I'm surprised I haven't seen any references to http://play.typeracer.com/. It's pretty cool, you can play alone or race other live players.

In a nutshell, if you want to get faster, challenge yourself and practice, practice, practice.

I don't have any mod points, so I'll just post an agreement, instead.

Exactly, that's what most people don't seem to get.

I actually agree with most of what you're saying. Regarding the home appreciation (if any), I'm just saying that if the value goes up, it's not free money that other people should get dibs on.

I very much agree with you on the getting rich through government appropriations, since that tab is actually being picked up by the people, one way or another. Though I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong or immoral with inheritance. In most cases, that wealth was earned somewhere along the line. No reason to respect it, but again, there's no reason for other people or the government to think they have a right to any of it, either.

Yeah, your guess is way off. According to the IRS, the top 1% pay 34.27% of all income taxes, while they earn only 16.77% of the income.

So, they're not lying. Why do you think it's ok to admittedly make up a statistic (that the top 1% of tax payers earn 98.8% of the income) and use that as the basis for your morally superior tone?

I agree, as well. Though I would suggest a slight modification: for those earning less than the threshold, rather than pay no taxes, they should still pay taxes, but, perhaps at a rate of maybe 2% (or whatever, I made that number up).

That way, everyone feels they have a vested interest in how the taxes are spent. Maybe even make the lower tax rate a percentage of the higher one, so that plans to increase the higher one will also result in a net increase in the lower rate. That way you don't have voter apathy or people wanting to "go after" the rich since it will hit their wallets, as well. These days a lot of people don't care about tax hikes, because they know that after "rebates", credits, and standard deductions, they won't be paying any taxes anyway.

Yeah, I think I like that. Let's go with a rate of 15% on all income above the poverty level, and all income below the poverty would be taxed at the rate of 10% of the top rate, which, with a top rate of 15%, would be 1.5%.

Alight, make it so!

I think it should be taxed the same as so-called "actual work." That's a pretty loaded phrase, anyway. For example, let's say that someone's house is now worth $50,000 more than when they bought it. That is a $50,000 capital gain. Sounds like you don't consider that income from "actual work."

However, that's not taking into account that maybe that homeowner busted their balls working 60-hour weeks, or had the discipline to spend wisely and save enough to own a home rather than blowing it all on booze and boats.

Using a phrase an ambiguous as "actual work" strikes me as coming from someone with class envy. How do you even define "actual work?" Physical work? Mental work? Smart work? Should someone that works in a physically demanding job receive better tax benefits than someone that "only" had to work behind a desk all day?

I presume that my retirement income will be considered "capital gains", and I can assure you that the effort involved in creating those future gains is the direct result of "actual work."

I understand that no where in your comment did you imply that capital gains should be taxed at a higher rate than income tax. I'm of the belief that if you're going to have an income tax, ALL income should be taxed at the same rate, regardless of source. Now, whether or not an income tax is the best form of taxation, that's a whole 'nother topic!

I must be more tired than I thought. After reading the above in "Preview", it's kind of a rambling mess. Oh well, I'll let it stand as is :)

I don't see it as dishonest at all. I tend to agree with RightSaidFred99 above. I'd be willing to bet that their charitable contributions are more effective because they aren't being managed by the federal government. Everyone knows that government has a horrible record when it comes to efficiency and effectiveness.

And I think you should contribute 100% of your wages to me! In other words, it really doesn't matter what you think they should do with their money. It's theirs, not yours.

But seriously, they aren't exactly getting a free ride in regards to public services such as police and fire departments. You have to keep in mind that Google employs tens of thousands of people. People that are earning high wages and paying lots of taxes. So, the founders are paying lots of taxes indirectly by employing thousands of people.

Besides, they may only be taking $1 annual salaries, but that doesn't mean they have no income. I'm sure they have very high incomes, from sale of stock, from investments, etc. And on those items they have to pay income or capital gains taxes. And, I'm sure that whatever taxes they have paid, plus the taxes they will end up paying on the upcoming stock sales, will completely dwarf any that you or I will pay over the course of our entire lifetimes.

Good, I'm not the only one! The search result is still sitting in another tab waiting for me to get bored reading these comments.

Just because he's an alleged drug dealer doesn't mean he isn't one. What is historically factual does not depend on the future ruling of a court.

And, he's presumed innocent. If he did the crime, he's guilty, regardless of what any court has or has not said. And the reverse is true if he didn't do the crime.

Heh, just when you think you know how bad it is, someone lets you know it's actually worse!

Ya, it could be considered a gray area on exempting food. While it's true that the purchaser would pay the tax on their groceries, they would also be getting a monthly check, many call it a prebate, that would cover the taxes on purchases up to the poverty level.

So, it's really a progressive tax at lower incomes, and regressive to middle and higher incomes.

Business to business purchases aren't exempt, either, unless the item is for resale or to be incorporated into another product. The idea being that only that the tax would only be paid once, and at the retail level.

If my company were to buy a ream of paper to feed into our printer, that would be taxed. But, if that ream was going to be sold as part of my company's ream-of-the-month sale, I would owe no tax(the final buyer would end up paying the tax at the time of purchase).

Because, unlike the original "alternate solution" you quoted, your solution doesn't work. It's been proven over and over in the real world that the higher taxes and fees you propose would result in a lower net income to the government. The economy isn't subject to static analysis.

And what day of the year it is! Some states have annual "tax holidays" where no state sales taxes are due on purchases that occur on specific days of the year.

I lieu of mod points, attaboy!