I am being punished. I never said it was a crime right? But nonetheless I am being punished for the success that I have worked very hard to achieve.
Once again I want to emphasize that it is not just the stealing of my money that I object to. It is what they do with it after they steal it that bothers me even more. WASTEFUL BLOATED PIGS!
Forgive my over sensitivity to the âfinger waving bureaucratâ tone. After youâve heard it in person from the IRS, state tax agencies, business license offices, federal agents, census officials etc⊠It wears thin.
On top of taxes they have to pay regs to comply with private businesses operate as uncompensated tax collectors for sales/FICA/SS/unemployment only to get told they donât contribute enough. How dare people try to keep more of the fruits of their own labor. How anti-social!
There is a large difference in mindset and realities of life once you start signing the front of paychecks rather than the back.
Iâm not surprised we could listen to the same speech and I want to boo and hiss while you applaud. Different mindsets.
I donât have a problem with double taxation in regards to capital gains. Imo you invest in a company, you make a profit, itâs financial âbusiness.â The profits from said investment in a business is taxed as income.
Luckily its an investment that often requires little to no effort or knowledge of any kind. So for it to be as easy as it is, the fact that itâs taxed at a lower rate makes no sense to me.
I agree. Govt waste is rampant. I was really hoping to see a reduced defense budget this time around and see republicans REALLY get down to streamlining instead of slashing arbitrary programs. If you make these programs/entities/systems more streamlined (ie, less waste) you get more out of your dollar. The scale the govt continues to grow at is reduced by the sudden influx of new âcash.â
This then gives you the option to reduce spending and have clear citations to do so, which would more or less force bipartisanship. And at the end of the day youâre left with a smaller more efficient govt.
Oh my goshâŠUmâŠif you think that doing stock research takes little or no effort you are mistaken. And if you think that it is easy to take a large financial risk you are once again mistaken. Luck does not play into itâŠat least not in 99.9% of the investments that Iâve been involved in. But if you have never invested then I do not blame you for saying such a thing. It might look âeasyâ or âluckyâ. But trust me my friend IT IS NEITHER.
[/quote]
Very true an very well said!.
Stock research is unnecessary for 90% of trading that goes on. On an individual level, if someone is aware theyâre uneducated in stock analysis (and donât want to pay someone to do so) they should default to buying index funds, basically forever.
I manage my own 401k, my wifeâs, and both of my parents (although really only my dadâs looks nice at this point). I max out my/wifeâs roth as well. Itâs not that difficult on a personal level to handle those types of investments. Just common sense and basic google knowledge.
This was one of the things I was looking forward to about a Republican Congress with a Republican POTUS. Unfortunately, so far weâre seeing blind slash attempts (while inflating the defense spending even more) without any real attempts to optimize. Itâs a bit of a letdown.
The republicans usually let me down. The democrats ALWAYS let me down.
(Shrugs)
Try allocating the cost of paying for government services in a way that eases the burden on those who have less ability to pay by placing more of the burden on those who can. In this sense, itâs a moral reason, a fairness reason. Whether you think itâs fair or not is irrelevant - itâs a rational reason to structure taxation, and the intent isnât to use the power of law for the sole or primary reason to be hostile or discriminate against a class of people.
Ok, but this is a political argument, not a constitutional one based on Equal Protection.
The double taxation is that the company pays tax on the profit and if they do not have an income trust to pay dividends, it is not a business deduction. Then dividend recepient also pays tax personally. Thus double taxation.
Likely uncommon at this point, unless company is unsophisticated in taxes.
Thatâs not double taxation.
Itâs blatant hypocrisy. Republicans will say the government doesnât create jobs and then with the next breath say look at all the jobs we have lost in the military (or some such horse shit).
We spend gobs more than anyone else on defense and I swear to god to run as a republican you have to say âI will make our military strong again!â Like somehow we still donât hold the record in every single lift by far and we are worried the guy with the 200 pound deadlift will catch us if he runs a two month cycle.
Under Trump though Republicans arenât even pretending to be fiscally conservative anymore. Not even lying about it. Trump has advocated massive infrastructure investments while cutting taxes. Pretty sure he also alluded to letting us not pay what we owe but it gets hard to keep his lines straight.
Maybe like him and Russia he didnât mean it?
So itâs okay to shakedown people with more income, moral even? That is not equal protection under the law. But itâs a breathing document anyway right? Subject to interpretation.
Plus itâs bullet point 2 in the communist manifesto. So it canât be that bad.
Taxation isnât a âshakedownâ, and it isnât âtheftâ. I think we need to lower taxes in this country, but this idea that taxation is thievery has been cut to ribbons in these forums over and over.
If we need a fighter jet, and a rich person pays 60% of the cost and a poorer person pays 5% of the cost, yes, thereâs a perfectly plausible fairness argument - the jet is needed in defense of both rich and poor, but the rich person can more easily afford it (the higher payment still wonât leave them struggling to put food on the table). Thereâs other arguments as well.
Nope, itâs not, because any original understanding of the EP clause knows that EP wasnât designed to require thoughtless uniformity in legislation. If that were true, the militia requirement of âable bodied menâ would be unconstitutional because it didnât require or permit the non-âable bodiedâ from serving. Thatâs irrational, and thatâs not what EP is designed to protect.
Who knew the early Federalists were Marxists?
Who knew Jefferson and Madison were Marxists?
Itâs the other way for me tbh. To me, at least the dems arenât telling gays theyâre not equal citizens. If theyâre both going to fuck up the economy either way, might as well get the guys who care about equal rights.
The free education was not out of the goodness of Marxâs heart. He knew that if they could indoctrinate children the next generation would be more on board with the revolution.
Central banks issuing currency wasnât popular with many FFâs. Some of them hated all banks.
Thank you for calling out my guilt by association fallacy. Foul acknowledged.
The phrase âshakedownâ was poorly chosen. If you and I both earn $1 of income and you are taxed at 39% and I am taxed at 25%. How is that equal protection under the law?
I think where we differ is in how we view âpropertyâ. I view property (and/or income) as an inalienable right like speech or association. It is well established that Congress can restrict our speech (canât yell fire in a theater) or association (canât riot). So of course a government needs to tax.
Where I nitpick a bit is that nobody would consider it moral if arbitrarily chosen racial/income/age/political groups had differing rights to free speech, or differing rights to association. See where Iâm coming from?
firstly, I am far less worried about maybe 2% of the population than I am the ENTIRE POPULATION. Secondly, the republicans are not telling gays that they are not equal citzens.
This is a debate that I donât really want to get into, but I will merely point out that the tax laws are applied equally to all citizens; Rich Guy is never taxed 39% on the same dollar that Middle Class Guy is taxed 25% on. I donât think I really need to explain how the tax brackets work to anyone here, but stillâŠthe progressive tax bracket doesnât mean that rich people pay 39% on ALL of their dollars. Once they pass the upper end of the 25% bracket, they pay 28% (and then 33%, and then 35%, and then 39%) on the additional income above each respective tax bracket.
Rich Guy pays a higher total percentage of his total income. I am not disputing that, nor do I care to debate specifics of whether that is fair. I am merely pointing out that Rich Guy is not paying 39% on the same dollar that Middle Class Guy is paying 25% on; heâs paying 39% on the highest part of his income; on the first $50,000 of income, he pays the same taxes as Middle Class Guy. You can certainly quibble with whether you think that is fair, but I just wanted to make that distinction. Since your argument is about âequal protection under the lawâ - rich and poor do operate under the same tax laws, and those laws are applied equally to all citizens.
The Dems are telling the entire population theyâre not equal citizens?
Voting against gay marriage is pretty clear. âWe donât think gays donât get the same benefits to citizenship straight people have access to.â Their intent also doesnât matter, as the end result is the same.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Gay marriage was legalized by the SC. This is a debate that we might have had two maybe three years ago.
Letâs move on to issues that really matter that one has been resolved.
The question mark was because I didnât understand why youâd respond to âDems arenât telling gays theyâre not citizensâ with âIâm more worried about the entire populationâ
If it wasnât still (to this day) being pushed at a state level, Iâd agree that its resolved. Sadly, thatâs not the case.
Furthermore, my point was more to the basic ideology of the Republican party. Previously, depending on the scale, it wasnât out of the ordinary for a non POTUS republican to earn my vote on the basis of fiscal conservatism. Now that Congress has basically stopped caring about the budget (see Defense increase while slashing programs instead of optimizing) people like me find a hard time reconciling voting against the Dems benefit to social aspects when thereâs increasingly less to gain by voting red.
UmâŠSorry I have no idea what you are talking about. They have equal rights and to my knowledge no one is harassing them. Youâve lost me my friend.
Yeah, okay if you donât feel that the republicans are just a smidgen better than the dems on fiscal responsibility then vote a straight democrat ticket from now on. Unlike others on the board I wonât go all bat crap and call you out for being partisanâŠalthough I do enjoy it when they do that 