Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMS General Discussions Politics Tax the shit out of
TOPIC: Tax the shit out of
GoTo Page: Less ... 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... More 
Start   111 to 120 of 208   End
User Details are only visible to members.
I'm reading your answer as a "Yes", provided it's important enough to do so, and with some reservations about the practicality.

If the government really has the authority to pull that rabbit out of a hat, then the government is virtually unlimited in its power to seize anything it wants by simply calling it a tax.

Winter Garden FL
Username hidden
(20274 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
In a war or similar national crisis, the Govt may be justified in seizing property that holds some strategic importance.

During WW2, I believe households were required to give up some of their pots and pans to be melted down to build battleships.

Copyrights eventually expire, and thus intellectual property is "seized" by the public.

Flat Rock NC
Username hidden
(2984 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I'm not OK with imposition of marshal law for no good reason, and seizing assets would be about the same thing.

"Proposing a tax", however, is not an uncivilized move for the Govt to make. Having proposed such a tax as you describe would probably cause people to move their assets offshore, preemptively avoiding said tax.

Flat Rock NC
Username hidden
(2984 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
(VAC my questions were directed to Outdoor)

Or, from another angle....

Do you think it's OK for the government to EVER seize assets of any kind - deposits, land, stocks, retirement funds, WHATEVER - of someone who has not been convicted of a crime?

Even if it's just $1 from Warren Buffett. Is that OK?

Winter Garden FL
Username hidden
(20274 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Sorry I guessed I misunderstood. No I don't think it would be ok to do it.

Berryville VA
Username hidden
(1750 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
1) I similarly agree that all health plans (government or private) ought to be allowed to take health into consideration for the basic coverage. For those who like to engage in risky activities like tight rope walking... Do contractors not take bonds out in the event that they cause damage?

2) A one time seizure of funds does nothing to the long term problem of the masses not having the wealth to be taxed so to maintain the government.

This is a major problem when the wealthy have chosen to hoard the money and or freeze it in investments which are only paid back to the investors. This is partially why I dislike the stock market.

The money isn't directly reinvested into the communities and thus the workers who need it most to stay off welfare and the lowest rungs of the ladder.

That said, if the less wealthy can't be taxed for the needs of society, then the wealthy must be taxed more. If you ask me, It would be better if the wealthy were to start providing health insurance as a guarantee of work, provide some form of retirement and possibly education benefits or upward mobility.

If this was done, the people wouldn't be looking to the government to provide. Of course this would mean that the wealthy must accept a lower standard of living.

Personally I am of the belief that an employer of a small business ought not make more than 2 to 3 x the wage of the lowest paid employee. And that when you have so many small businesses (stores) under your belt, that you can no longer directly manage them all, you need to graduate from being a small businessman to a large business man and thus taking in smaller amounts from each business and hire a direct manager for each business.... Then triple the number of businesses you have by having each direct manager become an investor in each store and new store added within your large business.

Hazle Township PA
Username hidden
(7706 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
You're not answering me.

Hypothetical: The Feds propose a 5% tax on bank deposits in the US with balances exceeding $10 million. Do you think that's OK?

Diddling around the exact number is a distraction.

Winter Garden FL
Username hidden
(20274 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"...if the US government proposed a plan to seize X% of any deposits over $Y, would you be OK with it? What if X was 10% and Y was $100 million?"

That sounds like a sort of marshal law situation, an emergency of sorts. In which case, public approval isn't required.

I can't quite wrap my head around the idea of people with 100 mill in the bank. Don't people with that kind of money either invest it or stash it offshore?

Flat Rock NC
Username hidden
(2984 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Well I guess here they seize so much from criminals already when they get busted it would be hard to figure what was legal money and illegal money.And your right they can pass any law they want to make it work for them.As far as I am concerned I don't care how much money someone has saved. No metter if it is 100.00 or 1,000,000. They worked for it and it belongs to them not the country.

Berryville VA
Username hidden
(1750 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I don't find it palatable that a nation's economy should be built on laundering money for criminals. And for that reason, I don't think it applies to the US.

Since the government of Cyprus is essentially criminal, they are looking at options between stiffing the foreign criminals along with well-off citizens, or going bankrupt.

It's sort of like a sudden large tax on the wealthiest. Big difference between 40% and 3.3% like we had here. At 3.3%, rich Americans said "no mas!"

Flat Rock NC
Username hidden
(2984 posts)
GoTo Page: Less ... 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... More 
Start   111 to 120 of 208   End
TOPIC: Tax the shit out of