able to use investments not available to people with something closer to the median income. This shields his investments from taxes.

 

Own a huge property? Put a couple of cows out to graze and it's a farm, and your property taxes go down. Or hunt on it. It's popular in Texas.

 

Depreciation on investment and business properties are a write-off. You need to be wealthy enough to own such a property.

 

The point nobody talks about because it destroys this tax argument: The money invested that generated capital gains *was already taxed before*. That's the almost funny part of this smear campaign. Nobody asked how much he paid in taxes on the money that originated the investments. That money comes from previous capital gains, wages, property sales..etc - activites that require taxes to be paid.

 

*AND* he doesn't get to use it. He makes money by letting other people use his money and do something with it. This is great. Totally positive. Everybody wins. Someone with motivation and ideas gets matched with someone with money and thirst for profit. If the investment fails, the taxpayers are not on the hook. If it succeeds, new taxpayers are created in the form of jobs.

 

As to the second part, my parents are far from wealthy, and they own such property. It's taken them over 20 years and disciplined real estate decisions to do it. And we should all jump for joy when someone can lower their property taxes. Even if done illegally, I support it. Property taxes are one of the most unethical taxes we have, and among the most damaging. My grandmother died penniless, still paying that freaking property tax out of her social security checks. That house was hers. We, the people, had no business taking that from her or any of the millions of poor Americans we drain.

 

(Edited to remove partial sentence after mouse crashed and couldn't figure out how to navigate the cursor well enough without it)

Edited August 8, 2012 by ParanoiA

[Moontanman]

The point nobody talks about because it destroys this tax argument: The money invested that generated capital gains *was already taxed before*. That's the almost funny part of this smear campaign. Nobody asked how much he paid in taxes on the money that originated the investments. That money comes from previous capital gains, wages, property sales..etc - activites that require taxes to be paid.

 

*AND* he doesn't get to use it. He makes money by letting other people use his money and do something with it. This is great. Totally positive. Everybody wins. Someone with motivation and ideas gets matched with someone with money and thirst for profit. If the investment fails, the taxpayers are not on the hook. If it succeeds, new taxpayers are created in the form of jobs.

 

As to the second part, my parents are far from wealthy, and they own such property. It's taken them over 20 years and disciplined real estate decisions to do it. And we should all jump for joy when someone can lower their property taxes. Even if done illegally, I support it. Property taxes are one of the most unethical taxes we have, and among the most damaging. My grandmother died penniless, still paying that freaking property tax out of her social security checks. That house was hers. We, the people, had no business taking that from her or any of the millions of poor Americans we drain.

 

Capital gains are on income that has *already been taxed*. Where does the

 

 

I'm going to have to go with paranoiA here on this, on at least the property tax thing I'm not sure i understand the capital gains tax thing well enough to comment on it.

 

Taking away your home because you cannot pay taxes on it or if paying those taxes presents a clear burden on the person who is paying them should be done away with, at the very least, it should be impossible to take something you have paid for away because you cannot pay the property taxes on it.

 

Property taxes is an instance of double taxation. Why should I pay my local city, county and state government taxes on my car that is paid for? I pay one of the highest tax rates on gasoline already, just inspecting my car costs as much as $40 (something close to that, i always have something wrong that needs to be fixed as well) but every year I have to pay taxes yet again on a car i already own.... but taxes on a house you personally live in is just wrong, you pay for every service provided to you and your house...

[iNow]

Don't your property taxes pay for the local fire department that protect your property from fire, and the local police department that protect your property from criminal activity, and the local schools that educate your children?

 

I respect Paranoia and find him to be one of the more articulate libertarian posters I've encountered, but his position is still dangerously one dimensional like everything is black and white, prioritizes vague amorphous concepts of freedom over essentially everything else regardless of how reasoned and practical to a well functioning society, and he further seems to have no problem arguing against strawmen like "all liberals this, and all progressives that." Reasoned discussion is made powerfully difficult when there is nothing you could say that would alter the other persons position. Much libertarianism has become a form of political creationism IMO.

[Moontanman]

Don't your property taxes pay for the local fire department that protect your property from fire, and the local police department that protect your property from criminal activity, and the local schools that educate your children?

 

I respect Paranoia and find him to be one of the more articulate libertarian posters I've encountered, but his position is still dangerously one dimensional like everything is black and white, prioritizes vague amorphous concepts of freedom over essentially everything else regardless of how reasoned and practical to a well functioning society, and he further seems to have no problem arguing against strawmen like "all liberals this, and all progressives that." Reasoned discussion is made powerfully difficult when there is nothing you could say that would alter the other persons position. Much libertarianism has become a form of political creationism IMO.

 

 

If you must tax me, and I understand that taxes are necessary, tax my income, do not tax my property over and over and then when i am in the fall of my life and my income goes down take my property away from me. I see this happening all over the place where I live, property taxes go up arbitrarily as property values go up as more affluent people move in and pay bigger prices for similar property but they do not take into account the income of the people involved. i think this makes the idea of owning property of any kind much less something like a house a joke... you don't own it you rent it from the local government...

[iNow]

Not all states and not all cities collect income taxes. Would you recommend they start?

 

Otherwise, how else will they pay for the services they get from the city and state that helps keep their property livable and functioning?

[ParanoiA]

If you must tax me, and I understand that taxes are necessary, tax my income, do not tax my property over and over and then when i am in the fall of my life and my income goes down take my property away from me. I see this happening all over the place where I live, property taxes go up arbitrarily as property values go up as more affluent people move in and pay bigger prices for similar property but they do not take into account the income of the people involved. i think this makes the idea of owning property of any kind much less something like a house a joke... you don't own it you rent it from the local government...

 

Correct Moontanman. It's as if they think property taxes are permanent structures that when eliminated, all the benefits they provided go away. Weird.

 

Yes, we can simply tax them differently for the same things. The multiple directions of taxation we experience right now are evidence of its efficacy. Any state or local government can just as easily impliment a consumption sales tax or increase the one they have to pay for schools, police, fire - if that's how they fund them. And then it's more equitable to the citizens since it eliminates the geographic link - rich neighborhood schools for the wealthy kids and poor run down schools for the poor kids. I think I've had quite enough of class division begetting yet more class division, by government schools.

 

Then, the those local governments are set up for voucher based schooling where the money follows the child, not the institution. This allows parents maximum flexibility (oxymoron really considering mandated schooling) and control over the kind of educational environment they want their children in. Schools will have to compete for business instead of taking their classrooms for granted. The people can demand the level of education they want in a market like this far better and more efficiently than joining PTA and fielding a bureaucracy of union and government bullshit. See how long it takes to change your neighborhood school into the one you want for your child and compare that to how long it takes to shop for one.

 

There is little good reason in not using a single source taxation system. Sure, you eliminate the ability to tax usage, but you also eliminate the "black cloud" that is the tax code that gives every politician the ability to claim they lowered taxes, or claim someone else raised them, yet nobody actually knows if they did or not. Our tax code is stunningly beautiful for oligarchy. Complex enough that the average voter doesn't understand it, leaving them largely withdrawn from the subject, accepting the status quo out of ignorance. They don't challenge how we collect taxes nor why those methods are chosen. Consider the income tax...why would a government relinquish the power and control gained by having access to the private affairs of the citizens. If they traded it in for a sales tax, they would lose such a sweet position of information and power that you wouldn't even give to your best friend.

 

Don't your property taxes pay for the local fire department that protect your property from fire, and the local police department that protect your property from criminal activity, and the local schools that educate your children?

 

Most local governments set up tax structure this way I believe. Property tax is a powerful collection source, very popular among coersive groups.

 

Here's the rub...when you fail to pay the IRS, even tens of thousands of dollars, they raid your checking accounts, garnish wages and intercept tax refunds - your property isn't at risk for quite some time, years and years, if ever at all. However, when you fail to pay your property taxes, like your house, your property is the *first* point of leverage. They don't bother with checking accounts, garnishing wages and intercepting refunds - they go straight for the throat and take the property.

 

I had a friend personally go through this two months ago. I agree, he's brought this on himself and hasn't paid for 3 years, but this house was bought and paid for years ago. They threatened to sell the house at auction for one year's worth, an overdue 600 dollars, complete with a due date to be out of the house if it wasn't paid by the deadline.

 

We helped him get it paid and I launched a new crusade. His father spent 20 years buying that house, just so Tulsa County can sell it to get 600 bucks. This is too costly. Taxes must be paid, but taking people's homes? He would have been homeless, iNow. He and his mother. How is this a good government? How is this good for society? It is good for us to gain two homeless people and 600 bucks in revenue?

 

We don't put people to death for failing to use a turn signal. I don't think we should take people's homes for failing to pay their government school bill. There's a better way. Sales tax.

 

I respect Paranoia and find him to be one of the more articulate libertarian posters I've encountered, but his position is still dangerously one dimensional like everything is black and white, prioritizes vague amorphous concepts of freedom over essentially everything else regardless of how reasoned and practical to a well functioning society, and he further seems to have no problem arguing against strawmen like "all liberals this, and all progressives that." Reasoned discussion is made powerfully difficult when there is nothing you could say that would alter the other persons position. Much libertarianism has become a form of political creationism IMO.

 

I made the counter argument to this in another thread but you never read it or didn't respond to it. I'm not wasting my time making it again.

 

Anyone who supports the notion of planting a flag and drawing a poorly shaped circle around it and telling every human born in the perimeter for the foreseeable future to pledge allegiance to their funky circle and obey some rules and culture that they're all really impressed with - dictating the only life you'll ever have to live - under the impression they are "moral" or "ethical", probably does have a huge problem with freedom and individualism.

 

To receive their criticism is to be validated.

Edited August 8, 2012 by ParanoiA

[Athena]

Correct Moontanman. It's as if they think property taxes are permanent structures that when eliminated, all the benefits they provided go away. Weird.

 

Yes, we can simply tax them differently for the same things. The multiple directions of taxation we experience right now are evidence of its efficacy. Any state or local government can just as easily impliment a consumption sales tax or increase the one they have to pay for schools, police, fire - if that's how they fund them. And then it's more equitable to the citizens since it eliminates the geographic link - rich neighborhood schools for the wealthy kids and poor run down schools for the poor kids. I think I've had quite enough of class division begetting yet more class division, by government schools.

 

Then, the those local governments are set up for voucher based schooling where the money follows the child, not the institution. This allows parents maximum flexibility (oxymoron really considering mandated schooling) and control over the kind of educational environment they want their children in. Schools will have to compete for business instead of taking their classrooms for granted. The people can demand the level of education they want in a market like this far better and more efficiently than joining PTA and fielding a bureaucracy of union and government bullshit. See how long it takes to change your neighborhood school into the one you want for your child and compare that to how long it takes to shop for one.

 

There is little good reason in not using a single source taxation system. Sure, you eliminate the ability to tax usage, but you also eliminate the "black cloud" that is the tax code that gives every politician the ability to claim they lowered taxes, or claim someone else raised them, yet nobody actually knows if they did or not. Our tax code is stunningly beautiful for oligarchy. Complex enough that the average voter doesn't understand it, leaving them largely withdrawn from the subject, accepting the status quo out of ignorance. They don't challenge how we collect taxes nor why those methods are chosen. Consider the income tax...why would a government relinquish the power and control gained by having access to the private affairs of the citizens. If they traded it in for a sales tax, they would lose such a sweet position of information and power that you wouldn't even give to your best friend.

 

 

 

Most local governments set up tax structure this way I believe. Property tax is a powerful collection source, very popular among coersive groups.

 

Here's the rub...when you fail to pay the IRS, even tens of thousands of dollars, they raid your checking accounts, garnish wages and intercept tax refunds - your property isn't at risk for quite some time, years and years, if ever at all. However, when you fail to pay your property taxes, like your house, your property is the *first* point of leverage. They don't bother with checking accounts, garnishing wages and intercepting refunds - they go straight for the throat and take the property.

 

I had a friend personally go through this two months ago. I agree, he's brought this on himself and hasn't paid for 3 years, but this house was bought and paid for years ago. They threatened to sell the house at auction for one year's worth, an overdue 600 dollars, complete with a due date to be out of the house if it wasn't paid by the deadline.

 

We helped him get it paid and I launched a new crusade. His father spent 20 years buying that house, just so Tulsa County can sell it to get 600 bucks. This is too costly. Taxes must be paid, but taking people's homes? He would have been homeless, iNow. He and his mother. How is this a good government? How is this good for society? It is good for us to gain two homeless people and 600 bucks in revenue?

 

We don't put people to death for failing to use a turn signal. I don't think we should take people's homes for failing to pay their government school bill. There's a better way. Sales tax.

 

 

 

I made the counter argument to this in another thread but you never read it or didn't respond to it. I'm not wasting my time making it again.

 

Anyone who supports the notion of planting a flag and drawing a poorly shaped circle around it and telling every human born in the perimeter for the foreseeable future to pledge allegiance to their funky circle and obey some rules and culture that they're all really impressed with - dictating the only life you'll ever have to live - under the impression they are "moral" or "ethical", probably does have a huge problem with freedom and individualism.

 

To receive their criticism is to be validated.

 

I have not read this thread, but obviously people who don't want to pay taxes should not go to war, and should not troops stationed around the world, and should not be investing millions of dollars in foreign countries, without paying attention to how that money is spent.

[ParanoiA]

I have not read this thread, but obviously people who don't want to pay taxes should not go to war, and should not troops stationed around the world, and should not be investing millions of dollars in foreign countries, without paying attention to how that money is spent.

 

I agree with the first two, but you have a problem with individuals who don't like taxes and then invest millions of dollars in foreign countries? I'm not sure how they're related. So, if Bobby Sager wants to invest in a third world country and rescue people from dirty water and sewer, he has your blessing only if he likes to pay taxes here in America?

 

Or were you aiming at Wal-mart?

[iNow]

I made the counter argument to this in another thread but you never read it or didn't respond to it. I'm not wasting my time making it again.

Yes, you're right. Sometimes I read these threads while on boring conference calls, while between meetings, while waiting for reports to finish running or system updates to complete, or from my smart phone while sitting in bumper to bumper traffic. These conditions are not always conducive to long winded debate, and sometimes I read something that is well-thought out, but doesn't necessarily motivate me to respond. Sometimes I read stuff that is filled with well poising, character attacks and barbs, and single minded fervor that doesn't strike me as conducive to a mature dialog so I ignore it. Sometimes I just read, reflect, and move on. I did that with your aforementioned post, especially since you were responding to the author of an article I shared and not directly to me. However, I've added some thoughts today since you brought it up again here today. Enjoy.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/65557-lets-define-freedom/page__st__60__gopid__695837#entry695837