• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are savings from a tax law change "income the tax payer did not earn">

Are savings from a tax law change "income the tax payer did not earn"?

  • Yes, if the government takes less-it is unearned income for you

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No-it was money you earned in the first place

    Votes: 20 100.0%
  • Total voters
    20
ecofarm said:
Tax cuts need be "earned"? How? I hope you're not gonna tell me that the way to earn a tax cut is to make less money.
Click to expand...


the statists seem to think that. I wonder what the almost 50% of the country that does not pay income tax did to earn that while still having the same benefits that we tax payers have.
 
StillBallin75 said:
From an economic standpoint, these are merely two sides of the same coin. There really isn't a substantive difference objectively.
Click to expand...

Thats true, if you look at is as an equation there's no difference. For example if you pay $100 in taxes there's no difference for you if the government decides to take 20 less or give you $20 for whatever reason, either way you're up 20 bucks.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Which isn't an economic evaluation, but rather one based on subjective values.
Click to expand...

No dude, it's based on how our government works. Everyone should understand that the government doesn't make a profit and has no money of its own. That's basic social studies, like 8th grade. Failure to understand that could lead to catastrophic missteps in both economic reasoning and understanding reality.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
No dude, it's based on how our government works. Everyone should understand that the government doesn't make a profit and has no money of its own. That's basic social studies, like 8th grade.
Click to expand...

its important for the statists to claim that when the government gives the bottom quintile 3 dollars for every dollar they make that is no difference than the rich getting a "tax cut"

its the way the left justifies taxing the wealthy more. its the attitude that the government owns all wealth
 
TurtleDude said:
stop the stupidity

he was saying that when the government changes the tax laws and takes less from a "rich person" that is unearned.

that is idiotic
Click to expand...

No, he was responding directly to your comment that tax cuts are earned. He specifically quoted you saying the tax cuts are earned(you said it twice in two sentences, the only sentences he quoted). He then said the tax cuts was not earned.
 
Obviously money is what the discussion is about. Tax cuts aren't earned. Maybe I'm wrong, I'll ask again. How can a tax cut be earned?
 
ecofarm said:
No dude, it's based on how our government works. Everyone should understand that the government doesn't make a profit and has no money of its own. That's basic social studies, like 8th grade. Failure to understand that could lead to catastrophic missteps in both economic reasoning and understanding reality.
Click to expand...
Now if the right-wingers would accept this and quit expecting the government to act like a business we might get somewhere!
 
TurtleDude said:
Some posters have claimed that the Bush tax rates (now the Obama tax rates) which resulted in taxpayers receiving "Unearned income". In other words if you made 500K and your pre-Bush tax law Federal income tax was 150K and after the new tax rates were passed your tax became 135K does that 15K savings constitute 15K UNEARNED INCOME to you?
Click to expand...

That sounds like nonsense to me. Complete nonsense. The entire $500 K is what the taxpayer earned. All of it. That government subsequently takes any amount of it away from him in taxes does not mean that he earned any less than the full before-taxes amount. Not one penny out of it is “unearned income”.
 
StillBallin75 said:
From an economic standpoint, these are merely two sides of the same coin. There really isn't a substantive difference objectively.
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference. The difference is whether we consider an individual to own himself, his labor, and the fruits thereof; or whether we consider an individual to be the property of the government, which generously allows him to keep some portion of the fruits of his labor.
 
TurtleDude said:
actually the difference is important

it is the difference between who really owns the wealth
Click to expand...

And thus who owns the individual worker who creates that wealth. Does the worker own himself, or does the government own him? Really, it is the most fundamental difference between freedom and slavery.
 
ecofarm said:
No dude, it's based on how our government works. Everyone should understand that the government doesn't make a profit and has no money of its own. That's basic social studies, like 8th grade. Failure to understand that could lead has led to catastrophic missteps in both economic reasoning and understanding reality.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
And thus who owns the individual worker who creates that wealth. Does the worker own himself, or does the government own him? Really, it is the most fundamental difference between freedom and slavery.
Click to expand...
The Property Mentality rears it's ugly head once again. Sad that people hide the worst of human nature behind the ideal of money. I suppose they're too weak to face the reality. :(
 
TurtleDude said:
stop the stupidity

he was saying that when the government changes the tax laws and takes less from a "rich person" that is unearned.

that is idiotic
Click to expand...
Since the "rich" have "unearned income" in the form of profits from the sale of stocks, bonds, and investment properties then a tax cut on that "unearned income' is an "unearned tax credit". If you disagree then take it up with the IRS.
 
ecofarm said:
Tax cuts need be "earned"? How? I hope you're not gonna tell me that the way to earn a tax cut is to make less money.
Click to expand...
If a tax cut is given on the grounds that the cut will generate jobs, and no jobs are forthcoming, then the reason for the cut was a lie and the tax cut is "unearned" - as in "did not meet expectations". I'm sure an employer hiring a worker to make 100 widgets a day but only getting 10 widgets a day would say that worker's wages were not earned, too, and for the same reason - "did not meet expectations".
 
MoSurveyor said:
The Property Mentality rears it's ugly head once again. Sad that people hide the worst of human nature behind the ideal of money. I suppose they're too weak to face the reality. :(
Click to expand...

that, ladies and gentlemen, is as good a picture of irony as you are going to get.
 
MoSurveyor said:
If a tax cut is given on the grounds that the cut will generate jobs, and no jobs are forthcoming, then the reason for the cut was a lie and the tax cut is "unearned" - as in "did not meet expectations"
Click to expand...

the tax cut itself may have not met expectations, but this is common across government planning. for example, the stimulus did not meet expectations - this does not somehow mean that the money wasn't really collected by the government to be spent.

the money itself, however, was earned. it is earned before it is taxed, not distributed as the remnants of the employer paying the state.

I'm sure an employer hiring a worker to make 100 widgets a day but only getting 10 widgets a day would say that worker's wages were not earned, too, and for the same reason - "did not meet expectations".
Click to expand...

yeah, except, the government didn't give us ourselves - we gave the government itself. this is a rather important distinction
 
Wiseone said:
Thats true, if you look at is as an equation there's no difference. For example if you pay $100 in taxes there's no difference for you if the government decides to take 20 less or give you $20 for whatever reason, either way you're up 20 bucks.
Click to expand...

that is untrue. the twenty bucks that the government doesnt' take is my money that isn't being taken. the 20 bucks that the government gives me is someone else's money that the government took from them to give to me.
 
cpwill said:
that is untrue. the twenty bucks that the government doesnt' take is my money that isn't being taken. the 20 bucks that the government gives me is someone else's money that the government took from them to give to me.
Click to expand...


They should outsource yours and turtles job to china...now when they did that...and you have no income should I be able to deduct you both as dependents...lol gotta love all the word play...btw marine are you RICH ? like turtle
 
cpwill said:
the tax cut itself may have not met expectations, but this is common across government planning. for example, the stimulus did not meet expectations - this does not somehow mean that the money wasn't really collected by the government to be spent.

the money itself, however, was earned. it is earned before it is taxed, not distributed as the remnants of the employer paying the state.
Click to expand...
Did you actually go back and read the conversation this statement came from? Or are you just talking about the inaccurate portrayal given by TD?

I'm talking about the tax cuts, which is clearly what Cardinal Fang was also discussing in the original conversation, so "the money itself" really isn't part of the discussion.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
that, ladies and gentlemen, is as good a picture of irony as you are going to get.
Click to expand...
To believe that people are property in "The Land of the Free" is indeed irony ...
 
cpwill said:
Wiseone said:
Thats true, if you look at is as an equation there's no difference. For example if you pay $100 in taxes there's no difference for you if the government decides to take 20 less or give you $20 for whatever reason, either way you're up 20 bucks.
Click to expand...
that is untrue. the twenty bucks that the government doesnt' take is my money that isn't being taken. the 20 bucks that the government gives me is someone else's money that the government took from them to give to me.
Click to expand...
Let's see here. If Uncle Sam doesn't take the $20 in the first place then it's MY money ...

... but if I give Uncle Sam $100 and he gives me back $20 then it's "someone else's money"?!? :lamo
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Did you actually go back and read the conversation this statement came from? Or are you just talking about the inaccurate portrayal given by TD?

I'm talking about the tax cuts, which is clearly what Cardinal Fang was also discussing in the original conversation, so "the money itself" really isn't part of the discussion.
Click to expand...

...what was being taxed, then? hair?
 
MoSurveyor said:
To believe that people are property in "The Land of the Free" is indeed irony ...
Click to expand...


to believe that you can be free while the government owns you and your labor, and dispenses it back to you only as it see's fit is indeed... well, not irony. more orwellian. :) slavery is freedom.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Let's see here. If Uncle Sam doesn't take the $20 in the first place then it was MY money ...

... but if I give Uncle Sam $100 and he gives me back $20 then it's "someone else's money"?!? :lamo
Click to expand...

distribution payments are indeed someone else's money. money that i don't send to the government is, and remains, my money. If I steal $20 from you, $20 from Turtle, and then mail you each the others' sawbuck, I am still guilty of theft.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom