Why should rich people pay a greater share of their wealth to taxes?

@OmSigDAVID,

Can you understand this it is not a ponzi scheme but work in a manner similar to any private insurance back retirement fund.

The system is not going to run out of funding as the simple solution is to just add to the cash flow and adjust the outgo by adjusting the age of retirement.

In the same manner as a private insurance retirement fund would do as the underlining assumptions it is base on change over time such as the average life span of it policy holders.

Oh an demanding that the government meet it obligations to pay back the SS system the trillions of dollars the government owe the system in the form of it being a holder of government bonds.

The government is going to need to get used to the idea that the period of free money from the SS system is over and instead of using the funds as a means to keep taxes low on the rich will need to raised those taxes to meet it obligations to the SS system in the same manner as meeting any of it others debt obligations.

For generations the SS system had been a major engine in transferring wealth from the lowers classes to the upper classes due to the cash flow coming mainly from the lower to middle class and the surplus cash allowing the government to keep upper class tax rates low.

This engine is about to go into reverse and that is the true reason for the attacks on the SS system by the GOP not that it is a poniz scheme of any nature.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Can you understand this it is not a ponzi scheme but work in a manner similar to any private insurance back retirement fund.

The system is not going to run out of funding as the simple solution is to just add to the cash flow and adjust the outgo by adjusting the age of retirement.

In the same manner as a private insurance retirement fund would do as the underlining assumptions it is base on change over time such as the average life span of it policy holders.

Oh an demanding that the government meet it obligations to pay back the SS system the trillions of dollars the government owe the system in the form of it being a holder of government bonds.

The government is going to need to get used to the idea that the period of free money from the SS system is over and instead of using the funds as a means to keep taxes low on the rich will need to raised those taxes to meet it obligations to the SS system in the same manner as meeting any of it others debt obligations.

For generations the SS system had been a major engine in transferring wealth from the lowers classes to the upper classes due to the cash flow coming mainly from the lower to middle class and the cash allowing the government to keep upper class tax rates low.

This engine is about to go into reverse and that is the true reason for the attacks on the SS system by the GOP not that it is a poniz scheme of any nature.

Thank u for your analysis, Bill.
I wish it well, as I am collecting an SS retirement pension check each month.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I wish it well, as I am collecting an SS retirement pension check each month.

I to am drawing a SS check as I was force into early retirement due to the mess that the GOP had created in this economic and on top of that my not small retirement savings are generating almost no cash flow due to the Fed keeping the interest rates so very low.

In an ideal world I would had paid into the system for at least another five years and add to my 401K for the same time period.

Now not only are they talking about going after the SS system but are talking about changing the rules about taxing the 401K!!!!!!!

All so we can keep the upper tax rates low.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

There is no reason that the upper tax rates shoud be more severe
than the lower tax rates. No one shoud be taxed at all, above the first $million,
because he does not get back additional services to justify that;
e.g., the Weather Bureau does not render better nor faster svc for
financially successful people; the Census Bureau does not do better work for them, nor does the FAA.

The 16th Amendment does NOT authorize DISCRIMINATION.
Everyone shoud be taxed at the same rate.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

You are lawyer correct David?

So you are aware that no repeat no court had ever found that a progress tax rate is unconstitutional under any part of the constitution including the 16th Amendment?

As I am not a lawyer I might be wrong in the above statement so please feel free to point out where a court had found otherwise.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

You are lawyer correct David?

So you are aware that no repeat no court had ever found that a progress tax rate is unconstitutional under any part of the constitution including the 16th Amendment?

As I am not a lawyer I might be wrong in the above statement so please feel free to point out where a court had found otherwise.

I 'm sure u must be correct.
That just means that the judiciary is not doing its job.
Read the amendment for yourself.
See whether it authorizes discrimination.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

No one shoud be taxed at all, above the first $million,
because he does not get back additional services to justify that;

So, a person with more than $1 million in assets can't use the courts to protect that property?
I am curious where it states that the value of profits that can be made from a patent or copyright is only protected up to $1 million.
Does that mean the FBI doesn't investigate piracy after a movie has made $1 million?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Maxdancona wrote:

Why don't Christians ever read the Bible?

Quote:
All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Acts 2

Quote:

There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

If you want to be selfish and uncaring, fine. But leave Jesus out of it.

_____________________
mismi40 replied:

Christians...just like everyone else - use the Bible to support what THEY feel is right. We should live by our conscience and love in spite of differing opinions. Both what you posted is correct (from a Biblical perspective) and what squeezy123 wrote is correct. But they apply in different context. Our goal as Christians should be to make sure those we work and live with (I mean neighbors and those in our communities) have what they need. We give from our abundance to serve those with less. In a perfect world we would all take care of those around us (which means we work hard as the example in Proverbs 6:6) and we keep our lives free of the love of money which will lead to destruction (Hebews 13:5).

Why are Christians supposed to do that? Because we love people (example: Jesus). We should want to help them.

All that to say - I cannot see a good argument in raising taxes or the percentage of taxes for the wealthy. If they want to give above and beyond what they have been so blessed to have, that is their choice.

Is it a moral imperative? No. Should it be required by law? No. We all have an internal compass that directs our actions....this is a whole other debate though...

If it is ours...we get to do with it what we want. It is a reflection of the heart though. And incredibly frustrating when only a few do what would help the many. But that's life. Seems to me anyway.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

No one shoud be taxed at all, above the first $million,
because he does not get back additional services to justify that;

parados wrote:

So, a person with more than $1 million in assets can't use the courts to protect that property?
I am curious where it states that the value of profits that can be made from a patent or copyright is only protected up to $1 million.
Does that mean the FBI doesn't investigate piracy after a movie has made $1 million?

Its an income tax, not an asset tax.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Profits from patents and copyrights are income.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Profits from patents and copyrights are income.

I support jurisdiction for taxing imported goods
but other than that:
all taxes shoud be sales taxes, at the same rate for everyone.
The 16th Amendment shoud follow the 18th into repeal.
There is NO REASON that the rich shoud subsidize the poor.
When the 16th Amendment was enacted, THAT was not authorized.

David

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

There are always power struggles in any society and as long as they are kept within limits that fact is not a problem.

However, right now we had reach such an insane point that a major party is backing doing away with SS and at the same time granting even lower top taxes rates.

It is my opinion and my hope even people who had join the tea party will wake up in the near future and ask what the hell is going on.

I would be happy to dispute with you your first point here...Our Constitution like the Ancient Constitution of England was made up of interests supporting each others and held in check against each other... The moment a society begins to fear the enemy within more than enemies without it is doomed... The kid gloves are off... There are no effective restraints to the exploitation of working people or of resources... There is no government offering any control over the rich... They trash our rights... They export our jobs, our capital, capital our fathers and mothers died to build up, and expect us to support the huge military necessary to defend that capital abroad and buy the imports they force on us... We are living in a police state which has not become a tyranny of terror only because so many are unaware.... Mr. Obama suggests taxes on the rich and they say: CLASS WARFARE!!! Class warfare is what they have been practicing... They, at least, are class conscious as we are not...

In reference to the tea party, let me say that history will show that we are already in a state of revolt... The reactionary attitude of the tea party is only a mask for the fact that this whole place is coming apart at the seams... The government is bankrupt, and we are all demoralized... People think nothing of grabbing a gun and robbing, or killing people out of their own despair...
Those not already hopeless are living in fear... Government no longer holds our respect or commands our awe... The people have the good sense to fear it; but no one really respects it...

The only people the government actually works for are the loudest in complaint about it... The Republicans have the most reason to be satisfied over the course of government and are the least satisfied about it, only because on average they are going down with the same ship as we all are... Most are simply locked below deck caught between rising water and a lowering ceiling... Only those with a clear vision of the worsening situation have the sense to go crazy about it... No one else knows what to do... The tea party is mired in futility if it ever expects to recapture the past... The only way to the better part of the past is into a new future determined by their better minds, and best angels... They won't get there with a load of hate...

1 Reply

@mismi,

Nicely put.

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido, if I did not know that u r crazy,
I might get a little worried.

Have u joined a lot of those end of the world doomsday groups??

Thay have not seemed to work out very well.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Fido, if I did not know that u r crazy,
I might get a little worried.

Have u joined a lot of those end of the world doomsday groups??

Thay have not seemed to work out very well.

David

Our government is run by such groups, and the economy as well... The one thing you cannot attribute to any of those people is vision... They are all acting on ideology and totally unable to adapt to changes in the situation...

1 Reply

@Fido,

The IDEOLOGY shoud be simply playing it straight
according to the scheme that derives from the social n political contract: the US Constitution,
with no deviation therefrom.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

It seems you are ignoring the fact that income taxes were constitutional in certain forms prior the the 16th amendment. The 16th just made it possible to collect income tax on profits from rents.

You didn't address the issue of profits of more than $1 million are protected by the government so people that make more than $1 million ARE getting government protection not available to those making less than $1 million.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

It seems you are ignoring the fact that income taxes were constitutional in certain forms prior the the 16th amendment. The 16th just made it possible to collect income tax on profits from rents.

You didn't address the issue of profits of more than $1 million are protected by the government so people that make more than $1 million ARE getting government protection not available to those making less than $1 million.

There is no reason to SINGLE OUT
millionaires. Government owes everyone protection equally.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

equally?
So the government should only protect your first $1000 since that is all it will protect of other people?

But the government does protect MY LIFE if I take your $1 millionth dollar?

Your "equality" is not very equal it seems David. Either that or you think $1 million is equal to $1000.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

equally?
So the government should only protect your first $1000 since that is all it will protect of other people?

But the government does protect MY LIFE if I take your $1 millionth dollar?

Your "equality" is not very equal it seems David. Either that or you think $1 million is equal to $1000.

Government addresses larcenous conduct equally (with exceptions for petty larceny).
The Navy and Air Force defend us all equally.
The Weather Bureau serves us all equally.

David

3 Replies

Why should rich people pay a greater share of their wealth to taxes?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know