Thread: The imitaors!

Originally Posted by jockeys

I guess I just don't understand why it's ok to set an arbitrary limit on how successful you can be before it becomes morally acceptable for the gov't to screw your kids.

Originally Posted by ProfessorChaos!

+1

the less government in my life, in my pocket and on my back, the better.

i think that where we have lost our way is that many americans don't want the responsiblity that accompagnies freedom. for some, it is far too easy to blame someone else for your shortcomings and failures.

I am in full agreement!

My 2 cents:

Our government needs to raise "x" amount of dollars each year to cover its expenses. Setting aside for the moment the question of whether we can do better in terms of what we spend each year (let's agree we can do much, much better than what is actually done) the question becomes what is the fairest way to raise the sum of money that needs to be collected to run the government.
On the one hand, we tax the income people derive from working as a primary way of raising the yearly budget. Like it or not, this is what we have been doing for quite some time now. Tax the fruits of people's labor.
On the other hand, we can also tax money that goes to certain people who haven't worked for their money, but who have inherited large sums of money through nothing more than accident of birth. Like Paris Hilton.
Now if you ask me, it is far, far more unfair to tax the income derived from people who go to work each day to earn a living while giving a pass to children of the rich who derive income not from working, but from simply being the progeny of the wealthy.
So tell me why you want to give Paris Hilton a pass on paying taxes on the money she receives from mommy and daddy while you want to tax the guy who pumps your gas.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

My 2 cents:

Our government needs to raise "x" amount of dollars each year to cover its expenses. Setting aside for the moment the question of whether we can do better in terms of what we spend each year (let's agree we can do much, much better than what is actually done) the question becomes what is the fairest way to raise the sum of money that needs to be collected to run the government.
On the one hand, we tax the income people derive from working as a primary way of raising the yearly budget. Like it or not, this is what we have been doing for quite some time now. Tax the fruits of people's labor.
On the other hand, we can also tax money that goes to certain people who haven't worked for their money, but who have inherited large sums of money through nothing more than accident of birth. Like Paris Hilton.
Now if you ask me, it is far, far more unfair to tax the income derived from people who go to work each day to earn a living while giving a pass to children of the rich who derive income not from working, but from simply being the progeny of the wealthy.
So tell me why you want to give Paris Hilton a pass on paying taxes on the money she receives from mommy and daddy while you want to tax the guy who pumps your gas.

Every time Paris Hilton uses her money she pays taxes And when her father or whoever it was, earned that money, they paid taxes, so, why should they get taxed again just for dying?

Originally Posted by JMS

Every time Paris Hilton uses her money she pays taxes And when her father or whoever it was, earned that money, they paid taxes, so, why should they get taxed again just for dying?

well said, sir.

I am of the opinion that if the people must be taxed, then ALL the people must be taxed, and taxed equally, or at least proportionately. Just because I'm a successful professional and my neighbor is an idiot who sucks at life doesn't mean I should have to fork over a third of what I make while he only has to part with a tenth.

Not to mention, Paris Hilton (who I can't stand, just for the record) does actually have business ventures of her own. Although arguably one of the dullest pencils in the box, she is using her dad's money to make her own, all of which is taxed. I'm not sure there is anyone who gets handed a huge chunk of cash and assets, takes all the money and buries it, only using what is needed to survive. The money eventually gets taxed away, just like everyone else.

Originally Posted by JMS

Every time Paris Hilton uses her money she pays taxes And when her father or whoever it was, earned that money, they paid taxes, so, why should they get taxed again just for dying?

Isn't it one of our founding principles that the same earnings shall not be taxed twice? I'm pretty sure why we threw a bunch of tea into the harbor, the stamp act taxed us twice. This makes a lot of the taxes we pay borderline illegal (local, state, sales, inheritance.) I'm sure there's a loophole that's been found for each of those.

Wow JMS, we agree twice within a week!

Originally Posted by Nickelking

Wow JMS, we agree twice within a week!

My evil plan is working!!

I like your take on things Kantian - Instead of "Death and Taxes", you have "Death Is Taxes"!

I guess taxation is a hot button issue. Personally I have no issue with paying tax. I see it as enabling my country to function so as to allow me to function. Simplistic, I know, but it sure beats the ulcers of worrying about it.

James.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

I like your take on things Kantian - Instead of "Death and Taxes", you have "Death Is Taxes"!

I guess taxation is a hot button issue. Personally I have no issue with paying tax. I see it as enabling my country to function so as to allow me to function. Simplistic, I know, but it sure beats the ulcers of worrying about it.

James.

do you also think that "when rape is inevitable, you should lie back and enjoy it?"

just because it's easier to not worry about something doesn't mean you shouldn't worry.

Originally Posted by Nickelking

Isn't it one of our founding principles that the same earnings shall not be taxed twice? I'm pretty sure why we threw a bunch of tea into the harbor, the stamp act taxed us twice. This makes a lot of the taxes we pay borderline illegal (local, state, sales, inheritance.) I'm sure there's a loophole that's been found for each of those.

Wow JMS, we agree twice within a week!

Not borderline illegal, completely illegal. The only basis in law for the collection of taxes on income, which otherwise is expressly prohibited as a power of the government, comes from the sixteenth amendment to the constitution which curiously enough is the only amendment that grants to the government a power it did not have, all the rest define the limits of the governments power.

Both in wording and effect this amendment does not fit with the others. It goes against the spirit of the document and the whole idea of our constitution, frankly I think the only reason it is an amendment to the constitution is because if it were law the supreme court would certainly strike it down and indeed did so on several occasions previous to the passing of this amendment.

At the time of its passing the government was in a monetary crunch and since they hadn't discovered "debt spending" yet they had to find a way to get more money. Its pretty obvious they couldn't find any legal way to do it. So rather than cut spending they essentially re-wrote the constitution to fit their perceived need. Talk about a awfully dangerous precedent.

I know one of the people who thinks the government knows better than they do and is willing to fork over the cash will chime in here and say that the tax structure is legal. I admit that but I contend the whole thing hinges on this amendment which itself was a poorly conceived notion and should be eliminated.