[Doofy]

While the income tax rates are comparable to other places (certainly no higher than the US once you're in the top band and take FICA into account), it's the wealth tax which is the killer.

[Shaddim]

Insurance is a small drop in the bucket (and it's provided by my employer). Combined, we made just north of $250k over the last 12 months, and I'd be staring at a nasty ISF tax for our total net worth.

I won't even begin to mention the VAT, which seems criminal to me.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Insurance is a small drop in the bucket (and it's provided by my employer).

FICA's, what, 15%ish if you're self-employed though? Last I looked it takes the top marginal over 60% (for certain states).

?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'd be staring at a nasty ISF tax for our total net worth.

Yep. ISF's the killer. And the bleedin' property taxes. Hence all the rich folks from France now live elsewhere. And stuff like this stays on the market forever (it's been on market at least 8 years now).

[zombie punk]

I feel really sorry for the extremely rich, it must be terrible.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

I feel really sorry for the extremely rich, it must be terrible.

You should, too many people ride their coattails. I donated >$80k to charity last year, if I weren't taxed so much I'd be able to give more.

FICA's, what, 15%ish if you're self-employed though? Last I looked it takes the top marginal over 60% (for certain states).

I think that's about right Doofy.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You should, too many people ride their coattails. I donated >$80k to charity last year, if I weren't taxed so much I'd be able to give more.

LOL - so your argument is that government programs that benefit the poor should be cut so that the rich can have more money that they might choose to donate to help the poor? Hilarious!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

LOL - so your argument is that government programs that benefit the poor should be cut so that the rich can have more money that they might choose to donate to help the poor? Hilarious!

and your argument is that the government should take a (much) higher percentage of my money just to give it to the shiftless who won't pay their own way. That's rather stupid.

At least this way I choose where my money goes, can't say I trust the feds with that type of program.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

and your argument is that the government should take a (much) higher percentage of my money just to give it to the shiftless

That's an outstandingly bigoted insult.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

who won't pay their own way. That's rather stupid.

And another astoundingly illogical comment paired with more insults.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

At least this way I choose where my money goes, can't say I trust the feds with that type of program.

Why should I trust you to prioritize money over the federal government? Certainly what I know of you from your comments leads me to think that money is better off in almost anyone else's hands than yours.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

That's an outstandingly bigoted insult.

And another astoundingly illogical comment paired with more insults.

Why should I trust you to prioritize money over the federal government? Certainly what I know of you from your comments leads me to think that money is better off in almost anyone else's hands than yours.

Stupid is as stupid does. Can't say I have much respect for those who feel they're entitled to an unbalanced portion of my money.

Tell ya what, sport, go out and earn enough to actually start worrying about this type of thing and we'll have an informed chat.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Stupid is as stupid does. Can't say I have much respect for those who feel they're entitled to an unbalanced portion of my money.

Your lack of understanding of economics is astounding.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Tell ya what, sport, go out and earn enough to actually start worrying about this type of thing and we'll have an informed chat.

Again, you speak from total ignorance. You know nothing of my income, and yet you mouth off on the topic, and you know nothing of economics, and yet you mouth off on that too. If you are indeed as wealthy as you say, you should spend a little more on your own education.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

Your lack of understanding of economics is astounding.

Again, you speak from total ignorance. You know nothing of my income, and yet you mouth off on the topic, and you know nothing of economics, and yet you mouth off on that too. If you are indeed as wealthy as you say, you should spend a little more on your own education.

Keep telling yourself that, just another ignorant socialist wanting what isn't theirs. Clutch tightly to those entitlements, they make you a better person, honest.

[berkIeestudent84]

When I had a trip in France, nothing seemed wrong with the French. Very nice people, even after they found out I'm American. Great food as well. I wouldn't mind going back for longer either.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

Why should I trust you to prioritize money over the federal government?

Because it's his money. Not yours, not mine, not the federal government's. His.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Because it's his money. Not yours, not mine, not the federal government's. His.

Au contraire - if the federal government taxes it, it belongs to the people at large. That's Federal Law.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Keep telling yourself that, just another ignorant socialist wanting what isn't theirs. Clutch tightly to those entitlements, they make you a better person, honest.

Keep on insulting people - that always helps mask the fact that you have no point to make. The reality is that the purpose of government is to protect the more wealthy from the less wealthy. Since the more wealthy obviously benefit from this more than the less wealthy, it is right that they should pay a greater proportion.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

Au contraire - if the federal government taxes it, it belongs to the people at large. That's Federal Law.

Circular argument.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Circular argument.

It's not a circular argument, it's a statement of fact. Shaddim was claiming that taxes that the Federal Government collected were his money - I was pointing out that under Federal Law they are not. It's not a circular argument. You need to brush up on your logic and rhetoric, Doof.

[Doofy]

It's a circular argument, since the money the government is distributing on Shad's behalf would be his if the government didn't take it to distribute it on his behalf.

[nonhuman]

It's circular in that the Federal Government is granting itself the right to take your money and justifying it by saying that if they take it it's theirs. It's no different than a bully taking your lunch money.

[zombie punk]

No, the Federal Government is democratically elected - the taxes are being taken by the American people. It's not bullying - the group collecting the taxes work for, and are chosen by, the people.

[nonhuman]

Well no, the President and the members of Congress are democratically elected. Everyone else is appointed/hired...

But that aside, even though the government is democratically elected, that doesn't mean that much if not most of the taxation we endure is bully-like. That the bullies are being supported by some large fraction of the population doesn't change that they are bullies, it just increases their standing to something more like organized crime.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

Keep on insulting people - that always helps mask the fact that you have no point to make. The reality is that the purpose of government is to protect the more wealthy from the less wealthy. Since the more wealthy obviously benefit from this more than the less wealthy, it is right that they should pay a greater proportion.

Can't see that I've insulted you at all, I stand by my observations.

You have no concept of what a constitutional federal republic is, you're still trying to spin some moronic democratic socialist dream (re. a Ochlocracy). Fortunately, I don't live in such a country (yet), but I'm sure that France, China, Spain, and the rest of those types would love to have you.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

Shaddim was claiming that taxes that the Federal Government collected were his money

When did I say that? Where? Point it out.

[hwojtek]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

It's not bullying - the group collecting the taxes work for, and are chosen by, the people.

What is the actual reason the group is entitled to this money? Because as a group with certain power, it is able to forcefully take away from someone who generated it?

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by hwojtek 

What is the actual reason the group is entitled to this money? Because as a group with certain power, it is able to forcefully take away from someone who generated it?

It's how democracies work (and no, I'm not interested in your mental masturbation about whether the US is a democracy). Elected officials are granted the power to tax in the constitution. As to who 'generated it' that's a much more complicated issue.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

When did I say that? Where? Point it out.

"and your argument is that the government should take a (much) higher percentage of my money just to give it to the shiftless who won't pay their own way. That's rather stupid."
Right there. Italics are mine.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

"and your argument is that the government should take a (much) higher percentage of my money just to give it to the shiftless who won't pay their own way. That's rather stupid."
Right there. Italics are mine.

Durrr, before they take it it IS my money.


Seriously Rocket, that your best?

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Durrr, before they take it it IS my money.

WTF? You asked me to show you where you said that, I did, now you're pissed? I can't help you with your goldfish brain. You said it, you denied it, I showed you that you were wrong. Get over it.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

It's how democracies work (and no, I'm not interested in your mental masturbation about whether the US is a democracy). Elected officials are granted the power to tax in the constitution. As to who 'generated it' that's a much more complicated issue.

In the US, the Constitution specifically prohibits the federal government from taxing to spend on anything other than what is named in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.

[zombie punk]

Yeah, but have you read section 8? What do you think is not in there? I mean, the "general welfare of the United States"? Who apart from

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

Yeah, but have you read section 8? What do you think is not in there? I mean, the "general welfare of the United States"

The general welfare words are not a door through which anything and everything can be justified and rammed through.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

WTF? You asked me to show you where you said that, I did, now you're pissed? I can't help you with your goldfish brain. You said it, you denied it, I showed you that you were wrong. Get over it.

I said nothing of the sort, you're just being obnoxious. Maybe you're bored, maybe you have some bad wiring? Who knows, maybe you just need a good enema.


ps. I don't get "pissed" over forums, it takes a lot more than a bunch of liberal mental midgets to get my dander up.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The general welfare words are not a door through which anything and everything can be justified and rammed through.

Isn't that then where the Supreme Court comes in? Isn't it is their job to determine what legislation passed by Congress is in line with the Constitution? If you don't like a piece of legislation passed by Congress then I suggest you work to have it over-turned by the Supreme Court.

I would be totally in favor of a judicial procedure that would require all spending legislation passed by Congress to be reviewed by the Supreme Court to see if it complies with the letter and the spirit of Art. I Sec. 8 of the Constitution. I bet we would see a whole lot less spending, especially earmarks and pork-barrel spending, if this were to be the case. Of course, if they approve spending with which you disagree then what are you going to do?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Isn't that then where the Supreme Court comes in? Isn't it is their job to determine what legislation passed by Congress is in line with the Constitution? If you don't like a piece of legislation passed by Congress then I suggest you work to have it over-turned by the Supreme Court.

I would be totally in favor of a judicial procedure that would require all spending legislation passed by Congress to be reviewed by the Supreme Court to see if it complies with the letter and the spirit of Art. I Sec. 8 of the Constitution. I bet we would see a whole lot less spending, especially earmarks and pork-barrel spending, if this were to be the case. Of course, if they approve spending with which you disagree then what are you going to do?

The General Welfare clause in Article I Section 8 is an introduction to the enumerated powers that follow and not itself a grant of power.

This is really the same construction as the 2nd amendment, where the first few phrases are an introduction to the right that follows and the demand that it not be infringed.

If the framers of our Constitution intended the powers of Congress to have no boundaries (general welfare as open door for all spending) - why did they bother to enumerate the various things which Congress has the authority to spend on?


James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee,

If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.


http://books.google.com/books?id=6g8...um=1&ct=result -- there are several good quotes in there, including the one I listed above.

Indeed, Madison wrote: "The meaning of the general terms in question must either be sought in the subsequent enumeration which limits and details them, or they convert the Government from one limited, as hitherto supposed, into a Government without any limits at all." http://books.google.com/books?id=nC4...#PRA1-PA300,M1

So, the Government is supposed to be a limited one. General welfare is the preface and is defined and limited specifically to that which is enumerated immediately afterwards.

[dcmacdaddy]

vmarks, looks like you replied to the wrong post. I never questioned the interpretation of Art. 1 Sec. 8; That was someone else. My comments was about the possibility of having the Supreme Court overturn decisions related to spending that you might consider un-Constitutional. What are your thoughts on that?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Can't say I have much respect for those who feel they're entitled to an unbalanced portion of my money.

All the more reason we need luxury tax, not income tax. People should be able to make however much money they want and not be penalized for hard (or smart) work. Everyone should be able to afford a home, maybe a car, all with a single job (even if it's working at a McDonald's.) Since luxury items are taxed and not income, anyone from middle to low-income should be able to improve their socioeconomic position. Yes, a luxury tax system also means increased taxes on dividends and other sources of unearned income, however, regardless of economic status, being relatively frugal equates to more money. Smart investing and a non-extravagant life = more money.