taxation

[Jerome]

That's the rub, defining the term leaves room to manipulate to game.

[Angakuk]

So, how do you propose to protect the working poor if we don't know who they are?

Here is an idea. No taxes, income or payroll, on any earned income. We only tax income from investments. That way we are only taxing people who have discretionary income and we are not making the horrible and unethical mistake of levying a tax on labor.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Here is an idea. No taxes, income or payroll, on any earned income. We only tax income from investments. That way we are only taxing people who have discretionary income and we are not making the horrible and unethical mistake of levying a tax on labor.

Agreed

[Angakuk]

OK, we are making progress here. A flat tax only on income from investments. Where should we set the rate? I am going to open with a bid of 80%.

Your turn.

[Jerome]

[Jerome]

80% seems too high, would you work extra for 20%?

[erimir]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Agreed

Ha, yes, because when a CEO is paid millions a year, his income should be tax free because he's a "worker"

Like I said, your whole bullshit line is that we shouldn't tax the rich at all, that way they can't manipulate the taxes they're not paying.

But sure, you're just looking out for the worker

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by erimir

Ha, yes, because when a CEO is paid millions a year, his income should be tax free because he's a "worker"

You see the scam, .. I don't understand how you keep the fight.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

80% seems too high, would you work extra for 20%?

I thought we just agreed that this was not a tax on labor?

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Adam

I thought we just agreed that this was not a tax on labor?

We have already shown that it will be over time.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

80% seems too high, would you work extra for 20%?

I wouldn't be working extra for 20%, my would be doing all the work.

[chunksmediocrites]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

You have three times as much as someone begging for food, you need to be taxed,

Ahem. I think you mean someone living extremely well with triple X-Boxes, AC units, microwave ovens, and some premium cable television. Since you believe that poverty is greatly exaggerated to the point that it almost does not exist.

Jerome, what is the maximum yearly income one can have, and be considered working poor in your picture of the United States?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

Jerome, what is the maximum yearly income one can have, and be considered working poor in your picture of the United States?

Jerome replies:

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

That's the rub, defining the term leaves room to manipulate to game.

[chunksmediocrites]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Jerome replies:

Jerome should meet this guy and warn him! this guy:

Originally Posted by EMOREJ AD EMONG

We must first agree to the definition of the term...
...>snip<...

Otherwise you will just play the game where no evidence I produce will satisfy you as you will continually redefine the term to discount evidence.

You are suffering from cognitive dissonance and you are afraid that if the term is defined that you will have to face your problem.

Here he is again:

Originally Posted by EMOREJ AD EMONG

Why are you so afraid to define the term?

[Jerome]

lol

It's a magic land where conversations don't exist, only snippets of sentences.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Here is an idea. No taxes, income or payroll, on any earned income. We only tax income from investments. That way we are only taxing people who have discretionary income and we are not making the horrible and unethical mistake of levying a tax on labor.

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Agreed

Originally Posted by Angakuk

OK, we are making progress here. A flat tax only on income from investments. Where should we set the rate? I am going to open with a bid of 80%.

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

80% seems too high, would you work extra for 20%?

Originally Posted by Adam

I thought we just agreed that this was not a tax on labor?

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

We have already shown that it will be over time.

Not-labor is going to turn into labor over time? Where have "we" shown that?






(And, no, you haven't shown that progressive taxes inevitably become regressive over time, either, sorry.)

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Adam

Not-labor is going to turn into labor over time? Where have "we" shown that?

The income tax.

It started as a tax on profit and became a tax on labor. It hits a fully different class of people then it did when it was instituted.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

That's the rub, defining the term leaves room to manipulate to game.

This is the absolute best dodge to avoid having to define terms since mickthinks claimed that he could not tell us what "postmodernism" meant because erimir had said something mean to him months previously.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

The income tax.

It started as a tax on profit and became a tax on labor. It hits a fully different class of people then it did when it was instituted.

Angakuk did not propose a general income tax. he proposed, and you "[a]greed" with, a tax targeted specifically at income from investment. He specifically stipulated, in the post with which you "[a]greed", that investment is not labor and that, therefore, his proposal would not be a tax on labor. So, is not-labor going to become labor over time? Or did not you not read his post before you replied to it with "Agreed."?

[Jerome]

I am talking about defining the term in the proposed application of the changes in our talk, define working poor as x% above the poverty level, well the poverty level can be redefined to manipulate the meaning of the term, define it by an income level, well income can be redefined to count some, not other 'income', and inflation will bring the working poor into the level needing to pay the tax regardless.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Adam

Angakuk did not propose a general income tax. he proposed, and you "[a]greed" with, a tax targeted specifically at income from investment. He specifically stipulated, in the post with which you "[a]greed", that investment is not labor and that, therefore, his proposal would not be a tax on labor. So, is not-labor going to become labor over time? Or did not you not read his post before you replied to it with "Agreed."?

Yes, in the same way the income tax became a tax on labor. Investment will be redefined to say that when working you are investing your time and energy and gaining a profit from that investment.

I know this sounds ridiculous, but 100 years ago if you told people that wages equal income they would have told you that you were an idiot.

[Adam]

Your argument is seriously that our primary concern when crafting our laws should be how the terms used in them may be redefined a century from now?

Even if that made any sense, why did you agree with Angakuk, then? An investment income tax at, say 10% would be fine, but at 80%? Heavens, no! In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only labor!

[ceptimus]

You should base the 'poverty level' or 'working poor' baseline on the rich, not the poor.

Maybe take the average of the Chief Executive's total remuneration (including perks, shares, pension plan, health plan, etc.) of all the companies that are used for the Dow Jones index - or similar. Then divide that figure by, I dunno, 100 ? 50 ? and say that all earnings below that figure will be free of income tax.

It might give some incentive for the fat cats to stop overpaying themselves to such a nauseating degree.*



* because as the total tax take would still need to be high enough to pay government spending, if a huge majority of people paid no income tax, then the income tax rate on the rich would be necessarily very high.

[Adam]

But...but...in 2090, "Chief Executive" may have come to mean "Janitor"!

[Kael]

Originally Posted by Adam

In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only labor!

[Thanks] for the grimdark.