McGurk wrote:
IRS wrote:They will move to Singapore or Hong Kong with a maximum tax rate of 15%.
Yes, there is definitely a lot of space there........
And when the move to singpore do they think will bring the land and resources they think they "outright own" with them?
McGurk wrote:
yyy is right, the rich need to pay more taxes. They are the ones who benefit most from our society and it is up to them to ensure its health or the whole thing collapses.
What the heck is this "up to them" bullcrap? You think that you should just sit on your laurels while the rich build you a mcdonald's playplace for you to hang out in, because they have more resources? Nobody is responsible for the 'health of society," whatever that even really is.
Instead of trying to "earn" more wealth they could pay their fair share for what they have taken and ensure they will even be able to hold property in the years to come. People earn a living, nobody earns wealth, wealth is only stolen.
Where did you get this, a professor of philosophy in a first year liberal arts course? Wealth cannot be earned, only stolen? How can you justify a stupid-ass statement like that? What differentiates a "living" and "wealth"? Do you at all feel guilty preaching about wealth being stolen when you live in a location where you clearly make more than a "living" (as you have excess time/money to spend on worthless endeavors such as letsrun)? Are you the decider of what constitutes "a living" and what constitutes "wealth"? I'd love to hear about how you classify into one of the other.
Where did you get this, a professor of philosophy in a first year liberal arts course? Wealth cannot be earned, only stolen? How can you justify a stupid-ass statement like that? What differentiates a "living" and "wealth"? Do you at all feel guilty preaching about wealth being stolen when you live in a location where you clearly make more than a "living" (as you have excess time/money to spend on worthless endeavors such as letsrun)? Are you the decider of what constitutes "a living" and what constitutes "wealth"? I'd love to hear about how you classify into one of the other.[/quote]
Yes I do feel guilty, and more so I feel greatful for the opporunity that I have been given (most of us in the US are in such a situation). Some people have a lot of opporunity and they squander it, and what gives them the right to keep that opportunity from being used by others? The answer is society, without it one's wealth cannot exist beyond what he can protect for himself; you can't just expect everyone will respect the fact that you have taken/hoarded everything for yourself; there is a price, and currently I believe that society has let that price get too low.
And on wealth/property, how does it originate? Theft, war, and slavery. You can only "earn" such within the organization of society which has determine rules to govern the group's wealth that was originally obtained by theft, war and slavery. Explain how you can logically obtain anything without first taking........you can't avoid it........the problem with people today is that they no longer respect that; they think they have some God given right to eveything in their possession.
McGurk wrote:
Explain how you can logically obtain anything without first taking........
Any service for good exchange.......? I'll carry your bags for you if you give me some money/food/water. What did I "take"? Nothing. The good is exchanged, "given", for a service.
Independent thinker wrote:
McGurk wrote:Explain how you can logically obtain anything without first taking........
Any service for good exchange.......? I'll carry your bags for you if you give me some money/food/water. What did I "take"? Nothing. The good is exchanged, "given", for a service.
.....and where did the giver obtain his money, food and water?????
You said how do you get without taking. In that scenario, I did not take anything. Maybe the giver did, but not me.
How about this, I will carry you up this hill if you carry me down. I've received a ride without taking anything.
Your math is wrong. For one thing SS and Medicare is 15.3% (not 18) and if your working for the man, you only have to pay halfYou make 35k a yearFed taxes = 3030ss and medicare 2678State income tax in california(A pretty high tax state) ~950There is probably some auto money but it is only a couple hundred in most areasSo more like ~7500 instead or less than 25%.Is that fair? Depends on who you ask. It seems to me like it is about right. Any lower and the kid would start pushing for more government services. Any higher and their isn't cash to pay for those services that you use. Not to mention liking on 2K a month isn't that rough. That is a pretty solid middle class life style in most areas of the country.As far the health insurance issue, he isn't going to pay a lot. There are government subsidies and if he chooses not to pay (i.e. depending on other for his catastrophic health care) the fee is like 700 bucks
ryan foreman wrote:
No, you are right. I'm doing taxes right now and just recently did the return of a woman with a 22 year old son who still lives with her. The woman had a bunch of deductible mortgage interest, real estate taxes, the exemption on her son, an education tax credit for her son, a little bit of Earned income credit because her son was a dependent. In other words some very nice tax benefits for claiming her son as a dependent.
As I was finishing her return she actually has the gall to complain about her son still living at home.
Now imagine for a moment if the son applied himself and worked long hours at a fast food restaurant to make $35,000 in a year. If he were to do that, his job would be taxed around 18% on payroll taxes, (around $6,300). Not owning a house yet because he is only 22 he would not have the benefit of itemized deductions. He would just get a measly $5,700 standard deduction. With that I would estimate his job would be taxed about $3,400. State and local taxes vary between locale but most all are regressive taxes. Another $2,500 in various state, local and excise taxes would be very likely.
In total his tax on his job comes to about $11,750 after his "make work pay" credit. That would make his effective tax rate about 32% and his marginal tax rate up close to 40%. Thats before you get into the hidden inflation tax.
In short we basically tax the work of young kids like its a pack of cigarettes. Sure, the kid could get a nice write off by investing in an IRA. That would probably be good. But more and more people who do that are investing into an inflated market. And besides, what if the kid just wants to invest in himself? There are no tax benefits for doing that.
Now young kids are going to supposedly be forced to buy health insurance. In every way that matters its yet another layer of taxes. It amounts to a total shakedown of young people who try to apply themselves. The only way they can get ahead is to let themselves be herded into corporations where the business they work for becomes their new mother.
Independent thinker wrote:
You said how do you get without taking. In that scenario, I did not take anything. Maybe the giver did, but not me.
How about this, I will carry you up this hill if you carry me down. I've received a ride without taking anything.
All wealth originates with a taking action. Just because you did not directly take does not mean you are entirely separated from the original taking which created the "property" in the first place. Even within the confines of our society, if you buy something that is stolen, does that mean it is yours? Maybe you should try it and find out.
I'm not saying I don't like the concpet of property and property rights within a society, but nobody "earns" property entirely on their own good merit, primarily maybe but not entirely. When society functions to protect "acquired" property and allow people some forms of rights regarding its holding, it seems only logical that the protection of the society must come first before the individual rights to the property. The point here is quit whining and pay your damn taxes or there won't be a society left to protect, growth or make worthwhile the wealth that you will no longer have.
McGurk wrote:
And on wealth/property, how does it originate? Theft, war, and slavery. You can only "earn" such within the organization of society which has determine rules to govern the group's wealth that was originally obtained by theft, war and slavery. Explain how you can logically obtain anything without first taking........you can't avoid it........the problem with people today is that they no longer respect that; they think they have some God given right to eveything in their possession.
A) You claim that all property originates from theft, war, or slavery. In that case, it means it must have belonged to someone else in order to be "stolen." Do you mean to suggest that before that, it belonged to someone else, and before that someone else... and so on and so forth, for an infinitely long period of time? Are you suggesting that man has been around for infinity and that man originally came into existence having every resource in their possession? That's pretty absurd. Some property, at some point in time, was garnered through means other than the three aforementioned. I won't try to argue about what property, or when, but it's clear that before man "owned" property, it was free to claim. That property, legitimately owned, is still being traded, so the claim that all property is illegitimate is absurd.
B) Not everything in the world is owned by somebody else. If I go out to sea and catch a fish, are you going to claim that I have stolen said fish? What if I go into lands where there is no functional territorial claim and pick berries, and then sell them. Can you please tell me who I stole them from?
C) Not all wealth is simply traded. Wealth can also be created. If I think of an idea, such as a machine to improve the efficiency of some process or industry, I could certainly sell that idea to somebody. Who did I steal that idea from? Ideas and technology which increase efficiency and productivity are not simply traded, they are created, and by increasing efficiency they increase the total wealth of a society (in truth, the total wealth of mankind, as they do not diminish the wealth of any other society). Thus, wealth is CREATED, not just traded.
As an aside, even if one man stole property, that theft does not taint all of those with whom he trades that property down the road as though they had also stolen it. That is like claiming that a shopkeeper is a criminal for accepting in payment a dollar which was stolen by a pickpocket. How much do you want to bet that one or more of the bills which has passed through your hands in your life did, at one point, "belong" to a criminal, and be used in some sort of illegal pursuit? Do you want to claim that you are now an associate of that crime? This is also absurd.
Finally, even if all of your assertions were true (which, as per the above, I do not believe to be the case), it would still not justify your anti-wealthy attitude and previous statements. You act as though the wealthy are criminals, while the non-wealthy are not, but if all property is the result of theft (as you assert), then they are all criminals, and your vehemance towards the rich only cannot be justified.
yearsofwisdom wrote:
I agree with almost all the posters. The rich don't pay their fair share and nonproductive feel entitled. The common denominated is the pervasive lack of ethics. The best and brightest minds used to use there talents to produce the best products. Many still do, but many use there skills to become fund managers to make the huge profit and use there abilites to work the sytem but don't enhance our standard of living.
But its not just them. Its pervasive. I see my younger kids with padded expense accounts having no problem spending as much of the company money as they can get away with. In schools parents try and work the system for as much as they can.
Its all over. I doubt many people reading are really 100% concerned about giving back to their employer or clients. There always were those like that but the numbers have increased. The tea party movement is just one manifestation of that. People looking out for themselves and feeling justified in doing that.
This post was superb. I stopped reading the thread after this. There's nothing more to say.
what do the wealthy have that you don't?
more, better something?
what is it?
talent, opportunity, schooling, inheritance, ideas, harder working, better looking,
taller, slimmer, faster?
is it wrong to posses an advantage? is it wrong to want to maximize this advantage and make the most of it?
if you say yes it is wrong then please state your argument why.
Should we say Bolt has too much talent and he can't have ALL the world records.
He has to be unselfish and share the world records. It's unfair that he is better than everyone else. It's wrong that he can run faster and make more money from it than everyone else. He is rich and he needs to slow down, pay more, let others run world records.
Is this what it's about?
If I am better than you at accounting and have more clients, and make more money do I owe you because of this? Well if I say I choose not to participate
then will you take my skill by force, by law, by reform act, by decree?
What if instead of Bolt being a sprinter he was a surgeon? Would it be wrong for him to be rich?
What is instead of a surgeon, what if he was a business man? How many records would he be 'allowed' to have?
Tell me.