ES Tax Policy for the wealthy

[Strandgaard]

That's good to know. Introduction to this board's culture via Mass Skins Fan might have been jarring

You have to start somewhere... And why not get a birth of fire.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Sure, i can see the point in that... But i CAN choose which hospital i the entire coutry i want to be treated at. In the near future i can choose whatever hospital in the entire EU. I choose my own everyday-doctor who is not an employe of the government. When you choose which school your children is gonna go to you can of course choose any public school, but if you want them in a privat school the government gives a large amount of the total cost...

As for colleges. Yes they are all public, but they are run very different to each other with different philosefies, teaching-styles and emphasis.

I don't know the amount that goes to the military, but i know it's more than just alot... What 300 billion? I can understand if people had a hard time paying taxes for that, but i think thats a hole topic of it's own.

See, I don't believe that the government should be at all involved in medicine or education. Not even a little bit. I still have not found anywhere in the US Constitution where it gives the Federal Government any right to spend money on those things. See, here in the US the government is supposed to work for the people, not the the people for the government like European societies do.

Personally I think 300 Billion for the military is a little under-funded but that's a personal thing.

[Strandgaard]

See, I don't believe that the government should be at all involved in medicine or education. Not even a little bit. I still have not found anywhere in the US Constitution where it gives the Federal Government any right to spend money on those things. See, here in the US the government is supposed to work for the people, not the the people for the government like European societies do.

Exactly how would the government work FOR YOU without the funding???

Just pass laws that they cant enforse because they haven't got the funding?

Should there be cutbacks on the police-bugdets to lower taxes? Or is that one of the things that dosent count like the military?

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Exactly how would the government work FOR YOU without the funding???

Just pass laws that they cant enforse because they haven't got the funding?

Should there be cutbacks on the police-bugdets to lower taxes? Or is that one of the things that dosent count like the military?

There are eighteen approved powers of the US Federal government. They're listed in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

Every US State has its own constitution and tax system to pay for the things that the State is allowed to do.

Every town has it's own charter that describes it's responsibilities and duties as well.

So far as I'm concerned those documents are the be-all and end-all of what spending each of the three levels of government can do. Anything outside those limits is improper and should be resisted by the populace, through whatever means is necessary.

The US Government was basically designed to deal with international and inter-state issues and not much more than that. Unfortunately Abraham Lincoln ****ed the whole thing up.

Kind of interesting that we're talking about this on the 145th anniversary of one of the darkest days in American history. Probably the day that changed American history for the worse to be totally honest.

[NavyDave]

I had to say 20%

The USA has the World's most well off "poor."

We should tax the really poor, the ablebodied ones. They would get tax credits for going to atleast technical schools. Lack of a HS Diploma or GED would mean labor camps if you dont have a job

And pass a law saying being poor is a mental illness curable by electric shock therapy.

[Special K]

Where the hell is the 0% option?

Fine, I'll say 10%.

[Burgold]

Where the hell is the 0% option?

Fine, I'll say 10%.

O%? You're working way too hard to re-establish your conservative cred.

[Strandgaard]

There are eighteen approved powers of the US Federal government. They're listed in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

Every US State has its own constitution and tax system to pay for the things that the State is allowed to do.

Every town has it's own charter that describes it's responsibilities and duties as well.

So far as I'm concerned those documents are the be-all and end-all of what spending each of the three levels of government can do. Anything outside those limits is improper and should be resisted by the populace, through whatever means is necessary.

The US Government was basically designed to deal with international and inter-state issues and not much more than that.

OK.

So what your saying is that if a town has certain laws or ways to do things, and the state overrules this it is stepping out of line by using money to deside over an isue that the town had already desided?

And fx. if a certain state has the... lets say deathpenalty but the houses decides otherwise, that is again using extra money or unnecessary money because a desicion has already been taken elsewhere?

And feel free to cut it out in small pieces if i am way of...

[Mass_SkinsFan]

OK.

So what your saying is that if a town has certain laws or ways to do things, and the state overrules this it is stepping out of line by using money to deside over an isue that the town had already desided?

And fx. if a certain state has the... lets say deathpenalty but the houses decides otherwise, that is again using extra money or unnecessary money because a desicion has already been taken elsewhere?

And feel free to cut it out in small pieces if i way of...

No. I probably didn't really explain that last post fully enough. I'll answer your question here then try to re-explain the previous post.

We have something called "incorporation" here in the US. Basically it says that a higher authority's laws over-rule the lower authority's laws. Basically the State's laws over-rule the local laws and Federal laws can over-rule State laws. Therefore a town cannot decide to institute the death penalty if the state that town is in already denies that punishment via law. However a lower authority can make a law that's tougher than the higher authority... if the Federal government says the max. speed limit is 65 mph, a state can decide they want a max. of 55 mph.

What I was talking about (or trying to) was the idea of the limitation of powers (and thus spending) for the different levels of government. Each level of government has a document that lays out what it can legally do and what it legally has power over. For example... in the US Constitution there are 18 specific items that Congress has control over. Everything else is supposed to belong to the individual states.

The problem is that in this day and age these cities, states, and the Federal government especially have chosen to ignore these limitations on what they can control and spend money on. These groups spend outrageous amounts of money on programs (like welfare, social security, education, etc....) that they have no right to spend taxpayer money on. Unfortunately way too few Americans realize this, or understand what it truly means.... that the government has its nose in things it shouldn't. In my mind the American people need to stand up and start resisting this illegal spending (and the taxation that funds it) by all means necessary.

[Strandgaard]

The problem is that in this day and age these cities, states, and the Federal government especially have chosen to ignore these limitations on what they can control and spend money on. These groups spend outrageous amounts of money on programs (like welfare, social security, education, etc....) that they have no right to spend taxpayer money on. Unfortunately way too few Americans realize this, or understand what it truly means.... that the government has its nose in things it shouldn't. In my mind the American people need to stand up and start resisting this illegal spending (and the taxation that funds it) by all means necessary.

Im gonna try again...

lets say the state handles welfare (i dont know if this is true but...) then your opposed to the federal government making laws on this subject right...? Thats the heart of it?

But it is not making the actual desicion thats costing the money, its what the law implements... When you raise the amount spend on education with $100 mil. the cost of making that desicion is minescule.

So to you it's more about who makes the desicion rather than what the desicion is...

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Im gonna try again...

lets say the state handles welfare (i dont know if this is true but...) then your opposed to the federal government making laws on this subject right...? Thats the heart of it?

But it is not making the actual desicion thats costing the money, its what the law implements... When you raise the amount spend on education with $100 mil. the cost of making that desicion is minescule.

So to you it's more about who makes the desicion rather than what the desicion is...

Not really, but sort of.

Let's take education as a good example.....

NONE of the eighteen powers of the Federal government have anything to do with education. Therefore I believe that the Federal government doesn't have the right to make laws regarding it and DEFINITELY doesn't have the right to spend taxpayer money on the issue.

Now the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Constitution DOES talk about public education as a power and duty of the State, so they DO have the right to make laws and spend taxpayer money on it. However, the State of Virginia's Constitution DOES NOT mention education (so far as I can see), so that State's legislature should not have the right to spend money or make laws relative to the education system in their state.

Most town charters DO talk about public schooling so it WOULD be an acceptable level to legislate and fund public education.

So on this topic there are only up to two levels of government that have the right to be involved in any legislation or funding related to the topic.... whichever states have it discussed in their Constitution, and the towns. The Federal government shouldn't have any say on it whatsoever.

[Strandgaard]

Not really, but sort of.

Let's take education as a good example.....

NONE of the eighteen powers of the Federal government have anything to do with social welfare. Therefore I believe that the Federal government doesn't have the right to make laws regarding it and DEFINITELY doesn't have the right to spend taxpayer money on the issue.

Now the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Constitution DOES talk about public education as a power and duty of the State, so they DO have the right to make laws and spend taxpayer money on it. However, the State of Virginia's Constitution DOES NOT mention education (so far as I can see), so that State's legislature should not have the right to spend money or make laws relative to the education system in their state.

Most town charters DO talk about public schooling so it WOULD be an acceptable level to legislate and fund public education.

So on this topic there are only up to two levels of government that have the right to be involved in any legislation or funding related to the topic.... whichever states have it discussed in their Constitution, and the towns. The Federal government shouldn't have any say on it whatsoever.

Now i at least know why you have that point of view, though i very much disagree with you. If i was you i would care more about what changes they made and not who made them.

And sorry to everybody else for cind of wondering of in this thread. We ended up talking about who desieded what and not the tax for rich people.

Ohhh... and i am going to bed... timedifference you know (europa has allways been a step ahead of the states:silly:)

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Now i at least know why you have that point of view, though i very much disagree with you. If i was you i would care more about what changes they made and not who made them.

For me both are equally important. What is being changed is important, but at what level it's being changed is also important. A policy that affects an entire state or the complete nation is much more important than one that only affects a single city or town. Especially when that policy is illegal to begin with because the state or federal government doesn't actually have the legal right to make that decision.

Even more importantly is when the state or federal government steals money from the paychecks of its constituents to fund these illegal policies and decisions. The WRONG decisions are bad enough, but forcing the citizenry to pay for those wrong decisions is even more heinous in my mind.

[isle-hawg]

Let the military have a bake sale like the schools do and then see how much Imperial Nation Building they can do.

WTFO??? Do you not realize it is yours and mine elected officials that sign up them up for the nation building??

Last I looked it is not the 18-25 year old military members who making "McDonalds" kind of money that decide foreign policy? The same people who don't rate body armor 'cause it is too expensive right?

You don't want nation building, how about put in better politicians into power? For the partisin folks please give us choices other than dumb and dumber....

As for this topic MSF nailed it IMO. It should be same tax rate for all, combination user tax and flat income tax (national sales tax anyone?), get rid of the BS deductions for the scammers, and do not penilize (via increased tax scale) the most succesfull.

[Prosperity]

We'll have to disagree on that.

Though if I'm in the fields I have to assume you're digging ditches or graves, Liberty.... so I wouldn't smirk too much.

It's Sir Liberty to you, peon, that is all

[Special K]

15% flat tax.

Thank-you.

I find it absolutely ludicrous that people who make more are forced to pay more. Liberals are all about "equality" until it comes to money, which I find almost comical.

[blchizzleke]

Maybe that $18K a year blue collar worker (who I have the utmost respect for) needs to sell the house he and his kid are living in and move into an apartment that's closer to where he actually works to save money. Ever wonder why the "mill towns" of the 19th and early 20th century sprung up the way they did.... maybe because they were the most efficient way for those types of people to live.

You take that extra $300K away from the millionaire and you know what happens.... he decides to scale back his company, move some of it overseas, or maybe to just not do the $25 million expansion to his business that he'd been looking at.

Something tells me that the impact on the economy of these millionaires paying less is going to actually be more helpful than the pains felt by the lower income people is going to hurt the economy.

first i never said he was living in a house to begin with as it would be pretty hard to afford a home on that income....second, as we have seen in the past this theory does not play out, the economy is at its best when it works from the bottom-up a la post WW2

also one has to admit that a lot of the exorbitantly rich do not use their money to create new jobs, but rather spend it on new bentley's, expensive vacations to other countries, etc. that do not help our economy or american workers

[blchizzleke]

Should have made it a public poll. Did you vote for what the rate would be on the million if you could set it?

no i dont have the knowledge/expertise to speculate what the tax rate should be for different income levels to produce the most efficient economy although i do think the tax rates should be different for different income levels

[Special K]

also one has to admit that a lot of the exorbitantly rich do not use their money to create new jobs, but rather spend it on new bentley's, expensive vacations to other countries, etc. that do not help our economy or american workers

And how is that your business to dictate how they spend their money?

[Oldskool]

Thank-you.

I find it absolutely ludicrous that people who make more are forced to pay more. Liberals are all about "equality" until it comes to money, which I find almost comical.

Liberals are quite bi-polar when it comes to money and taxes. On one hand, wealth re-distribution via over taxation of the rich has always been a hallmark of liberalism (think UK in the 60s).

Then again, some of the most wealthiest people in the country, like Warren Buffett are staunch liberals and would fare disproportionately from the very policies that he supports.

[Prosperity]

And how is that your business to dictate how they spend their money?

We got the guns and jails, what you got?

[Oldskool]

We got the guns and jails, what you got?

See here. This is the typical liberal mindset. Its not your money, its the governments. They are just letting you hold it for a bit of time but when they want it back..... :doh:

I have no problem with giving onto Caesar what is Caesar's, but when Caesar's eyes wander into my possessions, then we have problems.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

It's Sir Liberty to you, peon, that is all

LOL. You wouldn't understand the true concepts of chivalry if I engraved them on a stick of rattan and used you as a pell (sword-training dummy), Liberty. :laugh:

[chipwhich]

first i never said he was living in a house to begin with as it would be pretty hard to afford a home on that income....second, as we have seen in the past this theory does not play out, the economy is at its best when it works from the bottom-up a la post WW2

also one has to admit that a lot of the exorbitantly rich do not use their money to create new jobs, but rather spend it on new bentley's, expensive vacations to other countries, etc. that do not help our economy or american workers

Yep your right, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Oprah, they don't create any jobs, just buy cars and vacations. :doh:

[Mass_SkinsFan]

first i never said he was living in a house to begin with as it would be pretty hard to afford a home on that income....second, as we have seen in the past this theory does not play out, the economy is at its best when it works from the bottom-up a la post WW2

Unfortunately since WWII what we've seen is a complete and total destruction of everything that was right and good in this country. From our financial system to our morals and values to the role of the sexes in society. I'd venture to say that I probably couldn't find 10 things that I would consider better now in the United States than they were in 1945.

also one has to admit that a lot of the exorbitantly rich do not use their money to create new jobs, but rather spend it on new bentley's, expensive vacations to other countries, etc. that do not help our economy or american workers

So? It's their money. They have a right to do what they want with it. It's not MY job, or anyone else's job to be worried about the economic or social problems that YOU or anyone else has. That's YOUR, or in your example the blue collar worker's problem to deal with.