The Father / Daughter Talk

[Lulubelle]

Originally Posted by marchand

Good for you for being a caring person and wanting to help improve the lives of less fortunate people, but it is NOT the governments job to take money from someone and give it to someone else because that someone else is less fortunate or going through hard times.

Hi Marchand,

I'd agree with your scenario, I'm no Robin Hood, but it is too simplistic. First of all, our tax code is pretty messed up and the burden is too heavy on wage earners and not heavy enough on business owners. It needs straightening out so that the tax burden is spread out in a reasonable fashion. I'm all for having businesses be given some tax breaks to help them grow and create more jobs. But it has gotten to the point where the loopholes present aren't creating any new jobs at all in many circumstances but are making some very lucky individuals even richer because they pay no taxes as everything they draw from their business (their house, their cars, their beach places) is written off as a business expense. And for those who might tell me that I have the same opportunity, actually I do not for reasons I won't go into here.

And we will just have to agree to disagree on our obligation to the society in which we live. I am concerned about low wage earners who are trying to make a go of it and don't have everything available to them to stay in the race. It benefits no one if they fail to stay in the race. Our wise investment in building the possibilities for others (good healthcare, job training, whatever) will ultimately benefit us all, not to mention being the right thing to do. Who do you think pays for people who are not able to stay in the race? We all do.

Most other cultures do not think the way we do in the US. We are a great country, but we are somewhat narcissistic. I'm not suggesting that we become socialist, but I am suggesting that people consider the implications of not working towards keeping people in the race instead of standing by and watching as they fall out.

PEACE all.

[georoc01]

Originally Posted by Lulubelle

Hi Marchand,

I'd agree with your scenario, I'm no Robin Hood, but it is too simplistic. First of all, our tax code is pretty messed up and the burden is too heavy on wage earners and not heavy enough on business owners. It needs straightening out so that the tax burden is spread out in a reasonable fashion. I'm all for having businesses be given some tax breaks to help them grow and create more jobs. But it has gotten to the point where the loopholes present aren't creating any new jobs at all in many circumstances but are making some very lucky individuals even richer because they pay no taxes as everything they draw from their business (their house, their cars, their beach places) is written off as a business expense. And for those who might tell me that I have the same opportunity, actually I do not for reasons I won't go into here.

And we will just have to agree to disagree on our obligation to the society in which we live. I am concerned about low wage earners who are trying to make a go of it and don't have everything available to them to stay in the race. It benefits no one if they fail to stay in the race. Our wise investment in building the possibilities for others (good healthcare, job training, whatever) will ultimately benefit us all, not to mention being the right thing to do. Who do you think pays for people who are not able to stay in the race? We all do.

Most other cultures do not think the way we do in the US. We are a great country, but we are somewhat narcissistic. I'm not suggesting that we become socialist, but I am suggesting that people consider the implications of not working towards keeping people in the race instead of standing by and watching as they fall out.

PEACE all.

As someone who was my own employer for 3 years, what you say simply isn't true legally under the law.

To write off your own home, for example, you have to show that you have an office where you can meet with clients and have its own seperate entrance from the main one in the house. And all of those deductions disappear when you take into account the alternative minimum tax. A law that eliminates your deductions in order to make sure that the 'rich' pay their fair share. Of course, this law was passed in the 60's and never indexed for inflation. So, unless congress passes an exemption every year, the amount that the law impacts starts at $100k. Certainly not chicken feed, but not truly rich either.

The fact is that the top 10% pay 80% of the taxes in this country. A majority of these people are business owners.

FYI I went back to the workforce and am now work again for a large employer. I plan on giving working independent a shot again, but not until after my retirement is secure first.

[Lulubelle]

Hi Georoc,

I am well familiar with AMT, I got hit a few years ago and watched all of my deductions go bye bye. And I'm not rich. I have no choice but to work for a larger employer due to my benefit needs (not wants).

It depends on the type of business you have what loopholes and deductions and losses are available to you. Trust me, there are loopholes a plenty for many of them. A big developer here in town who owns some property with my family has a good accountant and a paper income that appears to be far lower than mine. Guy is LOADED. Lots of dough coming out of his business that does not qualify as "income", lots of depreciation that balances out what he disburses to himself. He paid roughly half what I paid in taxes last year. And it is all completely legal under our tax code.

AMT is pretty stupid. I can't quite figure out why it isn't gone already.

I am ALL FOR tax breaks for smaller businesses, they need them to get growing. It is the breaks for larger ones that I have a quibble with.

Ciao

[marchand]

The problem I have with the taxes is this.

A friend and I both worked at the same place over the summer. One pay period I worked something like three hours more than him, but I took home fifty less dollars. I don't think any rational person can justify me taking home less after working more hours at the same wage.

The progressive tax system is a load of garbage. Actually, income tax is unconstitutional according to the supreme court. In my opinion the best tax system would be a simple sales tax that applies to everything but necessities. That way the people that are in a tight spot benefit the most.

According to the constitution congress only has the power to do the following:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."


Where does it say that congress can redistribute wealth?

[rox@ucf11]

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

[thagar]

Originally Posted by Lulubelle

""Everyone gets a house with a white picket fence and two cars in there garage. On paper its the most fair system imaginable. That system is called COMMUNISUM."

OK, thagar, if you are going to write such things...please work on your spelling...THEIR garage and COMMUNISM.

Wow is that all you can come up with.

I bet you're one of those liberals that believe that if a criminal breaks into your house and gets hurt he has the right to sue you.

[marchand]

Yeah, taxes have to be uniform, not wealth.

[Lulubelle]

Originally Posted by marchand

Where does it say that congress can redistribute wealth?

Marchand, the point I was trying to make is that Congress already has redistributed wealth, wrongly and unfairly, in a way that works against the middle class and anyone who earns a wage, and strongly favors big business and the very wealthy. I would wholeheartedly support doing away entirely with income taxes and have a consumption tax on non essential items.

Originally Posted by thagar

I bet you're one of those liberals that believe that if a criminal breaks into your house and gets hurt he has the right to sue you.

Ah, the stereotypes and aspersions you so freely cast...and I bet that you would be wrong. I'd pull out my 38 and said criminal would exit my property very quickly or I would use it.

[marchand]

Any redistribution of wealth is unfair unless it is the individual that decides to give some of his wealth to his fellow man.

[monant]

Originally Posted by Lulubelle

Marchand, the point I was trying to make is that Congress already has redistributed wealth, wrongly and unfairly, in a way that works against the middle class and anyone who earns a wage, and strongly favors big business and the very wealthy. I would wholeheartedly support doing away entirely with income taxes and have a consumption tax on non essential items.

Ah, the stereotypes and aspersions you so freely cast...and I bet that you would be wrong. I'd pull out my 38 and said criminal would exit my property very quickly or I would use it.

Have you read the book titled "The Fair Tax", by Neil Boortz?