The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

Butterfly · 11-07-2006, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milkman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

You just can't stand that I acknowledge my salary being paid by the tax payer then ?

No offense, SK

But the military creates nothing; it only spends.

A military person is a governmental bureaucratic that wears a uniform instead of a suit.

Most need to be RIFFED, or Early Outed.

Right on, Milkman

It's a welfare system in itself. Funny how those men think they are working for something else than a nationalized enterprise

man with no head · 11-07-2006, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Amen to that, I couldn't agree more. Finally a real conservative, not a pose like the other facist wanabee we have here.

However, I don't agree with your Clinton comments. I think that even a sad monkey like GW Bush would have fucked up the dotcom boom. Because everything he touches turn to shit. You have been a fool to vote for him. How do you feel now that you did ? cheated ? betrayed ? fooled ?

Fooled? Cheated? You betcha, by two parties that left me with a choice between Gore or Bush. There's no doubt to Gore's intellect but someone who is the leader of a country needs character and charisma as well. Maybe if you combined both you might have a better leader than either could have been.

man with no head · 11-07-2006, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

... popular assumption, a disproportionate share of income taxes is paid by wealthy households, and their incomes are based much more on the swings of the stock market than on wages and salaries. About one-third of all income taxes are paid by households in the top 1 percent of income earners, who make more than about $300,000 a year...

You know, I get torn when thinking about what would be a fair tax structure. The left would have us believe that a person should inherently pay more tax simply because that person has more. Well, I ask: does a wealthy person automatically pay more for the same loaf of bread than a poor person? Does a wealthy person pay $9 for gasoline while a poor one pays $3? So, why do we tax those who have more at a higher rate? Because it's gravy? Even at a 10% flat tax rate on income a person making $100,000 will still pay 10 times the tax a person making $10,000.

The answer: eliminate the immoral income tax.

Butterfly · 11-07-2006, 02:05 PM

^ VAT is a better tax

But wealth tax are also needed. If you are very rich, you owe back to society. Blowing money on coke, hookers and cars doesn't cut it.

Butterfly · 11-07-2006, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

Fooled? Cheated? You betcha, by two parties that left me with a choice between Gore or Bush. There's no doubt to Gore's intellect but someone who is the leader of a country needs character and charisma as well. Maybe if you combined both you might have a better leader than either could have been.

And you are an honnest conservative I might add, what a change. Yes I agree about Gore, and GW Bush in 2000 wasn't a totally wrong choice as long as he stayed in the WH and shutup. But in 2004, there was no excuse, even with Kerry.

man with no head · 11-07-2006, 03:57 PM

If Kerry and Gore are the best the Democrats can do it's no wonder they lost when a successor to Clinton should have been a shoo-in. But, remember how the Dems lost Congress in 1994?

Kerry lost because people couldn't trust him. When it comes to a choice between one liar and another people tend to choose the one they know.

man with no head · 11-07-2006, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Butterfly

^ VAT is a better tax

But wealth tax are also needed. If you are very rich, you owe back to society. Blowing money on coke, hookers and cars doesn't cut it.

...which would naturally go back due to the amount that the wealthy spend on things.

Under a simple tax scheme all tax shelters would be eliminated. All sales of goods (house, stock, land, etc) would result in payment of tax (save for basic necessities like food, medicine, etc). The poor would get a break if they showed they earned under a determined sum per year.

Storekeeper · 11-07-2006, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

But, remember how the Dems lost Congress in 1994?

Let me see ... what did Clinton do ? It was something that agitated the voters about the Democrats ? I'm guessing it was either health care reform or the free trade agreement. Which ? Since you are a small bidness owner ... it must have been NAFTA ?

man with no head · 11-07-2006, 04:23 PM

I think it was many things: the massive retroactive tax hike; the meddling of Hillary with her attempts at a health care plan; the NRA (with the passing of the bill making certain firearms, clips, etc. illegal); the massacre in Waco; the infidelity, etc.

Clinton won the first time because it was perceived that Bush, Sr. was out of touch with ordinary people. Clinton won the second time because the country was doing well and people don't tend to sack incumbents when things are OK. Clinton was pretty lucky the internet came along to create millions of jobs, otherwise, I suspect he would have been a one-termer.

Let's not also forget that there really wasn't a budget surplus under Clinton. It was more tricky accounting that made it seem that way.

The real question is: can we sustain the building government debt? Iraq is going to cost each person in the U.S. $2,000 and we aren't even complete. It only makes sense to borrow money if the ability to earn more is at stake (i.e. borrowing money for a house make sense because houses tend to increase in value more than the total cost of borrowing).

Marmite the Dog · 11-07-2006, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Butterfly

If you are very rich, you owe back to society.

Why?

So people with the balls to make something of themselves owe to those that haven't?

I never could work this one out.

stroller · 11-07-2006, 10:27 PM

In a nutshell: because you're part of a community, and whatever you make your profit with, you've been supported by that community, be it through education, facilities or actual people working for you.

Butterfly · 11-07-2006, 10:35 PM

exactly, you didn't become rich out of your ass or without existing infrastructure. You use existing resources in pursue of your wealth, those resources were available to you thanks to an organized society. It's like a mafia type system. You have to pay back your peers for the business opportunities they offered you.

stroller · 12-07-2006, 12:26 AM

How much tax do you pay, then, Buttrfly?

Marmite the Dog · 12-07-2006, 12:26 AM

But why should you pay back it back at a much higher tax rate than some lazy arsed tosser who can't be bothered to make a go of things?

As someone else said, people with more money will pay more taxes as they tend to spend more. I can understand successful people using offshore bank accounts and sneaky accountants to stop the leeches of society grabbing their hard earned money.

Don't get me wrong, people who carry out business like Taksin does, deserve to be stripped of their wealth, especially as it is people like him who abuse their priviledged position in society for their own personal gains, but the honest businessman should be taxed at the same rate as anyone else.

stroller · 12-07-2006, 12:38 AM

Where is the money to build the roads to speed along in your Jag gonna come from, then?

What business are you in, btw, or are you a TEFLer indulging in imaginary scenarios?

man with no head · 12-07-2006, 12:52 AM

I don't see anyone saying that there should be no taxes. The argument is over where the taxes should come from and at what percentage. I happen to think that taxing income is immoral. Tax consumption, the wealthy surely consume more than the poor, don't they? So where's the beef?

Butterfly · 12-07-2006, 10:00 AM

^ I think a progressive tax system is not that bad. I mean how many yacht or houses do you need ? It's just a question of scale, maybe a 10% difference in tax between rich and poor would be sufficient. However politically it doesn't look good, and that's difference is much bigger. Let's face it, everyone hates the very rich, so we shouldn't feel sorry for them. They have more than enough.

Storekeeper · 12-07-2006, 10:16 AM

Equality for everybody but the rich ? What is wrong with a flat tax for everybody ? Why should the rich pay more ? I think the problem is that the rich find to may loopholes to exploit ... and both the Democrats and Republicans let them get away with it. There is no way you're going to motivate the wealthy to invest more in the US infrastructure if you're going to tax them out of business.

I must admit though I'm intrigued by Buffet and Gates who say they aren't going to leave their wealth to their family. I kinda think estate tax should be very high for the rich ... I'm not sure on that one.

Storekeeper · 12-07-2006, 10:28 AM

"The economy and federal revenues are growing at such a rapid rate that the deficit will shrink in the short term, President Bush's chief budget official says . . . . Rob Portman . . . said the president's economic policies have led to exceptional economic growth, which has in turn led to bulging federal receipts."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...3902-1077r.htm

12-07-2006, 12:26 AM	#134 (permalink)
Marmite the Dog Too drunk to fuck Last Online: Today 11:03 PM Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Fuckwitistan Posts: 25,721	But why should you pay back it back at a much higher tax rate than some lazy arsed tosser who can't be bothered to make a go of things? As someone else said, people with more money will pay more taxes as they tend to spend more. I can understand successful people using offshore bank accounts and sneaky accountants to stop the leeches of society grabbing their hard earned money. Don't get me wrong, people who carry out business like Taksin does, deserve to be stripped of their wealth, especially as it is people like him who abuse their priviledged position in society for their own personal gains, but the honest businessman should be taxed at the same rate as anyone else. __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Where do we go from here? The words are coming out all weird. Where are you now when I need you?

12-07-2006, 10:16 AM	#138 (permalink)
Storekeeper Because I said so. Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Ban Phe Posts: 4,822	Equality for everybody but the rich ? What is wrong with a flat tax for everybody ? Why should the rich pay more ? I think the problem is that the rich find to may loopholes to exploit ... and both the Democrats and Republicans let them get away with it. There is no way you're going to motivate the wealthy to invest more in the US infrastructure if you're going to tax them out of business. I must admit though I'm intrigued by Buffet and Gates who say they aren't going to leave their wealth to their family. I kinda think estate tax should be very high for the rich ... I'm not sure on that one. __________________ "England forever; the USA one day longer" To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

11-07-2006, 02:05 PM	#124 (permalink)
Butterfly Suspended Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 11,645	^ VAT is a better tax But wealth tax are also needed. If you are very rich, you owe back to society. Blowing money on coke, hookers and cars doesn't cut it.

11-07-2006, 03:57 PM	#126 (permalink)
man with no head Somewhere Travelling Last Online: 11-08-2007 07:39 PM Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,424	If Kerry and Gore are the best the Democrats can do it's no wonder they lost when a successor to Clinton should have been a shoo-in. But, remember how the Dems lost Congress in 1994? Kerry lost because people couldn't trust him. When it comes to a choice between one liar and another people tend to choose the one they know.

11-07-2006, 04:23 PM	#129 (permalink)
man with no head Somewhere Travelling Last Online: 11-08-2007 07:39 PM Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,424	I think it was many things: the massive retroactive tax hike; the meddling of Hillary with her attempts at a health care plan; the NRA (with the passing of the bill making certain firearms, clips, etc. illegal); the massacre in Waco; the infidelity, etc. Clinton won the first time because it was perceived that Bush, Sr. was out of touch with ordinary people. Clinton won the second time because the country was doing well and people don't tend to sack incumbents when things are OK. Clinton was pretty lucky the internet came along to create millions of jobs, otherwise, I suspect he would have been a one-termer. Let's not also forget that there really wasn't a budget surplus under Clinton. It was more tricky accounting that made it seem that way. The real question is: can we sustain the building government debt? Iraq is going to cost each person in the U.S. $2,000 and we aren't even complete. It only makes sense to borrow money if the ability to earn more is at stake (i.e. borrowing money for a house make sense because houses tend to increase in value more than the total cost of borrowing).

11-07-2006, 10:27 PM	#131 (permalink)
stroller Kraut Last Online: 01-07-2008 11:03 AM Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: under the headphones Posts: 17,181	In a nutshell: because you're part of a community, and whatever you make your profit with, you've been supported by that community, be it through education, facilities or actual people working for you.

11-07-2006, 10:35 PM	#132 (permalink)
Butterfly Suspended Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 11,645	exactly, you didn't become rich out of your ass or without existing infrastructure. You use existing resources in pursue of your wealth, those resources were available to you thanks to an organized society. It's like a mafia type system. You have to pay back your peers for the business opportunities they offered you.

12-07-2006, 12:26 AM	#133 (permalink)
stroller Kraut Last Online: 01-07-2008 11:03 AM Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: under the headphones Posts: 17,181	How much tax do you pay, then, Buttrfly?

12-07-2006, 12:38 AM	#135 (permalink)
stroller Kraut Last Online: 01-07-2008 11:03 AM Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: under the headphones Posts: 17,181	Where is the money to build the roads to speed along in your Jag gonna come from, then? What business are you in, btw, or are you a TEFLer indulging in imaginary scenarios?

12-07-2006, 12:52 AM	#136 (permalink)
man with no head Somewhere Travelling Last Online: 11-08-2007 07:39 PM Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,424	I don't see anyone saying that there should be no taxes. The argument is over where the taxes should come from and at what percentage. I happen to think that taxing income is immoral. Tax consumption, the wealthy surely consume more than the poor, don't they? So where's the beef?

12-07-2006, 10:00 AM	#137 (permalink)
Butterfly Suspended Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 11,645	^ I think a progressive tax system is not that bad. I mean how many yacht or houses do you need ? It's just a question of scale, maybe a 10% difference in tax between rich and poor would be sufficient. However politically it doesn't look good, and that's difference is much bigger. Let's face it, everyone hates the very rich, so we shouldn't feel sorry for them. They have more than enough.

12-07-2006, 10:28 AM	#139 (permalink)
Storekeeper Because I said so. Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Ban Phe Posts: 4,822	"The economy and federal revenues are growing at such a rapid rate that the deficit will shrink in the short term, President Bush's chief budget official says . . . . Rob Portman . . . said the president's economic policies have led to exceptional economic growth, which has in turn led to bulging federal receipts." http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...3902-1077r.htm

12-07-2006, 10:33 AM	#140 (permalink)
Milkman Gone Off Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: shelf Posts: 9,390