Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-28-2011, 05:56 AM   #91
Pentaxian
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,822
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
Certainly everyone is affected. Someone who put their money in a bank savings account at nearly zero interest isn't adversely affected nearly as much as someone who let a broker "invest" it for them and subsequently lost it. Both people will suffer the secondary consequences of an economy that's in the crapper, but the first guy still has all of the cash he started with. As I've said before; they are called brokers because if if you let them handle your money long enough, you'll go broke.
It's not as bad, but the first guy still has money taken from his pocket. Inflation still exists at a higher rate than interest, so his net from receiving no interest is that he has less money than before.

Also, as I noted earlier, it is almost impossible to do business in the U.S. or even live here without involving a financial institution. People who have tried it down here had their cash confiscated by law enforcement on suspicion that they were dealing drugs. It is also considered a marker for being an illegal immigrant. Many basic services (like rent or auto insurance) require a check or money order for payment, or you will be gouged in another way.

In a complex financial world whose markets are dominated by a relatively few large corporations, choice is an illusory concept.

09-28-2011, 06:06 AM   #92
Inactive Account




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,965
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
........
But, it is noble because it is done for the benefit of a few owners rather than politicians and the general public.
That's a valuable observation.

The corporations we interact with are associations of shareholders (defined as such by SOCTUS) - why do we cut them slack and hold government to a higher standard? After all, we are all shareholders of government.
09-28-2011, 06:43 AM   #93
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,056
QuoteOriginally posted by newarts Quote
That's a valuable observation.

The corporations we interact with are associations of shareholders (defined as such by SOCTUS) - why do we cut them slack and hold government to a higher standard? After all, we are all shareholders of government.
Hmmm.... because government/democracy is a perversion of commerce and capitalism?

When government sets up businesses (ie. any service or fee collection) then it is acting as a competition to corporations. Never mind if these services and fees are best done by government, or that businesses don't see them as potentially profitable - it's the principle!

In a well run (by whom? G? as in .od or .overnment?) market competing businesses - or cooperating ones - have no or at most very limited inside influence on the other entity. That is, Sony doesn't have a say in what Panasonic does... and only a limited influence on what its suppliers and distributors do.

But when a government entity is the competition/cooperator, there's little separation of corpopration and state -- the corporation will use all legal means to influence the state, including placing its alumni in government positions, paying for public opinion shaping, direct payments to politicians, etc etc. In other words, business is free to influence government in ways it is not free to with other businesses.

Conversely, government has powers over corporations that corporations do not have among themselves: the power to regulate, to police, to tax, to charter, to protect patents... As we know through observation, a corporate entity has little of the ethical/moral contitioning real individuals do. Just as corporations have no compunction to do everything legal to influence government to see things their way, corporations resent everything a government imposes on them. And so corporations have no compuction ot do everything legal to limit government influence on their conduct.

Just as, in business, corporations have little compunction about putting the competition out of business, if they can. For individuals, this would be considered manslaughter or very immoral and unethical behavior.

Thus we can say that in an ideology where the liberty and free action of independent economic entities (corporations and individuals) is sacred and the greatest good, government is a cancer and a perversion, something that distorts the ideal.
09-28-2011, 07:10 AM   #94
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 794
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
Consider: I start up a new business using my own savings and money begged from friends and relatives. All this start up cash has already been taxed. It is a success, and I have loads of customers paying me with their already taxed cash. I pay corporate tax and I pay myself a small salary on which I pay income tax - all this money has come to me already taxed. Finally I hire an employee, who I pay a salary to, and withhold taxes from, all with money that has come to me already taxed.

Furthermore, before I got my money, and before my customers got theirs, the money had already been taxed when it 'belonged' to someone else... and so on.

So how's my dying logically going to go tax free?
When people bought from you, or you bought from others property/services went one way, dollars went the other.

Money bequeathed shouldn't be taxed since it was a one way street.


So no one here has any opinion on the question?

QuoteQuote:
So you won't answer the question either I see. What is so hard about it?

I don't say we need to can all pubic servants. Put pay scale/benes need to be more in line with private sector.

The "entitlement" programs need to be restructured. I've seen way too many who will work just enough hours to get back thousands of dollars come tax time. Dollars they never put in.

They need reform.

So again, How Much Is Enough? How much do we tax the "rich"?

What constitutes "rich"? What is your measure? And what about people like Warren Buffet? They don't take a salary. How Much?


09-28-2011, 10:37 AM   #95
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Most of the big complainers are from those inheriting businesses.. How is that a one way street???
09-28-2011, 10:49 AM   #96
Pentaxian
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,822
By the way, the latest polls show the Republicans to be out of step with the vast majority of America on this issue. Americans Favor Jobs Plan Proposals, Including Taxing Rich In fact, the Norquist crowd is out of step with the majority of Republicans. And 41% of Republicans favor the President's proposal to raise taxes on the wealthiest.
09-28-2011, 11:02 AM   #97
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,031
Daily Kos: PolitiFact doesn't understand taxes, randomly decides Obama's statements must be only 'half true'
09-28-2011, 01:27 PM   #98
Inactive Account




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,965
QuoteQuote:
When people bought from you, or you bought from others property/services went one way, dollars went the other. Money bequeathed shouldn't be taxed since it was a one way street.

So no one here has any opinion on the question?
There are few ways ways to look at most things - here's one:

The way our rules are written, income is taxed - expenditure isn't. Transfer of an estate is income to the heir, ergo taxable.

The deeper question centers around who fundamentally owns what. English tradition says there is such a thing as inheritable "private property". Ha! Universal practice defers to the power of deadly force.

Your "private property" exists only so long as your government is willing and able to protect your "ownership" by force of arms. If that's the case, then who actually owns it? - I think it is not you.

At most we might exclusively own our individual lives - but even that's a stretch considering our debts to others (like mom & the uncounted people who built everything supporting us.)


Last edited by newarts; 09-28-2011 at 01:34 PM.
09-28-2011, 02:45 PM   #99
Pentaxian
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,822
The person who is paying the tax is really the heir, who is not getting as big an inheritance as he or she might want. We tax the receipt of money from another individual. The only reason this is not income is a statutory definition that handles inheritance and gifts through a different tax. From a moral standpoint, it would seem to make no difference.
09-28-2011, 02:50 PM   #100
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,056
...we may ask, of course, why the estate tax marginal rate is 36%... while a hedge fund manager only pays 15% on his millions?
09-28-2011, 04:07 PM   #101
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
shooz's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Detroit
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,491
One might even ask why we need hedge fund managers, at all.
Don't they bet against the "invisible hand"?
09-28-2011, 04:34 PM   #102
Pentaxian
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,822
QuoteOriginally posted by shooz Quote
One might even ask why we need hedge fund managers, at all.
Don't they bet against the "invisible hand"?
And why they need to be paid 10 figure compensation.
09-28-2011, 05:45 PM   #103
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,056
QuoteOriginally posted by shooz Quote
One might even ask why we need hedge fund managers, at all.
Don't they bet against the "invisible hand"?
Which is funny: the Innovative Job/Wealth Generators Who Shall Not Be Taxed for fear of them not wanting to be rich after all need subsidies for their money runners to bet against the Invisible Hand.
09-28-2011, 07:33 PM   #104
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
shooz's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Detroit
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,491
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
And why they need to be paid 10 figure compensation.
Don't worry, it comes out of your IRA....................................
09-29-2011, 07:17 AM   #105
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
regarding the question of how much money is enough?


Happy but Poorly Paid. Well Paid but Miserable. | Toronto Standard | News, Media, Art, Business, Technology, Fashion, Events
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
buffett, obama, tax
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OMFG, they actually have a plan mikemike General Talk 26 01-23-2011 04:32 PM
So you want to be a pro... did you plan! icywarm Photographic Industry and Professionals 4 09-23-2010 07:25 AM
Obama suggests value-added tax may be an option Artesian General Talk 65 04-27-2010 08:46 AM
The Master Plan .... daacon General Talk 34 03-17-2010 11:41 AM
Good Plan or Bad Plan?? Sew-Classic Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 33 06-28-2009 02:38 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:29 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top