|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 21, 2011 14:21:12 GMT -8
Once again I ask, do the taxes paid though sales, real and personal property taxes, not count? Is it only income tax that gives skin in the game? Why is income tax special? Of course they count. But they go to fund state and local governments. Everyone should have some "skin" in the federal "franchise" as well. All right. How does the interest on municipal bonds fit into your frame of reference? Are you saying they should be subject to Federal income tax? As a conservative, do you really want to the Federal government have that kind of power over local and state government? I don't think you have really thought this through. By the way, when she buys gas for her car she is paying a Federal tax. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Apr 21, 2011 14:58:58 GMT -8
Of course they count. But they go to fund state and local governments. Everyone should have some "skin" in the federal "franchise" as well. All right. How does the interest on municipal bonds fit into your frame of reference? Are you saying they should be subject to Federal income tax? As a conservative, do you really want to the Federal government have that kind of power over local and state government? I don't think you have really thought this through. By the way, when she buys gas for her car she is paying a Federal tax. If all of the little old lady's income is from muni bonds, there probably isn't that much income to levy a tax on. In fact, if they are California muni's, she should probably dump them asap. I got rid of mine. Gas tax ain't INCOME tax. The ol' lady doesn't have to participate in gas tax. She can fall in line and ride the bus like the libtards want all the hoi polloi to do. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 21, 2011 19:35:43 GMT -8
All right. How does the interest on municipal bonds fit into your frame of reference? Are you saying they should be subject to Federal income tax? As a conservative, do you really want to the Federal government have that kind of power over local and state government? I don't think you have really thought this through. By the way, when she buys gas for her car she is paying a Federal tax. If all of the little old lady's income is from muni bonds, there probably isn't that much income to levy a tax on. In fact, if they are California muni's, she should probably dump them asap. I got rid of mine. Gas tax ain't INCOME tax. The ol' lady doesn't have to participate in gas tax. She can fall in line and ride the bus like the libtards want all the hoi polloi to do. Talk about evading the question.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 21, 2011 20:37:59 GMT -8
Anyone think John Ensign as a dark horse candidate? He could certainly get the lying philanderer vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 22, 2011 8:28:13 GMT -8
Some peoples loopholes are other peoples legitimate deductions. For example: A person owns a second home which they rent. The rent is $1300 a month. They have a mortgage on that home of $1,000 a month and pay $230 a month in home owners associations fees. They also pay about $2,000 a year in maintenance and $3,000 a year in property taxes. Do they pay taxes on the income $1,300 x 12 months, or do they get to deduct some of those other expenses? Are those loopholes? Who decides? They get the equity. If there's no equity, then they've taken a financial risk (a key aspect of the free market). It's a loophole. That's nonsense. In any tax system that is even remotely logical, one's liability is based on one's net income. If I have gross income of one million and unavoidable expenses of a half million incurred in the course of bring in that million gross, my taxes must be based on the half million left over. Let's say I own a shoe store. Are you suggesting that I cannot deduct from my gross income the money I spend buying shoes from wholesalers? AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 22, 2011 8:52:15 GMT -8
You can be a "W-2 slug" and still have to file your estimated tax form and payment if you have income from dividends. Did you learn to call folks slugs from Obama? No, I learned it from William.  I never called anyone a slug. I always use more elegant language when I wish to disparage someone. As a matter of fact, I am more than sympathetic with poor people, having grown up in a working-poor family myself. On the other hand, I have known and currently know more than a few people who are without gainful employment due to their own terrible life decisions. (And I say that with the full knowledge that these days it's hard to get a job, period.) The issue is not whether those who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes are good or bad, reprehensible or noble. The issue is that EVERYONE should be forced to pay something to the Feds, and ideally it should be as painful as possible to remind them that they, too, are responsible for the maintenance of government. By making everyone pay at least a bit each April, and do so by writing a check, few are likely to forget that they have a stake in how the government is run. And, as I said earlier in this thread, such a practice will make just about everyone interested in the frugality (or lack of same) of government. I do not expect to see my suggested acted upon any time soon, since many politicians, especially on the Left, like to treat the lower half of the income scale as wards rather than as equals. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 22, 2011 9:34:42 GMT -8
William, do you use a stepladder to get on your high horse? Is aztecwin your Sancho Panza? Just teasing, of course.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 22, 2011 10:59:25 GMT -8
Anyone think John Ensign as a dark horse candidate? He could certainly get the lying philanderer vote. Why Not? Clinton and LBJ were able to! |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Apr 22, 2011 14:28:50 GMT -8
The percentage of citizens who should not pay taxes should be equal to the percentage of people who have no effective power and make less than a middle class wage. No taxation without real representation or a middle class lifestyle.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 22, 2011 15:00:44 GMT -8
The percentage of citizens who should not pay taxes should be equal to the percentage of people who have no effective power and make less than a middle class wage. No taxation without real representation or a middle class lifestyle. Oh! Brother!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2011 15:06:45 GMT -8
The percentage of citizens who should not pay taxes should be equal to the percentage of people who have no effective power and make less than a middle class wage. No taxation without real representation or a middle class lifestyle. The Cry of Modern Liberalism Give me the the HD Premium package or give me...uhhhh... something else! |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Apr 22, 2011 16:25:46 GMT -8
The percentage of citizens who should not pay taxes should be equal to the percentage of people who have no effective power and make less than a middle class wage. No taxation without real representation or a middle class lifestyle. Well, I have no effective power, but I have (at least I think) a marginally middle class lifestyle. There should be NO percentage of citizens who should not pay taxes, except those who are in prison. And even those "A-words" should be made to work, and pay for every damned thing they get, including the $#!+ paper they use to wipe their sorry asses with. Maybe pay those "A-words" two bits a day. And take two cents out of every quarter for federal income tax. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Apr 23, 2011 13:02:05 GMT -8
If all of the little old lady's income is from muni bonds, there probably isn't that much income to levy a tax on. In fact, if they are California muni's, she should probably dump them asap. I got rid of mine. Gas tax ain't INCOME tax. The ol' lady doesn't have to participate in gas tax. She can fall in line and ride the bus like the libtards want all the hoi polloi to do. Talk about evading the question. Munis weren't the issue. If keeping muni's free of fed tax is a smart thing to do, then fine. My point was, that everyone should pay something, and if someone has all of their income from muni's (the li'l ol' lady doesn't, according to your description), there should be at least some form of AMT. Just to make sure that everyone has some skin in the game. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 24, 2011 8:34:47 GMT -8
Talk about evading the question. Munis weren't the issue. If keeping muni's free of fed tax is a smart thing to do, then fine. My point was, that everyone should pay something, and if someone has all of their income from muni's (the li'l ol' lady doesn't, according to your description), there should be at least some form of AMT. Just to make sure that everyone has some skin in the game. What about all the federal income tax she and her deceased husband paid when they were working and had a higher income? Doesn't that give them skin in the game? As to Muni bond interest you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. First, you say that if "smart" to not tax muni interest, "then fine". In the next paragraph you want muni interest to be subject AMT. Which is a federal income tax. Can't have it both ways. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 24, 2011 8:53:49 GMT -8
I agree that everyone should have some skin in the game, but think I have to side mostly with Aztec70 on this question. It really pains me, but for once he is closer to my view on this.
What we really need is some serious tax reform.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 24, 2011 10:29:15 GMT -8
I agree that everyone should have some skin in the game, but think I have to side mostly with Aztec70 on this question. It really pains me, but for once he is closer to my view on this. What we really need is some serious tax reform. OMG! Where have I gone wrong? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Apr 25, 2011 12:47:23 GMT -8
Munis weren't the issue. If keeping muni's free of fed tax is a smart thing to do, then fine. My point was, that everyone should pay something, and if someone has all of their income from muni's (the li'l ol' lady doesn't, according to your description), there should be at least some form of AMT. Just to make sure that everyone has some skin in the game. What about all the federal income tax she and her deceased husband paid when they were working and had a higher income? Doesn't that give them skin in the game? As to Muni bond interest you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. First, you say that if "smart" to not tax muni interest, "then fine". In the next paragraph you want muni interest to be subject AMT. Which is a federal income tax. Can't have it both ways. Not really "both ways". Muni interest is not always exempt from tax anyway: www.thornburginvestments.com/research/articles/AMT.aspI just believe everyone ought to have to contribute to the kitty. Even if it's just a few bucks, everyone should be made to feel that they are indeed a part of the franchise. |
|
