Booster4324 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Unlikely is right, because SS taxes are regressive when you look at them in isolation. Too bad the treasury doesn't work that way and all taxes go into one big pot. But it does give the Algores a campaign slogan to create a lockbox to protect the "retirement savings" when in actuality it's a government mandated wealth transfer program. Any tax that treats one class of payers different than another class, by definition, is unfair. I'll let you decide on the fairness. Never mind that the whole point of the flat tax is to remove the disincentive to generate more income. Tax progressives always point to the tax rates paid by individuals to demonstrate unfairness, while flat taxers point out the total taxes that will be paid as you flatten out the marginal rates. If you truly cared about unfair taxing of the lower classes, you'd eliminate the lottery, cigarette & alcohol taxes, and cut the sales and gasoline tax too. But, those are wonderful gravy trains that fly under the radar of the intelligentsia. Agreed on the bolded. Do you agree that the taxation on the wealthy is a myth? At least the higher percentage part that is. Obviously there is taxation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted February 2, 2009 Author Share Posted February 2, 2009 STFU and move to China if this type of thing bothers you. Still eating your freedom fries? It seems like China would be more to your liking, with the ban on unions, and little quality, safety, or environmental regulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 If you had paid $10-15k in the US, then that money would have still gone back into the US economy. No it wouldn't have - because I probably wouldn't have been able to pay that amount / the project wouldn't be worthwhile. And even if I did, it would stop me from expanding my business and working on the current project i'm in the middle of. So my question to you is (ignoring your original scenario) - am I a bad person for hiring overseas workers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Agreed on the bolded. Do you agree that the taxation on the wealthy is a myth? At least the higher percentage part that is. Obviously there is taxation. That's like complaining that Pepsi discriminates against poor people because they require them to pay a higher portion of their income than they do rich people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Still eating your freedom fries? It seems like China would be more to your liking, with the ban on unions, and little quality, safety, or environmental regulations. Yeah....freedom fries.....rather eat those than guzzle the Kool Aid the Chocolate Messiah is making you all drink. But hey...he was really charming in the pre-game last night. Wow, is he dreamy. And good luck finding my posts where I said corporations should run roughshod like youre suggesting. Good lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Agreed on the bolded. Do you agree that the taxation on the wealthy is a myth? At least the higher percentage part that is. Obviously there is taxation. It's not a myth, but it validates the point I've been trying to make while going blue in the face. By raising marginal taxes on the very top earners, you lower the cost of tax avoidance for the people who are most likely to use tax avoidance schemes (legal or not). Lower the tax, make tax shelters a PITA, and collect more revenues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 How about just invest in projects that will create jobs ad f' the tax breaks. People need jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Back to the original question - maybe they didn't create millions of new jobs, but saved millions instead. I know, not my idea, some sharp dude in the current administration came up with that clever bit of fine print. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts