Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby

Forum Lobby The off-topic forum.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #81  
Old 06-15-2006, 10:34 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Cim, you're confusing the collection methods with the purpose.
Quote:
Sales tax is based on that principle yes, but revenue tax isn't based on what we use, it's based on income vs. expenses
Those aren't based on any principles. It's just based on a convenient way to tax people. The fact that you buy a lot retail doesn't mean that you use more government services, or less government services, than somebody who doesn't buy a lot of retail merchandise and consequently pays less sales tax.

It's not based on any other principle than "hey let's collect money". And the income tax isn't based on anything other than the people in the lower brackets saying, "hey we got the vote let's rob the wealthier tax brackets".

I mean, if you kid goes to public school, fine then you should pay for that, and somebody else whose kid doesn't go to public school shouldn't pay.

And everybody should pay for the military / infrastructure equally. It's common sense. If the thing costs $10, and there are 10 PEOPLE, then each person pays $1, right?
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #82  
Old 06-15-2006, 10:36 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by cimmeron
that type of taxation pays for all the stupid programs that the govt dreams up...just because you're not using them NOW doesn't mean you may not use then at a later time. So, what you're saying is that a rich person shouldn't pay into the social security system (terrible example, let's not pick that bomb apart, ok) simply because they will never really need to access it?
Social security should be taken away from the government. You'll never get out of it what you paid in. My brother paid into it for years, and when he died it didn't even pay half of the funeral cost.
 
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 06-15-2006, 10:40 AM
cimmeron's Avatar
cimmeron cimmeron is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 02-16-06
Posts: 2,511
iTrader: 0 / 0%
ok, that isn't a community based philosophy, though, is it? The example of paying for a public school...ok, so I live in a community where there are 600 kids crammed into an elementary school that was meant for around 400. A large portion of the homes out here are owned by families whose kids go to school; another large portion are owned by retired people. We needed a bond to improve the school but it didn't pass, simply because the retired people didn't feel any need to support the school that is a feeder system for what happens to this community in the future. If I'm reading what you're saying right, you think this is perfectly fine because hey, those retired people don't have kids in the school, so why should they pay for it? But what that brings about is a community with a crappy school for the kids in the future. What you're saying is effectively 'screw the future' because I won't be here. Or did I miss something here

Would I vote for the bond even if I didn't have kids in the school? yes, I would because to ignore the present is to doom the future.
 
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 06-15-2006, 10:40 AM
cimmeron's Avatar
cimmeron cimmeron is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 02-16-06
Posts: 2,511
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnScott
Cim, you're confusing the collection methods with the purpose.


Those aren't based on any principles. It's just based on a convenient way to tax people. The fact that you buy a lot retail doesn't mean that you use more government services, or less government services, than somebody who doesn't buy a lot of retail merchandise and consequently pays less sales tax.

It's not based on any other principle than "hey let's collect money". And the income tax isn't based on anything other than the people in the lower brackets saying, "hey we got the vote let's rob the wealthier tax brackets".

I mean, if you kid goes to public school, fine then you should pay for that, and somebody else whose kid doesn't go to public school shouldn't pay.

And everybody should pay for the military / infrastructure equally. It's common sense. If the thing costs $10, and there are 10 PEOPLE, then each person pays $1, right?
edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnScott
Social security should be taken away from the government. You'll never get out of it what you paid in. My brother paid into it for years, and when he died it didn't even pay half of the funeral cost.
agreed. SS sucks and it's a wreck, which is why I didn't even want to get into that.
 
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 06-15-2006, 10:45 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
If your kids went to school in the past or are cuurently going to school, then somewhere along the way you need to pay for that education.

Should people who don't have kids and never had kids pay for your kid to go to school?

I don't think so. If you're school district doesn't have money, go looking elsewhere. It's a common tactic to starve the school district in order to work up support for tax hikes.

Washington state has one of the highest sales taxes. They also have a popular state lottery. But the schools never ever see any of that money, do they?
 
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 06-15-2006, 10:55 AM
cimmeron's Avatar
cimmeron cimmeron is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 02-16-06
Posts: 2,511
iTrader: 0 / 0%
but John, you went to school right? So doesn't that make you part of the whole system too, regardless of if you had kids in school or not? You seem to be supporting an 'every man for himself' policy that I just don't see working in the long term. Should people help each other out voluntarily? yes. Do they? no. (edit: not always) Which is in part why this whole system evolved. Does it suck most of the time? yes. Do I want to support Joe simply because he won't get off his ass and work? no. But do I want Joe's kids to end up the same way as him because I don't think I should have to pay into the system and possibly help someone, SOMEONE get their **** together? No.

Washington state taxes are outrageous yes, agreed. We live in a rural county and a lot of the time, the money just doesn't trickle down to us. We weren't talking a huge tax hike here. We're talking an extra $35 a year on my house taxes. Plus, where do you think most of those taxes go? It isn't called King County for nothing

oh, and back to what you said earlier...collection methods DO matter. The richer people can afford to help out the community in which they live more than the people who make less and in turn, if they find themselves poor, then they pay less. Why is that such a big deal? The idea is that you pay into the system because you MAY have to use it at some point. I've had to use food stamps, I've had to accept free medical .... why shouldn't I pay into a system that helped me when I needed it? Why shouldn't you pay into a system that would help you if you needed it?
 
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 06-15-2006, 11:05 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
The richer people can afford to help out the community in which they live more than the people who make less and in turn, if they find themselves poor, then they pay less. Why is that such a big deal?
So you have no moral objections to communism?
 
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 06-15-2006, 11:19 AM
cimmeron's Avatar
cimmeron cimmeron is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 02-16-06
Posts: 2,511
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnScott
So you have no moral objections to communism?
you're reaching here....are you seriously calling me a communist?
 
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 06-15-2006, 11:31 AM
Trapper's Avatar
Trapper Trapper is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 06-03-05
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 840
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnScott
So you have no moral objections to communism?
I thought Communism was more of a "classless society" rather than unequal taxation brackets.
 
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 06-15-2006, 11:33 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Read the quote.

Quote:
The richer people can afford to help out the community in which they live more than the people who make less and in turn, if they find themselves poor, then they pay less. Why is that such a big deal?
Government enforced wealth redistribution.
 
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 06-15-2006, 11:40 AM
Ferre's Avatar
Ferre Ferre is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-15-03
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,897
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnScott
So you have no moral objections to communism?
It's not all that black& white John, to have some sense of social needs does not make one a communist. The problem as I see it in the US is that everything is either black or white, they lack nuances, like they lack a political system that is balanced out by third parties. I think that the US has a lot to gain when they find a way to make space for the 'middle road' like most European countries. As it is now, there's only "for or against" and the compromise is often non existant.
 
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 06-15-2006, 11:41 AM
cimmeron's Avatar
cimmeron cimmeron is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 02-16-06
Posts: 2,511
iTrader: 0 / 0%
that's still reaching a bit.... but I see what you're saying. I just don't see why the rich should be exempt from taxes based on the fact that they are rich. ideally, no one would be taxed, right? But doesn't taxes go to pay for police, fire, security and all that stuff, as well? In effect, doesn't the fact that you're simply living in the US mean that you are using the tax-funded resources? I make a hell of a lot more money than I did 3 years ago...so, I should be keeping even more of it than I did when I was making next to nothing?

You're saying work harder and you'll make more, therefore, when you make more, you pay less because you don't use the poor people services. I get that to a point.

Quote:
Government enforced wealth redistribution.
we're not talking Uncle Robin Hood here. I'm saying that to live in a society, everyone has to contribute. Why should it be inversely propotionate to the amount of money that you earn? And I'm not saying that your income should come to me directly Although if you'd like to send me some cash, I'll gladly accept it. I'm saying that people live in the US and in order for it to go on functioning, people have to help support it's police, fire dept, etc., and the people who make more have more money to help support it. That, to me, is not communism.
 
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 06-15-2006, 11:45 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
It's not all that black& white John, to have some sense of social needs does not make one a communist.
Who said that we shoudl turn a blind eye to it? I'm just saying that ultimately the "evil rich" shouldn't be forced to pay for everything at gunpoint. And that's exactly what is happening.

Oh, those evil rich people. Paying 50% of their earning to support other people, I don't think that's right.
 
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 06-15-2006, 11:47 AM
cimmeron's Avatar
cimmeron cimmeron is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 02-16-06
Posts: 2,511
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnScott
Who said that we shoudl turn a blind eye to it? I'm just saying that ultimately the "evil rich" shouldn't be forced to pay for everything at gunpoint. And that's exactly what is happening.

Oh, those evil rich people. Paying 50% of their earning to support other people, I don't think that's right.
why can't everyone just pay 10% ... wouldn't that balance it all out? That is what I'm trying to say here
 
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 06-15-2006, 11:47 AM
Jamie Lister's Avatar
Jamie Lister Jamie Lister is offline
Member
 
Join Date: 04-12-06
Location: EU
Posts: 53
iTrader: 0 / 0%
You look at Europe and you look at the US, then you look at a tiny little island called Hong Kong.
12.5% is what we all payed (at least for the 20 years i was there). It included everything.

You pay 12.5% of 1 million if you make a million, or 12.5% of 100 bucks if you pay 100.
This to me is the only system that makes sense.
 
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 06-15-2006, 11:51 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
we're not talking Uncle Robin Hood here. I'm saying that to live in a society, everyone has to contribute.
No, Robin Hood never put people in prison for tax errors. But yeah, people are being put in prison for not paying $100,000 per year in tax. Did you ever pay that? No? But you aren't in prison. Call that fair?


Quote:
I'm saying that to live in a society, everyone has to contribute.
Most of the taxes are paid by the rich. Even if it were a flat rate tax system, the rich would pay more.

But it's not even flat rate. They pay 50% of income, while the lower income brackets pay 0%.

Time is money. Half the time they spend at work is going to taxes. They are paying other peoples shares. Many other peoples.
 
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 06-15-2006, 11:54 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by cimmeron
why can't everyone just pay 10% ... wouldn't that balance it all out? That is what I'm trying to say here
Why a percentage? Why not a standard fee? A cheesebuger costs $1.99, and Government services cost $30,000 per person per year. Right?

But no. Instead some people are paying $10,000,000 per year, and others $0.
 
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 06-15-2006, 11:56 AM
cimmeron's Avatar
cimmeron cimmeron is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 02-16-06
Posts: 2,511
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnScott
No, Robin Hood never put people in prison for tax errors. But yeah, people are being put in prison for not paying $100,000 per year in tax. Did you ever pay that? No? But you aren't in prison. Call that fair?




Most of the taxes are paid by the rich. Even if it were a flat rate tax system, the rich would pay more.

But it's not even flat rate. They pay 50% of income, while the lower income brackets pay 0%.

Time is money. Half the time they spend at work is going to taxes. They are paying other peoples shares. Many other peoples.

show me one person who is paying 50% of their income to tax. If they are, they need to fire their CPA.

Quote:
No, Robin Hood never put people in prison for tax errors. But yeah, people are being put in prison for not paying $100,000 per year in tax. Did you ever pay that? No? But you aren't in prison. Call that fair?
If I didn't pay my taxes, then I suppose I should go to prison. What gives me the right to NOT pay my taxes, exactly?
 
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 06-15-2006, 12:05 PM
Jamie Lister's Avatar
Jamie Lister Jamie Lister is offline
Member
 
Join Date: 04-12-06
Location: EU
Posts: 53
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by cimmeron
show me one person who is paying 50% of their income to tax. If they are, they need to fire their CPA.
If this conversation is solely regarding the US, I can't say anything here.
But , say in Italy, there are many many people paying well into the 60% bracket...
 
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 06-15-2006, 12:41 PM
kristeejo's Avatar
kristeejo kristeejo is offline
xo mudslide
 
Join Date: 05-03-04
Posts: 7,762
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnScott
And everybody should pay for the military / infrastructure equally. It's common sense. If the thing costs $10, and there are 10 PEOPLE, then each person pays $1, right?
If the thing costs $10 and there's 10 people, then each person paying $1 would be a little extreme for the person who has only $2 and nothing for the person who has $2000?? This is il-logical to me not the other way around.
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Math Magic............ astrovineet Forum Lobby 11 10-17-2007 05:16 PM
The Magic Guide JamieJelly Directory Announcements & Promotions 1 10-30-2006 03:47 PM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:12 AM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC