Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

...

Collapse
X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Grumpy_Polecat View Post
    canard.
    This is my favorite word in this thread.^^^

    Click image for larger version

Name:	zap_budgie8.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	22.0 KB
ID:	32473642
    Zip
    665 - Neighbor of the Beast

    Originally Posted by RobRoy: I believe that the only way Obama will remain in power is if he suspends elections. And at that point he is no longer president. He is dictator. But I don't believe he will even survive that long. It could be suicide, impeachment by BOTH parties, you name it.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by moogerfooger View Post
      who is being forced to pay 90 % if their income in taxes? even AOC doesnt propose that. her proposal is only for income above $80,000,000. of you make over 80,000,000 how doesn't paying a high tax rate on that money effect your quality of life? you just going have to save up a little to get that second lear jet or the island in the Bahamas. I feel so bad for them.
      They will leave the country and take their money with them.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Daehtihs View Post

        They will leave the country and take their money with them.
        As we say around here: "see ya bich, don't let the good Lord split ya"

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by SteinbergerHack

          Well, if the top 0.1% took a hike, their tax revenue would go with them, and the amount spent by the government would not change at all.

          How would you propose making up the difference?
          Just stop all corporate welfare and foreign aid. The next step might be a bit tougher. Reduce military spending by 75% and put all registered republicans into work camps to rebuild the infrastructure for zero labor dollars.

          Comment


          • #20
            didn't the recent zucman paper on wealth in america just conclude that the richest 400 people control more wealth than the bottom 150 million?
            {O,O}
            (__(\
            " "

            Comment


            • #21
              27%, boo hoo


              27% of what? What's 27% of a billion? The price of a fleet of helicopters.

              You're talking about personal income tax rates here Steinberger. $30,000 is not an awful lot of money to live on. People on those wages work hard and contribute value. Basic living expenses are the same no matter what a person earns. That's why you pay more tax when you earn more, because it's disposable income. It's lifestyle money.

              An effective 27% tax on the earnings of the richest 1% in any economy or society is pretty reasonable.
              Last edited by gubu; 02-11-2019, 05:09 PM.
              flip the phase

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Zipperhead View Post

                This is my favorite word in this thread.^^^

                Click image for larger version

Name:	zap_budgie8.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	22.0 KB
ID:	32473642
                Zip
                Thanks! I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip the staffpersons.
                gp

                "You speak with total clarity.
                "And complete irrelevance."
                --Howard Cosell. Said to Minnesota Fats during a matchup with Willie Mosconi.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by gubu View Post
                  27%, boo hoo


                  27% of what? What's 27% of a billion? The price of a fleet of helicopters.

                  You're talking about personal income tax rates here Steinberger. $30,000 is not an awful lot of money to live on. People on those wages work hard and contribute value. Basic living expenses are the same no matter what a person earns. That's why you pay more tax when you earn more, because it's disposable income. It's lifestyle money.

                  An effective 27% tax on the earnings of the richest 1% in any economy or society is pretty reasonable.
                  This is not entirely true. It is true that anyone can subsist on X dollars. (whatever X is). What is untrue is that they can subsist at the same standard.

                  The problem is that once X is established as a minimum and Y is established as an allowed maximum, the result is no purpose or motivation to aspire toward a sum greater than Y. Say goodbye to the Elon Musk's of the world.
                  Last edited by Grumpy_Polecat; 02-11-2019, 06:18 PM.
                  gp

                  "You speak with total clarity.
                  "And complete irrelevance."
                  --Howard Cosell. Said to Minnesota Fats during a matchup with Willie Mosconi.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Grumpy_Polecat View Post

                    This is not entirely true. It is true that anyone can subsist on X dollars. (whatever X is). What is untrue is that they can subsist at the same standard.

                    The problem is that once X is established as a minimum and Y is established as an allowed maximum, the result is no purpose or motivation to aspire toward a sum greater than Y. Say goodbye to the Elon Musk's of the world.
                    It is you, sir, who is guilty of falsehood!

                    Who has assigned an allowed maximum in this system? The effective rate is 27% whether you earn a billion or a gazillion dollars a year.

                    The sky is still the limit

                    flip the phase

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by SteinbergerHack

                      Taxation is a mathematics problem. The numbers are what matters, and perception is only for fools who don't understand the math....and for political ideologues who can lead simpletons around like the sheeple that they are.



                      It is working in Europe. In most of the EU, over the past 25 years they have increased (or enacted) VAT, broadened their tax code, and lowered business tax rates to improve global competitiveness.

                      For all of those like Sanders who spout that the Scandinavian and Euro nations do it so much better, this is what they are actually talking about. Be careful what you wish for.




                      This is the point of the article. The top 10%, 5%, 1%, and 0.1% already are paying more - a LOT more than the lower income groups. Both in dollars and also in much higher rates. From the article in the OP:



                      The top 5% paid 58% of all taxes, while only receiving 35% of the income. Is that a "fair share"? If not, what is?



                      Generally agreed, though a certain amount of progressivity does improve tax efficiency (i.e., the ratio of revenue collected vs. economic activity reduction). Income based taxes should be progressive, just not as progressive as our current structure is.



                      Well, as noted above, given our current deficit, there are only four choices:

                      1) Increase taxes
                      2) Reduce spending
                      3) Achieve enough economic growth that tax revenues overcome the deficit
                      4) Accept the deficit and live with the effects
                      Years ago, CATS (Citizens for an Alternative Tax System) put their proposal of a national retail sales tax before the IRS and actually got an audience. IRS said they liked it! But the only liked it as an addition, not as a replacement.

                      And this comes as no surprise as enacting such a system would put almost the entirety of that bureaucracy in the unemployment line.

                      This is the Government-Industrial Complex in action.
                      gp

                      "You speak with total clarity.
                      "And complete irrelevance."
                      --Howard Cosell. Said to Minnesota Fats during a matchup with Willie Mosconi.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I learned this axiom from an econ expert who has tried to teach me a few things over the years:

                        ”You don’t get paid according to how hard you work or anything else. You get paid according to what someone is willing to pay you.”

                        Sounds a little harsh, but if it’s the way of the world, perhaps there could be a few axioms for taxes:

                        “You’re not taxed according to what you think is fair but instead by what the democratic whole determines is fair.”

                        Or something along those lines. In both axioms, it’s other people making decisions that affect you. The employee could go to a different employer. The taxee could move to a different democracy.
                        My band!:
                        www.steelphantoms.com/
                        my stage stuff:
                        fender jimmie vaughan strat, korg dt-10, ts-9, keeley rat, thoroughly modded big muff, 4ms tremulus lune, eventide timefactor running stereo to a traynor bassmaster (w hotplate) and a fender HRD. Everything ('cept the TimeFactor and dt-10) is modded, with much help from folks at Harmony Central. Thanks everybody!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by SteinbergerHack

                          Nobody has suggested that 27% is too much. Go back and read the OP, then look at our current deficit. Now look at how much someone in England, France. or Denmark pays in taxes if they earn an equivalent to $61K/year (the median household income, which is the only number that matters for tax purposes).
                          Do they pay more or less in taxes at 61kpa in those countries, or not? And why does it matter?

                          Also, can you link to your "progressivity" indices please?

                          Last edited by gubu; 02-11-2019, 06:31 PM.
                          flip the phase

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            It's a question the have and the have nots, isn't it?

                            As far as I'm concerned, the have's can pay ALL our taxes.

                            Wait, let me call my lobbyist to get him working on this.
                            Oh, no, I don't have a lobbyist. They're all working for the super rich.



                            If you ask me, expecting people scratching out a living to pay more when the rich are only paying 37% is a sick way of thinking.
                            Last edited by Hoot Owl; 02-12-2019, 09:16 AM.
                            George Washington was the man who never told a lie. Richard Nixon was the man who never told the truth. Donald Trump is the man who doesn't know the difference.
                            Venezuela is what happens when you have Trump without the Madison.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              You got to be careful.

                              if inequality continues to expand you could get the French Revolution again.

                              because pendulums always swing back. Perhaps the plan is to retreat behind gated communities with armed security guards to Stave off the mob?
                              __________________________________________________

                              Is This Thing On?

                              https://soundcloud.com/tom-hicks888

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                It boggles the mind that no matter how much mathematical evidence is presented that shows higher income earners (employers) do pay more than their "fair share" of taxes, delusional ideologues still trot out the same income envy tripe.

                                It's like pointing to a person who decides not to work and saying "see the rich don't pay their fair share because they're poor!'

                                Who the fook ever said incomes and wealth were supposed to be "equal" in the first place?





                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X