The Tax Thread
- Thread starter CharminTide
- Start date
Here is a question for you tax experts.
When I initially got my stocks last year I was charged a fee to open the accounts. Can I write off those fees? It was about 10% of my initial investment.
When I initially got my stocks last year I was charged a fee to open the accounts. Can I write off those fees? It was about 10% of my initial investment.
See, I completely disagree. Math is simple. But simplicity is not the same as fairness.
Continuing to repeat things does not make them true. Since you've never explained how "promote the general welfare" represents an explicit enumeration of federal power with objective boundaries, I'll accept your concession on this point.
We have GOT to get over this whole "the constitution is some infallible document" thing as well as "I'm the only one who understands what the founders really meant" thing. If we were so great at building a country why did we completely fail with the articles of confederation and need start over less than a decade later. And even then we had to add a bunch of other amendments throughout history. It's just absurd to hold the constitution in such high regard. Especially since often those who do tend to be pretty religious.
EDIT: I missed that rgw had already kinda covered that
Also, a flat tax is far from fair.
And math isn't fair or unfair its math. Please explain to me how 2+2 = 4 is anything other than a fact.
EDIT: I missed that rgw had already kinda covered that
Also, a flat tax is far from fair.
And math isn't fair or unfair its math. Please explain to me how 2+2 = 4 is anything other than a fact.
Last edited:
Yes but instead of arbitrary fixed percentages, I was thinking there has to be a way to adjust as income becomes greater. 10% of 50,000 is a significant number that a person with that income can see. Compare that to 10% of 500,000. Yes the number is much bigger but based on the whole it’s easier for that person to absorb the hit.
My question for those much smarter than me: is there an algorithm (impartial/emotionless math equation) that can be used as a sliding scale for a progressive tax system that is more “fair,” so lower incomes still pay but don’t get hit as hard.
Quick thought:
1% for 10,000 and increase by 1% for every increase by 10,000 with a cap at a certain salary or percentage.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is kind of a tangential observation, but there is actually a lot of research that shows poor people in the U.S. vote far, far less than the more affluent (LINK). I'd assumed this (due to job circumstances and the like), but I didn't know that this effect has actually been well-studied.
I don't believe so. Especially not after the new tax law. But I could be wrong.
Treating the people the same is fair. Since you like playing favorites, you and the Trumpers have an awful lot in common.
If promoting the general welfare means what you think it means, then there would be no need for enumerated powers. General welfare = whatever I want for my tribe. No over thought needed. It's simple.
To think the FF designed a limited government to really be a leviathan of a government is silly. Where does it say (paraphrasing), "This constitution is so intentionally vague so as to allow Chief White Indian to provide for a nanny for everyone." Since it doesn't say that, I'll accept your concession on this point.
There is a reason for that. Religious people tend to appreciate infallible authority so the propaganda of Founding Father worship - used as a justification for Doin' Nuthin' - is meant to tickle the genetic/epigenetic indicators in these people.
That's fine, but it doesn't change my opinion that everyone should have skin in the game if they're going to vote.
While all answers are responses, not all responses are answers. As you demonstrate well.
1) A flat tax is not treating people the same. People are actually treated very differently under that system depending on their income. That's entirely the point.
2) Even the dudes who wrote the Constitution couldn't agree on what "general welfare" means, and it's simply obtuse to claim that there is objective meaning in vague terms that have sparked centuries of debate. You offer no argument other than your empty insistence that you're right.
And it was meant to be as hard as humanly possible so that the only thing today that can pass must have the full-throated support of monied backers or doesn't affect them at all. You see, we live in reality not some clean room faraday cage.
ah, the inevitable ad hominem attack.
You propose treating people "the same" wrt to tax rates. Yet they will be treated differently in all other respects.
The rich have infinitely more access to political leaders and wield infinitely more power; they use both of those to increase their power and wealth. Given that, it seems fair that they should pay a larger percentage of that income. Such a proposal does not mean that the lower brackets don't have any skin in the game--indeed, the precarious nature of their existence, they have a lot more to lose than just money.
So, maybe we should have a small federal government that can't be influenced on X, Y, Z because it doesn't do X,Y,Z. To think we can have a large government immune to the power of lobbyists and grandstanding politicians is foolish.
Lay it out for me. What should our government be involved in and what should it leave alone. In the modern era how small of a government do you want?
I'm genuinely curious what you think the government should look like. Having this discussion without that seems mostly pointless.
I'm a strict constructionist. I believe the federal government should have authority over subjects in the Constitution, as originally written and as amended. I don't believe it's honest to declare ignorance on the document as a way to shoehorn "everything" I like into a federal action. Want the government to do something? Look to your state to do this or move to a state that offers this program already. Or push for a constitutional amended if something needs to be done at the federal level.
If you believe the feds should do everything, then congratulations. That's the world we live in now. And you can own all the partisanship, deficits, waste, etc. that comes with it.
You must have missed my question above. Did you say that you're now a government employee?
Latest threads
-
SEC West Showdown Sends Alabama to Oxford to Meet with Ole Miss- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Davis II Named to Stopper of the Year Midseason Watch List
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Eleven-Run Third Powers Alabama to 14-5 Win over Samford
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Maybe aTm's Pockets Aren't So Bottomless After All -- Layoffs In The Athletic Department
- Started by 4Q Basket Case
- Replies: 6
-
Time to un-vacate 2005-2007 on field victories and un-forfeit the 1993 season?
- Started by CmdrThor
- Replies: 24
-