ExiledInIllinois Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, GG said: No it is not. It is about the cockamamie claim that the rich don't pay their fair share, even though the rich pay a highly disproportionate share of income tax And you are going to get blood out of turnip? How exactly are you going to fund a safe, modern society when the low rungs of the socio-economic ladder has a broken back. When it comes to the all-mighty $$$, there is no equality. The $$$ discriminates both ways. Better to piss off the few, harder to fight back with violence. Unless you want to pay more for a gallon of milk, then we can talk. 3 minutes ago, DC Tom said: No, we call Trump stupid, too. Really? Rich in Ohio... Oh, I mean that 3rdnlng wanna be? He calls Trump stupid? LoL... Edited January 17, 2019 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 14 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said: And you are going to get blood out of turnip? How exactly are you going to fund a safe, modern society when the low rungs of the socio-economic ladder has a broken back. When it comes to the all-mighty $$$, there is no equality. The $$$ discriminates both ways. Better to piss off the few, harder to fight back with violence. Unless you want to pay more for a gallon of milk, then we can talk. This has also been debated as naseam. When you reach a situation where half the population doesn't pay any income tax, that's when the populist danger zone hits. You cannot have a sound fiscal policy when half the nation doesn't participate and expects government services to increase. The rich have the most disposable incomes, but they also have the most discretionary and mobile incomes. It's insane to base a tax policy on incomes that may disappear or fluctuate wildly. Quote Really? Rich in Ohio... Oh, I mean that 3rdnlng wanna be? He calls Trump stupid? LoL... There's infinitely more criticism of Trump from the conservatives here than there's been collective criticism of Clinton family or Saint Barack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Swill Merchant said: I can't tell if you're trolling me or if this is a sincere answer. If the latter, conflating government and country is your first problem. The second is you bypassed identifying the situation to jump to a moral case for it. By the nature of your response I take it you believe that it should be permissible to unilaterally take the property of another however you see fit and to whatever extent you choose, as long as you leave him with enough to live in reasonable comfort. I was a reader here for a long time before I ever posted. I gave up reading his word salad a long time ago. Now I just treat his posts like the old Magic Eye books. I just stare at the words and hope an object appears. Edit: Ooh look, a sailboat! Edited January 17, 2019 by LBSeeBallLBGetBall 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, GG said: This has also been debated as naseam. When you reach a situation where half the population doesn't pay any income tax, that's when the populist danger zone hits. You cannot have a sound fiscal policy when half the nation doesn't participate and expects government services to increase. The rich have the most disposable incomes, but they also have the most discretionary and mobile incomes. It's insane to base a tax policy on incomes that may disappear or fluctuate wildly. This is false in a modern world. Labor still needs to produce the comforts of a safe, modern society. That $$$ is not disappearing. We are a consumer society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 6 minutes ago, GG said: This has also been debated as naseam. When you reach a situation where half the population doesn't pay any income tax, that's when the populist danger zone hits. You cannot have a sound fiscal policy when half the nation doesn't participate and expects government services to increase. The rich have the most disposable incomes, but they also have the most discretionary and mobile incomes. It's insane to base a tax policy on incomes that may disappear or fluctuate wildly. Sounds like you support a wealth tax then....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said: I was a reader here for a long time before I ever posted. I gave up reading his word salad a long time ago. Now I just treat his posts like the old Magic Eye books. I just stare at the words and hope an object appears. Edit: Ooh look, a sailboat! Fine. It's called having your mind made up, living in a bubble. I do pass judgement, it's hard to take when I force people to look inward. 36 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Eric, a thinker? I'll forgive you because you're relatively new, but please watch what you say. My keyboard does not act favorably to spittal. Eric's HS graduation picture: Nice one Rich! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Just now, TPS said: Sounds like you support a wealth tax then....? When you know that I think incomes of ultra-wealthy are mobile, what do you imagine my position is on assets? 4 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said: This is false in a modern world. Labor still needs to produce the comforts of a safe, modern society. That $$$ is not disappearing. We are a consumer society. What in the world does this have to do with incomes of the 1% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, GG said: What in the world does this have to do with incomes of the 1% A lot. That 1% has over half the world's wealth. Yes, they should be paying more... A lot more. Edited January 17, 2019 by ExiledInIllinois 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Just now, ExiledInIllinois said: A lot. That 1% has over half the world's wealth. Yes, they should be paying more... A lot more. The top 5% is already paying over a quarter of the income tax, while 47% is paying zero. That's why the dumb AOCs think it's a sound policy to have the rich pay more. When you're paying nothing, it's easy to demand that someone else build that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 10 hours ago, Swill Merchant said: Say what you will about AOC, she's the only one telling the truth about what the Democrats are doing. "it is not normal to shut down the government when we don't get what we want" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 10 hours ago, Swill Merchant said: Say what you will about AOC, she's the only one telling the truth about what the Democrats are doing. I appreciate her honesty, though not her policy positions. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 19 minutes ago, GG said: The top 5% is already paying over a quarter of the income tax, while 47% is paying zero. That's why the dumb AOCs think it's a sound policy to have the rich pay more. When you're paying nothing, it's easy to demand that someone else build that. Yeah. But is the labor killing the rich? I mean physically killing them. Now... Let's not confuse "build" with "pay for." Pay for, as in pay for the benefits of society. 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: I appreciate her honesty, though not her policy positions. I do too. But I am closer to her policies.?. A lot closer... But she's still cray cray even by my standards. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevbeau Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 5 hours ago, Doc Brown said: The problem was there were so many loopholes and rich people did whatever they could with their income (tax free municipal bonds, stashing their money in foreign tax- exempt shelters)to avoid paying the 70%. In 1980 the top 1% paid only 20% in federal income taxes. Today they pay around 40%. But, but 70%....sorry folks, the rich have better a accountants than the gov’t. A ridiculously high tax rate changes the entire risk dynamic (not to mention incentive.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 1 minute ago, Kevbeau said: But, but 70%....sorry folks, the rich have better a accountants than the gov’t. A ridiculously high tax rate changes the entire risk dynamic (not to mention incentive.) Baloney... Drivers are drivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevbeau Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 1 hour ago, ExiledInIllinois said: Yes. Adam Smith favored progressive taxes. Who the hell else is going to pay (for a safe modern society) and still live comfortably? We already have a progressive tax system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 8 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said: Yeah. But is the labor killing the rich? I mean physically killing them. Now... Let's not confuse "build" with "pay for." Pay for, as in pay for the benefits of society. For once, try comprehending what people are writing. The rich are already paying a disproportionate amount of taxes. I was wrong in my estimation. It's not the top 5% that pays nearly a quarter, it's the top 1%. They also pay a higher proportion of taxes than their proportion of income. The bottom 47% pays ZERO. That's why it's easy for somebody that contributes nothing, but has a vote, to demand that someone else pay more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 1 minute ago, GG said: For once, try comprehending what people are writing. The rich are already paying a disproportionate amount of taxes. I was wrong in my estimation. It's not the top 5% that pays nearly a quarter, it's the top 1%. They also pay a higher proportion of taxes than their proportion of income. The bottom 47% pays ZERO. That's why it's easy for somebody that contributes nothing, but has a vote, to demand that someone else pay more. perhaps a return to the days of property owners only having the ability to vote is in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevbeau Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 36 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said: A lot. That 1% has over half the world's wealth. Yes, they should be paying more... A lot more. Are we debating wealth or income? 5 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said: Baloney... Drivers are drivers. To a point a I agree, but people can do the math on where the ideal “bust my ass” line is. Also consider the workforce migration we have seen since those top tax rates were in affect. This board is a perfect example of that. Not everyone has the luxury of choosing where they live, but an increasing number of high paying jobs are becoming mobile. Hell, my best developer has been living in Costa Rica for the past two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, Kevbeau said: Are we debating wealth or income? Whatever supports their point, because they don't know the difference 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, Kevbeau said: Are we debating wealth or income? To a point a I agree, but people can do the math on where the ideal “bust my ass” line is. Also consider the workforce migration we have seen since those top tax rates were in affect. This board is a perfect example of that. Not everyone has the luxury of choosing where they live, but an increasing number of high paying jobs are becoming mobile. Hell, my best developer has been living in Costa Rica for the past two years. Yeah. Gaming the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts