Right to vote = minimum of $1.00 federal tax.

[WhoWee]

First, let's strip out the loaded word punish. Now, let's ask why tax investments? Because the alternative is to tax people without investments more. You have to get the money from somewhere.

Also- taxing investments like normal income doesn't hurt Grandpa- yes he is now realizing some capital gains, but he isn't drawing a salary now. Its not like he'll be pulling in millions in realized capital gains- so taxing like normal income won't leave most of his gains in a high marginal bracket. You can play games with the numbers and find situations where a retiree could pay less with capital gains taxed as normal income.

Do we really want the politicians plating any more games with the tax code - isn't it long and complicated enough?

 

[WhoWee]

I've been looking at this thread, wondering whether to respond since it is US local, but anyway, your 'feelings' just don't make sense.

Say someone is poor, he/she has two or three odd jobs, but doesn't make enough income to pay federal taxes. Then that person is generating wealth others profit off. So why take away his/her voting right? He/she is generating wealth/income for other people who are then taxed.

Looks to me that there's nothing wrong with the system. You're almost proposing a return to 'slavery' IMO.

Slavery (?) - your 'feelings' just don't make sense to me. If someone works two or three odd jobs they might make enough to pay $1.00 in net taxes - if they receive a redistribution of income taxes they probably don't?

As a business owner - I don't let the employees decide compensation and benefit levels - I base those decisions on the overall business plan/budget, the competitive market, and of course the Government's mandates.

 

[WhoWee]

Of course not. I am saying it really doesn't matter. If people make that small amount of money that they can't really pay federal taxes, then that only means that wealth was moved to higher-income individuals. I.e., you could tax taxi drivers more, but it would only mean you'ld end up paying more for getting around.

We're talking about $1.00 in federal income tax - not depending upon others for survival - self sufficiency and financial freedom.

 

[MarcoD]

As a business owner - I don't let the employees decide compensation and benefit levels - I base those decisions on the overall business plan/budget, the competitive market, and of course the Government's mandates.

As a business owner you're probably glad you're not taxed too much, and in case you own a factory, or small business, you're very glad your employees don't pay a lot in tax, otherwise their wages need to go up. It's good for everyone, except for the middle incomes. (Except for that more factories means more wealth for everybody, of course.)

 

[WhoWee]

As a business owner you're probably glad you're not taxed too much, and in case you own a factory, or small business, you're very glad your employees don't pay a lot in tax, otherwise their wages need to go up. It's good for everyone, except for the middle incomes.

I'm not certain the basis of your assumptions?

As a business owner, I can assure you the cost of payroll services, accounting, HIPPA/MIPPA/compliance (in my industry OSHA in others along with Workers
's Comp), training, benefits, matching taxes, and comforts are considerable.

 

[phoenix:\\]

I stipulated a payment of $1.00 in federal income taxes - and you express outrage?

As for your comments about women and black people - what is the purpose and what is the basis of your attack and devisive rhetoric?

Slippery slop logic primarily in his post.

The system needs to be fixed, but in terms of voting procedures go, that idea isn't smart. It disallows some individuals to vote and holding down 3 meager jobs whilst supporting a family =/= being able to pay federal income tax. No. 1 reason why the government is allowing much leeway to those suffering in financial obligations.

 

[jtbell]

Also- taxing investments like normal income doesn't hurt Grandpa- yes he is now realizing some capital gains, but he isn't drawing a salary now. Its not like he'll be pulling in millions in realized capital gains- so taxing like normal income won't leave most of his gains in a high marginal bracket. You can play games with the numbers and find situations where a retiree could pay less with capital gains taxed as normal income.

Do we really want the politicians plating any more games with the tax code - isn't it long and complicated enough?

Uh... wouldn't taxing capital gains the same as earned income simplify the tax code?

 

[WhoWee]

Slippery slop logic primarily in his post.

The system needs to be fixed, but in terms of voting procedures go, that idea isn't smart. It disallows some individuals to vote and holding down 3 meager jobs whilst supporting a family =/= being able to pay federal income tax. No. 1 reason why the government is allowing much leeway to those suffering in financial obligations.

Why don't you support your comments - or label as opinion?

 

[WhoWee]

Uh... wouldn't taxing capital gains the same as earned income simplify the tax code?

I responded to this comment by PG:
"You can play games with the numbers and find situations where a retiree could pay less with capital gains taxed as normal income. "

Does that sound like an attempt to simplify?

 

[phyzguy]

What if I paid $1 million dollars in federal taxes last year, then lost my job so I have no income and pay no taxes this year. Does it make sense that I shouldn't be able to vote?

 

[jduster]

I wonder if they'll adopt my idea that only (federal income) taxpayers (minimum $1.00) should be allowed to vote?

$1 is an arbitrary number, the value of which will change over time. How would you index this figure, as in 50 years, $1 will likely be worth 50 cents? What is the significance of $1? Is it supposed to be a token number?

Could a felon vote if he has a job? Could a 12 year old vote if he has a job? Even jobless people could donate $1 to the IRS, no?

Above all, what good purpose would this acheive?

 

[WhoWee]

What if I paid $1 million dollars in federal taxes last year, then lost my job so I have no income and pay no taxes this year. Does it make sense that I shouldn't be able to vote?

Should we assume you spent all of your money and no have no other means of support for yourself - isn't unemployment subject to income tax?

 

[WhoWee]

$1 is an arbitrary number, the value of which will change over time. How would you index this figure, as in 50 years, $1 will likely be worth 50 cents? What is the significance of $1? Is it supposed to be a token number?

Could a felon vote if he has a job? Could a 12 year old vote if he has a job? Even jobless people could donate $1 to the IRS, no?

Above all, what good purpose would this acheive?

I thought my Post #73 was clear?

"We're talking about $1.00 in federal income tax - not depending upon others for survival - self sufficiency and financial freedom."

Also Post #35 referred back to Post #25
"I commented on this in Post #25: my bold

"There are three possible categories of persons in this conversation.
1.) People who pay $1.00 or more per year in net federal income taxes.
2.) People who pay $0.00 in federal income taxes and receive $0.00 federal income tax return - don't contribute and don't receive.
3.) People who do not pay $1.00 in federal income taxes but receive assistance from a program they did not contribute to (not Social Security or Medicare or VA-contribution was service to country).""

 

[ThomasT]

Why? Why punish investments? Why punish retirees who prudently invested in the economy and saved instead of spent? Why punish people that save so they don't need to be a burden on society in their old age? Who do you think actually benefits from dividends, interest, and capital gains?

Investments are not only for billionaires.

I meant that it would, imo, be fair to tax the largest dividend, interest, and capital gains incomes at much higher than current rates.

 

[SixNein]

That would not be reasonable - would it?

The whole idea you have is unreasonable and in my opinion extreme. You are proposing to create a hierarchical society where the government only represents people who have x amount of income where x is high enough to be taxed at least 1 dollar by federal income tax standards. Have you even considered just how many latent functions such an action would carry? Such an idea is essentially replacing democracy with plutocracy.

I suppose the people who don't get to vote would still have to pay other taxes right? But they don't get any kind of representation.

In my opinion, this sounds like libertarian hogwash.

 

[SixNein]

The entire problem with our government right now is essentially the thousands of different and competing interests. I don't think liberals or conservatives are at a disagreement with the concept that the tax system needs to be completely overhauled. But I do think people must get rid of their ideological religions in order to get things running correctly. And I don't see any leader on the horizon who could get people to snap out of it. Good leadership simply does not exists in this nation.

 

[WhoWee]

The whole idea you have is unreasonable and in my opinion extreme. You are proposing to create a hierarchical society where the government only represents people who have x amount of income where x is high enough to be taxed at least 1 dollar by federal income tax standards. Have you even considered just how many latent functions such an action would carry? Such an idea is essentially replacing democracy with plutocracy.

I suppose the people who don't get to vote would still have to pay other taxes right? But they don't get any kind of representation.

In my opinion, this sounds like libertarian hogwash.

Why would the Government only represent the people who pay taxes?

 

[SixNein]

Why would the Government only represent the people who pay taxes?

Your idea would remove voting privileges for people who are deemed to not be contributing enough to American society. As a result, these people would lose their voting privilege and the government representation that goes along with the privilege to vote. But they would still be coerced into paying other taxes.

Essentially, your idea is to basically remove government representation for a portion of society that isn't deemed to be good enough.

 

[SixNein]

Why would the Government only represent the people who pay taxes?

In my opinion WhoWee, we would need to build a decision tree in order to understand how to fix the tax system. And I think it would take quite a bit of work in order to come up with a real solution. And even if we succeed in constructing something sensible, I really doubt it would even get looked at by government.

A good idea would be to start a thread about the creation of such a tree. Start with a basic proposition like: We will have a progressive tax system. And have members contribute to pros and cons of such a system. And we eliminate branches of the tree with the most risk while taking branches with the most benefit for the republic.

Honestly, congress should be doing this... but its broken and bogged down with ideology and pandering to bases.

 

[WhoWee]

Your idea would remove voting privileges for people who are deemed to not be contributing enough to American society. As a result, these people would lose their voting privilege and the government representation that goes along with the privilege to vote. But they would still be coerced into paying other taxes.

Essentially, your idea is to basically remove government representation for a portion of society that isn't deemed to be good enough.

My idea is to motivate them to become productive - get off the Government handout list - even if that means working multiple jobs.

 

[Evo]

Due to the number of complaints about this thread and requests to close it, I'm pulling the plug.