View Poll Results: Federal (Income) Tax. You Pick the Rate.

Voters
58. You may not vote on this poll
  • 5%

    22 37.93%
  • 10%

    10 17.24%
  • 15%

    4 6.90%
  • 20%

    7 12.07%
  • 25%

    5 8.62%
  • 30%

    2 3.45%
  • 35%

    3 5.17%
  • 40%

    2 3.45%
  • 45%

    1 1.72%
  • 50% and higher

    2 3.45%
Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415
Results 141 to 148 of 148

Thread: Federal Income Tax. You Pick the Rate.

  1. #141
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    in a neocon's craw
    Last Seen
    06-29-09 @ 11:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,801

    Re: Federal Income Tax. You Pick the Rate.

    Inheritance tax... do any of you even know why it was instituted in the first place? It doesn't seem like it.

    In 1916 Congress for the first time levied a tax upon the transfer of a decedent's net estate. The Committee on Ways and Means of the U.S. House of Representatives explained that a new type of tax was needed, because the "consumption taxes" in effect at that time bore most heavily upon those least able to pay them. The Committee further explained that the revenue system should be more evenly and equitably balanced and "a larger portion of our necessary revenues collected from the incomes and inheritances of those deriving the most benefit and protection from the Government."

    The Committee recommended an estate tax rather than an inheritance tax because many states already imposed inheritance taxes. It felt that the estate tax helped to form a well-balanced system of inheritance taxation between the Federal Government and the various states and that an estate tax could be readily administered with less conflict than a tax based upon inherited shares.

    Various changes in the estate tax provisions of law, as well as their repeal, have been proposed over the years, but the principle has been retained. Our office has available an excerpt from the Ways and Means Committee's report on the Revenue Act of 1935. The report reproduces a June 19, 1935, message from President Roosevelt to Congress advocating an inheritance tax, in addition to the estate tax. Although the inheritance tax proposal was not adopted, the message provides information on why the taxation of individuals' estates was considered appropriate.
    U.S. Treasury - FAQs: History of the U.S. Tax System

  2. #142
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Federal Income Tax. You Pick the Rate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slippery Slope View Post
    Inheritance tax... do any of you even know why it was instituted in the first place? It doesn't seem like it.
    Yes.

    The government wanted to steal money.

    You may use more syllables, you won't change the conclusion.

  3. #143
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    in a neocon's craw
    Last Seen
    06-29-09 @ 11:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,801

    Re: Federal Income Tax. You Pick the Rate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Yes.

    The government wanted to steal money.

    You may use more syllables, you won't change the conclusion.
    Yeah, and it's worked out pretty good. The country didn't go into ruins, the rich continue to get richer, the rich didn't stop creating jobs... blah blah [insert repub talking point here].

  4. #144
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-24-09 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: Federal Income Tax. You Pick the Rate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    The rational analysis will show that the financial sector provides an actual service.

    The parasite class, by definition, does not.
    Merely hoarding and "supplying" capital is not an actual service.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    I can see more than one reason for demanding English to be the national language.
    Our first agreement. "Demanding English to be"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Providing capital is a purpose, is it not?

    Providing capital is a necessary purpose, is it not?

    Therefore, your argument that they're useless is invalidated by your own words.
    The provision of capital is a necessary purpose. Merely "providing capital" and engaging in no other productive activity is both unnecessary and inefficient.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Since the people (government) claiming the money didn't do anything or take any risks to earn it, clearly their claim should be null and void and 100% of all inheritance should be passed on to the heirs of the estate.
    Considering the positive connection between efficiency and equity, it's mere economic rationality to ensure equality of opportunity. I know John and Ken don't tell you about this stuff, but please do try to keep up.

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    ?? where are you gettting those crazy ideas??
    From basic economic principles supported by empirical research.

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    competition nearly always increases efficency
    I haven't actually claimed otherwise in this thread. Your problem is that you've committed the standard economic error of assuming socialism to be synonymous with a command economy and central planning.

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    if you have an example of the efficency of collective economies you need an example before you type that.
    Certainly. We could refer to the beneficial effects of the establishment of libertarian socialism during the Spanish Revolution on the Spanish region of Aragon. Will that suffice?

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    I can name some, India, China and Singapore.
    Please elaborate. I'd certainly be interested in hearing about the advent of socialism in India, China, and Singapore.

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    What do you mean wealth is "possessed" instead of created in the world?
    I'm referring to the private ownership of the means of production being an inheritance from an openly coercive phase of primitive accumulation, as well as the relative idleness of the financial class in providing any socially useful purpose.

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    how do you explain the large economic growth in China from some free market principles? Therefore, the wealth is created and is not stagnant in each country.
    There are no "free markets" present in China any more than there are "free markets" present in the capitalist economy. The markets that exist in China are state capitalist in nature, subject to bureaucratic and authoritarian management rather than collective ownership and management.

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    you need example and evidence for what you say.
    Which has been presented and summarily ignored by you.

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    I'm curious to know what you find is a "legitimate effort" or "just gain".
    Actual work and fair acquisition. The current state of affairs violates the Lockean provisos established by so prominent an advocate of capitalism as Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    So what non-idleness must be met to satisfy your demands else you believe it "justified" to take their wealth for more "purposeful" means?
    "Take *their* wealth"? Capital accumulation is based on theft (considering the role of the openly coercive phase of primitive accumulation), and the private ownership of the means of production creates a state of affairs that would accurately be condemned as an authoritarian social structure if manifested through the vessel of a state, and involves conditions wherein much economic structure is owned and controlled by an elite few not subject to democratic check or recall, and institute hierarchical management on the individual firm level.

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    Because we all know:
    1) attaining wealth is easy and only gets easier the more you make.
    2) managing wealth is easy and only gets easier the more you have.
    3) perpetuating your wealth is easy and only gets easier the longer you have it.
    4) attaining more wealth once you have wealth is child play.
    I'd never claim anything of the sort. Considering the limited social mobility that hampers equality of opportunity in the U.S., the reality is starkly different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe View Post
    Yes, however, were we to get rid of Heath and Human Services and Social Security, the fiscal equation balances out quite nicely. If you produce nothing, you can consume only what other people choose to share with you. If there is no charity, than the unemployed worker will be forced to work harder in order to maintain employment, thus encouraging more productive citizens in a more productive society.
    This is an absurdly crude and utopian understanding that fails to incorporate the reality of frictions, for one thing. A welfare state is a necessary component in maintaining the physical efficiency of the working class; for instance, job search frictions function as obstacles to a quick and easy selection, and unemployment benefits thus enable one to conduct a more thorough and effective search, which encourages skill set matches and the elimination of underemployment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe View Post
    I see no credibility whatsoever to the claim that worker-owned companies are in any way more efficient. It's utterly counter intuitive.
    This isn't an impressive spectacle. You've managed to ignore the empirical research on the matter because damn it, you've got a hunch!

    Quote Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe View Post
    Now, we'll see how GM does. That is a worker-owned company, in part. If GM becomes increasingly efficient and efficacious over the next twenty-five years, then maybe we'll have ourselves a real case study. But, human nature and every experience we have of it, demonstrates that people work harder the more invested and responsible they are for the product.
    That's very much correct, and since the divorce and ownership of control that characterizes the conventional capitalist firms causes principal-agent problems, such a state of affairs acts directly contrary to the establishment of personal investment and responsibility. You must suffer from a rather uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe View Post
    So long as there is an inequality in self-motivation, character, and self-discipline, there will be more and less productive people, demanding an inequitable, uneven, but nevertheless fair, distribution of wealth. People that try to curb, manipulate, or condition human nature, simply by ignoring the obviousness of the truth, tend to do so at their own peril.
    You've illustrated a rather expansive ignorance of human nature yourself by effectively reducing the labor market to a collection of factors of production. Conversely, socialists long ago mastered knowledge of human nature and its political applications. I sense that you've not heard of Peter Kropotkin or Mutual Aid.

  5. #145
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Federal Income Tax. You Pick the Rate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slippery Slope View Post
    Yeah, and it's worked out pretty good.
    Not for the people the money belonged to.

  6. #146
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Federal Income Tax. You Pick the Rate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    Merely hoarding and "supplying" capital is not an actual service.
    Really?

    It's not?

    How's the economic performance of countries that don't have any capital?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    The provision of capital is a necessary purpose.
    No. It is not. A person with capital has every freedom to sit back and spend it all on booze, broads, and bingo if that's his wish, and when it's all gone, it will have never served a productive purpose, ie, grown and expanded it's influence to create even more jobs.

    Watch Brewster's Millions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    Merely "providing capital" and engaging in no other productive activity is both unnecessary and inefficient.
    So, someone just said the provision of capital is a necessary purpose, and someone later said (in the next sentence) that providing capital is unnecessary.

    Since you posted both sentences, I'll let you deal with your emotional and intellectual dishonesty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    Considering the positive connection between efficiency and equity, it's mere economic rationality to ensure equality of opportunity. I know John and Ken don't tell you about this stuff, but please do try to keep up.
    Economic efficiency is achieved by not robbing people who have capital and getting out of their way when they're investing it. It's their money, and people usually watch their own money carefully. Very carefully indeed, usually.

    Equality of opportunity starts with laws against robbing the successful.

    Since the government has no claim on the money outside of their guns, you haven't established any rationale for allowing the government to steal someone's inheritance.

    Know what your problem is? You either don't have a rich uncle, or you do and he told you that he's not gonna leave any of his money to a socialist, he's going to marry a fat Playboy centerfold and die with a huge smile on his face, and she'll get the money.

    Envy is the reason the common people support punitive and confiscatory taxation, and no other reason exists.

  7. #147
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 01:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Federal Income Tax. You Pick the Rate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    Actual work and fair acquisition. The current state of affairs violates the Lockean provisos established by so prominent an advocate of capitalism as Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
    Well you'll have to excuse me if I don't quite have the economics hard-on you do such that I have read Robert Nozick's book or studied his theories.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    "Take *their* wealth"? Capital accumulation is based on theft (considering the role of the openly coercive phase of primitive accumulation), and the private ownership of the means of production creates a state of affairs that would accurately be condemned as an authoritarian social structure if manifested through the vessel of a state, and involves conditions wherein much economic structure is owned and controlled by an elite few not subject to democratic check or recall, and institute hierarchical management on the individual firm level.
    IOW, if I own a business I get to decide how I run it.... within the confines of labor laws and other worker protection mechanisms. I don't find anything objectionable with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    I'd never claim anything of the sort. Considering the limited social mobility that hampers equality of opportunity in the U.S., the reality is starkly different.
    So at what point of wealth does my money begin duplicating itself with minimal effort? I'm very goal oriented so perhaps you could give me something to shoot for.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  8. #148
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    in a neocon's craw
    Last Seen
    06-29-09 @ 11:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,801

    Re: Federal Income Tax. You Pick the Rate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Not for the people the money belonged to.
    Yeah, like who? Give us a specific example of someone brought to ruin by it.

Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •