| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/15/2008 09:28:20 AM · #101 |
| How many times has this happened without any one noticing? There are some really good graphic artists out there who do this daily and they're never found. We just notice the bad ones. |
|
|
|
03/15/2008 09:57:34 AM · #102 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Your numbers may be wrong, please cite your source.
"The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes."
//www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html |
Good!
|
|
|
|
03/15/2008 11:47:58 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by JR:
How many times has this happened without any one noticing? There are some really good graphic artists out there who do this daily and they're never found. We just notice the bad ones. |
That would be the ones featured here. |
|
|
|
03/15/2008 11:51:47 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
My uncle moved from the UK to Switzerland some time in the 60's. He was paying 98% tax on the top end of his earnings. |
Yes - it is amazing that 90%+ rates ever got applied. They have since been replaced by a top rate of 40% in the UK - which really does take quite a bit from your pay packet!!
I looked into moving to Dubai a while ago (0% income tax) and the financial position is superb - if only it were a little more convenient.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2008 12:11:59 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by Flash:
We currently have a graduated system where those who earn more pay a higher percentage up to a maximum percentage. We could all pay zero tax income tax and just pay a use tax for goods and services - that way each person can control the tax they pay by selecting which goods and services they want to pay for. OR we could have a standard tax rate for all (say 10-12%) and congress must live within that amount - every year. No money left - then no program support.
Use tax or flat tax - both are options, but neither addresses the unsustainable spending and give aways that liberal's want to add. |
Is a "use" tax really tax? If you "use" the "free" school system, then you pay a tax, and if you don't "use" it then you don't pay "tax". How is that different from a private school?
On the one hand you froth at having to pay any tax for anything you don't use, then you complain that people don't ned tax breaks because they get free public services. you do know that "free" public services are paid for by the tax dollar, don't you? You said earlier that you don't want to get rid of the free emergency healthcare, yet now you want people to pay for what they use. These wild and flailing incoherencies make it very hard to understand your position (apart from your apparent belief that you, as one of the few honest tax payers, are paying too much).
I don't know how much formal education you have engaged in on the subject of economics - you seem better at repeating what politicians say rather than appreciating what in reality they have to do.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2008 02:15:10 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by karmat:
(disclaimer -- the following post does not necessarily reflect the views of the poster, the site, or anything photographic at all)
Bar Stool Economics (authorship disputed)
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
...
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. |
Karmat - Thank you for illustrating the points that I have been trying to make in a succinct yet ponderful way. Again thanks.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2008 02:27:14 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by karmat:
(disclaimer -- the following post does not necessarily reflect the views of the poster, the site, or anything photographic at all)
Bar Stool Economics (authorship disputed)
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
...
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. |
Karmat - Thank you for illustrating the points that I have been trying to make in a succinct yet ponderful way. Again thanks. |
The problem with this "math" is that it doesn't take into account the true difference in income/wealth between the different classes.
When the first four make $24,000/year, the eighth makes $150,000, the ninth $1.6 million/year, and the tenth $22.4 million, you have to ask whether the difference of a few dollars makes any significant difference in the overall economic condition of the individual.
If the first four had to pay an equal share, their kids might not eat at the end of the month (assuming they chose to go out drinking instead of feeding their kids); if the tenth guy paid the whole tab, it would be like spending change found in the couch cushions ...
PS: These numbers are my own unofficial estimates, and derive from no specific source; of course, so is the original example ...
Message edited by author 2008-03-15 14:29:04. |
|
|
|
03/15/2008 02:34:33 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Is a "use" tax really tax? |
Yours and my understanding of a use tax are very different. I defined my term use tax as being one on goods and services. We have similar use taxes now where a penalty tax is paid on certain items that exceed a certain price range (sometimes called a luxury tax) where those with greater means and desires to own higher cost items pay an additional tax into the trasury coffers. Likewise increased taxes on commodities like ciggarettes, alchohol and gasoline are representative to me of further use tax examples where by the standard rate of say 6% is on top of a host of other taxes included into the prices. These are alternatives to me, for those who are bent on having those of means pay an ever increasing amount of tax. At least this way, one know up front that if you want a certain item (Boat, car, tobacco, alchohol, etc) then you will pay an additional tax for it. You still retain the right to not pay that tax, you sinply must forego that item(s).
Public schools have historically been paid for by income taxes. Having had no children, I am readily aware of how many years I have supported this system without any offspring benefit.
For the record - I have in no way calimed to be the only honest taxpayer. I have challenged those who wish to raise my taxes further to support more failed liberal socialist programs, to evaluate whether THEY pay all that is due, and if not, then don't preach to me. Lets be clear on where the dogs lie.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2008 02:40:11 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
[The problem with this "math" is that it doesn't take into account the true difference in income/wealth between the different classes.
When the first four make $24,000/year, the eighth makes $150,000, the ninth $1.6 million/year, and the tenth $22.4 million, you have to ask whether the difference of a few dollars makes any significant difference in the overall economic condition of the individual.
If the first four had to pay an equal share, their kids might not eat at the end of the month (assuming they chose to go out drinking instead of feeding their kids); if the tenth guy paid the whole tab, it would be like spending change found in the couch cushions ...
PS: These numbers are my own unofficial estimates, and derive from no specific source; of course, so is the original example ... |
However please remember the outcome: The payer (patron #10) choose to stay home, whereby the other 9 now are without the means to partake in the future. Just as happens in my state, when those drinking for free demand even more form those that have been paying the largest percentage, and those having paid the most decide to leave and not show up. Transferring their money elsewhere. How did that help the situation?
edit to add: your reasoning in this sentence When the first four make $24,000/year, the eighth makes $150,000, the ninth $1.6 million/year, and the tenth $22.4 million, you have to ask whether the difference of a few dollars makes any significant difference in the overall economic condition of the individual. truly illustrates the problem I have with liberal thinking. It is not your money and to justify taking someone elses because they "have enough" or "more than they need" is absolutey ludicrous. I find it personally very offensive. You do not have the right to take someone elses earnings simply because YOU think they have more than they need.
Our definitions of fairness are very different. You imply that because one has more wealth then to be fair they should pay more. I feel that if they are paying their taxes, providing jobs for hundreds of others (and thus more community tax base), philanthropically supporting the community, then what they have is their business and no one elses.
Message edited by author 2008-03-15 14:52:08.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2008 03:28:55 PM · #110 |
It's sorta silly to talk about posted income tax rates anyway. You need to talk about the "effective" tax rate. I was in the "28%" tax bracket last year and the actual income tax I paid was 10% of my income after all was said and done. Do I think that's unreasonable? Hell no.
While I may complain about taxes because it's a genetic trait of all humans, I am a rare bird, someone "rich" who believes in a progressive tax system.
And as far as the beer drinker analogy, it's silly to think the rich ones are going to run overseas. They'd be back on the very next boat when they see the progressive taxation found Europe. |
|
|
|
03/16/2008 01:14:25 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I feel that if they are paying their taxes, providing jobs for hundreds of others (and thus more community tax base), philanthropically supporting the community, then what they have is their business and no one elses. |
So in your world the rich should be philanthropic and provide jobs for hundreds of others? If that were a minority of rich people (and you have expressed your opinions on the untrustworthiness of people generally), shouldn't that be a regulated system? Perhaps some kind of compulsory payment system based on income with the proceeds being used to pay for communally beneficial work...??
|
|
|
|
03/17/2008 12:45:39 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
So in your world the rich should be philanthropic and provide jobs for hundreds of others? If that were a minority of rich people (and you have expressed your opinions on the untrustworthiness of people generally), shouldn't that be a regulated system? Perhaps some kind of compulsory payment system based on income with the proceeds being used to pay for communally beneficial work...?? |
No.
Many already are philathropic and "rich" owners of business already provide hundreds and in some cases thousands of jobs. Why would it be compulsory or any more regulated than it already is? Perhaps I am missing your point.
edit to add; Originally posted by Matthew:
(and you have expressed your opinions on the untrustworthiness of people generally) |
Actually this is very untrue. I clearly trust them as I allow and support them to be armed in public. You and yours are the ones who distrust the masses.
Message edited by author 2008-03-17 12:55:47. |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 12:48:31 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And as far as the beer drinker analogy, it's silly to think the rich ones are going to run overseas. They'd be back on the very next boat when they see the progressive taxation found Europe. |
The beer is better there though. |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 12:59:35 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Matthew:
So in your world the rich should be philanthropic and provide jobs for hundreds of others? If that were a minority of rich people (and you have expressed your opinions on the untrustworthiness of people generally), shouldn't that be a regulated system? Perhaps some kind of compulsory payment system based on income with the proceeds being used to pay for communally beneficial work...?? |
No.
Many already are philanthropic and "rich" owners of business already provide hundreds and in some cases thousands of jobs. Why would it be compulsory or any more regulated than it already is? Perhaps I am missing your point. |
The matter of an individual's philanthropy is different from their obligation to society to pay taxes.
Simply because their business creates jobs is also not relative. In the end, an employee is simply another tool to make money. If your job costs your employer $60k, you can bet that your work will result in a profit when applied against the revenue created from your work.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2008 01:01:31 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And as far as the beer drinker analogy, it's silly to think the rich ones are going to run overseas. They'd be back on the very next boat when they see the progressive taxation found Europe. |
The beer is better there though. |
Hmmmm not in Italy and France. I think the only reason the Italians and the French make beer is so you'll drink the wine.
I can't say enough good things about the wine in those 2 countries though. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 08:02:11 AM EDT.
