I suppose it could have been post-apocalyptic, that would have helped sell it.
I’d suggest that a flat tax isn’t fair, specifically because it’s asking less from some segment of the population. Obviously a guy without a car isn’t going to use the roads personally. But his life is still enriched by roads existing. So a rich guy may never send children to a public school, but he does benefit from a society where most people can read and do sums.
The poor help a little by providing cheap labor. But yeah, I don’t think anyone really wants to punish the rich. Just not give them a free ride because they are rich.
That’s reasonable. I don’t agree, but I don’t see that stance as crazy.
No. To my mind Congress (with strong participation from all parties over a great many years) has constructed a tax code, and Romney, along with couple hundred million others, is arranging his affairs in light of that tax code. I see nothing morally unfit in so doing.
Where do we look for examples of politicians who have taken a fundamentally different approach to paying their taxes? (Omitting those who have failed to pay the full amount they legally owe, examples of which are never far to seek).
My point is that if you live in America, you get to enjoy the infrastructure put in place by countless Americans before/alongside you. If you happened to be born into a family of privilege, it is also easier for you to get ahead. There are plenty of well-off folk who work very hard for their success, but that doesn’t mean their success is purely a function of their work. It is also a function of pure, dumb luck, and not enough people acknowledge this, I think.
Just look at Mitt’s bio/background and you’ll see what I mean.
The question becomes complicated – how much are we responsible for in terms of giving back to the society that allowed us to prosper? How much of it do we attribute to wealth we’ve earned fairly, and how much luck should we redistribute back for the unlucky? How much burden is fair?
[QUOTE=jshore]
This idea that taxes are your money taken from you by force is so immature. Part of the problem is that people like you and Romney have this sense of entitlement. You don’t realize that your wealth has come as much through the assistance of others than through your own genius.
[/QUOTE]
The other side of the coin being the alternative sense of entitlement…and the assertion that really anyone can make lots of money just through luck and all the benefits that society has graciously bestowed upon them. Reality lies somewhere in the middle between the two opposing but equally entrenched viewpoints with their towering senses of entitlement either for their own or for others money.
Sure they are. If you refuse to pay you will go to jail.
You can certainly be a free-loader, if you choose to or are forced to live poor enough. If you have money, however, there is no way to get out of paying something to someone. You just have more options on exactly how you pay and, to some degree, where it goes.
I love seeing this argument. The irony is just delicious, no?
Don’t be ridiculous; that is exactly what they are doing. You implied as much in your OP. What else did you mean when you talked about how much Romney had to pay?
If you think the government doesn’t force anyone to pay their taxes, try not paying and see what happens.
You’re contradicting yourself (again). You are complaining because Romney isn’t pushing the government to force him to pay more taxes, and then denying that the government forces anyone to pay taxes.
Make up your mind. Or don’t, and I can continue to mock your posts as the half-digested hypocritival liberal drivel they are.
Saying the government is taking your money by force is akin to throwing a tantrum. You have a say in paying taxes. If you don’t want to pay them stop making money. Become a bum, off you go.
If you wanna freeload, then freeload. I’d suggest San Francisco for its mild winters and social services.
It’s not really “taking your money by force.” If you want to live in America and partake in its infrastructures, you help pay for it. That’s what taxes… are. It’s like arguing “Aaaahhhh I want this ice cream but they’re forcing me to pay for it!”
If you choose to stop paying taxes, what will happen to you? Will you or won’t you go to jail? Will that jail sentence be voluntary or will it be forced?
Seriously…you guys DO know what the use of the term ‘force’ means and implies, right? I’m not opposed to taxes, but they aren’t voluntary…they are required and demanded of me, and if I choose not to pay I know what the consequences will be.
You’re misunderstanding. Jshore is saying that if you don’t want to pay taxes for living here, you don’t have a legitimate claim on our services, including the economy that can make you rich. So go to some island.
You are suggesting that Jshore could, himself go to an island. But that isn’t a fair way to flip the issue, because Jshore isn’t saying he doesn’t need America’s society and infrastructure or that he’s unwilling to pay for them.
You’ll get in trouble for not paying taxes if you owe them because money made in America is done so using the current infrastructure, which comes at a cost to build/maintain.
I suppose that in an abstract sense, the government forces you to pay taxes. In exactly the same sense, the government forces you not to murder people or drive drunk.
So what? You’re all arguing about a meaningless rhetorical flourish.
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
You’re misunderstanding. Jshore is saying that if you don’t want to pay taxes for living here, you don’t have a legitimate claim on our services, including the economy that can make you rich. So go to some island.
[/QUOTE]
Nope, not misunderstanding a thing. It’s the exact same argument I’ve heard conservatives make towards liberals, who always grumble about it. Like I said…the irony is just delicious.
No, Jshore (I meant it generically actually to stand for ‘generic liberal’) is saying that he wants all sorts of goods and services and he wants to make sure others pay for them. It’s still that sense of entitlement. Either ‘let’s have nothing, since I don’t want to pay for it with MY money’ or ‘let’s have everything and get others to pay for it!’.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
I suppose that in an abstract sense, the government forces you to pay taxes. In exactly the same sense, the government forces you not to murder people or drive drunk.
[/QUOTE]
In EXACTLY the same sense that the government doesn’t let you do those other things. Force is force. Whether you think it’s a good thing or not depends on perspective. I never said that forcing you, me and everyone else to pay taxes was a bad thing…simply that it IS force, and that we don’t have a lot of choice about it.
Would it be safe to say that this money being taxed at 15% has already been taxed as income at some point? Would it also be accurate to say that retired persons, since they are no longer recieving an income, are taxed on their capital gains?
True. It was Shodan- though he wasn’t the one arguing about it.
Whatever amount you initially invest has generally been taxed already, which is why you don’t pay an additional tax on it. Capital gains have not; they effectively didn’t exist until you cashed out your securities, so there was no way for them to be taxed.
Retired people receive incomes: Social Security retirement benefits, private pensions, and so on.
All money gets taxed multiple times. We tax transactions, not money itself. I don’t think you could say that capital gains earnings have been taxed as ordinary income, although you could for dividends (which have generally been taxed as corporate income).
No. Social Security payments, for example, are taxed as regular income (with some disclaimers and deductions) as are disbursements from most retirement accounts.
