Redistribution of wealth

If you hurt consumption, that hurts businesses and jobs. I dont like that either.

So, I have a job in RL. I went to file Turbo-tax and all I can say is ouch. I paid how much in taxes and I'm getting $400 back? WTF? Meanwhile, people paying next to nothing into the system are getting $6000-$8000. How is it a refund if you never paid it in the first place?

Although not realistic, makes me want to provide full time and give a big F-U to Uncle Sam. Anyone else feeling it? Originally Posted by heidilynnla

You aren't giving a big F-U to Uncle Sam, you are giving it to me and everyone else on here that pays was is statutorily required of us.

Pay what you owe... Originally Posted by atlcomedy

+1

I agree with my Dad. His philosophy was that his taxes were a very small price to pay for all the benefits: free education, an excellent highway system, SSA, Medicare, Medicaid, support for higher education, and a lot of other benefits. There are countries that have more benefits than the US, but the tax is higher. Some of them are ranked very high on the list of "best countries in which to live."

Although I feel the pinch every year, I feel it is a small price to pay. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Tudor and your dad, You are missing my point. I dont mind paying my share of taxes, I am disagreeing with the distribution. Originally Posted by heidilynnla

Getting back to the original poster and her thread starter...

Heidi...if you are suggesting...as I think you are...that you should be able to not claim your escort income as such, income, then you are not paying your fair share. Fact.

PJ, fornuately the Midwest has not seen the troubles out West.

If Bonds are AA, with insurance....and the project itself is sound, short of Treasury
Notes, I feel these type of bonds are safe. And they are such a key part to States
building their infra-struture that I believe some type of gov't backing will always be there.

Not sure if this is true, but my broker has told me several times (this was during the most rececnt time period where a lot of the bond insurers were being downgraded) that with the possible exception of some Calif bonds years ago, no muni bond has ever defaulted. Originally Posted by vkmaster

Another Midwest data point for you:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...115911379.html

+1

I agree with my Dad. His philosophy was that his taxes were a very small price to pay for all the benefits: free education, an excellent highway system, SSA, Medicare, Medicaid, support for higher education, and a lot of other benefits. There are countries that have more benefits than the US, but the tax is higher. Some of them are ranked very high on the list of "best countries in which to live."

Although I feel the pinch every year, I feel it is a small price to pay. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Amen!!

if you work, you will be taxed.

the wealthy arent taxed as they dont work; they have the ability to so arrange their affairs as to limit exposer to tax.

the only way to "re-distribute" wealth from the truly wealthy is confiscation or the "death" tax Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Not in practice. The wealthy are taxes, shamefully at a lower rate, on their investment income. The argument that a muni bond is tax-free is true only on one level, as Capt. Midnight pointed out. In exchange for that privileged, you get a lower rate or return that, in theory, should net out the fact that no taxes are owed.

However, you are correct about one thing, the very wealthy are taxes at much lower rates than those who work and do well. Warren Buffett is fond of pointing out that his secretary pays a greater percentage of her income in tax than he does because she draws a substantial salary whereas his compensation is in capital gains and qualified dividends. And to his credit, he recognizes how foolish and unjust such a state of affairs is.

Show me a constitutional basis for "re-distributing" wealth. Originally Posted by pjorourke

16th Amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The entire purpose of the amendment was to reject the notion that taxes had to be uniform as to States or individuals thereby overruling Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust.

16th Amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The entire purpose of the amendment was to reject the notion that taxes had to be uniform as to States or individuals thereby overruling Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Collecting taxes is different than redistribution wealth.

16th Amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The entire purpose of the amendment was to reject the notion that taxes had to be uniform as to States or individuals thereby overruling Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

The 16th Amendment only refers to collecting taxes, not distributing it. The general welfare is everyone, the government should not be in the business of picking and choosing which group or individual receives tax payer money. It always leads to discrimination and/or class envy. Free stuff from the government is not free, someone has to pay for it and it's generally the middle class.

Collecting taxes is different than redistribution wealth. Originally Posted by pjorourke

+1

The 16th Amendment only refers to collecting taxes, not distributing it. The general welfare is everyone, the government should not be in the business of picking and choosing which group or individual receives tax payer money. It always leads to discrimination and/or class envy. Free stuff from the government is not free, someone has to pay for it and it's generally the middle class. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

I've said it before: The proper role of government is like the house at a casino poker game. They are only there to enforce the rules and make sure that everyone is safe. They shouldn't care who wins or loses. For that "service", they are allowed to take a small rake from each pot.

Some casinos charge each seat so much an hour -- like TTH's "uniform" taxes. The 16th amendment authorizes a rake equal to a percentage of the pot. It does not allow taking it from seat 2 (the big winner) and giving it to seat 6 (the short stack).

I've said it before: The proper role of government is like the house at a casino poker game. They are only there to enforce the rules and make sure that everyone is safe. They shouldn't care who wins or loses. For that "service", they are allowed to take a small rake from each pot.

Some casinos charge each seat so much an hour -- like TTH's "uniform" taxes. The 16th amendment authorizes a rake equal to a percentage of the pot. It does not allow taking it from seat 2 (the big winner) and giving it to seat 6 (the short stack). Originally Posted by pjorourke

Actually, the proper role of government is whatever the people are willing to cede to it. Not only is this a strong strain throughout political philosophers, but also in practice. Witness the US revolution, the French revolution, the Bolshevik uprising, Mao's communist China, and, most recently, the Egyptian revolt.

In this country, the majority of people seem to approve programs such as welfare, medicaid, medicare, social security...all of which I assume you label a redistribution of wealth. They have "ceded" that role to the government. You may not think it is Constitutional, but see what happens if you try and take those benefits off the table.

However, the OP was complaining about the collecting of taxes, and she didn't get much sympathy in trying to exclude escort income (if that was what she was trying to do).

Actually, the proper role of government is whatever the people are willing to cede to it. Not only is this a strong strain throughout political philosophers, but also in practice. Witness the US revolution, the French revolution, the Bolshevik uprising, Mao's communist China, and, most recently, the Egyptian revolt.

In this country, the majority of people seem to approve programs such as welfare, medicaid, medicare, social security...all of which I assume you label a redistribution of wealth. They have "ceded" that role to the government. You may not think it is Constitutional, but see what happens if you try and take those benefits off the table.

However, the OP was complaining about the collecting of taxes, and she didn't get much sympathy in trying to exclude escort income (if that was what she was trying to do). Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

There is a huge difference between the two. One was a bottom up appeal for change. The other was a top down grab of power that killed millions. Which type of "change" do you want?

Collecting taxes is different than redistribution wealth. Originally Posted by pjorourke

+1

At heart, I agree with PJ & DFW5Traveler; plus, I was going try to make this argument earlier, but I realized it was futile.

U.S. Constitution Article I, Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The courts have consistently sided with Congress’s right to tax—superseding even the right to due process under the 5th Amendment—as long as it was justified by a legislative act that benefits the “whole nation” and not one state or one particular region. With this power, Congress can do anything it wants to do.

Actually, the proper role of government is whatever the people are willing to cede to it. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Agreed. That was MY opinion of the proper role of government. Which of course is correct.

I've said it before: The proper role of government is like the house at a casino poker game. They are only there to enforce the rules and make sure that everyone is safe. They shouldn't care who wins or loses. For that "service", they are allowed to take a small rake from each pot.

Some casinos charge each seat so much an hour -- like TTH's "uniform" taxes. The 16th amendment authorizes a rake equal to a percentage of the pot. It does not allow taking it from seat 2 (the big winner) and giving it to seat 6 (the short stack). Originally Posted by pjorourke

Great analogy PJ, now maybe you will understand the estate tax.

It starts the game all over from a much fairer point, one that encourages other players to joing in again (assuming there is any money left for them to start anew). Who in their right mind would want to put in 10k shortstack aganist last years winner of 80 million? They'd get shoved all over the board.

Great analogy PJ, now maybe you will understand the estate tax.

It starts the game all over from a much fairer point, one that encourages other players to joing in again (assuming there is any money left for them to start anew). Who in their right mind would want to put in 10k shortstack aganist last years winner of 80 million? They'd get shoved all over the board. Originally Posted by WTF

it seems to me that pretty much the same people will be broke before not too long after some redistribution of weath as before only more so because ineffective and wasteful use of capital will harm everyone

Amen!!



Not in practice. The wealthy are taxes, shamefully at a lower rate, on their investment income. The argument that a muni bond is tax-free is true only on one level, as Capt. Midnight pointed out. In exchange for that privileged, you get a lower rate or return that, in theory, should net out the fact that no taxes are owed.

However, you are correct about one thing, the very wealthy are taxes at much lower rates than those who work and do well. Warren Buffett is fond of pointing out that his secretary pays a greater percentage of her income in tax than he does because she draws a substantial salary whereas his compensation is in capital gains and qualified dividends. And to his credit, he recognizes how foolish and unjust such a state of affairs is. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

just how are you correcting me and blithely stating i am "correct in one thing" when i say the wealthy can limit their exposure to taxes and then you proceed to repeat in many words what I said in few?

Great analogy PJ, now maybe you will understand the estate tax.

It starts the game all over from a much fairer point, one that encourages other players to joing in again (assuming there is any money left for them to start anew). Who in their right mind would want to put in 10k shortstack aganist last years winner of 80 million? They'd get shoved all over the board. Originally Posted by WTF

That is correct...if this was the World Series of Poker...a game...sport...where for the sake of sport it makes perfect sense to have a level playing field...all players having the same initial stake...

But, WTF, my friend, I'm going to let you in on a little secret:

Life isn't a game. Life isn't fair. Never has been. Never will be.

Don't get me wrong. I love a good sports analogy as much as the next fella, but games, not being real life, don't always translate.