Taxes Taxes Taxes

If you don't wanna watch the video basically it describes how taxes are progressive and the rich pay their fair share when it comes to estate, corporate/property and income taxes, but as soon as we put payroll and consumption taxes into the graph everyone is paying close to the exact same % of their income on taxes.

This thread is mostly so I can get some conserves to tell me all about welfare queens and how the poor are still the bad guys. Seriously please make me understand why this is fair and we shouldn't be taxing billionaires until they're just meager millionaires, because I absolutely cannot grasp why they deserve to pay a smaller portion than I do, let alone why anyone on this earth would need one billion dollars. If you have more than you could spend in a life time why keep it to yourself?

This data makes me want to bring back the guillotine so so bad, either calm me down or lets get riled up. Please give me your thoughts on what kind of resources we could have if we taxed fairly, or if it makes more since to do nothing. Lets talk about taxes my master debaters!

There was this billionaire who lived in New Jersey. He decided one day to pack up and move to Florida.

The loss in tax revenue devastated New Jersey. There were layoffs. Whole departments had to close down.

It's a myth that the rich don't pay taxes.

A lot of rich don't want to pay a penny more than they have to. If you raise taxes too high, they'll just move to a place with lower taxes and then you lose that massive tax revenue they were paying.

Meh. As a conservative; we will have to rebuild our tax system to match today's realities. Income Taxes are ineffective with heading to 40 million unemployed. Especially given the whacked spending lately. Freebies are not really free. And automation is not helping either. Sure people will be productive perhaps. But not in a meaningful way for the economy. It will be more like bartertown economy if no jobs is the new order. Kiss the consumer economy goodbye. And all the business built on it.

swing_voter said:

There was this billionaire who lived in New Jersey. He decided one day to pack up and move to Florida.

The loss in tax revenue devastated New Jersey. There were layoffs. Whole departments had to close down.

It's a myth that the rich don't pay taxes.

A lot of rich don't want to pay a penny more than they have to. If you raise taxes too high, they'll just move to a place with lower taxes and then you lose that massive tax revenue they were paying.

Click to expand...

Nobody thinks they pay nothing, and yes the same percentage of a bigger pile means a larger amount. We need to stop living in fear of the rich. If they want to leave then f*ck em. I'm sure life will be just as satisfying for them when they don't speak the native language. Even if they run away their businesses are american, we are both their workers and consumers. So when they leave they leave they might take their private wealth out of our reach but they leave most their assets in their massive corporations anyways.

How is it that we had a 90% tax rate at one point and instead of leaving the rich lobbied taxes away? The thing is we've taxed them before and we can do it again, if you truly believe the rich are such p*ssies that they would start a new life somewhere else just because of a tax that didn't even affect their standards of living, then they deserve the guillotine I previously mentioned.

If the plan is to just sit back and let them lobby away more and more of their responsibility is just giving up. If a state will crumble without one man than that system has failed. We shouldn't have to rely on them dropping by, we should tax them enough to give to every state.

.000165% of us are billionaires. They have about 2.4 trillion amount themselves, that means nearly 23% of our money is just sitting in their wallet, doing nothing. We tax them but it just isn't enough.

You claim they will take all the money away if we try to tax a little bit of it, so what do you propose? Is everything fine and the hungry should just stop going to starbucks? Or is there some kind of plan?

Things aren't fair but you think waiting for a billionaire to land in your neighborhood is the only solution. What bs.

swing_voter said:

There was this billionaire who lived in New Jersey. He decided one day to pack up and move to Florida.

The loss in tax revenue devastated New Jersey. There were layoffs. Whole departments had to close down.

It's a myth that the rich don't pay taxes.

A lot of rich don't want to pay a penny more than they have to. If you raise taxes too high, they'll just move to a place with lower taxes and then you lose that massive tax revenue they were paying.

Click to expand...

Raise the minimum wage. More people making more money will create more demand and pay more taxes.

Izzy said:

If you don't wanna watch the video basically it describes how taxes are progressive and the rich pay their fair share when it comes to estate, corporate/property and income taxes, but as soon as we put payroll and consumption taxes into the graph everyone is paying close to the exact same % of their income on taxes.

This thread is mostly so I can get some conserves to tell me all about welfare queens and how the poor are still the bad guys. Seriously please make me understand why this is fair and we shouldn't be taxing billionaires until they're just meager millionaires, because I absolutely cannot grasp why they deserve to pay a smaller portion than I do, let alone why anyone on this earth would need one billion dollars. If you have more than you could spend in a life time why keep it to yourself?

This data makes me want to bring back the guillotine so so bad, either calm me down or lets get riled up. Please give me your thoughts on what kind of resources we could have if we taxed fairly, or if it makes more since to do nothing. Lets talk about taxes my master debaters!

Click to expand...

The poor pay 100% of their income to Live, the rich have that and a bundle.

swing_voter said:

There was this billionaire who lived in New Jersey. He decided one day to pack up and move to Florida.

The loss in tax revenue devastated New Jersey. There were layoffs. Whole departments had to close down.

It's a myth that the rich don't pay taxes.

A lot of rich don't want to pay a penny more than they have to. If you raise taxes too high, they'll just move to a place with lower taxes and then you lose that massive tax revenue they were paying.

Click to expand...

Community dependence on a few rich patrons is a plutocracy, especially if those rich have lobbying power. Any community that relies solely on the tax revenue of one member is no longer an economically functioning community. It is a failed state, and it failed because one person was allowed to collect and horde all the resources.

Izzy said:

If you don't wanna watch the video basically it describes how taxes are progressive and the rich pay their fair share when it comes to estate, corporate/property and income taxes, but as soon as we put payroll and consumption taxes into the graph everyone is paying close to the exact same % of their income on taxes.

This thread is mostly so I can get some conserves to tell me all about welfare queens and how the poor are still the bad guys. Seriously please make me understand why this is fair and we shouldn't be taxing billionaires until they're just meager millionaires, because I absolutely cannot grasp why they deserve to pay a smaller portion than I do, let alone why anyone on this earth would need one billion dollars. If you have more than you could spend in a life time why keep it to yourself?

This data makes me want to bring back the guillotine so so bad, either calm me down or lets get riled up. Please give me your thoughts on what kind of resources we could have if we taxed fairly, or if it makes more since to do nothing. Lets talk about taxes my master debaters!

Click to expand...

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm, it is the left always complaining that it is the rich who are the bad guys. But, thanks for finally proving that indeed, everyone is paying their fair share. By the way, anyone using Vox to prove anything only really proves their bias.

Izzy said:

This thread is mostly so I can get some conserves to tell me all about welfare queens and how the poor are still the bad guys.

Click to expand...

Who says "the poor are 'the bad guys'?"

Meanwhile, there ARE "welfare queens" who play the system and the internet is full of examples. But I ask again, who is saying those people represent ALL poor people?

So your OP starts off with a hasty generalization and an emotional appeal that we are somehow simply supposed to accept. :roll:

Izzy said:

Seriously please make me understand why this is fair and we shouldn't be taxing billionaires until they're just meager millionaires, because I absolutely cannot grasp why they deserve to pay a smaller portion than I do, let alone why anyone on this earth would need one billion dollars.

Click to expand...

Possibly because they would just flee the nation to some other safe harbor, and take their money with them. :shrug:

Izzy said:

If you have more than you could spend in a life time why keep it to yourself?

Click to expand...

Best answer? If it were me, then I'd say that I should keep it (as much as I can) to myself for the simple reason that I EARNED IT!

A better question should be why should I give anything I've earned to you or anyone else?

The short answer is that in order to live in a community with shared needs (like roads, schools, police, sewage, military defense, and the agencies that do all the work) we agree to share the expenses. Hence, taxes.

But then the argument becomes, if you and I both share in such usage, why would YOU expect ME to PAY MORE just because I happen to have more money than you do?

Moreover, which of us is using more of those services?

Izzy said:

This data makes me want to bring back the guillotine so so bad, either calm me down or lets get riled up.

Click to expand...

There's the rub. Somehow YOU feel entitled to take from someone else, by force if necessary, to meet your needs and wants. That a "fair share" depends on how much one has to share with everyone else. Yet it often seems that "fair share" means if you have more you should pay a lot more, as long as you get to keep some while paying things off for the rest of us.

Please give me your thoughts on what kind of resources we could have if we taxed fairly, or if it makes more since to do nothing. Lets talk about taxes my master debaters!

Click to expand...

Define "Taxed 'fairly'" first. :coffeepap:

A big item Vox left out of the picture is around capital gains taxes .. profits and losses on investments. This is where the billionaire makes boat loads of their money, as opposed to earning a salary. My question would be: why is it evil to make lots of money? You can either have equal opportunity or equal outcomes, but not both.

danielpalos said:

Raise the minimum wage. More people making more money will create more demand and pay more taxes.

Click to expand...

You don't think the progressive tax system would just evolve to address this?

Izzy said:

If you don't wanna watch the video basically it describes how taxes are progressive and the rich pay their fair share when it comes to estate, corporate/property and income taxes, but as soon as we put payroll and consumption taxes into the graph everyone is paying close to the exact same % of their income on taxes.

This thread is mostly so I can get some conserves to tell me all about welfare queens and how the poor are still the bad guys. Seriously please make me understand why this is fair and we shouldn't be taxing billionaires until they're just meager millionaires, because I absolutely cannot grasp why they deserve to pay a smaller portion than I do, let alone why anyone on this earth would need one billion dollars. If you have more than you could spend in a life time why keep it to yourself?

This data makes me want to bring back the guillotine so so bad, either calm me down or lets get riled up. Please give me your thoughts on what kind of resources we could have if we taxed fairly, or if it makes more since to do nothing. Lets talk about taxes my master debaters!

Click to expand...

penis envy.

jotathought said:

You don't think the progressive tax system would just evolve to address this?

Click to expand...

I am not sure I understand the question. Why would a multitude of higher paid labor creating more in demand and paying more in Taxes not make up for a few Rich guys and their tax revenue potential?

I recall reading that Yoko Ono encouraged John Lennon to move to the U.S. to avoid paying steep British taxes. He paid for that decision with his life.

Moderate Right said:

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm, it is the left always complaining that it is the rich who are the bad guys. But, thanks for finally proving that indeed, everyone is paying their fair share. By the way, anyone using Vox to prove anything only really proves their bias.

Click to expand...

So is Vox confirming your bias in this case?

danielpalos said:

I am not sure I understand the question. Why would a multitude of higher paid labor creating more in demand and paying more in Taxes not make up for a few Rich guys and their tax revenue potential?

Click to expand...

The lowest federal tax bracket is 10%, and includes individuals making up to $9,700 (adjusted) and married jointly at $19,400 (adjusted). If more people are making nearly double the minimum wage, that'll not only put them into a higher tax bracket, it will force tax legislation to be revised to accommodate (raising the threshold on low brackets) for this growth in income. $15/hour working 40 hours a week translates into $31,200 gross, and $62,400 for joint.

You don't think the tax brackets would be revised to accommodate this growth income? Not only that, raising minimum wage would only be a short-term benefit, as once every minimum wage worker has nearly doubled their income, it's the new normal and they'll be demanding another minimum wage increase. $15/hour will just be the equivalent of today's minimum wage at some point in the future. A "unlivable wage."

jotathought said:

The lowest federal tax bracket is 10%, and includes individuals making up to $9,700 (adjusted) and married jointly at $19,400 (adjusted). If more people are making nearly double the minimum wage, that'll not only put them into a higher tax bracket, it will force tax legislation to be revised to accommodate (raising the threshold on low brackets) for this growth in income. $15/hour working 40 hours a week translates into $31,200 gross, and $62,400 for joint.

You don't think the tax brackets would be revised to accommodate this growth income? Not only that, raising minimum wage would only be a short-term benefit, as once every minimum wage worker has nearly doubled their income, it's the new normal and they'll be demanding another minimum wage increase. $15/hour will just be the equivalent of today's minimum wage at some point in the future. A "unlivable wage."

Click to expand...

I am not sure why you believe only the Richest should be favored by tax policies. A more optimum minimum wage could be in the twenty dollar an hour range. Wages merely need outpace inflation. Government could do it via social-ism, or it could happen via more market friendly transactions.

danielpalos said:

I am not sure why you believe only the Richest should be favored by tax policies. A more optimum minimum wage could be in the twenty dollar an hour range. Wages merely need outpace inflation. Government could do it via social-ism, or it could happen via more market friendly transactions.

Click to expand...

Why is it evil for people to make lots of money? Do you honestly think a burger flipper at McDonalds should be paid $20 - $25/hour? How would that influence the hourly wage or salaries for specialized positions where people invest the time for training and education to be better at a skill?

jotathought said:

Why is it evil for people to make lots of money?

Click to expand...

lol. It says so in a (holy) Bible, we have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge and In God We Trust on our Lucre.

Any other silly immoral questions?

danielpalos said:

lol. It says so in a (holy) Bible, we have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge and In God We Trust on our Lucre.

Any other silly immoral questions?

Click to expand...

It's refreshing to see those on the other side of the isle to make references to the Bible .. Not sure you hit the nail on the head though, as wealth is considered a good thing, but dangerous depending on how you choose to handle it (oppressing others, "the love of money," etc.)

jotathought said:

It's refreshing to see those on the other side of the isle to make references to the Bible .. Not sure you hit the nail on the head though, as wealth is considered a good thing, but dangerous depending on how you choose to handle it (oppressing others, "the love of money," etc.)

Click to expand...

Only capitalism is about money. Socialism is about social order for Government to exist.

Izzy said:

If you don't wanna watch the video basically it describes how taxes are progressive and the rich pay their fair share when it comes to estate, corporate/property and income taxes, but as soon as we put payroll and consumption taxes into the graph everyone is paying close to the exact same % of their income on taxes.

This thread is mostly so I can get some conserves to tell me all about welfare queens and how the poor are still the bad guys. Seriously please make me understand why this is fair and we shouldn't be taxing billionaires until they're just meager millionaires, because I absolutely cannot grasp why they deserve to pay a smaller portion than I do, let alone why anyone on this earth would need one billion dollars. If you have more than you could spend in a life time why keep it to yourself?

This data makes me want to bring back the guillotine so so bad, either calm me down or lets get riled up. Please give me your thoughts on what kind of resources we could have if we taxed fairly, or if it makes more since to do nothing. Lets talk about taxes my master debaters!

Click to expand...

Basically because it's their money! There is right and there is wrong. Taking from the rich because they are successful is wrong. The rich do pay income tax at a higher rate and if there are loopholes that allow them to reduce their taxable income that is the fault of your elected representatives in the US Congress.
What is "too wealthy"? What is "fair share"? We hear these terms thrown around by the left but they never give us a clear number of what is too much. If you tax the rich to excess I would imagine they would be less motivated to build super large corporations which would mean less jobs. It's like taxing the super rich with an excessive death tax. Why is the government entitled to so much of what a person works for and amasses during his life? Greed.

danielpalos said:

Only capitalism is about money. Socialism is about social order for Government to exist.

Click to expand...

Socialism is about the redistribution of wealth and that "the system" can make better decisions than individuals can for themselves. Name a few countries where it's been successful.

jotathought said:

The lowest federal tax bracket is 10%, and includes individuals making up to $9,700 (adjusted) and married jointly at $19,400 (adjusted). If more people are making nearly double the minimum wage, that'll not only put them into a higher tax bracket, it will force tax legislation to be revised to accommodate (raising the threshold on low brackets) for this growth in income. $15/hour working 40 hours a week translates into $31,200 gross, and $62,400 for joint.

You don't think the tax brackets would be revised to accommodate this growth income? Not only that, raising minimum wage would only be a short-term benefit, as once every minimum wage worker has nearly doubled their income, it's the new normal and they'll be demanding another minimum wage increase. $15/hour will just be the equivalent of today's minimum wage at some point in the future. A "unlivable wage."

Click to expand...

That's exactly right. History shows that the economy adjusts to a new minimum wage. I noticed years ago that rents around Army bases adjusted upward in the months after an Army pay increase. In one way or another this happens throughout the economy.

But the real effect is upward pressure on higher wages. If the grunt making $7 and hour now makes $15, the manager now wants a raise, because he was only making $14, and feels he should of course make quite a bit more than that lowly grunt. Some union contracts are tied to minimum wage; minimum goes up, their wages go up. This ripple effect goes through every level of the wage structure, even to the top. This causes an adjustment in prices to bring back equilibrium to the economy. Then we're back to square one; people crying$15 isn't a livable wage. Fact is, minimum wage was never intended to be a "livable" wage. It is supposed to be an entry level wage and a stepping stone. Not a career.

swing_voter said:

There was this billionaire who lived in New Jersey. He decided one day to pack up and move to Florida.

The loss in tax revenue devastated New Jersey. There were layoffs. Whole departments had to close down.

It's a myth that the rich don't pay taxes.

A lot of rich don't want to pay a penny more than they have to. If you raise taxes too high, they'll just move to a place with lower taxes and then you lose that massive tax revenue they were paying.

Click to expand...

And that is why no one believes the myth that if you let the rich keep their money they will invest it a-la trickle down theory that will create jobs. David Tepper doesn't do that. When he went to Florida, he continued his hedge fund which, as we all know, can create wealth and profit...but not jobs or pensions as many hedge fund managers use that to leverage higher dividends.