What Would You Do?

[Some Guy]

Let's try this again:

By forcing a progressive scale by which people pay more as they make more, you can afford to create a society in which everyone, including the rich who are paying high taxes, makes more money and has a better life than they would have without it. Without this society paid for by progressive taxation, they wouldn't be a quarter as rich as they are.

OK, but we already have a progressive tax system. So where do you draw the line? How much is enough for one person to pay?

 

[RickStain]

OK, but we already have a progressive tax system. So where do you draw the line? How much is enough for one person to pay?

There is no magic number where taxes cross the line between "fair" and "unfair" or "enough" and "not enough."

The amount of taxes that need to be taken from each level of income is variable, depending on the changing needs of society.

 

[Some Guy]

OK, but we already have a progressive tax system. So where do you draw the line? How much is enough for one person to pay?

There is no magic number where taxes cross the line between "fair" and "unfair" or "enough" and "not enough."

The amount of taxes that need to be taken from each level of income is variable, depending on the changing needs of society.

So at some point, we can take 80 percent of a person's money, if that's what it's deemed that society needs?

90 percent?

100 percent?

Slippery, slippery slope.

The government is like a crackhead. It will ALWAYS need more money.

 

[Ashy Larry]

so you want people that make more money to pay more in taxes? hmmm, that sounds like the current system.

What income bracket should pay 50% of their income? People making over 150k? 200k?

see, I get more upset about the people that don't pay any taxes, IMO, they're the problem...not the folks paying into the system.

I would like a system similar to the current one but with one major difference. People would be less in taxes from ages 18-35, and more later on. This would allow young people to build equity, have more money to purchase a house, etc.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

"Several argued that Buffett isn't taking estate taxes into account. Casino owner Phillip Ruffin (Tied at #220 with $2.1 billion) told Forbes, "He is forgetting about the 55% estate tax at death that goes along with making the money. Maybe he is getting senile?"

Um, how can you be paying taxes, WHEN YOU'RE DEAD?

If you plan on passing on anything to your relatives, that money comes off the top.

Fine, but you can't take the money with you.

A rich person is not paying taxes when he's dead. His estate is.

Essentially, his kids are. Which is a crying shame. Because the money they are receiving HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED ONCE.

The estate/death tax is a crime. It should be illegal.

Why? The kids haven't earned the money. It's essentially a gift.

 

[Some Guy]

Why? The kids haven't earned the money. It's essentially a gift.

But SOMEBODY earned it. SOMEBODY already paid taxes on it. And SOMEBODY should be allowed to now do what they want with it, without it being taxed further. What the hell did the government do that should entitle them to another slice of the same pie?

My great-grandmother lived on a little cattle ranch for as long as I knew her. It wasn't much, but it had been in the family for generations. When she died, it was going to cost her heirs (ie, my mother and her brothers and sisters) more than it was worth in order to accept it as an inheritance.

They had to sell it, just because of the taxes.

To me, that is not right. Part of the American dream is to be able to leave something to your kids ... not to have to government essentially take it from you.

The end of the estate tax was the only part of John McCain's economic "plan" that made a modicum of sense.

 

[RickStain]

Slippery, slippery slope.

The government is like a crackhead. It will ALWAYS need more money.

There's a reason why slippery slope arguments are considered fallacious.

But yes, if there was a point where people were building such vast riches that the only way to maintain the society that let them build those riches was a 90% tax rate, that'd be perfectly fine.

But I don't see any situation where that would be viable. It'd basically involve a return to a feudal economy.

 

[RickStain]

My great-grandmother lived on a little cattle ranch for as long as I knew her. It wasn't much, but it had been in the family for generations. When she died, it was going to cost her heirs (ie, my mother and her brothers and sisters) more than it was worth in order to accept it as an inheritance.

That doesn't seem mathematically possible.

 

[Ashy Larry]

Slippery, slippery slope.

The government is like a crackhead. It will ALWAYS need more money.

There's a reason why slippery slope arguments are considered fallacious.

But yes, if there was a point where people were building such vast riches that the only way to maintain the society that let them build those riches was a 90% tax rate, that'd be perfectly fine.

But I don't see any situation where that would be viable. It'd basically involve a return to a feudal economy.

if we taxed the "rich" at 90% it would ruin the economy, not help it.

 

[Some Guy]

Slippery, slippery slope.

The government is like a crackhead. It will ALWAYS need more money.

There's a reason why slippery slope arguments are considered fallacious.

But yes, if there was a point where people were building such vast riches that the only way to maintain the society that let them build those riches was a 90% tax rate, that'd be perfectly fine.

But I don't see any situation where that would be viable. It'd basically involve a return to a feudal economy.

So the government has no culpability on any of this? It can continue to build its bridges to nowhere, because there will always be rich people to soak for more taxes?

It's funny ... on a different thread, you say individuals who spent more than they earned need to buck up and cut corners and slash budgets. The government apparently, is free to spend whatever it wants, because it can always just hike up the tax rate.

Shouldn't your principals of responsibility apply across the board?

 

[RickStain]

if we taxed the "rich" at 90% it would ruin the economy, not help it.

Which is why we don't do it. You asked if it would be okay, and I said yes, if there were some messed up economy in which it would be a good idea.

The only hypothetical economy where that would even work would be a perverted reinvention of the feudal system.

 

[Some Guy]

My great-grandmother lived on a little cattle ranch for as long as I knew her. It wasn't much, but it had been in the family for generations. When she died, it was going to cost her heirs (ie, my mother and her brothers and sisters) more than it was worth in order to accept it as an inheritance.

That doesn't seem mathematically possible.

Well, I'm here to tell you it happened.

 

[RickStain]

So the government has no culpability on any of this? It can continue to build its bridges to nowhere, because there will always be rich people to soak for more taxes?

It's funny ... on a different thread, you say individuals who spent more than they earned need to buck up and cut corners and slash budgets. The government apparently, is free to spend whatever it wants, because it can always just hike up the tax rate.

Shouldn't your principals of responsibility apply across the board?

Of course.

Government waste and the moral justifications behind tax rates are two completely different subjects.

If you want to argue that taxes should be lower because government could be viable with less income and less waste, go for it. That's a perfectly reasonable argument.

But that's not what we were talking about. The issue at hand was the morality of high tax rates on the rich.

 

[RickStain]

My great-grandmother lived on a little cattle ranch for as long as I knew her. It wasn't much, but it had been in the family for generations. When she died, it was going to cost her heirs (ie, my mother and her brothers and sisters) more than it was worth in order to accept it as an inheritance.

That doesn't seem mathematically possible.

Well, I'm here to tell you it happened.

I'm genuinely confused. The estate tax is a percentage of the value of the estate, ranging from 18% to 45%.

How could 45% of the value of the farm ever be more than the value of the farm?

 

[Some Guy]

So the government has no culpability on any of this? It can continue to build its bridges to nowhere, because there will always be rich people to soak for more taxes?

It's funny ... on a different thread, you say individuals who spent more than they earned need to buck up and cut corners and slash budgets. The government apparently, is free to spend whatever it wants, because it can always just hike up the tax rate.

Shouldn't your principals of responsibility apply across the board?

Of course.

Government waste and the moral justifications behind tax rates are two completely different subjects.

If you want to argue that taxes should be lower because government could be viable with less income and less waste, go for it. That's a perfectly reasonable argument.

But that's not what we were talking about. The issue at hand was the morality of high tax rates on the rich.

Right. And I said there are already high tax rates on the rich. Which is fine and moral. Yippee skippy.

You seem to believe, for some reason, they aren't paying enough -- because the system is "underfunded."

 

[RickStain]

Right. And I said there are already high tax rates on the rich. Which is fine and moral. Yippee skippy.

You seem to believe, for some reason, they aren't paying enough -- because the system is "underfunded."

It is both underfunded and wasteful. Cutting 1,000 bridges to nowhere cut wouldn't erase the federal budget deficit, and the government isn't even beginning to do all the things it should do (such as health care).

 

[Some Guy]

My great-grandmother lived on a little cattle ranch for as long as I knew her. It wasn't much, but it had been in the family for generations. When she died, it was going to cost her heirs (ie, my mother and her brothers and sisters) more than it was worth in order to accept it as an inheritance.

That doesn't seem mathematically possible.

Well, I'm here to tell you it happened.

I'm genuinely confused. The estate tax is a percentage of the value of the estate, ranging from 18% to 45%.

How could 45% of the value of the farm ever be more than the value of the farm?

Maybe I should have not said it was "more than it was worth." What I meant was, the money each heir had to come up with -- out of their own pockets -- to pay this bogus estate tax made it cost prohibitive to accept their inheritance.

The only way they could come up with the cash needed to keep the ranch, was to sell the ranch.

And even if they COULD HAVE afforded, it doesn't change the fact that they SHOULD NOT have been made to pay it. Like I said, she had paid taxes when she bought the land, had paid taxes on the income the land generated, and had continued to pay property taxes on the land each year of her life.

The property had already been taxed, (literally) to death. The government does not deserve any more money out of it.

 

[cranberry]

So the government has no culpability on any of this? It can continue to build its bridges to nowhere, because there will always be rich people to soak for more taxes?

It's funny ... on a different thread, you say individuals who spent more than they earned need to buck up and cut corners and slash budgets. The government apparently, is free to spend whatever it wants, because it can always just hike up the tax rate.

Shouldn't your principals of responsibility apply across the board?

Of course.

Government waste and the moral justifications behind tax rates are two completely different subjects.

If you want to argue that taxes should be lower because government could be viable with less income and less waste, go for it. That's a perfectly reasonable argument.

But that's not what we were talking about. The issue at hand was the morality of high tax rates on the rich.

Right. And I said there are already high tax rates on the rich. Which is fine and moral. Yippee skippy.

You seem to believe, for some reason, they aren't paying enough -- because the system is "underfunded."

Aside from your nonsensical rambling about the family farm, you don't have much sense of history when it comes to tax rates. Start here:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

Yes, Eisenhower was a socialist!

 

[Some Guy]

Right. And I said there are already high tax rates on the rich. Which is fine and moral. Yippee skippy.

You seem to believe, for some reason, they aren't paying enough -- because the system is "underfunded."

It is both underfunded and wasteful. Cutting 1,000 bridges to nowhere cut wouldn't erase the federal budget deficit, and the government isn't even beginning to do all the things it should do (such as health care).

Maybe the crackhead also needs money for food. But the crackhead is going to have to demonstrate a willingness to stop buying crack before I feel comfortable forking over money for a Big Mac.

Of course, in the case of the government/taxes, the crackhead is forcing you to give up your money at gunpoint, so you really don't have a choice.

 

[Some Guy]

So the government has no culpability on any of this? It can continue to build its bridges to nowhere, because there will always be rich people to soak for more taxes?

It's funny ... on a different thread, you say individuals who spent more than they earned need to buck up and cut corners and slash budgets. The government apparently, is free to spend whatever it wants, because it can always just hike up the tax rate.

Shouldn't your principals of responsibility apply across the board?

Of course.

Government waste and the moral justifications behind tax rates are two completely different subjects.

If you want to argue that taxes should be lower because government could be viable with less income and less waste, go for it. That's a perfectly reasonable argument.

But that's not what we were talking about. The issue at hand was the morality of high tax rates on the rich.

Right. And I said there are already high tax rates on the rich. Which is fine and moral. Yippee skippy.

You seem to believe, for some reason, they aren't paying enough -- because the system is "underfunded."

Aside from your nonsensical rambling about the family farm, you don't have much sense of history when it comes to tax rates. Start here:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

Yes, Eisenhower was a socialist!

Good for ****ing Eisenhower. Your point?