Rich, poor, workers, owners...

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

20th February 2010, 15:40
anthonyvop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

Then you must agree that everything you leave behind should go to the government instead of your offspring or other relatives. Then everyone would have more equal start to life when they start from nothing.

Take for example Paris Hilton, do you think she's rich because what she has done or simply because she is who she is?

How did you arrive at that ridiculous conclusion?
Whatever I earn belongs to me. I am the only person who decides what happens to that income. Not the state and definitely not you.
20th February 2010, 15:42
anthonyvop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camelopard

Yep, a legend in your own lunch time and you are a classic case of a person with a narcissistic personality disorder.

Thank you Dr. Phil.

Tell me...how is the weather up on that pedestal you sit on?
20th February 2010, 15:47
markabilly

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Whatever I earn belongs to me. I am the only person who decides what happens to that income. Not the state and definitely not you.

HAHAHAHAHA
give me your address and let me make some money ratting u out , so you can tell that to the IRS....if you ain't in the fortunate 400 group and got a sh*tload of road buzzard tax lawyers, everything you earn will belong to them if you ain't been paying the buzzards their blood money
20th February 2010, 15:51
markabilly

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Whatever I earn belongs to me. I am the only person who decides what happens to that income. Not the state and definitely not you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

I believe I am safe in stating that I probably paid more in Income, Sales and Property taxes last year than you earned.

Last year I paid $41,000 in property taxes alone.

Must be a road kill eating buzzard aka lawyer as you just done contradicted your self....and never noticed. Key trait of a great lawyer :rolleyes:

or multi-personality paranoid schzoid....u do not own any airplanes do you?????

or live close to any IRS buildings????
20th February 2010, 15:58
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

How did you arrive at that ridiculous conclusion?
Whatever I earn belongs to me.

Of course, but you don't need it or can use it when you're dead. Of course what you earn belongs to you, but it doesn't mean it should belong to your family. They should earn their own money. Right?
20th February 2010, 16:31
Hondo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

Of course, but you don't need it or can use it when you're dead. Of course what you earn belongs to you, but it doesn't mean it should belong to your family. They should earn their own money. Right?

Nope, not if you want to give them yours.
20th February 2010, 16:35
Hondo

It's just like that damn Hazell to start a ruckus like this. Outta ban her.
20th February 2010, 17:23
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

Nope, not if you want to give them yours.

True, but that ruins anthonyvop's principle that everyone should be on their own and make their own fortune, no excuses.
20th February 2010, 18:21
driveace

wealth

I think the answer someone was looking for as regards tax on bankers,IS that the government said it would outlaw bank bonuses,BUT they cannot,even though the government bailed out most banks in the UK.SO what they are now saying is that ANY bonuses paid will atract a 50% tax on it
I do believe that what money ,property,investment that are mine whilst I am alive,that I have earned,through my work,investments,or being a clever boxer,I can leave to any one I wish,be it family or freind.The government gets enough from death duties ,that I believe are unfair,and I do believe the threashold for death duties should be raised to above 1 million at least
20th February 2010, 18:25
anthonyvop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

True, but that ruins anthonyvop's principle that everyone should be on their own and make their own fortune, no excuses.

How?

I said that everyone should be treated equally. get it?
That means no penalty for success. If I want to leave my income to my family it is my right just like you have the right to leave it to yours.

That is equality. Taking someones income to give it to another who didn't earn it isn't equality....it is theft.
20th February 2010, 18:46
markabilly

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

How?
Taking someones income to give it to another who didn't earn it isn't equality....it is theft.

Yes U are right.

The current tax rate subsidizes the wealthy in the USA. The capital gains and bouses as shown above are taxed at a mere 15% while those who arre actually working are taxed at a far higher rate, (yes those actually working with the the sweat of their brow), and were not born with a silver spoon in their mouth, and they spend far more of their money and income on the very basic necessities of life, to say nothing of the "luxury" of going to MacDonald's to feed their family.

So to make up for the lack of tax income to the government, a government that takes the tax income to turn it into expenditures that has a very high percentage going to industries funded by the government, including BANKS, Wall Street, military industry, etc, the workers and wage eaners pay a far higher percentage of their income to make up the difference (and even that is not enough).

Then throw in the tax breaks that primarily only benefit the wealthy......

THAT is THEFT
20th February 2010, 19:51
anthonyvop

Quote:

Originally Posted by markabilly

Yes U are right.

The current tax rate subsidizes the wealthy in the USA. The capital gains and bouses as shown above are taxed at a mere 15% while those who arre actually working are taxed at a far higher rate, (yes those actually working with the the sweat of their brow), and were not born with a silver spoon in their mouth, and they spend far more of their money and income on the very basic necessities of life, to say nothing of the "luxury" of going to MacDonald's to feed their family.

So to make up for the lack of tax income to the government, a government that takes the tax income to turn it into expenditures that has a very high percentage going to industries funded by the government, including BANKS, Wall Street, military industry, etc, the workers and wage eaners pay a far higher percentage of their income to make up the difference (and even that is not enough).

Then throw in the tax breaks that primarily only benefit the wealthy......

THAT is THEFT

You have it totally wrong.
To demand a higher percentage of money from one group because they are more successful is theft.
The Only fair and moral tax is a Flat Tax. There is no moral argument against that fact.

As for those born with a "silver Spoon" in their mouths....

Quote:

# In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

# The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

# Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.

Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

# The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.

# The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.

# The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 27 percent as compared to a 13 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.
20th February 2010, 21:37
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

The Only fair and moral tax is a Flat Tax. There is no moral argument against that fact.

I'd be all for flat tax, if it didn't have two problems: If you set the flat percentage high, the low income population will starve to death or become beggars or criminals, if you set the flat percentage low, you can't afford modern infrastructure and level of public services.
20th February 2010, 21:47
markabilly

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

You have it totally wrong.
To demand a higher percentage of money from one group because they are more successful is theft.
The Only fair and moral tax is a Flat Tax. There is no moral argument against that fact.

As for those born with a "silver Spoon" in their mouths....

Not exactly correct....and Life is really tough when you have to make do, on a mere $$945,000 per day .........Gee, that ain't even a million

and on top of that, you got to pay a 16% tax rate, . :eek:

what is a poor boy to do??? :confused: :confused:

But let us not talk about the fact that many others, making a 100k per year, are paying a higher percentage
20th February 2010, 22:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

There is no moral argument against that fact.

That is only true if you have the morals of a sewer rat.
21st February 2010, 00:20
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by tamburello

That is only true if you have the morals of a sewer rat.

Quite right. Still, how are we to argue with the head honcho of the South Florida Motorsport Report, an august media outlet whose professionalism we can but hopelessly aspire to?
21st February 2010, 00:42
donKey jote

;) :laugh:
21st February 2010, 19:15
Rollo

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

You have it totally wrong.
To demand a higher percentage of money from one group because they are more successful is theft.
The Only fair and moral tax is a Flat Tax. There is no moral argument against that fact.

Please define your "flat tax" and how the mechanics of this would be implimented.
21st February 2010, 19:25
Rollo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexamateo

Also, the question of socialism or not, it's really the role government should play.

I want federal government to provide armies, protect the coasts and borders, regulate interstate trade and disputes between the states, provide infrastructure (communications, transportation) maintain a good and fair court system. In other words, set a level playing field, but make no value judgements as to what is done on that or where or how it is done. I will concede to the federal government environmental laws, because for the life of me I don't see how the market protects the environment without damage first being done to the environment. (of course the particulars are still up for debate. ;) ) At a federal level, they really don't have any business IMO meddling in health and education, those are local issues, along with local police and fire protection etc.

This is probably the most sensible post I've read in this thread so far. My difference is that the provision of education and health services as well as the ownership of the infrastructure that provides public services should be in the domain of government.
Public Health and Education need to be in realms of government because of the principles of equity.

I'm not really in favour of a resdistribution of income, but I certainly think that wage rates and conditions should be subject to some sort of regulation; mainly because of the legal consequences involved.
21st February 2010, 21:30
Brown, Jon Brow

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

I see so much on here about poor workers, poor abused workers, workers, owners, rich owners, rich people, etc., so what is rich? What do you consider rich? Is rich anybody that has more than you do? Is rich anybody that makes $5,000.00 more a year than you do? Is a man that wants more and works 2 or 3 jobs to pay for it rich, or motivated, or just stupid?

I remember a while back we had a thread trying to define 'what is poor?' and I think we decided that anyone who has access to a computer to answer that question isn't really poor.

But what is rich? Well, the average wage in the UK is about £30,000 p/a, but this includes the super rich so the median is probably more like £20,000 p/a.

I'd say a six figure salary is when i'd class someone as rich. But from a personal perspective money isn't my biggest motivator. I'd much prefer to have a job that I enjoy and can forget about when I get home, than just doing something to make me rich. I have no entrepreneurial aspirations at all.

When it comes to taxes I am all for the progressive taxing system over a flat tax. But I'm all for inheritance freedom. I get a sense of bitterness or maybe jeolousy from people who believe in high taxes on inheritance.
21st February 2010, 22:31
Rollo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

But I'm all for inheritance freedom. I get a sense of bitterness or maybe jealousy from people who believe in high taxes on inheritance.

An inheritance tax is a simply evil idea. As it is, an estate is taxed on the income that the assets of the deceased generate, but the transference of those assets is hardly what you'd call a deliberate profit generating enterprise.

In the vast majority of cases, those assets are either sold and the proceeds distributed, or the assets which aren't sold are the personal effects of the deceased, or capital assets like their house or motor cars. Whatever the case, the fact remains that nobody deliberately dies in order to make a profit.
21st February 2010, 23:40
Lousada

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

An inheritance tax is a simply evil idea. As it is, an estate is taxed on the income that the assets of the deceased generate, but the transference of those assets is hardly what you'd call a deliberate profit generating enterprise.

In the vast majority of cases, those assets are either sold and the proceeds distributed, or the assets which aren't sold are the personal effects of the deceased, or capital assets like their house or motor cars. Whatever the case, the fact remains that nobody deliberately dies in order to make a profit.

Which is not the point. The point is that when you have income you should be taxed for it. Whether that comes from working, from capital gains, or from somebody else dying.
It also makes sure large fortunes are broken down. Which means you really have to work for your own wealth. But from your other post I gather you do not believe in redistribution of income.
21st February 2010, 23:53
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lousada

But from your other post I gather you do not believe in redistribution of income.

So you believe in redistribution of income? I'm curious as to why you think that it's ok for government to sieze one man's property and hand it over to someone who has no right to it.
22nd February 2010, 00:12
Lousada

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

So you believe in redistribution of income? I'm curious as to why you think that it's ok for government to sieze one man's property and hand it over to someone who has no right to it.

In my opinion everybody should have equal opportunities. In order to achieve this, you'll take money from people who least need it (the rich) to people who most need it (the poor).
22nd February 2010, 00:17
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lousada

In my opinion everybody should have equal opportunities. In order to achieve this, you'll take money from people who least need it (the rich) to people who most need it (the poor).

I have a very big problem with this line of thinking. And your line of thinking seems to be gaining popularity quite rapidly. That scares the hell out of me.

Equal opportuninties does not guaruntee equal results. But by FORCING equal results you are DESTROYING equal rights.
22nd February 2010, 00:20
Rollo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lousada

The point is that when you have income you should be taxed for it. Whether that comes from working, from capital gains, or from somebody else dying.
It also makes sure large fortunes are broken down. Which means you really have to work for your own wealth. But from your other post I gather you do not believe in redistribution of income.

I ask, is an inheritance actually income?

The usual definition of income, revolves around the awards for the factors of production ie/ land, labour, capital or enterprise. Broadly it takes on the form of wages, salaries, interest, dividends, or income in kind such as shares.
An inheritance, doesn't fit that definition. Furthermore, if the person hadn't died, there wouldn't be a liability for tax. The assets which form someone's estate are bought using net income after tax. Taxing an inheritance is in effect, double taxation.

As for redistribution of income, in broad terms:
No sir, I don't like it.

http://www.janegoodwin.net/wp-conten...12/mrhorse.jpg

There is a case to be made for genuine disability or genuine unemployment, but especially for the latter, it should only be a safety net (and cut off after a certain period).
22nd February 2010, 00:21
Lousada

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

I have a very big problem with this line of thinking. And your line of thinking seems to be gaining popularity quite rapidly. That scares the hell out of me.

Equal opportuninties does not guaruntee equal results. But by FORCING equal results you are DESTROYING equal rights.

I said equal opportunities, not equal results. If I meant equal results I would have said equal results and not equal opportunities. You draw a conclusion where there is none.
22nd February 2010, 00:28
Lousada

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

I ask, is an inheritance actually income?

The usual definition of income, revolves around the awards for the factors of production ie/ land, labour, capital or enterprise. Broadly it takes on the form of wages, salaries, interest, dividends, or income in kind such as shares.

An inheritance is a form of capital transfer.

Quote:

An inheritance, doesn't fit that definition. Furthermore, if the person hadn't died, there wouldn't be a liability for tax. The assets which form someone's estate are bought using net income after tax. Taxing an inheritance is in effect, double taxation.

Maybe inheritance tax is calculated differently in the UK. Over here the inheritance tax is calculated individually at the inheritors. So if the person hadn't died, of course there is no liability for tax because there is no capital transfer.
It's only double taxation if you view it from the goods perspective. Individually the first time it is taxed is at the deceased, the second time at the inheritor. So one person only pays tax over it once.
22nd February 2010, 00:44
Rollo

Specifically an inheritance is a non-voluntary, not-for-profit, form of capital transfer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lousada

It's only double taxation if you view it from the goods perspective. Individually the first time it is taxed is at the deceased, the second time at the inheritor. So one person only pays tax over it once.

If you had a daughter and you gave her a motor car, should she pay tax on it? If not, then if you were to die, is that mechanically different. Same car, going to the same person.
You've already paid the applicable sales taxes on it, why then should she be subject to an additional tax just because you've died.

A similar argument exists for the payment of dividends by private companies. If they pay a dividend from a franked source, why then should you be liable again for that income.
22nd February 2010, 01:15
Lousada

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

Specifically an inheritance is a non-voluntary, not-for-profit, form of capital transfer.

An inheritance is voluntary because you can refuse it.

Quote:

If you had a daughter and you gave her a motor car, should she pay tax on it? If not, then if you were to die, is that mechanically different. Same car, going to the same person.
You've already paid the applicable sales taxes on it, why then should she be subject to an additional tax just because you've died.

Yes I think gifts should be taxed exactly the same as an inheritance. But I would advocate for a taxfree level. Over here, the first 5000 euros of a gift or inheritance are taxfree (there are some more special exemptions for various family members and so on). In my opinion this is fair enough.
22nd February 2010, 01:52
Hondo

Yup, no matter how little you think you have, there's always going to be somebody that thinks you have too much.
22nd February 2010, 12:41
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lousada

I said equal opportunities, not equal results. If I meant equal results I would have said equal results and not equal opportunities. You draw a conclusion where there is none.

You are wrong. You did SAY equal opportunities, but what you really meant was equal results. Think about your words again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lousada

In order to achieve this, you'll take money from people who least need it (the rich) to people who most need it (the poor).

Just because someone is poor does NOT mean that he has not had the same opportunities in life. Do you think that guys like Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs really hade more opportunities than you or I? No they just had better results with what God gave them. Now you want to confiscate their property and give it to "the poor". That is not granting equal opportunities, that is forcing equal results.

As a bit of a side note your quote above is EXACTLY the Communist creed, incase you were unaware.
22nd February 2010, 13:15
Garry Walker

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Quite right. Still, how are we to argue with the head honcho of the South Florida Motorsport Report, an august media outlet whose professionalism we can but hopelessly aspire to?

You act all holy and try to look as if you are better than others, but in reality you are nothing but a hypocrite who keeps on going with personal insults, yet pretends to be above that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lousada

But from your other post I gather you do not believe in redistribution of income.

Anyone with an IQ over 15 and any decency, does not believe in that.

So of course the socialists are all for it.
22nd February 2010, 13:20
BeansBeansBeans

Why are the right-wing types on here always so angry?
22nd February 2010, 13:27
Garry Walker

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeansBeansBeans

Why are the right-wing types on here always so angry?

Because the lefties are so stupid :D

But dont worry, I am in a very good mood and not even slightly angry.
22nd February 2010, 13:40
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

Because the lefties are so stupid :D

But dont worry, I am in a very good mood and not even slightly angry.

The fact that these posts are representative of you on a good day proves my opinion of you - albeit not a professional medical one, admittedly - as expressed before.
22nd February 2010, 13:46
Garry Walker

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

The fact that these posts are representative of you on a good day proves my opinion of you - albeit not a professional medical one, admittedly - as expressed before.

I am pretty sure you have far more medical conditions than me :D
22nd February 2010, 13:49
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

I am pretty sure you have far more medical conditions than me :D

Well, that's that one sorted. Excellent.
22nd February 2010, 15:48
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeansBeansBeans

Why are the right-wing types on here always so angry?

I'm not sure if you are descibing me as either right-wing or as angry. I can live with being called right-wing, but I am not angry.

That is until you try to confiscate any of my property. Then you'll see me get angry.
23rd February 2010, 20:15
Hazell B

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

Hazell is a good example of an employer who treats her workers like dogs (mainly because they are dogs).

Seriously, I don't believe Hazell is rich moneywise, but she's rich in the sense that she's doing what she enjoys for living and makes sufficiently to afford that.

:laugh:

Fiero, my are in trouble my man. Me earning enough to be rich. Rich? RICH?

Eki's right. I'm in no way rich money-wise. I'm on a very low income in fact. Tax, let us say, is not much of an issue for me. In fact, the government owe me money this year (which I won't be claiming as they've paid out enough on my behalf in the past) and I doubt I'll even be a tax payer next year.

However, I'm able to eat, run a vehicle and keep horses. That makes me rich. I own stuff and have no debts at all. I've never had a loan in my life except the mortgage and I can pay my bills on time. Some was saved and has now bought another house with a mortgage's help.

I indirectly employ, but not directly (except for the dogs. They're unpaid labour and frankly deserve nothing more :p : ). That's important to me. Given a choice, I go for locally made products that employ people in this area who will then spend their money with me in turn.

An example is Wagg petfood employees buying Pointer Pet Food in my shop. I sell both and both are fairly local to me. The woodburning stove briquettes I sell are locally grown and made, etc.

In short, I strongly believe everyone has a roll to play in earning and spending in a way that employs those who can then earn and spend as near to home as possible .... helping yet more earn and spend like a rippling pond. That's how some areas became rich and some poor and long may it reign!

Buy British :up:

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page