# Fair share



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I would think most of agree that the rich should pay their fair share of income taxes.

The richest 1,409 taxpayers in the USA pay more taxes than the bottom 70 million taxpayers combined.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

I would definitely prefer an income tax system based on a percentage. The same for all and no deductions or loopholes. This means the same "pain" for everyone no matter how much you make. 

For me it is like when people give to charity. If you have a $1million a month income and you give 1% to charity that is $10,000 which makes you look very good. If you have $1000 a month income and you give 1% to charity that is $10. You are actually being just as charitable.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

It's those who pay none or very little who seem to complain about those who pay the most.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

True but we really have to lessen the divide between the ultra rich and all other financial classes including just the ordinary rich. Incomes and benefits are falling farther and farther behind. This is not the first time in history and certainly has happened all over the world. The divide leads nothing but trouble. People only put up with so much inequality, unfairness and actual punishment by governments and corporations. A fact of history that is not well known is that it was the poor women of Paris who started the French Revolution. They were sick of watching their children starve so they marched, attacked and captured the King and Queen. A large and stable middle class leads to success for any country.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I disagree with the premise that anything needs to be done. Almost everyone I know is in the middle. 

We are busy and content. 

I am going to regret posting. Sigh.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

Cornhusker said:


> It's those who pay none or very little who seem to complain about those who pay the most.


Or those who get paid more back than they paid in because of credits.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I disagree with the premise that anything needs to be done. Almost everyone I know is in the middle.
> 
> We are busy and content.
> 
> I am going to regret posting. Sigh.


I got reemed for saying on another board that things were going well in my area. Everyone I directly know is doing well. Things are humming along nicely around here. But apparently you aren't supposed to be happy nowadays. Because someone somewhere else may not be doing well. I refuse to live my life like that. I will do what I can for charity and helping my community but I won't deny myself and my family peace and happiness because of it.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

The dynasty tax the only fair equitable tax. That taxes everyone exactly the same without any pain and does not affect anyone’s economic choices. Tax that requires no bookkeeping or bookkeepers no tax consultants No tax lawyers 
The tax to reinvigorate to Academy and helps keep the price real goods realist


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> It's those who pay none or very little who seem to complain about those who pay the most.


 This is true because those who would normally pay a lot of taxes simply hire lawyers and pay bribes !we have the best government money can buy !


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

HDRider said:


> I would think most of agree that the rich should pay their fair share of income taxes.
> 
> The richest 1,409 taxpayers in the USA pay *more taxes than the bottom 70 million taxpayers combined*.


Wonder if the 50% that pay no taxes are included in that 70 Million?? If they are, the richest are not doing quite as good as we think.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

po boy said:


> Wonder if the 50% that pay no taxes are included in that 70 Million?? If they are, the richest are not doing quite as good as we think.


No. It only included "TAXPAYERS".


----------



## hiddensprings (Aug 6, 2009)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I disagree with the premise that anything needs to be done. Almost everyone I know is in the middle.
> 
> We are busy and content.
> 
> I am going to regret posting. Sigh.


I agree, most I know are middle and content or working hard to make their lives better for them. Some simply spend too much time worrying about what others have and not enough taking care of themselves.


----------



## macmad (Dec 22, 2012)

"True but we really have to lessen the divide between the ultra rich and all other financial classes ..." And how to you propose to do that other than taking it from them by force? Envy is an ugly emotion.

This is really no different than South Africa taking farm land away from Afrikaners and giving it to black South Africans in an attempt to "balance" out land ownership in South Africa. Extreme violence and murder accompany this effort.

We already have the violence elements developing in our country with the likes of Antifa, now all we need if for political powers to will the equalization of income and wealth to poorer Americans.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

The Federal income tax is one of the most immoral taxes ever devised. It is designed to divide and it has.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

macmad said:


> We already have the violence elements developing in our country with the likes of Antifa, now all we need if for political powers to will the equalization of income and wealth to poorer Americans.


The thing of it is that the government would have to perpetually have their fingers on the scales. If they were to take all of the wealth and equally divide it, then just let nature take its course, within a very short time, the wealth would flow, more or less, back to exactly where it is now.


----------



## macmad (Dec 22, 2012)

Spot on Farmerga. I vehemently oppose any additional intervention of the government in our economy. Some people scream, "Keep government out of my bedroom." I equally proclaim, "Keep government out of my wallet."


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

Besides the above which is a good point...this country is one of the only a few in the world where it is possible for ANYONE who does the work it takes to pull yourself out of poverty and be independently wealthy. Yes it is very very very hard for some and very easy for others but its possible. There are so many programs, govt and private, that will support any person who is willing to do the work. Obviously, barring physical and mental impairment. People do it everyday. Regardless of upbringing, race, gender or religion. 

Just look up the habits of successful people. It's not magic or good luck. For some maybe. But anyone can do anything they want ( within the law) if they put their minds to it. 

You can't say that as a citizen of alot of other countries. 

Why have we forgotten this?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

I know a guy who sold his business for upwards of 30 million. People who don't know him resent him. But he took a failing business and worked in the office all day and then drove mostm of the night dropping gasoline for many years. Up until he sold that business he worked 7 days a week. 

Most people aren't willing to do that. That's ok too but don't complain either.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

I've never understood how it was fair that the amount of tax one paid was based on their income. Everything should be a usage tax, now that would be fair.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

...and if the middle class, and the working poor, no longer had any taxes withheld from their paychecks, but rather had to pay their "fair share" every quarter of the year via paper check, to the Feds, the State, the County, Social Security, and on, a vast collection of folks in this country might have a different set of financial values.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> I know a guy who sold his business for upwards of 30 million. People who don't know him resent him. But he took a failing business and worked in the office all day and then drove mostm of the night dropping gasoline for many years. Up until he sold that business he worked 7 days a week.
> 
> Most people aren't willing to do that. That's ok too but don't complain either.


And he got a little more that $15M in his pocket


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Boy - usage taxes are not fair - they hurt the poor most. They're like a VAT.
The only fair tax is a flat tax. Everyone taxed the same amount with absolutely no deductions for anything. When I took economics, we did that as an exercise - at that time only 11% was needed for the federal government to meet its needs. Today, with the debt - who knows.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

It boils down to greed and low wage earners are just as greedy as anyone else. Many with kids get back thousands more than they pay in but they still are jealous of high income earners and think they deserve more.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> And he got a little more that $15M in his pocket


Probably.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> And he got a little more that $15M in his pocket


When I hear this argument about the rich I think of this guy and how hard he worked. And then I imagine the government coming in and taking it from him to give to me it you and I just think how unfair that is. I think it would just make people stop even trying.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

The flat tax proposed by Nathan Deal and Neal Boortz gave a credit to the poor to offset part of their tax...

That was a flat sales tax.................... Think about all those folks getting paid cash that are not reporting it. If they spend it, they are taxed.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> When I hear this argument about the rich I think of this guy and how hard he worked. And then I imagine the government coming in and taking it from him to give to me it you and I just think how unfair that is. I think it would just make people stop even trying.


They didn't give me any


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Wolf mom said:


> Boy - usage taxes are not fair - they hurt the poor most. They're like a VAT.
> The only fair tax is a flat tax. Everyone taxed the same amount with absolutely no deductions for anything. When I took economics, we did that as an exercise - at that time only 11% was needed for the federal government to meet its needs. Today, with the debt - who knows.


How did you decide a usage tax is not fair, but a flat tax is? A flat tax is still income redistribution.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

emdeengee said:


> True but we really *have to* lessen the divide between the ultra rich and all other financial classes


No, we really don't.
What we "have to" do is accept the reality that not everyone is "equal" in all things.

If you feel you have too much, feel free to do with your wealth as you please.

Just don't tell others what they "have to" do.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I am going to *regret* posting. Sigh.


There's no reason to.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Get rid of the income tax completely and do a consumption tax. This inverted pyramid of taxes will lead to unpleasant outcomes, imho.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Hiro said:


> Get rid of the income tax completely and do a consumption tax. This inverted pyramid of taxes will lead to unpleasant outcomes, imho.


I hear people say this.

Consider this. Say a person works their 30 or 40 years, pays income taxes all that time, retires and lives on their savings (I am not talking about pretax 401K). Now with the new consumption tax they get hit again.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Aren't they still consuming? Aren't all the other assorted taxes, according to this type of plan, eliminated?
If all I had to do was "pay as I go" so to speak rather than "pay as I am" I'd be satisfied.
Any "fair" plan the allows carve outs and exemptions then admits that it is not in itself "fair" at all, and the line forms all over again.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> Aren't they still consuming? Aren't all the other assorted taxes, according to this type of plan, eliminated?
> If all I had to do was "pay as I go" so to speak rather than "pay as I am" I'd be satisfied.
> Any "fair" plan the allows carve outs and exemptions then admits that it is not in itself "fair" at all, and the line forms all over again.


Not sure who you are responding to


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> And he got a little more that $15M in his pocket


 With the dynasty tax he would have kept every penny imagine a man that kind of drive would’ve done with twice as much money


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mreynolds said:


> When I hear this argument about the rich I think of this guy and how hard he worked. And then I imagine the government coming in and taking it from him to give to me it you and I just think how unfair that is. I think it would just make people stop even trying.


 Another reason for the dynasty tax ,people reap the full benefit of their labor .


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GTX63 said:


> Aren't they still consuming? Aren't all the other assorted taxes, according to this type of plan, eliminated?
> If all I had to do was "pay as I go" so to speak rather than "pay as I am" I'd be satisfied.
> Any "fair" plan the allows carve outs and exemptions then admits that it is not in itself "fair" at all, and the line forms all over again.


 What an excellent argument for the dynasty tax


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> With the dynasty tax he would have kept every penny imagine a man that kind of drive would’ve done with twice as much money


Are you suggesting it is better that his family loses all that after he dies?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Another reason for the dynasty tax ,people reap the full benefit of their labor .


I just don't think it would work. Let's say a man owns 30 million in property. Then before he dies he sells it all to his kids for 10 million. They in turn make the income off that property until they do the same. 

Consumption tax will take money from all parties until they die. With greater income comes greater spending.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Plus people are living longer.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> I just don't think it would work. Let's say a man owns 30 million in property. Then before he dies he sells it all to his kids for 10 million. They in turn make the income off that property until they do the same.
> 
> Consumption tax will take money from all parties until they die. With greater income comes greater spending.


I just cannot buy into a consumption tax after a lifetime of paying income tax. Now all I do is consume, and have no income and living off savings. Seems like double taxation on the same money.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Hiro said:


> Get rid of the income tax completely and do a consumption tax. This inverted pyramid of taxes will lead to unpleasant outcomes, imho.


Get rid of the Federal income tax completely and.... cut Federal spending to pay for only those things authorized by the Constitution. We could fund the government with low user fees and tariffs as was done prior to the implementation of the 16th Amendment.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

If there was just a sales tax, how much should it be?
1% ? 10% ? right now we have income tax AND sales tax.. 5% in wisc..
it still doesn't seem to satisfy the govt. 

it costs everyone about the same to exist.
so a mid wage earner would need say , half of his income to exist each year.. so half of $50.ooo is $25,ooo.. a more affluent person would be a little more extravagant, and might cost him $100,ooo per year.. but he has a million dollars, so that is just 10% .. but they each pay the same sales tax..
so what should the sales tax be ??
.......


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Do any of you on here have to pay taxes on other people's labor? Here if I call for a HVAC , plumbing or roof replacement I have to pay a tax on their labor. It's about 7%.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

TripleD said:


> Do any of you on here have to pay taxes on other people's labor? Here if I call for a HVAC , plumbing or roof replacement I have to pay a tax on their labor. It's about 7%.


Are you talking about the employer portion of FICA?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

HDRider said:


> Are you talking about the employer portion of FICA?


It's a state tax on their professional labor. Take the HVAC one. I pay for the service call, sales tax on parts and a 7% tax on their hourly labor bill.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

TripleD said:


> It's a state tax on their professional labor. Take the HVAC one. I pay for the service call, sales tax on parts and a 7% tax on their hourly labor bill.


That shows how creative taxing authorities are.

Imagine if all that brain power was used to cut spending!


----------



## ed/La (Feb 26, 2009)

There is a lot of other taxes beside income tax. Sales tax, alcohol, parking meters, property, tobacco,fuel and many more. The government printing money out of nowhere causes buying power to go down is another type of tax. Police use speed traps to make money, that is a tax. Allowing illegal immigrants to compete for our jobs holding down wages is a type of tax. People that do not pay income tax still pay a lot of taxes. Not long ago $100 a day was enough to raise a family now you need $200.A person making $10 or $12 an hour has no money to contribute any more then they already do.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

In my state I pay taxes on the value of my vehicle every freaking year to get my tags. Where i used to live I payed a flat rate fee, for the type of car I had, for my tags. 

Somehow it felt better to pay the fee rather than get taxed.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

ed/La said:


> There is a lot of other taxes beside income tax. Sales tax, alcohol, parking meters, property, tobacco,fuel and many more. The government printing money out of nowhere causes buying power to go down is another type of tax. Police use speed traps to make money, that is a tax. Allowing illegal immigrants to compete for our jobs holding down wages is a type of tax. People that do not pay income tax still pay a lot of taxes. Not long ago $100 a day was enough to raise a family now you need $200.A person making $10 or $12 an hour has no money to contribute any more then they already do.


No argument, but I was only talking about income tax.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

HDRider said:


> I just cannot buy into a consumption tax after a lifetime of paying income tax. Now all I do is consume, and have no income and living off savings. Seems like double taxation on the same money.


I understand your concern, as my income is much lower than it used to be. But, there is a wealth of research and literature on the subject that you may find interesting:

https://fairtax.org/about/how-fairtax-works


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> I just cannot buy into a consumption tax after a lifetime of paying income tax. Now all I do is consume, and have no income and living off savings. Seems like double taxation on the same money.


It would have to be phased in over time.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

We must get past the silly notion that we need government to take care of our every need. Stop believing that and the way out of the thief that we have let our government get away with would become obvious.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> We must get past the silly notion that we need government to take care of our every need. Stop believing that and the way out of the thief that we have let our government get away with would become obvious.


Only about half of America believes that.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> Are you suggesting it is better that his family loses all that after he dies?


His wife would of course retain it till her passing. His minor children till the reached adult statues
He of course could dispose of it as he chose in his life.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mreynolds said:


> I just don't think it would work. Let's say a man owns 30 million in property. Then before he dies he sells it all to his kids for 10 million. They in turn make the income off that property until they do the same.
> 
> Consumption tax will take money from all parties until they die. With greater income comes greater spending.


 That’s a fraudulent sale, obviously illegal.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Divide the nations expenses equally between every citizen. Send everyone their tax bill. That's fair. It's not only fair, but I'm pretty sure there would be some serious spending cuts when the voters have to pay their share! People are funny like that.... When spending other people's money it "spare no expense", when it starts coming out of their own pockets.., its "let's look at this, do we really need this?"


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

po boy said:


> Wonder if the 50% that pay no taxes are included in that 70 Million?? If they are, the richest are not doing quite as good as we think.


Really? Is it really any better that the top 1,409 pay more than 35,000,000 combined? Does it really matter that 1,409 richest pay more taxes than all the people in this country combined?

The fact that we have a group of 1,409 people that pull more from the economy than all the rest of us combined and that their wealth is growing at a pace far above the economy, should be a concern.

At some point, between to day and the day that 1,409 people control 99% of the money in this country, something needs to change.

History tells us that an "adjustment" is often bloody. But that was when the money was accessible. Today, funds are moved electronically. Cannot "storm the castle" for a wealth redistribution.

The US president took steps to break up the enormous wealth of the Rockefellers, Carnegie and whoever it was that controlled the railroads. I doubt the 1,407 richest would allow that to happen again.

The more wealthy you are, the more you use the federally funded infrastructure. The owner of Amazon uses the Federal Highway system, the federally funded airports, the federally supported railroads at a far greater rate. They should pay a higher rate.

The rub is that when you increase the taxes on the rich, they move their money to other countries. Most will still live in the US and prefer the stability of US banks and safe political climate, if it makes financial sense to deposit funds elsewhere, they will.

Perhaps we need laws that tax all income, no matter what country it is earned or held. But scores of well paid lobbyists will make sure that never happens.

We'll go on selling parts of our lives for money to buy food and shelter and enough toys to keep us occupied while the rich run our government.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Divide the nations expenses equally between every citizen. Send everyone their tax bill. That's fair. It's not only fair, but I'm pretty sure there would be some serious spending cuts when the voters have to pay their share! People are funny like that.... When spending other people's money it "spare no expense", when it starts coming out of their own pockets.., its "let's look at this, do we really need this?"


 I can’t see any way that’s fair. 
Now taking money when I’m done with it that’s not only fair it isn’t even painful.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Fair? Since when is anything fair? 

Are ANY OF THE solutions FAIR? 

Who decided that it’s supposed to be fair? (Any IT you choose.)


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I can’t see any way that’s fair.
> Now taking money when I’m done with it that’s not only fair it isn’t even painful.


Lemme guess.... You have very little to leave and nobody to leave it to if you had it? If you did you might recognize the pain of having your life's work stolen from your rightful heirs.
As to the fairness of my plan... It couldn't be any more fair. Everyone pays the same, everybody benefits the same. Is your rights and freedom worth any more or less than mine?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Rationalization is a powerful human emotion. Those without a fortune to pass on to heirs, want a death tax. Those without children or mortgage want fewer deductions. Those paying no taxes, yet getting a check from IRS think that's fair, too.
None of us here understand all of the 44,000 pages of tax law. Most don't even understand their own taxes and hire it done.
Most don't understand how Trump can have one business file bankruptcy while the others earn millions. Few understand how Romney bought large corporations, split them up, borrowed millions against the least profitable parts, pulled huge salaries from those segments, pushed them into bankruptcy, then selling the profitable parts at a huge profit. All quite legal.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> That’s a fraudulent sale, obviously illegal.


How so? If you want to sell something below value to a stranger of that illegal too?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Divide the nations expenses equally between every citizen. Send everyone their tax bill. That's fair. It's not only fair, but I'm pretty sure there would be some serious spending cuts when the voters have to pay their share! People are funny like that.... When spending other people's money it "spare no expense", when it starts coming out of their own pockets.., its "let's look at this, do we really need this?"


Excellent idea. The government could charge interest when you can't come up with the payment all at once. Wait, that is what they do now, but my bill must be wrong. My charge was a lot more than $12,000. Is someone not paying? Something's not right.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Lemme guess.... You have very little to leave and nobody to leave it to if you had it? If you did you might recognize the pain of having your life's work stolen from your rightful heirs.
> As to the fairness of my plan... It couldn't be any more fair. Everyone pays the same, everybody benefits the same. Is your rights and freedom worth any more or less than mine?


Or it might be that I own a substantial business that I’d like to sell without paying taxes on. 

The way it is I recognize the pain of having my life’s work stolen from me!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mreynolds said:


> How so? If you want to sell something below value to a stranger of that illegal too?


It is for tax purposes.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Divide the nations expenses equally between every citizen. Send everyone their tax bill. That's fair. It's not only fair, but I'm pretty sure there would be some serious spending cuts when the voters have to pay their share! People are funny like that.... When spending other people's money it "spare no expense", when it starts coming out of their own pockets.., its "let's look at this, do we really need this?"


Babies are citizens. At what age would you start? If age 21 then who would pay for all the minor aged citizens? They are beneficiaries of the country and its programs. Would Mom and Dad get an equal share bill for each making their share 2, 3,4 times that of a single person? If the minor or the rather the parents of the minor does not have to pay their equal share then that means everyone else has to pay more, much more.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

dmm1976 said:


> Or those who get paid more back than they paid in because of credits.


I have written this before and it is rude. The US tax system is crazy. Absolutely unreasonable. Why do people get more in their tax refund than they paid in taxes? These credits that allow a person who paid $1000 in tax to get back $4000 are subsidies - you know... a socialist program. No one should get back more than they paid in taxes. 

This system as well as many other flaws is why I believe that one set percentage for income tax paid by all with no deductions or credits or loopholes is the fairest and also the cheapest way. Also no inheritance tax. That is just double and triple dipping.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

How about when we die the gov gets to collect our share of deficit spending from our estate? That would include you and your wife and your children if they hope to have what remains. Or anyone that gets your estate.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

emdeengee said:


> Babies are citizens. At what age would you start? If age 21 then who would pay for all the minor aged citizens? They are beneficiaries of the country and its programs. Would Mom and Dad get an equal share bill for each making their share 2, 3,4 times that of a single person? If the minor or the rather the parents of the minor does not have to pay their equal share then that means everyone else has to pay more, much more.


Parents would of course be liable for their minor child's share. Who else??


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Excellent idea. The government could charge interest when you can't come up with the payment all at once. Wait, that is what they do now, but my bill must be wrong. My charge was a lot more than $12,000. Is someone not paying? Something's not right.


Yep, a LOT of people aren't paying.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Or it might be that I own a substantial business that I’d like to sell without paying taxes on.
> 
> The way it is I recognize the pain of having my life’s work stolen from me!


So you do at least recognize the unfairness of our current system. Talk to a good tax man, they know how to use the loopholes.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> It is for tax purposes.


Ok then. Let's say that 30 million is a business that is a sole proprietor. Does the govetnment take that business? Do they begin to pay those employees? Do they shut it down and put everyone out in the street? Do they auction it off? 

You seem to think that everyone has cash when they die. Most of them in fact do not.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Parents would of course be liable for their minor child's share. Who else??


But that is not dividing the nations expenses equally between every citizen. Children are citizens. If the equal share for every citizen was $10,000 then a family with three children would pay $50,000. Not something that an average family could afford year in and year out. The nation has always taken care of children and now in this era the elderly and handicapped and ill. 

This is why we share the wealth. I know this phrase makes many foam at the mouth but to pretend it does not happen all the time and is part of the economy of the US is just delusional. Take federal disaster relief. Everyone pays into this through their federal taxes (some actually pay a lot and others not much) but many will never have need of it or access to it. On the other hand some areas are always in demand for damages. This is sharing the wealth. Otherwise every person would be fully responsible for every damage done to their life by weather events or extreme disasters and states would be completely alone in repair of infrastructure. And that is just not how a country builds or rebuilds.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

emdeengee said:


> But that is not dividing the nations expenses equally between every citizen. Children are citizens. If the equal share for every citizen was $10,000 then a family with three children would pay $50,000. Not something that an average family could afford year in and year out. The nation has always taken care of children and now in this era the elderly and handicapped and ill.
> 
> This is why we *share the wealth*. I know this phrase makes many foam at the mouth but to pretend it does not happen all the time and is part of the economy of the US is just delusional. Take federal disaster relief. Everyone pays into this through their federal taxes (some actually pay a lot and others not much) but many will never have need of it or access to it. On the other hand some areas are always in demand for damages. This is sharing the wealth. Otherwise every person would be fully responsible for every damage done to their life by weather events or extreme disasters and states would be completely alone in repair of infrastructure. And that is just not how a country builds or rebuilds.


Too much of that "sharing" going on


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mreynolds said:


> How so? If you want to sell something below value to a stranger of that illegal too?


It is for tax purposes.


mreynolds said:


> Ok then. Let's say that 30 million is a business that is a sole proprietor. Does the govetnment take that business? Do they begin to pay those employees? Do they shut it down and put everyone out in the street? Do they auction it off?
> 
> You seem to think that everyone has cash when they die. Most of them in fact do not.


i don’t know where you got the idea I thought everyone died with cash.
Must made that up out of whole cloth.
I suspect the business would operate just as it had been and have a relatively quick sale.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> It is for tax purposes.
> 
> i don’t know where you got the idea I thought everyone died with cash.
> Must made that up out of whole cloth.
> *I suspect the business would operate just as it had been and have a relatively quick sale*.


Not much experience buying or selling a business in your background, by that statement.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

HDRider said:


> *Too much of that "sharing" going* *on*


Nope it ain't sharing - Taking from one and giving it to another. 
Sharing is when you want to give something of yours to another. Taking is a hostile act under the governmental neutered guise of "transfer payments".


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Wolf mom said:


> Nope it ain't sharing - Taking from one and giving it to another.
> Sharing is when you want to give something of yours to another. Taking is a hostile act under the governmental neutered guise of "transfer payments".


As one of my favorite economist said (paraphrasing), reaching into your pocket to help someone in need is among the more noble acts in this world. Reaching into someone else's pocket to take money to give to someone else is theft. Voting to do that is cowardly theft.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> It is for tax purposes.
> 
> i don’t know where you got the idea I thought everyone died with cash.
> Must made that up out of whole cloth.
> I suspect the business would operate just as it had been and have a relatively quick sale.


So who gets the money? The government? 

Lets take Microsoft for instance. One of the founders died yesterday. When Bill Gates dies does the government get that too? He doesn't need it anymore after all. Wait you cant because of the shareholders. Some of which are their children. So if the government cant get it then all people have to do is incorporate and give their children the shares. There is your loophole. If we do away with this loophole then billions of 401K owners will go hungry. Maybe even you? 

Its a bad idea AS and not well thought out I am afraid. It would be so much easier to scam than what we have now. You could send it all overseas or buy up business's or real estate (which most do anyway) and get away with never paying taxes *at all*.

EVER. 

Maybe I don't understand what you are trying to say with this and I am way off base. Help me to understand.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

emdeengee said:


> True but we really have to lessen the divide between the ultra rich and all other financial classes including just the ordinary rich. Incomes and benefits are falling farther and farther behind. This is not the first time in history and certainly has happened all over the world. The divide leads nothing but trouble. People only put up with so much inequality, unfairness and actual punishment by governments and corporations. A fact of history that is not well known is that it was the poor women of Paris who started the French Revolution. They were sick of watching their children starve so they marched, attacked and captured the King and Queen. A large and stable middle class leads to success for any country.


I will grant you that most people don't understand the implications of the quote "let them eat cake." Still, the grinding poverty common to the Third Estate is very rare in out society, but that doesn't stop some political actors from using discontent as a tool of political manipulation.


----------



## LAFarm (Mar 8, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Divide the nations expenses equally between every citizen. Send everyone their tax bill. That's fair. It's not only fair, but I'm pretty sure there would be some serious spending cuts when the voters have to pay their share! People are funny like that.... When spending other people's money it "spare no expense", when it starts coming out of their own pockets.., its "let's look at this, do we really need this?"


I think we should include all of the corporations in the total, because someone said that corporations are people too. They need to pay their fair share. Includes LLC's, S Corporations, Sole Proprietors, public organizations, private organizations, every entity without exclusion. They all operate here and benefit from all of the things funded and supported by the government (us). Just my thoughts...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

emdeengee said:


> But that is not dividing the nations expenses equally between every citizen. Children are citizens. If the equal share for every citizen was $10,000 then a family with three children would pay $50,000. Not something that an average family could afford year in and year out. The nation has always taken care of children and now in this era the elderly and handicapped and ill.
> 
> This is why we share the wealth. I know this phrase makes many foam at the mouth but to pretend it does not happen all the time and is part of the economy of the US is just delusional. Take federal disaster relief. Everyone pays into this through their federal taxes (some actually pay a lot and others not much) but many will never have need of it or access to it. On the other hand some areas are always in demand for damages. This is sharing the wealth. Otherwise every person would be fully responsible for every damage done to their life by weather events or extreme disasters and states would be completely alone in repair of infrastructure. And that is just not how a country builds or rebuilds.


Oddly enough, that is exactly the way our nation was built! (And rebuilt after Lincoln destroyed it) It's also exactly the kind of limited government that is laid out in our constitution. Sure, the progressives have managed to erode our country and have nearly destroyed it with their bs share the wealth nonsense, but how much better off would we all be if we simply adhered to our constitution and let people prosper? Do you really think we need to be spending $50k a year on the average family? I know it's not very popular, but Robin Hood was nobodies hero. He was a self serving common thief looking out for robins best interests.... Namely winning the favor of and bedding the lady Marion.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

LAFarm said:


> I think we should include all of the corporations in the total, because someone said that corporations are people too. They need to pay their fair share. Includes LLC's, S Corporations, Sole Proprietors, public organizations, private organizations, every entity without exclusion. They all operate here and benefit from all of the things funded and supported by the government (us). Just my thoughts...


How many votes will corporations get in your proposal? Currently they get zero.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

The very core of this discussion involves posters discussing the best methods for collecting, dividing and spending someone else's money. How interesting.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

GTX63 said:


> The very core of this discussion involves posters discussing the best methods for collecting, dividing and spending someone else's money. How interesting.


I prefer any method that takes the very least from anyone, and does so equally. I also don't think it should be divided up between particular groups, but rather it be spent in the manner proscribed by our constitution. Our current system is a horrible mess being both unfair to those who are paying as well as being spent largely on redistribution projects.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

HDRider said:


> I would think most of agree that the rich should pay their fair share of income taxes.
> 
> The richest 1,409 taxpayers in the USA pay more taxes than the bottom 70 million taxpayers combined.


 Sounds like they already pay their fair share, well share anyway, not sure it is fair to them.


That's why our current president was talking about eliminating taxes for people who make 60K or less, since that money is insignificant , but alas the people who claim the rich need to pay their fair share came unglued about the poor and yes, where I live 60K a year is poor as in barely able to survive....apparently they want every single cent possible to waste on not helping the poor.


Such a sickening thing seeing delusional people babble about , I can`t help but feel they will get just what they deserve eventually...…...like a kid who wants to eat all the candy, then finally gets to and gets sick and never eats that candy again.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Hiro said:


> Not much experience buying or selling a business in your background, by that statement.


 Once again you are making wild assumptions.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mreynolds said:


> So who gets the money? The government?
> 
> Lets take Microsoft for instance. One of the founders died yesterday. When Bill Gates dies does the government get that too? He doesn't need it anymore after all. Wait you cant because of the shareholders. Some of which are their children. So if the government cant get it then all people have to do is incorporate and give their children the shares. There is your loophole. If we do away with this loophole then billions of 401K owners will go hungry. Maybe even you?
> 
> ...



Of course the Government gets the money from the dynasty tax that’s kind of how taxes work.

Stock in a corporation would be very easy for the government to liquidate.
Numerous stock exchanges have already been set up for that purpose, not a problem .


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Of course the Government gets the money from the dynasty tax that’s kind of how taxes work.
> 
> Stock in a corporation would be very easy for the government to liquidate.
> Numerous stock exchanges have already been set up for that purpose, not a problem .


So for your 401k you would need to find a business that has an owner younger than you and hope you die before he does?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GTX63 said:


> The very core of this discussion involves posters discussing the best methods for collecting, dividing and spending someone else's money. How interesting.


Lol SOME of us have substantial dogs in this fight.....


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mreynolds said:


> So for your 401k you would need to find a business that has an owner younger than you and hope you die before he does?


Why would his death effect your investment?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol SOME of us have substantial dogs in this fight.....


Just hire the best CPA you can afford and go make more money. The system isn't going to change in most of our life times...


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

shawnlee said:


> Sounds like they already pay their fair share, well share anyway, not sure it is fair to them.
> 
> 
> That's why our current president was talking about eliminating taxes for people who make 60K or less, since that money is insignificant , but alas the people who claim the rich need to pay their fair share came unglued about the poor and yes, where I live 60K a year is poor as in barely able to survive....apparently they want every single cent possible to waste on not helping the poor.
> ...


Cost of living varies so much around the country. We net about 45k a year and are pretty comfortable. The median family income around here is like $52k


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Why would his death effect your investment?


When you sell stocks on a company the first ones sold go at a premium. After that the price goes down. The more that is sold the lower it goes. 

But that isn't the point at all. Who is going to buy it in the first place? If Microsoft is now owned by the government and they "sell" it so they can shut it down there is no one that wants to buy stocks from a non existent company.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> How many votes will corporations get in your proposal? Currently they get zero.


Supreme court says they are a personage for lobbying efforts tho.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Why would his death effect your investment?


Airplane crash killing all heirs, buyout cintains typical government boondoggle, the possibilities are endless.

I'm also not seeing the government getting much since the property never seems to make it into government hands.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

TripleD said:


> Just hire the best CPA you can afford and go make more money. The system isn't going to change in most of our life times...


 My brain agrees with you. 
My heart tells me it’s my patriotic duty to try to make things better. 

Truth is making money bores me.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> My brain agrees with you.
> My heart tells me it’s my patriotic duty to try to make things better.
> 
> Truth is making money bores me.


1st statement '' I'm glad it does''
2nd statement '' Make out your will payable to the US Treasury''
3rd statement I enjoy the heck out buying houses and renting them out....


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> *Who decided* that it’s supposed to be fair? (Any IT you choose.)


G. Kent Yelverton, 
N.C. State *Fair Manager*

2018 N.C. State Fair - Nothing Could Be Finer!
http://www.ncstatefair.org/2018/index.htm


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mreynolds said:


> When you sell stocks on a company the first ones sold go at a premium. After that the price goes down. The more that is sold the lower it goes.
> 
> But that isn't the point at all. Who is going to buy it in the first place? If Microsoft is now owned by the government and they "sell" it so they can shut it down there is no one that wants to buy stocks from a non existent company.


Huh ?
I think you are getting a lot of things rolled together that don’t really mix. 
That first paragraph is nonsense.
First off why would the government want to close down a Going Company ?
Most are worth more as going concern. 
While the passing of Mr Gates would be sad there would be plenty of eager buyers for his shares. 
Considering the possibility of acquiring control of the company with those shares their price might go UP !
There’s no need to close a company on the death of a shareholder.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Unless the company's wealth is based on the name and abilities of the owner.

Then it'll basically be valueless


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Huh ?
> I think you are getting a lot of things rolled together that don’t really mix.
> That first paragraph is nonsense.
> First off why would the government want to close down a Going Company ?
> ...


Don't forget uncle doesn't get anything just yet Bill's wife is still alive. They are stuck waiting for their money


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

coolrunnin said:


> Airplane crash killing all heirs, buyout cintains typical government boondoggle, the possibilities are endless.
> 
> I'm also not seeing the government getting much since the property never seems to make it into government hands.


Could you explain. How this would affect His investment in relation to the dynasty tax ?
If you are saying that the company would be worthless it might be true but that happens anyway no matter what kind of tax system is in place


----------



## macmad (Dec 22, 2012)

Uncle Sam needs to be starved down to the levels represented in our Constitution. Our government has never demonstrated the ability to use our money wisely, and the corruption is so rife it probably can't be fixed.

Add in term limits for politicians as well. This is a country of equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. If you want that, move to Venezuela.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Could you explain. How this would affect His investment in relation to the dynasty tax ?
> If you are saying that the company would be worthless it might be true but that happens anyway no matter what kind of tax system is in place


Uncle gets no revenue uncle finds a new revenue stream, now we have your dynasty tax and some other form of taxation.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Huh ?
> I think you are getting a lot of things rolled together that don’t really mix.
> That first paragraph is nonsense.
> First off why would the government want to close down a Going Company ?
> ...


So the government gets the gates share. Assuming his wife died also. That means the government gets paid on average every 70 years per person. Perhaps 40 percent will die penniless. It's like the government will want us to die sooner rather than later. 

But let's look at the numbers. Microsoft is worth 72 billion. Bill owns 1.3%. let's say 2 for the sake of argument. That equals 1.5 billion give or take. Divide that by 50 years working life that comes to 24 million a year. 

Microsoft netted 15 billion last year. This is net not gross. Taxes were paid on 15 billion which totals more than 24 million. 

Your mathematics don't work in your favor. It's a bad idea imo.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> G. Kent Yelverton,
> N.C. State *Fair Manager*
> 
> 2018 N.C. State Fair - Nothing Could Be Finer!
> http://www.ncstatefair.org/2018/index.htm


I was disappointed with the NC State Fair. The midway was big, and it had lots of fair food, but I was hoping for more farm animals. Didn't seem fair.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

coolrunnin said:


> Uncle gets no revenue uncle finds a new revenue stream, now we have your dynasty tax and some other form of taxation.


 I see,
But it’s Just like in the current system when that same company would quit producing income.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Math error,


mreynolds said:


> So the government gets the gates share. Assuming his wife died also. That means the government gets paid on average every 70 years per person. Perhaps 40 percent will die penniless. It's like the government will want us to die sooner rather than later.
> 
> But let's look at the numbers. Microsoft is worth 72 billion. Bill owns 1.3%. let's say 2 for the sake of argument. That equals 1.5 billion give or take. Divide that by 50 years working life that comes to 24 million a year.
> 
> ...


 Did you forget that bill only owned 2 percent? 
But you want him to pay the bill for everybody ? 
Yet his passing would generate about 100, billion bucks. 

So let’s see if we can get this a little closer say one third tax on that 15 billion
About 5 billion dividing that by two percent then multiplying it by a 50 year working life(your incorrect figure) puts you right back at 5 billion
Covered Nicly by his 100 billion payment. 
If everyone was as productive and frugal as bill the government danasty tax would only need to be 5 percent !


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Math error,
> 
> Did you forget that bill only owned 2 percent?
> But you want him to pay the bill for everybody ?
> ...


No Microsoft is only worth 72 billion. He doesn't own the whole company only less than 2%. How does he pay more than he owns? You said yourself that every other stock holder get to keep their share. Are you saying now that they lose it when he dies?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bills net worth is about 100 billion. 
According to you 1.5 of that is Microsoft stock. Yes that will be sold on his death but so would the rest of his estate. 
Generating a total tax payment of 100 billion.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Bills net worth is about 100 billion.
> According to you 1.5 of that is Microsoft stock. Yes that will be sold on his death but so would the rest of his estate.
> Generating a total tax payment of 100 billion.


What right does the government have to take that money?

If the only "right" the government has to take that money is because Bill lived here, don't you think Bill might move?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

So what ?
That’s the only reason they have the right to tax him now and yet he is still here.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HD I do like your thinking. 
We will impose a 100 percent tax on removing wealth from the country. 
AND
Apply the dynasty tax to anyone who has earned or learned here


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Bills net worth is about 100 billion.
> According to you 1.5 of that is Microsoft stock. Yes that will be sold on his death but so would the rest of his estate.
> Generating a total tax payment of 100 billion.


But you have forgotten that Bill and Warren and others have pledged to give away 99% of their wealth before they die. This is the flaw in this way to do it.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Not really. 

They could of course do a lot of good doing that. 
And remember with the dynasty tax there isn’t a deduction for charitable giving.


----------



## macmad (Dec 22, 2012)

Dynasty Tax thinking is just another cog in the wheel, that if implemented, would lead to another 1776. Socialism is creeping into our society and it needs to be completely shut down. Envy is an ugly emotion.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

lemme see now, I have a goose that lays golden eggs, one every day, but Christmas is coming, should I kill this goose and enjoy a fine Christmas dinner or should I let her keep laying those eggs, take one and buy a ham for Christmas dinner? For those who may be analogy impaired, family dynasty's would be this goose that pay taxes each and every day the sun comes up.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

YH
That is the silliest thing I’ve ever heard one of the problem with family dynasties like that is they acquire great wealth and seldom pay taxes or pay very small taxes on it. 
Huge amounts of wealth not being productive and supporting spoiled rotten unproductive children is not doing this nation any good at all


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> YH
> That is the silliest thing I’ve ever heard one of the problem with family dynasties like that is they acquire great wealth and seldom pay taxes or pay very small taxes on it.
> Huge amounts of wealth not being productive and supporting spoiled rotten unproductive children is not doing this nation any good at all


I keep hearing this, about how the wealthy pay little or no taxes, yet those few end up paying by far the largest amount of the income taxes collected by the Feds. Those spoiled rotten unproductive kids must be doing something productive.


----------



## macmad (Dec 22, 2012)

"Huge amounts of wealth not being productive and supporting spoiled rotten unproductive children is not doing this nation any good at all."

... not doing this nation any good at all ...

I think you just revealed yourself, and I also assume that if the gov distributed some of this money to you, you would be a much better steward of it. Ha Would that be better for the nation?

This money was taxed during it's acquisition, so now you want a 100% additional tax on it when someone dies. Why not advocate giving everything you make to the government and let them dole out a livable amount back to you for your use, because of course, they know best what to do with it. Oh, wait, that is already being done and it is called communism.

I really thought homesteaders were independent, self-reliant sorts of people. Surprising that several here are advocates of larger government and reliance upon their government to make it through life.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

We have followed you down another of your rabbit holes @AmericanStand 

I'm climbing out


----------



## Txyogagirl (Jul 4, 2018)

dmm1976 said:


> Besides the above which is a good point...this country is one of the only a few in the world where it is possible for ANYONE who does the work it takes to pull yourself out of poverty and be independently wealthy. Yes it is very very very hard for some and very easy for others but its possible. There are so many programs, govt and private, that will support any person who is willing to do the work. Obviously, barring physical and mental impairment. People do it everyday. Regardless of upbringing, race, gender or religion.
> 
> Just look up the habits of successful people. It's not magic or good luck. For some maybe. But anyone can do anything they want ( within the law) if they put their minds to it.
> 
> ...


Your so right sadly many don’t wanna put in the hard work. I always say it’s never about how much u make it’s always about how u spend it I’m a true believer of this and nobody can change my thoughts it just makes so much more sense to live by this quote.


----------



## Txyogagirl (Jul 4, 2018)

I honestly don’t understand to much about taxes let’s use income tax for example we’re a typical family of 4 when we were a family of 2 husband and I both worked average jobs got what we though was a good income tax return. Fast forward 3 years we decide to grow our family everyone tells us we will be getting a better income tax so I become a stay home mom husband applies for a better job at current employer baby arrives and boom where did all our money go. We get less he works harder I save more I don’t get it. The more he works the less we get  fast forward another year spend a large sum of money on our home bc new baby take a tax credit on the improvements and tax advisor says only thing that helped was the improvements to the house. Fast forward another year husband decide to have another child husband works many many hours makes way more money this year than he has ever in his life bc were a growing family so I assume we will be getting even less each year he works harder now y’all please tell me what’s wrong with the way things are. We are an average middle income family living life spending within our means and saving what we can. Why do I hear of people getting all these big tax checks I don’t understand how they do it seems they don’t work near as hard or have the income my family has. I mean I don’t care what other people get I’m happy I just wish the people who Put in the hard work don’t get the short end of the deal.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txyogagirl said:


> I honestly don’t understand to much about taxes let’s use income tax for example we’re a typical family of 4 when we were a family of 2 husband and I both worked average jobs got what we though was a good income tax return. Fast forward 3 years we decide to grow our family everyone tells us we will be getting a better income tax so I become a stay home mom husband applies for a better job at current employer baby arrives and boom where did all our money go. We get less he works harder I save more I don’t get it. The more he works the less we get  fast forward another year spend a large sum of money on our home bc new baby take a tax credit on the improvements and tax advisor says only thing that helped was the improvements to the house. Fast forward another year husband decide to have another child husband works many many hours makes way more money this year than he has ever in his life bc were a growing family so I assume we will be getting even less each year he works harder now y’all please tell me what’s wrong with the way things are. We are an average middle income family living life spending within our means and saving what we can. Why do I hear of people getting all these big tax checks I don’t understand how they do it seems they don’t work near as hard or have the income my family has. I mean I don’t care what other people get I’m happy I just wish the people who Put in the hard work don’t get the short end of the deal.


You are paying in too much during the year if you a getting any refund back at tax time. Basically your giving the government an interest free loan! That money could have been in your savings account. You also opted to drop your income by being a stay at home mom. Nothing wrong with that but it's money not going into your savings account. You say you are living within your means, thats way better than borrowing to pay bills, but how much do you spend that isn't absolutely necessary every month? It all adds up. Working your fingers to the bone gets you boney fingers. Working hard, combined with wise spending makes you wealthy.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

what's up with all the rest of the discussions below?
timeking09 seems to have had some "fun".


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> what's up with all the rest of the discussions below?
> timeking09 seems to have had some "fun".


Ignore that poster and all those Chinese posts go away.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

macmad said:


> This money was taxed during it's acquisition, so now you want a 100% additional tax on it when someone dies.



No
No 
No
I’ve been very clear that the dynasty tax is to be a replacement for the income tax. 
So it’s a matter of choice. 
Which do you prefer, the current tax or a truly fair tax. ?


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Life is not fair....get over it.

PSA….It never will be.....get over it.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

X2
Life was never "fair"
No one can make it "fair"
Anyone in charge of making things "fair" for others is always in some form biased
"Fair" is not in the constitution, the Bible or any certificates you were given at your birth
"Fair" is not equal. "Equal" appears to have been confused for the former.
It is not "fair" that anyone other than the owner of one's own property have the right, legally or otherwise, to distribute their personal assets for whatever purpose. Yet still there are those who ponder all of the "how comes" "why nots" and "what can be dones" to and about others rather then themselves.
35 years of life may not seem "fair" when someone else lives to be 90 so lets take 15 years and spread/redistribute the health, so to speak. Lol.
This concludes our broadcasting day.


----------



## LAFarm (Mar 8, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> How many votes will corporations get in your proposal? Currently they get zero.


see no need to change that either. they already wield an inordinate amount of influence through the crooked politicians they buy...


----------



## Alder (Aug 18, 2014)

Yup.
I hate the term "fair". First life's lesson I got pounded into me as a kid was that "Life Ain't Fair".

Don't be a whiner. Either play the game with rules as written, taking your lumps, plus any legal advantage you can, or work to change the rules.....but "fair" is completely a matter of personal perspective.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

True enough but a shame all the same.


----------



## Alder (Aug 18, 2014)

AmericanStand said:


> True enough but a shame all the same.


For who?

See? 

Still gotta get some wine in with the cheese.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

For everyone
This is a nation based on the idea of fair and Equal while it’s not totally achievable is the ideal we strive for !


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Nope. Based on equal opportunity. Not fairness.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> For everyone
> This is a nation based on the idea of fair and Equal while it’s not totally achievable is the ideal we strive for !


Nope your absolutely wrong, all you get is an equal opportunity.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> No
> No
> No
> I’ve been very clear that the dynasty tax is to be a replacement for the income tax.
> ...


Nope, none of the above...A true FLAT tax. No deductions or loopholes for anybody. Make $100.00 or 100,000.00 taxed the same.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Wolf mom said:


> Nope, none of the above...A true *FLAT tax*. No deductions or loopholes for anybody. Make $100.00 or 100,000.00 taxed the same.


Yepper


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Wolf mom said:


> Nope, none of the above...A true FLAT tax. No deductions or loopholes for anybody. Make $100.00 or 100,000.00 taxed the same.


 The ONLY way that is possible is with the dynasty tax. 
There isn’t any other flat tax that actually will work.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> The ONLY way that is possible is with the dynasty tax.
> There isn’t any other flat tax that actually will work.


But your tax isn't flat at all.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

coolrunnin said:


> But your tax isn't flat at all.


How much flatter can you get ?
It’s 100 percent for everyone. 
No deductions , excuses or credits. 
No other tax can do that !


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> How much flatter can you get ?
> It’s 100 percent for everyone.
> No deductions , excuses or credits.
> No other tax can do that !


And so very easily avoided. You seem to forget that part.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I’ve never seen anyone avoid death
Or taxes.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I’ve never seen anyone avoid death
> Or taxes.


Your dynasty tax won't keep anyone from dying, I'm sure of that. But it would ensure most folks would die basically penny less.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I think that’s pretty simple to avoid. 
All the scams that are presently used to avoid inheritance taxes would be banned. 
Because we have years experience with inheritance taxes they are well know and easily delt with. 
And a simple look back provision would Be used much like Medicare does now. 
As would a ban on other than nominal gifts after receiving terminal notification.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Your dynasty tax won't keep anyone from dying, I'm sure of that. But it would ensure most folks would die basically penny less.


 Lol no they would die with all the money they wanted too. 
Read the thread about when people plan on dying.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol no they would die with all the money they wanted too.
> Read the thread about when people plan on dying.


One does not need to "own" wealth in order to enjoy the control and use of it. There are lots of ways to get around the dynasty tax. My father was a good example, he had access to plenty of money as he approached his deathbed, but it wasn't his. He and his previously deceased wife had set up a family trust with funds she had gotten when her mother passed, they controlled the money in the trust while they were alive, but the instant they passed away, control of the trust did too. That control is now in the hands of her daughters. Other than a bit of cash in pops personal bank account, his household plunder and a few shop tools he was penniless. While he was alive he also had complete control of the family farm, but even it had been gifted to us three boys when I was a wee lad. Your dynasty tax would never have seen a penny of his money because he didn't have any. Just had control of it.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> One does not need to "own" wealth in order to enjoy the control and use of it. There are lots of ways to get around the dynasty tax. My father was a good example, he had access to plenty of money as he approached his deathbed, but it wasn't his. He and his previously deceased wife had set up a family trust with funds she had gotten when her mother passed, they controlled the money in the trust while they were alive, but the instant they passed away, control of the trust did too. That control is now in the hands of her daughters. Other than a bit of cash in pops personal bank account, his household plunder and a few shop tools he was penniless. While he was alive he also had complete control of the family farm, but even it had been gifted to us three boys when I was a wee lad. Your dynasty tax would never have seen a penny of his money because he didn't have any. Just had control of it.


My parents have their estate set up in family trust, as I will do with mine when I reach 60.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

It makes sense to me, depending on ones situation. For me it's simpler to just put my Yvonne's name on the deeds with rights of survivorship. That way when I croak she automatically owns it. My will grants her any and all of my personal property plus it doubles down on the real estate so she can get on with her life without too much hassle.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

no really said:


> My parents have their estate set up in family trust, as I will do with mine when I reach 60.


 Obviously those types of things will become illegal


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> Obviously those types of things will become illegal


So the question is what do you think you would gain if this fantasy were ever to happen?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Obviously those types of things will become illegal


So spending and utilizing ones own hard earned wealth as they see fit while alive needs to be outlawed as well? That's going to be an easy sell!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

A freeer fairer system and a better nation. 
A system that would more easily create wealth.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> A freeer fairer system and a better nation.
> A system that would more easily create wealth.


Lemme see now, government confiscation of any and all wealth promotes the growth of wealth how? Where's the incentive? I see it promoting an incentive to pull up stakes and move to a country a bit more friendly to productive activities, but not much else.


----------



## macmad (Dec 22, 2012)

Creating wealth is not a zero sum operation. You just want to redistribute wealth. Your determination in pursuing this viewpoint makes it look like you are a paid poster, and a closet socialist.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

So because I work hard and make smart decisions its fair I pay a million a year in taxes and because some one only choses to make enough or get educated enough to only pay 6K in taxes...….that's fair ?


Both examples work 40 hours a week and both examples enjoy the same benefits of the taxes paid, such as roads etc...….so to keep it fair, I and others that pay a million in taxes opposed to those that only pay 6K, get exclusive use to the fast lane on the freeway right...just to keep it fair, since the person paying 6K a year did not pay their fair share on that project.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

shawnlee said:


> So because I work hard and make smart decisions its fair I pay a million a year in taxes and because some one only choses to make enough or get educated enough to only pay 6K in taxes...….that's fair ?
> 
> 
> Both examples work 40 hours a week and both examples enjoy the same benefits of the taxes paid, such as roads etc...….so to keep it fair, I and others that pay a million in taxes opposed to those that only pay 6K, get exclusive use to the fast lane on the freeway right...just to keep it fair, since the person paying 6K a year did not pay their fair share on that project.


Paying a percentage of your income is fair. That person paying a million in taxes is also making money based on those workers who are only paying 6 thousand a year. Now I could understand if you were upset that that person paying 1 million is paying a higher percentage of their income and has no way to use tax dodges that his wealth enable him to use. Until everyone is paying the same percentage on their entire income earned in a year and have no write-offs, nothing is fair.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So spending and utilizing ones own hard earned wealth as they see fit while alive needs to be outlawed as well? That's going to be an easy sell!


 Nope free to spend your money any way you choose. 
Indeed freeer than you are now.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Lemme see now, government confiscation of any and all wealth promotes the growth of wealth how? Where's the incentive? I see it promoting an incentive to pull up stakes and move to a country a bit more friendly to productive activities, but not much else.


 What other advanced nation doesn’t require any taxes of the living?
And remember once you are here you are in so moving won’t get you out.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

macmad said:


> Creating wealth is not a zero sum operation. You just want to redistribute wealth. Your determination in pursuing this viewpoint makes it look like you are a paid poster, and a closet socialist.


Lol ask anyone here I am dogged in my beliefs 
Certainly not a paid poster. 
And the current system that you are defending is far more socialist than a dynasty tax.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> A freeer fairer system and a better nation.
> A system that would more easily create wealth.





painterswife said:


> Paying a percentage of your income is fair. That person paying a million in taxes is also making money based on those workers who are only paying 6 thousand a year. Now I could understand if you were upset that that person paying 1 million is paying a higher percentage of their income and has no way to use tax dodges that his wealth enable him to use. Until everyone is paying the same percentage on their entire income earned in a year and have no write-offs, nothing is fair.


 ...and once again I say, its fair for one person to pay 6K in taxes while another pays a million.....they both get the same use of taxed services provided.....I think the person who pays 6K is not paying their fair share …..they should have less use of the things tax money pays for since they are not paying their fair share.


One person pays a million and one person pays 6K...….how is that fair ?

Maybe they can charge more for milk too...…….person who skipped school and sniffed glue pays 50 cents for a gallon of milk and the guy who makes 200k a month can pay 50 bucks a gallon...….maybe we can charge more for gas too.....


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

I'd just like to take this opportunity to quote (partially) the eminent JG Wentworth, "it's your money". Now to bastardize it and on the governments behalf add, "until we need it".


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

no really said:


> So the question is what do you think you would gain if this fantasy were ever to happen?


There were a couple of tracts of land he was interested in a while back that were in some sort of trusts. He was upset they wouldn't ever be for sale....


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

I miss-spoke, should have been, "until *we* *want* it'.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

TripleD said:


> There were a couple of tracts of land he was interested in a while back that were in some sort of trusts. He was upset they wouldn't ever be for sale....


No not exactly I was upset that the inevitable result would be that eventually ALL land would be the governments.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

shawnlee said:


> ...and once again I say, its fair for one person to pay 6K in taxes while another pays a million.....they both get the same use of taxed services provided.....I think the person who pays 6K is not paying their fair share …..they should have less use of the things tax money pays for since they are not paying their fair share.
> 
> 
> One person pays a million and one person pays 6K...….how is that fair ?
> ...


See I think you are getting that backwards its like the poor person uses a little milk on cereal and coffee and the rich person has tons of cheese made for parties and investments.
At the end of the year the poor persons milk bill is$150 and the rich persons bill is $35,000
that seems fair to me.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

gilberte said:


> I'd just like to take this opportunity to quote (partially) the eminent JG Wentworth, "it's your money". Now to bastardize it and on the governments behalf add, "until we need it".


 Good point.
Its always upset me that a man could build himself a house with his own sweat and the government could tax him out of it. worse yet tax his poor old widow out of it. 
THATS WHAT THE CURRENT SYSTEM DOES!
The dynasty tax would prevent that!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Good point.
> Its always upset me that a man could build himself a house with his own sweat and the government could tax him out of it. worse yet tax his poor old widow out of it.
> THATS WHAT THE CURRENT SYSTEM DOES!
> The dynasty tax would prevent that!


Right. Just tax everyone out of everything instead.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Your dead you wont miss it a bit.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Your dead you wont miss it a bit.


True, but my loved ones would. You know the ones, the people I built it for. Not everyone thinks only of themselves.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Why haven't you taken care of them?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Generally, rich people use the infrastructure and government supported facilities far more than the middle class or the poor.
Generally, those that own businesses or reap big incomes from businesses depend upon government paid for roads, rails, airports, electrical grid, etc. far more than Joe Average.
The wealthy depend upon a safe community, safe place to hold their money, safe transit of their products, far more than poorer people, because having lots of money and products makes them targets.
They should pay for it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

How in the world did this thread wind up in Survival & Emergency Preparedness?

I started it in GC.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> No not exactly I was upset that the inevitable result would be that eventually ALL land would be the governments.


Right, so your solution is to impose a dynasty tax which will put every sq inch of land in the governments hands in a single generation!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Right, so your solution is to impose a dynasty tax which will put every sq inch of land in the governments hands in a single generation!


Hardly. The government would have to sell to pay for operating cost.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> True, but my loved ones would. You know the ones, the people I built it for. Not everyone thinks only of themselves.


If you built it for them why haven’t you gave it to them ?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> If you built it for them why haven’t you gave it to them ?


I ain't done building it yet.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Hardly. The government would have to sell to pay for operating cost.


Who would they sell it to? They've already stolen all the money! Remember? They take "everything" when someone dies.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Who would they sell it to? They've already stolen all the money! Remember? They take "everything" when someone dies.


Lol you know you are being silly. 
Everyone would have more money since they wouldn’t be paying any taxes.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I ain't done building it yet.


Haven’t You have told of health problems that could have you leaving this earth at any time. ?
When do you plan on giving it to them ?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Haven’t You have told of health problems that could have you leaving this earth at any time. ?
> When do you plan on giving it to them ?


When I croak. Better them than the government.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol you know you are being silly.
> Everyone would have more money since they wouldn’t be paying any taxes.


Nobody would have squat without the economic structure in place that has been slowly being added to one generation at a time for centuries. No factories, no businesses.... No jobs, no money... Nothing left but government owned assets..... Sounds a bit like a Karl Marx wet dream come true! How did that work out for the Soviet Union? Food shortages, miserable living conditions..... Not my style thank you very much!


----------

