OK. In this case how much does Romney have to pay to get to his "fair share"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Printable View
OK. In this case how much does Romney have to pay to get to his "fair share"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
20%
A very reasonable answer. I'll buy that assuming we over here close all tax breaks and loopholes so it's a level playing field for all. Hmm, I think we just arrived at the "Flat Tax".Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
You can tax everyone 50% or more and it would solve nothing until you stop the waste, and create environment where business can stay in the country, flourish and have people working. Playing robin hood is good rhetoric to get a vote ,but after you rob peter to pay paul than what? Direction of the country have to be to encourage investment and developent to stay here and move economy.People wan't good jobs and Im afraid gifted sandwich is not good enough anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
20% because that's the example you gave. I think it's fair to say that if you are wealthy then the percentage of your income collected as tax should be at least the same proportion as anyone earning less than you. This is how a progressive system works.
Fiat1--you offend with your massive obtuseness---I did not blame anybody---that is putting words to my keys or whatever---it is a lie that I blamed anybody--it is a lie that I used "the same old liberal tune".Quote:
Originally Posted by FIAT1
Those lies are offensive and harassing.
The rest is the usual incomprehensible mish-mash.
Stop with the offensive false attributions.
In case you're curious---which I doubt---- I described something. Completely neutrally and cited further references.
There are several things to take note of in your little example:Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
1. Joe Blow at income 50,000 a year is in all likelyhood deriving his entire income from wages. This means to say that he has personally "worked" for his money. Whereas Romney at an income of ten million a year is more likely to have derived the vast bulk of his income from dividends, interest, etc. The generation of that income (since all income is essentially derived from real work and the production of goods and services), has been been a deduction for the firms that paid the wages but taxed in the hands of those that received it.
Fairness would suggest that the taxation rate on the income from non-personal sources should either equal or above that of the taxation rate on the income in the hands who actually performed real work in generating that income; in this case which Romney did not.
2. If things like the Department of Defence are seen as a collective insurance system, then the stability of the economy should also be seen as a collective insurance system. People who benefit the most from the economy's stability, should therefore be liable for the greatest proportion of premium because they derive the greatest benefit from the stability of the economy.
If we take an example of equivalency, should a person driving a $10,000,000, gold plated, Bugatti Veyron pay a higher insurance premium than a person driving an Opel Insignia?
3. People on lower incomes have a higher marginal propensity to consume. Their incomes are already more likely to be directed to private firms through retail spending. By giving people on lower incomes a concession, the economy is effectively permanently stimulated.
As incomes increase, the marginal utility of money decreases along with the marginal propensity to consume. Because the marginal utility of money decreases the actual burden of taxation is less as incomes increase.
4. Due to economies of scale, the larger an investment is the higher the likely return on that investment. Since governmental policy is largely shaped by either trying to attract investment or through forces to do with political donations, it follows that the wealthiest people in society also have the greatest degree in shaping governmental policy.
I ask you, in this example, which of these two people is more likely to actually shape government policy or lobby government officials to change governmental policy?
Good question. Please tell me more about your theoretical economy so that I can play with some actual numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
What's an Opel Insignia?
I know the Ascona and Manta A series, and have built a good hot motor for the only Ascona B in USA, and supplied gear sets from Tran-X to several guys, and of course suspension, and I'm familiar with the Ascona and Manta 400s---great cars!
I even know fairly well just how nice the Kadett GSI and Astre GTE with the marvelously versatile XE engine, but never even heard of an Opel Insignia?
What class do they run in?
Re above excellent post:
I am just a poor old man, I've no time for law-breakers. My legs are gray, my ears are gnarled, my eyes are old and bent ... ....
And I seem to remember the so called Conservatives alleging that the reason we give lower tax percentage to the ultra-rich is
because they "are the job creators"....but being old and gnarled and gray I seem to recall a time when the ON PAPER
tax rates for uber-rich and corporations was far far higher....it's thrown about that it was "90%".
Of course that was after all the myriad of deductions....but it seems that during that time investments in plant, and machinery, and Reasearch
was at equally high levels, all those things being expenses and just like the chrome-moly steel and 6061 aluminum
and seals and springs and fuel I buy to make my Soooper Bitchin Rally Suspension, they are a "cost of doing business', and reduce my tax liability to near zero,
just as most corporations paid nothing---or as Exxon and many others now, generated refunds...
The result seemed to have been huge reduction in the unit cost through massively improved production efficiency.
So it seems that there is a precedent for higher tax on unearned income,ie dividends, stocks, wheeler-dealer type schemes that are not in any way productive.
Or, was the phenomenal growth in USA post WWII just an abbe ration?
Sorry to disappoint and I know you can't resist ,but reply was not meant for you. Have a great day!Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
Once again, a reply that has nothing to do with what is written, what is quoted..Quote:
Originally Posted by FIAT1
Why do you come and disrupt conversations if you aren't goping to do anything other than post random, confused postings?