Your tax records show what you’re pulling out of your 401k, or the stock market, or whereever else the millionaire has cash socked away. Yes, we’d have to figure out how to ascertain what he’s pulling from his Cayman Islands account, but that would also be doable.
And even that would be unfair. Many CEO’s have a modest pay…their large part of their income is through stock options - which is NOT considered income. And many millionaires who inherited their money have almost zero income because they live off their wealth.
Point is…no matter what system you choose - it’s going to be UNFAIR.
Ah yes. The old “nothing is 100% perfect and therefore we should keep doing this bad thing” argument.
Never held water for me.
Nooo, no! Not ALL cash! 
Cash accounts, maybe! That cash under the mattress is still untraceable.
That’s why governments want to do away with it. It is why Bitcoin and other crypto-currency scares 'em, too.
It may be doable, but I don’t think it’s right. I get a traffic ticket and now I’m being forced to divulge my financial records. Besides the evasion of privacy…it’s also NOT easy. If you ever filled out a financial disclosure form for a kid going to college you’d know what I mean.
1 Like
How about this? A poor person cannot afford a $100 speeding ticket so they plea not guilty and appear before the judge. The judge can decide what is appropriate.
This whole discussion reminds me of 1948 in Minnesota. Orville Freeman and Hubert Humphrey joined forces to throw the communists out of the democratic party who had taken over. They are back. Under the guise of “fairness” . . .
2 Likes
How about one of those billionaires that pays no taxes due to business losses. It is just too complicated to throw income into the ticket cost. How about they set up a fund like our electric company does to help people in dire need, or maybe perform community service to pay off the debt.
Tariffs in the US are often paid by the buyer, not the seller, especially for a unique product like an automobile. If a buyer wants a Mercedes Benz and there is a tariff on it, Daimler isn’t going to pay it out of their profits, the buyer will pay it. The same is true for low cost Chinese goods that we can’t get from another low cost seller like Vietnam yet. You like those inexpensive clothes from China? They might cost 10% or 20% more and just because a tariff is placed on them. And before you bring up soy beans, China can get them from other places like Brazil, too. With the tariff, it might be cheaper to buy them from Brazil. Why? Because Chinese buyers are paying a tariff for buying US soy beans. For US growers to compete with Brazilian growers, they have to drop their prices so much that no banks will loan them money for next year’s crops.
If our national financial metamorphosis takes us further into a “winner take all” situation so that the winners take all while eliminating taxes on capital gains we will find that those whose income is from a payroll check or reported on a 1099 will be paying some truly outrageous tax rates. But I know there are a great many people who think that is totally fair. It is the opinion of many that once they have paid income tax on a sum of money they should never be taxed on any income they can earn from investing that money.
1 Like
Always paid by the buyer. Exactly like corporate income taxes. It isn’t the investors or stockholders who pay, it is the buyer of the cars, trucks, iPads, whatever. It is to trick the taxpayer into thinking the big-bad business is paying the tax. They aren’t.
That’s not to say NO taxes get paid. If the corporation pays dividends, that is taxed (at 15%) from the stockholders. If the profits get reinvested, the company grows, hires more people and they pay income taxes on their wages as do all the people they shop. If the company does a stock buy-back, well, that is taxed when the stockholder sells that stock and pays capital gains taxes (15% again).
1 Like
I’m of that opinion. I’d like to be taxed once, please. Tax my income and tax my purchases. Then leave me be.
I guess that’s technically twice. Surely that’s enough.
If we are to base fines on income, let’s do it as a percentage of income. But if we do that we should tax folks as a percentage of income too. A flat rate works for me. But others feel like the rich should pay a larger percentage because they have more to spend. X% is X% though, no matter how much or how little you make.
I’ve heard that logic for many years @Scrapyard_John. It sounds fair but it overlooks the accumulation of wealth that would eventually result in a few (.01%) financial oligarchs controlling the many. And regardless whether it occurs in a communist or socialist or capitalist economy the result will be the same. Saudi Arabia, Russia and China are nearing that situation today.
I don’t see a problem with accumulating wealth. That’s the goal, to some extent. I haven’t achieved it, myself. But I seldom leave one job for another one that’s lower paying on purpose. So the goal is to accumulate wealth. I don’t understand how you can argue with math, though. X% of mine is the same to me as X% of yours is to you, right? Seems fair to me. Penalizing the rich because they’re rich doesn’t seem fair to me in taxes or traffic tickets.
I guess I don’t feel comfortable with the “evil rich people” mentality that seems to be prevalent these days. Reeks of jealousy, to me.
When I first started riding back in the '60’s, a couple of teenagers riding Yamaha’s were “THE HELLS ANGELS” to a lot of non motorcycle riding people. To say “things have changed” is an understatement. Today you see “welcome bikers” banners in places that used to have “no motorcycles” signs in the parking lot. During the '60’s, riding a motorcycle branded you as a druggie, radical hippy, or trouble maker. Today, riding a Harley pretty much brands you as an insurance salesman, lawyer, or investment banker.
How’s this for “cop bait”?
Six years and 45,000 miles without so much as a second look from the cops. Amazing what happens when you leave the muffler alone and ride like a gentleman. Some folks are surprised when I pull up to a parking space and when I remove my helmet, they see a senior citizen. Why should the kids have all the fun?
3 Likes
These days we are repeatedly told how grateful we should be for the wealthy whose generosity in employing us and doing business with us is the basis for all of our (those of us who actually work) well being. It’s been a long time but when left uncontrolled things have always seemed to get outrageously out of control to the detriment of those who work. The Ludlow Massacre and New York Shirtwaist Factory fire come to mind but the miserable conditions of millions resulted from the men whose money made them ‘big fish in a little pond’ across the country with child labor being common
Without child labor laws, minimum wage, 40 hour work week, social security, etc where would we be today? Another century of rule by the “Titans of Industry” might have left US in a country poorer than Mexico today.
1 Like
Rod, my mother actually picked cotton as a child.
I’m not a rich person, but honestly, how many people who aren’t at least moderately wealthy start businesses that employ people?
Where would we be without child labor laws? I still wouldn’t let my children work. I started working a couple of years before I was legally allowed to, though. I lied on the application. So I could make…you know…money!
Minimum wage? I haven’t worked for that wage since I was a young teen. Why would I when there are unskilled jobs that pay much more? Why do those jobs pay more? They aren’t required to by law. They pay more because they have to pay competitive wages to get reliable employees.
40 hour work week? I’ve worked jobs where they’d write you up if you didn’t clock out quick enough so they could avoid paying overtime. Thanks to the 40 hour work week.
Social security probably won’t exist by the time I’m able to draw it, from what I understand. I’m certainly not planning on depending on it.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t pay taxes and have programs to help the poor. Or rather, to help the disadvantaged or disabled. If you’re just poor because you continually make bad choices, don’t show up at work, or can’t pass a drug test, I don’t personally want my money funding your lifestyle.
I still say a percentage of income as a tax or a fine is fair. No matter what the income is (as long as it’s above a set poverty level). We’re getting way off topic. I’ve even conceded that if the fine doesn’t deter the wealthy, make it a percentage of income. I see no point in sticking it to the “wealthy” at a higher percentage rate just because they’re wealthy. And then we let the government define “wealthy”? No thanks.
The whole topic is pointless to some degree. If you want law enforcement to search pay records when they ticket people, they’ll need more employees and / or equipment to research income. Which leads to either more taxes or more fines levied to pay for the extra employees. And if the fines don’t deter the wealthy, I think losing their license might. I don’t think wealthy people are just getting multiple tickets because they can afford it.
1 Like
Cops already have computers. Computers can do the search at the same time they’re checking NCIC and other criminal databases, which they do every time they take your license or read your license plate (Which is also often done automatically by equipment on the patrol car).
That is sad. Why are so many people accepting this as acceptable? But yeah we can give tax cuts to the rich and go trillions in debt, but cannot give your pittance you have already paid for.
2 Likes
Maybe so, but I assume they’ll need additional software, etc, no? I don’t think they’re set up to search your financial records as of today.