Capitalism Explained - Page 2 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 05-16-2009, 04:55 PM   #11
Registered Member
 
shatto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 345
Country: United States
Since there is such a vast disparity between the income of actors and their audiences, I think we should tax the pants off actors.
__________________

__________________
I use and talk about, but don't sell Amsoil.
Who is shatto?
06 4.7 Tundra replaced a 98 Dakota 3.9.
623,000 miles on original engine and transmission, using Amsoil by-pass filters and lubrication.
+Everybody knows something you don't know.
+Artists prove truth can be in forms you don't understand.

Low-Risk Option Trader
Retired Pro-Hunter featured in; 'African Hunter', by James R. Mellon III. and listed in; Rowland Ward's Records of Big Game.
shatto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2009, 04:21 AM   #12
Registered Member
 
bowtieguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,873
Country: United States
Location: orlando, florida
there lies the rub. some are considered to make "easy" millions, either not really earning it or walking away w/ a "boat load" of $$$ while their company fails.

others founded their companies giving blood, sweat, and tears to MORE than earn their millions. these, like pro athletes, risk a shorter life expectancy. so, how do we differenciate in regard to taxes? in short, we CAN'T!

think of how many variables affect our economy and the ONLY conclusion one can come to is that the tax code will never be fair until those variables are addressed. the links in my signature are a start however.

illegals, govt waste, people working "under the table", abuse of healthcare, welfare fraud, double dippers of social security, over paid govt pensions, etc will continue to require responsible people to subsidize and pick up the tab by paying more than their fair share of taxes!
__________________

bowtieguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2009, 08:50 AM   #13
Registered Member
 
Snax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 758
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowtieguy View Post
"you cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. you cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. you cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. you cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. you cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. you cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn(tax). you cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independance. you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."

perhaps the self proclaimed "new Lincoln" should consider the words of the "old" and original Lincoln.
I will have to respectfully disagree with the highlighted premise in it's absolutism. Surely there can be a balance in sharing the wealth between the wage payer and earners who are productive and add to the value of a company.

With respect to the 90% tax rate, I think that goes back to an era of extreme taxation of the wealthy that really is socialist, but the reality of where we are today is a wealthy class that pays a mere 15% on dividends and capital gains as opposed to even the highest of the middle class paying a whopping 38% on wages that they ACTUALLY WORKED FOR!

Eliminating this special class of taxation for investors would go a long way toward evening the playing field.
__________________
LiberalImage.com

I think, therefore I doubt.
Snax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2009, 10:10 AM   #14
Registered Member
 
bowtieguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,873
Country: United States
Location: orlando, florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snax View Post
Eliminating this special class of taxation for investors would go a long way toward evening the playing field.
hasn't history shown that this not only hurts the market AND the economy, but it also DECREASES tax revenue due to less trading?

so levelling the field in this respect may be a moot point, besides govt has shown us that they will continue to increase spending.

i question the REAL struggles of 2 income families(or 1 person, 1 income). we continue to "tax" ourselves by spending more than we make and accumilating debt, rather than wealth. to remedy THAT, would go a long way towards levelling hardships. someone else's wealth is their business.
bowtieguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2009, 09:15 PM   #15
Registered Member
 
Snax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 758
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowtieguy View Post
hasn't history shown that this not only hurts the market AND the economy, but it also DECREASES tax revenue due to less trading?
A good investment is still a good investment, and there will always be fire sales and hoarding associated with changes in the tax code, but dividend payouts don't change - and should be taxed as regular income. Likewise, while higher capital gains taxes lead to reduced trading, it encourages long term investment that ultimately gets sold off or turned into dividends anyway. This further encourages investors to have a personal stake in the success of their investments, growing them for the long term vs. cashing out on a short sale or ripping a company apart and selling it in pieces. In other words, it puts a damper on corporate raiding and encourages corporate growth.

Quote:
. . besides govt has shown us that they will continue to increase spending.
It's like a goldfish in a 50 gallon tank, they grow to utilize the excess. The only real difference between Republicans and Democrats is what the money gets spent on.

Quote:
i question the REAL struggles of 2 income families(or 1 person, 1 income). we continue to "tax" ourselves by spending more than we make and accumilating debt, rather than wealth. to remedy THAT, would go a long way towards levelling hardships. someone else's wealth is their business.
But if somebody else's wealth is built upon the use of the roadways, sewer system, police, and fire protection that MY taxes pay for, they are obligated to pay their share as well. Evaluating what their share is remains the sticking point apparently, but it most certainly is not the same as what I personally pay, as I am not foisting countless noisy, polluting, road destroying trucks out into the community to make my living. Those who are should clearly pay more. Trucks are just one example. I could probably come up with something similar for any industry.
__________________
LiberalImage.com

I think, therefore I doubt.
Snax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2009, 02:06 PM   #16
Registered Member
 
bowtieguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,873
Country: United States
Location: orlando, florida
well i'll just respond this way...

we are getting a REAL crash course w/ socialism and it's coming hard and fast! we can look no further than new york and california to see where we are headed nationally. these are the models that WILL show us the nation's future!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

get out, and once again, vote for change, if it's not too late already. yes we(America) can, 'cause no they(socialist democrats) can't!
bowtieguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2009, 02:43 PM   #17
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,111
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to dkjones96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snax View Post
But if somebody else's wealth is built upon the use of the roadways, sewer system, police, and fire protection that MY taxes pay for, they are obligated to pay their share as well.
Are you saying that you feel it is fair for someone that created a company from nothing and has made a healthy profit from said company is taxed like crazy? While someone that uses the same roads, sewers, police and fire protection but just flips burgers at MCDs and has 2 kids has a negative income tax amount on top of other programs such as medicaid and food stamps?

Everyone uses that stuff. Some choose to take advantage of what they have available to them and some don't. People shouldn't be punished because they actually tried at life. The tax system as it is, while it sucks for some and really rocks for others, works as it is.

There are many other places we should be looking for improvements. Such as, if we put limitations on the amount of time someone can be on a particular welfare program or actually enforced the rules that currently exist. There are benefits in New Mexico that you can only get if you are attending school so people sign up for classes, attend for two weeks, get their benefits, and then drop the class for a refund and keep the benefits.
__________________
- Kyle
dkjones96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 07:32 AM   #18
Registered Member
 
Snax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 758
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowtieguy View Post
well i'll just respond this way...

we are getting a REAL crash course w/ socialism and it's coming hard and fast! we can look no further than new york and california to see where we are headed nationally. these are the models that WILL show us the nation's future!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

get out, and once again, vote for change, if it's not too late already. yes we(America) can, 'cause no they(socialist democrats) can't!
I'm not familiar with NY's processes, but I can tell you that without question, allot of CA's problems with revenues has been from Republicans obstructing EVERY SINGLE NECESSAY TAX INCREASE SINCE BEFORE SCHWARZENEGER TOOK OFFICE! The CA budget was already in trouble at that point, but with their legislature requiring a 2/3 majority to pass an increase, NOTHING has gotten done.

The bottom line is that CA expenditures have been exceeding revenues for over a decade, and the Republicans in the legislature refuse to do anything other than cut services.
__________________
LiberalImage.com

I think, therefore I doubt.
Snax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 07:38 AM   #19
Registered Member
 
Snax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 758
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkjones96 View Post
. . The tax system as it is, while it sucks for some and really rocks for others, works as it is. .
So long as that is your belief, I don't have the time to attempt to change your mind, but the game Monopoly illustrates the basis for all that is unfair in the tax system.

Ever played it to the end? I'll tell you how it ends if you haven't. One person ends up with EVERYTHING, and everybody else ends up with NOTHING!

It's all about the balance of power to succeed, and when the tax structure favors those who are already wealthy, it further erodes opportunity for the poor.
__________________
LiberalImage.com

I think, therefore I doubt.
Snax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 08:08 AM   #20
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,111
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to dkjones96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snax View Post
The bottom line is that CA expenditures have been exceeding revenues for over a decade...
There is a reason for that. Southern California is a HUGE money pit. Soo many people getting government services and paying essentially no taxes. They've even had hospitals close their doors there because the ER couldn't legally turn people away that couldn't pay. Too many people buying $300 worth of food with government money a month while paying $350 a month to Aaron's for their huge flat screen TV and living room set.
__________________

__________________
- Kyle
dkjones96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.