Among Developed Nations American Tax Bills are Below Average

[upsideguy]

yes and most of it is in the homes and businesses we own so stealing it at liberal gunpoint would cause an instant Great Depression

Like clockwork... did I not say.....?

* - for those with reading impairment problems, I am only quibbling with the erroneous fact set forth. I am not suggesting that we confiscate wealth NOR am I suggesting paying off the national debt is even desirable.

Why don't people read and digest the whole post before reacting? We seem to live an world where people only want to read headlines and not try to understand the underlying story.

The importance of this, however, is not that one should just ask the 1% to pay off the debt, but that is where the wealth is: 1% of our population has up to 42% of the wealth... if you deem paying down the debt desirable, this is the group that has to bear most of the weight in achieving that goal.

 

[James972]

Like clockwork... did I not say.....?



Why don't people read and digest the whole post before reacting? We seem to live an world where people only want to read headlines and not try to understand the underlying story.

so what is underlying story????

 

[natsb]

SIR.. if income taxes were part of your costs that must be put into your prices. THEN if you have more profit and pay more taxes.. then you have to increase your prices. That's how your premise works. THATS THE ONLY way your premise works

You are absolutely clueless that you are not "baking in" income taxes in.. Can't do it. Can't/. Impossible...

Some taxes affect purchasing power.. excise taxes.. sales taxes.. because those taxes occur whether there is profit or not.

INCOME taxes which are taken AFTER PROFIT.. do not effect purchasing power.

Anything you "purchase".. is done PRE TAXED (when it comes to income taxes).

That smoke you smell is not me crashing and burning.. its you.. and you don't even realize that you are on fire.

I see your problem. You have the tax/profit order backwards. Profits are what is left over after all expenses have been paid, including taxes. You are confusing income with profit.

Net income is what you have after deducting expenses from gross income. Income tax is paid on net income. Anything left over after taxes is profit.

Profits are then given to share holders, returned to the business (non profit), or pocketed by the owners.

Sent from my LG-V930 using Tapatalk

 

[natsb]

You might like to try again, as your statement is incorrect...

Total wealth in the United States is $85T.

America’s Total Net Worth Just Hit a Record High

The top 1% control between 33% and 42% of all wealth, or between $28T and $36T.

That would more than payoff the national debt *, almost by two fold --- with enough left over to buy a continent full of countries or two PLUS have a nice party (maybe we can rent Alcatraz Island#)

https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-arti...using-administrative-and-survey-data/#recent/

Paying it off almost twice over is more than a dent, its total annihilation (kind of like what I am doing to your understanding of this particular subject matter).

So, once again, stop shooting from your hip thinking you have command of facts when you do not. Check your facts before posting. You might learn something and keep from dumbing down the discussion.


* - for those with reading impairment problems, I am only quibbling with the erroneous fact set forth. I am not suggesting that we confiscate wealth NOR am I suggesting paying off the national debt is even desirable.

# - Silicon Valley reference




Worry not, I schooled him for you...

View attachment 67211507

Wealth is not income. Federal taxes are paid on income not wealth. Using wealth to pay of the debt would indeed involve confiscation of private property. I don't think that is something that should be so casually suggested.

Sent from my LG-V930 using Tapatalk

 

[James972]

Federal taxes are paid on income not wealth.

liberals want to tax your income weekly as you earn it, then tax what you saved after you have paid weekly taxes, then tax whats left when you die. Its totally anti American and opposite of what our Founders wanted.


"We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."

-- Thomas Paine

 

[upsideguy]

Wealth is not income. Federal taxes are paid on income not wealth. Using wealth to pay of the debt would indeed involve confiscation of private property. I don't think that is something that should be so casually suggested.

Sent from my LG-V930 using Tapatalk

Good grief. Thank you for the schooling me on the difference between wealth and income. I never got that one right on my CPA exam and it seemed to have been a limiting factor of my success as a CFO.

If you actually read my post, I was quibbling with a very specific argument that said....

What a joke. We could outright confiscate 100% of the wealth of the top 1%, and not even put a dent in the national debt. Try again.

Note that he was talking about WEALTH..... so I responded to refute his SPECIFIC CLAIM

and, you will note that I specifically stated....

* - for those with reading impairment problems, I am only quibbling with the erroneous fact set forth. I am not suggesting that we confiscate wealth NOR am I suggesting paying off the national debt is even desirable.

Apparently you are another with reading impairment problems. You post suggests your need to respond after reading three words during which you conclude what the other is saying, without actually trying to comprehend what is being said. That is arguing with a strawman. It is pretty much arguing with the voices in your head rather than the post itself. You want to argue a strawman, don't quote me. You want to argue with me, then respond SPECIFICALLY to what I am saying.

You want to make your own point, independent of what is being said, feel free to do so, just don't use my post as part of yours.

 

[countryboy]

You might like to try again, as your statement is incorrect...

Total wealth in the United States is $85T.

America’s Total Net Worth Just Hit a Record High

The top 1% control between 33% and 42% of all wealth, or between $28T and $36T.

That would more than payoff the national debt *, almost by two fold --- with enough left over to buy a continent full of countries or two PLUS have a nice party (maybe we can rent Alcatraz Island#)

https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-arti...using-administrative-and-survey-data/#recent/

Paying it off almost twice over is more than a dent, its total annihilation (kind of like what I am doing to your understanding of this particular subject matter).

So, once again, stop shooting from your hip thinking you have command of facts when you do not. Check your facts before posting. You might learn something and keep from dumbing down the discussion.


* - for those with reading impairment problems, I am only quibbling with the erroneous fact set forth. I am not suggesting that we confiscate wealth NOR am I suggesting paying off the national debt is even desirable.

# - Silicon Valley reference




Worry not, I schooled him for you...

You schooled nobody. The official national debt is close to 20 trillion dollars. There are another 8.3 trillion in liabilities which are not accounted for in the publicly held national debt. Then there's another $26.7 trillion in obligations for Social Security. Aaaaand, another 28.5 trillion in obligations for current Medicare participants. This totals to $76.4 trillion, which equals 90% of the combined net worth of all U.S. households and nonprofit organizations, including all assets in savings, real estate, corporate stocks, private businesses, and consumer durable goods such as automobiles and furniture. So no, confiscating the entire wealth of the top 1% wouldn't even come close to paying off our current obligations, and illustrates the absolute folly and fantasy of paying off the national debt by simply "taxing the rich more". National Debt – Just Facts

But putting all that aside. Are you suggesting we confiscate half the entire wealth of the top 1%? Hmmmmm......:roll:

 

[upsideguy]

You schooled nobody. The official national debt is close to 20 trillion dollars. There are another 8.3 trillion in liabilities which are not accounted for in the publicly held national debt. Then there's another $26.7 trillion in obligations for Social Security. Aaaaand, another 28.5 trillion in obligations for current Medicare participants. This totals to $76.4 trillion, which equals 90% of the combined net worth of all U.S. households and nonprofit organizations, including all assets in savings, real estate, corporate stocks, private businesses, and consumer durable goods such as automobiles and furniture. So no, confiscating the entire wealth of the top 1% wouldn't even come close to paying off our current obligations, and illustrates the absolute folly and fantasy of paying off the national debt by simply "taxing the rich more". National Debt – Just Facts

But putting all that aside. Are you suggesting we confiscate half the entire wealth of the top 1%? Hmmmmm......:roll:

Again, the top 1% own $42T of US wealth.... YOU were the one that stated:

What a joke. We could outright confiscate 100% of the wealth of the top 1%, and not even put a dent in the national debt. Try again.

Your statement is NOT correct. The wealth of the top 1% would indeed not only put a dent in the national debt of $20T, it would annihilate it.

Now, I not sure I want to get into the argument that the debt is $76T... that is full of its logic errors, that is a side bar argument. But, even so, $42T on $76T is more than a dent.

But, National Debt is a defined term. We expect you to live within the definition and not create your own.

Nonetheless, you have been schooled. You made an extremely uniformed comment and have been caught in your ignorance. Take it like a man.

Again, as I have told two people now with reading comprehension problems and apparently you are the third (since you don't seem to read either).... I was merely refuting your point I SPECIFICALLY SAID:

* - for those with reading impairment problems, I am only quibbling with the erroneous fact set forth. I am not suggesting that we confiscate wealth NOR am I suggesting paying off the national debt is even desirable.

You were the one the introduced the concept of matching the debt to the wealth.

 

[jimbo]

It makes sense that a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" would be self-serving. Who else would it serve?

Uh? The people?

 

[Critter7r]

so what is underlying story????

My head is spinning.

The underlying story is contained in the "whole post" about which upsideguy was lamenting that no one reads. So in response to his lamenting that the whole post wasn't read, you ask him what the post said? Go back and read it.

 

[Critter7r]

Originally Posted by Critter7r View Post

It makes sense that a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" would be self-serving. Who else would it serve?

Uh? The people?

"the people" are ourselves. Thus, government should be self-serving.

 

[Critter7r]

Wealth is not income. Federal taxes are paid on income not wealth. Using wealth to pay of the debt would indeed involve confiscation of private property. I don't think that is something that should be so casually suggested.

Sent from my LG-V930 using Tapatalk

...

* - for those with reading impairment problems, I am only quibbling with the erroneous fact set forth. I am not suggesting that we confiscate wealth NOR am I suggesting paying off the national debt is even desirable.

Good grief!!


EDIT: I see this point has been made .... lol (I posted before reading the rest of the thread. But at least I read the whole damned post!!)

 

[jimbo]

"the people" are ourselves. Thus, government should be self-serving.

The people are ourselves. A government of, by, and for the people should reflect that. Unfortunately that's not often the case. The government is too often self serving.

 

[Critter7r]

The people are ourselves. A government of, by, and for the people should reflect that. Unfortunately that's not often the case. The government is too often self serving.

Ok. The point I was trying to make is that you're lamenting that government is self-serving, when you should be lamenting that it is some of the individuals in government are self-serving, not the government itself. Since a government of, by, and for the people is by definition self-serving. It is (in theory) a government of, by, and for the people, serving the people. (edit: as opposed to serving Spain)

 

[James972]

The government is too often self serving.

and naturally corrupt which is why our Founders made liberal big govt illegal with the Constitution. Make sense?

 

[upsideguy]

and naturally corrupt which is why our Founders made liberal big govt illegal with the Constitution. Make sense?

Where in the constitution does it say "liberal big government is illegal?" What constitutes big government? Is conservative big government also illegal? Please, show us the cites in the Constitution that say these things. Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[natsb]

Good grief. Thank you for the schooling me on the difference between wealth and income. I never got that one right on my CPA exam and it seemed to have been a limiting factor of my success as a CFO.

If you actually read my post, I was quibbling with a very specific argument that said....



Note that he was talking about WEALTH..... so I responded to refute his SPECIFIC CLAIM

and, you will note that I specifically stated....



Apparently you are another with reading impairment problems. You post suggests your need to respond after reading three words during which you conclude what the other is saying, without actually trying to comprehend what is being said. That is arguing with a strawman. It is pretty much arguing with the voices in your head rather than the post itself. You want to argue a strawman, don't quote me. You want to argue with me, then respond SPECIFICALLY to what I am saying.

You want to make your own point, independent of what is being said, feel free to do so, just don't use my post as part of yours.

Apparently, you are another of those quick to insult, perpetual panty in a wad types. Too bad. It sounded like you were semi rational.

I will quote you when I feel the need to make a point and your post facilitates my need. If you need a safe space, this probably isn't it.

 

[upsideguy]

Apparently, you are another of those quick to insult, perpetual panty in a wad types. Too bad. It sounded like you were semi rational.

I will quote you when I feel the need to make a point and your post facilitates my need. If you need a safe space, this probably isn't it.

My apologies, I was probably a little over the top. Please note that I was trying to respond to something very specific, even anticipating how people would want to put words into my mouth about what I said. I specifically stated that my post should not be construed in a way that I advocated the confiscation of property. I certainly do not and did not. Nonetheless, three people, you being the third, quoted my post and argued against confiscation. My post was not about confiscation, it was addressing another poster that never did his homework and posted something the showed his ignorance about the extent of the concentration of wealth in America.

It is a bit aggravating that most people don't know how to debate. They do not address posts directly, they just address what they think they are reading, without actually taking the time to read it and think about it.

Again, sorry. But, do understand you were the 3rd person to quote me and make an argument against something that specifically did not say.

You be more careful; I'll be less crotchety (as I am not a crotchety guy). Merry Christmas!

 

[fmw]

We need to raise taxes (especially for those in upper income brackets) and use the money to pay off the national debt.

Seriously, you would trust government to increase revenue and not spend it? That really is funny.

 

[RickJames3000]

Seriously, you would trust government to increase revenue and not spend it? That really is funny.

When the **** did I say anything about "trust". Learn to read.

 

[Fruityfact]

My apologies, I was probably a little over the top. Please note that I was trying to respond to something very specific, even anticipating how people would want to put words into my mouth about what I said. I specifically stated that my post should not be construed in a way that I advocated the confiscation of property. I certainly do not and did not. Nonetheless, three people, you being the third, quoted my post and argued against confiscation. My post was not about confiscation, it was addressing another poster that never did his homework and posted something the showed his ignorance about the extent of the concentration of wealth in America.

It is a bit aggravating that most people don't know how to debate. They do not address posts directly, they just address what they think they are reading, without actually taking the time to read it and think about it.

Again, sorry. But, do understand you were the 3rd person to quote me and make an argument against something that specifically did not say.

You be more careful; I'll be less crotchety (as I am not a crotchety guy). Merry Christmas!

Naa, **** it. They don't want PC, they don't get it. He did not read the argument because he either doesn't understand or was too lazy. Damn post fact reality.

 

[fmw]

When the **** did I say anything about "trust". Learn to read.

Then how would you repay the national debt outside of the government?

 

[James972]

Where in the constitution does it say "liberal big government is illegal?"

very very simple, where it says the federal govt shall have only a very few enumerated powers. Now do you understand after having learned this lesson 3 times?

 

[Critter7r]

very very simple, where it says the federal govt shall have only a very few enumerated powers. Now do you understand after having learned this lesson 3 times?

I'm confused.

Is Republican big government still ok?

 

[James972]

I'm confused.

Is Republican big government still ok?

if its big govt its not Republican. NOW do you understand?