Jump to content

Will America recover?


Michael Knight

Recommended Posts

Maybe it's just me, but if I were having to write 7 figure checks to the government I don't think I'd like it either. I'd rather give money away how I'd prefer to give it away, but I understand and I think most understand the mandatory nature of taxes (no wesley snipes), but that doesn't mean everyone has to be thrilled about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Maybe it's just me, but if I were having to write 7 figure checks to the government I don't think I'd like it either. I'd rather give money away how I'd prefer to give it away, but I understand and I think most understand the mandatory nature of taxes (no wesley snipes), but that doesn't mean everyone has to be thrilled about it.

I don't love paying taxes either, but I recognize that without them my job wouldn't exist and most of my time would be spent securing and defending food and shelter, rather than this laughably easy life that Johnny Sack probably considers hard work because he's never had to do a real day's work in his life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

He's really big on fairness. Waitresses who don't declare their tips are unfair to American taxpayers, particularly those taxpayers who had to scratch out seven figure checks to the IRS.

I mean, can you imagine how shitty your year was if you had to write a seven figure check to Uncle Sam? That is some big time punishment for the makers of this country. 

So yeah, waitresses better report every fucking dime of those tips. Takers need to know their place.

This take is just as stupid as his take of poor people just need to work harder. The vilification of the rich by some on here is weak. I write a large check and disagree with how the government spends a large portion of it. Am I just supposed to accept it because I can afford it?

Also, they should report their income just like everyone should report their income. The law is the law on that case. Argue for tax reform not tax fraud. Under reporting income costs everyone more money.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brew said:

This take is just as stupid as his take of poor people just need to work harder. The vilification of the rich by some on here is weak. I write a large check and disagree with how the government spends a large portion of it. Am I just supposed to accept it because I can afford it?

Also, they should report their income just like everyone should report their income. The law is the law on that case. Argue for tax reform not tax fraud. Under reporting income costs everyone more money.

$500-600 billion a year in tax revenue is lost due to unreported income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

I don't love paying taxes either, but I recognize that without them my job wouldn't exist and most of my time would be spent securing and defending food and shelter, rather than this laughably easy life that Johnny Sack probably considers hard work because he's never had to do a real day's work in his life.

I hear you. 

I'm just not sure how maligning a guy for being born privileged/wealthy and having the ideological/philosophical trappings that come with being born privileged and wealthy is any different  than maligning the poor and disadvantaged and their ideologies and philosophies born from a culture of generational poverty. I guess it's fun to make harass the wealthy and powerful because of catharsis and because of resentment and unmet expectations we have on what they should do or think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I hear you. 

I'm just not sure how maligning a guy for being born privileged/wealthy and having the ideological/philosophical trappings that come with being born privileged and wealthy is any different  than maligning the poor and disadvantaged and their ideologies and philosophies born from a culture of generational poverty. I guess it's fun to make harass the wealthy and powerful because of catharsis and because of resentment and unmet expectations we have on what they should do or think.

Yeah,  but it makes him feel sooooo good and superior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

$500-600 billion a year in tax revenue is lost due to unreported income.

I see it every day. However, there are just as many if not more rich people that under report  by way of questionable deductions  as people not reporting income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I hear you. 

I'm just not sure how maligning a guy for being born privileged/wealthy and having the ideological/philosophical trappings that come with being born privileged and wealthy is any different  than maligning the poor and disadvantaged and their ideologies and philosophies born from a culture of generational poverty. I guess it's fun to make harass the wealthy and powerful because of catharsis and because of resentment and unmet expectations we have on what they should do or think.

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brew said:

I see it every day. However, there are just as many if not more rich people that under report  by way of questionable deductions  as people not reporting income.

We probably all know a couple "Son of BOSS"-ers. Pigs get fat; hogs get slaughtered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Brew said:

This take is just as stupid as his take of poor people just need to work harder. The vilification of the rich by some on here is weak. I write a large check and disagree with how the government spends a large portion of it. Am I just supposed to accept it because I can afford it?

Also, they should report their income just like everyone should report their income. The law is the law on that case. Argue for tax reform not tax fraud. Under reporting income costs everyone more money.

The rich can at least take solace in the fact that they have much much more powerful advocates in congress for them than the poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

"The rules of the game are completely rigged to favor me, but even though the rules are very unfair to me I comply with them, so the people the rules are designed to exploit should comply with them too!"

I thought you were all about the rule of law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Brew said:

This take is just as stupid as his take of poor people just need to work harder. The vilification of the rich by some on here is weak. I write a large check and disagree with how the government spends a large portion of it. Am I just supposed to accept it because I can afford it?

Also, they should report their income just like everyone should report their income. The law is the law on that case. Argue for tax reform not tax fraud. Under reporting income costs everyone more money.

This is not the thread for rational thought and logical consistency 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

As far as I'm concerned, waitstaff make $2.13 an hour or whatever the minimum is for tipped employees now, and tips are charity. If you want them to pay income taxes on more than $2.13 an hour, maybe you should support them being paid more than $2.13 an hour.

I support them being paid more than $2.13 an hour. But I bet the first ones to bitch about making their pay $10 or $15 per hour would be the servers themselves. They would be making less, and they would have to claim all of it on their taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I like this take from one of the the new brand of race realists/eugenicists Quillete is boosting - maybe we can breed out welfare dependency?  Very thought provoking.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/09/adam-perkins-welfare-dependency-can-be-bred-out?__twitter_impression=true

 

Can we stop subsidizing the rich first?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I like this take from one of the the new brand of race realists/eugenicists Quillete is boosting - maybe we can breed out welfare dependency?  Very thought provoking.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/09/adam-perkins-welfare-dependency-can-be-bred-out?__twitter_impression=true

 

Just based on the title that guy’s ideas aren’t even worth looking at to refute, but the concept of “employable traits” is about to undergo revolutionary changes. Most of us won’t be needed for work regardless of our skillset in an automated, AI managed and  service oriented economy.  Writing code and repairing robots until the robots can do it on their own I guess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

I support them being paid more than $2.13 an hour. But I bet the first ones to bitch about making their pay $10 or $15 per hour would be the servers themselves. They would be making less, and they would have to claim all of it on their taxes.

They would definitely complain.  And technically, the already "have" to claim all tips on their taxes.  Just like you have to claim your winnings from saturday night poker night, and you have to claim the value of the 12 pack of beer your friend buys you for dropping him off at the airport (minus your mileage deduction).  Bartering income is income too.

All that is nothing in the grand scheme of things. Business expenses include quite a lot of "client" dinners and associated events that didn't always include an actual client.  And "home offices" often don't follow the guidelines.  Then you have guys like Trump who seem to funnel almost every personal purchase through the "business expense" ringer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

They would definitely complain.  And technically, the already "have" to claim all tips on their taxes.  Just like you have to claim your winnings from saturday night poker night, and you have to claim the value of the 12 pack of beer your friend buys you for dropping him off at the airport (minus your mileage deduction).  Bartering income is income too.

All that is nothing in the grand scheme of things. Business expenses include quite a lot of "client" dinners and associated events that didn't always include an actual client.  And "home offices" often don't follow the guidelines.  Then you have guys like Trump who seem to funnel almost every personal purchase through the "business expense" ringer.

This is why we need a national consumption tax. Much harder to cheat (“legal” cheating included). Give a standard rebate below say 2 x poverty, tax any income above a certain threshold,l (say 4 x poverty) regardless of source, at a flat rate and you can fix a lot of our issues. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Just realize under those bracket the 1% you loathe so much gets to deduct all meals and entertainment expenses.  So then you are subsidizing Bushwood 70cents on the dollar.

Oh, I didn't say we should revert back to pre-1981 deductions. I endorse the brackets, not the rest of the code.

Edited by David Dennison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Oh, I didn't say we should revert back to pre-1981 deductions. I endorse the brackets, not the rest of the code.

Soo.. if i make 108k this year i should be able to keep about 35k?

is that really fair to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

This is why we need a national consumption tax. Much harder to cheat (“legal” cheating included). Give a standard rebate below say 2 x poverty, tax any income above a certain threshold,l (say 4 x poverty) regardless of source, at a flat rate and you can fix a lot of our issues. 

Except there would no doubt be a business expense exception to a consumption tax, so we'd be in a worse place than we are now.

If we ever did go to a consumption tax, we need to change our pricing structure.  Listed prices need to include tax rather than being "plus tax".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

Except there would no doubt be a business expense exception to a consumption tax, so we'd be in a worse place than we are now.

If we ever did go to a consumption tax, we need to change our pricing structure.  Listed prices need to include tax rather than being "plus tax".

Listed prices need to include tax now, regardless of consumption tax. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, llanoflash said:

i guess not. standard deduction today is 12000

108000-12000=96000x.7=67200

i get to keep 40800.00.

i got not other deductions so..

If you fall into the highest tax bracket, that doesn't mean all of your income is taxed at that rate. It only means that the amount you earn over the income level where that rate kicks in is taxed at that rate. Income below that amount is taxed at lower rates. That's how marginal tax rates work and it's why the magic number for paying taxes is your effective tax rate, which is the percentage of your income you actually end up paying after it's all said and done. That effective rate is much lower than the highest tax bracket.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Except there would no doubt be a business expense exception to a consumption tax, so we'd be in a worse place than we are now.

If we ever did go to a consumption tax, we need to change our pricing structure.  Listed prices need to include tax rather than being "plus tax".

I don’t see how that puts us in a worse position. Administer it like the European Union  VAT.  Also listing prices “plus tax” is just a marketing ploy. Everyone knows the total will be higher

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

They are progressive. They tax those who can afford it at higher rates as they reach higher levels of income.

I think that's fair. I understand you don't. That's politics.

What % rate could you consider "punitive"? Obviously not 70. 80? 90? 99?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, llanoflash said:

i guess not. standard deduction today is 12000

108000-12000=96000x.7=67200

i get to keep 40800.00.

i got not other deductions so..

This is hysterical. How the hell do you make six figures and not understand how marginal tax rates work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, wildcat09 said:

This is hysterical. How the hell do you make six figures and not understand how marginal tax rates work?

Two words: Oil. Gas.

 

j/k my O&G bros

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

They are progressive. They tax those who can afford it at higher rates as they reach higher levels of income.

I think that's fair. I understand you don't. That's politics.

That doesn’t explain how the specific rates are fair. A completely separate argument would be whether a progressive system is fair. How are the specific brackets more fair in your opinion than any other set of progressive rates?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...