Can one earn a living purely by avoiding losses?
Give Oil Company profits to the people
- Thread starter ZZman
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Can one earn a living purely by avoiding losses?
That's not what I said nor meant. You can amass wealth with avoided losses.
..but while we're at it ...if my $200/month electric bill goes away and evaporates, have I not liberated $200/month?
If my $200k tax bill isn't there anymore ..and I still get to spend the money and amass wealth with it, haven't I just gained the mobility and power that the saem $200k bought ..while never really leaving my hands?
Suppose I only get $100k out of the $200k that I invested. That is, I took a $100k loss (which I will also get to deduct). Are you saying that I still didn't get a 50% ROI on tax avoidance?
Can one earn a living purely by avoiding losses?
That's not what I said nor meant. You can amass wealth with avoided losses.
..but while we're at it ...if my $200/month electric bill goes away and evaporates, have I not liberated $200/month?
If my $200k tax bill isn't there anymore ..and I still get to spend the money and amass wealth with it, haven't I just gained the mobility and power that the saem $200k bought ..while never really leaving my hands?
Suppose I only get $100k out of the $200k that I invested. That is, I took a $100k loss (which I will also get to deduct). Are you saying that I still didn't get a 50% ROI on tax avoidance?
The tax-free money used in the business is not yours to enjoy and spend as you please. If you decide to sell the business and have your wealth in hand, you will have to pay a huge tax bill.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
So? I keep looking for the down side of this for the acquisition of wealth in tax avoidance. You're parking wealth and have all of the mojo that it includes.
At some point it's merely a measuring stick. The walking mass of humanity is in the same rat race until they are amassing more wealth then they can produce in realtime.
Why do some continue to work beyond the point where their wealth is growing in multiples of their reported income? Because their reported income is more like the tip of the iceberg that they're actually earning. That is, they wouldn't be giving up a $300k job ..they would be giving up LARGE in what they're really amassing.
Achievement is a great thing ..but don't make it all "grafted in heraldry" when depicting it in its various forms.
At some point it's merely a measuring stick. The walking mass of humanity is in the same rat race until they are amassing more wealth then they can produce in realtime.
Why do some continue to work beyond the point where their wealth is growing in multiples of their reported income? Because their reported income is more like the tip of the iceberg that they're actually earning. That is, they wouldn't be giving up a $300k job ..they would be giving up LARGE in what they're really amassing.
Achievement is a great thing ..but don't make it all "grafted in heraldry" when depicting it in its various forms.
Quote:
I have plenty of background in manufacturing and have friends how own machine shops. Your point?
Please ask him how he got the money to start the business and how "risk free" his decision was and post it here. No, really, I want to know.
I have worked in manufacturing for nearly all of my adult life, mostly in small to medium size companies and the endeavour is far from risk free. It is a struggle against the competition (both local and over seas) and changing economic times. I was laid off from a small sheet metal operation after 911 and the company almost went belly up (they did manage to stay in business). I know of at least 2 other shops that have gone under, both larger that the one I worked at.
Similar situations in other fields I have worked in.
Quote:
there's no assurance nor any reason to assume that it benefits the society in the action.
Business is there to make money. Without that motivation, there would be no economy. Is it evil to take a job as a stepping stone if you plan to quit that job in short order and move to another place so you can make money there? It's the same thing you are talking about here, just on the employee side. Where is the "social benefit" here?
As far as taxes, again, that is a government (artificial) environment. If someone takes advantage of that environment, what makes them evil?
You sell Amsoil from your home. That entitles you to certain tax breaks that others without home business get. That means you are being subsidized by avoided taxes. Does your wealth need help?
I have plenty of background in manufacturing and have friends how own machine shops. Your point?
Please ask him how he got the money to start the business and how "risk free" his decision was and post it here. No, really, I want to know.
I have worked in manufacturing for nearly all of my adult life, mostly in small to medium size companies and the endeavour is far from risk free. It is a struggle against the competition (both local and over seas) and changing economic times. I was laid off from a small sheet metal operation after 911 and the company almost went belly up (they did manage to stay in business). I know of at least 2 other shops that have gone under, both larger that the one I worked at.
Similar situations in other fields I have worked in.
Quote:
there's no assurance nor any reason to assume that it benefits the society in the action.
Business is there to make money. Without that motivation, there would be no economy. Is it evil to take a job as a stepping stone if you plan to quit that job in short order and move to another place so you can make money there? It's the same thing you are talking about here, just on the employee side. Where is the "social benefit" here?
As far as taxes, again, that is a government (artificial) environment. If someone takes advantage of that environment, what makes them evil?
You sell Amsoil from your home. That entitles you to certain tax breaks that others without home business get. That means you are being subsidized by avoided taxes. Does your wealth need help?
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Paying less tax does not equal a subsidy, It equals less being taken away. If the vampire only sucks one pint of my blood, but sucks a quart from my neighbour, am I being subsidized?
Yes. You are subsidized the difference between a pint and a quart.
Paying less tax does not equal a subsidy, It equals less being taken away. If the vampire only sucks one pint of my blood, but sucks a quart from my neighbour, am I being subsidized?
Yes. You are subsidized the difference between a pint and a quart.
What if the vampire next sucks three quarts from another neighbour? Do I have to call the vampire back to my place to make things fair?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
I have plenty of background in manufacturing and have friends how own machine shops. Your point?
Please ask him how he got the money to start the business and how "risk free" his decision was and post it here. No, really, I want to know.
I have worked in manufacturing for nearly all of my adult life, mostly in small to medium size companies and the endeavour is far from risk free.
It surely depends on how you define risk and equate it to loss. Again, you attempt to instill the vision of the sweat and toil millionaire ...and many that are there may have indeed expended sweat and toil to achieve some ante level ..and some may struggle perpetually to remain there.
Are you saying that these are the only millionaires out there? Are you to have us believe that they are all sweating bullets ..fearing the next evolution in the economy that's going to send them back to the minor leagues ..or for that matter working for wages?
Please, I give you more credit than that for truth in expression. I'll at least give you more credit in your own image of "plausible" reality.
Disclaimer: I would do EXACTLY THE SAME THING
Hypothetical scenario: Take someone like our fine Dr. Haas. He's a great guy. Friendly enough. Drives nice cars ..has a beautiful wife. Nice house. His practice brings in $3M/annually. He lives off of the minimum amount that manages to pay for his "sensible lifestyle" under the direction of his accountant. He then invests the rest in "wealth parking" enterprises that have to employ no one ..nor show a profit. They automatically reduce his tax burden by 30+% of the amount "parked". If they never make a dime ..they've got a banging ROI.
The tax system is a reward system that pays larger the higher the level of achievement. It's inverted from every "bonus" system used in most sensible compensation methods or discount methods used in most sales models.
If I'm moving up as a sales person ..my % decreases. If I'm selling something on volume ..the percentage of discount decreases.
That is, 25% off ...less 10% ..1ess 10% ...less 5% ...etc..etc.
Sales incentive bonuses work in the same manner in most structured models.
..but taxation works in an inverted manner beyond a certain level. You get more incentives to become even more wealthy ..and you don't really need to be productive with it. You merely have to break even.
That's if viewed as your actual normalized income were to fall under the income tax umbrella. The avoidance of that pays off very large in amassing wealth.
Its very simple to see ...and it's not much that I see needs to be rewarded. It's very much like you've passed some test to get on the easy street to wealth accumulation.
So, you can cite the tables and whatnot ..income is a rather narrow view of either static or dynamic worth in $$$.
You have to argue an apples to apples scenario.
We'll go back to our hypothetical Bill O'Reilly and how his contract with FAUX news is either paid to his production company or is mostly deferred in stuff that falls outside of the IRS radar. He supports a system that bolsters this modality and amassing wealth ..while minimizing his contribution to supporting the society that he draws his sustenance from. So he whines about how he's tax oppressed ..yet amasses millions annually in worth.
Quote:
I have plenty of background in manufacturing and have friends how own machine shops. Your point?
Please ask him how he got the money to start the business and how "risk free" his decision was and post it here. No, really, I want to know.
I have worked in manufacturing for nearly all of my adult life, mostly in small to medium size companies and the endeavour is far from risk free.
It surely depends on how you define risk and equate it to loss. Again, you attempt to instill the vision of the sweat and toil millionaire ...and many that are there may have indeed expended sweat and toil to achieve some ante level ..and some may struggle perpetually to remain there.
Are you saying that these are the only millionaires out there? Are you to have us believe that they are all sweating bullets ..fearing the next evolution in the economy that's going to send them back to the minor leagues ..or for that matter working for wages?
Please, I give you more credit than that for truth in expression. I'll at least give you more credit in your own image of "plausible" reality.
Disclaimer: I would do EXACTLY THE SAME THING
Hypothetical scenario: Take someone like our fine Dr. Haas. He's a great guy. Friendly enough. Drives nice cars ..has a beautiful wife. Nice house. His practice brings in $3M/annually. He lives off of the minimum amount that manages to pay for his "sensible lifestyle" under the direction of his accountant. He then invests the rest in "wealth parking" enterprises that have to employ no one ..nor show a profit. They automatically reduce his tax burden by 30+% of the amount "parked". If they never make a dime ..they've got a banging ROI.
The tax system is a reward system that pays larger the higher the level of achievement. It's inverted from every "bonus" system used in most sensible compensation methods or discount methods used in most sales models.
If I'm moving up as a sales person ..my % decreases. If I'm selling something on volume ..the percentage of discount decreases.
That is, 25% off ...less 10% ..1ess 10% ...less 5% ...etc..etc.
Sales incentive bonuses work in the same manner in most structured models.
..but taxation works in an inverted manner beyond a certain level. You get more incentives to become even more wealthy ..and you don't really need to be productive with it. You merely have to break even.
That's if viewed as your actual normalized income were to fall under the income tax umbrella. The avoidance of that pays off very large in amassing wealth.
Its very simple to see ...and it's not much that I see needs to be rewarded. It's very much like you've passed some test to get on the easy street to wealth accumulation.
So, you can cite the tables and whatnot ..income is a rather narrow view of either static or dynamic worth in $$$.
You have to argue an apples to apples scenario.
We'll go back to our hypothetical Bill O'Reilly and how his contract with FAUX news is either paid to his production company or is mostly deferred in stuff that falls outside of the IRS radar. He supports a system that bolsters this modality and amassing wealth ..while minimizing his contribution to supporting the society that he draws his sustenance from. So he whines about how he's tax oppressed ..yet amasses millions annually in worth.
Quote by Gary Allen:
"You have to argue an apples to apples scenario.
We'll go back to our hypothetical Bill O'Reilly and how his contract with FAUX news is either paid to his production company or is mostly deferred in stuff that falls outside of the IRS radar. He supports a system that bolsters this modality and amassing wealth ..while minimizing his contribution to supporting the society that he draws his sustenance from. So he whines about how he's tax oppressed ..yet amasses millions annually in worth."
And here's another lesson on reality:
http://www.charityfocus.org/blog/view.php?id=1667
"Tom Brokaw: You’ve talked about in your office, for example, you pay a much lower tax rate with all of your wealth than, say, a receptionist does.
Warren Buffet: That’s exactly right, Tom. And I– I think the only way to do it is with specifics, and– and - and in our office, 15 people cooperated in a survey out of 18. I didn’t make anybody do it. And my total taxes paid– payroll taxes plus income tax– and the payroll tax is an income tax. It’s based on income. Mine came to– 17.7 percent. That– that was the– that was line 61 I think– or, no, line 43– is the percent of taxable income, plus payroll taxes, 17.7 percent. The average for the office was 32.9 percent. There wasn’t anybody in the office from the receptionist on that paid as low a tax rate. And I have no tax planning. I don’t have an– I don’t have a– an accountant. I don’t have tax shelters. I just follow what the U.S. Congress tells me to do.
Tom Brokaw: Why do you think that there’s not more outrage about that? "
And the kicker:
"Warren Buffet: I--I don't think people understand it."
Gee, do you think?
Last interesting part:
"He also bet million bucks to anyone on the Forbes 400 who can refute this with hard data."
It's not hard to see why there's a projected half of a $trillion dollar Federal deficit for 2009
"You have to argue an apples to apples scenario.
We'll go back to our hypothetical Bill O'Reilly and how his contract with FAUX news is either paid to his production company or is mostly deferred in stuff that falls outside of the IRS radar. He supports a system that bolsters this modality and amassing wealth ..while minimizing his contribution to supporting the society that he draws his sustenance from. So he whines about how he's tax oppressed ..yet amasses millions annually in worth."
And here's another lesson on reality:
http://www.charityfocus.org/blog/view.php?id=1667
"Tom Brokaw: You’ve talked about in your office, for example, you pay a much lower tax rate with all of your wealth than, say, a receptionist does.
Warren Buffet: That’s exactly right, Tom. And I– I think the only way to do it is with specifics, and– and - and in our office, 15 people cooperated in a survey out of 18. I didn’t make anybody do it. And my total taxes paid– payroll taxes plus income tax– and the payroll tax is an income tax. It’s based on income. Mine came to– 17.7 percent. That– that was the– that was line 61 I think– or, no, line 43– is the percent of taxable income, plus payroll taxes, 17.7 percent. The average for the office was 32.9 percent. There wasn’t anybody in the office from the receptionist on that paid as low a tax rate. And I have no tax planning. I don’t have an– I don’t have a– an accountant. I don’t have tax shelters. I just follow what the U.S. Congress tells me to do.
Tom Brokaw: Why do you think that there’s not more outrage about that? "
And the kicker:
"Warren Buffet: I--I don't think people understand it."
Gee, do you think?
Last interesting part:
"He also bet million bucks to anyone on the Forbes 400 who can refute this with hard data."
It's not hard to see why there's a projected half of a $trillion dollar Federal deficit for 2009
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
"He also bet million bucks to anyone on the Forbes 400 who can refute this with hard data."
It's much easier to combat with inspiring ideals and nfity sounding platitudes. That is, to bolster a notion of "entitlement".
"He also bet million bucks to anyone on the Forbes 400 who can refute this with hard data."
It's much easier to combat with inspiring ideals and nfity sounding platitudes. That is, to bolster a notion of "entitlement".
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
What if the vampire next sucks three quarts from another neighbour? Do I have to call the vampire back to my place to make things fair?
No, you should hide the fact that the vampire only suck 1 pint from you, so that your neighbor will not ask him to return the 2.5 qt and suck some more from you instead.
What if the vampire next sucks three quarts from another neighbour? Do I have to call the vampire back to my place to make things fair?
No, you should hide the fact that the vampire only suck 1 pint from you, so that your neighbor will not ask him to return the 2.5 qt and suck some more from you instead.
Last edited:
Warren Buffet is comparing two different kinds of income. If he were like normal investors, who lose money sometimes, he would have a different story. Employment income has no risk of capital loss. If he loses money in the market, does he get his 17% back from the government? No. This is why the taxes on investment income are at a lower rate.
Tax could be collected on one's annual inflation-adjusted increase in net worth. The same would apply for individuals as well as corporations. If loss occurs, the government would pay you back. The rate would have to be rather high, but it might be an interesting way to do things.
Tax could be collected on one's annual inflation-adjusted increase in net worth. The same would apply for individuals as well as corporations. If loss occurs, the government would pay you back. The rate would have to be rather high, but it might be an interesting way to do things.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
No one makes anyone go for the brass ring, oily. They could just roll with inflation and live with it. Buy government bonds ..whatever. "But inflation will chew up my gains!!
" ..well, welcome to the ever lowering strata that the rest of the population lives in. I'd like to listen to your plight of treading water ..but the noise from my snorkel drowns out your cries for being saved. My sympathies
..but there's no reason to exchange one notion of entitlement for another.
I don't begrudge natural human nature here. We find, however, when it's a matter of "thee", we think in nebulous terms ..in terms of "funny money" (medicare $$, SS $$$, inflationary $$ blah-blah-blah) ..but when it's a matter of "me" ..then only real gains are valid. We're all in this together ..except for me. Some one else needs to bear the burdens. I deserve what I deserve. Did not the common worker "earn" his money that he dumps into the collect economic enterprise? Does he not deserve real value for the $$ he spends? This changes not one bit up or down the ladder.
..and again, I'd do the same thing in the same circumstances. Everywhere I could afford to go there would be like people doing like things. I don't begrudge the boat owner ..the private air craft owner..the real estate baron..no one. That doesn't mean that there aren't some misconceptions of the process due to personal perspective of self interest.
That is, everyone is tax oppressed...just some are more oppressed than others. The one's rationalizing it the most ..tend to be on the large end of the economic benefits of the society. It's not like those of lesser stations aren't being robbed too.
One perceives that the other is the reason for their plight.
The other perceives that the other is the reason for their plight. In reality there is "a plight" and it's a game of musical chairs seeing who is left standing when the music stops.
These are common filtered views when you're seeking an increasing share of a declining market (dilution and shrinkage of real resources). No one wants to lose ground ..yet as a society we're losing ground. Some want an exemption under the "preferred evil of default bad remedies". First you have a bad situation that you construct, then make an unfavorable remedy the forced solution in "best outcomes in a bad situation".
..but..that's life
I don't begrudge natural human nature here. We find, however, when it's a matter of "thee", we think in nebulous terms ..in terms of "funny money" (medicare $$, SS $$$, inflationary $$ blah-blah-blah) ..but when it's a matter of "me" ..then only real gains are valid. We're all in this together ..except for me. Some one else needs to bear the burdens. I deserve what I deserve. Did not the common worker "earn" his money that he dumps into the collect economic enterprise? Does he not deserve real value for the $$ he spends? This changes not one bit up or down the ladder.
..and again, I'd do the same thing in the same circumstances. Everywhere I could afford to go there would be like people doing like things. I don't begrudge the boat owner ..the private air craft owner..the real estate baron..no one. That doesn't mean that there aren't some misconceptions of the process due to personal perspective of self interest.
That is, everyone is tax oppressed...just some are more oppressed than others. The one's rationalizing it the most ..tend to be on the large end of the economic benefits of the society. It's not like those of lesser stations aren't being robbed too.
One perceives that the other is the reason for their plight.
The other perceives that the other is the reason for their plight. In reality there is "a plight" and it's a game of musical chairs seeing who is left standing when the music stops.
These are common filtered views when you're seeking an increasing share of a declining market (dilution and shrinkage of real resources). No one wants to lose ground ..yet as a society we're losing ground. Some want an exemption under the "preferred evil of default bad remedies". First you have a bad situation that you construct, then make an unfavorable remedy the forced solution in "best outcomes in a bad situation".
..but..that's life
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Warren Buffet is comparing two different kinds of income. If he were like normal investors, who lose money sometimes, he would have a different story. Employment income has no risk of capital loss. If he loses money in the market, does he get his 17% back from the government? No. This is why the taxes on investment income are at a lower rate.
He IS a normal, typical investor who loses money some time. Government doesn't tax investment at a lower rate (AMT??? Short term capital gain??? They aren't lower), the reason it is taxed lowered is because the income is reduced through loophole, shelter, or creative methods (never sell stocks, just borrow against the stocks you own, etc).
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Tax could be collected on one's annual inflation-adjusted increase in net worth. The same would apply for individuals as well as corporations. If loss occurs, the government would pay you back. The rate would have to be rather high, but it might be an interesting way to do things.
The problem with this approach is people make money during good economy and lose money during bad economy. Currently you already have the government income tied to population income, now you are talking about having government pull in a "negative income" or losses when the economy is bad, and put a "supposely" stable government function on a boom and bust cycle. Not good for the long term stability of the country.
Imagine, if you are an employer you have to avoid people age 27-31 because of the recession 10 years ago. Those people graduated at a time with barely any education despite going to college for 4 years. They are now LEMON workforce for life.
Warren Buffet is comparing two different kinds of income. If he were like normal investors, who lose money sometimes, he would have a different story. Employment income has no risk of capital loss. If he loses money in the market, does he get his 17% back from the government? No. This is why the taxes on investment income are at a lower rate.
He IS a normal, typical investor who loses money some time. Government doesn't tax investment at a lower rate (AMT??? Short term capital gain??? They aren't lower), the reason it is taxed lowered is because the income is reduced through loophole, shelter, or creative methods (never sell stocks, just borrow against the stocks you own, etc).
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Tax could be collected on one's annual inflation-adjusted increase in net worth. The same would apply for individuals as well as corporations. If loss occurs, the government would pay you back. The rate would have to be rather high, but it might be an interesting way to do things.
The problem with this approach is people make money during good economy and lose money during bad economy. Currently you already have the government income tied to population income, now you are talking about having government pull in a "negative income" or losses when the economy is bad, and put a "supposely" stable government function on a boom and bust cycle. Not good for the long term stability of the country.
Imagine, if you are an employer you have to avoid people age 27-31 because of the recession 10 years ago. Those people graduated at a time with barely any education despite going to college for 4 years. They are now LEMON workforce for life.
Last edited:
Quote:
It's not hard to see why there's a projected half of a $trillion dollar Federal deficit for 2009
Indeed, the gov. spends more money than it takes in. Has nothing to do with the tax code.
Unless of course you feel entitled to reach into other people's pockets at gun point for doing nothing? Try that on the street and you will do time in a small barred room. If the government does it, it is because they care...
Quote:
Are you saying that these are the only millionaires out there?
I think it safe to say that there are more "poor" millionares out there than "rich" ones. And the more you have, the more you have to lose.
It's not hard to see why there's a projected half of a $trillion dollar Federal deficit for 2009
Indeed, the gov. spends more money than it takes in. Has nothing to do with the tax code.
Quote:
Are you saying that these are the only millionaires out there?
I think it safe to say that there are more "poor" millionares out there than "rich" ones. And the more you have, the more you have to lose.
Poor millionaires? That is the definition of an oxymoron (if you want to use net assets as your definition of wealth).
Wow, I do taxes for a living and have worked with many a client who have ridiculous tax debts. No one ever came to their doors with a gun. And in fact, many have settled for pennies on the dollar (all very wealthy well to do folks I might add...).
Wow, I do taxes for a living and have worked with many a client who have ridiculous tax debts. No one ever came to their doors with a gun. And in fact, many have settled for pennies on the dollar (all very wealthy well to do folks I might add...).
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Poor millionaires? That is the definition of an oxymoron (if you want to use net assets as your definition of wealth).
Wow, I do taxes for a living and have worked with many a client who have ridiculous tax debts. No one ever came to their doors with a gun. And in fact, many have settled for pennies on the dollar (all very wealthy well to do folks I might add...).
..again, I'll trade places with that struggling millionaire. I'll accept the crushing burden of taxes and deal with the limp from the ball and chain that cripples me from being a loafing millionaire. I will gladly give up my life of relative leisure ..with all the lack of burden for the suffering that these people endure.
Poor millionaires? That is the definition of an oxymoron (if you want to use net assets as your definition of wealth).
Wow, I do taxes for a living and have worked with many a client who have ridiculous tax debts. No one ever came to their doors with a gun. And in fact, many have settled for pennies on the dollar (all very wealthy well to do folks I might add...).
..again, I'll trade places with that struggling millionaire. I'll accept the crushing burden of taxes and deal with the limp from the ball and chain that cripples me from being a loafing millionaire. I will gladly give up my life of relative leisure ..with all the lack of burden for the suffering that these people endure.
It's not complaint of suffering, but a warning they will walk if things continue as they are. Other parts of the world have much better business climates, and standards of living approaching what we had in the 1960's.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
I don't see how allowing "raking it in" as a disincentive to manufacturing off shore if the profit margin is higher. I've personally observed this in a "job shop" alloy foundry for hire. The owner was constantly whining about foreign competition. Did it devalue his lifestyle? Did he share in the burden of competition? No. It deminished the compensation packages in the turd-hole enterprise. They (the big 3) still had all their toys and mansions. They were kind enough to keep the place open for the workers ..who had a choice of other like employment. It's where they landed as marbles in the gutter.
Now if you want to JUST make true domestic manufacturing a "sacred cow" in this allowance ..then sure..I'll back it 1000% ..but if you just say "the more you make the more you make" doesn't assure that any productive outcome occurs.
Again, if I'm just parking wealth, I can lose money and save in avoided costs. I get to keep more than I normally would have outside of the income vacuum. How do you think all of that defunct retail can stay idle for so long without a tenant? The real losers in something like that happening are the real entrepreneurs and those "wealth parking" just have them outgunned in staying power. They don't have to make money to save large.
Now if you want to JUST make true domestic manufacturing a "sacred cow" in this allowance ..then sure..I'll back it 1000% ..but if you just say "the more you make the more you make" doesn't assure that any productive outcome occurs.
Again, if I'm just parking wealth, I can lose money and save in avoided costs. I get to keep more than I normally would have outside of the income vacuum. How do you think all of that defunct retail can stay idle for so long without a tenant? The real losers in something like that happening are the real entrepreneurs and those "wealth parking" just have them outgunned in staying power. They don't have to make money to save large.
Originally Posted By: javacontour
I understand that some are in a crisis that they did not create. Say an illness or something like that.
However, the person who skipped school, got addicted to drugs and/or alcohol, got knocked up or knocked up a half-dozen women, etc are only in a crisis of their own creation.
So the question is why should these folks get a discount on their taxes for screwing up?
I say not a flat tax rate, a flat tax. Everyone from 25-70 pays the same dollar amount of taxes each year, $6K, $12K, whatever it is. Everything you make over that is yours. Don't make enough, the IRS is looking for you.
I seriously hope that you are joking about this. For this to work you probably need to pay $50k each citizen, unless you cut the government to almost non-existence.
So police will be paid for by local property tax, no more public school, you have to stop every 1/4 mile to pay for a toll, no more fire fighters. Why? People do not like to pay out of pocket, so you get a lean government, little to no public infrastructure, and no investment for the next generation (education, library, police, ambulance, road, etc).
What you get is Mexico, Columbia, Nigeria, Romania, Mongolia, etc. If that's what you really want, you can probably move over there, but I'd imagine most US citizen don't.
If that happen, I for sure will vote no to all military budget, no to all foreign policy, no to prison expense. Since nothing handled by the government, why bother protecting the private enterprises that charges me for everything? Let them hire their own mercenary. For me, I have my Desert Eagle around at all time. Let those "patriots" die for the privately owned everything.
You'd be surprised how many college grad, well educated people can't make a decent living now a days. Not because of dropping out of school or knock up a few women (or being knocked up a few times), but because their industries went out of favor and no longer has jobs, their jobs don't provide medical benefit and they went bankrupt due to medical accidents (over 50% of all personal bankruptcy are due to medical reason).
I understand that some are in a crisis that they did not create. Say an illness or something like that.
However, the person who skipped school, got addicted to drugs and/or alcohol, got knocked up or knocked up a half-dozen women, etc are only in a crisis of their own creation.
So the question is why should these folks get a discount on their taxes for screwing up?
I say not a flat tax rate, a flat tax. Everyone from 25-70 pays the same dollar amount of taxes each year, $6K, $12K, whatever it is. Everything you make over that is yours. Don't make enough, the IRS is looking for you.
I seriously hope that you are joking about this. For this to work you probably need to pay $50k each citizen, unless you cut the government to almost non-existence.
So police will be paid for by local property tax, no more public school, you have to stop every 1/4 mile to pay for a toll, no more fire fighters. Why? People do not like to pay out of pocket, so you get a lean government, little to no public infrastructure, and no investment for the next generation (education, library, police, ambulance, road, etc).
What you get is Mexico, Columbia, Nigeria, Romania, Mongolia, etc. If that's what you really want, you can probably move over there, but I'd imagine most US citizen don't.
If that happen, I for sure will vote no to all military budget, no to all foreign policy, no to prison expense. Since nothing handled by the government, why bother protecting the private enterprises that charges me for everything? Let them hire their own mercenary. For me, I have my Desert Eagle around at all time. Let those "patriots" die for the privately owned everything.
You'd be surprised how many college grad, well educated people can't make a decent living now a days. Not because of dropping out of school or knock up a few women (or being knocked up a few times), but because their industries went out of favor and no longer has jobs, their jobs don't provide medical benefit and they went bankrupt due to medical accidents (over 50% of all personal bankruptcy are due to medical reason).
- Status
Similar threads
