Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Heritage foundation reporting amnesty would cost $6.3T to deficit

65 posts in this topic

Posted

That's the thing: No one's asking to soak the rich in the US. They're just asking that the rich play by the same rules as everyone else.

 

 

The "rich" and companies/corporations are two different things.

 

How much should a single person, with no kids and no mortgage deductions really have to pay if they are making 150k per year?

 

What's enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The "rich" and companies/corporations are two different things.

 

How much should a single person, with no kids and no mortgage deductions really have to pay if they are making 150k per year?

 

What's enough?

 

I understand your point, but that is a different point from what i was saying.

 

The point I was trying to make using your example, is I feel that a single person with no kids and no mortgage deductions and makes 150k per year should pay the same amount as another individual under the same circumstances, but receives its income in a different manner.

 

Meaning that a single person with no kids and no mortgage deductions, but receives their 150k salary through a payroll should pay the same amount of taxes as a single person with no kids and no mortgage deductions but receives their 150k income through long term capital gains and/or interest. 

 

Right now that 150k person on a payroll would pay significantly more on income taxes than an individual who made that same income through capital gains and/ or interest (28% marginal rate payroll income, at most 15% on long term capital gains).

 

So I guess my question back to you is, do you feel that someone making a million dollars income should pay significantly more taxes than someone else making a million dollars income based solely on how they made that income?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I understand your point, but that is a different point from what i was saying.

 

The point I was trying to make using your example, is I feel that a single person with no kids and no mortgage deductions and makes 150k per year should pay the same amount as another individual under the same circumstances, but receives its income in a different manner.

 

Meaning that a single person with no kids and no mortgage deductions, but receives their 150k salary through a payroll should pay the same amount as a single person with no kids and no mortgage deductions but receives their 150k income through long term capital gains and/or interest. 

 

Right now that 150k person on a payroll would pay significantly more on income taxes than an individual who made that same income through capital gains and/ or interest (28% marginal rate income, at most 15% on long term capital gains).

 

So I guess my question back to you is, do you feel that someone making a million dollars income should pay significantly more taxes than someone else making a million dollars income?

 

I think that they should all pay less, but I know that's not the question you were asking.

 

How many times is that money to be taxed is my questioning.  If you earned it through regular payroll, and it was taxed at your level then, IMO you shouldn't pay any more taxes on that money ever again, nor what it generates.

 

So I guess the simple answer is yes, I am OK with the capitol gains taxes being what they are, but am not OK with the income taxes being where they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think that they should all pay less, but I know that's not the question you were asking.

 

How many times is that money to be taxed is my questioning.  If you earned it through regular payroll, and it was taxed at your level then, IMO you shouldn't pay any more taxes on that money ever again, nor what it generates.

 

So I guess the simple answer is yes, I am OK with the capitol gains taxes being what they are, but am not OK with the income taxes being where they are.

 

i agreed up until the bold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think that they should all pay less, but I know that's not the question you were asking.

 

How many times is that money to be taxed is my questioning.  If you earned it through regular payroll, and it was taxed at your level then, IMO you shouldn't pay any more taxes on that money ever again, nor what it generates.

 

So I guess the simple answer is yes, I am OK with the capitol gains taxes being what they are, but am not OK with the income taxes being where they are.

 

Although I agree that you should only get taxed once for income, I don't really agree on the fact that you shouldn't pay money on what your money generates, and let me explain why.

 

First off, if that was the case, just about any investor would only be taxed only once on their first deal, no matter how small or how large, and then technically every other investment that person ever made would be tax exempt forever because they would only be taxed on their initial profit (ie income). 

 

The other thing is that most people (including the rich) obtain capital to purchase assets that result in capital gains through bank loans and/or private investors.  They may only have a small portion of their own money in the game.  Sometimes, none of their own money.

 

So how would you handle a person who gets capital gains off of other people's money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think that they should all pay less, but I know that's not the question you were asking.

 

How many times is that money to be taxed is my questioning.  If you earned it through regular payroll, and it was taxed at your level then, IMO you shouldn't pay any more taxes on that money ever again, nor what it generates.

 

 

So, no more sales tax then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Any of you posting in this thread willing to have your taxes increased to pay for this? (serious question).

 

yes.

 

as a (sort of) christian i recognize that my time on this planet is but a vapor in the wind and as such everything tangible is nothing but folly, and that, at the end of the day, my death in a pauper's grave is no different from the death of a king or a rich man, for we are all three dead, and, since our end will be the same, a bit of dirt shoveled on our heads and that being the final act, it is the meantime which we must focus upon in light of that finality; my own mortality lends credence to abandonment of temporality, of clutching the frail straws of material wealth and the teetering illusion of status, of security in shadows.

 

if raising taxes on my income - one of the wealthiest by world standards - increases standards of living for marginalized humans whose draw in the lottery of birth has not been as fortuitous as mine, then i am all for it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I like when conservatives choose to believe there would be no cost to us deporting all illegals. They are really good at pretending they live inside a social bubble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I like when conservatives choose to believe there would be no cost to us deporting all illegals. They are really good at pretending they live inside a social bubble.

 

No one's talked deportation.  It's been shown that even when we do, the deported just make a b-line back up here. 

 

Find sanctuary cities/states that aren't having budgetary issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why are you looking to government for the answer? Aren't you a free market guy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why are you looking to government for the answer? Aren't you a free market guy?

I'm not for indentured servitude.  Government caused this problem by not doing what it's supposed to do.  We are a nation of immigrants, but the south border is a helluva lot different/easier than what ancestors had to go through on Ellis Island. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Both California and Texas have diverse economies, but California bet more heavily on housing where as Texas doubled down on oil and energy wealth. If oil prices were slumping and housing prices high, you'd be seeing more articles asking why Texas can't be more like California.

 

Cali's decline is based more off of the housing slump and Texas' ascent with strong oil prices than anything having to do with illegals. That being said, Texas is a lot more welcoming to Mexicans (legal and illegal) than California and is light years ahead regarding assimilation.

 

Cali's budget went into the shytter years ago due to Gray Davis, only the 2nd governor ever recalled in the history of the US, housing and current policies certainly have contributed to the prolonged slump.

 

Anyway, California is certainly very Pro Illegal, and is the only state I'm aware to grant amnesty to some 3 million illegal immigrants already in it's past.

By the end of this year there will be more Mexicans in California than Whites and Blacks combined. 

I always thought Cali was pretty friendly to Illegals.

What sort of systems are in place to better assimilate Texas' illegals? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites