Political Twelve Monkeys

[redneckdevil]

Wat?

 

Politicians "make their money" by publically serving their constituents. You may not like the results, but thats immaterial.

I have no problem and DO believe they should get paid of course. How MUCH and WHERE (my paycheck, buying anything, and owning house/vehicle/business) they get thier money is what I have a problem with.

Tbh I rather someone look at a career in the govt as a way to make a change instead of it being a very profitable career. What would happen if most spots (besides military) be very limited in how long and often same person could fill it? Ex. Senator could only be one for 4 years then have to step down and do something else?

Granted that could have been doable I'd say 10 years ago, now it doesn't seem to be more likely with how entrenched the govt is in everything.

Until our house of cards collapse under it's own weight and/or hear the Chinese bill collector knocking on the door rdy for us to pay up.....

Edited November 20, 2017 by redneckdevil

[majestic]

Taxation of any kind is theft. Legalized, maybe even necessary but still theft. You are taking away money from the people who earned it for the greater benefit of people who didn't. If we can't get around it as a method of funding the government there are surely things we can do to make it more fair. If I left my children a multi-million dollar estate that I worked my whole life to build, earned the money that built it, paid taxes on the income and on the real assets all along the way what standing does anyone have to come in and say it's not all mine to dispose as I please? This notion I'm hearing "you don't need that much money", who are you to say that? You don't know them. Its a notion rooted in the same base emotion that drives the appeal of collectivists economics: envy. Tom has something that **** and Harry don't and it's.... not.... FAIR! So **** & Harry elect a government that will take away what Tom has.

 

It amazes me that people will overlook the worst kind of abuses of power, corruption, and intrusions on their life and property from their governments. They gladly hand their children over to fight in wars that were never declared but never end. They pay more than half of the money they earned  and "rent" the house they own and the car they bought to a government that only demands more and all because we think there is no other way to build our roads and secure our defense.

 

Heh. You know, you're essentially using the same strawman argument (why tax something that's already been taxed) as everyone else, but in your case I at least can respect that - because you honestly believe, misguided as I think it is, but that is a matter for another debate, that there wold be better ways than taxation and receiving what the government offers in return (I mean I get it, you'd rather pay corporate price gougers than the inefficient government *polemic* *wink*).

[HoonDing]

i propose 4/10 of the harvest (and your firstborn daughter) to the baron

[ShadySands]

I propose reducing fractions

[majestic]

 

Not that I would agree with a 85% tax rate. Inheritance should be treated like any other income and taxed accordingly. Because that's what it is. Income.

That "income" has already been taxed on the original earner. Now it should be taxed again because it was given to another? If I spot you a $20 for lunch, should you be taxed on it? Its "income" after all.

 

Figured the other strawman when arguing against inheritance tax would eventually come up. That's a circular argument. Yes, poor grandpa was already taxed, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a sizeable chunk of income for you. When you get a corporate revenue bonus you need to pay taxes as well. But why? Corporations were taxed for their profits before.

 

Might as as well argue against any form of VAT. I mean my income was already taxed, why am I paying taxes again?

 

One can spin the wheel both ways and go down to silly arugments like the 20$ for a pizza for lunch (although the tax is of course there - for the one selling the food). I'm pretty sure most nations have some sort of tax for gifts above a certain volume. I know we do. *shrug*

Edited November 20, 2017 by majestic

[213374U]

I'm totally for restricting people pay and capping it, we don't need people who sole job is to continue being with the govt besides judges. Senators and whatnot I believe should be on the same restriction like presidents in only serving so many terms then cut off and can't. I mean this is people who make their money taking everyone's money, at least with businesses u get something back.

Bureaucrats and assorted public servants make up the lion's share of government* personnel, and that's a good thing if we're going to have a government at all. Much like judges, you really don't want n00b clerks handling your tax filings, for instance. Highly professionalized, well-paid public servants actually reduce government mismanagement and corruption.

 

The problem with capping the pay of political appointees is that that's going to make problems such as influence peddling, client politics, revolving doors and other not-so-subtle forms of corruption like outright embezzlement even worse.

 

Hopefully Stephen Hawking is right and AI will be taking over soon, completely fixing the social contract.

 

*state, really

[Maedhros]

It amazes me that people will overlook the worst kind of abuses of power, corruption, and intrusions on their life and property from their governments. They gladly hand their children over to fight in wars that were never declared but never end. They pay more than half of the money they earned  and "rent" the house they own and the car they bought to a government that only demands more and all because we think there is no other way to build our roads and secure our defense.

You're talking about a bad government though. I think most people here agree on the part about sending children to fight in ridiculous wars.

 

I like my government. Of course the Norwegian perspective is very different to the American, but I believe the idea that everyone pays money to support each other, and that people who earn more pays more is perfectly logical.

 

I love living in a society where rich and poor pretty much have all the same possibilities, everyone can realistically get a higher education, having a major injury or healthcare problem won't ruin you financially, it's a system where everyone guarantees safety and security for everyone - and therefore you get a truer form of the American dream. Everyone truly has a chance to be what they want, and along the way you realize you're in it together - which creates a better society than one where everyone is in it for himself (or only his close family).

[Malcador]

Well looks like Mugabe might be done without ending up like Ceausescu, so that's something good. Not sure the new boss there will be any better, well maybe for China.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Malcador

[majestic]

Well looks like Mugabe might be done without ending up like Ceausescu, so that's something good. Not sure the new boss there will be any better, well maybe for China.

 

And German coalition talks failed. How... expected. Heh.

[majestic]

 

Might as as well argue against any form of VAT. I mean my income was already taxed, why am I paying taxes again?

 

Like USA where such thing doesn't exist?

 

You're right, it's not a VAT, they call it "sales tax" and leave it to their individual states to determine which goods and services are taxable and which aren't. Shockingly, most states do have a wide assortment of taxes that we generally subsume under VAT in Europe.

 

But sure, whatever. Let's keep splitting hairs.

[Gfted1]

Do you know what "income tax" means? Here in the US, when you get paid, a bunch of hands are already in your check before you even get it. These values are based on your amount of income: State, Federal, Social Security, Medicare (?). So you see, all your income is taxed right from the get go (except retirement plans, thats pre-tax).

[majestic]

Do you know what "income tax" means? Here in the US, when you get paid, a bunch of hands are already in your check before you even get it. These values are based on your amount of income: State, Federal, Social Security, Medicare (?). So you see, all your income is taxed right from the get go (except retirement plans, thats pre-tax).

 

So, uhm, I don't see your point. Unless that post wasn't meant as a reply to mine.

 

That's exactly the point I was making. Every cent you have was already taxed, why are there states that have a sales tax? Isn't that double taxation? Why is that okay while an inheritance tax isn't?

 

edit:

 

Or let's put it differently, the point I was making is that crying double taxation when arguing against inheritance tax is a bit strange especially when it only hits the top percentile while sales taxes hit quite frankly everyone. Removing sales taxes should be a thing. Heh.

Edited November 20, 2017 by majestic

[Zoraptor]

 

 

Might as as well argue against any form of VAT. I mean my income was already taxed, why am I paying taxes again?

 

Like USA where such thing doesn't exist?

 

You're right, it's not a VAT, they call it "sales tax" and leave it to their individual states to determine which goods and services are taxable and which aren't. Shockingly, most states do have a wide assortment of taxes that we generally subsume under VAT in Europe.

 

But sure, whatever. Let's keep splitting hairs.

 

 

Sharpie can't argue his way out of a paper bag, but the fundamental point is a valid one. VAT/ GST/ sales tax is a tax on income that has already been taxed once. I'm not a fan of estate tax or 'stamp duty' or other taxes against spending that has already been taxed once; but for example a reasonable Capital Gains Tax is a good idea since it taxes added value. The really fundamental problem is that the rich, especially the really rich, almost always have access to loopholes anyway so stuff targeting them seldom works as they can use Trusts, Companies, Partnerships, tax havens, or combine them all into a Double Irish variant; and the average Joe can't.

 

Things like VAT are also a deeply regressive tax if applied to staple items like food rather than just luxuries since if you do that it disproportionately targets poor people- who have to spend money on food, accommodation, clothes- rather than those with discretionary spending who can choose when and where to spend most of their income. Even if you exclude food and have luxury tiers/ brackets they're almost always inconsistent and still gameable by the rich; here you just bung as much discretionary expenditure into a 'business' (which desperately needs a new 8700k dual 1080 Ti system, so I can work at home!) and then claim the GST back, plus you can write off depreciation for your shiny new 100k Tesla against any income and any net loss against your personal income. It's a lot more difficult to game straight income tax or a CGT.

[ShadySands]

 

Estate taxes vs. inheritance taxes

Estate taxes and inheritance taxes are two different things. Estate taxes are paid out of the deceased’s estate, and inheritance taxes come out of the beneficiary’s pocket. One, both or neither could be a factor when someone dies.

 

ESTATE TAXES

 

An estate tax is a tax on the right to transfer property when you die. The IRS exempts estates of less than $5.49 million from the tax, so few people actually end up paying. Plus, that exemption is per person, so a married couple could double it, for an exemption of $10.98 million.

 

 

The IRS taxes estates above that threshold at rates of up to 40%. 

more here

[Gfted1]

That's exactly the point I was making. Every cent you have was already taxed, why are there states that have a sales tax? Isn't that double taxation? Why is that okay while an inheritance tax isn't?

Because "sales tax" (in the US) is based on the value of a newly acquired product, not on income. Here in Illinois some products have higher sales taxes than others. For example, food and medicine are taxed significantly lower than "non-essential" products. And they REALLY bend you over on "sin taxes" such as booze and smokes.

[ShadySands]

Because "sales tax" (in the US) is based on the value of a newly acquired product, not on income. Here in Illinois some products have higher sales taxes than others. For example, food and medicine are taxed significantly lower than "non-essential" products. And they REALLY bend you over on "sin taxes" such as booze and smokes.

Reminds me that at my last job all the Chicago smokers got their cigs from Indiana

[213374U]

You don't need diabetes medicine, because millions live without it. You don't need house, because there are millions homeless, you don't need etc. 

All comes to: you don't need because you are more successful than me and It turns me out of jealousy.

Wow. I just found this pearl.

 

You do realize that diabetes is among the top ten causes of death globally, right? So yeah, you really need "diabetes medicine" if you are diabetic.

 

The skill with which you defeat your own points is... uncanny.

[majestic]

Sharpie can't argue his way out of a paper bag, but the fundamental point is a valid one. VAT/ GST/ sales tax is a tax on income that has already been taxed once. I'm not a fan of estate tax or 'stamp duty' or other taxes against spending that has already been taxed once; but for example a reasonable Capital Gains Tax is a good idea since it taxes added value. The really fundamental problem is that the rich, especially the really rich, almost always have access to loopholes anyway so stuff targeting them seldom works as they can use Trusts, Companies, Partnerships, tax havens, or combine them all into a Double Irish variant; and the average Joe can't.

Things like VAT are also a deeply regressive tax if applied to staple items like food rather than just luxuries since if you do that it disproportionately targets poor people- who have to spend money on food, accommodation, clothes- rather than those with discretionary spending who can choose when and where to spend most of their income. Even if you exclude food and have luxury tiers/ brackets they're almost always inconsistent and still gameable by the rich; here you just bung as much discretionary expenditure into a 'business' (which desperately needs a new 8700k dual 1080 Ti system, so I can work at home!) and then claim the GST back, plus you can write off depreciation for your shiny new 100k Tesla against any income and any net loss against your personal income. It's a lot more difficult to game straight income tax or a CGT.

 

I don't disagree per se. Under the current system most Western nations employ an inheritance tax isn't hurting the common rabble like Sharpe wants to pretend, nor would it be an unfair double taxation like Gfted1 claimed. At least when compared to other unfair taxes (whether taxes are unfair assuming one gets decent value out of them is a matter for an entirely different debate).

 

I'm all for shifting the tax load away from income towards capital gains and a minute tax on financial transactions. In the near future more and more jobs are going to be automated, in addition to all the outsourcing that already happened. Combined with a lot of people working for less than the minimum taxable income means that the middle class carries more and more of the taxload.

 

We collectively need to change that at some point.

 

 

That's exactly the point I was making. Every cent you have was already taxed, why are there states that have a sales tax? Isn't that double taxation? Why is that okay while an inheritance tax isn't?

Because "sales tax" (in the US) is based on the value of a newly acquired product, not on income. Here in Illinois some products have higher sales taxes than others. For example, food and medicine are taxed significantly lower than "non-essential" products. And they REALLY bend you over on "sin taxes" such as booze and smokes.

 

Ah, I get it. You're right, of course. I was just stating that you have to pay sales tax out of the income you already had taxed. Much like you would pay inheritance tax out of an estate that was already taxed in the past.

[majestic]

 

You don't need diabetes medicine, because millions live without it. You don't need house, because there are millions homeless, you don't need etc. 

All comes to: you don't need because you are more successful than me and It turns me out of jealousy.

Wow. I just found this pearl.

 

You do realize that diabetes is among the top ten causes of death globally, right? So yeah, you really need "diabetes medicine" if you are diabetic.

 

The skill with which you defeat your own points is... uncanny.

 

I'm pretty sure that point is valid in Sharpe's paradise where milk and honey flow and a family home and a car easily exceeds a million dollars in worth. And yeah, count me jealous of that place. I want to be there too.

 

 

 

 

Because "sales tax" (in the US) is based on the value of a newly acquired product, not on income. Here in Illinois some products have higher sales taxes than others. For example, food and medicine are taxed significantly lower than "non-essential" products. And they REALLY bend you over on "sin taxes" such as booze and smokes.

Reminds me that at my last job all the Chicago smokers got their cigs from Indiana

 

Oh, nice. Try that in the EU, you'll be fined to kingdome come and back. And then some. Heh.

Edited November 20, 2017 by majestic

[Gfted1]

Reminds me that at my last job all the Chicago smokers got their cigs from Indiana

Lol, yeah, I think Wisconsin is the same. At least its a good place to go for illegal fireworks.    But just getting outside of Cook county is a big savings.

[Zoraptor]

 

 

I'm all for shifting the tax load away from income towards capital gains and a minute tax on financial transactions.

 

 

Yeah, I'd like a transaction tax as well to be honest. It technically goes against my principles on not taxing already taxed income, but there's been a whole new exploitation area with high turnover automated trades and the like which need some way of being discouraged and don't really do anything for the economy except manipulate it, sometimes dangerously so- and generally speaking the less money you have the less you'd be effected by it as well.

[Gfted1]

...nor would it be an unfair double taxation like Gfted1 claimed. At least when compared to other unfair taxes (whether taxes are unfair assuming one gets decent value out of them is a matter for an entirely different debate).

Why I consider it double taxation is; lets say a relative has a pile of loot sitting in a bank account and they die. First of all, they already paid the initial income tax. Then they paid taxes on any interest these monies have accrued over time (which is rightfully considered "new income"). Now they pass this on to their child, and for no other reason other than passage of ownership, the monies are taxed again? Just because? Mind I'm referring to cash money. Physical goods, such as inheriting a house and then selling it, should be taxed as new income, I suppose.

[HoonDing]

i'll show you taxation

 

[majestic]

 

...nor would it be an unfair double taxation like Gfted1 claimed. At least when compared to other unfair taxes (whether taxes are unfair assuming one gets decent value out of them is a matter for an entirely different debate).

Why I consider it double taxation is; lets say a relative has a pile of loot sitting in a bank account and they die. First of all, they already paid the initial income tax. Then they paid taxes on any interest these monies have accrued over time (which is rightfully considered "new income"). Now they pass this on to their child, and for no other reason other than passage of ownership, the monies are taxed again? Just because? Mind I'm referring to cash money. Physical goods, such as inheriting a house and then selling it, should be taxed as new income, I suppose.

 

Let me give you an example from the ondoing debate here.

 

The current situation is that there is no direct inheritance tax here. However, when you're growing old and infirm and for some reason need care (e.g. like my father's aunt who needed 24 hour care for the last few years of her life) the cost is paid out of your pension and if that doesn't cover the cost, which is very likely, your estate.

 

Which means in order to pay for your care the nursing home is legally allowed to tap into your life savings, your house, your car, well, let's make it short: literally everything you own. In other words if you're infirm and in a nursing home for more than a year and a half it's very likely that the actual estate tax you'll be paying is 100%. Everything's gone. Bye bye. That actually amounts to real theft because it hits those with little to inherit. The more money you have the less indirect estate tax you pay.

 

The proposed solution a 25% inheritance tax after a million per inheritor, so if there's a three million inheritance for three people none of them would pay taxes. In exchange the state (or rather the state owned insurance companies) would use the money gained to pay for all nursing costs.

 

The idea was shot down something fierce. Mostly because the government wants to tap into poor grandma's savings. It still does, even harder than the inheritance tax would have - for 95% of us. Granted not everyone becomes old and infirm in a way that requires nursing, but the amount of money funneled into the econonmy by allowing families with little income to a) actually inherit something and b) afford nursing would have easily outdone the taxation.

 

But nah, we'll just wait until that money trickles down. As if that ever worked.

[Malcador]

i'll show you taxation

 

 

That's socialism for you.