FEDIT POLITICS Thread

You also hit the nail on the head on a thing that i never hear.
Workers should not be taxed.
Earnings yes, but not workers.
That is akin to a slave tax.
So what that is saying is the unthinkable for modern conservatives who have no idea what a conservative government is.
Which is that business should be taxed at a much higher rate than the general public.
But thats only because most general public should NOT BE TAXED.
If you engage in business, if you otherwise earn monies without having to actually work for them... you pay taxes.
If you are a common worker you are a slave.
Slaves pay no tax. When you start making slaves pay tax and eventually see them as tax farms you get the tax revolts that eventually destroy your nation.
Has always been this way.
True conservatism (power that plays it safe/talk softly carry a big stick) does not farm its slaves for taxes.
It instead gives them a good pasture so they can be properly sheared or milked when its the right season and their backs are too hot with wool and their udders so full of milk that it hurts.

 

Thank you. I literally (yes homo) love you right now.

I believe they generally are. Except there's lots of ways powerful businesses cheat the rules, and small businesses get the shaft because they can't afford lawyers and lobbyists and pedophile islands to indulge crooked politicians. This needs to be fixed. If you're gonna tax, make it simple and fair and remove ways to game the system. All the byzantine rules are what cause the corporate oligarchy / crony capitalism that we have now.

So what does "work for them" mean? Do I have to build something with my hands? What is working and what is not working?

 

By addressed, you mean make rich people pay more, right? But yeah, cap gains should be flat, just like income. It should all be flat. Capital gains don't need to be addressed, it's already sensible (although the rate is too high).

Estate taxes are even more theft. That money has already been taxed. The government shouldn't have the right to pilfer peoples money again after they die. The typical talking point is dynastic wealth blah blah blah. There's plenty of literature out there that shows family wealth doesn't stay put. Otherwise the Carnegies and Vanderbuilts would still be the richest families. Wealth redistributes itself on its own in a generation or two. It's wrong to tax that money again.

There seems to be a common theme here that the rich should pay more, and tax policy should be designed to redistribute wealth. That's more social engineering and none of the governments business. Tax policy should exist to fund the government to provide minimum necessary services.

I don't like deductions...the government uses them to interfere with society in ways that it has no business doing. If you're going to have a deduction, it should be the standard deduction to gracefully ramp the tax up on low earners. Everything else is a way to game the system that gives more power to government and more power to those the can influence government (and I don't mean voters by that).

 

Activity that is mental or physical in which you are employed by another entity/person for a salary or wage.

 

So if you engage in an activity for someone else for compensation, you shouldn't be taxed.
But if you engage in that same activity for yourself you should be?

If I forge samurai swords for you for $100/hour, and give them to your when I'm done, I should not be taxed?
If I forge samurai swords and sell them to hosts at Samurai World, should I be taxed?

 

why would anyone by forged swords instead of real ones?

 

No it's not. It's the same argument that I've been making over and over again about simplification.
I agree with you in principle: they should be the same and they should both be flat with no way to avoid them--and no way for the government to use the tax structure to influence society.

I've been avoiding talking about pragmatics because it confuses the issue. But I assume you know that the reason that the gov't want cap gains taxes low is because it causes money to be circulated into the system--and that money is leveraged multiple times: banks/brokers/hedge funds loan it out at more than a 1:1 ratio, injecting leveraged capital in the monetary supply; or its used to fund a business, which leads to job creation, increased capital and increased income revenue. Both of those are generally "good" things. Cap gains are lower than income because better for the economy (non zero sum game) than taxing them equally or inverting them.but I don't think it's really the government's business to be using it's monopoly on force to manipulate the economy in that respect.

 

Same reason people buy forged rolexes!

 

100/hour?

Let's go back from the start.
15% flat tax.
Workers are exempt from paying tax.
Businesses are not.
Now you asked me to define a worker.
That was taking into consideration what I had said earlier about unskilled/low skilled workers and skilled/high skilled workers.
There is a minimum where the worker cannot be taxed at all. Which rises with up to 4 dependents. It can essentially rise to twice the minimum which becomes the maximum.
Once they reach the maximum they are no longer viewed as unskilled/low skilled workers but high skilled workers.
They would have been considered craftsmen/artificers in the past. And they were never viewed as employees but sat in the middle class above low/unskilled workers. So they are between worker and business and should probably be classified as independent contractors in a way.
Obviously, a swordsmith that makes 100/hour is not a worker/slave.
And neither is a garbage collector who makes 3 times the minimum for a low skilled worker.
At that level of salary, a trash collector becomes a high skilled worker. IE a position in between worker and businessman.
And so they would be taxed after they pass the minimum.

But let's say that swordsman works for himself. Makes swords in his home. Takes 10 hours to make a sword. Charges $1000 per sword. Creates 10 swords a year for a total of $10k in sales. IMO he should not have to pay any tax. Unless of course, he has other earnings from employment or selling other types of items.
This BTW also protects small businesses who wish to start but are afraid that they need to set up accountants and know all kinds of tax information without knowing if they will be successful or even make enough money to afford any of that administration.

The tax system encourages the working poor to join the craftsmen/artificer middle class once they start having to pay taxes.
In effect, they are already part of that class if they pay taxes due to earning more than the maximum.
It spurs people into wanting to control their own destiny by lowering the risks associated with starting a small business.
The small business does not get taxed until you reach the maximum since small business is tied to your personal earnings as a sole proprietorship.
Once it starts paying taxes it is no longer a small business. Regardless of amount of employees.

 

Lol.
If I understand correctly, you used all those words to describe the standard deduction.
Whatever your threshold is, if you make less than that, you don't pay taxes.

 

You got wrapped around the axle because of the $100/hour number. Forget the magnitude, I'm trying to understand that difference between a worker and a business.
Seems like making that distinction incentivizes being a worker and discourages starting a business. That's no bueno.

I make swords for a salary, do I pay taxes?
I make swords and sell them, do I pay taxes?
I pay 1 guy a salary to make swords, they give them to me and I sell them, do I pay taxes?
I pay 100 guys a salary to make swords, they give them to me and I sell them all, do I pay taxes?

 

awesome
how's that feel to find out you were barking up the wrong tree bubba?
now go convey that message to the pantsuit bkitch

 

I've never seen anything like this election, so I guess it follows that the transition would be equally ungraceful.

From blaming the Russians for everything to Michelle Obama saying we dont have hope anymore. Never seen anything like this.

 

she's such an entitled ckunt
listen to her rallies (if you can stomach it)
never did she say anything of substance
only the "isn't this great for women" rhetoric
did she think anyone would buy all the "i'm going to clean up wall street" bullshit when everyone knows she was in their pockets?
agreed no way trump should have won
just goes to show how much she was detested by liberals/conservatives alike
now she's crying foul claiming she was cheated
first it was the fbi, now it's putin/russia
who's next?
i mean with such a long list of people who despise her there's plenty of scapegoats to be had
just another reason why she would have been a horrible leader
zero accountability
gtfo hillary
no one likes a sore loser
especially a fat cat, disingenuous, self-serving ckunt

 

Fuck yeah. Pics?