23% sales tax; no fed. income tax

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Oh Im sorry. the baby cow would be born with the following trend continuing:

That sounds like a better idea than just a flat 23% sales tax. I agree with others that a flat 23% sales tax would be be too big of a burden on the poor.

I still think the best idea would be a combination of a flat tax and some type of less complex, progressive income tax. For example, maybe they could have a 10-12% flat sales tax and also a simple, progressive income tax where people who make under $25,000 a year pay no income tax, people who make $25,000-$50,000 a year could pay a 5% income tax, people who make $51,000-$100,000 a year could pay a 8% income tax, people who make $101,000-$200,000 a year could pay around a 10-12% income tax, and people who make over $200,000 a year could pay around a 15-20% income tax.


For the very rich... It would mean they would get the heck taxed out of them, but I assume there would be an upper limit.

That's not what I was saying. I was saying that the highest tax bracket would pay 15-20% in income tax. Nobody would pay more than 20% in income tax even if they make $20 million a year.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That's not what I was saying. I was saying that the highest tax bracket would pay 15-20% in income tax. Nobody would pay more than 20% in income tax even if they make $20 million a year.

Oh good, I was worried about that

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Oh good, I was worried about that

\


Again, I disagree there...I'd tax the rich as I said previously...90-95% of income over some set amount...nobody needs all the money in the world!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

\


Again, I disagree there...I'd tax the rich as I said previously...90-95% of income over some set amount...nobody needs all the money in the world!

You want to tax me 90- 95%!!! How dare you think of such blasphemy!! Who are you anyway, Karl Marx? They tried this communism thing once before, didn't turn out too well.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

\


Again, I disagree there...I'd tax the rich as I said previously...90-95% of income over some set amount...nobody needs all the money in the world!

I agree with you that nobody needs that much money. But I don't think it's up to me or you to tell a person that we're taking away 90-95% of his income because we think he makes too much. I think that is totally un-American. If a guy works his butt off to make a ton of money, there shouldn't be a limit on what he can make. Besides, who is to say that the government will make better use of the money than the person. For example, Waren Buffett is giving all his money to charity. He is worth around $50 billion and he is going to give it all away. Do you think it would have been better for the government to take that money?

There aren't really very many billionaires out there any way. But what about people like Oprah or Tiger Woods? Tiger makes about $80 million a year. I don't think it would be fair to take 90-95% of that money away from him. He could not live the way he lives right now, if you took 95% of his income away. He travels everywhere on private jets. He has more than one home. A nice house(4,000 sq. feet) in Beverly Hills costs around $3-4 million. I'm not even talking about a mansion. A mansion out here is going to cost at least $10 million. I think Tiger deserves to be rich. He worked his butt off to become the greatest golfer in the world. He is entitled to be rich and he is entitled to have a few mansions if that is what he wants.

I'll tell you one thing that I would change if I was in charge. I don't think it's fair for these CEOs to be getting hundreds of millions of dollars in stock options. That money is coming right out of the shareholders' pockets. I don't have a problem with a CEO of a big company making a few million a year in salary and I don't have a problem if he gets a reasonable amount of stock options. It would be one thing if the stock went crazy and went from $10 a share up to $100 a share and the CEO made $50 million or so. But it is crazy when CEOs get $200 million of free stock when the stock didn't even perform particularly well. These guys are so overpaid it is crazy and the money is coming right out of the shareholders' pockets.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

No one is forcing shareholders to remain as such. If you don't like how a company is being run...

What am I going to do? Am I going to stop investing in the stock market just because CEOs are overpaid? Where else am I going to put my money? There aren't really too many other options. I'm pretty much forced to accept it whether I like it or not.

[lg1965]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

What am I going to do? Am I going to stop investing in the stock market just because CEOs are overpaid? Where else am I going to put my money? There aren't really too many other options. I'm pretty much forced to accept it whether I like it or not.

why don't you take your money and invest it in a company that you can own and operate, thereby contributing to the local economy, instead of handing it over to people that know what they are doing, so that you don't have to do a single thing and still make money, and have the right to complain how much money those people are making that you are just jumping on for a free ride?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

why don't you take your money and invest it in a company that you can own and operate, thereby contributing to the local economy, instead of handing it over to people that know what they are doing, so that you don't have to do a single thing and still make money, and have the right to complain how much money those people are making that you are just jumping on for a free ride?

One could say the same thing about a lot of the hereditary wealthy, who are living the ultimate free ride. A person I know who works for many of them refers to them as the "Lucky Sperm Club."

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

why don't you take your money and invest it in a company that you can own and operate, thereby contributing to the local economy, instead of handing it over to people that know what they are doing, so that you don't have to do a single thing and still make money, and have the right to complain how much money those people are making that you are just jumping on for a free ride?

I actually do both things. I invest in some of my own stuff but I also invest in the market. It's good to be diversified.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I don't have a problem with CEOs making millions of dollars. In a lot of cases they deserve it. But some of theses pay packages are way out of whack. Let's take Dick Grasso for example. He did a great job running the NYSE. I don't think most people would have a had a problem if he walked away with $50-$75 million. But for him to walk away with $200 million was excessive. I think everyone felt that way including the courts who are going to force him to give some of the money back.

[lg1965]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

No one is forcing shareholders to remain as such. If you don't like how a company is being run...

dude, i think i could sit and have a beer with you. i don't say that about too many people.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

\


Again, I disagree there...I'd tax the rich as I said previously...90-95% of income over some set amount...nobody needs all the money in the world!

Let's just pretend you came up with some great idea or great invention and you decided to sell it for $100 million. Do you think it would be fair for the government to take 90-95% of that money? If you lived in an expensive area, you could hardly even retire. If they took 95%, that would leave you with $5 million. If you are really conservative and wanted to just keep the money in the bank, you would only get around $250,000 a year. After taxes, you would only be left with around $130,000 a year. If you bought a $2 million house, your mortgage payment alone would be $120,000 a year.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Let's just pretend you came up with some great idea or great invention and you decided to sell it for $100 million. Do you think it would be fair for the government to take 90-95% of that money? If you lived in an expensive area, you could hardly even retire. If they took 95%, that would leave you with $5 million. If you are really conservative and wanted to just keep the money in the bank, you would only get around $250,000 a year. After taxes, you would only be left with around $130,000 a year. If you bought a $2 million house, your mortgage payment alone would be $120,000 a year.

OK, I've listened to enough ranting...let me repeat myself...NOBODY NEEDS ALL THAT MONEY! It amuses me that the same old greed-filled arguments are pulled out to defend folks right to be rich! Let me get my hankie so I can cry over the fate of someone forced to live on a measly few million dollars...wawawa! Explain to me why you NEED a two million dollar house, or a private jet?? Explain all these NEEDS to folks living on the streets and eating out of garbage cans...oh yeah, that's right...they're just lazy and deserve to suffer..right?? Just like those kids who starve to death in the Third World or die from diseases for which we have had cures for years! Yes, I guess you are right...my way of thinking is UnAmerican...afterall, like the lady in the song, you can buy the stairway to heaven! What right do I have to tell someone that they have enough money? What right does anyone have who sees injustice to speak?? I'm the bad guy? All I want is to end poverty and human suffering...excuse me if some folks have to slum it in a cheaper home or fly on a commercial airliner, or join one less country club! What arrogance!! You guys actually believe that some folks DESERVE unlimited wealth and power while others DESERVE pain and suffering?? Please, tell these people how they must suffer so that you can buy another Rolls! Oh, and the only thing wrong with communism is communists...human nature unfortunately trumps the best intentions.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

OK, I've listened to enough ranting...let me repeat myself...NOBODY NEEDS ALL THAT MONEY! It amuses me that the same old greed-filled arguments are pulled out to defend folks right to be rich! Let me get my hankie so I can cry over the fate of someone forced to live on a measly few million dollars...wawawa! Explain to me why you NEED a two million dollar house, or a private jet?? Explain all these NEEDS to folks living on the streets and eating out of garbage cans...oh yeah, that's right...they're just lazy and deserve to suffer..right?? Just like those kids who starve to death in the Third World or die from diseases for which we have had cures for years! Yes, I guess you are right...my way of thinking is UnAmerican...afterall, like the lady in the song, you can buy the stairway to heaven! What right do I have to tell someone that they have enough money? What right does anyone have who sees injustice to speak?? I'm the bad guy? All I want is to end poverty and human suffering...excuse me if some folks have to slum it in a cheaper home or fly on a commercial airliner, or join one less country club! What arrogance!! You guys actually believe that some folks DESERVE unlimited wealth and power while others DESERVE pain and suffering?? Please, tell these people how they must suffer so that you can buy another Rolls! Oh, and the only thing wrong with communism is communists...human nature unfortunately trumps the best intentions.

For the record, I kind of agree. I don't believe in inheritance. People should make their lives for themselves, not count on the death of others to keep them going.

Originally Posted by randallscott35

For the record, I kind of agree. I don't believe in inheritance. People should make their lives for themselves, not count on the death of others to keep them going.

Sorry Rupert, did not read it all the way thru.

I did see some cases in which inheritance would disallow a family business to continue. That would not be fair. I just dont believe that taxing the heck out of rich people for the purpose of redistributing wealth works. It just puts them into a defensive shell of saving and really causes a scrooge effect. I think it is counter productive.

I really dont mind being taxed. I just want it to be easy. I personally would gladly pay 30% of my income if all I had to do was pay 30% of my income. But it is never that easy.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

OK, I've listened to enough ranting...let me repeat myself...NOBODY NEEDS ALL THAT MONEY! It amuses me that the same old greed-filled arguments are pulled out to defend folks right to be rich! Let me get my hankie so I can cry over the fate of someone forced to live on a measly few million dollars...wawawa! Explain to me why you NEED a two million dollar house, or a private jet?? Explain all these NEEDS to folks living on the streets and eating out of garbage cans...oh yeah, that's right...they're just lazy and deserve to suffer..right?? Just like those kids who starve to death in the Third World or die from diseases for which we have had cures for years! Yes, I guess you are right...my way of thinking is UnAmerican...afterall, like the lady in the song, you can buy the stairway to heaven! What right do I have to tell someone that they have enough money? What right does anyone have who sees injustice to speak?? I'm the bad guy? All I want is to end poverty and human suffering...excuse me if some folks have to slum it in a cheaper home or fly on a commercial airliner, or join one less country club! What arrogance!! You guys actually believe that some folks DESERVE unlimited wealth and power while others DESERVE pain and suffering?? Please, tell these people how they must suffer so that you can buy another Rolls! Oh, and the only thing wrong with communism is communists...human nature unfortunately trumps the best intentions.

The other posters can decide which one of us is "ranting".

I want to end poverty and human suffering just as much as you do.

You ask why someone needs a $2 million house? You can't even get a really nice house for $2 million in Beverly Hills. In Beverly Hills, you might be able to get a 2,500-3,000 sq. ft house for that price. But I guess everyone should just have a small house according to you.

By the way, I'm not rich. So I'm not being selfish by wanting to protect the rights of all people including rich people. It doesn't help me for Oprah to have $500 million, but I'm still going to stand up for her rights as much as I would stand up for the rights of a poor person. So that makes me the bad guy?

You accuse us of arrogance, yet you are the one who wants to take away people's money that they made fair and square.

[lg1965]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

OK, I've listened to enough ranting...let me repeat myself...NOBODY NEEDS ALL THAT MONEY! It amuses me that the same old greed-filled arguments are pulled out to defend folks right to be rich! Let me get my hankie so I can cry over the fate of someone forced to live on a measly few million dollars...wawawa! Explain to me why you NEED a two million dollar house, or a private jet?? Explain all these NEEDS to folks living on the streets and eating out of garbage cans...oh yeah, that's right...they're just lazy and deserve to suffer..right?? Just like those kids who starve to death in the Third World or die from diseases for which we have had cures for years! Yes, I guess you are right...my way of thinking is UnAmerican...afterall, like the lady in the song, you can buy the stairway to heaven! What right do I have to tell someone that they have enough money? What right does anyone have who sees injustice to speak?? I'm the bad guy? All I want is to end poverty and human suffering...excuse me if some folks have to slum it in a cheaper home or fly on a commercial airliner, or join one less country club! What arrogance!! You guys actually believe that some folks DESERVE unlimited wealth and power while others DESERVE pain and suffering?? Please, tell these people how they must suffer so that you can buy another Rolls! Oh, and the only thing wrong with communism is communists...human nature unfortunately trumps the best intentions.

you're the one that believes in karma. pain and suffering is part of the package.

[lg1965]

anyway, getting back to a national sales tax........i live in the state of washington....no state income tax...........state gets it's income from consumer taxes, basically sales taxes. lots of exemptions. no tax on most food items ( candy is taxed, so is soda, some other stuff, you know, things considered non-essential) essentials used to be taxed, but when prices started going up in the late '70s, exemptions started popping up. now there are quite a few. washington is hardly flush with money, but we're not to the point of instituting a state income tax either. not even close. property values have gone up so much that real estate taxes have filled a huge void. basically, the renter that doesn't buy tons of frivolous stuff doesn't get heavily taxed in this state.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

you're the one that believes in karma. pain and suffering is part of the package.

That's an eloquent response...I guess using that logic you could defend slavery and genocide.