(10-23-2018 09:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Ive always thought, in addition to this, that one should show that they pay taxes. The old 'skin in the game' argument. Good enough for startups, should be good enough for governance. Goes both ways. If you make 10 bajillion dollars and depreciate and offset enough to zero that out or create a carryover loss -- sorry charlie.

LOL. So people that don't work (for a variety of reasons, both legitimate and illegitimate) or people that use tax law to their advantage shouldn't be allowed to vote? Sounds like a policy that both Democrats and Republicans can agree to oppose.

(10-23-2018 09:56 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 09:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Ive always thought, in addition to this, that one should show that they pay taxes. The old 'skin in the game' argument. Good enough for startups, should be good enough for governance. Goes both ways. If you make 10 bajillion dollars and depreciate and offset enough to zero that out or create a carryover loss -- sorry charlie.

LOL. So people that don't work (for a variety of reasons, both legitimate and illegitimate) or people that use tax law to their advantage shouldn't be allowed to vote? Sounds like a policy that both Democrats and Republicans can agree to oppose.

Most probably would oppose it. I said *I've* always thought that the skin in the game thingy wouldnt be so bad. But that is kind of the startup guy in me talking.... maybe even to cover the past tense, if you 'put' skin in the game more than x times.... covers the retirees and such.

Hate to tell you that people with actual skin in the game tend to make the best decisions and tend not to 'sit on the sidelines, and collect or game the system'. There is a *real* reason why seed funds and equity funds pretty much require the 'top tier' to have skin in the game, and why options for those enterprises are structured that way as well.

And I can see precisely why both the left *and* the right wouldnt like this, to be frank.

(10-23-2018 10:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 09:56 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 09:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Ive always thought, in addition to this, that one should show that they pay taxes. The old 'skin in the game' argument. Good enough for startups, should be good enough for governance. Goes both ways. If you make 10 bajillion dollars and depreciate and offset enough to zero that out or create a carryover loss -- sorry charlie.

LOL. So people that don't work (for a variety of reasons, both legitimate and illegitimate) or people that use tax law to their advantage shouldn't be allowed to vote? Sounds like a policy that both Democrats and Republicans can agree to oppose.

Most probably would oppose it. I said *I've* always thought that the skin in the game thingy wouldnt be so bad. But that is kind of the startup guy in me talking....

It's what the framers of the constitution thought, too. They wanted the vote restricted to educated land owners.

(10-23-2018 05:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 04:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 01:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You bet I don't like that idiots vote, but I have no urge to restrict who can or cannot vote based on anything outside of age.

Hoping you didn't mean to leave off 'citizenship' on your list of restrictions ('anything outside of age') to vote.

What's magic about age? Why is 18 better than 21 or 55 or 12? There are lots of 10 year olds who have a better grasp of issues than a lot of 25 year olds.

Of course, the minimum age is a feeble attempt to restrict voting to those who understand the matters to be voted on - economics, foreign affairs, etc. But when it comes to restricting the franchise to those who actually do understand, there is this loud wailing, mostly from the left.

I don't think it goes far enough, but I see no reason why natural born citizens should not take the one time test to be able to vote that naturalized citizens take. Show not only a little knowledge, but also a little desire. What's it take, 30 minutes and a rudimentary knowledge of our government not automatically conveyed by birth?

And as I said before, citizenship is not a barrier to voting in certain California communities and other places.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_f...ted_States

What’s magic about age is it can’t be discriminated against. You’re either 18 and older, or not. And 18 is only magical because we, as a society, have said it is. It’s the age you’re legally an adult and can die for the country - along with drinking beer, I think you should also be able to vote if that’s the case.

That loud wailing from the left is because history has shown us that parties in power will often use whatever means necessary to disenfranchise certain peoples if possible. I know you’re older than me, so my guess is you still remember a time when such efforts (like poll taxes) were legal. I’m not sure how anyone could want to go back to a time when having a direct say in who governs is not afforded to all voting-age citizens.

I do think it would be great if every voter was informed on civics, I just don’t believe that it will result in anything else but voter disenfranchisement.

I remember a time when the magic number was 21, not only for voting but for drinking, owning property and marrying. Back when I was young and foolish, I too thought it wrong that people could die for their country but not drink or vote. I supported the move to the magic number of 18. I am not perfect. I make mistakes. That was one. But, yes, my vote was suppressed from age 18 to age 21. I missed a Presidential election because of that voter suppression.

I remember hearing about the poll tax, but never saw one. Maybe in another state. As I remember, it was $1.00. Doesn't matter, any longer. And no doubt it was an effort by the Democrats in those states to suppress the black vote.

I used to watch Jay Leno, and he had a feature called Jaywalking, where they would stop people on the street and ask them simple questions, like "How Many States are there" and "how long is a Senator's term", or show them pictures of top newsmakers like the VP or or Senate majority leader, and it was appalling some of the answers. Even more appalling was the occupations of some of the wrong answerers - teacher(!!!), attorney, accountant. One of my favorites was the lady who thought Alaska was an island, because that is the way it is shown on weather maps.

Are these really the people we want deciding our future?
People who cannot remember who the Senator from Manitoba is? They know "that bald headed wrestler guy" is one of the six or seven, but can't think of his name?

It bugs me that votes of people like you and me are offset by the votes of the ignorant mob.

It also bugs me that naturalized citizens are better prepared to cast an informed vote than a natural born one. Why? Is it because they studied a little while and took a short, easy test? Sure that helps, but mainly it is because they CARED ENOUGH ABOUT VOTING TO DO THAT. They put in a little time and effort to vote, and because they care enough to do that, they are more likely to stay abreast of issues. They take it seriously.

There is a reason the Founding Fathers put minimum ages in the Constitution for holding high office. 25,30, 35 may not seem high to us today, but back then, people of those ages had done a lot of living and could be relied upon to have a better judgement than youths of, say, 18. Or 21, or 16, Age and wisdom are associated.

Explain to me again why the age for voting or any other thing is 18, and not 12 or 14? Is it possible that immature people are easily swayed?

Here's what I propose. Minimum age of 18. At that time or any time thereafter, take a short civics/geography/history test. like the naturalized citizens must, to activate your franchise. One time, pass, and you never have to do it again.
Fail, you can try again. Who is going to NOT take that test? People who don't give a damn about our electoral process, that's who. People who think 30 minutes of their time is worth more being used in some other way, playing pool or hanging with their friends. That is the group whose rights you are so vigorously defending. Yay, slackers, we want your opinion on foreign policy.

We have a Supreme Court (quick, how many voters can tell you how many Justices there are) and they will defend the electorate from suppression, just as they did with the poll tax. Pass the law, and it will be adjudicated by the SC. It may be rejected. I still think it is a good idea.

I come here to discuss with other educated and knowledgeable people the issues of the day. If I wanted to discuss them with people who have no idea, I would go elsewhere. wouldn't you?

I think leftists fight this because they think the majority of the uncaring will come from their base. But there will be a lot of uncaring from the other side too.

(10-23-2018 10:17 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 10:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 09:56 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 09:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Ive always thought, in addition to this, that one should show that they pay taxes. The old 'skin in the game' argument. Good enough for startups, should be good enough for governance. Goes both ways. If you make 10 bajillion dollars and depreciate and offset enough to zero that out or create a carryover loss -- sorry charlie.

LOL. So people that don't work (for a variety of reasons, both legitimate and illegitimate) or people that use tax law to their advantage shouldn't be allowed to vote? Sounds like a policy that both Democrats and Republicans can agree to oppose.

Most probably would oppose it. I said *I've* always thought that the skin in the game thingy wouldnt be so bad. But that is kind of the startup guy in me talking....

It's what the framers of the constitution thought, too. They wanted the vote restricted to educated land owners.

Heh.... call me an Originalist by implication. Hadn't really thought too much about the tie back there. But it fits.

(10-23-2018 09:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 05:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 04:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 01:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You bet I don't like that idiots vote, but I have no urge to restrict who can or cannot vote based on anything outside of age.

Hoping you didn't mean to leave off 'citizenship' on your list of restrictions ('anything outside of age') to vote.

What's magic about age? Why is 18 better than 21 or 55 or 12? There are lots of 10 year olds who have a better grasp of issues than a lot of 25 year olds.

Of course, the minimum age is a feeble attempt to restrict voting to those who understand the matters to be voted on - economics, foreign affairs, etc. But when it comes to restricting the franchise to those who actually do understand, there is this loud wailing, mostly from the left.

I don't think it goes far enough, but I see no reason why natural born citizens should not take the one time test to be able to vote that naturalized citizens take. Show not only a little knowledge, but also a little desire. What's it take, 30 minutes and a rudimentary knowledge of our government not automatically conveyed by birth?

And as I said before, citizenship is not a barrier to voting in certain California communities and other places.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_f...ted_States

What’s magic about age is it can’t be discriminated against. You’re either 18 and older, or not. And 18 is only magical because we, as a society, have said it is. It’s the age you’re legally an adult and can die for the country - along with drinking beer, I think you should also be able to vote if that’s the case.

That loud wailing from the left is because history has shown us that parties in power will often use whatever means necessary to disenfranchise certain peoples if possible. I know you’re older than me, so my guess is you still remember a time when such efforts (like poll taxes) were legal. I’m not sure how anyone could want to go back to a time when having a direct say in who governs is not afforded to all voting-age citizens.

I do think it would be great if every voter was informed on civics, I just don’t believe that it will result in anything else but voter disenfranchisement.

Watching the chicks in the pink vejayjay hats and tutus, the antifas, and the dudes carrying modernistic swastikas sure makes the idea, at least to me, at the very least worthy of discussion, perhaps even look pretty damn good.

Ive always thought, in addition to this, that one should show that they pay taxes. The old 'skin in the game' argument. Good enough for startups, should be good enough for governance. Goes both ways. If you make 10 bajillion dollars and depreciate and offset enough to zero that out or create a carryover loss -- sorry charlie.

disagree.

I would be satisfied with evidence that one complied with all the tax laws, even if it resulted in zero Federal Income Tax(FIT) being paid. I think audits by the IRS annually for decades would suffice.

The ones that bug me are the ones who give fake SSNs, claim multiple dependents that don't exist, and file no tax return.

Of course, we can return to the left's argument about illegals who pay no taxes(FIT). I am sure Trump has paid a sales tax sometime, just as they have. Therefore, they are all taxpayers.

Disclosing one's tax returns started as a voluntary gesture, now is seen by many as mandatory.

\personally, as a former business owner and as a former real estate owner, I am glad that losses and depreciation are deductible. Sometimes I have been in the top 1%, and other times in the bottom 50%(no FIT due). I was as good a citizen in the low income years as in the high ones.

(10-23-2018 10:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 09:56 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 09:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Ive always thought, in addition to this, that one should show that they pay taxes. The old 'skin in the game' argument. Good enough for startups, should be good enough for governance. Goes both ways. If you make 10 bajillion dollars and depreciate and offset enough to zero that out or create a carryover loss -- sorry charlie.

LOL. So people that don't work (for a variety of reasons, both legitimate and illegitimate) or people that use tax law to their advantage shouldn't be allowed to vote? Sounds like a policy that both Democrats and Republicans can agree to oppose.

Most probably would oppose it. I said *I've* always thought that the skin in the game thingy wouldnt be so bad. But that is kind of the startup guy in me talking.... maybe even to cover the past tense, if you 'put' skin in the game more than x times.... covers the retirees and such.

Hate to tell you that people with actual skin in the game tend to make the best decisions and tend not to 'sit on the sidelines, and collect or game the system'. There is a *real* reason why seed funds and equity funds pretty much require the 'top tier' to have skin in the game, and why options for those enterprises are structured that way as well.

And I can see precisely why both the left *and* the right wouldnt like this, to be frank.

So are we talking just federal income tax?

What about state or local sales tax?

Property tax? Would renters not be able to include property tax because they don't actually pay it, but their rental payment covers what the landlord owes?

Is there really a single person in the US that pays no taxes at all?

(10-23-2018 02:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 10:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 09:56 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 09:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Ive always thought, in addition to this, that one should show that they pay taxes. The old 'skin in the game' argument. Good enough for startups, should be good enough for governance. Goes both ways. If you make 10 bajillion dollars and depreciate and offset enough to zero that out or create a carryover loss -- sorry charlie.

LOL. So people that don't work (for a variety of reasons, both legitimate and illegitimate) or people that use tax law to their advantage shouldn't be allowed to vote? Sounds like a policy that both Democrats and Republicans can agree to oppose.

Most probably would oppose it. I said *I've* always thought that the skin in the game thingy wouldnt be so bad. But that is kind of the startup guy in me talking.... maybe even to cover the past tense, if you 'put' skin in the game more than x times.... covers the retirees and such.

Hate to tell you that people with actual skin in the game tend to make the best decisions and tend not to 'sit on the sidelines, and collect or game the system'. There is a *real* reason why seed funds and equity funds pretty much require the 'top tier' to have skin in the game, and why options for those enterprises are structured that way as well.

And I can see precisely why both the left *and* the right wouldnt like this, to be frank.

So are we talking just federal income tax?

What about state or local sales tax?

Property tax? Would renters not be able to include property tax because they don't actually pay it, but their rental payment covers what the landlord owes?

Is there really a single person in the US that pays no taxes at all?

Yeah, when people talk about "taxpayers', they generally mean Federal Income Tax. But there are a lot of other taxes, something we can mostly thasnk the left for.

So a person who pays sales tax is a taxpayer. I guess that includes the 5 year old who spends his allowance on candy. Using after (income) tax money from his parents, I guess.

When I buy something from Target, I not only pay sales tax, Target uses their profits to pay property tax (on my behalf, according to you). Thanks, Target. But I want credit for paying those property taxes for you.

I used to own rental property. I can tell you for a fact that the property taxes do not go down when tenants don't pay their rent, or when they do a midnight move out owing three months, nor or they abated when the property is vacant. Also, when the taxes are not paid for any reason, it is not the renter's property that is seized.

and of course, those people who work also pay the FICA tax.

And when I had gas wells producing on my property, I paid severance tax.

But in the end, when people talk about taxpayers, they mean payers of Federal Income Tax, or at least those who file tax returns, whether they owe taxes of not.

To answer your question at the end, I doubt there is anybody who escapes all taxes all year long. But I think there are lots of people who should pay Federal Income Tax who don't. I also think that there are a lot of people who do not pay all they legally owe, even if they do buy something and are forced to pay the sales tax. Should we give them a bye on the taxes they legally owe because they bought a hamburger and paid sales tax?

(10-23-2018 02:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 10:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 09:56 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 09:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Ive always thought, in addition to this, that one should show that they pay taxes. The old 'skin in the game' argument. Good enough for startups, should be good enough for governance. Goes both ways. If you make 10 bajillion dollars and depreciate and offset enough to zero that out or create a carryover loss -- sorry charlie.

LOL. So people that don't work (for a variety of reasons, both legitimate and illegitimate) or people that use tax law to their advantage shouldn't be allowed to vote? Sounds like a policy that both Democrats and Republicans can agree to oppose.

Most probably would oppose it. I said *I've* always thought that the skin in the game thingy wouldnt be so bad. But that is kind of the startup guy in me talking.... maybe even to cover the past tense, if you 'put' skin in the game more than x times.... covers the retirees and such.

Hate to tell you that people with actual skin in the game tend to make the best decisions and tend not to 'sit on the sidelines, and collect or game the system'. There is a *real* reason why seed funds and equity funds pretty much require the 'top tier' to have skin in the game, and why options for those enterprises are structured that way as well.

And I can see precisely why both the left *and* the right wouldnt like this, to be frank.

So are we talking just federal income tax?

What about state or local sales tax?

Property tax? Would renters not be able to include property tax because they don't actually pay it, but their rental payment covers what the landlord owes?

Is there really a single person in the US that pays no taxes at all?

If the office is Federal office, then the restriction should be to Federal income tax.

The franchise for State office should be at the discretion of the state if they want to adhere to the Fed paradigm. Or implement their own 'skin in the game' thingy. Or not. Why not? California has already shitcanned the paradigm of actual citizenship for state elections, really no different than that.

That was *implied*, no? (to quote you from yesterday, eh?)

I know how to give everybody skin in the game. Shift to a consumption tax paradigm for at least a significant portion of total tax revenues.

(10-23-2018 03:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 02:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 10:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 09:56 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 09:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Ive always thought, in addition to this, that one should show that they pay taxes. The old 'skin in the game' argument. Good enough for startups, should be good enough for governance. Goes both ways. If you make 10 bajillion dollars and depreciate and offset enough to zero that out or create a carryover loss -- sorry charlie.

LOL. So people that don't work (for a variety of reasons, both legitimate and illegitimate) or people that use tax law to their advantage shouldn't be allowed to vote? Sounds like a policy that both Democrats and Republicans can agree to oppose.

Most probably would oppose it. I said *I've* always thought that the skin in the game thingy wouldnt be so bad. But that is kind of the startup guy in me talking.... maybe even to cover the past tense, if you 'put' skin in the game more than x times.... covers the retirees and such.

Hate to tell you that people with actual skin in the game tend to make the best decisions and tend not to 'sit on the sidelines, and collect or game the system'. There is a *real* reason why seed funds and equity funds pretty much require the 'top tier' to have skin in the game, and why options for those enterprises are structured that way as well.

And I can see precisely why both the left *and* the right wouldnt like this, to be frank.

So are we talking just federal income tax?

What about state or local sales tax?

Property tax? Would renters not be able to include property tax because they don't actually pay it, but their rental payment covers what the landlord owes?

Is there really a single person in the US that pays no taxes at all?

Yeah, when people talk about "taxpayers', they generally mean Federal Income Tax. But there are a lot of other taxes, something we can mostly thasnk the left for.

So a person who pays sales tax is a taxpayer. I guess that includes the 5 year old who spends his allowance on candy. Using after (income) tax money from his parents, I guess.

When I buy something from Target, I not only pay sales tax, Target uses their profits to pay property tax (on my behalf, according to you). Thanks, Target. But I want credit for paying those property taxes for you.

I used to own rental property. I can tell you for a fact that the property taxes do not go down when tenants don't pay their rent, or when they do a midnight move out owing three months, nor or they abated when the property is vacant. Also, when the taxes are not paid for any reason, it is not the renter's property that is seized.

and of course, those people who work also pay the FICA tax.

And when I had gas wells producing on my property, I paid severance tax.

But in the end, when people talk about taxpayers, they mean payers of Federal Income Tax, or at least those who file tax returns, whether they owe taxes of not.

To answer your question at the end, I doubt there is anybody who escapes all taxes all year long. But I think there are lots of people who should pay Federal Income Tax who don't. I also think that there are a lot of people who do not pay all they legally owe, even if they do buy something and are forced to pay the sales tax. Should we give them a bye on the taxes they legally owe because they bought a hamburger and paid sales tax?

No.

Why would you even ask that?

(10-23-2018 07:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 03:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 02:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 10:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 09:56 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  LOL. So people that don't work (for a variety of reasons, both legitimate and illegitimate) or people that use tax law to their advantage shouldn't be allowed to vote? Sounds like a policy that both Democrats and Republicans can agree to oppose.

Most probably would oppose it. I said *I've* always thought that the skin in the game thingy wouldnt be so bad. But that is kind of the startup guy in me talking.... maybe even to cover the past tense, if you 'put' skin in the game more than x times.... covers the retirees and such.

Hate to tell you that people with actual skin in the game tend to make the best decisions and tend not to 'sit on the sidelines, and collect or game the system'. There is a *real* reason why seed funds and equity funds pretty much require the 'top tier' to have skin in the game, and why options for those enterprises are structured that way as well.

And I can see precisely why both the left *and* the right wouldnt like this, to be frank.

So are we talking just federal income tax?

What about state or local sales tax?

Property tax? Would renters not be able to include property tax because they don't actually pay it, but their rental payment covers what the landlord owes?

Is there really a single person in the US that pays no taxes at all?

Yeah, when people talk about "taxpayers', they generally mean Federal Income Tax. But there are a lot of other taxes, something we can mostly thasnk the left for.

So a person who pays sales tax is a taxpayer. I guess that includes the 5 year old who spends his allowance on candy. Using after (income) tax money from his parents, I guess.

When I buy something from Target, I not only pay sales tax, Target uses their profits to pay property tax (on my behalf, according to you). Thanks, Target. But I want credit for paying those property taxes for you.

I used to own rental property. I can tell you for a fact that the property taxes do not go down when tenants don't pay their rent, or when they do a midnight move out owing three months, nor or they abated when the property is vacant. Also, when the taxes are not paid for any reason, it is not the renter's property that is seized.

and of course, those people who work also pay the FICA tax.

And when I had gas wells producing on my property, I paid severance tax.

But in the end, when people talk about taxpayers, they mean payers of Federal Income Tax, or at least those who file tax returns, whether they owe taxes of not.

To answer your question at the end, I doubt there is anybody who escapes all taxes all year long. But I think there are lots of people who should pay Federal Income Tax who don't. I also think that there are a lot of people who do not pay all they legally owe, even if they do buy something and are forced to pay the sales tax. Should we give them a bye on the taxes they legally owe because they bought a hamburger and paid sales tax?

No.

Why would you even ask that?

Because when people talk about illegals not paying taxes, somebody always brings up the sales tax, or the rent thing, as if we are slandering them by saying they are not paying their taxes.

Lots of illegals pay no (federal income) taxes, even though they should. Just a fact of life. I don't blame them much - they came here to make money, not give it away.

Whatever solution we come to about illegal immigration, it will need to involve paying (federal income) taxes.

(10-23-2018 07:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 07:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 03:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 02:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 10:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Most probably would oppose it. I said *I've* always thought that the skin in the game thingy wouldnt be so bad. But that is kind of the startup guy in me talking.... maybe even to cover the past tense, if you 'put' skin in the game more than x times.... covers the retirees and such.

Hate to tell you that people with actual skin in the game tend to make the best decisions and tend not to 'sit on the sidelines, and collect or game the system'. There is a *real* reason why seed funds and equity funds pretty much require the 'top tier' to have skin in the game, and why options for those enterprises are structured that way as well.

And I can see precisely why both the left *and* the right wouldnt like this, to be frank.

So are we talking just federal income tax?

What about state or local sales tax?

Property tax? Would renters not be able to include property tax because they don't actually pay it, but their rental payment covers what the landlord owes?

Is there really a single person in the US that pays no taxes at all?

Yeah, when people talk about "taxpayers', they generally mean Federal Income Tax. But there are a lot of other taxes, something we can mostly thasnk the left for.

So a person who pays sales tax is a taxpayer. I guess that includes the 5 year old who spends his allowance on candy. Using after (income) tax money from his parents, I guess.

When I buy something from Target, I not only pay sales tax, Target uses their profits to pay property tax (on my behalf, according to you). Thanks, Target. But I want credit for paying those property taxes for you.

I used to own rental property. I can tell you for a fact that the property taxes do not go down when tenants don't pay their rent, or when they do a midnight move out owing three months, nor or they abated when the property is vacant. Also, when the taxes are not paid for any reason, it is not the renter's property that is seized.

and of course, those people who work also pay the FICA tax.

And when I had gas wells producing on my property, I paid severance tax.

But in the end, when people talk about taxpayers, they mean payers of Federal Income Tax, or at least those who file tax returns, whether they owe taxes of not.

To answer your question at the end, I doubt there is anybody who escapes all taxes all year long. But I think there are lots of people who should pay Federal Income Tax who don't. I also think that there are a lot of people who do not pay all they legally owe, even if they do buy something and are forced to pay the sales tax. Should we give them a bye on the taxes they legally owe because they bought a hamburger and paid sales tax?

No.

Why would you even ask that?

Because when people talk about illegals not paying taxes, somebody always brings up the sales tax, or the rent thing, as if we are slandering them by saying they are not paying their taxes.

Lots of illegals pay no (federal income) taxes, even though they should. Just a fact of life. I don't blame them much - they came here to make money, not give it away.

Whatever solution we come to about illegal immigration, it will need to involve paying (federal income) taxes.

Making them legal seems like it would help.

(10-24-2018 10:08 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 07:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 07:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 03:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 02:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So are we talking just federal income tax?

What about state or local sales tax?

Property tax? Would renters not be able to include property tax because they don't actually pay it, but their rental payment covers what the landlord owes?

Is there really a single person in the US that pays no taxes at all?

Yeah, when people talk about "taxpayers', they generally mean Federal Income Tax. But there are a lot of other taxes, something we can mostly thasnk the left for.

So a person who pays sales tax is a taxpayer. I guess that includes the 5 year old who spends his allowance on candy. Using after (income) tax money from his parents, I guess.

When I buy something from Target, I not only pay sales tax, Target uses their profits to pay property tax (on my behalf, according to you). Thanks, Target. But I want credit for paying those property taxes for you.

I used to own rental property. I can tell you for a fact that the property taxes do not go down when tenants don't pay their rent, or when they do a midnight move out owing three months, nor or they abated when the property is vacant. Also, when the taxes are not paid for any reason, it is not the renter's property that is seized.

and of course, those people who work also pay the FICA tax.

And when I had gas wells producing on my property, I paid severance tax.

But in the end, when people talk about taxpayers, they mean payers of Federal Income Tax, or at least those who file tax returns, whether they owe taxes of not.

To answer your question at the end, I doubt there is anybody who escapes all taxes all year long. But I think there are lots of people who should pay Federal Income Tax who don't. I also think that there are a lot of people who do not pay all they legally owe, even if they do buy something and are forced to pay the sales tax. Should we give them a bye on the taxes they legally owe because they bought a hamburger and paid sales tax?

No.

Why would you even ask that?

Because when people talk about illegals not paying taxes, somebody always brings up the sales tax, or the rent thing, as if we are slandering them by saying they are not paying their taxes.

Lots of illegals pay no (federal income) taxes, even though they should. Just a fact of life. I don't blame them much - they came here to make money, not give it away.

Whatever solution we come to about illegal immigration, it will need to involve paying (federal income) taxes.

Making them legal seems like it would help.

In what way?

Seriously, how would that help?

(10-24-2018 10:08 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 07:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 07:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 03:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 02:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So are we talking just federal income tax?

What about state or local sales tax?

Property tax? Would renters not be able to include property tax because they don't actually pay it, but their rental payment covers what the landlord owes?

Is there really a single person in the US that pays no taxes at all?

Yeah, when people talk about "taxpayers', they generally mean Federal Income Tax. But there are a lot of other taxes, something we can mostly thasnk the left for.

So a person who pays sales tax is a taxpayer. I guess that includes the 5 year old who spends his allowance on candy. Using after (income) tax money from his parents, I guess.

When I buy something from Target, I not only pay sales tax, Target uses their profits to pay property tax (on my behalf, according to you). Thanks, Target. But I want credit for paying those property taxes for you.

I used to own rental property. I can tell you for a fact that the property taxes do not go down when tenants don't pay their rent, or when they do a midnight move out owing three months, nor or they abated when the property is vacant. Also, when the taxes are not paid for any reason, it is not the renter's property that is seized.

and of course, those people who work also pay the FICA tax.

And when I had gas wells producing on my property, I paid severance tax.

But in the end, when people talk about taxpayers, they mean payers of Federal Income Tax, or at least those who file tax returns, whether they owe taxes of not.

To answer your question at the end, I doubt there is anybody who escapes all taxes all year long. But I think there are lots of people who should pay Federal Income Tax who don't. I also think that there are a lot of people who do not pay all they legally owe, even if they do buy something and are forced to pay the sales tax. Should we give them a bye on the taxes they legally owe because they bought a hamburger and paid sales tax?

No.

Why would you even ask that?

Because when people talk about illegals not paying taxes, somebody always brings up the sales tax, or the rent thing, as if we are slandering them by saying they are not paying their taxes.

Lots of illegals pay no (federal income) taxes, even though they should. Just a fact of life. I don't blame them much - they came here to make money, not give it away.

Whatever solution we come to about illegal immigration, it will need to involve paying (federal income) taxes.

Making them legal seems like it would help.

That seems to be the default leftist position mind you. Color me shocked you are backing that.

(10-24-2018 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 10:08 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Making them legal seems like it would help.

In what way?

Seriously, how would that help?

Or, in the same vein, here is the uber-solution to proliferation of opioid criminal activity ---- make use, possession, and sale of all opioids legal. Insto-presto solution to the criminal problem.....

(10-24-2018 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 10:08 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 07:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 07:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 03:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yeah, when people talk about "taxpayers', they generally mean Federal Income Tax. But there are a lot of other taxes, something we can mostly thasnk the left for.

So a person who pays sales tax is a taxpayer. I guess that includes the 5 year old who spends his allowance on candy. Using after (income) tax money from his parents, I guess.

When I buy something from Target, I not only pay sales tax, Target uses their profits to pay property tax (on my behalf, according to you). Thanks, Target. But I want credit for paying those property taxes for you.

I used to own rental property. I can tell you for a fact that the property taxes do not go down when tenants don't pay their rent, or when they do a midnight move out owing three months, nor or they abated when the property is vacant. Also, when the taxes are not paid for any reason, it is not the renter's property that is seized.

and of course, those people who work also pay the FICA tax.

And when I had gas wells producing on my property, I paid severance tax.

But in the end, when people talk about taxpayers, they mean payers of Federal Income Tax, or at least those who file tax returns, whether they owe taxes of not.

To answer your question at the end, I doubt there is anybody who escapes all taxes all year long. But I think there are lots of people who should pay Federal Income Tax who don't. I also think that there are a lot of people who do not pay all they legally owe, even if they do buy something and are forced to pay the sales tax. Should we give them a bye on the taxes they legally owe because they bought a hamburger and paid sales tax?

No.

Why would you even ask that?

Because when people talk about illegals not paying taxes, somebody always brings up the sales tax, or the rent thing, as if we are slandering them by saying they are not paying their taxes.

Lots of illegals pay no (federal income) taxes, even though they should. Just a fact of life. I don't blame them much - they came here to make money, not give it away.

Whatever solution we come to about illegal immigration, it will need to involve paying (federal income) taxes.

Making them legal seems like it would help.

In what way?

Seriously, how would that help?

Sorry - were you not implying that their undocumented status makes it more difficult to extract federal income taxes from them? If not, then it seems we're talking like a tax evasion problem, not an "illegals" problem.

(10-24-2018 12:44 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 10:08 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 07:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 07:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No.

Why would you even ask that?

Because when people talk about illegals not paying taxes, somebody always brings up the sales tax, or the rent thing, as if we are slandering them by saying they are not paying their taxes.

Lots of illegals pay no (federal income) taxes, even though they should. Just a fact of life. I don't blame them much - they came here to make money, not give it away.

Whatever solution we come to about illegal immigration, it will need to involve paying (federal income) taxes.

Making them legal seems like it would help.

In what way?

Seriously, how would that help?

Sorry - were you not implying that their undocumented status makes it more difficult to extract federal income taxes from them? If not, then it seems we're talking like a tax evasion problem, not an "illegals" problem.

Their undocumented status helps them avoid taxes, sure, but making them legal will not motivate them to stop avoiding taxes and start paying. Not one penny worth.

If you want a better life for your family, which will help your family more, paying more taxes or having more money to send home?

(10-24-2018 12:44 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 10:08 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 07:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 07:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No.

Why would you even ask that?

Because when people talk about illegals not paying taxes, somebody always brings up the sales tax, or the rent thing, as if we are slandering them by saying they are not paying their taxes.

Lots of illegals pay no (federal income) taxes, even though they should. Just a fact of life. I don't blame them much - they came here to make money, not give it away.

Whatever solution we come to about illegal immigration, it will need to involve paying (federal income) taxes.

Making them legal seems like it would help.

In what way?

Seriously, how would that help?

Sorry - were you not implying that their undocumented status makes it more difficult to extract federal income taxes from them? If not, then it seems we're talking like a tax evasion problem, not an "illegals" problem.

Their undocumented status helps them avoid taxes, sure, but making them legal will not motivate them to stop avoiding taxes and start paying. Not one penny worth.

If you want a better life for your family, which will help your family more, paying more taxes or having more money to send home?

(10-24-2018 02:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 12:44 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 10:08 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 07:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Because when people talk about illegals not paying taxes, somebody always brings up the sales tax, or the rent thing, as if we are slandering them by saying they are not paying their taxes.

Lots of illegals pay no (federal income) taxes, even though they should. Just a fact of life. I don't blame them much - they came here to make money, not give it away.

Whatever solution we come to about illegal immigration, it will need to involve paying (federal income) taxes.

Making them legal seems like it would help.

In what way?

Seriously, how would that help?

Sorry - were you not implying that their undocumented status makes it more difficult to extract federal income taxes from them? If not, then it seems we're talking like a tax evasion problem, not an "illegals" problem.

Their undocumented status helps them avoid taxes, sure, but making them legal will not motivate them to stop avoiding taxes and start paying. Not one penny worth.

If you want a better life for your family, which will help your family more, paying more taxes or having more money to send home?

By that logic, we’d have a mass tax evasion problem in this country. But we don’t.

My guess is that legalizing illegal immigrants and bringing them into the light would result in them lying taxes. Same way that legalizing weed results in people buying it legally as opposed to continuing to use their dealer.