ADVERTISEMENT

Death and taxes(stocks)

I mean if you want to argue a private school that recruits from high income, two-parent homes may have better outcomes than a public school consisting of low income, single parent homes, you're clearly not here arguing in good faith.
Oh. So are you saying it’s not fair?
 
No. It’s not fair for someone that makes a million dollars to pay the same percentage of income as someone that makes $30,000.

To argue otherwise is being intentionally obtuse.
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: uscwatson21
I mean if you want to argue a private school that recruits from high income, two-parent homes may have better outcomes than a public school consisting of low income, single parent homes, you're clearly not here arguing in good faith.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gamecock Jacque
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.
 
There is so much waste where government spending is concerned. Let me give you an example...and while it is anecdotal, I think it is telling.

A few years ago while still in school I worked part time for a company that provided medical transportation for Medicare/Medicaid recipients and our particular office covered maybe 7 or 8 counties in South Carolina. That's all we dealt with in our office. Other offices around the state had their counties they served. I got a call one day from a patient that said she needed a ride for a first time appointment to an optician. There was one available in her rural county, and policy stated that's where she would need to go. If there was nothing available for her there, then we could arrange a longer trip. She insisted she wanted an appointment at a mall a couple counties over. I explained our the policy to her numerous times, but she refused. The policy was in place because there were frequently situations where a patient would do this just so they could get a ride to a mall to go shopping, even though it was against the rules of the program. It was just a waste of time and money, and prevented someone that may actually need that ride for a legitimate reason from having it. My manager finally told me to just go ahead and schedule it to shut her up. That one little trip wound up costing over $200 more than it would have had she went to where she was supposed to go. We got to know the drivers pretty well in the course of the work, so I called her the day after that appointment to ask her if the patient went shopping, and sure enough, she came back to the van with a handful of bags.

That was just one example, but that sort of thing happened to me multiple times a day. I guarantee that thousands of dollars per week were just wasted from my calls alone, and I was only part-time. Then consider that there were several people doing the same job in the office, most full-time. They were seeing the same kind of waste. So how many thousands of dollars a week were being wasted just by our office handling only a few counties in South Carolina? That was just one office serving a small part of South Carolina. What about the other offices in the state? What about similar offices in all the other states? Each state has similar programs and companies that service them. When you consider how much waste I as an individual saw, then factor that out to the rest of my office, the rest of the state, and the rest of the country, it would have to be in the hundreds of millions. I finally quit in disgust.

And that's just one little government program. It's not like the rest of them are run efficiently, and there are thousands of them. But it's easy to throw around and waste other people's money.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: josillor
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.

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?
 
Generally yes. Better roads, better schools, less crime, etc all typically make life more enjoyable.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uscedge21
Because most of us value quality of life and don’t see the appeal in such an austere environment.


What does that have to do with government spending?

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.
 
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?
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.
 
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 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.
 
That doesn’t equate to being budget neutral.
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.
 
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.

The higher the flax tax the more regressive it gets on low income workers making it even more of a pipe dream.
 
The higher the flax tax the more regressive it gets on low income workers making it even more of a pipe dream.
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.
 
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.
 
Damn, figured out the secret to trading this past year and made a substantial amount. I knew I was going to be hit hard on taxes.....but DAMN!! Bummer
What do you call a "substantial amount" with your trading "secret?"

I'll hang up and listen.

Thank you.
 
Damn, figured out the secret to trading this past year and made a substantial amount. I knew I was going to be hit hard on taxes.....but DAMN!! Bummer
Legendary investor Jim Rogers has said he doesn't mind paying more taxes because it means he is making more profitable investments.
 
Phil Mickelson had to pay a 93% tax on his British Open winnings a few years ago. That includes the local taxes across the pond, California state, and Feds.

He is a moron for staying in Cali, Tiger said as much when we he heard about it. Tiger got out of Cali many years ago for tax purposes.

But still, that’s legalized theft to take 93% of of a man’s earnings.
Biden wants to make America like California, welcome to the Biden administration
 
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.
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.
 
If you're in a position of enough power you can get away with ANYTHING if there's no video of you doing it.

As evidenced by the past election, even videos of someone doing something fraudulent may not be enough in some cases.

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.

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.

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?

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.

The higher the flax tax the more regressive it gets on low income workers making it even more of a pipe dream.

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".
 
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?
 
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?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT