Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I may be reading things wrong here, but are the American posters seriously suggesting NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION?

The irony...

Melissia wrote:As a taxpayer, if I vote to have taxes directed towards helping the poor, I am therefor voting to direct MY money to help the poor.

I was under the impression you were unemployed? If not unemployed, underemployed in a salary range that probably does not net pay federal income tax?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:You would get more taking 50% of the top 1% than if you took 100% of the bottom twenty percent.

But that aside, increasing the tax on capital gains to be equal to the tax rate on income would help a lot as well.

And it's irrelevant because this is talking about marginal increases in revenue growth. Tens of billions per year kind of marginal. Immaterial set against the deficit.

sourclams wrote:

Melissia wrote:As a taxpayer, if I vote to have taxes directed towards helping the poor, I am therefor voting to direct MY money to help the poor.

I was under the impression you were unemployed? If not unemployed, underemployed in a salary range that probably does not net pay federal income tax?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:You would get more taking 50% of the top 1% than if you took 100% of the bottom twenty percent.

But that aside, increasing the tax on capital gains to be equal to the tax rate on income would help a lot as well.

And it's irrelevant because this is talking about marginal increases in revenue growth. Tens of billions per year kind of marginal. Immaterial set against the deficit.

It is also less relevant when you consider a increase of taxes on capital gains will lower the over all capital gains as the increased cost of investing is taken into account by the investors.

Easy E wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Easy E wrote:

Frazzled wrote: no. Everyone must have skin in the game.

This expression confuses me, and I'm not sure I understand what exactly it is trying to say.

If you live in the same country don't you all ready have "skin" in the game? What happens to the country impacts you, right?

Maybe I'm missing somethign fundamental here.

No and no. If you have the power to vote to give benefits to yourself for no cost to yourself then you have no skin in the game. Either be part of a family unit that pays income taxes or don't be able to vote on any matters concerning taxing and spending.

Hmmmm, kind of like the only people who should be willing to vote are the ones who are willing to put their lives on the line to defend the nation as soldiers?

I'd be ok with that too. No more unnecessary wars. I didn't vote for a second term for Bush I because of Desert Storm. Thats why I had sepcifically voted FOR a Republican. Prior to that, Republicans generally didn't start wars (may have been the first actually).

sourclams wrote:

Melissia wrote:As a taxpayer, if I vote to have taxes directed towards helping the poor, I am therefor voting to direct MY money to help the poor.

I was under the impression you were unemployed? If not unemployed, underemployed in a salary range that probably does not net pay federal income tax?

Aren't you making a false correlation that the only taxpayers are those which pay "net federal income tax"? Because a great deal of Americans don't make enough to pay federal income tax, but pay plenty of other tax: state, local, payroll, FICA, sales, possibly capital gains, etc etc etc....

Ouze wrote:

sourclams wrote:

Melissia wrote:As a taxpayer, if I vote to have taxes directed towards helping the poor, I am therefor voting to direct MY money to help the poor.

I was under the impression you were unemployed? If not unemployed, underemployed in a salary range that probably does not net pay federal income tax?

Aren't you making a false correlation that the only taxpayers are those which pay "net federal income tax"? Because a great deal of Americans don't make enough to pay federal income tax, but pay plenty of other tax: state, local, payroll, FICA, sales, possibly capital gains, etc etc etc....

True but the topic is income tax and cap gains. Thats the OP.

The moment you talk about "taxpayers' money" you're suggesting a plutocracy - since the rich overwealmingly pay the most tax. Since, you know, they have the most money to pay. In the UK 50% of all income tax revenue is paid by the top 10%.
When I got a job and started paying taxes my opinions about the country didn't change really. Still ambivalent about "the expenses scandal" and all the other rubbish that in the grand scheme of things is pointless but we're expected to care about because of some vague notion about still owning money once it's been paid in taxation.

CptJake wrote:It is also less relevant when you consider a increase of taxes on capital gains will lower the over all capital gains as the increased cost of investing is taken into account by the investors.

I didn't even try to get into that topic because even our government officials seem to believe that behaviors will not change when the constraints do.

Last year I had an income that is not equal to zero, and thus this year I filed my taxes. I've filed taxes several times before (only one year after hitting eighteen did I have no income at all). But the amount is irrelevant-- I filed my taxes and submitted them to the federal government; ergo, I am a taxpayer. This discussion of "who is a taxpayer" is pointless and stupid.

Melissia wrote:Last year I had an income that is not equal to zero, and thus this year I filed my taxes. I've filed taxes several times before (only one year after hitting eighteen did I have no income at all). But the amount is irrelevant-- I filed my taxes and submitted them to the federal government; ergo, I am a taxpayer. This discussion of "who is a taxpayer" is pointless and stupid.

Actually, you didn't say you paid income taxes just then. You just said you filed your form. My mom filed a form too, but didn't pay taxes.

Frazzled wrote:Actually, you didn't say you paid income taxes just then. You just said you filed your form. My mom filed a form too, but didn't pay taxes.

I refer you here:

Melissia wrote:This discussion of "who is a taxpayer" is pointless and stupid.

Emphasis mine.

And even if I didn't pay income tax, I still pay taxes every time I buy something, and numerous other examples of taxes as well, so I don't honestly care.

SO you just admitted you don't pay income tax but want to spend my money WHO DOES PAY INCOME TAX on something you don't yourself. Awesome.

On the positive I also vote.

Frazzled wrote:SO you just admitted you don't pay income tax

No I didn't.

Melissia wrote:And even if I didn't pay income tax

Try actually reading posts you respond to some time.

OK you're still evading . However this is a personal issue so I am backing off. It is just the OT and not like its a pressing humanitarian issue, or more importantly, lunch.

News flash:

Even if you get a refund, you are still a taxpayer. The refund is simply the amount you OVERPAID over the course of the year based on your income.

Even if the Feds give you more back in the refund, there was between 1 day and 12 months where you did not have acces to the money, and the government was earning the interest on it (or otherwise investing/using it) instead of you.

Edit: This assumes you receive a W2

Thats amazingly insightful in answering an issue no one brought up...

Frazzled wrote:Thats amazingly insightful in answering an issue no one brought up...

And less than accurate as some folks get 'credit' in with their refund check and receive more (in some case MUCH more) than was withheld during the course of the year. And failure to understand how to properly fill out a W4 is no reason to whine that uncle sam took out too much to begin with.

Guys, if you want only taxpayers to vote you merely need to eliminate all other taxes and establish a simple voting tax of between $0.01 and $100,000,000 per voter per election.

The desireable level of the tax is left to the reader as an exercise in political economy.

CptJake wrote:
And less than accurate as some folks get 'credit' in with their refund check and receive more (in some case MUCH more) than was withheld during the course of the year.

Yes, but for the purposes of achieving the figure of ~50% of US citizens not paying taxes, one has to exclude people who simply are refunded what was withheld, which is dubious statistical gamesmanship at the best of times.

Of course, this is a lay conversation about politics and policy, so its all basically just people picking out numbers they like without bothering to consider how those numbers were produced.

Kilkrazy wrote:Guys, if you want only taxpayers to vote you merely need to eliminate all other taxes and establish a simple voting tax of between $0.01 and $100,000,000 per voter per election.

The desireable level of the tax is left to the reader as an exercise in political economy.

As far as I can tell, you're about the only one bringing that dumb idea. And it really isn't relevant to the OP.

One interesting thing about this I must point out to all the British readers is the glory days of Philanthropy the Victorian Period. When our Great-Great Grandfathers all got together and said "We are men of means and wealth, there are many without, let us build that which society needs".

And they did, from Terraced housing to Parks to Schools to Hospitals to Universities. This great social, philanthropic good seemed to be en vogue and very much the right thing to do both politically, socially and morally.

When did we stop? When did we all decide to ignore what our progressive forbears did and decide to keep and horde wealth. When was the watershed? And why did we stop making huge social changes with private money, just because it was the right thing to do? It seems that this Morally tempered, responsible capitalism is interesting and I really like the idea it can come back, but it seems Greed and avarice are now core to society. I saw that TV programme "The Real Wives of Orange County" today, the whole of that Car Crash of a TV show underlines how society is wrong and shallow avarice and self servience is corrupting and rottern.

For the record I believe in a direct Tax system so all strata of society pay the same 35% (or whatever) with the exception that it doesn't kick in until you earn say an arbitary amount (e.g just below the Average national earnings so £12,000 or whatever).

The wealth creators argument is nonsense, without workers they would earn nothing. It is a team element, like society, I don't believe in dodging Tax. A responsible citizen obeys the Law and pays their taxes, no more no less. Those who dodge tax are irresponsible and do not deserve to reap the benefits of an ordered and prosperous society.

Well done to Warren Buffet and Stephen King, for speaking sensible truths which will make society fairer and more cohesive.

EDIT - Someone paid a $107 Million for a painting yesterday, how much could that person have done with that? How many Thousands of Families helped? How many children immunised? How much Health care? How many School Text books? How much would a Trust fund of this amount give out over 100 years? Now they have a Canvas of a Man screaming, which is how i hope they feel when they realise they bought this one item when they could have done massive social good. It makes me want to scream.

Why did you buy the computer you're posting on? You don't need it. In fact, you could have given the money to a poor family instead. Y'know, to spend in Iceland/Ladbrokes/Bargain Booze (delete as appropriate).

Don't give money to the poor, spend money to help the poor.

It's the old "give a man a fish" deal.

Personally, I think a very important principle applies:

Don't hate, emulate.

Seriously. If you're not rich, and you're angry about it, and you look around and see people doing well, hating them and trying to drag them down a few pegs will not improve your life. If you're not rich, and you're angry about it, go out and GET rich. That WILL improve your life.

mwnciboo wrote:One interesting thing about this I must point out to all the British readers is the glory days of Philanthropy the Victorian Period. When our Great-Great Grandfathers all got together and said "We are men of means and wealth, there are many without, let us build that which society needs".

And they did, from Terraced housing to Parks to Schools to Hospitals to Universities. This great social, philanthropic good seemed to be en vogue and very much the right thing to do both politically, socially and morally.

When did we stop? When did we all decide to ignore what our progressive forbears did and decide to keep and horde wealth. When was the watershed?

That's an interesting question. I read an article in a newspaper about the state of Philanthropy in the world, and right now the UK is one of the worst. Yet the US ranks highly, with a high proportion of the 'super rich' (Warren Buffet, Bill Gates etc.) giving far more than their UK counterparts. I have a theory that it is how one encounters that wealth that determines the extent of their philanthropy. In the same way that the industrialists of the 19th century had new-found wealth,the likes of Buffet and Gates came to their wealth despite relatively more humble origins. They can still relate to other people in society as they were once part of it, and so they try and do what they can to help. I think moneyed families, and parts of society such as the 'old boy network' in the UK are far less likely as they don't necessarily see themselves as part of the same system.

Perhaps it's just that they feel like they give enough to society through taxation.

CAVEAT: I'm not saying that they do, just that it might be their perception.

Pacific wrote:
That's an interesting question. I read an article in a newspaper about the state of Philanthropy in the world, and right now the UK is one of the worst. Yet the US ranks highly, with a high proportion of the 'super rich' (Warren Buffet, Bill Gates etc.) giving far more than their UK counterparts.

It may also have something to do with your tax system. In the US there is a strong incentive to engage in philanthropy for the purposes of securing tax deductions.

Albatross wrote:Personally, I think a very important principle applies:

Don't hate, emulate.

Seriously. If you're not rich, and you're angry about it, and you look around and see people doing well, hating them and trying to drag them down a few pegs will not improve your life. If you're not rich, and you're angry about it, go out and GET rich. That WILL improve your life.

If this was ideal meritocracy then your argument might hold some weight.

Unfortunately, it isn't and it doesn't.

Albatross wrote:Why did you buy the computer you're posting on? You don't need it. In fact, you could have given the money to a poor family instead.

The distilled essence of why these threads are so silly. To wit: pontificating about the wasting of money from a completely superfluous machine that generally costs a fair amount of... um... money.

Well done, you.

Albatross wrote:Personally, I think a very important principle applies:

Don't hate, emulate.

Seriously. If you're not rich, and you're angry about it, and you look around and see people doing well, hating them and trying to drag them down a few pegs will not improve your life. If you're not rich, and you're angry about it, go out and GET rich. That WILL improve your life.

I'm not angry at rich/wealthy people, I'm angry at horders and greedy people who take more and give little, don't pay their fair share of TAX and don't see how detrimental it is for society. Those who dodge Tax, and don't seem to understand how lucky they are, the worship of wealth and materialism is bad for society. This isn't Communism, it's social responsible capitalism.

In the UK if you earn between £99,000 to £114,000 your effective tax rate is 55%, where as if you earn above £114,000 it's 45%. Explain that? So you pay less TAX if you earn more?

Don't Hate, emulate isn't a cure, it actually perpetuates this 1% of people controlling 25% of the wealth.

Most Millionaires have their Pay paid into a Company avoiding the 45% TAX Rate, and paying CORPORATION TAX @ 27%. Quite alot of people who earn over £99,000 do this and avoid the PAYE TAX system, this is wrong. The burden of TAX proportionally is on the Middle Earners or Middle Class.

It's not about bringing people down, it's about encouraging people to be socially responsible. Just because you are wealthy doesn't mean you should be beyond reproach or without morals. Bill Gates and others have given away Billions, and he has done incredible amounts of good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philanthropists

For the Record - Wealth doesn't equal an Improved Life. Possibly more comfort, but by what measure can determine if a life is improved?

@MONSTER RAIN thats such a ridiculous statement, a Laptop costs £300 some of the richest people earn more than that in a single minute and yet pay protionally less TAX than me. What is wrong with me earning £50,000 (paying TAX @ 40%) a year buying a Car and a Laptop and a house, but also giving by Direct Debit to CANCER RESEARCH UK? To say give away your material goods is great in principle but it would kill Capitalism if we started doing this, and thereby the system and even less people would benefit from the increasing growth in world wealth. It is a vacuous argument for Rampant Capitalism and thats why the Worlds in a Complete Mess Financially, because of a lack of responsibility brought on my uncontrolled avarice.

The Argument of give a man a fish holds zero water as does give up all material things to better others. Better to give the man immunisation and education, but most of these people live in highly corrupt societies with little or no infrastructure or oppressive regimes or murderous groups (like Somalia for example) so how do you do it? So buy a man a fish is bollox it shows the comprehension level of a child or willful naivety.

dogma wrote:

Pacific wrote:
That's an interesting question. I read an article in a newspaper about the state of Philanthropy in the world, and right now the UK is one of the worst. Yet the US ranks highly, with a high proportion of the 'super rich' (Warren Buffet, Bill Gates etc.) giving far more than their UK counterparts.

It may also have something to do with your tax system. In the US there is a strong incentive to engage in philanthropy for the purposes of securing tax deductions.

We actually do get TAX breaks for Philanthropic Works and Donations and it is a popular way of Big earners reducing their Tax bill. The Government screwed up a couple of weeks ago trying to close this supposed Loop hole, and brought down the wrath of the Extremely Wealth and Charities who gain from this.

The Yanks are extremely generous by comparison.