What Taxing the Rich Could Yield

[canceled.2021.1]

When EVERYONE has sufficient...I have no problem with disparity. If you are fool enough to think everyone has sufficient...and that all the needed infrastructure projects are being handled...

...speak to your doctors about it. Perhaps they can increase or otherwise modify dosage.



I am not getting it wrong. But you may try to use this as a diversion because you are taking a beating on the rest of the discussion...so have at it.

Who defines “sufficient” Frankie? What is sufficient?

Frankie you are making a comparison to the French Revolution that is inaccurate. You are blaming it on “income disparity”. It was not

It was due to massive debt, foreign wars and taxation that was borne by the commoners and not the aristocracy

In short Frankie. The French Revolution came about due to central
Government control such that you support.

Frankie if you really cared about people you would not outsource your compassion to the federal gobblement

 

[LV426]

Again, your reading comprehension is poor and you make assumptions that are not true. I never suggested their tax burden. In fact, I made the point that they pay the greatest amount of taxes because they have more income--exactly the way progressive taxation is supposed to work. I never suggested it was unfair--only that the myth that they do not pay their "fair" share of taxes.

Of course you were setting it up to be a debate about the fairness of the burden - why else would you bring it up? Now you're running away from the premise you were about to establish because I preempted that shit by reminding you that the reason the burden is so large is because of your governing fiscal anti-tax, trickle-down belief system.

Man up and own that shit.

 

[LV426]

My numbers were incorrect. The 55% was the share of the top 10% for all federal taxes (including payroll). If we just look at individual income taxes the top 10% pay 74.7%. In 1979 they paid 48.3%. So, they pay a much large share than they did in 1980, not less.

Right.

And why is that?

Because you cut taxes.

So why are you bringing this up? All it's doing is showing you, using your own numbers, why cutting taxes is stupid.

 

[LV426]

They pay much more because the Bush-Obama tax cuts virtually eliminated federal income taxes for the bottom 40%--so naturally those with higher incomes paid more.

Well, it's not Obama's tax cuts...he just extended Bush's.

And back in 2001, we told you this would happen, but you didn't want to listen.

So you manufactured a crisis that you are now trying to frame a narrative around, when the crisis was caused entirely by your governing fiscal ideology.

It's basically masturbation.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Who defines “sufficient” Frankie? What is sufficient?

I define it.

Frankie you are making a comparison to the French Revolution that is inaccurate. You are blaming it on “income disparity”. It was not

Yeah, it really was. The disparity between the "haves" and "have nots" was a SIGNIFICANT factor.

It was due to massive debt, foreign wars and taxation that was borne by the commoners and not the aristocracy

The disparity between the "haves" and "have nots" was a SIGNIFICANT factor.

If you want to pretend it wasn't...go do it with the other kids in the sandbox.

In short Frankie. The French Revolution came about due to central
Government control such that you support.

To the sandbox with that horse shit.

Frankie if you really cared about people you would not outsource your compassion to the federal gobblement

You are not truly worth the effort of the schooling I am giving you...but the enjoyment of doing it make the effort worthwhile anyway.

 

[LV426]

In 1979 the effective tax rate for the top 1% was 22.6%. By 2014 the effective tax rate for the top 1% was 24%. So the rich pay a higher tax rate and a higher percentage of total taxes than they did in 1979.

Effective tax rate is not the same thing as a marginal tax rate, and the marginal rate is only on income. It's not adjusted gross income, as their effective tax rate would be zero. And you're probably not including those, right?

It's this kind of bullshit that makes it so difficult to take anything you say seriously.

So you conflate two different things; the effective tax rate and the marginal tax rate. The effective tax rate takes all taxes into account, including state and local taxes. The marginal tax rate is just the base federal income tax rate. So you jumped from one to the other to try and falsely re-frame a conversation so you don't have to admit you're full of shit.

So once again, this becomes about you and your ego, not the facts or truth.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I define it.



Yeah, it really was. The disparity between the "haves" and "have nots" was a SIGNIFICANT factor.



The disparity between the "haves" and "have nots" was a SIGNIFICANT factor.

If you want to pretend it wasn't...go do it with the other kids in the sandbox.




To the sandbox with that horse shit.



You are not truly worth the effort of the schooling I am giving you...but the enjoyment of doing it make the effort worthwhile anyway.

Frankie

Luckily you aren’t the arbiter of what is sufficient. And you will be dead soon so it is really a moot point

As to the French Revolution it was due to the following factors

1) Huge debt to involvement in the Seven Years War and the American Revolution

2) Louis XVI raised taxes on everyone but the aristocracy

3) A rising bourgeoise rose up against these taxes

4) Insufficient food due to crop failures

Nothing about income inequality. Your ability to be uneducated and lie to yourself is astounding Frankie. But, never fear. I am head to help you

 

[LV426]

You are the one being misleading, not me. Especially your statement that "...but the part you leave out is that the amount they pay is about half of what they used to since their rate is about half of what it was in 1980." They pay a higher income tax rate.ata is IRS

The marginal rate for the top bracket in 1979 was 70%.

The marginal rate for the top bracket in 2018 is 37%.

The maximum capital gains rate is just 20%.

So what you're doing is you're pretending that people in the top bracket draw an income via a paycheck just like everyone else. But you know as well as I do that most of the income in that top bracket doesn't come from an actual wage...most of the income isn't even subject to income taxes...most of it is subject to the much lower capital gains rate.

So you do something very dishonest; you pretend that all income is the same, therefore it is taxed the same. So you need for us to believe that someone with an income of $1M pays the marginal income taxes on all that income...but income is different than wages. Why? Because not all income comes from wages, and the higher you move up the brackets, the less likely the income is derived from a paycheck. It comes from other sources like business income (now taxed at 21%, though the effective corporate rate is around 12-15%), capital gains (taxed at a maximum 20%), and other sources of income that aren't derived from wages.

That's how you frame a dishonest argument, which is what you're trying to do here.

Stop.

 

[LV426]

Within the context of this debate you proved my straw man is real. You claimed "many cheat" which proves the point. Liberals think (many) people who are wealthy cheated to gain their wealth.

You said that liberals believe anyone who is wealthy cheated.

Now you're trying to move the goalposts.

Pathetic.

 

[LV426]

Yes, the Bush-Obama tax cuts virtually eliminated federal income taxes for the bottom 40% and increased the amount earned in tax credits.

"virtually"?

That is a goalpost that you will move.

How did it "virtually" do that?

 

[LV426]

e were not arguing why they pay more of our income taxes at the time, you always add extra stuff that I "omitted" which was not included in the original discussion.

What's happening here is that you're trying to redefine the parameters of the debate because you painted yourself into a rhetorical corner.

You can't admit that there's an inequitable tax burden without admitting it was caused by the tax cuts you support.

 

[CFM]

Well, it's not Obama's tax cuts...he just extended Bush's.

And back in 2001, we told you this would happen, but you didn't want to listen.

So you manufactured a crisis that you are now trying to frame a narrative around, when the crisis was caused entirely by your governing fiscal ideology.

It's basically masturbation.

It's OK, you'll continue to get your food stamps and welfare.

 

[LV426]

I know what I said and you proved me correct.

Since when is "anyone" = "many"?

You said that liberals believe anyone who got rich did so by cheating.

I said, flatly, no, we don't believe everyone who is rich cheated, but that "many" did.

You are trying to say "many" is the same as "anyone", and you know that's bullshit because the words mean two completely different things.

Many does not mean all..."anyone" does mean all.

So you're trying to move the goalposts to give yourself a rhetorical win because the rest of your argument is utter trash, and you know it.

 

[LV426]

You always resort to personal insults and the old "bad faith" charge when you learn your math is wrong---like claiming $30,000 is in the 67th percentile of earners. You always drop your "math" discussion and start the insults. If you can't win an argument---smear the person (like was done to Ford and Kavanaugh).

Fuck you Flash, you're the one who sought out that red herring on the income percentile because you didn't want to admit the same, fat, stupid, uneducated Trump voters are the same fat, stupid, uneducated people drinking themselves to death out of despair.

The despair caused them to vote for Trump.

 

[CFM]

The marginal rate for the top bracket in 1979 was 70%.

The marginal rate for the top bracket in 2018 is 37%.

The maximum capital gains rate is just 20%.

So what you're doing is you're pretending that people in the top bracket draw an income via a paycheck just like everyone else. But you know as well as I do that most of the income in that top bracket doesn't come from an actual wage...most of the income isn't even subject to income taxes...most of it is subject to the much lower capital gains rate.

So you do something very dishonest; you pretend that all income is the same, therefore it is taxed the same. So you need for us to believe that someone with an income of $1M pays the marginal income taxes on all that income...but income is different than wages. Why? Because not all income comes from wages, and the higher you move up the brackets, the less likely the income is derived from a paycheck. It comes from other sources like business income (now taxed at 21%, though the effective corporate rate is around 12-15%), capital gains (taxed at a maximum 20%), and other sources of income that aren't derived from wages.

That's how you frame a dishonest argument, which is what you're trying to do here.

Stop.

People keeping more of what they've earned is a good thing.

However, they get it is irrelevant. It's theirs, boy, not yours.

Continue paying a 0% marginal rate and being a drain on society. Everyone knows you are.

 

[LV426]

I left out that part because it is completely false (according to the IRS). The marginal tax rate is about half, but not the effective tax rate.

FFS, you're swapping the "effective rate" in for the "marginal rate", and you're doing that dishonestly because you're pretending all income is the same, therefore it is taxed at the same rate.

So for the people whose income is derived from their wage, yes, their effective rate is pretty much the same.

But most people who are rich don't have income derived from the wage.

So the numbers you leave out are the adjusted gross income numbers, which would include things like deferred compensation, rental income, business income, and which are the primary means by which rich people derive their income.

It's a very shady game you're playing because it requires active deception or a complete misunderstanding of the subject.

It's one or the other with you, and I haven't figured out which it is yet.

 

[CFM]

FFS, you're swapping the "effective rate" in for the "marginal rate", and you're doing that dishonestly because you're pretending all income is the same, therefore it is taxed at the same rate.

So for the people whose income is derived from their wage, yes, their effective rate is pretty much the same.

But most people who are rich don't have income derived from the wage.

So the numbers you leave out are the adjusted gross income numbers, which would include things like deferred compensation, rental income, business income, and which are the primary means by which rich people derive their income.

It's a very shady game you're playing because it requires active deception or a complete misunderstanding of the subject.

It's one or the other with you, and I haven't figured out which it is yet.

Your rate is 0%. Quit whining, bitch.

 

[Old Trapper]

Frankie

Luckily you aren’t the arbiter of what is sufficient. And you will be dead soon so it is really a moot point

Unfortunately for you, he, like everyone else, is the arbiter.

As to the French Revolution it was due to the following factors

1) Huge debt to involvement in the Seven Years War and the American Revolution

2) Louis XVI raised taxes on everyone but the aristocracy

Just as the right wing has done now. So, who then became responsible for all that debt?

3) A rising bourgeoise rose up against these taxes

4) Insufficient food due to crop failures

And we are reaching that point not just because of drought, but because of the amount we sell to countries like China.

Nothing about income inequality. Your ability to be uneducated and lie to yourself is astounding Frankie. But, never fear. I am head to help you

Your stupidity is only equaled by others of your low IQ dumb fuck qualities.

https://washingtonsblog.com/2015/04/founding-fathers-warned-inequality.html

 

[Ross Dolan]

Frankie

Luckily you aren’t the arbiter of what is sufficient. And you will be dead soon so it is really a moot point

As to the French Revolution it was due to the following factors

1) Huge debt to involvement in the Seven Years War and the American Revolution

2) Louis XVI raised taxes on everyone but the aristocracy

3) A rising bourgeoise rose up against these taxes

4) Insufficient food due to crop failures

Nothing about income inequality. Your ability to be uneducated and lie to yourself is astounding Frankie. But, never fear. I am head to help you

You could no more help me in an intellectual pursuit than Rush Limbaugh could help me in staying trip and in shape.

Dream on.

And if you want to think that the differences between the haves and have-nots was not an essential ingredient in the French uprising...be my guest.

It is kind of humorous. Especially since it is such a frantic attempt to dodge the issues we have actually been discussing

You are a fucking moron. And I doubt you could ever be much more.

 

[Superfreak]

What are you on about now then?

The OP suggested taxing the wealthy and pointed to the top 15 families wealth. My point is you could take everything they have and it wouldn't cover any of the first five years of Obamas debt run up.