The RICH are costing Social Security $150 Billion a year.

I do not see the cash held by other people as belonging to any other party. I see the earning party as the sole party with rights.

This is not just a wish, it is just the way it should be.

Take Amazon.com as an example. It has a business model. It combined known principles and added in the system of electronic sales along with rapid transport of the product. This saves the buyer a fair sum of money. Money he spent effort and time to earn. So to the buyer he gets a better deal. To punish Amazon for a faster and better delivery system makes no sense to me. The main problem that Democrats can't get, ever it looks like, is that the earning party is who gets taxed.

My goal on taxes is to change the taxed party to the buying party. While it might not seem fair at first, the entire plan is good for the seller, the consumer and provides more actual revenue in taxes.

It is known as the FAIR TAX system.

 

I hear a lot of liberals talking about fairness and paying your "fair share." I don't believe in fairness, I think the world is inherently unfair and it is a waste to try to force it to be fair. The goal we should work toward is prosperity for the working class, even if the world isn't completely fair, even if some poor billionaire only has 2 billion instead of 4 billion.

I don't think we should punish Amazon for improving technology but we do need to ensure that technology isn't used to enrich a few at the top at the expense of the working class. We can do that by continuing the century-old policy in the entire developed world of having the wealthy pay a higher rate for services that helps everyone.

You talk about things like money belonging to its party with a sole right to that money and the government can't mess with that. By that reasoning then, we will have to abolish all taxes, and the government along with civilization will collapse.

Here is a better way of thinking about it. The vast majority of people work for a corporation, thats just the way the world is going. In addition, only a small number of people can be elites at the very top. The vast majority of the population are workers for corporations and are the ones who produces their products and invents their new technology. The elites do the high-level planning, but the workers do all the real work. Problem is that the elites are the ones who decide how much people earn and how much money they have "a right to." Your reasoning works well if we are all small business owners who only earn money by what products we trade with other people. Today, we earn money because corporate executives set salary brackets for each job title in their companies, and what you earn is what an executive decides you earn.

This system has led to financial stagnation for the working class even when the economy is doing well, and most of the growth going to the wealthy because businesses prioritize shareholders and executives over workers. This is why we have progressive taxation so that not only do the wealthy decide how much everyone earns, government policies help the working class and helps balance the economy. Taxation is the rent we pay to live in this country and if a rich person doesn't want to live in a society where the government helps some of the growth go to workers too, he can leave.

 

How have I "acted" like that?

It seeems like every time anyone suggests that corporations have certain reponsibilitiies (like clean water, clean food, equal opportunity, support for their infrastructure requirements, etc.) I've got to listen to someone come along and propose that taxes aren't without impact or that I'm opposed to industry in some way.

I'm a little tired of that.

What I see with Amazon here in Seattle is ENORMOUS impact and $0 federal taxes when they nearly doubled their profit in 1 year!!

$0!!!

Then, YOU propose I'm an "act" if I think that's a little low!!!

 

And...

See, one thing you guys don't seem to quite get is that my money is not our money.

If you can work from that assumption, you would understand conservatives. I don't think it's possible, to be honest, but that's how it works.

 

Well, the right wing needs to remember that this is a civilization.

And, no civilization can survive without members sharing the cost of the civilization.

The only real question is what features qualify as requiring shared support.

Also, this isn't counter to conservitism. We all need to be conservative.

 

Good points.

I'd add that we could save by making payouts contingent on having income below say 5X living wage.

That is, doing some level of means testing.

The means testing could be on wealth, I suppose, but we have an established method of measuring income (IRS} while I don't know of such a system for measuring wealth.

Perhaps the wealth test could be applied at the time of measuring inheritence tax. That is, if an estate has received a bunch of SS payments the estate tax could claw back those SS payments on largee estates.

 

Sorry,but parasites aren't civilization. They are fleas on a dog.

 

And RIGHT NOW OUR RICHEST are by far and away our BIGGEST PARASITES sucking off the poor and middle class.

 

You took a hatchet to my post and this is all I retrieved of yours. The way you posted took away my context.

I can't back up your own claim.
I believe this nation is based on individual rights. We are in agreement is all.
I believe in equal rights and equality of sharing. i do not believe in putting the very extreme burden on a very few people merely because they gained wealth.

I understand wealth. And there is nothing wrong with wealth. The other option is poverty which is shared by a great many more. But the nature of the USA should not focus on envy merely due to wealth.

I look at income taxes as i do any other evil. I examine why it exists, who flaunts it as the solution and then options. FAIR tax delivers cash to the poor. And apparently you favor them so I wonder why you hate the fair tax? It does not impose a larger burden on the lesser affluent and that frankly is where i see a large flaw. A system that harms a class but favors a different class is wrong. But even the income tax does not favor the rich or the democrats would join me in the FAIR TAX that helps the poor a lot more.

Just so we can learn this argument is global and not merely waged in the USA. check this video out.

 

This gigantic disparity in the wealth gap only came about since 1980, prior to that the gap was realistic and reasonable.

 

Nobody has suggested wealth is evil. NOBODY.

However, massive wealth disparity IS a problem - a serious problem.

There isn't anything "evil" about civilization - and, civilization is the reason we need taxes.

For you to suggest TAX is evil is simply an assault on our civilization.

And, "fair tax" moves the tax load more toward those with LESS money. Suggesting that will help those with less money is really pathetic logic - after all, YOU said tax was evil.

Why would you think that more of your evil dished out to those with less income would be a GOOD thing?

 

How can you speak for every human on this planet? Your blanket claim is a falsehood.

If you learned what Wealth us, you could self examine and note your own flawed thinking.

OK, Government is massive wealth. And you will easily agree it holds a vast amount of wealth. And that in my opinion adds to the disparity not cures it. Essentially you attacked government though perhaps will try to deny it. But you did.

You told me it is fine for Government to simply take from a class. i say that is wrong. It is supposed to work the opposite. We are supposed to volunteer to help government. But it promises to punish us. That means we would be stupid to support those promising to punish us.

If you bothered to study the FAIR TAX first, then perhaps you and i could examine things we might both believe are flaws. Any system including taxes has inherit evil attached including flaws.

 

Those claiming there is wealth disparity need to visit the homeless camps. Take out from your bank a lot of cash. Walk to those camps trying to cure that disparity you fight against. Don't lecture me, walk the walk. Talk is cheap. There are ways you can distribute your wealth to others and not be forced to do it.

i speak against using force to force you to walk that walk and hand over your incomes to those poor and cold and wet.

 

You must be trying to discuss the purchase of stocks and of course buying real estate. I always saw that as a good thing and not a bad thing. But in their self defense, why didn't you purchase a quality stock such as Microsoft when it was cheaply priced? You could have added to your own wealth and not had to lift one finger to make their products nor sell them nor worry about laying off workers. And you could have got very rich.

I am a lot older than you based on your claims. I recall when this was the same argument made by Communists here in the USA during the reign of FDR too. He campaigned on the idea of having a more prosperous nation. Trouble is he had first to wage a terrible war.

 

Been about 20 years since my accountant, a radical conservative, still stated that the cutoff should be at $250K. (More like $350 for inflation). She said this one change would end the talk of the system going broke.

 

Our government has debt, not wealth. Suggesting it has massive wealth is a strong indication you don't know what goverrnment even IS.

Also, Fair Tax doesn't reduce revenue. What reduces revenue is cutting taxes - not changing how it is distributed.

Your comment about "taking from a class" is also ludicrous. We DO distribute the tax load based in part on income. But, Fair Tax is just a diffeerent way to distribute that load. For example, those touting this method point out ways of not taxing those with very low income.

Government is how we provide those features our civilization believes are important and are not being adequately provided by private enterrise through our profit motive.

We don't all agree on exactly how much should be spent on specific feattures (nuclear bombs, food for those who are hungry, testing programs so we know if our water is killing the brains of our children, etc.). But, there is never going to be a time when hundreds of millions of people agree on stuff like that.

 

There are other holes, too, I think.

Today my income is from investments. So though I make a ton of money, I suuspect I'm not paying any of the withnolding taxes - FICA, etc.

I make so much money I don't have to work.

So, I shouldn't pay the taxes that people who work are paying?

Weird.

 

While true the Feds do have debt, to suggest it does not have vast holdings aka wealth is not how you should see it.

i have never alleged the FAIR TAX reduces revenue to the Feds. In fact as it turns out, the Feds would gather income they now can't reach.

I see with your thinking scheme, we cant agree. I have seen this from you with various posters. But I know my facts. I do not particularly agree with your version of the need for government. I believe were it as you claim, Washington and the founders never would have created it as they did at the time.

It is like you see a disparity that you fear. I am not in fear of it since one has been around since like forever.

 

A million years ago Ronald Reagan had as a major plank of his agenda to have a single rate income tax. Get rid of the loop holes and have a 10% tax rates. Do your tax return on a post card.
I give him credit. He closed some crazy abusive tax loopholes, cut tax rates and did flatten that tax rate. But the idea of a real 10%, don't bitch and just pay it tax rate? Not going to happen.
The book, "The Firm" has a part where a wealthy man is discussed by his tax attorneys. He would rather pay $10 to them than pay $1 in avoidable taxes. That mind set exists. Weird.

 

You are using the Democrats own system of taxation.

 

44% of all Americans pay no Federal Income Tax and of those 44% almost half of them receive money back from the government.They do however pay all sorts of other taxes like Real Estate,StateTaxes,Sales Taxes,Gasoline taxes etc.We have a president who despite not voluntarily releasing his tax returns we know from a few that have been leaked that he has had some years paying ZERO IINCOME TAX due to lying and cheating.

 

They pay the tax when it passes to them, just like employees

Owners are free to squander their profits and ruin their companies if they so choose

 

Yeah, so do I, plus the income tax they don't pay

 

As far as I knew, the employee/employer relationship was voluntary