What Taxing the Rich Could Yield

[Flash]

"virtually"?

That is a goalpost that you will move.

How did it "virtually" do that?

I use virtually because otherwise you will deflect from the real facts by claiming I meant 100% had their taxes lowered and talk about goalposts and bad faith. A large portion of the bottom 40% pay little or no taxes. According to the CBO the bottom 20% pay -4.1% of individual federal income taxes and the 2nd 20% pays -1.4%. It is negative because they owe no taxes and get back "refunds" for tax credits.

Virtually (a large portion), not literally (100%).

 

[Flash]

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

Of course it is inequitable--the top 40% pays 106% of all federal income taxes.

And I didn't support the tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts---but you either don't read or have a really bad memory.

 

[Flash]

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.

You always lose track of the discussion and go into trivial stuff knowing that nobody means literally "all" or "everyone."


Or, did you mean "all" when you said "the same, fat, stupid, uneducated Trump voters are the same fat, stupid, uneducated people drinking themselves to death out of despair."

 

[Ross Dolan]

Poor and middle earner families use most of their income for lifestyle. A budget in this range is being very well managed if 33% of the income is saved toward fortune-building.

Rich and ultra rich families use a very small percentage of their income to support their lifestyle. Budgets in this range are able to put as much as 99% of their income toward fortune-building.

Progressive taxation takes this inequity into consideration.

If you look at taxes paid vs wealth, you will find that the wealthy and ultra-wealthy pay a very small amount of yearly taxes compared to their fortunes, whereas middle and poor pay a much larger percentage of their wealth in yearly taxes. For the poor, who essentially have no wealth at all, all taxes they pay in a year exceed their wealth.

Progressive taxation attempts to ease this tremendous mismatch, but it falls extremely short.

I believe we need more tax brackets on the upper end.

Why should somebody who is making a million dollars a year pay at the same rate as someone who is making 10 times that much? Or 100 times. Or more. I'm for giving the millionaires a break. Let them stay at current rates. Let's see what happens if we add more brackets on the top. And yes, let the highest rate go WAY up there. What is the point of amassing all this wealth in little pockets in the nation when it could be used to the public good? Why are we running up a huge federal debt concurrently to the rise of these ultra-wealthy people, many of whom simply got born into it? That makes no sense. We can balance our federal budget and we can do it out of the pockets of the ultra-wealthy.

Obviously American conservatives have convinced themselves that protecting the right of the very wealthy to increase the amount of wealth they own...is a moral and ethical imperative.

They are pathetically wrong.

That is why none will actually touch the question of just how much a few can own of the total wealth before they (the American conservatives) see it as TOO MUCH.

Right now in America...the richest 1% own 36% of the entire wealth of the nation. The top 20% own 85% of the entire wealth of the nation. The bottom 80% own only 15% of the wealth.

How skewed do those numbers have to go before these people see that it cannot go on?

Why do the ones suggesting the very rich already pay enough not deal with this?

Would the richest 1% owning 70% of the wealth...and the richest 20% owning 99% of the wealth FINALLY BRING THESE PEOPLE TO REALITY?

Or not?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Brown pushed for and backed prop 30 but he was also in office during boomtimes for the stock market which is where California generates much of its revenue. Taxes were already high before he took office

Oh gee golly we all know it’s absolutely impossible for a liberal politician to govern responsibly by balancing a budget by increasing taxes on those who benefit the most from government services. That’s just silly think. We all know that the correct solution is to starve government into bankruptcy and reduce all us peasants into living in stone huts so we don’t need services.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Of course, the premise that rich families are bad for the economy has never been explained....

That’s because it’s a straw man argument. But if you want an argument of why a few rich families dominating all wealth is bad for the economy go read the OP again.

There are a lot of reasons why it’s harmful to a society, such as, it’s politically destabilizing and the take currency out of circulation reducing both opportunities and productivity.

 

[iolo]

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.

Make it the top 1%, and confiscate the lot - that should see off the national debt entirely and allow you to have a decent health service like other people.

 

[iolo]

Who's stealing, you pathetic fuck?

Go feed your goats.

Grow up, infant peasant, and learn English if anyone will teach you. You are stealing all over the world, as you know, and your masters are stealing from you while you lick their arses.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

We all know that the correct solution is to starve government into bankruptcy and reduce all us peasants into living in stone huts so we don’t need services.

don't be silly......we only need to bankrupt the lib'ruls........

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Grow up, infant peasant, and learn English if anyone will teach you. You are stealing all over the world, as you know, and your masters are stealing from you while you lick their arses.

why are you worried......Wales has nothing worth stealing.......

 

[canceled.2021.1]

If you just work hard enough you will be extremely wealthy too. That is why taxing them is bad.
Stay tuned for more Fox Fairy Tales with Hannity, at 11!

No. It is not just about "working hard"

It is about working hard and making good decisions. How many times do you hear about a person of supposedly meager means who passes away only to leave millions to some charity? It isn't an accident. That person didn't stumble upon an inheritance. They didn't win the lottery.

Just the other day BoBo posted about some guy who just left $11 million to a charity. He wasn't "wealthy" by any means. But, he saved. He didn't lead an extravagant lifestyle.

Think about this. If you start work at 22 years of age and average $75,000 a year over the course of your working years, you will have earned $3.3 million over the course of your lifetime. Unfortunately, thanks to leftists the gobblement confiscates close to 50% of that through federal, state, local and sales taxes that you pay throughout your lifetime. The rest you have to try to live and save.

Imagine if the gobblement didn't confiscate so much of our wealthy "trying to help people"

 

[canceled.2021.1]

That’s because it’s a straw man argument. But if you want an argument of why a few rich families dominating all wealth is bad for the economy go read the OP again.

There are a lot of reasons why it’s harmful to a society, such as, it’s politically destabilizing and the take currency out of circulation reducing both opportunities and productivity.

There is no basis in fact for your conclusion. We have had income disparity in this country for generations and what you proclaim to has not come to pass.

There is more to civil unrest than the fact that Buffett has $50 billion and you have $3 to your name.

You act as if there is some equilibrium that can be managed by gobblement. Sort of like your belief in "man made" global warming. You believe there is some magical temperature that the gobblement can control through taxation and regulation.

As always, you are wrong

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The rich take the risk to build the company and have the talent to sustain it. The workers have to make not only their own worth but a profit back to the owner to justify employing him.

But that is just your distraction from my earlier point. What resource, specifically, is limiting such that the rich take it all and mugs go without?

Thats’s true. The argument is what is a fair share of the profit?

The problem with your argument is that a business model isn’t going to be to profitable or sustainable without skilled labor. Whether it’s white color or blue. The American worker is the most productive worker in the world. Mind boggling profits have been made since the 70’s. We’ve also seen huge increases in the productivity of American workers.

The data clearly shows that the profits from that growth in productivity has gone almost exclusively those at the very top of the food chain.

There is a pervasive sense of “Royaly Getting Screwed” When you work for a super wealthy company like Walmart and you can’t make a living...you can see where those resentments might occur.

This disparity, what economists call the Champagne Glass can only continue to grow so far before the stem breaks. If the stem breaks then serious civil unrest and political instability, even collapse, can and has occurred.

So something has to be done to prevent the stem of the Champagne Glass from growing thinner and thinner. The only realistic solution is significant wage increases that lift the overall standards of living.

The point being is you can’t ask people to produce more and more and not profit them. Not in a society as advanced as ours. Labor can only be fucked over for so long before they will fight back and once organized and rolling are damned formidable. This can be avoided if all boats are lifted.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Thats’s true. The argument is what is a fair share of the profit?

The problem with your argument is that a business model isn’t going to be to profitable or sustainable without skilled labor. Whether it’s white color or blue. The American worker is the most productive worker in the world. Mind boggling profits have been made since the 70’s. We’ve also seen huge increases in the productivity of American workers.

The data clearly shows that the profits from that growth in productivity has gone almost exclusively those at the very top of the food chain.

There is a pervasive sense of “Royaly Getting Screwed” When you work for a super wealthy company like Walmart and you can’t make a living...you can see where those resentments might occur.

This disparity, what economists call the Champagne Glass can only continue to grow so far before the stem breaks. If the stem breaks then serious civil unrest and political instability, even collapse, can and has occurred.

So something has to be done to prevent the stem of the Champagne Glass from growing thinner and thinner. The only realistic solution is significant wage increases that lift the overall standards of living.

The point being is you can’t ask people to produce more and more and not profit them. Not in a society as advanced as ours. Labor can only be fucked over for so long before they will fight back and once organized and rolling are damned formidable. This can be avoided if all boats are lifted.

You are so full of shit

You sit here blathering in about theoretical bullshit that has no basis in fact and then you have the nerve to say you support higher wages when your actual policies don’t.

Anyone who claims to support higher wages AND doesn’t want to stem illegal immigration is irrelevant in this conversation. You can’t claim you support higher wages yet want more unskilled labor pouring into our country driving down wages.

You are so economically illiterate.

It isn’t what you leftists don’t know that makes you dangerous. It is what you think you know that your are wrong about that makes you dangerous.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

No, you have confused them. The top marginal tax rate has been cut from very high (70-90%) to about 39%. However, the amount people actually pay (effective rate) has not changed that much. Nobody actually paid 70-90% because there were many more deductions.

I didn't leave anything out. I reported the IRS data for tax rate that includes all those income sources.

Which begs the question. Let’s just have a flat tax rate of 17% for everyone with zero deductions.

Would save a fortune eliminating the IRS

 

[cawacko]

Oh gee golly we all know it’s absolutely impossible for a liberal politician to govern responsibly by balancing a budget by increasing taxes on those who benefit the most from government services. That’s just silly think. We all know that the correct solution is to starve government into bankruptcy and reduce all us peasants into living in stone huts so we don’t need services.

My post was in response to the tweet in the OP that Brown is one of the best governors ever because he raised taxes. He pushed for and got Prop 30 passed but that alone doesn’t make a governor great

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You are so full of shit

You sit here blathering in about theoretical bullshit that has no basis in fact and then you have the nerve to say you support higher wages when your actual policies don’t.

Anyone who claims to support higher wages AND doesn’t want to stem illegal immigration is irrelevant in this conversation. You can’t claim you support higher wages yet want more unskilled labor pouring into our country driving down wages.

You are so economically illiterate.

It isn’t what you leftists don’t know that makes you dangerous. It is what you think you know that your are wrong about that makes you dangerous.

No what makes leftest dangerous is that you’re impotent and they can read.

 

[MAGA MAN]

That’s because it’s a straw man argument. But if you want an argument of why a few rich families dominating all wealth is bad for the economy go read the OP again.

There are a lot of reasons why it’s harmful to a society, such as, it’s politically destabilizing and the take currency out of circulation reducing both opportunities and productivity.

It's only politically destabilizing if you have politicians exploiting ignorance.

How do the rich take currency out of circulation? Are they burying in their basements?

 

[Flash]

Which begs the question. Let’s just have a flat tax rate of 17% for everyone with zero deductions.

Would save a fortune eliminating the IRS

Why would it eliminate the IRS? Some agency still have to collect and enforce the income tax laws. I assume you are talking about a 17% federal income tax?

I don't think it would be politically feasible to tax all income at 17% because you have raised the effective tax rate on everybody but the top 1%. Making low income pay 17% on their entire income would be difficult.

One of the congressional proposals a few years ago would charge 17% on all income over $30,000 which could be raised to about $50,000 today for inflation.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

why are you worried......Wales has nothing worth stealing.......

Mott's had his eye on a couple of fucking flocks!!