Flat Taxes and Fair Taxes and Income Taxes, oh my!
- Thread starter JuanCarlos
- Start date
JuanCarlos
New member
Go read a book.
I've read a bit on the subject over the years, but I'm not particularly interested in explaining it all to somebody else. So a quick quote from ye olde wikipedia:
So yes, part of the ruling was overturned on appeal. But the point is that there was enough evidence of misconduct to justify a ruling against them. I heartily recommend you go ahead and look into the details of what that evidence was for yourself.
JuanCarlos
New member
Only when something isn't well documented and ridiculously easy to find. I mean, if you want a link I suppose I can give you one. There's the wikipedia article on US v. Microsoft. Start reading there. When you finish that, feel free to hit up the links at the bottom for further reading. Once you've finished with those, feel free to hit up the local library on the subject.
I wasn't asking you to research some obscure statistic I pulled out of my rear end, FFS. I figured you could punch "microsoft antitrust" into Google and get plenty of info on your own. "wiki microsoft antitrust" would have taken you right to that page.
Since the case is only tangentially related to the topic at hand anyway, I didn't feel the need to go into a detailed explanation of a fairly complex issue that was easy enough for you to read up on on your own.
As for breaking the laws, their anti-trust lawsuits were some of the biggest news stories in the business world over the past two decades.
As for technological shenanigans one of the most egregious is their tendancy to cripple software from competitors.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-512681.html
It's not even about financial competitors. Microsoft has routinely done everything it could to squelch the open source community, viewing Linux itself as a "virus" and proclaiming that the free share of ideas and concepts is a cancer on the computing world.
Let's not even get into the blatant theft of Apple's GUI concept (which was, in itself, a blatant theft of Xerox's GUI concept).
edit: I'm sorry for derailing this and I'll let everyone get back to the topic at hand
but I just had to point out that the richest man in the world is not there just because he worked hard. he cheated his way to the top as many others have. sure, he worked his ass off and is brilliant but that doesn't lessen the amount of cheating he did. scoring four touchdowns in a single game does not negate the fact that you had someone break the knees of your opponent's star linebackeredit: lol oops
Last edited:
JuanCarlos
New member
Fair enough, but not everybody shares your feelings on the subject. Including the courts. Which doesn't instantly make Redworm or I right, mind you...but at the same time to suggest there was no evidence of wrongdoing by a company who was ruled against by the courts puts the ball in your court as far as I'm concerned.
Yes, I will concede that some (even many) of the complaints against Microsoft were (and still are) overblown. Yet at the core of the issue I think there were several anti-competitive practices that Microsoft engaged in. Either way, this is only tangentially related to the topic of the thread. If we really feel this is worthy of extended discussion, I suppose we could start another thread. I'm not particularly interested in participating, though, and I don't think it'll go far.
I'll just say that I don't think the whole thing is as simple as either you or Redworm make it out to be, and also a lot of where the "controversy" regarding the ruling comes from seems to me to come from how much regulation of any industry by the government is valid, and has little to nothing to do with Microsoft or their business practices.
applesanity
New member
I've always thought of any tax system besides flat tax was kind of retarded.
Why punish successful people? Sure, you have paris Hilton. But for every Paris Hilton, how many Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are there?
By saying, "if you make truckloads of money, you have to give up a higher percentage of your earnings for taxes," you are discouraging wealth. A flat tax rate just says, "no matter how much money you make, you still have to pay ##%."
Or worse, you are encouraging tax fraud. Because of Joe Silicon Valley just hides an extra million or two, he won't get bumped up into the next tax bracket. I'm not just speculating here. Both WSJ and Cato have studied this effect, showing strong correlations between unfair taxes on the rich and cheating the IRS.
I remember learning in my Econ 101 class about how there was an NYC luxury tax on yachts, because only rich people buy yachts. After all, if they can affford a yacht, they can surely afford to give up some loose change for uncle sam, yeah?
The following year, boat builders lost tons of business. Makers of private planes and high-priced cars noticed a rise in revenue. So, Paris Hilton didn't get punished. Nope. Joe Blue Collar at the shipyard got punished.
Of course I also believe in tax breaks for people making less than a living wage. They're not gonna contribute much revenue anyway.
Any tax system that discourages wealth is seriously flawed.
Why punish successful people? Sure, you have paris Hilton. But for every Paris Hilton, how many Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are there?
By saying, "if you make truckloads of money, you have to give up a higher percentage of your earnings for taxes," you are discouraging wealth. A flat tax rate just says, "no matter how much money you make, you still have to pay ##%."
Or worse, you are encouraging tax fraud. Because of Joe Silicon Valley just hides an extra million or two, he won't get bumped up into the next tax bracket. I'm not just speculating here. Both WSJ and Cato have studied this effect, showing strong correlations between unfair taxes on the rich and cheating the IRS.
I remember learning in my Econ 101 class about how there was an NYC luxury tax on yachts, because only rich people buy yachts. After all, if they can affford a yacht, they can surely afford to give up some loose change for uncle sam, yeah?
The following year, boat builders lost tons of business. Makers of private planes and high-priced cars noticed a rise in revenue. So, Paris Hilton didn't get punished. Nope. Joe Blue Collar at the shipyard got punished.
Of course I also believe in tax breaks for people making less than a living wage. They're not gonna contribute much revenue anyway.
Any tax system that discourages wealth is seriously flawed.
WeedWacker
New member
I would agree to paying higher taxes so long as it was not extravagant, like making $100,000 bumps me up to the 60% bracket and I make as much as someone making $60,000 and pays 33% taxes. If it were 90,000 and over pays 35% I would be happy with my income.
JuanCarlos
New member
I'm not intimately familiar with the tax code (since I'm not exactly making much yet
), but out of curiosity:When you go up into a new "bracket," is all your income now taxed at the new rate, or is only income in excess of the cutoff taxed at the new rate? Because it really should be the latter, if it isn't. There should never be any way that I can take home less money by making more.
Would you find that kind of scheme less objectionable, at least? So that you'd (for example) pay 0% on your first $20K, 20% on the next $50K, 30% on the next $100K, and like 40% on the rest?
Not the actual numbers, mind you, just the idea. An exemption for the first X income, then the income in each bracket is taxed at a different rate. It sounds complex, but with computers it really wouldn't be all that difficult to calculate. Even with basic algebra skills it wouldn't be difficult to calculate.
What do you expect when people are elected to office and told that their job is to spend money. So they spend money! When have you seen anyone who voluntarily reduced his own income for the public good? Or a politician anger his constituency by refusing to pass pork bills for his district? The name of the game is to get re-elected so that he can ride the gravy train longer.
More taxes every year because more politicians spend more money than is raised. It's called deficit spending. You can try it in your own situation, but they'll come for you. Who can come for the government? Government is supposed to exist to do things for people that they can't do for themselves. Like Border protection, customs enforcement, diplomacy, maintaining defense forces, operating flight safety,etc. etc.
It should not be for pork projects, regulating areas that could be self regulating, fighting wars against drugs,(and losing it). Basic capitalism is remarkably self regulating. If there is no profit, change something.
If politics could be made less profitable for the politicians, maybe the system could be changed for the benefit of the people. Maybe. Remember Government of the people, for the people, and BY THE PEOPLE. Professional politicians are at the root of the problem. I just don't know what to replace them with.
More taxes every year because more politicians spend more money than is raised. It's called deficit spending. You can try it in your own situation, but they'll come for you. Who can come for the government? Government is supposed to exist to do things for people that they can't do for themselves. Like Border protection, customs enforcement, diplomacy, maintaining defense forces, operating flight safety,etc. etc.
It should not be for pork projects, regulating areas that could be self regulating, fighting wars against drugs,(and losing it). Basic capitalism is remarkably self regulating. If there is no profit, change something.
If politics could be made less profitable for the politicians, maybe the system could be changed for the benefit of the people. Maybe. Remember Government of the people, for the people, and BY THE PEOPLE. Professional politicians are at the root of the problem. I just don't know what to replace them with.
I've said nothing about tax exemptions. We are talking about progressive taxes. Whatever arbitrary number you would like to set the income tax exemption at is fine. This takes care of the poor and those who simply cant make it. However, for those who do have enough income to be taxed they should be taxed at a rate which is fair. If the rate is fair for them, at say 40k then its fair for the person who makes 400K.
The issue is not benefit, the issue is what is owed the government. The essence of socialism is asking "how much" should someone have. Poor people overwhelmingly use government services more than the rich. As a result on pure cost alone, they should bear the brunt. However, just as justice is blind, each citizen owes the same obligation to the government.
Correct, you pay a fixed amount at the cutoff point and anything over cutoff between brackets you pay at y%.
Reference the IRS tax schedule for more details.
Let it Bleed
New member
That is a patently false characterazation of the article. There was nothing incoherent about it. Evidently you are convinced that you are correct and simply choose to trivialize and dismiss, without analysis, anything that challenges your opinion. This is certainly your perogative, but it demonstrates a lack of intellectual examination.
There is never an absolute answer when dealing with the issue of fairness, especially as it relates to taxes. Diverse opinions and arguments are beneficial to not only understanding the other guys position, but also provides greater insight into one's own beliefs.
While many harp on the fact that the poor utilize more governmental services, I submit that is a gross oversimplification. Do the poor benefit from patent and copyright enforcement? Do the poor really have any stake in the battle against communism? What about shareholder derivative lawsuits?
Most Americans also don't want to admit that they are current or prospective welfare recipients. They prefer to think that they automatically deserve whatever they've been promised simply because the promises were made.
Social Security provides monthly benefits to over 43 million retired and disabled workers, their dependents, and survivors. The program has expanded steadily since its creation in the 1930s. Today, it accounts for 22 percent of all Federal spending.
The cost of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the main Federal welfare program, provides cash and services to needy children and their families. This program accounts for one percent of Federal spending.
No, its simply utter baloney and goes back to my original point. Taxes are not a punishment nor an equalizer. They should not be assessed based on who recieves what, but rather a persons obligation to the government as a citizen. The law views each person equally, regardless of their bank account, and taxes should as well.
Furthermore the rich recieve just as much benefit from the military as the poor do. The same applies to the police, roads, pubic works, etc. All this bullcrap about making fortunes off of war is simply that.
JuanCarlos
New member
Yeah, like I said I'm pretty ignorant of the intricacies of the tax code at this point, since we don't itemize yet and are still in the lowest tax bracket. I really ought to start learning about such things, as it'd probably help me sound a smidge less ignorant when it comes to tax conversations.
It is interesting to me that at $2.6M a year Theresa Heinz was still only paying at a rate of about 28%.
Really? So who is more likely to own shares of Halliburton, somebody in the poorest quintile or somebody in the wealthiest? Same for General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc. The poor are lucky if they can even get a job working for one of these companies...more likely they're grinding it out at retail.
And that's just talking about direct investment in the military-industrial complex. That's before you get into the inherent advantages of doing business/owning a business in the most powerful country on Earth.
Now for things like police, fire, and school services I agree that the benefit the poor and rich receive is roughly equal.
Let it Bleed
New member
A poll tax it is!
And what percentage of the richest americans have invested in the military complex. My guess is a very small percentage considering the number of non-military industries out there. By your logic however, these people should not be taxed as much when we are at peace. If theres no conflict then there's no benefit.
You bring up Kerry's wife. As the ketchup queen clearly she does not have any benefit from the military other than anyone else. Yet she is taxed the same as those who "profit" off of war.
You then bring up owning a business. COrrect em if I'm wrong but there aren't any laws agains owning a business. Anyone can do it. Why then should there be a tax on business owners? Keeping in mind a majority of business owners do not fall into these richest tax categories, we should still tax them at the highest rate because they have some extra "benefit".
Your arguent has no logic, let alone any practicality. It all falls apart with the exception of we tax those who are rich.
Hardly roughly. Looking just at public health and the police, an overwhelming majority of their time and resources are spent on the poor. How often are cops called to respond to something in a rich neighborhood versus a poor neighborhood. How often do they arrest the poor compared with the rich. How many rich people don't have private health insurance. Answer none.
In this tit for tat game, even by your standards, things draw even. Thus you can't tell me that the poor should be taxed less than the rich considering that dollar for dollar the rich will always pay more.
