Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Are you also in favor of removing the cap on the benefits one can receive based on the money they put into it after retirement?
Perry to propose a flat tax
- Thread starter Core Imposter
- Start date
Are you also in favor of removing the cap on the benefits one can receive based on the money they put into it after retirement?
Can you prove that assertion? Let us watch some episodes of COPs and see how often police have to deal with folks that don't really have property. Now, as a random example, let's take my uncle's 300+ ranch in the ozarks that has no paved roads or anything. Who is actually costing government agencies more money?
Also, just FYI, there is a property tax on land in most States. Here in Missouri it is the primary funding for schools.
Core Imposter
Felon
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,416
Well, the socialists aren't going to allow benefits caps to be removed in that case. Its all about wealth redistribution for them, they don't even understand the concept of wealth creation.
I think we may have to endure a full iteration of a second greater depression with accompanying nuclear world war before common sense breaks out.
I think we may have to endure a full iteration of a second greater depression with accompanying nuclear world war before common sense breaks out.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
So that's America's plan then? I have been trying to work out what it was for years.
Obvious solution; poor people don't get to have police.
So you'd prefer everyone dead than poor old people being slightly less poor.
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
Honestly, I don't know. Relaxing it, sure. I just think that payroll tax reform would do more for the country than income tax reform, but I, honestly, don't have a lot of good ideas about how to actually implement that. I've got ideals, but I'm short on ideas. Then again, I'm not running for public office.
You do realize that the last Great Depression that conservative economic policies caused ended conservatism in the developed world for half a century, right?
You could just gas all the poor people every year, that would provide a real disincentive not to earn.
On who's behalf are the cops rounding the riff raff up?
There are very few law abiding citizens. Just check the disdain for speed limits and the failure to pay use tax.
Elta
我不会把这种
I've read the first few comments and skimmed the rest - not because I think I am too good to read it all and yet you all should all read my comments (I always announce when I haven't read it all and hate it when people don't read them all)
I didn't read them all because this forum always does what all reasonable people do in when flat tax comes up.
Start out with a flax tax then add in
Exemptions for the very poor
Then slightly less for the poor
Less exemptions but still some for the working class
And so on until you have 5 or 6 levels of exemptions and we are still looking at a progressive tax structure at the end of the day.
I do like the idea of a tax curve that is more consistent as a curve, that idea has legs with me and it's something that has occurred to me to.
I didn't read them all because this forum always does what all reasonable people do in when flat tax comes up.
Start out with a flax tax then add in
Exemptions for the very poor
Then slightly less for the poor
Less exemptions but still some for the working class
And so on until you have 5 or 6 levels of exemptions and we are still looking at a progressive tax structure at the end of the day.
I do like the idea of a tax curve that is more consistent as a curve, that idea has legs with me and it's something that has occurred to me to.
I hear the bullets will get you a killer deduction on your estate taxes.
RobAnybody
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,952
I've always wondered about a particular issue of the "flat tax" discussion, & it focuses on the whole "capital gains taxes" in general, so this seems as good a thread as any to ask this question:
When people trade stocks, particularly stocks of big, long-time-existing companies, isn't it true that the company sees no benefit from the trading? For an existing company, let's take Domino's Pizza Inc (DPZ), as an example - if I'm a multi-millionnaire & I buy 10,000 DPZ shares, I'm buying those shares from some other person, right? Not from Domino's?
Domino's sees no money from me buying their shares, right? This is the issue I've wondered about, not being the type to buy 10,000 shares of some big company. It's like trading baseball cards, as far as I understand it. I basically just bought 10,000 Big Papi rookie cards from some random person who owned 10,000+ Big Papi rookie cards, yes? I didn't buy those cards from Topps (Big Papi's rookie card was printed in 1997) anymore than I would have bought those shares from Domino's, right?
Our hypothetical transaction where I bought 10,000 DPZ shares from some random bloke who owned 10,000+ DPZ shares did not benefit Domino's Pizza in any way - they didn't see a cent of the money we just exchanged, right? It didn't give them new money to buy buildings, hire people, create new ads, anything - they got $0 from my trade, yes?
Now, I understand that newbie companies can offer IPO's, or existing companies can offer more shares, & in those cases, they benefit from me buying their shares. But most-if-not-all of the DOW & NASDAQ companies are like Domino's, right? Their shares are like 1997 Topps baseball cards - already out there, & if I sell them or buy them, Topps doesn't get a dime. It's just me shelling out money to the present owner.
So, have I got this right? And if I do have this right, then doesn't that mean that me buying & selling stocks for big companies (DOW, S&P, NASDAQ), means those companies see no benefit whatsoever from me buying/selling their stock? They want to be profitable to keep people buying their stock, sure, but no money goes to their company if I buy a share, right? If I buy a share, they don't get extra money to create jobs, or buy new computers, or expand their operations, yes?
If I've understood this correctly, and please weigh in if I haven't, then I really, really don't understand the whole Capital Gains Tax thing. Why is it taxed at a different, way lower rate? If I've got this correct, it'd be like taxing selling comic books at a much lower rate. Or Magic: The Gathering cards at a much lower rate. Or baseball cards, or football cards, etc.
I honestly hope I just don't understand this & someone will set me straight, because it just seems ridiculous to me, as I presently understand it. I mean, if the lower rate was limited to start-ups, then, well, yeah, I can get behind that, but if it's for all stocks, most of which don't even benefit the company the stock is from, then it's just ridiculous, to me.
When people trade stocks, particularly stocks of big, long-time-existing companies, isn't it true that the company sees no benefit from the trading? For an existing company, let's take Domino's Pizza Inc (DPZ), as an example - if I'm a multi-millionnaire & I buy 10,000 DPZ shares, I'm buying those shares from some other person, right? Not from Domino's?
Domino's sees no money from me buying their shares, right? This is the issue I've wondered about, not being the type to buy 10,000 shares of some big company. It's like trading baseball cards, as far as I understand it. I basically just bought 10,000 Big Papi rookie cards from some random person who owned 10,000+ Big Papi rookie cards, yes? I didn't buy those cards from Topps (Big Papi's rookie card was printed in 1997) anymore than I would have bought those shares from Domino's, right?
Our hypothetical transaction where I bought 10,000 DPZ shares from some random bloke who owned 10,000+ DPZ shares did not benefit Domino's Pizza in any way - they didn't see a cent of the money we just exchanged, right? It didn't give them new money to buy buildings, hire people, create new ads, anything - they got $0 from my trade, yes?
Now, I understand that newbie companies can offer IPO's, or existing companies can offer more shares, & in those cases, they benefit from me buying their shares. But most-if-not-all of the DOW & NASDAQ companies are like Domino's, right? Their shares are like 1997 Topps baseball cards - already out there, & if I sell them or buy them, Topps doesn't get a dime. It's just me shelling out money to the present owner.
So, have I got this right? And if I do have this right, then doesn't that mean that me buying & selling stocks for big companies (DOW, S&P, NASDAQ), means those companies see no benefit whatsoever from me buying/selling their stock? They want to be profitable to keep people buying their stock, sure, but no money goes to their company if I buy a share, right? If I buy a share, they don't get extra money to create jobs, or buy new computers, or expand their operations, yes?
If I've understood this correctly, and please weigh in if I haven't, then I really, really don't understand the whole Capital Gains Tax thing. Why is it taxed at a different, way lower rate? If I've got this correct, it'd be like taxing selling comic books at a much lower rate. Or Magic: The Gathering cards at a much lower rate. Or baseball cards, or football cards, etc.
I honestly hope I just don't understand this & someone will set me straight, because it just seems ridiculous to me, as I presently understand it. I mean, if the lower rate was limited to start-ups, then, well, yeah, I can get behind that, but if it's for all stocks, most of which don't even benefit the company the stock is from, then it's just ridiculous, to me.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Your argument is pretty weak. Poor people are just as often the target of crime as rich people.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Hopefully it doesn't.
Anyway, the Texan Ken doll's flat tax is still going to be whatever percentage higher than Ron Paul's would be, so Paul wins by default.
Similar threads
