Why the "rich" already pay their fair share
The liberals just like to re-define "rich" on the fly to be "those whom I want to punish". Sound familiar at all?
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Pelosi, for example, pushes for a minimum wage increase everywhere except American Samoa... where her husband employs half the island with their small family business (Starkist Tuna). She never discloses that though, just sticks an American Samoa exemption in the bill every time.
Feinstein's scam is a little more unique... her husband (best known for CBRE), is seemingly gone from being a commercial real estate broker for his entire lifetime, to suddenly the whiz of solar power - with multi-billion dollar loans from the Dept of Energy to build solar farms in Nevada of course a loan isn't income either... But would the average joe on the street get a multi-billion dollar DoE solar energy loan with pretty much zero experience in solar energy (or electricity / utility markets for that matter). Unless married to a Senator. He's also apparently a railroad tycoon, as he won the contract to build the first leg of the California High Speed Rail project... hauling migrant farm workers on their long commute from Fresno to Bakersfield. (It is actually much faster to drive that in a beat-up pickup truck than to mess around with train stations, tickets, etc.)
6a : marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism
Any taxation system whereby one person pays a higher percentage of anything is by definition UNFAIR.
FAIR would be very simple. EVERYONE pays 10% of all their income, EVERYONE pays 50% of their income, EVERYONE pays 5% of their income NO dedications, NO exemptions PERIOD.
Anything other than that is unfair to one group over another. Also by simple math lets just say a flat 10% income tax was to be paid by all. The person who earns $10,000.00 pays $1,000.00. The person who earns $500K pays $50,000.00.
The wealthier still pays MORE but the percentage of income is the SAME, THAT is fair.
I personally would just prefer a 10% flat tax on ALL products except for Food you consume.
Then you are in TOTAL control of what you pay in taxes. The "rich" person who buys that Bentley would pay 10% on that million dollar car would be paying 100K in tax. The poor person who buys the $1,000.00 dollar "beater" pays $100.00. Again totally fair.
This would meet the "equal protection" under the constitution also. Anything that requires one group to pay more than any other group as a percentage is "unfair"
Jan
Just my opinion.
Me and my wife fall into the top 10%, The result isd that federal income tax alone accounts for the same price as a new Audi A3 meanwhile I am still driving a 2001 golf with 275K miles on it..
Granted, at this point I am tempted to get it all the way up to 333K so I can say I got a 3rd of a million miles in that thing..
If the "he" doesn't mean a willing giver, then I most certainly do no think that. Didn't I offer to tell you what I thought on this, and you said you were weren't interested? That's fine, but don't just make stuff about what I think.
How do we break the cycle? How do we get a viable libertarian candidate if well-meaning libertarians like me won't vote for them until they're viable?
That's factually undeniable. If a majority voted libertarian, we'd have more libertarian policies. Contributing them feels like pissing in the wind, though, even though it's the right thing to do. Hating everyone who work with mainstream candidates means you hate the vast majority of the US.
We haven't seen the effects of the economic decisions. We're in the expansion phase of the economic cycle, and it's not due to the gov't. The gov't keeps running up this debt, though, and maybe it is causing the expansion to be tepid. It definitely will be mini-crisis when rates rise.
"You have said that you will be supporting Hillary Clinton"
I probably said that, but I have not made up my mind. I don't work in a political industry, so I can go to competing candidates' fundraisers. It's not like anyone cares who CG endorses.
Even though I'm not in politics, it seems like I know so many people who know Hillary. I feel like I could have the tiniest bit of influence on her. If Rand Paul ran and operated like Ron Paul in wanting to reduce the gov't influence, it would be amazing. I don't think most candidates want that, even deep in their hearts. They just want to do whatever they need to go get elected and figure if they get the votes they're doing a good job.
It's understandable that experts in winning elections might thing, "how will this language play with African Americans in the suburban areas of the north east," but we should see the world that way, as identity groups pitted against one another.
I think of libertarians as the political group that most reflects objectivism. I haven't read about objectivism beyond AS and Fountainhead, so I certainly may be misunderstanding objectivism. I agree with the tenor of the books; I'm not sure that makes me an objectivist.
Unfair is Big Brother spending like a drunken lord and expecting its citizenry to support gargantuan pork and unconstitutional socialism with a part of their incomes.
I've listened to needful of staying in office Dem politicians enunciate THE RICH in a sentence in a raspy nasty kinda way with me left thinking, "So how much are you making right now?"
Yes. Some days more than others. The worst day for taxes is approaching: Q1 estimates and last year's taxes both due April 15.
The particular problem with he IRS "progressive" tax code is that it has no variation by geography and cost of living... $100,000 in San Francisco or NYC for example is pretty much living in a studio apartment.
Jan
Now I've adopted an Alfred E. Neuman approach.
With whatever I have and it's all tax paid safely out of the country - What? Me Worry? It's not coming back. That paid for the house and boat the rest is in a non interest earning place.
But what I do still earn as a retiree each month is still four times as much as I had planned for figuring things could go wrong and half what I would need to afford living in the USA. Having retired to the upper lower class but still paying taxes. The answer was move to where I could live a comfortable middle class retirement life.
Besides I don't like single party systems of government and miss the Constitution.
PS The Boat is for just in case.
The $100,000 was combination of military retirement and 11.5 months of work.
The Russian insult used to be "May you live on your pay." In the USSA it may well be "May you live on your pension."
2. Expat status at present. I show up once or twice a year to check the incoming retirement and ensure the taxes are on time.
3. As for Flat Tax it is still an income tax which means government control as opposed to an end user consumption tax which puts the citizen in control. One is left wing flat, scaled or serrated and the other is right wing. One is by and for those who believe in government control of citizens. The other is Constitutional Centrist and right of that for those that believe citizens should control government as employeesl
the right used to be the domain of government by divine right. Still is but not a King. Under the Constitution it became the divine right of citizens. Until they gave it back. i think they meant for some government but went too far. Maybe it's why the establishment left wing is so anti-religion. God knows you can't vote for either one of them and be a Christian or good any one of the other eight Golden Rule religions.
The center we now think of is the center of the left. Both the democrat face and the republican face. Not a token of difference. Just a choice between evil and more evil. I don't flush my vote down a bankrupt toilet.
Move to Texas? It's far safer on the other side of the border for one thing. Texas, Houston especially or anywhere up there has far too high a crime rate. Last I checked Houston 12 shooting deaths per hundred thousand, Texas was 5-6 per. USA average 3-4 and of those million USA citizens that reside south of that border it's just under 2 per hundred thousand counting those involved in criminal activity. Trick is those folks live more than 50 miles south of the border. I'll have to check that again when the new figures come out and then for accuracy since it's legacy and legend (fairy tale) building time. They change and the above may be a bit off the mark.
That's just one choice. In the US I use a carry permit. Where I reside there is no need. TEXAS?
Point is there is a choice at least once the working life is over - the other reason I moved elsewhere. Better standard of living and safer. The second reason I visit up north is to vote against evil. Don't shirk my Constitutional responsibility nor vote for enemies domestic. Which excludes all left wing candidates such as the RINOs and DINOs. The first as an aside now means Republic In Name Only. the second is unprintable.
Anyway...think about those taxes again. Flat tax will just get you the same thing. Maybe think about recall in places that don't have it instead. Can't lop off Medusa's Heads aim for the ankles. Grass roots. Government party types show up turn your back and say, "Get behind me." Give them zero, zip, nada, goose egg support. Things like a Soft Money Eradication Act or a Honest Voting Act. If nothing else it will scare the crap out of them and perhaps solidify the disenfranchised and unrepresented. Who knows? Might even get the Constitution back one of these centuries.
I don''t Serve The Party' Do you?
so they use their power to get more $$ so that they
can get more power -- downward spiral. -- j
poor people don't necessarily contribute taxes and if 0 has his way they will not ever. So rich people are responsible for more than their fair share.
This is *so* bad b/c work that can be quantified by time is done by machines now. The real value comes from committed people thinking of ways to solve problems... little decisions like hand-delivering something to a customer whose order was lost or finding a way to reduce mindless e-mails by making something less confusing for customers.
The union idea only made sense, if it ever did, in a world where work what mechanistic and tightly linked to time. It makes no sense today.