• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Bar Stool Economics

So, with that line of thinking, do you believe that when you go to buy a new toaster oven, the salesman should ask you for an earnings statement so he or she can adjust the pricetag of the merchandise based on what you earn? How about at the grocery store? How about for the telephone or electric bills? How about when the plumber comes to fix the toilet? How about ANYTHING else whereby you are purchasing merchandise or a service?

Of so, why do you think that should be fair?

If not, why not?
 
So, with that line of thinking, do you believe that when you go to buy a new toaster oven, the salesman should ask you for an earnings statement so he or she can adjust the pricetag of the merchandise based on what you earn? How about at the grocery store? How about for the telephone or electric bills? How about when the plumber comes to fix the toilet? How about ANYTHING else whereby you are purchasing merchandise or a service?

Of so, why do you think that should be fair?

If not, why not?

Toaster ovens and groceries are choices, you have the choice whether or not to purchase based on the price. Telephone also, to an extent. Income tax is pretty much taken from you at gunpoint, if you will. No choice as to whether or not to purchase, and no way to shop around to get the best deal.

Edit, and besides, income tax is BASED on income! So whatever replaces it should also be based on income.
 
Toaster ovens and groceries are choices, you have the choice whether or not to purchase based on the price. Telephone also, to an extent. Income tax is pretty much taken from you at gunpoint, if you will. No choice as to whether or not to purchase, and no way to shop around to get the best deal.


That is the way I see it, too. Since the recession, I have cut way back on the cable, telephone, eating out, and dropped lots of stuff I used to buy. But unfortunately, my property tax has not gone down a dime. And I have no choice but to pay it if I want to keep my property. I WISH I could shop around for a lower priced place to move my property to, but that is a little difficult! My only choice is to sell it - not easy in this economy!

As was pointed out in an earlier post, if a low wage earner's income is around the same (or less) than their portion of the national tax bill, how could they be forced to pay it? Since this recession, that would get a lot of us kicked out of this country, but what country would want us, lol? Might be fair, but I don't see how it could work - unless the total bill was a lot lower than it is now. Now THAT (lower bill) is an idea I could live with!
 
That is the way I see it, too. Since the recession, I have cut way back on the cable, telephone, eating out, and dropped lots of stuff I used to buy. But unfortunately, my property tax has not gone down a dime. And I have no choice but to pay it if I want to keep my property. I WISH I could shop around for a lower priced place to move my property to, but that is a little difficult! My only choice is to sell it - not easy in this economy!

Why is it that once you pay off your property, you still have to "rent" it from the government if you want to live there? I do not see how that works. Honestly, if I were to move to a place that I wished to stay the rest of my life. I would want to own it, and really own it. Not pay an arm and a leg just to keep renting it from the government.
 
Has anyone found an accurate federal budget figure and a census results to see what the "bill" would actually be? At the very least, it may be instructive to see what the US government is actually spending in relation to everyone in this country.
 
Why is it that once you pay off your property, you still have to "rent" it from the government if you want to live there? I do not see how that works. Honestly, if I were to move to a place that I wished to stay the rest of my life. I would want to own it, and really own it. Not pay an arm and a leg just to keep renting it from the government.

I don't have a problem with property tax if it goes to pay for things that enhance the property. Street maintenance, schools, libraries, parks, police and fire, those kind of things. Those types of amenities make my property more valuable. People who don't own property may not benefit from some of those things and therefore should not be required to pay for them.
 
Rich, that link I posted earlier said that the top 5% income earners paid 53% of the total tax. I don't know the totals but that is a huge spread.
 
I don't have a problem with property tax if it goes to pay for things that enhance the property. Street maintenance, schools, libraries, parks, police and fire, those kind of things. Those types of amenities make my property more valuable. People who don't own property may not benefit from some of those things and therefore should not be required to pay for them.

I can buy that. I see how that would be worth paying property taxes for. But what do my other taxes go for, if not for those things you mentioned?
 
My husband and I run a bike shop. The town we do business in has an "inventory" tax. We have to pay taxes on all of our stock before we sell it, and pay taxes again on any profit we make from it after we sell it.

Just another reason that my state is one of the worst to do business in ....
 
Working hard will not make you rich nor should it. Doing something better than anyone else should earn you reward. Doing something that nobody else can do should be of more value than something that anybody can do.

Being a really hard working ditch digger is admirable, but there are lots of people who can do that, you are very replaceable. On the other had Bill Gates has probably never broken a sweat in his life but very few people can do what he has done. If your ditch digger can sit down next to Bill and do the same work as Bill then they should be paid the same.

Right, but a lot of that is luck. Bill Gates was just in the right place at the right time. The whole concept of the American Dream is that if you apply yourself, work hard, then you can move up or make a better life for yourself.

That just isn't the case. I agree with you that not all "hard work" is equal, but the notion that so many seem to have that people are poor because they're lazy or whatever, is simply disconnected from reality.
 
So, with that line of thinking, do you believe that when you go to buy a new toaster oven, the salesman should ask you for an earnings statement so he or she can adjust the pricetag of the merchandise based on what you earn? How about at the grocery store? How about for the telephone or electric bills? How about when the plumber comes to fix the toilet? How about ANYTHING else whereby you are purchasing merchandise or a service?

Of so, why do you think that should be fair?

If not, why not?
Nope... that would be the "benefit" of having that "uniqueness" in your skill set that earns you the more than the guy who only makes $20,000. That's how I see it. Now, mind you... this is coming from a guy who would probably BE the $20,000 wage earner (not the $200,000 guy). I DO understand how and why I get paid less and don't really begrudge the guy who earns more. Heck... maybe he's my EMPLOYER (which is a whole OTHER subject).
 
Well, as indicated in the original post in this thread in reference to the taxing system in this country, those ten guys, (if following the tax code guidelines) would be asked to vote on how they wanted to divide that bill, based on a majority rules, regardless of the ones paying the most agreeing with it or not. Since the majority of that group consisted of lower wage earners, it was predictable how that would turn out.

As has been stated, 5 percent of the earning population is paying 53% of the tax bill (if I remember the figures correctly). That pretty much indicates that a majority of that 95 percent of the population VOTED to have it that way, regardless of what that minority of voters want it to be. Politicians have very little resistance to bills that target the "rich" to extract money from them to pay for their boondoggles, so this is a popular method to employ in the halls of Congress. The majority really doesn't care as long as someone else is going to foot the bill.

And as for the comments about hard work not being equivalent to high pay, well in a way it is. Generally the people who have proven to be successful worked HARD at getting there, not necessarily HARD (as far as manual labor is concerned) at the job they are currently doing. Everyone had opportunities and choices to make all throughout their lives that they either pursued or chose not to. That's fine, because that is their freedom of choice, but is it really fair to expect the rest of the country to take up the slack that they chose to not take up themselves? Yeah, it takes a lot of hard work to become an attorney, or a doctor, or climb the corporate ladder to become a CEO. Does anyone really think that all of the people who have become doctors, lawyers, or CEOs DIDN'T work hard to get there? Heck, besides the grind of academia, what does it COST to go through the schooling to become a doctor or lawyer? Someone had to work hard to pay for that, I believe, regardless of the work that doctor or lawyer had to undergo to get established and DO something with that degree. Granted there ARE some of that 5 percent that inherited the wealth and didn't lift a finger to get it, but SOMEONE likely worked darn hard to accumulate that wealth, don't you think?

Sorry, I just cannot agree that taxing someone more because they make more is in any way consistent with guiding philosophy of the country that our founding fathers tried to create. It penalizes the portion of the population that works, or has worked, the hardest and rewards the larger portion of the public who in most of the cases have chosen to not work as hard.

And yes, obviously I believe that ANYONE can attain anything they would like if they work hard enough to get there. And they will have to sacrifice some things to gain others. It all depends on the choices they are WILLING to make.
 
Sorry, I just cannot agree that taxing someone more because they make more is in any way consistent with guiding philosophy of the country that our founding fathers tried to create. It penalizes the portion of the population that works, or has worked, the hardest and rewards the larger portion of the public who in most of the cases have chosen to not work as hard.

Rich, I think I agree with you on this. But how do you make it fair? If everyone pays 15% is that then fair? Earlier you indicated that you didn't think that was fair because the rich guy paid 15% of a bigger pie. Are you thinking everyone should chip in the same amount of money to make it fair?'
 
Rich, I think I agree with you on this. But how do you make it fair? If everyone pays 15% is that then fair? Earlier you indicated that you didn't think that was fair because the rich guy paid 15% of a bigger pie. Are you thinking everyone should chip in the same amount of money to make it fair?'

Well, I'll answer that with my own question: Do you think one person paying $2,000 and another paying $20,000 for the same government services is fair?
 
At this point, the issue really isn't the amount of taxes being paid by this income level or that one, it's what the tax money is being spent on. That and the spending of money that the government doesn't even have. A complete upheaval of government spending needs to take place. Eliminate the waste and unnecessary and you'll see the taxation level drop to where everyone who pays taxes is happy. Unfortunately, those who aren't paying taxes but who are currently reaping all the benefits are going to be out of luck. And all those soft over-paid government jobs will be gone as well. The secretary to the senator's aide will just have to drive his own car instead of using one of 6 limousines. Boo Hoo! Oh, and once an elected official is out of office, they don't get to continue to receive a government paycheck (which is far too much in the first place)! They go back to the job they had before getting into politics! And no more secret service to watch them either!

Oh poop...I'm rambling again. Must be the moon.
 
Well, I'll answer that with my own question: Do you think one person paying $2,000 and another paying $20,000 for the same government services is fair?

Yes, but that person paying $20k wouldn't be able to even make is $200k/yr w/o many of those government services. So eliminate government services, and he may not be able to make as much money.
 
Yes, but that person paying $20k wouldn't be able to even make is $200k/yr w/o many of those government services. So eliminate government services, and he may not be able to make as much money.

So I guess people earning high salaries is a recent phenomenon, only taking place since the government has come to provide so many of those services? There were no millionaires, say, back in the '20s? Few can dispute that the amount of government intrusion to provide "services" was dramatically lower then than it is now.

This also implies that the more taxes the government takes from us to provide more and more services that the more money we all will be able to make as a result?

Really??? How does that work? What services is it that the government provides that are such general wealth builders? And how come I am missing out on them?
 
Well, I'll answer that with my own question: Do you think one person paying $2,000 and another paying $20,000 for the same government services is fair?

Well I don't think answering a questions with a question is fair, but I'll play. Back to your 20K and 200K earners, Would the 200K guy be satisfied with the level of government he received if everyone chipped in 2,000 each?

How much can each person afford to pay in tax and still live on the ballance? Let's take a number out of the air, 50% of your annual income. Most of us would feel like that was way too much. To keep things fair we'll have to top out at 50% of the 20K earners income, so we'll tax each person a total of 10,000. Would the 200K guy be satisfied with that level of government?
 
Well I don't think answering a questions with a question is fair, but I'll play. Back to your 20K and 200K earners, Would the 200K guy be satisfied with the level of government he received if everyone chipped in 2,000 each?

How much can each person afford to pay in tax and still live on the ballance? Let's take a number out of the air, 50% of your annual income. Most of us would feel like that was way too much. To keep things fair we'll have to top out at 50% of the 20K earners income, so we'll tax each person a total of 10,000. Would the 200K guy be satisfied with that level of government?

And I'll answer that one with yet another question... Is the $20K guy satisfied with what he gets for his tax dollars?

If he is, do you think the $200K guy is going to be satisfied with the same level of government while paying 10 times as much?

If he is not, then ditto above....
 
Back
Top