Chef Jim Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 What is your modest proposal? Eat 'em? Flat tax, zero deductions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Flat tax, zero deductions. No... And let you off the hook. Sorry... I have been gleaning from Wiki: "A progressive tax maximizes the amount of tax that can be collected, with the minimum number of protests, thereby presenting an easy political solution for governments with budgeting problems." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 No... And let you off the hook. Sorry... I have been gleaning from Wiki: "A progressive tax maximizes the amount of tax that can be collected, with the minimum number of protests, thereby presenting an easy political solution for governments with budgeting problems." I don't suppose you gleaned anything from Wiki that suggests a fiscal solution to fiscal problems, rather than a political solution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 I don't suppose you gleaned anything from Wiki that suggests a fiscal solution to fiscal problems, rather than a political solution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 1- You (the figurative 'you' -- the person making more than $250K) have (obviously, given your current stature on the money-making scale) benefitted more from the infrastructure (security, roads, bridges, educational system, etc) built from the tax base than those who make less than you. Therefore, a somewhat larger percentage of your taxes should go toward continuing to maintain or build more of the infrastructure. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. In what way does a person's income determine how much more or less they benefit they get from "the infrastructure?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. In what way does a person's income determine how much more or less they benefit they get from "the infrastructure?" They make more money, so their streets are paved with gold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. In what way does a person's income determine how much more or less they benefit they get from "the infrastructure?" They drive nicer cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. In what way does a person's income determine how much more or less they benefit they get from "the infrastructure?" It can actually work in reverse. I used to live in NY State and owned a nice lakefront home. Real estate taxes were sky high. Most of the lakefront property owners used their properties as vacation homes, while only using a fraction of the services that their taxes were paying for. 80% of the real estate taxes for that county were paid by lakefront property owners. Very few of those owning property on the lake even sent their kids to school there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. In what way does a person's income determine how much more or less they benefit they get from "the infrastructure?" I don't know... I see a lot of rich folks using the inland river system infrastructure for "free." Moreso than the poor working stiffs. You would be amazed how many million dollar yachts are out there. It can actually work in reverse. I used to live in NY State and owned a nice lakefront home. Real estate taxes were sky high. Most of the lakefront property owners used their properties as vacation homes, while only using a fraction of the services that their taxes were paying for. 80% of the real estate taxes for that county were paid by lakefront property owners. Very few of those owning property on the lake even sent their kids to school there. And if that lakefront property was on Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, or the Finger Lakes and you wanted to take your vessel to the Bahamas for the winter... How would you get it there by water, which can be done all free from toll. FWIW, there is ton of people using the system... And the richer they are, the more the system is used. They drive run nicer cars boats, ones they can live on. Fixed. The thing that I noted before and should emphasized is that tax receipts can be maximized with the least amout of resistance under a progressive system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 I don't know... I see a lot of rich folks using the inland river system infrastructure for "free." Moreso than the poor working stiffs. You would be amazed how many million dollar yachts are out there. And if that lakefront property was on Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, or the Finger Lakes and you wanted to take your vessel to the Bahamas for the winter... How would you get it there by water, which can be done all free from toll. FWIW, there is ton of people using the system... And the richer they are, the more the system is used. The waterways have been paid for by the levies on the shipping & transport companies. The yacht owners do get a free ride, but not from the general public. The thing that I noted before and should emphasized is that tax receipts can be maximized with the least amout of resistance under a progressive system. And how exactly do you do that, when the richer you get, the more mobile you are. Do you think that rich folks are stupid enough to stick around a place which will tax them to death? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 The waterways have been paid for by the levies on the shipping & transport companies. The yacht owners do get a free ride, but not from the general public. No, it comes out of the general fund. Yes they do get a free ride from the public and the shipping companies (on the inland) There is a fuel surcharge on the inlands for commercial vessels (now, $.19 a gallon) that goes into the inland trust fund which goes to maintaining certain projects. Notice I said: certain... Projects have to qualify for that money. What about "harbors of refuge?" Where is that funded from? 403 Who do you think funds the Intercoastal Waterway? Hit the "gold coasts" of FLA arounf MIA and your see a lot of rich folk using that infrastructure... Dredging still comes Congress. Why do you think at my work I have to record every bit of data that pertains to what and when is locking through... Down to the minute... That data is passed on to district and then division (at Vicksburg) for Congressional appropriation. Traffic falls and funding from the general may fall to. At one time there were other water systems in play at the federal level, like in Wisconsin, those have since been passed to the state for funding and upkeep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 The thing that I noted before and should emphasized is that tax receipts can be maximized with the least amout of resistance under a progressive system. Actually, the maximization of tax receipts is best accomplished by a totalitarian system that confiscates everything and doesn't give a **** about resistance. i.e., What's your point? And how exactly do you do that, when the richer you get, the more mobile you are. Do you think that rich folks are stupid enough to stick around a place which will tax them to death? ...he asks the guy from Illinois. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 And how exactly do you do that, when the richer you get, the more mobile you are. Do you think that rich folks are stupid enough to stick around a place which will tax them to death? If they want to live, work, and hustle their product backed by the safety of the US... Then yes they stay. We will see what happens if the tax increase goes into effect for IL... Some states like WI are already dysfunctional... Some states like Indiana are licking their chops at jobs MAYBE fleeing IL... Yet, the dirty little secret in IN is that their economy is based on leaching off Illinois. Why do you think the ports of IN are siding with NOT closing down the Illinois canals... Because they stand to lose 1.7 billion a year at the ports of Indiana. In other words, stop poaching jobs and work together. Actually, the maximization of tax receipts is best accomplished by a totalitarian system that confiscates everything and doesn't give a **** about resistance. i.e., What's your point? ...he asks the guy from Illinois. True. Hey, I am originally from New York... What is your excuse?... Oh, wait... You are from there too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) Yep. It was great hearing the 15-year old girl on state Medicaid talk about the $200 Ugg boots she was getting for Christmas. Considering my bill for her anesthesia service was about 75% of that. It's also amazing to see how many have money to smoke a pack or two a day. Or have iPhones (and thus data plans at $30/month). My wife, as some of you know, is a teacher in the hood. She once had to go to a parent's house. When they answered the door, there was no furniture in the house. No chairs, tables, couches, anything. But they had a bigscreen flat-panel mounted to the wall. And people wonder why there's a resentment to welfare among the middle class? Edited January 13, 2011 by joesixpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 My wife, as some of you know, is a teacher in the hood. She once had to go to a parent's house. When they answered the door, there was no furniture in the house. No chairs, tables, couches, anything. But they had a bigscreen flat-panel mounted to the wall. And people wonder why there's a resentment to welfare among the middle class? Hey, a man's gotta make sacrifices! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 My wife, as some of you know, is a teacher in the hood. She once had to go to a parent's house. When they answered the door, there was no furniture in the house. No chairs, tables, couches, anything. But they had a bigscreen flat-panel mounted to the wall. And people wonder why there's a resentment to welfare among the middle class? So you don't feel sorry that they had no furniture but you resent that they had a TV?- Maybe they were formerly doing OK then someone lost a job and now they have been selling things to keep afloat and they haven't sold the TV because it would only bring 1/4 the price they paid for it and of course the kids would go crazy without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 My wife, as some of you know, is a teacher in the hood. She once had to go to a parent's house. When they answered the door, there was no furniture in the house. No chairs, tables, couches, anything. But they had a bigscreen flat-panel mounted to the wall. And people wonder why there's a resentment to welfare among the middle class? So? You can sit on the floor and watch TV, or sit on a couch and watch the blank wall. Not a tough choice... ...I mean, I'd rather stare at the wall, but some people just can't miss Snooki... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 If they want to live, work, and hustle their product backed by the safety of the US... Then yes they stay. We will see what happens if the tax increase goes into effect for IL... Some states like WI are already dysfunctional... Some states like Indiana are licking their chops at jobs MAYBE fleeing IL... Yet, the dirty little secret in IN is that their economy is based on leaching off Illinois. Why do you think the ports of IN are siding with NOT closing down the Illinois canals... Because they stand to lose 1.7 billion a year at the ports of Indiana. In other words, stop poaching jobs and work together. I'm sorry, I didn't know Illinois had a God given right to all of Lake Michigan. Is your definition of "work together" mean that Indiana should learn its proper place and get in line behind Illinois? Mightily progresive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 So you don't feel sorry that they had no furniture but you resent that they had a TV?- Maybe they were formerly doing OK then someone lost a job and now they have been selling things to keep afloat and they haven't sold the TV because it would only bring 1/4 the price they paid for it and of course the kids would go crazy without it. Nevermind people like JSP... His priorities are supposed to be everyone elses. Obviously society has changed and misguided people put the importance on the big screen and not the furniture... It is really no big deal... So what, it is what they choose. Were they complaining about not have a table or what not? Then I can see his point about scaling down... Things that were viewed as luxuries at one time are really not... Even at the expense of other items. Just people wanting to pass judgement on others... I don't understand why he said "resentment"... I would view it with pity. Does JSP really want that TV? Is it bigger than his? Then I can see the resentment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) So you don't feel sorry that they had no furniture but you resent that they had a TV?- Maybe they were formerly doing OK then someone lost a job and now they have been selling things to keep afloat and they haven't sold the TV because it would only bring 1/4 the price they paid for it and of course the kids would go crazy without it. Yes, I'm sure that's how it went down. Because you get SO much more for furniture than a big flat screen TV. But what's wrong with a used 26" CRT TV? Not huge or flat enough? Hell, you could probably even get someone to pay you to take it off their hands. Edited January 13, 2011 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts