Death and taxes(stocks)
- Thread starter cocean
- Start date
All I’ve done is ask you questions. I guess I’ve reached your limit.
If I make $1M and you make $50K and we both pay 10% in taxes, I pay $100K and you would pay $5K......what is not fair about that? I would have paid $95K more just in in federal taxes. There is a strong likelihood that I would have paid even more taxes than you through normal consumption of goods too (property taxes, sales tax, etc.).
There is no incentive for success and opportunity in your approach. That is why "big cities" have such a problem with income inequality. The rich are in the penthouse; the poor in the streets. High taxes are used to separate the two classes. The 1% can afford it (but shouldn't need to do so). The poor settle on the government dole with no incentive to do more (or they may pay more). The middle class gets hosed (and I put the middle class in those that make between $75K-$1M, which is not scientific just my thoughts).
I could design a tax code that is fair, budget neutral (meaning it would deliver same/similar revenue to the government as today) and could be written in very large print and not as many pages as your child's/grandchild's coloring book. It would even have illustrations for the current Congress so they could understand. Won't happen - it reduces the power broker's power.
Most of the top 1% never EVER get close to paying the 38% tax rate because why???? Because they have shelters to bring them back to the teens in tax rate. Look further than trump now, mitt Romney during his run made 20,000,000,.00 and paid 14% tax rate
u people are arguing about things that don’t really exist in the real world.
Now. If u play with us somewhat day traders and i complain about paying taxes on the 59,000.00 I made in just these trades (2020) then YOU R in the wrong game. I Am happy as hell to pay taxes on what I call free money. Remember this, if you make money buying/selling a stock then someone most likely lost their money
If you win the 1/2 billion lottery and complain about the taxes on that free money, I call you a BITCH.
You cannot give away or spend the rest
good day
u people are arguing about things that don’t really exist in the real world.
Now. If u play with us somewhat day traders and i complain about paying taxes on the 59,000.00 I made in just these trades (2020) then YOU R in the wrong game. I Am happy as hell to pay taxes on what I call free money. Remember this, if you make money buying/selling a stock then someone most likely lost their money
If you win the 1/2 billion lottery and complain about the taxes on that free money, I call you a BITCH.
You cannot give away or spend the rest
good day
Catching on.....getting there. First thing is recognizing the problem. The root cause of our problem is the "family unit." The statistical correlation between single parent homes and education, poverty, crime and many other unfavorable outcomes is staggering.
So, it really is a fair argument. But, attack it from a point of view of solving for the the root cause. But, at the same time, don't take away opportunity for those that may want to opt out to get something better, quicker so they can be more successful.
That is a completely different argument than what we were discussing. It's not a fair argument because private schools don't fix the issue with what you call the family unit.
Like they're going to use increased taxes to pay down the debt. Dream on.
Government is inefficient (really in the overall design of government). The bigger - the more inefficient. The US Government is not designed (I would even argue Constitutionally required) to do many of the things they try and do. But government programs rarely ever end. They all start out with - "this will save the taxpayers XX dollars," but nobody ever goes back three years and see if those tax dollars were ever saved (never are) and whether the new program is working efficiently (never is). So, the government gets bigger and more inefficient. But, here is the "long play." Each new program gets a number of taxpayers relying on the government. Eventually (like now), there are more taxpayers needing or looking for the government assistance (I want my stimulus check). And, wallah, you enter Socialism, which collapses eventually because of the inefficiencies it initially proposes to solve.
In most cases it does, because private schools aren't confined to public indoctrination of socialism. They can teach that family matters, hard work matters, integrity matters, honesty matters, character matters........and on and on.
The Public School system can't teach moral and values (I agree that starts with the family) because they are "handcuffed" by the bureaucracy.
You're being unrealistic when you argue there is no incentive for success in my approach. Are you honestly telling me you would turn down the opportunity for $1 million in additional income, just because you would owe $370,000 in federal taxes on it? Even after state taxes, you're still pocketing $440,000 in additional income. That's plenty motivation to work harder and be successful.
Now as far as your flat tax argument, it just isn't feasible. So now you're paying $100k in federal taxes on $1 million income. Previously, the federal government would have received roughly $305k. That's a $205k reduction in revenue. How would you possibly make up that loss in revenue without unreasonably raising the taxes on the low income?
Funny you should mention those activities. Roads and national defense were a couple of the reasons governments were created - things that the private sector wouldn't provide. Unfortunately, government has evolved into a meddling nanny state.
Because he is on welfare, evidently and if you cut government spending, then his quality of life will be reduced. That is the only justifiable reason he can make such silly statements about somebody making $530,000 + dollars looks silly complaining about a 37% tax rate.
I was just using 10% as an example. It could be more or less, then the government could choose to have a higher flat tax or a lower flat tax with a supplemental Value Added Tax (VAT), which is a consumer based tax on goods sold (i.e. how FL doesn't have a state income tax). I could set up the system for the federal government and each state in less than a week. Ain't hard.
I wish. Unfortunately, my wife and I are solidly middle class. We pay a nice sum of taxes without receiving any direct benefit from the government.
Yes, it can. Budgets can be reduce either by elimination of unnecessary expenses or by more efficient management of current expenditures (better costs, more efficient use, etc.). If I told my wife that she couldn't have another $5K diamond ring this year - that would reduce my budget by $5K - the budget would still be neutral. My wife would just be mad.
The higher the flax tax the more regressive it gets on low income workers making it even more of a pipe dream.
You wish your were on welfare? Really? Assume you get no stimuli from the government currently.
I didn't say I wasn't against a lower flat tax - I prefer a full fledge VAT with no income tax. But a flat tax (no matter the rate) is not progressive at all. It is the same percentage for everyone. That by definition is non-progressive. Now, with a higher flat tax rate, will those in lower incomes pay higher taxes - yes, but is still the same percentage of the higher income earners.
Last edited:
How about we just abolish the income tax system at the federal level altogether? It is the stupidest, most inefficient, wasteful, cumbersome, and unfair system of raising federal revenue ever devised by man. This is NOT what our forefathers envisioned. When you have to reach out to 250 million John and Jane Does and have them send in their forms and their money all year long and at April 15th, it's just plain crazy. We could devise a system where each state funds the Federal Govt based on a its pro-rata share that could be calculated using a formula including population, per capita income, GDP, etc. Then cut out all aid and grants going back to the states. Leave it up to each state as to how they raise the money. Right off the bat you save $15 billion/year (the annual budget for the IRS) not to mention all the billions of $ you would save from the waste at the Federal level.
Let’s start with abolishing capital gains first.
What do you call a "substantial amount" with your trading "secret?"
I'll hang up and listen.
Thank you.
Nah, we need to abolish the whole system. Getting rid of one small part of it on piecemeal basis doesn't solve the problem.
Legendary investor Jim Rogers has said he doesn't mind paying more taxes because it means he is making more profitable investments.
I love it when people like Buffet say they should be paying more money in taxes. But they never actually write a check to the Federal Treasury, which is easily done.
Hollow words by elites.
Biden wants to make America like California, welcome to the Biden administration
Yep.
Like the guy in this thread that said other people should be happy to pay more, but him? No. He pays his fair share. Astounding.
As evidenced by the past election, even videos of someone doing something fraudulent may not be enough in some cases.
You clearly don't understand how it works. Typically to make a million you must risk a substantial amount. Risk vs reward plays a substantial role in deciding whether or not people are willing to make investments. For this reason, higher taxes limit the number and amount of investments and thus the overall economy.
For starters, you have it all backwards. Bringing in more tax revenue artificially by simply raising taxes is a short-term influx but a long-term loss. The way to bring in more tax revenue is to lower taxes and let the economy grown organically by people investing and spending more money, thus paying more taxes and generating more revenue. That is the recipe for long term success. Raising taxes to increase revenue is a short-sighted simplistic approach that ends up contracting the economy, not expanding it.
As for the flat tax, some lower-income families may have to pay tax, save those below a certain income level. For a Constitutional Republic like the US to be successful, everyone needs some skin in the game, otherwise, those not paying taxes will vote themselves a "free" car or whatever else a politician promises. If they will be paying taxes too, they are more likely to take the "free" talk with a grain salt recognizing that their taxes may also increase as a result. Unfortunately, this is kind of where we find ourselves now.
As mentioned, there would be a cut-off for those who are unable to provide sustenance and housing by paying tax. There should not be a cut-off for those who simply want extra money to buy the latest iPhone. They should be paying their "fair share".
@josillor
Your post is a sight for sore eyes, don’t see too many people with this perspective. Warms this libertarian’s heart...LOL
Your post is a sight for sore eyes, don’t see too many people with this perspective. Warms this libertarian’s heart...LOL
No he isn’t.
You can’t complain about the governments that people elect while claiming those same voters don’t make up the state.
I'm literally laughing out loud right now, you're trying to turn an argument about semantics into another article about semantics. That's beautiful.
Oh? Who brought it up? I asked you a simple question and you, having no answer, tried to say it was semantics. I'll give a third try: What republican run state has bankrupted itself to the point it is requesting a federal bailout?
This is such a dumb argument considering the federal government bails out most states every year by giving them more in federal funding than their residents pay.
So Kentucky gets credit because they get an additional 148 billion in federal funding every year?
Similar threads
