Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Laokin
FLAT = Fair.

You are saying Flat-Tax is fair? OK, fair enough. I wouldnt much mind flat tax. It would make things more simple, and simple is good because you cant manipulate as easily.

Right. Flat tax is fair from a simple mathematical view point. Which is why it's a great place to start, however -- if you factor in how money actually affects the standard of living, a flat tax is still unfair, in that it favors the people with wealth.

The only real fair is no tax. If there was no tax, there wouldn't be big government, if there wasn't big government, law and tax codes would be more fair by default, because the government would be working for the people, instead of having the people work for the government.

Wealth wouldn't be consolidated, there would be a lot more rich people, and a lot less super rich people. Nobody would be complaining that the top was starving the bottom. The real fact is class warfare exists and is taking place everyday, everywhere in the world. It's not the poor fighting with the rich, it's the rich fighting with the poor, telling the poor, they don't deserve what they have. This is a delusion caused by greed, which is a delusion caused by power, which is a delusion primarily rooted in the lust for dominance.

Big government is what caused this problem in the first place. If you go back to the inception of the American government, it was designed to be small, and designed to separate the powers of government to purposefully make it difficult to make any changes that are against the people.

If you look at our success and economic history, you will see the government has constantly grown from the day of inception and as a result the value of our dollar has steadily declined along side it.

Pray tell, why is that so?

greed
   [greed] Show IPA
noun
excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions.

So I have to ask, how much money are you allowed to have before you consider yourself greedy?

We all agree that greed is wrong. The problem is, greedy people won't admit when they are being greedy, and they do this because they know greed is wrong.

So is 10 million greedy? Is it 15? How about 20?

There shouldn't be able to be billionaires. How can you get all the way to a billion without being greedy?

so they're paying 71% of federal income tax revenues but i bet they are receiving more than 71% of total income.

sorry in a hurry wasnt able to check if this has been brought up already

Originally posted by trust_no_one
so they're paying 71% of federal income tax revenues but i bet they are receiving more than 71% of total income.

sorry in a hurry wasnt able to check if this has been brought up already

Right. Absolutely correct, as has been covered by me and a few other posters in here.

Originally posted by unityemissions
You're pushing propaganda.

But you do acknowledge that the amount of tax the rich are paying is increasing decade by decade since a long time? That would seem to be what the stats linked in the OP indicate.

So you would agree that things are getting better and better from your perspective and you are full of hope for the future, right?

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by unityemissions
You're pushing propaganda.

But you do acknowledge that the amount of tax the rich are paying is increasing decade by decade since a long time? That would seem to be what the stats linked in the OP indicate.

So you would agree that things are getting better and better from your perspective and you are full of hope for the future, right?

It's not. The amount of money rich people are making is increasing. The amount of money they pay into taxes is the same.

Hence, you ARE pushing propaganda.

You keep ignoring this FACT.

It's not an opinion.

It's a 100% bonafide fact.

Originally posted by Laokin
The amount of money they pay into taxes is the same.

So the IRS-graph that shows that the amount of tax they pay keeps increasing is false? Just innocently asking for clarification.

Originally posted by Laokin
Hence, you ARE pushing propaganda.

So you think I am purposefully and dangerously trying to deceive people? Do you agree with the other poster who said I am an instigator of class warfare?

Wow, I didnt know this posting thing could become this serious.

Originally posted by MightyQuincunx
Sourced from the IRS??? Now that's reputable ::laughs:: I just found out that the government has never lied to us about anything.

Doesnt the Government want money from the rich? If so, why would the IRS lie for the rich?

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Laokin
FLAT = Fair.

You are saying Flat-Tax is fair? OK, fair enough. I wouldnt much mind flat tax. It would make things more simple, and simple is good because you cant manipulate as easily.

Here is the biggest problem with a so called "flat" tax: "flat" seems to be poorly defined. Contextually speaking it seems to mean a "flat" rate of income taxation for every person regardless of their economic station. What this so called "flat" tax would do is require a complete restructuring of the tax code as it is now applied, and therein lies the problem...No one understands the tax code as it is written...I mean no one!

The tax code is predicated on a series of tenuous legal maneuvers that have kept the legislative portion Constitutional and by relying upon the law of contracts have managed to hoodwink a populace into unquestionably self assessing their own liability into this tax scheme...all perfectly legal and even Constitutional. To re-write this tax scheme and replace it with another but still levied "on" income means to understand what made the monstrosity of a tax code that exists today Constitutional and legal and what would change by creating a "flat" tax to replace the existent progressive tax "on" income?

Every tax comes with a subject. There is no such thing as a subjectless tax. A tax "on" income has a subject. If that subject is a direct tax "on" income then Congress is Constitutionally required to apportion all direct taxes among the several states. If that tax "on" income is, however, an indirect tax then it is not income itself that is the subject of the tax and instead it is some specified activity where earning income is involved that is the subject of the tax and income is merely used to determine how much is owed. These are the two Constitutional requirements placed upon Congress: All direct taxes must be apportioned among the states, and all indirect taxes must be uniform across the several states.

Apportioning direct taxes is a difficult task and must be done at least once every decade to accommodate any changes in a census of enumeration. For this reason Congress understandably avoids direct taxation and instead relies upon indirect taxation as a method of revenue raising. While I maintain that no one understands the income tax code, it can be reasonably deduced that if the income tax is Constitutional then it must be because the tax itself is functioning under the principles of Constitutional taxation. Since the income tax is not apportioned among the several states, and assuming that this tax is Constitutional, then it can only be deduced that the tax must be an indirect tax upon some taxed activity.

What then is this taxed activity? What taxed activity are most people engaged in that would make them liable for an income tax? This question is not easily answered and yet is only one reason why I maintain no one understands the income tax code. The biggest reason no one understands the income tax code is because the word "income" remains perpetually ill defined as long as the 16th Amendment still stands. While it is easily seen that the 16th Amendment is wholly Constitutional, it is so because it accomplishes the exact opposite of what so many believes it does. The 16th Amendment does not so much relieve itself from the rule of apportionment when taxing income, it makes the cogent point that Congress has no obligation to tax income directly and has every right to tax it indirectly.

The problem with the 16th Amendment is not that it granted Congress some new power of taxation, it did not. The problem lies in the use of the word "income". Because Congress failed to define what they meant by income then it became necessary to turn to the everyday usage of the word as it was meant then. Since the word "income" is used in the Constitution and left to general every day usage definitions Congress cannot now redefine the term income to suit their purposes. So, income means a myriad of things to a various people depending upon circumstances. Terms, such as "gross income", maintain a chameleon like quality. Gross income for a business is every cent generated within a fiscal cycle but this revenue came at a cost that is not reflected by the gross income, which is why the term "profit" exists. On the other hand, if a young boy who works at Way Cool Music Store and earns an income of $600 per week this would be his "gross income" even though he has no expenses to speak of to compare against that "gross income".

Just the word "income" in itself creates a hailstorm of confusion. Write a five volume set of tax codes with millions upon millions of words all based upon this ill defined word "income" and it is no wonder no one understands the income tax code. Flat tax? Would that be a direct tax or an indirect tax?

Originally posted by beezzer
Have the government NOT SPEND SO MUCH!!!!

Im disappointed that the only idea the Government seems to have on making money is through taxation.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by unityemissions
You're pushing propaganda.

But you do acknowledge that the amount of tax the rich are paying is increasing decade by decade since a long time? That would seem to be what the stats linked in the OP indicate.

I do not. If we are to take the state-funded statistics at face value, "since a long time" in the context of "decade by decade" doesn't hold true. There are three decades and small change shown in the graphs. Would you be willing to pull the previous three decades to more accurately back up your statement?

Outside of the government-funded two variable stat, let's think about this within a wider context. The more income you have, the more powerful you are in society. One of these influences is in the ability to hide income effectively. I think it would be naive at best to think that not some of the more wealthy within the top 10% are hiding a substantial portion of their income. Are all legal tax right offs and loopholes accounted for in this statistic?

So you would agree that things are getting better and better from your perspective and you are full of hope for the future, right?

I'm not touching this one.

I think taxes (if there is to be a 'fee' for being a citizen) should be based on fluid asset holding.

Frankly though, in any case, the discretion of a private lending authority should not figure into the metrics.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Laokin
The amount of money they pay into taxes is the same.

So the IRS-graph that shows that the amount of tax they pay keeps increasing is false? Just innocently asking for clarification.

I as well as many have already clarified this.


A.) If I pay 30% taxes and make $10,000,000 this year, I pay $3,000,000 in taxes.

B.) If I pay 30% taxes and make $20,000,000 next year, I pay $6,000,000 in taxes.

In neither case did I pay more taxes or less taxes on my earnings.

In Case B I contribute more of the total taxes collected, because my earnings increased. The amount I paid is the same. This is the nature of percentage.

So what your IRS graph shows is the top 10% have constantly increased the amount they earn, not the amount of taxes they pay.


It's always the same percentage, however -- there are so many tax exemptions and tax credits that they are actually paying effectively a smaller % of tax on what they earn than the % of tax I pay on what I earn.

They just make more money than me, so as a result -- their contributions are bigger, even though they are effectively paying less taxes than I am.