16 Feb 19
It seems there is some disagreement between some posters on the side.
I will begin with a thesis which we can discuss and then work to the next on time.
There should be no difference in taxation regardless of the source of the profit.
With this I mean that profit from capital and profit from work (speak wage) shouldn't be tretade differently.
- Joined
- 09 Sep 18
- Moves
- 20590
@Ponderable
Taxation in the UK is a Piss take they tax your wages then you pay Ni (another Tax) VAT another tax on pretty much everything you purchase, road tax( that never gets spent on fixing up our Knackered roads) they tax your pension stamp duty on houses (another tax) Bedroom tax (if you have a bedroom in your abode that is not in use) then death duty(yeah taxing the dead) I have probably missed a few, but where this multitude of taxation ends up i have no idea because our tory government says englands broke ( austerity) what a F ing liberty.
@ponderable saidBefore a final ‘way to collect federal income tax’ can be agreed upon’ , I would think we should agree, first, it is ok for Bill to make More Money than Jack. The key factor is that Bill works harder, smarter than Jack. At end of the day, Bill has more money on his kitchen table than Jack. Our leaders then decide what percentage of their respective money go into the ‘community fund’.
It seems there is some disagreement between some posters on the side.
I will begin with a thesis which we can discuss and then work to the next on time.
There should be no difference in taxation regardless of the source of the profit.
With this I mean that profit from capital and profit from work (speak wage) shouldn't be tretade differently.
The fireworks begin when they tell Bill he should pay a larger percentage than does Jack. But he worked harder than Jack!, he came home later! THIS should be the issue in this thread. Maybe in the process we will discover def of fair share.
@averagejoe1 saidHow do you suggest measuring who "works harder"? I suspect a lot of working class people holding down two jobs to provide for their family work more hours than Jeff Bezos or hedge fund managers who make thousands of times what they earn. Can you suggest a metric for taking that into account?
Before a final ‘way to collect federal income tax’ can be agreed upon’ , I would think we should agree, first, it is ok for Bill to make More Money than Jack. The key factor is that Bill works harder, smarter than Jack. At end of the day, Bill has more money on his kitchen table than Jack. Our leaders then decide what percentage of their respective money go into the ‘com ...[text shortened]... ! THIS should be the issue in this thread. Maybe in the process we will discover def of fair share.
@no1marauder saidFirst, there is no reason or purpose in deciding who 'works harder'. A guy works, may legally find $50K in a ditch, brings it all home, it is all his, no matter how he got it. It all goes on the kitchen table. Who's business is it how he worked for or found the money....or god forbid, he inherited! it. By working harder, I mean a guy makes choices (he went to college, Jack went fishing), he elects to actively seek better jobs thru life, while Jack settles with his job in a mail room, for years. He's one of the older guys you see at McDonalds. Right about now is when libs say something like 'thats not fair'. What's not fair? Bill chooses this, Jack chooses that. Freedom, Liberty.
How do you suggest measuring who "works harder"? I suspect a lot of working class people holding down two jobs to provide for their family work more hours than Jeff Bezos or hedge fund managers who make thousands of times what they earn. Can you suggest a metric for taking that into account?
The argument about having 2 jobs, if you work hard you get rolling with the best job and become the manager. That's what Bill did. Dump that 2nd job. As far as providing for a family, Jack may have chosen to have a family when he really couldn't afford one, has too many children. What in the world? You want to get us involved his resulting life predicament? He chose it. The present answer in this scenario, today, is that Jack gets a pass from the government and pays NO taxes,.......... the people who made the right choices end up paying his taxes. It is topsy turvy as it is, yet the libs want to continue hitting on Bill.
@averagejoe1 saidHow can it both be the case that the "key factor" is who works harder, yet there is also "no reason or purpose" in determining that key factor?
First, there is no reason or purpose in deciding who 'works harder'. A guy works, may legally find $50K in a ditch, brings it all home, it is all his, no matter how he got it. It all goes on the kitchen table. Who's business is it how he worked for or found the money....or god forbid, he inherited! it. By working harder, I mean a guy makes choices (he went to college, ...[text shortened]... end up paying his taxes. It is topsy turvy as it is, yet the libs want to continue hitting on Bill.
@kazetnagorra saidSimple. Why would how hard someone works be a factor in determining how much tax they should pay? It would be irrelevant how 'Hard' they work. I could have easily said how long, or how smart they work, ,or, how lucky they were that a guy bought his real estate that day. Point is, he comes home with more money than Jack. So to recap, take 'hard' out of it, sorry. Bill makes more money than Jack, why should Bill pay more of a percentage than Jack?
How can it both be the case that the "key factor" is who works harder, yet there is also "no reason or purpose" in determining that key factor?
@averagejoe1 saidSo to you "working harder" doesn't mean "working harder" (apparently someone who inherits $1 million "works harder" in your terms than someone putting in 40 hours a week in a coal mine).
First, there is no reason or purpose in deciding who 'works harder'. A guy works, may legally find $50K in a ditch, brings it all home, it is all his, no matter how he got it. It all goes on the kitchen table. Who's business is it how he worked for or found the money....or god forbid, he inherited! it. By working harder, I mean a guy makes choices (he went to college, ...[text shortened]... end up paying his taxes. It is topsy turvy as it is, yet the libs want to continue hitting on Bill.
Thanks for that laughable post.
Tax policy should aim to maximize overall utility and as higher earners receive less utility per dollar earned, it only sensible that they pay a higher marginal rate. Here's a nice little piece from Investopedia explaining the Law of Marginal Diminishing Utility ( https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawofdiminishingutility.asp) which is a basic tenet of economic theory (it explains why the demand curve is negatively sloped: http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pl?s=wpd&c=dsp&k=marginal+utility+and+demand)
@averagejoe1 saidDidn't you just write:
Simple. Why would how hard someone works be a factor in determining how much tax they should pay? It would be irrelevant how 'Hard' they work. I could have easily said how long, or how smart they work, ,or, how lucky they were that a guy bought his real estate that day. Point is, he comes home with more money than Jack. So to recap, take 'hard' out of it, sorry. Bill makes more money than Jack, why should Bill pay more of a percentage than Jack?
AJ: The key factor is that Bill works harder
Now it's "irrelevant"!
I provided an answer to your last question but to make it even more clear, in a marginal tax system everyone is taxed at the same level of income. Thus, Bill pays the same rate on say his first $50,000 as Jack does. Maybe you could explain how this is "unfair"?
EDIT: Of course, if Bill makes $50,000 in capital gains by selling stock he pays less of a rate than Jack would if he made $50,000 working two jobs. That really is unfair and should be changed.
@no1marauder saidYou are right that I highlighted 'works harder at the outset'. It was my way of saying that Bill and Jack bring home different amounts of money, and yes, I said Bill must be working harder, to have more money, and not be punished for working harder. He could have gotten it from somewhere else. Taken to the Nth degree, libs think that no matter who works harder or who makes the most money, that in the end 'From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs'. This scares hell out of conservatives and republicans, and this post was a good place to once again warn libs to be careful what they wish for. Bill just may go fishing like Jack did, and won't be putting any of his hard earned money in that pot.
So to you "working harder" doesn't mean "working harder" (apparently someone who inherits $1 million "works harder" in your terms than someone putting in 40 hours a week in a coal mine).
Thanks for that laughable post.
Tax policy should aim to maximize overall utility and as higher earners receive less utility per dollar earned, it only sensible that they pay a high ...[text shortened]... atively sloped: http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pl?s=wpd&c=dsp&k=marginal+utility+and+demand)
A lib friend of mine once laughingly said 'Why dont hedgehogs just share the hedge?! I said, because some hedgehogs work harder than others.....thus, the basis for my treatise herein!.
@averagejoe1 saidYour posts are incoherent and contradictory; you keep coming back to the "work harder" mantra even after admitting that is just your way of saying one person makes more money than another. But they are far from the same as any reasonable person knows.
You are right that I highlighted 'works harder at the outset'. It was my way of saying that Bill and Jack bring home different amounts of money, and yes, I said Bill must be working harder, to have more money, and not be punished for working harder. He could have gotten it from somewhere else. Taken to the Nth degree, libs think that no matter who works harder or who ma ...[text shortened]... I said, because some hedgehogs work harder than others.....thus, the basis for my treatise herein!.
Hedgehogs don't own hedges, so they can't share them. They are also solitary creatures, unlike the human race which is a social species based on mutual cooperation and protection. Right wingers don't seem to grasp the rather basic truth that human beings form societal groups for the benefit of all and not so a few can monopolize the vast majority of natural and man-made resources.
@averagejoe1 saidThe difference in wages could be due to differences in time and effort to succeed, but if we only look at outcomes instead of reasons why, then those that apply themselves will always be treated poorly over those that don't.
Before a final ‘way to collect federal income tax’ can be agreed upon’ , I would think we should agree, first, it is ok for Bill to make More Money than Jack. The key factor is that Bill works harder, smarter than Jack. At end of the day, Bill has more money on his kitchen table than Jack. Our leaders then decide what percentage of their respective money go into the ‘com ...[text shortened]... ! THIS should be the issue in this thread. Maybe in the process we will discover def of fair share.
16 Feb 19
@no1marauder saidSorry, just a little hog humor. A play on the ‘hogging’ of a hedge. As to your other point, it assumes all citizens carry their weight. I know, sounds cruel to tell slackers to go to work, but all the lib programs seem to be telling slackers ‘we got you covered’, but here are folks who may say ‘Hey, wait a minute, that just ain’t right!’ Your group-is showing, do y’all never think of independence, ever? A guy builds a highway, I pay for right to drive on his highway. So yes, this means we are in a societal group, with mutual cooperation. Likewise, highway builder buys gas from me to run his tractor. Wonder how all this will change when y’all make everybody exactly equal.
Your posts are incoherent and contradictory; you keep coming back to the "work harder" mantra even after admitting that is just your way of saying one person makes more money than another. But they are far from the same as any reasonable person knows.
Hedgehogs don't own hedges, so they can't share them. They are also solitary creatures, unlike the human race which is ...[text shortened]... benefit of all and not so a few can monopolize the vast majority of natural and man-made resources.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
@averagejoe1 saidYes, but then why should Bill and Jack pay the same percentage of their income as taxes? If Bill makes ten times as much as Jack, Bill is taxed ten times as much as Jack. Does Bill get ten times as much in government services, military protection, publicly funded education, potholes filled, etc.? Who says? Bill should pay the same amount as Jack, except for optional extras like those vanity plates on Bill’s car.
Before a final ‘way to collect federal income tax’ can be agreed upon’ , I would think we should agree, first, it is ok for Bill to make More Money than Jack. The key factor is that Bill works harder, smarter than Jack. At end of the day, Bill has more money on his kitchen table than Jack. Our leaders then decide what percentage of their respective money go into the ‘com ...[text shortened]... ! THIS should be the issue in this thread. Maybe in the process we will discover def of fair share.
How can someone like you not see this?
16 Feb 19
@ponderable saidI recall now the name of the guy whose tax plan game me to idea for mine Steve Forbes. Make the first 30K tax free this number could be adjusted, then everyone no matter who they are pay the same rate on each dollar after that. The rate is applied to all, with no deductions it could be 10%, or some other number 17%. Since this is shared across the board everyone has skin in the game on how the money is spent.
It seems there is some disagreement between some posters on the side.
I will begin with a thesis which we can discuss and then work to the next on time.
There should be no difference in taxation regardless of the source of the profit.
With this I mean that profit from capital and profit from work (speak wage) shouldn't be tretade differently.
Then spending which is the real problem needs to be addressed, not how much money the government wants to take away from those who earn it and how it is done.
“There are two ways to get enough. One is to continue to accumulate more and more. The other is to desire less.”
― G.K. Chesterton