Is there anything wrong with "class warfare"?

[mmmbeer]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

What tax rate do you propose on the drunk pregnant junkie lying comatose in the gutter with a nickel in her pocket? Just curious.

Most of the drunk pregnant crack heads that I know don’t have any income, but in case you really want to play this hand, say how much her income is and apply the preceding.

With particular attention to:
I do not argue that the cost of government should not be paid, but that it should be paid equally by all.

[mmmbeer]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

That’s a terrible proposal, but that’s not the biggest problem with your posts: the biggest problem is the implication that progressive tax policies are class warfare, which is just downright ridiculous. Is Warren Buffet a Class Traitor?

If the tax code consisted of:
write down the total of all income regardless of source
Divide that number by 10
This is your tax liability for the year, send it in
Do you think he would be still be saying that he pays less in income taxes than his secretary or can you people honestly not see that this would BEGIN to have the effect of taxing the rich?
Your system simply doesn’t work.

Since we don’t have classes per se in this country, I am using the vague poor, middle, and rich designations. As for the warfare part, I am using one group trying to gain an advantage over another. The most obvious form this takes is manipulation of the tax and spend code. If you mean something else, by all means share it.

[lance_strongarm]

@mmmbeer

Most of the drunk pregnant crack heads that I know don’t have any income, but in case you really want to play this hand, say how much her income is and apply the preceding.

Doesn’t matter!

If she has no income, she should still pay. Just like those with less income (but more than zero) should pay as much as those with more.

I do not argue that the cost of government should not be paid, but that it should be paid equally by all.

If you really believe that, you should support not a flat tax RATE, but a flat tax - everyone pays $500 or whatever. Regardless of income. Even those who make less than $500 a year.

[Kobal2]

@mmmbeer

Most of the drunk pregnant crack heads that I know don’t have any income, but in case you really want to play this hand, say how much her income is and apply the preceding.

With particular attention to:
I do not argue that the cost of government should not be paid, but that it should be paid equally by all.

So… you’d be a proponent of the flat tax ? Because you have to understand that it is nuts and never gonna happen. Also that it’s patently unfair (a good starting point on why it’s never gonna happen - progressive taxes are in place so that the burden of government be born relatively equally by all in the first place, among other reasons related to public safety and the actuarial assessment of fire risks in insuring the Bastille).

And not only is it nuts on its premise but you, mmmbeer, would see your own tax burden reach for the stars under a flat tax. Unless you’re in the top top top top percentage of wealth owners in the country, obviously. Which I kinda doubt, since you’re dicking around the interwebs along with the rest of us schlubs instead of being busy sailing to Acapulco on a boat made of gold-leafed $500 bills and top models.
If you’re not on a solid platinum private jet right now, and are a proponent of the flat tax: you’re being conned. If you’re a proponent of the flat tax in anticipation of and preparation for the time you’re going to have a solid platinum private jet of your own, you’re being conned twice.

[mmmbeer]

You guys don’t get to just gloss over this:

If the tax code consisted of:
write down the total of all income regardless of source
Divide that number by 10
This is your tax liability for the year, send it in
Do you think he would be still be saying that he pays less in income taxes than his secretary or can you people honestly not see that this would BEGIN to have the effect of taxing the rich?

And of course I’m one of the schlubs…10% tax rate with no deductions, etc., and my taxes paid would go down significantly…and the rich’s taxes paid would go up significantly!

[Kobal2]

@mmmbeer

And of course I’m one of the schlubs…10% tax rate with no deductions, etc., and my taxes paid would go down significantly…and the rich’s taxes paid would go up significantly!

Of course, under a 10% flat rate America would go broke faster than a numerically illiterate, alcoholic man in Vegas. So there is that. I guess that’s just the price to be paid for Fairness ™ :).

ETA: also, how would the rich’s tax go up, when they’re taxed around 40-50% now ? Sure, capital gains are taxed differently and all that, but even tax fu black belt and unmitigated rich dude Mitt Romney claims 17%. I’m rubbish at math, but I’m still fairly certain 17% is higher than 10%. Give or take.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@mmmbeer

You guys don’t get to just gloss over this:

If the tax code consisted of:
write down the total of all income regardless of source
Divide that number by 10
This is your tax liability for the year, send it in
Do you think he would be still be saying that he pays less in income taxes than his secretary or can you people honestly not see that this would BEGIN to have the effect of taxing the rich?

I didn’t gloss over it. I ignored it because it was a nonresponsive tangent. The question was, if advocacy of a progressive income tax is class warfare, is Warren Buffett a class traitor? If you’re unable to answer the question, just say so, but don’t suddenly pretend that I was asking a totally different question.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@mmmbeer

Most of the drunk pregnant crack heads that I know don’t have any income, but in case you really want to play this hand, say how much her income is and apply the preceding.

With particular attention to:
I do not argue that the cost of government should not be paid, but that it should be paid equally by all.

I didn’t ask you about your own personal anecdotal opinions on the subject, but thanks for sharing. What I did ask, I don’t see much of a direct answer to, other than, “YES!! I would nail her for that one penny she owes [btw, in my hypothetical, she earned that nickel by begging, of course] and maybe get two cents out of the bitch if I can figure out some way to put in a 40% income bracket, especially if I’m in that 40% bracket.”

Is this correct?

[mmmbeer]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

I didn’t ask you about your own personal anecdotal opinions on the subject, but thanks for sharing. What I did ask, I don’t see much of a direct answer to, other than, “YES!! I would nail her for that one penny she owes [btw, in my hypothetical, she earned that nickel by begging, of course] and maybe get two cents out of the bitch if I can figure out some way to put in a 40% income bracket, especially if I’m in that 40% bracket.”

Is this correct?

These are all opinions, asked for or not, but to respond,
You didn’t see this:
say how much her income is and apply the preceding.
Is this correct?

You don’t get points off for fucking up. But now she is begging, so we go back around to my unasked for personal anecdotal opinion that she doesn’t have any income. No income = no income tax.

[mmmbeer]

@Kobal2

And how does e.g. the building of a fire station not strictly fit within the definition ? It involves a transfer of wealth from some individuals to others caused by a mechanism such as taxation (plus nationalization of the land the station will be built upon), doesn’t it ? And because taxation is progressive, some people get more of their wealth transferred than others for the same fire station, yes ?

It doesn’t involve the transfer of wealth at all. You’re still trying to expand the definition to include your benefit idea, when that is not what is meant by transfer of wealth. To transfer my wealth doesn’t mean to come into my community and move our fire station to another part of town, it means to tax me at a higher rate than others and give that wealth to someone else.

Yes. YES ! That is *precisely *the point. Hence the phrase: “all taxation is inherently redistributive”. Glad the horse has finally decided to drink

I ain’t drinking the kool-aid quite yet.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@mmmbeer

These are all opinions, asked for or not, but to respond,
You didn’t see this:
say how much her income is and apply the preceding.
Is this correct?

You don’t get points off for fucking up. But now she is begging, so we go back around to my unasked for personal anecdotal opinion that she doesn’t have any income. No income = no income tax.

I beg your pardon. Begging is income, tips are income. Kids selling lemonade are earning income. By law, income must be reported to the IRS.

Or are you in favor of letting certain categories of low-income earners slide? This is important.

[Fear_Itself]

@mmmbeer

You guys don’t get to just gloss over this:

If the tax code consisted of:
write down the total of all income regardless of source
Divide that number by 10 This is your tax liability for the year, send it in

So if I sell shoes, and my income is $50,000 I owe $5,000, even though I paid $30,000 for the shoes I sold? No deduction for cost of goods? Overhead like heat and electricity? Rent on my store? Your flat tax sounds like not even the job creators are going to support it.

[Clothahump]

@Sam_Stone

We are all equal under the law. Real equality means that as a free citizen you have the same legal rights as a billionaire, even if you are poor.

The next step up from there is equality of opportunity - making sure that you don’t have to be royalty or part of a special caste in order to amass capital, work in a job you are qualified for, etc.

What class warfare does is seek equality of outcome. People who start from the same station in life as you, but climb higher for whatever reason, are now the ‘enemy’. They’re bad people by definition, because they’re rich, and the state should take part of what they earn and give it to you in the interest of ‘fairness’.

This kind of ‘equality’ turns real equality on its head. You and I aren’t equal if you don’t work and receive a check from the government every month while I am taxed more to provide that check to you. We’re not equal if you get special tax breaks that I don’t get because you’re in a different socioeconomic group. We’re not equal if you’re given hiring or admissions preferences because your skin color is different than mine.

Very well stated.

One thing that our country enjoys that most other countries don’t, as Sam said, is equality under the law. When we are born, we are on a level playing field. From then on, it is up to us to run as far down that field as we can. Some of us run farther and faster than others. It’s when the others start complaining and get the faster ones penalized with weighted boots to slow them down or even stop them that the system breaks down.

[Fear_Itself]

@Clothahump

It’s when the others start complaining and get the faster ones penalized with weighted boots to slow them down or even stop them that the system breaks down.

When was the last time that happened in the US?

[mmmbeer]

@Fear_Itself

So if I sell shoes, and my income is $50,000 I owe $5,000, even though I paid $30,000 for the shoes I sold? No deduction for cost of goods? Overhead like heat and electricity? Rent on my store? Your flat tax sounds like not even the job creators are going to support it.

Try this on for size:
income: For corporations, revenues minus cost of sales, operating expenses, and taxes, over a given period of time.

Sounds like you’re describing revenues…

[Fear_Itself]

@mmmbeer

Try this on for size:
income: For corporations, revenues minus cost of sales, operating expenses, and taxes, over a given period of time.

Sounds like you’re describing revenues…

So corporations, who are really just people, get deductions. But people who really are people, get no deductions for their overhead; mortgage interest, medical expenses etc.

I’m guessing you don’t tax capital gains at all, is that about right?

[Shodan]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

If only you had looked at what my claim was, you might have saved yourself some embarrassment.

Why would I be embarrassed? You made a wrong claim, and I disproved it.

You claimed that you could avoid paying taxes very simply by not taking advantage of government services. I provided a cite to show that [list=A][li]The IRS does not care if you make use of government services like currency - you are going to be taxed.[*]An example of a guy who tried to avoid taxes by not taking advantage of government services like currency or anything else - he used barter. And guess what - he was not successful in avoiding his tax payment.[/list]So your original claim, that one can avoid taxes thru barter, is clearly wrong. So is your subsequent claim that you can simply ignore the IRS and not pay taxes. [/li]

Here was my claim:

Is it your claim that the guy in question used no tax-dollar-supported services at all, or do you think that I was claiming people have never been audited for barter? If you think the latter, you’re not following the thread very well.

Somebody posting under your name said this -

show me anyone who’s been audited despite not using currency, and I’ll back down.

I gave you someone who was not simply audited, but convicted and sent to prison, despite not using currency.

The overarching point is that folks need to pay taxes because they benefit from government services, including currency. You showed someone who, in one specific instance, didn’t use currency. That guy doesn’t even come close to disproving my claim.

You claim one can avoid taxes by not using currency. I provided an example of someone who tried to avoid taxes by not using currency. It didn’t work.

Of course it disproved what you said. Don’t talk nonsense.

Regards,
Shodan

[mmmbeer]

@Fear_Itself

So corporations, who are really just people, get deductions. But people who really are people, get no deductions for their overhead; mortgage interest, medical expenses etc.

Corporations don’t pay taxes. It is an expense which is passed on to the consumer.

I’m guessing you don’t tax capital gains at all, is that about right?

Going back and reading my previous posts would be better than guessing, though I would say assuming and I’m not inclined to recap it for the latecomers.

[Kobal2]

@Clothahump

When we are born, we are on a level playing field.

Heh, good one !

[Fear_Itself]

@mmmbeer

Going back and reading my previous posts would be better than guessing, though I would say assuming and I’m not inclined to recap it for the latecomers.

I’ll take that as a yes.