Taxes are paid by those against whom they are levied.
Those entities may try and recover that cost elsewhere. They may or may not be successful in doing so.
No, when you are above the level of a salaried employee, all taxes are paid by the product and services sold or returns on investments which most likely will be products and services sold by someone else.
So you don't think anyone will step in and provide equivalent products and services at a lower cost than established players because they're prepared to accept a smaller profit margin ?
Ie: markets don't work ?
Why would they? The barriers to entry are so high that anyone overcoming them would simply price their products and services at the same rates and pocket the extra cash. We do not have a free market in most places due to regulations and laws in place.
There are plenty of rich people who don't own and run businesses, or have substantial income and wealth outside of their business interests.
The majority of rich people don't even run their businesses if they have them. They set them up as corporations and become an employee of those corporations or pay someone else to run them. This however does not preclude them from influencing those businesses or demanding rates of returns. You hear it all the time, a company lets 1/3 of their staff go and forces the remaining 2/3rds to pick up the difference all to satisfy investor profits demands.
Firstly, the world is not America.
I'm not sure what you think you mean by this. I was talking about America only. Congress does not have any power to prevent any company, person, or otherwise legal entity from making money in the US. You cannot legislate away anyone's ability to do so.
Secondly, even in the US, between local, state and federal Governments, they can legislate nearly anything they want to. If, of course, they want to.
No they cannot. Laws are rules unconstitutional, overly broad, and outside the reach of government near daily in the US. If they could just do anything they wanted to do, this would not be happening. So until something severely changes, there are limits to the powers of government and these limits are why we consider ourselves a free nation.
But there's been little interest in trying to build a better society since the neoliberal right took over the western world in the '70s and started pursuing the greatest wealth transfer from the
I'm not sure where you are going here but I think I might somewhat agree outside of the aspect of taxing and making arbitrary laws to satisfy some ideology.
All it will do is cause US companies to become foreign companies incorporated in other jurisdictions. And then there will be less taxes collected. There are reasons why these things have not been addressed already and contrary to what some may think, they have little to do with politicians being paid off.
This is little more than posturing for the 2016 elections. No one expects anything to be done about it, just a lot of hype to define sides and make up short comings noticed in the last election.
All taxes get paid by the people purchasing products and services. If you tax only the rich, the poor will pay the differences. and no, you cannot address that with any legislation because congress does not have the power to do so.
Sure it will cost money as it has cost money all through out history before we understood that you were to blame for it. But the money it costs is over a longer term, most likely generational, and as it is laid out now, most likely impacts the rich who have property along the ocean fronts, who have the commercial farms that might need irrigation or to change crops or whatever may happen.
Personally, I do not care if a casino has to relocate because of encroaching water levels. I do not care if New York becomes the New Holland or The Netherlands and builds dikes to maintain their at, below, or near sea level existence or if they become the new Venice and utilize the water table. And in case you are not familiar, those are places that have already dealt with and pretty much overcame a lot of the issues that we are supposed to be seeing- but they did it long ago when the technology levels were at a fraction of what we have today.
But I know, the sky is falling and the earth might be different that what it is today and that scares a lot of you.
People who invest do not pay taxes. The top 1% or whatever you want to play with will just increase their margins by raising prices or only investing in areas that would make a larger amount of income.
You see, if you made $100 a year and paid $10 in taxes and those taxes all the sudden go up to $20 a year, you essentially lose $10 of earning power. But because you are at the top of the chain, the 1% or better, you control prices, you get to pick and choose where you invest and so on. So you increase interest rates for loans you give, you streamline efficiency and cut jobs that are borderline wasteful, you increase prices to the consumer and all the sudden, you are making $110-115 a year. You now have returned your income to previous levels and perhaps increased it a bit but it all trickles down to the little person. Businesses do not pay taxes- they charge more to cover them. The rich do not lose money without a fight, they find ways to make more which generally means you pay more somewhere along the line or your job gets shipped to a cheaper area or goes away altogether.
George Pataki I believe it was, tells a story about his father becoming a postal worker and having to become a registered democrat to do so. This was a premise his mother's father (George's grandfather) laid out- a steady job not becoming a democrat- before his father was allowed to date and eventually marry his mother.
He has said he ran for governor of New York because he wanted to change the corruption in government and when he was an assemblyman and state senator, he realized the republicans were just as entrenched and corrupt as the democrats in those branches and nothing could be done from there.
I guess at one time or another, it was all corrupt. Likely still is on some places.
I do not know about taxis but yes garbage collectors in some areas require political connections to get the jobs. I live in thd country so i pay a private contracter but the nearest city runs its own collection service paying garbage truck drivers almost $30 an hour and the helpers aroung $20 an hour. Because of this high pay, they do not loose many employees and when the do, you almost have to know someone in the city politics in order to even get your application through for consideration.
Is it really a different game when you call a footbal a zebra but everything else looks like a game of football?
What they are essentially doing is playing the same game but substituting their own rules for the league ruls by calling the same thing something different. Now this is meaningless until you attemp to play league games under those perverted riles.
It doesn't really matter as it is outside any point made. 20 people, one person, or no one at all, it does not make someone a criminal but it doesn't mean the clerk or store owner can hate ski masks.
When we become a non free country, you would be able to take whatever you want from the rich, you will be able to demand they do not buy what you deem frivolous luxury items or that anyone produces them. When we become a non free country, you can invent things for scientists to solve.
But wait, no you cannot because the chances of you being the supreme dictator of this non free country would be about zero. What we will end up with is the same as every single other communist country- an elite few muddled with various levels of corruption and brutal enforcement of their demands to do what they decide is best for you. We may even end up killing thousands if not millions of people in order to make it happen just like in almost every other start of communist ruled countries. You may think, oh noes, couldn't be because this time we will get it right those with more will have less and it will all be unicorns shitting rainbows all over the place, and then they take your Iphone because a nokia flip phone is good enough and everything else is a luxury. Then they take your computer because it wastes electricity and they deemed you do not need it. But hey, that's an ideal world right? Someone making arbitrary decisions about who can purchase what, about who works on what and who can produce what, all based around the whims of someone who doesn't like people with more money than them.
lol.. What's the sacrifice you ask then say taking vehicles off the road as if it does not deprive anyone of anything. The problem is all the rest cost money. It costs more money than the current model. So when you raise prices, people will have less. This less means they will sacrifice something- whether it is savings, stability in electric power, a car or whatever. It will only make the world more expensive and people will have to do without. You make it sound like you can just speak it into existence and there is no repercussions. There are and there will be.
Still doesn't prevent anyone from not liking TOR. But you are correct, no one would know who you were which was the point- you are not a criminal because you use it, but it still allows people to dislike it.
Oh and it might make some people a little more than nervous if you walked into a store wearing a ski mask.
And I bet you have throwing stars and walk around pretending you are a ninja too.
No one said if you use TOR you would be a criminal. They said criminals use TOR so governments dislike it. Now, do you think the corner drug store clerk doesn't like you walking in wearing your ninja mask? I would bet he has no problem with you personally, just when you dress up like a crook trying to rob the store.
What is your point? Roads and taxes are one of the few constitutionally authorized roles of the federal government and the state doesn't need authorization. Legitimate Government services have always been paid for by people who do not use them or use them as much as others since well before the USSR or any concept of what formed it ever existed.
It would be different if all roads were private and you owned them but that is not the case. Even when some roads were privately owned, it was up to the owners to set pricing which often overcharged sone and under charged others.
It is really no different than the pokice and fire which both are legitimate government uses. You pay to support both and likely never use either as much as the rich guy tryong to protect his store or the trailer trash that have the cops break up a domestic situation every other weekend. That was the economic system of the USSR too. Do you want to make police and fire availible only to those yhat can pay for the costs they impose? Here is a hint. You wouldn't like it.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if it goes beyond publishing papers and into political advocacy. However, you should expect people to discount the agenda and information behind it when that hapens. Do not be surprised when people lay politics with your politics. Especially when you turn the AC off and schedule a presentation for the politics of global warming after specifically setting it on one of the historical hottest days in washington for dramatic effect.
It doesn't help when scientists pushing the fear also push the politics.
Also, its not fiction that is easier to understand. Its how it does or does not impact your daily life directly or indirectly enough for the near future. That is what politicians and news anchors do.
And if that redistribution did not happen, those drivers would be out of jobs among other things. But who cares anyways. Its not like the government will stop taxing cars, they will just find new ways to sprnd the money.
Also, on existing roadways, the amount collected from the gas taxes at the state and federal levels is completely enough to maintain state and federal roads. Where the shortfall come from is adding additional capacity to existing roads, new roads, projects that are not roads, and roads and infrastructure unrelated to those roads. A sizable portion of money collected for roads does get shifted to non road uses.
Lol.. i'm not wrong. Trucks pay more than four times as much but more importantly, the amount of taxes collected are enough to cover the maintinence from the combined damages on the roads the trucks drive on. It would likely be enough for all the roads if portions of the money wasn't taken and used for other things.
This is the opposite result of less regulation. The government was sharing the costs of bringing broadband to rural areas. Now they cannot because a single entity by regulation changed a definition that specifically applies.
Do you see how your statement defeatz itself in context?
He did not say only criminals use it, he said criminals love to use it. Also, as long as that is the theme being pushed by the governments (propaganda), his point is still valid as governments and law enforcement are demonizing it and it will make them the enemy.
You are crazy if you think the amount of wear and tear or damage to a road from one truck is 8 million a year. The prius is getting over charged but that doesn't matter.
Now your facts are a bit off too. A tandem axle has a weight limit of 34,000 lbs which effectively reduces your 20,000 to 15,000. and the steer axle is limited to 12,000 lbs. The 20,000 lbs is only if there is ten feet between center line of the axles even if they are rated for 20k or there is only a single axle on the truck besides the steer axle. But we are talking about semis now unless you want to change the goal posts again.
Also, the prius has single tires per axle side and a semi has dual tires or the equivilant in what is called a super single. Its not a direct comparison but the math works out to the truck paying over 4 times as much as the prius anyways.
Slashdot Mirror
No, when you are above the level of a salaried employee, all taxes are paid by the product and services sold or returns on investments which most likely will be products and services sold by someone else.
Why would they? The barriers to entry are so high that anyone overcoming them would simply price their products and services at the same rates and pocket the extra cash. We do not have a free market in most places due to regulations and laws in place.
The majority of rich people don't even run their businesses if they have them. They set them up as corporations and become an employee of those corporations or pay someone else to run them. This however does not preclude them from influencing those businesses or demanding rates of returns. You hear it all the time, a company lets 1/3 of their staff go and forces the remaining 2/3rds to pick up the difference all to satisfy investor profits demands.
I'm not sure what you think you mean by this. I was talking about America only. Congress does not have any power to prevent any company, person, or otherwise legal entity from making money in the US. You cannot legislate away anyone's ability to do so.
No they cannot. Laws are rules unconstitutional, overly broad, and outside the reach of government near daily in the US. If they could just do anything they wanted to do, this would not be happening. So until something severely changes, there are limits to the powers of government and these limits are why we consider ourselves a free nation.
I'm not sure where you are going here but I think I might somewhat agree outside of the aspect of taxing and making arbitrary laws to satisfy some ideology.
All it will do is cause US companies to become foreign companies incorporated in other jurisdictions. And then there will be less taxes collected. There are reasons why these things have not been addressed already and contrary to what some may think, they have little to do with politicians being paid off.
This is little more than posturing for the 2016 elections. No one expects anything to be done about it, just a lot of hype to define sides and make up short comings noticed in the last election.
All taxes get paid by the people purchasing products and services. If you tax only the rich, the poor will pay the differences. and no, you cannot address that with any legislation because congress does not have the power to do so.
lol.. I think you might need to look up fascism and ponder a bit on what you think is connected here. I'll give you a hint, nothing.
As I said, no compelling case has been made that you either stand against or with evil here.
Sure it will cost money as it has cost money all through out history before we understood that you were to blame for it. But the money it costs is over a longer term, most likely generational, and as it is laid out now, most likely impacts the rich who have property along the ocean fronts, who have the commercial farms that might need irrigation or to change crops or whatever may happen.
Personally, I do not care if a casino has to relocate because of encroaching water levels. I do not care if New York becomes the New Holland or The Netherlands and builds dikes to maintain their at, below, or near sea level existence or if they become the new Venice and utilize the water table. And in case you are not familiar, those are places that have already dealt with and pretty much overcame a lot of the issues that we are supposed to be seeing- but they did it long ago when the technology levels were at a fraction of what we have today.
But I know, the sky is falling and the earth might be different that what it is today and that scares a lot of you.
People who invest do not pay taxes. The top 1% or whatever you want to play with will just increase their margins by raising prices or only investing in areas that would make a larger amount of income.
You see, if you made $100 a year and paid $10 in taxes and those taxes all the sudden go up to $20 a year, you essentially lose $10 of earning power. But because you are at the top of the chain, the 1% or better, you control prices, you get to pick and choose where you invest and so on. So you increase interest rates for loans you give, you streamline efficiency and cut jobs that are borderline wasteful, you increase prices to the consumer and all the sudden, you are making $110-115 a year. You now have returned your income to previous levels and perhaps increased it a bit but it all trickles down to the little person. Businesses do not pay taxes- they charge more to cover them. The rich do not lose money without a fight, they find ways to make more which generally means you pay more somewhere along the line or your job gets shipped to a cheaper area or goes away altogether.
Now you are changing the goal posts a bit. The original argument was about frivolous items.
However, the rich people would just hid their money and move out of the jurisdiction so the end result would be no different.
George Pataki I believe it was, tells a story about his father becoming a postal worker and having to become a registered democrat to do so. This was a premise his mother's father
(George's grandfather) laid out- a steady job not becoming a democrat- before his father was allowed to date and eventually marry his mother.
He has said he ran for governor of New York because he wanted to change the corruption in government and when he was an assemblyman and state senator, he realized the republicans were just as entrenched and corrupt as the democrats in those branches and nothing could be done from there.
I guess at one time or another, it was all corrupt. Likely still is on some places.
I do not know about taxis but yes garbage collectors in some areas require political connections to get the jobs. I live in thd country so i pay a private contracter but the nearest city runs its own collection service paying garbage truck drivers almost $30 an hour and the helpers aroung $20 an hour. Because of this high pay, they do not loose many employees and when the do, you almost have to know someone in the city politics in order to even get your application through for consideration.
Is it really a different game when you call a footbal a zebra but everything else looks like a game of football?
What they are essentially doing is playing the same game but substituting their own rules for the league ruls by calling the same thing something different. Now this is meaningless until you attemp to play league games under those perverted riles.
It doesn't really matter as it is outside any point made. 20 people, one person, or no one at all, it does not make someone a criminal but it doesn't mean the clerk or store owner can hate ski masks.
When we become a non free country, you would be able to take whatever you want from the rich, you will be able to demand they do not buy what you deem frivolous luxury items or that anyone produces them. When we become a non free country, you can invent things for scientists to solve.
But wait, no you cannot because the chances of you being the supreme dictator of this non free country would be about zero. What we will end up with is the same as every single other communist country- an elite few muddled with various levels of corruption and brutal enforcement of their demands to do what they decide is best for you. We may even end up killing thousands if not millions of people in order to make it happen just like in almost every other start of communist ruled countries. You may think, oh noes, couldn't be because this time we will get it right those with more will have less and it will all be unicorns shitting rainbows all over the place, and then they take your Iphone because a nokia flip phone is good enough and everything else is a luxury. Then they take your computer because it wastes electricity and they deemed you do not need it. But hey, that's an ideal world right? Someone making arbitrary decisions about who can purchase what, about who works on what and who can produce what, all based around the whims of someone who doesn't like people with more money than them.
What is a federal law? I think you need to cite that. The feds do not have jurisdiction over most vehicles once produced and sold.
lol.. What's the sacrifice you ask then say taking vehicles off the road as if it does not deprive anyone of anything. The problem is all the rest cost money. It costs more money than the current model. So when you raise prices, people will have less. This less means they will sacrifice something- whether it is savings, stability in electric power, a car or whatever. It will only make the world more expensive and people will have to do without. You make it sound like you can just speak it into existence and there is no repercussions. There are and there will be.
And this is not one of them. No compelling case for it being one has been made.
Still doesn't prevent anyone from not liking TOR. But you are correct, no one would know who you were which was the point- you are not a criminal because you use it, but it still allows people to dislike it.
Oh and it might make some people a little more than nervous if you walked into a store wearing a ski mask.
And I bet you have throwing stars and walk around pretending you are a ninja too.
No one said if you use TOR you would be a criminal. They said criminals use TOR so governments dislike it. Now, do you think the corner drug store clerk doesn't like you walking in wearing your ninja mask? I would bet he has no problem with you personally, just when you dress up like a crook trying to rob the store.
What is your point? Roads and taxes are one of the few constitutionally authorized roles of the federal government and the state doesn't need authorization. Legitimate Government services have always been paid for by people who do not use them or use them as much as others since well before the USSR or any concept of what formed it ever existed.
It would be different if all roads were private and you owned them but that is not the case. Even when some roads were privately owned, it was up to the owners to set pricing which often overcharged sone and under charged others.
It is really no different than the pokice and fire which both are legitimate government uses. You pay to support both and likely never use either as much as the rich guy tryong to protect his store or the trailer trash that have the cops break up a domestic situation every other weekend. That was the economic system of the USSR too. Do you want to make police and fire availible only to those yhat can pay for the costs they impose? Here is a hint. You wouldn't like it.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if it goes beyond publishing papers and into political advocacy. However, you should expect people to discount the agenda and information behind it when that hapens. Do not be surprised when people lay politics with your politics. Especially when you turn the AC off and schedule a presentation for the politics of global warming after specifically setting it on one of the historical hottest days in washington for dramatic effect.
It doesn't help when scientists pushing the fear also push the politics.
Also, its not fiction that is easier to understand. Its how it does or does not impact your daily life directly or indirectly enough for the near future. That is what politicians and news anchors do.
And if that redistribution did not happen, those drivers would be out of jobs among other things. But who cares anyways. Its not like the government will stop taxing cars, they will just find new ways to sprnd the money.
Also, on existing roadways, the amount collected from the gas taxes at the state and federal levels is completely enough to maintain state and federal roads. Where the shortfall come from is adding additional capacity to existing roads, new roads, projects that are not roads, and roads and infrastructure unrelated to those roads. A sizable portion of money collected for roads does get shifted to non road uses.
Lol.. i'm not wrong. Trucks pay more than four times as much but more importantly, the amount of taxes collected are enough to cover the maintinence from the combined damages on the roads the trucks drive on. It would likely be enough for all the roads if portions of the money wasn't taken and used for other things.
What? Lol
This is the opposite result of less regulation. The government was sharing the costs of bringing broadband to rural areas. Now they cannot because a single entity by regulation changed a definition that specifically applies.
Do you see how your statement defeatz itself in context?
He did not say only criminals use it, he said criminals love to use it. Also, as long as that is the theme being pushed by the governments (propaganda), his point is still valid as governments and law enforcement are demonizing it and it will make them the enemy.
You are crazy if you think the amount of wear and tear or damage to a road from one truck is 8 million a year. The prius is getting over charged but that doesn't matter.
Now your facts are a bit off too. A tandem axle has a weight limit of 34,000 lbs which effectively reduces your 20,000 to 15,000. and the steer axle is limited to 12,000 lbs. The 20,000 lbs is only if there is ten feet between center line of the axles even if they are rated for 20k or there is only a single axle on the truck besides the steer axle. But we are talking about semis now unless you want to change the goal posts again.
Also, the prius has single tires per axle side and a semi has dual tires or the equivilant in what is called a super single. Its not a direct comparison but the math works out to the truck paying over 4 times as much as the prius anyways.