Beware GOP: Millennials Don’t Like What We’re Hearing

[MarAzul]

So really I just started arguing a point and got caught. The truth is, I think it's full on shitty! It bugs me and is the one biggest reason I am disappointed in the Dems (and Repubs) including Obama. But admitting this ruins some other argument I was making a zillion posts ago.

Ah! Nice to see a countryman come to view an important issue with clarity.

 

[Further]

Ah! Nice to see a countryman come to view an important issue with clarity.

I hate admitting when I'm wrong, but I was and so had to admit it. I'll eat all the crow I'm served.

 

[Denny Crane]

So really I just started arguing a point and got caught. The truth is, I think it's full on shitty! It bugs me and is the one biggest reason I am disappointed in the Dems (and Repubs) including Obama. But admitting this ruins some other argument I was making a zillion posts ago.

OK, now for my corollary question after all.

If this NSA spying is bad, why is the IRS good?

They know every transaction people make, except for the "illegal" under the table ones, right?

 

[Further]

OK, now for my corollary question after all.

If this NSA spying is bad, why is the IRS good?

They know every transaction people make, except for the "illegal" under the table ones, right?

Well I don't know I've ever said the IRS is good, but the do seen necessary. But collecting taxes does not equate with figuring out how to decouple politicians from quid pro quo situations. The undue influence by corporations mainly and wealthy individuals secondly is destroying our nation bit by bit. Right now we have corporation lawyers actually drafting bills and then handing them to congressional members to introduce. Our politicians are more concerned with keeping their donors and potential future bosses happy than actually doing something beneficial for their constituents. If this is not corrected, it will destroy the fabric binds America together. So what is the solution? I suggested a constitutional amendment but there may be other ways. I just don't see them.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well I don't know I've ever said the IRS is good, but the do seen necessary. But collecting taxes does not equate with figuring out how to decouple politicians from quid pro quo situations. The undue influence by corporations mainly and wealthy individuals secondly is destroying our nation bit by bit. Right now we have corporation lawyers actually drafting bills and then handing them to congressional members. Our politicians are more concerned with keeping their donors and potential future bosses happy than actually doing something beneficial for their constituents. If this is not corrected, it will destroy the fabric binds America together. So what is the solution? I suggested a constitutional amendment but there may be other ways. I just don't see them.

Why shouldn't corporation lawyers write bills? In theory, they're the actual experts in the matter at hand. I've not seen this done in a non-transparent way, just people who oppose corporations in general complain about it.

As for the IRS, I've never seen why it's needed. The government doesn't need to know every detail of every financial transaction tied to individuals to collect taxes. They can charge a sales tax, for example. Or tax only businesses.

Does a business deserve privacy? No. It's a public entity granted liability protection (in most cases) in exchange for some government controls. If a company pays $1M a year in payroll, just tax it $250,000 (25%) and you've collected the same money as if you taxed everyone individually 25%.

 

[Further]

So you are doing away with graduated taxation. I'm not on board.

 

[Further]

And wages only account for a portion. Once again, it keeps the wealthy at an extreme advantage to allow them to have their capital continue to earn without being taxed under your proposal. So some billionaire who does not draw a salary pays zero while Betty Sue gets 25% of her 30,000k salary sent to Washington. Seems wrong.

 

[Denny Crane]

So you are doing away with graduated taxation. I'm not on board.

I'm doing away with income tax, period. Corporations would pay all the taxes. So why does graduated taxation matter? Apple would be paying a huge amount of taxes.

If you want to think of it as some sort of flat tax, then you win - Warren Buffett and his secretary would be paying the same amount!

 

[Denny Crane]

And wages only account for a portion. Once again, it keeps the wealthy at an extreme advantage to allow them to have their capital continue to earn without being taxed under your proposal. So some billionaire who does not draw a salary pays zero while Betty Sue gets 25% of her 30,000k salary sent to Washington. Seems wrong.

You can't morally tax net worth.

If I buy a share of stock for $100 today and it goes up to $200 next year, you want to tax me on the $100 gain even if I haven't sold it? What happens if after you collect that tax the stock goes down to $50 the following year?

Betty Sue gets 100% of her salary. She's having $0 withheld. How is 25% of her salary getting sent to Washington? That's like saying that the 8.x% sales tax collected on you buying an iPhone comes out of her paycheck as taxes. They're not related

 

[barfo]

Why shouldn't corporation lawyers write bills? In theory, they're the actual experts in the matter at hand. I've not seen this done in a non-transparent way, just people who oppose corporations in general complain about it.

As for the IRS, I've never seen why it's needed. The government doesn't need to know every detail of every financial transaction tied to individuals to collect taxes. They can charge a sales tax, for example. Or tax only businesses.

Does a business deserve privacy? No. It's a public entity granted liability protection (in most cases) in exchange for some government controls. If a company pays $1M a year in payroll, just tax it $250,000 (25%) and you've collected the same money as if you taxed everyone individually 25%.

Even if you only tax businesses, you still need the IRS to collect that tax. It could be smaller, though.

Individual income isn't limited to payroll, so if you only tax payroll income for individuals, you'll need to increase the rate. I kind of like your idea of paying income taxes at the source, it would eliminate a lot of paperwork for individuals - but it wouldn't reduce the amount of information the IRS collects on you as an employee, since the businesses report your wages to the IRS now and still would under your plan.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Even if you only tax businesses, you still need the IRS to collect that tax. It could be smaller, though.

Individual income isn't limited to payroll, so if you only tax payroll income for individuals, you'll need to increase the rate. I kind of like your idea of paying income taxes at the source, it would eliminate a lot of paperwork for individuals - but it wouldn't reduce the amount of information the IRS collects on you as an employee, since the businesses report your wages to the IRS now and still would under your plan.

barfo

No, the IRS wouldn't know my income. Just that Apple paid $x in salaries.

I could be paid in cash, and it wouldn't matter.

Apple might need to pass an audit to assure the salaries add up, but the IRS would not need to see the details or retain the information.

Note I suggested 25%, which is more than the 20%+ of GDP they collect now.

Self employed would pay like a business. They're going to write off like one, too.

 

[Denny Crane]

No, the IRS wouldn't know my income. Just that Apple paid $x in salaries.

I could be paid in cash, and it wouldn't matter.

Apple might need to pass an audit to assure the salaries add up, but the IRS would not need to see the details or retain the information.

Note I suggested 25%, which is more than the 20%+ of GDP they collect now.

Self employed would pay like a business. They're going to write off like one, too.

Not just income, the IRS wouldn't know how I spent money.

 

[Further]

You can't morally tax net worth.

If I buy a share of stock for $100 today and it goes up to $200 next year, you want to tax me on the $100 gain even if I haven't sold it? What happens if after you collect that tax the stock goes down to $50 the following year?

Betty Sue gets 100% of her salary. She's having $0 withheld. How is 25% of her salary getting sent to Washington? That's like saying that the 8.x% sales tax collected on you buying an iPhone comes out of her paycheck as taxes. They're not related

So are you suggesting keeping the capital gains tax? If so, that is part of my reluctance.

I also worry about how people will react when the funds going to the govt are decoupled from their pocketbooks. I could see the public voting over and over for increases in spending as it wouldn't directly affect their bottom line. What's to stop that 25% from inching upward, higher and higher till it breaks the economy? There is something nice about when I vote for an increase in some spending program like a bridge knowing that it will directly affect my take home to the tune of 8$ a month for 5 years, or whatever. Same applies on a grander scale.

Although I like the graduated system, I hate the bureaucracy and your proposal would lessen that. It's interesting, but I'm not on board yet.

 

[Denny Crane]

So are you suggesting keeping the capital gains tax? If so, that is part of my reluctance.

I also worry about how people will react when the funds going to the govt are decoupled from their pocketbooks. I could see the public voting over and over for increases in spending as it wouldn't directly affect their bottom line. What's to stop that 25% from inching upward, higher and higher till it breaks the economy? There is something nice about when I vote for an increase in some spending program like a bridge knowing that it will directly affect my take home to the tune of 8$ a month for 5 years, or whatever. Same applies on a grander scale.

Although I like the graduated system, I hate the bureaucracy and your proposal would lessen that. It's interesting, but I'm not on board yet.

As Romney pointed out, 47% of the people don't pay tax, so they're voting to spend money just as you say as it is.

If you don't want the government to spend more money, don't vote for a democrat or republican. That's easy. Or figure out if one or the other really will spend less.

They fiddle with the tax rates all the time. Bush cut them. Clinton raised them. Bush cut them. Obama raised them (and broke the economy). I'm not seeing any additional cause for concern.

The real danger is the 25% sticks and some next FDR type implements a new income tax on top of it.

 

[barfo]

No, the IRS wouldn't know my income. Just that Apple paid $x in salaries.

I could be paid in cash, and it wouldn't matter.

Apple might need to pass an audit to assure the salaries add up, but the IRS would not need to see the details or retain the information.

What's to keep Apple (do you really work for Apple?) from cheating by telling the IRS you make half as much as you make?

barfo

 

[barfo]

Not just income, the IRS wouldn't know how I spent money.

Do they now? You can spend all your money in cash and the IRS has no way to track that so far as I know.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

What's to keep Apple (do you really work for Apple?) from cheating by telling the IRS you make half as much as you make?

barfo

You missed the part about the audit?

 

[Denny Crane]

Do they now? You can spend all your money in cash and the IRS has no way to track that so far as I know.

barfo

If you have a bank account and withdraw cash, they know you did it.

 

[Minstrel]

You missed the part about the audit?

How do you do the audit with no details?

 

[barfo]

If you have a bank account and withdraw cash, they know you did it.

Withdrawing from a bank is not spending money. And no one is forcing you to use a bank.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

How do you do the audit with no details?

3rd party, like a public accounting firm. They don't pass any data to the IRS but the final total salaries figure.

 

[Denny Crane]

Withdrawing from a bank is not spending money. And no one is forcing you to use a bank.

barfo

I want to use a bank. I don't want the government spying on my finances.

Get it?

If you think NSA is not ok but IRS isn't, you don't really care about your civil liberties and privacy.

 

[barfo]

I want to use a bank. I don't want the government spying on my finances.

Get it?

If you think NSA is not ok but IRS isn't, you don't really care about your civil liberties and privacy.

Not nearly as much as you, that's for sure. I don't give a rat's ass whether the government knows what I spend my money on. I don't see how that compromises my quality of life at all. Of course, I'm not sending money to ISIL like you...

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Not nearly as much as you, that's for sure. I don't give a rat's ass whether the government knows what I spend my money on. I don't see how that compromises my quality of life at all. Of course, I'm not sending money to ISIL like you...

barfo

I don't own guns, but if I bought one, I wouldn't want the government tracking that.

I don't want them to know if I buy a pack of cigarettes or eat a burger at Wendy's. Your kind might start fining me for eating unhealthy foods, after all.

I don't want them to know if I use a lot or little bit of electricity.

If I do take out cash, I don't want to be spied on to see if I'm buying drugs.

But you don't care, those sorts of things don't compromise your quality of life. YET.

 

[Denny Crane]

Better yet. I don't want them to know you and I talked on the phone 15 minutes before I withdrew a couple $hundred. They'll be wiretapping you, too. Suspicious!

 

[barfo]

I don't own guns, but if I bought one, I wouldn't want the government tracking that.

I don't want them to know if I buy a pack of cigarettes or eat a burger at Wendy's. Your kind might start fining me for eating unhealthy foods, after all.

I don't want them to know if I use a lot or little bit of electricity.

If I do take out cash, I don't want to be spied on to see if I'm buying drugs.

But you don't care, those sorts of things don't compromise your quality of life. YET.

YET. I like that.

Yeah, for several decades now it hasn't been a problem for me. But who knows, maybe one day the government will turn on me!

Seems like it would be a lot more realistic to be paranoid about the effects on your body of those cigarettes and burgers than about the government knowing about them.

barfo

 

[magnifier661]

Question.... And forget the concept of our constitution for now.

If, and I know this is purely hypothetical, our government needs to tap everything and anything. That this process would guarantee that not a single person is mugged, killed, raped or whatever.

Would you agree with it?

 

[Denny Crane]

No. But barfo wouldn't have to worry they might arrest him to preempt some crime hey expect him to commit.

 

[Minstrel]

No. But barfo wouldn't have to worry they might arrest him to preempt some crime hey expect him to commit.

Someone just watched Minority Report. Did you like it? What was your favorite part? It sounds like it gave you a lot to think about.

 

[Further]

Ya Denny, you and I have totally different worlds of privacy. I just can't spend my life paranoid about the govt knowing my banking habits, even if you are correct and it could one day lead to a negative outcome.

It seems to me, there was a day when one could live in total secrecy, but with ever passing year, due to technology, that type of life becomes more of an impossibility. I don't want them reading my emails, or recording my calls, but at some point we live in a nation of 300,000,000 people, and we spend a lot of our lives in a digital world. For many reasons this world is going go be known. Oh well. It might not be perfect, but I'm not giving up the benefits of the digital world.