Thread: Taxes?

Originally Posted by sicboater

A very interesting point of view. I don't know about taxing inheritances though. It is highly likely that money would have been taxed already at least one time; but if not, what if you use it to invest? Then it would be taxed again under your outline. I like your separation of passive and active income. The problem is there is some investing that requires more time and skill than others (i.e. you can't be passive about day trading) would you have all capital gains taxed the same?

Well, maybe you could have a calculation of the number of hours spent actively involved in managing the investments, which would be active income.

The reason for taxing inheritances is so that families wouldn't accumulate great wealth over the centuries.

As for money being taxed more than once, I think that it is reasonable to tax money each time it changes hands. Why should someone have a huge advantage over someone else just because they had a rich parent?

Originally Posted by Chimensch

Why should someone have a huge advantage over someone else just because they had a rich parent?

why shouldn't they?

Originally Posted by jockeys

why shouldn't they?

Because, if the government has to take money away from someone, it would be preferable to take it from someone who had absolutely nothing to do with earning it.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

Because, if the government has to take money away from someone, it would be preferable to take it from someone who had absolutely nothing to do with earning it.

so that it can be given to/spent on those who had equally nothing to do with earning it?

Originally Posted by jockeys

so that it can be given to/spent on those who had equally nothing to do with earning it?

Theoretically, the government spends money on things that benefit everyone, for the common good.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

Theoretically, the government spends money on things that benefit everyone, for the common good.

Hey, now there's a commonist idea! Somehow I doubt the government knows how to benefit everyone though To take it to the extreme, why not just do away with currency completely and let the government proportion all the necessary resources to those who need it?

Originally Posted by Chimensch

Theoretically, the government spends money on things that benefit everyone, for the common good.

hah! maybe in Italy. Here in the states, tax money gets spent on lobbyists, special interest groups, and pork contracts to friends of politicians.

Originally Posted by jockeys

hah! maybe in Italy. Here in the states, tax money gets spent on lobbyists, special interest groups, and pork contracts to friends of politicians.

Ah, you're talking about how taxes are spent ... I thought the discussion was about how they should be collected.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

Theoretically, the government spends money on things that benefit everyone, for the common good.

Now take this theory and apply it to the woman from jockeys example.

Or to make the question more pointed, How does that woman by her presence contribute contribute anything that could be called good.

Also know that she "wasn't let down" by any system, she could have a mother who's living was earned the same way and probably is producing children who will earn their living the exact same way she is.

If you can find any "common good in that" you are a far more generous person than I.

I also lived near a welfare family, they got more per kid though because their offspring was brain damaged. I will admit though that they were more ambitious than Jockeys crackwhore the family I knew went out and got jobs, and three months later bought a house and new car then quit their jobs to go back on welfare again. You see they could make more with less effort being on welfare than working as long as they had two retarded kids but the needed jobs to get the credit to buy the house. It wasn't even like they were comparing welfare to minimum wage either she was a paralegal (how she knew the system) and he was a trained book keeper.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Now take this theory and apply it to the woman from jockeys example.

Or to make the question more pointed, How does that woman by her presence contribute contribute anything that could be called good.

Also know that she "wasn't let down" by any system, she could have a mother who's living was earned the same way and probably is producing children who will earn their living the exact same way she is.

If you can find any "common good in that" you are a far more generous person than I.

All I'm saying is that I refuse to believe that as a young child this woman's dream was to become a drug addict. Something happened to her between child-and-adult-hood which lead to that outcome. Of course she was let down by the system.

The "good" that could be found here is what a society does with people in these positions. What "good" is there in writing people off as no-good drug whores? Why isn't it better to try and get someone back into society so that they can start contributing again?

I also lived near a welfare family, they got more per kid though because their offspring was brain damaged. I will admit though that they were more ambitious than Jockeys crackwhore the family I knew went out and got jobs, and three months later bought a house and new car then quit their jobs to go back on welfare again. You see they could make more with less effort being on welfare than working as long as they had two retarded kids but the needed jobs to get the credit to buy the house. It wasn't even like they were comparing welfare to minimum wage either she was a paralegal (how she knew the system) and he was a trained book keeper.

Your welfare system is not means-tested? Here your assets are assessed when determining payment.

James.