Ready to pay more taxes!??

[deleted480308]

The problem is not me believing that I own things or that I have rights, the problem is getting other people to recognize that I own things or that I have rights.

you do that the same way the govt does.....with a gun

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted480308]

Thank you for finally acknowledging my point.

As I've stated before, I prefer the subsidized cost of the security government provides versus having ultimate freedom from government and having to provide my own (which would be less efficient and prohibitively expensive).

But your point all along has been inaccurate....you were claiming there were no rights without govt, which isn't true and isn't what you actually believe

You just prefer to pay the govt to deal with defending those rights as opposed to doing the dirty work yourself. I get the notion but the issue here is now the govt is actually the party violating the property rights with an unevenly applied income tax. So us "better off" folks aren't actually paying the govt to protect our property, we are paying the govt to violate our property rights. Particularly when what is done with our seized money is often nothing more than handing it to other citizens who (for whatever reason) aren't making as much money as us.

 

[beautifulrobot]

But your point all along has been inaccurate....you were claiming there were no rights without govt, which isn't true and isn't what you actually believe

You misunderstood my point. My point is that having rights is meaningless without the rule of law.

Without the rule of law, without common definitions for rights, anyone can make up their own rights and use violence to attempt to protect whatever their idea of their rights are. So again, it ends up being meaningless.

 

[neoexile]

I'm irritated at this whole thread. I feel like both sides here are just arguing points at infinitum without any effort to come to a common ground or to advance forward.

I wouldn't state this if it weren't for the fact that political debates like this aren't structured at finding real solution. Rather it is to beat up the other side. It's talk like this that plagues our politics today. This is what creates divisions and discord rather than making America stronger.

 

[deleted480308]

You misunderstood my point. My point is that having rights is meaningless without the rule of law.

Without the rule of law, without common definitions for rights, anyone can make up their own rights and use violence to attempt to protect whatever their idea of their rights are. So again, it ends up being meaningless.

and a democracy (which we are not supposed to be) that ignores property rights just because a larger group wants what a small group has is no less dangerous and oppressive than your fears of anarchy....which again, I'm not asking for. I'm just saying we can have a proper govt and still respect property rights

 

[deleted480308]

I'm irritated at this whole thread. I feel like both sides here are just arguing points at infinitum without any effort to come to a common ground or to advance forward.

I wouldn't state this if it weren't for the fact that political debates like this aren't structured at finding real solution. Rather it is to beat up the other side. It's talk like this that plagues our politics today. This is what creates divisions and discord rather than making America stronger.

do share, how does someone who thinks it's ok to take 1/3 of my earnings and someone who doesn't, "make america stronger" without discussion?

 

[neoexile]

do share, how does someone who thinks it's ok to take 1/3 of my earnings and someone who doesn't, "make america stronger" without discussion?

Exactly. This is hyperbole. You are misrepresenting the other side and not making any effort to recognize valid points that the other side has. This isn't solving anything.

 

[deleted480308]

Exactly. This is hyperbole. You are misrepresenting the other side and not making any effort to recognize valid points that the other side has. This isn't solving anything.

are you denying that there isn't a federal income tax bracket ~1/3 of income? because I will be in it after residency
it's not hyperbole at all to say a large portion of the country thinks it's ok to take 1/3 of my earnings (and many would want even more)

 

[neoexile]

are you denying that there isn't a federal income tax bracket ~1/3 of income? because I will be in it after residency
it's not hyperbole at all to say a large portion of the country thinks it's ok to take 1/3 of my earnings (and many would want even more)

What did I say? You aren't recognizing any valid points that the other side has. It has to be your way only. Problem is other people live here. We can't function until other points are recognized as valid and evaluated.

I'm not gonna keep responding to this though. I have actual work to do right now.

 

[deleted480308]

What did I say? You aren't recognizing any valid points that the other side has. It has to be your way only. Problem is other people live here. We can't function until other points are recognized as valid and evaluated.

I'm not gonna keep responding to this though. I have actual work to do right now.

you said it was hyperbole to claim that one side wanted to take 1/3 of my income.....you're lying, it's not hyperbole at all

 

[deleted480308]

Fair enough. I'm not denying that the government can always be improved upon. It just seems we have different priorities in terms of which rights need to be respected more at any given time.

I think that could be a reasonable discussion.....what right is being protected (as you say in balance) when the property rights of higher income producers are being violated via our income tax?

 

[BidingMyTime]

Finally, I've reached the end of this thread! (although there will probably be a ton of new posts before I finish replying....you guys are writing faster than I can read.)

Haven't read all the posts- but is there anything anyone is doing beforr the end of the year to save on taxes for next year?
Im going to buy a new desktop computer - I use it for work when on call, checjing email in evenings, etc. I've read to try and pay 2018 taxes early but I doubt I'll be able to accomplish that...
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

FYI, if you use your computer at all for personal usage (ie checking personal e-mails), then you can only deduct the percentage of time that you are using it for work related use. Ie, $1500 for a computer, but only spend on work 15% of the time, then only 15% of the price can be deducted.

But if it is actually fake news... someone has to call out the bullchit for what it is.

Yes, but they can call it out without using the phrase "fake news"!

It depends how open-minded people are. The majority of the time, I see one side essentially saying, “I’m right” and the the other side saying, “no, I’m right.” Lol.

Yes, but there are always the lurkers reading and learning, who never say anything. On any board, there are usually far more lurkers than active posters.

" effectively creating a parasitic voting bloc who want to influence government to harm others at their gain. I find this incredibly wrong.

While I agreed with a lot of what you had said previously to this point, let's be honest....most American's don't vote. It's hard to blame anything on a "parasitic voting bloc" when barely 50% of American's vote in presidential election years (far, far less on off-years or primaries.)

If anything, most of the people posting on this forum should be taxed more. It should be well over 50% for the highest incomes.

What do you consider the highest incomes? Most people here, including physicians, aren't anywhere near the 1%. And while most people here are probably in the top 10%, they are probably still closer in income to the bottom income levels than the top 1%.

I want everyone to observe their Medicaid customers and ask themselves, is there anything wrong with these people that they couldn't make something of their life?

Actually, from what I've seen, most Medicaid customers are employed at minimum wage or underemployed at part-time work. There is something wrong when people working full-time, or wanting to work and unable to find full-time work, can't afford health insurance (I'm just point this out, I'm not saying I think the government can fix this situation.) Many Medicaid customers are also on Medicare because they are elderly or disabled, but that's a different situation.

.A basic guaranteed income is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Firstly, the founders obviously didn't intend for this as they never even mentioned it, implemented it, and we didn't even have federal income taxes at the time.

The idea of the basic guaranteed income has come about due to the very real possibility that computers will take over all possible jobs. Even untouchable "creative" jobs, as people are working on computers who can create music, novels, etc. What happens to the humans, when computers are the only thing that can offer value? I'm not saying I agree with this prognosis, I'm just explaining why there is now talk of a basic guaranteed income when in the past that would have made no sense.

I am greatly enjoying reading people's thoughts on this thread. I strongly lean libertarian, but I don't think it can be ignored that a huge number of people who could have supported themselves just find in a libertarian society as recent as 150 years ago, can not do so today. In the past, people who didn't want to really work, could still live by walking through a wild forest and picking berries and catching a rabbit. I guess the modern equivalent would be dumpster diving, but even that avenue is being turned off as most businesses are locking their dumpsters these days.

 

[deleted480308]

The right to liberty for the poor. James Streba summarizes it nicely:

"When the conflict between the rich and the poor is viewed as a conflict of liberties, either we can say that the rich should have the liberty not to be interfered with in using their surplus goods and resources for luxury purposes or we can say that the poor should have the liberty not to be interfered with in taking from the rich what they require to meet their basic needs. If we choose one liberty, we must reject the other. What needs to be determined, therefore, is which liberty is morally preferable: the liberty of the rich or the liberty of the poor."

Do you mean sterba? Either way they are being dishonest, as he ignores the clear difference in that his question sets as equal one group keeping what they earned through voluntary trade and the other group stealing what they haven't earned...

No one has a right to take from others without offering what they want in return. My being cold doesn't give me rights to someone else's heated home, my starving doesn't give me rights to their food. Are you familiar with the concept of negative rights?

 

[wagrxm2000]

Why do people care so much about the top 1%?

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

What did I say? You aren't recognizing any valid points that the other side has. It has to be your way only. Problem is other people live here. We can't function until other points are recognized as valid and evaluated.

I'm not gonna keep responding to this though. I have actual work to do right now.

Wrong.

We are a republic, not a democracy.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Finally, I've reached the end of this thread! (although there will probably be a ton of new posts before I finish replying....you guys are writing faster than I can read.)



FYI, if you use your computer at all for personal usage (ie checking personal e-mails), then you can only deduct the percentage of time that you are using it for work related use. Ie, $1500 for a computer, but only spend on work 15% of the time, then only 15% of the price can be deducted.



Yes, but they can call it out without using the phrase "fake news"!



Yes, but there are always the lurkers reading and learning, who never say anything. On any board, there are usually far more lurkers than active posters.



While I agreed with a lot of what you had said previously to this point, let's be honest....most American's don't vote. It's hard to blame anything on a "parasitic voting bloc" when barely 50% of American's vote in presidential election years (far, far less on off-years or primaries.)



What do you consider the highest incomes? Most people here, including physicians, aren't anywhere near the 1%. And while most people here are probably in the top 10%, they are probably still closer in income to the bottom income levels than the top 1%.



Actually, from what I've seen, most Medicaid customers are employed at minimum wage or underemployed at part-time work. There is something wrong when people working full-time, or wanting to work and unable to find full-time work, can't afford health insurance (I'm just point this out, I'm not saying I think the government can fix this situation.) Many Medicaid customers are also on Medicare because they are elderly or disabled, but that's a different situation.



The idea of the basic guaranteed income has come about due to the very real possibility that computers will take over all possible jobs. Even untouchable "creative" jobs, as people are working on computers who can create music, novels, etc. What happens to the humans, when computers are the only thing that can offer value? I'm not saying I agree with this prognosis, I'm just explaining why there is now talk of a basic guaranteed income when in the past that would have made no sense.

I am greatly enjoying reading people's thoughts on this thread. I strongly lean libertarian, but I don't think it can be ignored that a huge number of people who could have supported themselves just find in a libertarian society as recent as 150 years ago, can not do so today. In the past, people who didn't want to really work, could still live by walking through a wild forest and picking berries and catching a rabbit. I guess the modern equivalent would be dumpster diving, but even that avenue is being turned off as most businesses are locking their dumpsters these days.

That's not quite accurate.

From the people i know, a married pair of pharmacists are probably grossing at least $240,000-$300,000 per year.

That's only ~$100,00 under the agreed upon threshold for the 1%.

Most RPh households with two employed individuals are solidly over $200,000, placing them into the top 5%

[ / Non sequitur ]

 

[OXYFORALL]

That's communism and has failed in every stage of history

Tell that to the chinese.

 

[OXYFORALL]

The French Revolution was also a situation in which royalty lived rich off a highly taxed impoverished class. I’m suggesting a minimal govt with low taxes, different situations
we can go back to that with a proper govt

Funny how people want small government until they need help. Texas delayed Hurricane Sandy aid package and when they got hit cried "Help us help us". There is a reason for most of the regulations on the books. Unchecked and unregulated and you get companies dumping toxins into rivers to save a buck, making deals like apple did with other tech companies not to hire their workers or just recently, tipped workers now being forced by employers to pool tips they earned which management can dole out as they please.

 

[sakigt]

Funny how people want small government until they need help. Texas delayed Hurricane Sandy aid package and when they got hit cried "Help us help us". There is a reason for most of the regulations on the books. Unchecked and unregulated and you get companies dumping toxins into rivers to save a buck, making deals like apple did with other tech companies not to hire their workers or just recently, tipped workers now being forced by employers to pool tips they earned which management can dole out as they please.

Everytime Erin Brockovich comes on Im stuck. Anyone who can watch that and think we don't need regulations are.... strange to me.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Tell that to the chinese.

Funny how people want small government until they need help. Texas delayed Hurricane Sandy aid package and when they got hit cried "Help us help us". There is a reason for most of the regulations on the books. Unchecked and unregulated and you get companies dumping toxins into rivers to save a buck, making deals like apple did with other tech companies not to hire their workers or just recently, tipped workers now being forced by employers to pool tips they earned which management can dole out as they please.

You can't seriously believe that people who want small government are against those things, can you?

Here's the cliffs notes:

Small government:

Efficient. Protects you from outside forces. This includes storms.

Big government:

A self preserving entity.
Protects you and itself from you.
Goes through your luggage at the airport and reads your texts.

Basically, if it sounds like a crazy ex boy/girlfriend and not a loving spouse, people who dislike big government are against it.

 

[deleted480308]

You're making a big assumption that the rich people obtained all their surplus goods and resources through voluntary trade, with no use of violence, coercion, or exploitation. ETA: and even still, the liberty of rich people to hold on to their surplus still conflicts with the liberty of poor people to meet their basic needs.

And yes, I am familiar with the distinction between negative and positive rights.

ETA2: and yes, i meant Sterba, sorry for the typo.

“Liberty to meet your basic needs” is not a thing. You have a natural right to pursue profit to meet whatever you want to use your profit for (basic or luxury). Someone else having more money is not an impediment on your rights.

(And if the wealthy got theirs through violence as you hinted at, that is illegal and they can be charged)

 

[deleted480308]

Why do people care so much about the top 1%?

Because wrong is wrong, if I see someone getting the crap kicked out of them by three guys I’m stopping to help regardless of their wealth. I don’t check to make sure someone is sufficiently poor to give a crap about their rights

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Interference in the ability to have your basic needs met is reasonably a violation of your right to liberty.

And yes, in order to prevent wealthy people from using illegal means to obtain resources or wealth, we need a properly functioning legal system and law enforcement, and that costs money.

Again, demonstrably false.

No one ever got upset about "taxation beyond basic needs"
They got upset over taxation without representation.

Nutra Loaf was previously ruled unconstitutional even though it meet your "basic needs" fabrication.

 

[deleted480308]

Interference in the ability to have your basic needs met is reasonably a violation of your right to liberty.

And yes, in order to prevent wealthy people from using illegal means to obtain resources or wealth, we need a properly functioning legal system and law enforcement, and that costs money.

Someone being wealthy is not stopping your ability to attempt to make a better life for yourself

And we had courts and police long before federal income tax

 

[deleted480308]

I'm not tracking. Are you arguing that denial of basic needs is not infringing on the right to liberty, or are you arguing that guaranteeing the right to liberty for the poor does not come into conflict with the right to liberty for the rich?

No one has a natural right to having basic needs provided for them.....not housing, not food, not health care

They do have a natural right to pursue those things with their labor/time/goods

 

[297point1]

Tried to prepay taxes. Not allowed in my county. Boo :-(

That is unfortunate.
I get a tax bill every September- half due in October, the other half due in April. I just went and paid the April taxes early.

I'm thinking my church is going to get their 2018 donation in full before this week is over.

 

[deleted480308]

Rich people: we control all food sources, and you are welcome to have some of this food, but only if you offer something of value to us.

Poor people: we have nothing of value to offer you, and we will starve if you don't let us have some food.

Rich people: too bad, you should have been born rich.

The rich are interfering with the poor peoples right to liberty and life. It is not about a positive right of receiving something, but a negative right of not having rich people's property rights interfere with poor people's right to liberty and life. Your requirement that poor people have something of value for the rich in order to access needed resources to sustain life, whether reasonable or not, is what creates the conflict between poor people's rights and rich people's rights.

Now you’re just making stuff up, rich people aren’t hiding food from the poor. One can eat on a few bucks a day in America and most cities have free food charities all over the place.

And i’ll Repeat, no one has a natural right to enough food to live. It isn’t hard to provide enough value to someone to earn food though

 

[deleted480308]

Obviously that wasn't a literal example, but rather an oversimplified illustration of how property rights conflict with other rights, and that the right to food doesn't necessary mean the right to have food given to you, but it can also mean the right to not having access to food interfered with. Nonetheless, food insecurity is certainly a problem in the United States. The problem would be even worse without government intervention (which requires tax revenue).

What constitutes a natural right is overall a controversial topic. The right to food is certainly a human right, and could arguably be considered a natural right. Just because you don't consider the right to food a natural right doesn't make it so. Either way, I honestly don't have any interest in debating the merits of the right to food.

It’s kind of a bedrock question to the whole thing. If you don’t have a right to have food brought to you (and you don’t) then there is no “right to food” just the right to try and honestly procure your own food. So starvation isn’t actually a violation of rights, it’s just something that sometimes happens.

To walk out further your implication, how do the wealthy interfere, specifically, with the poor’s right to pursue their basic needs as you describe it to a degree that it’s a violation of rights?

 

[beautifulrobot]

It’s kind of a bedrock question to the whole thing. If you don’t have a right to have food brought to you (and you don’t) then there is no “right to food” just the right to try and honestly procure your own food. So starvation isn’t actually a violation of rights, it’s just something that sometimes happens.

To walk out further your implication, how do the wealthy interfere, specifically, with the poor’s right to pursue their basic needs as you describe it to a degree that it’s a violation of rights?

Private property ownership conflicts with the right to access or procure food. Starvation is definitely a violation of rights if the reason you are starving is because other people have made food inaccessible to you. Perhaps you should look into the causes of starvation more... It is not just something that sometimes happens.

 

[deleted480308]

Private property ownership conflicts with the right to access or procure food. Starvation is definitely a violation of rights if the reason you are starving is because other people have made food inaccessible to you. Perhaps you should look into the causes of starvation more... It is not just something that sometimes happens.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear, please spell out exactly for me how someone being wealthy is stopping others from their natural right to pursue obtaining food for themselves (to be clear, not their right to have food)

For instance, I know a wealthy plumber. Makes ~$1mil/yr. how is he starving people in a way that violates their rights?

 

[rxdawg21]

Since we were talking about property rights, I was thinking more about the wealthy real estate developer that has bought up all the land in a particular area, and will not let nearby people hunt deer, gather berries, or grow crops on the land without paying him a fee that only a few people can afford.

But let us take your plumber for a moment. The path is not as straightforward, but it wouldn't be implausible. Lets assume that in order to grow food you have to have access to water and sanitation. If your plumber ends up being so successful that he bankrupts all the other plumbers in the area or buys out all the competing plumbing companies and creates a monopoly, he has violated other people's right to access to water and sanitation by making plumbing services less accessible, and unaffordable to poor people.

If you will argue that people do not have a right to plumbing services, perhaps that's a fair argument, but only if people's access to water is restored in some other way. If you will argue that people do not have a right to water, that's fair as well, but only if people have the right of movement to places with clean water. If other people own all the land that contains clean water and require that these people pay them a fee to access the clean water, then their right of movement has been violated. They will die without access to water, and so potentially their right to life has also been violated.

This doesn't happen very often in the United States because the government attempts to prevent monopolies, as well as it provides subsidized plumbing services and water services to those that cannot afford it.

Doesn't happen very often? So surely you must be able to name an example.

I wonder what people did when there wasn't plumbing everywhere. If we had a true free market in the plumbing scenario you described, there would never be a monopoly, especially in todays society where self-teaching via the internet is so easy. If the plumber charged too much money, someone would come in and undercut him. Granted he could then re-undercut them, but hopefully the people remember being gouged by the plumber. Also the start-up costs of basic plumbing work (the essentials) is very low, therefore another competitor or the same one could come back in when prices get high.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

I'm not tracking. Are you arguing that denial of basic needs is not infringing on the right to liberty, or are you arguing that guaranteeing the right to liberty for the poor does not come into conflict with the right to liberty for the rich?

Here's my point:

You keep dancing around the idea of "basic needs" being the only things protected by rights.

That only works as a political meme when you're talking about taking things from people that you think have too much.

It doesn't work when you look at real world examples where only basic needs are provided, such as the pink tent prison.

 

[beautifulrobot]

Here's my point:

You keep dancing around the idea of "basic needs" being the only things protected by rights.

That only works as a political meme when you're talking about taking things from people that you think have too much.

It doesn't work when you look at real world examples where only basic needs are provided, such as the pink tent prison.

I wasn't making the argument that basic needs are the only things protected by rights. The conversation shifted from how different rights come into conflict with each other. Someone's property rights will at times conflict with another person's right to liberty, or freedom of movement, or right to natural resources that are needed to sustain life.

If someone owns all of X resource that is vital to life, and requires that non-owners provide some service or something of value to the owner in return for access to X resource, that is a violation of the non-owner's rights. I am not saying it's wrong or always unacceptable, especially if the exchange is set at a fair price and that at some point we as a society consented to having this owner own and take care of maintaining X resource. Although, if there are no mechanisms in place to protect the non-owners, what is to stop the owner from charging unfair prices? And since the non-owners have to have access to X resource to stay alive, is the transaction ever truly consensual, or is there always an element of coercion?

 

[Jbrl]

I wonder what people did when there wasn't plumbing everywhere. If we had a true free market in the plumbing scenario you described, there would never be a monopoly, especially in todays society where self-teaching via the internet is so easy. If the plumber charged too much money, someone would come in and undercut him. Granted he could then re-undercut them, but hopefully the people remember being gouged by the plumber. Also the start-up costs of basic plumbing work (the essentials) is very low, therefore another competitor or the same one could come back in when prices get high.

The plumber scenario is an example where competition can and does happen very readily, considering it has very low barriers to entry. If we were to, for example, shift the conversation toward sanitation/water systems developers, we would see a different story due to high cost of capital, required expertise and contract-based work for a necessary public good, facilitating monopolistic markets.

I think a philosophy of balance will always win out long term. Currently our markets are skewed toward the employer and big business, and holistically it doesn't bode well in the long-term to push them further in that direction. However, globalization forces our hand. We wouldn't remain competitive against developing countries without currying favor to corporations. Eventually the situation will correct itself as world standards increase, but the US will be a casualty in the name of progress.

 

[rxdawg21]

The plumber scenario is an example where competition can and does happen very readily, considering it has very low barriers to entry. If we were to, for example, shift the conversation toward sanitation/water systems developers, we would see a different story due to high cost of capital, required expertise and contract-based work for a necessary public good, facilitating monopolistic markets.

I think a philosophy of balance will always win out long term. Currently our markets are skewed toward the employer and big business, and holistically it doesn't bode well in the long-term to push them further in that direction. However, globalization forces our hand. We wouldn't remain competitive against developing countries without currying favor to corporations. Eventually the situation will correct itself as world standards increase, but the US will be a casualty in the name of progress.

So boiling water doesn't sanitize the water? All basic needs can be met without the modern luxuries of today, period end of story. Granted you most likely won't live as long, but that doesn't tie in to if your basic needs are capable of being met.

 

[Jbrl]

So boiling water doesn't sanitize the water? All basic needs can be met without the modern luxuries of today, period end of story. Granted you most likely won't live as long, but that doesn't tie in to if your basic needs are capable of being met.

I'm not at all arguing that and I agree. It's largely a semantical discussion than anything else, so I won't go there. However, what you can define a "basic need" in today's society is up for debate. Is adequate sanitation a "basic need?" The ability to have running water, avoid parasites and use toilets? That's a personal belief. Civilization and concentrated communities depend on sanitation systems, whether we're talking about Mesopotamia or the UK.

 

[owlegrad]

IRS says many who prepaid property taxes may still face cap on deductions - The Washington Post IRS says many who prepaid property taxes may still face cap on deductions — The Washington Post

 

[lord999]

IRS says many who prepaid property taxes may still face cap on deductions - The Washington Post IRS says many who prepaid property taxes may still face cap on deductions — The Washington Post

Thank you MN for having a law that requires assessments be completed before Christmas. Still though, looking to be tax refugees in another state by next year.

 

[BidingMyTime]

Yup - I'm going to do 25% for me and 25% for my spouse for a 50% of cost. We need it anyhow haha.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Don't forget you have to spread it out over the years of the expected life of the computer (the IRS has standards on how long a computer would last, I don't know the exact number, but for example, if the IRS says the average computer should last 5 years, and you paid $1500 for your computer, you plan to deduct $750, then you have to deduct $150 over 5 years rather than the lump sum.

That's not quite accurate.
From the people i know, a married pair of pharmacists are probably grossing at least $240,000-$300,000 per year.
That's only ~$100,00 under the agreed upon threshold for the 1%.
Most RPh households with two employed individuals are solidly over $200,000, placing them into the top 5%
[ / Non sequitur ]

Are most pharmacists married to pharmacists? Most pharmacists I know are NOT married to other pharmacists (although many of them are married to partners with well-paying careers, so I'll give you that.) I was thinking 1 pharmacist salary as top 10%, not top 5%, but you are correct, if you have 2 high salaried people married, then they could be 5% or more.

Everytime Erin Brockovich comes on Im stuck. Anyone who can watch that and think we don't need regulations are.... strange to me.

Here's the thing....regulations don't protect people, they provide a mechanism for punishing people who break the law. Since we have laws against murder, do we now live in a society where noone is ever murdered? How about theft? Can we all leave our doors unlocked, since nobody steals anymore since we passed laws against it?

Do corporations often ignore regulations? Yes. Does the government often selective decide which corporations they decide to enforce the law with? Yes. Is it often the case that corporations still make a profit by ignoring regulations, even if they have to pay a find for violation those regulations? Yes.

We don't need more useless regulations, we need accountability. Where people or corporations have purposely harmed others, must pay full restitution. If people have died from the purposeful actions of people or corporations, then those people (or board if a corporation) should be charged with murder.

And to allude to Oldtimer's picture about 3 libertarians dying from drinking tainted alcohol....in a libertarian society the bar tender and/or owner would be charged with murder. We don't need laws against selling tainted food/drink, in order to prosecute people for murder. Now if the alcohol was tainted due to circumstances that the owner/bartender couldn't have foreseen, then in a libertarian society they would still need to make restitution (same as people sueing in civil courts today)....the reasonable bar owner would have insurance coverage to pay for any such unfortunate incident. Maybe the unreasonable bar owner wouldn't have insurance coverage.....but that can happen today anyway. One example, is Action Park amusement park which ran for a year in the 90's without insurance (because they couldn't get insurance due to a high rate of ridiculous accidents/deaths.)

TLDR we can always penalize people/corporations for harming others, regardless of any specific laws/regulations.

 

[owlegrad]

I need to look at that more closely - last year I was able to have an option to do all at once or spread it out.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Last year when I bought a computer my accountant told me I could either spread it over multiple years or claim full depreciation in one year. Hopefully my account knew what he was talking about.

 

[sakigt]

Here's the thing....regulations don't protect people, they provide a mechanism for punishing people who break the law. Since we have laws against murder, do we now live in a society where noone is ever murdered? How about theft? Can we all leave our doors unlocked, since nobody steals anymore since we passed laws against it?

Do corporations often ignore regulations? Yes. Does the government often selective decide which corporations they decide to enforce the law with? Yes. Is it often the case that corporations still make a profit by ignoring regulations, even if they have to pay a find for violation those regulations? Yes.

We don't need more useless regulations, we need accountability. Where people or corporations have purposely harmed others, must pay full restitution. If people have died from the purposeful actions of people or corporations, then those people (or board if a corporation) should be charged with murder.

TLDR we can always penalize people/corporations for harming others, regardless of any specific laws/regulations.

Wat?

We need both. We need regulations that protect the common good, and we need a group of people that we as a society pay to be the watchdog and hold them accountable.

Of course some get away with murder. Just like poor people that cant pay bond are in jail and the princess of the cheerleading squad with rich parents can drink and drive and get away with it. Some animals are more equal than others. I get that. I also agree we all need personal accountability and must become educated consumers. But some people are more concerned with paying their light bill then making the connection that a toxic pesticide is the reason theyre getting migraines and nosebleeds.

 

[owlegrad]

Wat?

We need both. We need regulations that protect the common good, and we need a group of people that we as a society pay to be the watchdog and hold them accountable.

I agree. Saying that laws against murder doesn’t protect people is borderline insanity. Yes, some people still get murdered but does anyone think that the murder rate is exactly the same as it would be in a lawless nation? That’s absurd.

 

[ldiot]

and a democracy (which we are not supposed to be) that ignores property rights just because a larger group wants what a small group has is no less dangerous and oppressive than your fears of anarchy....which again, I'm not asking for. I'm just saying we can have a proper govt and still respect property rights

I don't see this point made often but "tyranny of the majority" was something that the founders were actually quite concerned about. A hypothetical and extreme example being the bottom 51% voting to steal wealth from the top 49%. I guess this topic most often comes up when discussing the electoral college. The Average American, however, understands our democracy simply as majority rules.

 

[boriqua]

Tax cuts kicked in today for me. My paycheck went up 100 dollars. That's per week so an extra 5200 per year in my wallet. Is it possible that you people have fallen victim to Dem fear mongering BS once again? lol

 

[OXYFORALL]

Tax cuts kicked in today for me. My paycheck went up 100 dollars. That's per week so an extra 5200 per year in my wallet. Is it possible that you people have fallen victim to Dem fear mongering BS once again? lol

A change in your withholding does not mean that your tax rate went down. Your actual tax rate will depend on a number of factors inc number of kids, prop taxes etc.

 

[boriqua]

A change in your withholding does not mean that your tax rate went down. Your actual tax rate will depend on a number of factors inc number of kids, prop taxes etc.

Those factors have always affected the amount on withholding on your paycheck. And mine did not change from last year to this year. The rates have decreased. You should check with friends and family. I for one can't wait to file next year and see how much more I'm getting back. Enjoy your extra spending money everyone.

 

[OXYFORALL]

Those factors have always affected the amount on withholding on your paycheck. And mine did not change from last year to this year. The rates have decreased. You should check with friends and family. I for one can't wait to file next year and see how much more I'm getting back. Enjoy your extra spending money everyone.

Meant your effective tax rate not the numbers you see on charts for trump plan.
The actual money you will save or not save depends on a bunch of factors including the tax rate. Here in nj most rphs probably itemize taxes because of the high property and income tax. These deductions will now be capped at 10k so actual taxes paid will go up even with a lower tax rate.

 

[deleted480308]

Meant your effective tax rate not the numbers you see on charts for trump plan.
The actual money you will save or not save depends on a bunch of factors including the tax rate. Here in nj most rphs probably itemize taxes because of the high property and income tax. These deductions will now be capped at 10k so actual taxes paid will go up even with a lower tax rate.

It was about time the fed stopped offering a deduction for state taxes

 

[boriqua]

Meant your effective tax rate not the numbers you see on charts for trump plan.
The actual money you will save or not save depends on a bunch of factors including the tax rate. Here in nj most rphs probably itemize taxes because of the high property and income tax. These deductions will now be capped at 10k so actual taxes paid will go up even with a lower tax rate.

Ughh. Jersey. Sounds like it's time for y'all to elect some officials that will stop jacking up the income and property taxes. Try red for 2018

 

[wagrxm2000]

Trump is amazing. Look at that stock market go.

I speak for everyone when I say, thank you President Trump.