TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Death Tax
Pages (6): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Being in poverty is not relative. It is an actual state. Just because there are others in worse levels of poverty than in America does not mean that the millions suffering in poverty in America don't need any help (or, as you are trying to suggest, that they aren't even living in poverty)

Yes - it's all relative. Whereas I could survive on two dollars a day fairly easily in Malawi, I wouldn't make it a week in the US.

George, you have it a little backwards. Progress in society is not caused by rich people. People become rich BECAUSE they help society progress. You still seem to have the idea that wealth is a fixed pie, and because one person has more, someone else must have less. This is nonsense. Someone like Bill Gates didn't siphon off his $50 billion from other people...and the world is not a poorer place because he has made so much money. On the contrary, the world much richer due to the innovation of companies like Dell and Microsoft. Making computers and software a mass market item has increased productivity and prosperity for thousands of companies. It has made life easier for millions of people and created countless billions (maybe trillions) in new wealth.

This type of activity would not have existed in the absence of profit-seeking businessmen you seem to detest so much.

LOL, that your highest priority for the election is that they're going to be taxed at 55% again on money they didn't earn, while nearly a sixth of the country has no health insurance and many other people are losing coverage or having to pay out of pocket because their jobs will no longer cver them is pretty f**ked up!

If you really want to go tit for tat on how unfair taxation in America is, there are plenty of tax advantages for people who earn the most that the rest of the country doesn't get: they don't pay social security on 100% of their income (stops at $90K), the capital gains tax is at only 15% (please sparethe BS double taxation arguement), the bankruptcy bill forces people to pay back their debts while the rich can move their assets to trusts in certain states that protect them.


And in any case, there was a time when there wasn't progressive income taxation and the government made most of it's money based on tariffs, it sure did a lot more to keep jobs in this country too, maybe we should bring some o those back.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt George, you have it a little backwards. Progress in society is not caused by rich people. People become rich BECAUSE they help society progress. You still seem to have the idea that wealth is a fixed pie, and because one person has more, someone else must have less. This is nonsense. Someone like Bill Gates didn't siphon off his $50 billion from other people...and the world is not a poorer place because he has made so much money. On the contrary, the world much richer due to the innovation of companies like Dell and Microsoft. Making computers and software a mass market item has increased productivity and prosperity for thousands of companies. It has made life easier for millions of people and created countless billions (maybe trillions) in new wealth. This type of activity would not have existed in the absence of profit-seeking businessmen you seem to detest so much.

I'm not saying the private sector is bad and shouldn't exist, nor am I arguing for a completely nationalised economy. I just cannot stand that rich people (and we're talking millionaires here) have to pay miniscule taxes (in proportion to their wealth and in proportion to everyone else) and what's even worse is the amount they get away with and what could be funded with that money. We have it in my country with non-domiciles who get rich through their businesses in the UK but register themselevs for tax purposes in another country where they don't have to pay much tax. I have no sympathy for any millionaire who is crying because they have to pay their fair share of taxes and even less sympathy for the idiots that stick up for their right not to pay any taxes because they are tricked into thinking that letting the rich elite pay no taxes is good for the economy, little knowing that it is the rich elite themselves that come up with that kind of crap!

Why is it that the English always have an extreme hatred for rich people? No wonder communism began there. pathetic. I come from a really rich family here in Mexico. We pay our taxes. There are benefits and some not so good benefits. For example we really can't enjoy having an expensive car driving it around mexico city unless you want to be kidnapped. The rich who move to England want a better lifestyle that is also close to their native lands. It would be like some rich mexican's moving their families to the US while their businesses are in Mexico.

quote:

Originally posted by guerra-monstru Why is it that the English always have an extreme hatred for rich people? No wonder communism began there. pathetic. I come from a really rich family here in Mexico. We pay our taxes. There are benefits and some not so good benefits. For example we really can't enjoy having an expensive car driving it around mexico city unless you want to be kidnapped. The rich who move to England want a better lifestyle that is also close to their native lands. It would be like some rich mexican's moving their families to the US while their businesses are in Mexico.

Could've sworn Karl Marx was a German!

Anyway, I have no problem with rich people, just as long as they pay back to society what society has enabled them to acrue over their lifetimes. We live in an economic system that allows people to amass huge amounts of wealth. But that economic system also requires the majority to exist on low levels of income, otherwise those rich people and their businesses would not be able to amass such levels of wealth. We can't all be millionaires can we? So all I'm saying is that those fortunate to have become millionaires should pay back some to society otherwise we end up in a situation, like you describe in Mexico, where society begins to break down because of the vast inequality in wealth.

Sure there will always be criminals who act out of pure greed, but I'd say the majority of crime is committed by people who pretty much don't have other options, whether than is because of a lack of education/training preventing them from getting a job, or that there is no job available, or that they have a job that doesn't pay enough. If you can neutralise those factors by redistributing wealth in the form of social security, free health care, free education etc etc then imo you'd see crime plummet...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I don't think you can say ALL progress our societies have made have been because of rich people!

Where did I specifically say that? You seemed to imply that rich people's only actions serve to "soak up the nation's wealth..." You asked what contributions they've made and I listed plenty (though barely even scratched the surface). Secondly, the wording of your comment about "soaking up the nation's wealth" is very telling. It comes down to the your belief that the wealth belongs to the state and not to those who have created it...A very dangerous path to start going down, George.

quote:

Why can't more of a companies profits be spent on either higher wages or hiring more staff?

What does this have to do with the death tax? This is a topic for an entirely different thread under a completely different heading. The short answer is that public companies are owned by millions of people (rich and poor) who want to see the stock price go up so that they can actually get more wealth for themselves. Stock prices don't go up when companies act to impair their own profitability.

quote:

Would you agree that social inequality is the biggest cause of crime?

Not necessarily. I do believe that criminals are the biggest cause of crime though. Would you agree that food is the biggest cause of obesity? Would you agree that the sun is the biggest cause of sunburns?

quote:

Nope. Think they should spend it on social care and erradicating poverty

It is not the government's job to do this (at least not in my country). You cannot permanently eradicate poverty but you can sure do a lot of damage to a fiscal deficit by throwing money at a problem that will exist through the fullness of time.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley . I just cannot stand that rich people (and we're talking millionaires here) have to pay miniscule taxes (in proportion to their wealth and in proportion to everyone else) and what's even worse is the amount they get away with and what could be funded with that money.

I'd love it if you could elaborate and provide some specific examples with details of how much so-and-so made and how much he/she paid in taxes (and include charitable contributions and other instances where they gave their income away for whatever the cause). Otherwise, what you have here is just a huge, baseless generalization that implies all "rich people" are rich because they somehow have figured out how to avoid paying taxes of any consequence.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I'd love it if you could elaborate and provide some specific examples with details of how much so-and-so made and how much he/she paid in taxes (and include charitable contributions and other instances where they gave their income away for whatever the cause). Otherwise, what you have here is just a huge, baseless generalization that implies all "rich people" are rich because they somehow have figured out how to avoid paying taxes of any consequence.

I'm saying they shouldn't argue against having to pay taxes, not necessarily that they are avoiding paying them. However, it does happen in the UK and I'm sure it happens in America - offshore bank accounts etc. Nobody should be arguing for rich people to pay less taxes as it is society as a whole that will suffer...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka It comes down to the your belief that the wealth belongs to the state and not to those who have created it...A very dangerous path to start going down, George.

Again, you're having difficulty differentiating between state/government and society

quote:

What does this have to do with the death tax?

Nothing specifically. It was a comment on the general theme of people saying rich people shouldn't have to pay as much taxes

quote:

Not necessarily. I do believe that criminals are the biggest cause of crime though. Would you agree that food is the biggest cause of obesity? Would you agree that the sun is the biggest cause of sunburns?

Well aren't you a clever boy!? I'll take that stupid quote as tacit agreement with what I said about social inequality being the biggest cause of crime

quote:

It is not the government's job to do this (at least not in my country). You cannot permanently eradicate poverty but you can sure do a lot of damage to a fiscal deficit by throwing money at a problem that will exist through the fullness of time.

I'm sorry but that is just rubbish

And it IS the government's job to do this, otherwise only those that can afford social benefits will get them...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley [quote]And it IS the government's job to do this, otherwise only those that can afford social benefits will get them...

Show me where the U.S. Constitution specifically makes such provisions. The government is not a babysitter nor a caretaker.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Show me where the U.S. Constitution specifically makes such provisions. The government is not a babysitter nor a caretaker.

Eh? Sod the US Constitution! I'm talking about responsibility...

Tell me who you think should provide such services? And if you don't think such services should be provided can you tell me what implications for society that has?

Why don't you ever answer a specific question directly? Instead you dodge and/or try to come up with a different question. You said it is the government's job, I said it wasn't according to the document that is the basis for my country's government. Now you've moved again you shifty bastard! This thread is about the merits (or lack thereof) of the death tax for chrissakes.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Being in poverty is not relative. It is an actual state. Just because there are others in worse levels of poverty than in America does not mean that the millions suffering in poverty in America don't need any help (or, as you are trying to suggest, that they aren't even living in poverty)

I have lived below the poverty line, and I have lived far above it. Is the experience qualitatively different? No. People in poverty need to learn to appreciate what they've got. They are the source of their own "suffering," not their "state," which, frankly, if you consider poverty only means that poverty is not a problem.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Why don't you ever answer a specific question directly? Instead you dodge and/or try to come up with a different question. You said it is the government's job, I said it wasn't according to the document that is the basis for my country's government. Now you've moved again you shifty bastard! This thread is about the merits (or lack thereof) of the death tax for chrissakes.

I'm sorry but if you want to ask me a question ask me a question, don't load it up as to make it unanswerable and stupid. The US Constitution is the basis of the American legal/political system. And don't be so ignorant to suggest that no other country in the world exists other than America. There are countless countries in the world that have inheritance taxes, some of which, surprisingly, are not America.

To answer your stupid question I'm sure it doesn't say anything in your outdated constitution that says government must provide social care.

But you are talking about actual laws, I'm talking about RESPONSIBILITY

Please please please just TRY and read what I say and understand it next time yea?

And I don't care if this is about inheritance tax or any other kind of tax because the same people (myself included) have the same opinions and will give you the same response no matter what tax we discuss.

You think that rich people shouldn't have to pay as much tax, I don't.

What specific tax makes up the topic of a thread is not going to change our arguments one little bit is it?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I'd love it if you could elaborate and provide some specific examples with details of how much so-and-so made and how much he/she paid in taxes (and include charitable contributions and other instances where they gave their income away for whatever the cause). Otherwise, what you have here is just a huge, baseless generalization that implies all "rich people" are rich because they somehow have figured out how to avoid paying taxes of any consequence.

my best friend made approximately $300,000 last financial year, has $5 million dollars in assets, and his taxable income was around $25,000.

LOL Sounds like my father.

But I'm sure most of the money went towards business expenses, so yeah I'm sure he only made that much.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN my best friend made approximately $300,000 last financial year, has $5 million dollars in assets, and his taxable income was around $25,000.

Well, I couldn't say exactly what the tax laws are in Australia, but here, just because someone's "taxable income" appears to be low, does not mean that they didn't pay the taxes in other ways (like via write-offs, etc., which are perfectly legitimate).

When you're in a certain income bracket, there is no getting out of it. You WILL pay that tax, one way or another. The Government is not stupid. They don't leave open too many loop-holes. And when they do, they are usually minimal and get fixed pretty fast.

It's a myth that there is any way out of paying your alloted share. And I say "alloted", not "fair", because tax laws unfairly take from higher income earners.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Well, I couldn't say exactly what the tax laws are in Australia, but here, just because someone's "taxable income" appears to be low, does not mean that they didn't pay the taxes in other ways (like via write-offs, etc., which are perfectly legitimate). When you're in a certain income bracket, there is no getting out of it. You WILL pay that tax, one way or another. The Government is not stupid. They don't leave open too many loop-holes. And when they do, they are usually minimal and get fixed pretty fast. It's a myth that there is any way out of paying your alloted share. And I say "alloted", not "fair", because tax laws unfairly take from higher income earners.

im not saying any of this is illegitimate. its just a cold hard fact that the more money you earn the more capacity and freedom you have to minimise those earnings as defined by the ATO or IRS.

quote:

But I'm sure most of the money went towards business expenses, so yeah I'm sure he only made that much.

oh yeah, i know how he's done most of it, but the fact that i paid more tax than him when i know damned well he earned (in cold hard spendible cash) almost twice what i did BEFORE you count his investment portfolio just goes to show what you can do if youre clever and have lots of money to throw around.

again, im not saying any of it is wrong per se, just that i struggle to have sympathy for multi millionaires and a death tax, even if its something i do not support.

maybe he had a big loss carry forward. Maybe he made a lot of charitable contributions. I don't know how he got his taxable income down, but there are plenty of legitimate ways to reduce one's taxable income(and anyone can use them). You can bet your ass I will use every penny of mortgage interest and charitable giving to lower my tax base!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka maybe he had a big loss carry forward. Maybe he made a lot of charitable contributions. I don't know how he got his taxable income down, but there are plenty of legitimate ways to reduce one's taxable income(and anyone can use them). You can bet your ass I will use every penny of mortgage interest and charitable giving to lower my tax base!

he got the majority down thru negative gearing, but i have NO idea how he got his $100K down to $25ish. hehe, he even qualified for the low-income tax break!

and again, nowhere have i stated that that its illegitimate! but to argue that "anyone can use them" is to miss the point quite a bit.

There are plenty of ways to avoid paying tax when you earn a bucket full. Individual and company taxes are very different and company taxes are usually a lot lower than individual. I've heard stories of people who are consultants for example, registering themselves as a public limited company and paying themselves the "minimum wage" thereby avoiding large individual income tax and increasing their income by placing their earnings on the company tax bracket.

But I'm not really talking about "tax dodgers" - I'm talking more about the opinion, as shown by someone in this thread, that rich people (and companies) shouldn't have to pay as much tax as they do (or as much as I'd like to see!) because they are too "valuable" to society, as if everything in society is down to their money making skills

Now I will admit I have been harsh and said rash things in this thread about "rich people". I don't think they are worthless and the private sector certainly helps the economy. As you should know, I'm no Marxist, I believe that certain natural monopolies/vital services should be opperated centrally (nationalised) and everything else would be more efficient run by "the market" (privatised)

BUT

I do think that companies operating in a society, and the individuals who society's economic model allows to amass a disproportionate level of income should support that society as much as they can for people who simply will never have access to the same opportunities as they have had in life - the economic system we live in ensures that is the case (your classic example will be the dear old man who broke his back making his business successful, however, the reality is most of these people are company executives who have had life handed to them on a silver spoon and sit around on their arses all day in the board room discussing new ways of getting rich never having done a hard days graft in their lives!)

As for inheritance tax, I think it should be constantly looked at due to the rising price of houses. But if you're getting left over �1m then you simply do not need to worry about paying a lot of tax because the amount you will be left with is MORE than enough to live a life of relative luxury. My beef with people not wanting to pay taxes is that they simply don't NEED all that money and to give a small proportion of it back to society for people who do need it should not be considered wrong at all

yeah, i agree with george. i also find it offensive that some here like to ignore all those that help generate the wealth but do not share in it. CEOs et al. dont make this money all by themselves.

People should be able to live and spend their own money as they choose. It is not up to others to determine what their needs are and how much they should or should not have. They may be heartless pricks and choose to hoard their earnings, but that doesn't mean they're breaking the law or are evil. I'm still waiting for someone to give me a rational, non-emotion based argument as to why a government should have a senior claim over someone's immediate family to a his or her estate after he/she dies. Just because you're jealous that they have so much more than you is simply not an argument. Maybe you should spend more time worrying about yourself and less time worrying about what Joe Schmoe has.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and again, nowhere have i stated that that its illegitimate! but to argue that "anyone can use them" is to miss the point quite a bit.

Why? Would it help if I said anyone who qualifies can use them? You don't have to make a ton of money to qualify for many, if not most, of the deductions that many people, rich and average, utilize to lower their taxable income.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.