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To answer your stupid question I'm sure it doesn't say anything in your outdated constitution that says government must provide social care.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

___________________
I've never been able to eat a whole baby.
Kill the women. Eat the children.
It's just one of those days where you want to bend over everyone you know and kiss their ass goodbye with a big sideways boot.

Latest Mix

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.

___________________
The thing about money? It makes you do things that you don't want to do

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.

___________________