Marinal Tax Rates, how do they work. 🤪

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

Does anyone hate marinas?
I don't like marinas, with fuel docks, that charge nearly $1.00 more for gas than gas at gas stations. And since most likely marinas are getting that gas without the road taxes added, they're making even more. But if I had a boat with a diesel engine I'd be paying less than what is charged at gas stations. I don't understand, why such the differential.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
If I may ...


I don't like marinas, with fuel docks, that charge nearly $1.00 more for gas than gas at gas stations. And since most likely marinas are getting that gas without the road taxes added, they're making even more. But if I had a boat with a diesel engine I'd be paying less than what is charged at gas stations. I don't understand, why such the differential.
I once owned a marina. Had gas and diesel. Due to limited delivery quantities compared to any automotive station, I paid more per gallon to have my fuel delivered than I paid at the WaWa pump for the exact same fuel. The tank and piping installation technologies and monitoring requirements for marina fuel are onerous and quite expensive. For example, I was forced by ever-expanding environment regulations, to replace the entire fuel system end to end when it was less than 5 years old. After I sold the marina, the new owner was told that the system had to be changed out again..so they had it removed instead and stopped selling fuel. That huge expense has to be amortized over stupid short periods of time.

Bottom line...I sold fuel at my gas dock for what it cost me..and yes, that was roughly .75 to 1.00 more per gallon than what you pay at a WaWa.
I....and every other marina owner I know, sell fuel as a necessary "service"..so that boaters will come to our marina.

Oh..and marinas sell ethanol-free gas, as a rule. Add more to the cost.
 

22AcaciaAve

Active Member
Well, excusing the OPs mistake in spelling.......No free country should take 70% of a person's earnings in taxes, even if it is on a MARGINAL basis. Isn't that kind of why this country was founded years ago? Freedom means you are free to earn your own living without undue burden from the government. I have always thought there should be a constitutional amendment that forbids the government from taxing any part of a person's earnings at greater than 50% (And imo, it should be less). I support a flat tax. If you want to exempt the first X amount of earnings to protect the low earners in the country, fine. But don't penalize people for being successful. Maybe if government were run better and more able to budget money you wouldn't need to be thinking about taxing people at an insane rate.
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
Well, excusing the OPs mistake in spelling.......No free country should take 70% of a person's earnings in taxes, even if it is on a MARGINAL basis. Isn't that kind of why this country was founded years ago? Freedom means you are free to earn your own living without undue burden from the government. I have always thought there should be a constitutional amendment that forbids the government from taxing any part of a person's earnings at greater than 50% (And imo, it should be less). I support a flat tax. If you want to exempt the first X amount of earnings to protect the low earners in the country, fine. But don't penalize people for being successful. Maybe if government were run better and more able to budget money you wouldn't need to be thinking about taxing people at an insane rate.
The thing is that people like the OP that don’t know how to spell, are the product of what the leap frogprogs have been trying to accomplish for 50+ years. Burnthings is a graduate of their agenda. If enough Americans don’t awake from their slumber, our beloved Country is dunskies.
 

22AcaciaAve

Active Member
The thing is that people like the OP that don’t know how to spell, are the product of what the leap frogprogs have been trying to accomplish for 50+ years. Burnthings is a graduate of their agenda. If enough Americans don’t awake from their slumber, our beloved Country is dunskies.
What a lot of people overlook is that their saviors running for president are part of the 1% that they want to take the wealth from. Maybe the buy in to be president is that they have to relinquish 70% of their wealth in order to take office. I wonder how many would drop out of the race if that was a requirment?
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
What a lot of people overlook is that their saviors running for president are part of the 1% that they want to take the wealth from. Maybe the buy in to be president is that they have to relinquish 70% of their wealth in order to take office. I wonder how many would drop out of the race if that was a requirment?
And, at first, I thought what is this marina tax that I don’t know about. :roflmao:
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

Well, excusing the OPs mistake in spelling.......No free country should take 70% of a person's earnings in taxes, even if it is on a MARGINAL basis. Isn't that kind of why this country was founded years ago? Freedom means you are free to earn your own living without undue burden from the government. I have always thought there should be a constitutional amendment that forbids the government from taxing any part of a person's earnings at greater than 50% (And imo, it should be less). I support a flat tax. If you want to exempt the first X amount of earnings to protect the low earners in the country, fine. But don't penalize people for being successful. Maybe if government were run better and more able to budget money you wouldn't need to be thinking about taxing people at an insane rate.
Well ... What a whole lot of people fail to understand the difference between wages, and income. These "Marginal Tax Rates" should only be applied to income, (Profit from sales [profit from Cost of Goods Sold], royalties, annuities, fees earned, reoccurring revenues, interest revenue, interest income, profit from rents, profit from the sale of stocks, interest received on bonds, interest paid on 401K's, dividends paid out, etc.,). Income therefore can be defined as receiving money without having to work (labor) for it. These type of people are called Rentiers. (A person living on income from property or investments.) These people are the 1%ers. This is where all the juicing of the markets from the FED goes to.

A "wage" is what is paid for one's labor. A wage, (absent any fringe benefits), is paid to the actual person supplying the labor product e.g. the output of personal energy to build, make, produce, cook, dig, sweep, etc,. for the benefit of an employer. Or as monies received by a person individually charging for their own hourly rate for labor to another, ie self-employed car mechanic. (absent any mark-up for profit [income] realized on parts installed or sold). Taxing a person's wage, the product of their physical personal labor, is direct theft of that person's property and person. May also be referred to as slavery.

This is why it was ruled by SCOTUS the the 16th Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." "The Amendment, the [Supreme] court said, judged by the purpose for which it was passed, does not treat income taxes as direct taxes but simply removed the ground which led to their being considered as such in the Pollock case, namely, the source of the income. Therefore, they are again to be classified in the class of indirect taxes to which they by nature belong." “(B)y the [Brushaber] ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived -- that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed.” "[T]he amendment made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of the general income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax. It is still fundamentally an excise or duty..."

All this came about because of the unfairness of profiteers trading on futures of corn, etc.. The farmer's weren't seeing any of the profits made on the trade of their products by people who hand no hand in the planting or harvesting of crops. Those that didn't work, sitting on their asses all day drinking Brandy, profiting from someone else's labor. Kinda like what we have today, only on a much grander scale. And the government took what it thought was the necessary steps to tax those ill gotten gains by do nothings realizing all that income.

So, after many decades of conditioning, and propaganda, using fear, and intimidation, the people of this Nation, falsely, believe, that we must pay a tax on our wages, when in actuality, only income derived, by whatever means, is what is allowed to be taxed.
 
Top