Class War Illustrated

[Trajan]

And could I not then argue to you, that by that person not working for that extra 40c on the dollar, the demand will still exist and a smaller firm will then fill that need? Could not I argue that giving the incentive to that same person, he, being the more powerful firm, would then push the would-be competitor into unprofitability, ultimately poverty?

Consider a 2-person economy where those two aforementioned firms are the only participants. When the second would-be competitor is pushed out of the game entirely, who still exists to be a customer for the more powerful firm?

I think there's a healthy middle ground that we are not pursuing.

Well lets explore this from the middle out- what income, in $ is rich in that others get to decide that they are making is ‘too much’ and their contribution to the collective has to increase.?

Yes I have a good idea to good an idea what the tax brackets are and those are very simple benchmarks but lets look at this in grander terms because the media likes to feed us.

47k is the median salary in the US, their tax burden just based on that salary is basically zero.

So whats ‘rich’ where in the rich have to give the gov. say 20% of their income per year? 30%, 50%, 75%?

Society decides, and it's obviously not going to be the same today as it is in 10 years. That's why we have elections and set a new budget every year.

What would I personally like to see? Top-out around 50%. Of course, mathematically it's impossible for anyone to pay the full 50%, because their lower brackets are taxed at the lower bracket rates.

But what I want is as irrelevant as it is inconsequential.

you're dodging cuyo,your answer doesn't address mine really, at all.

sorry but there it is, and I am not asking society, I am asking you and people here.

The point is, we have tried this, and it's failing miserably for most people. Cutting taxes and de-regulating have been taking place for 30 years. Look where we landed! And you seriously want to tell me, the answer is cut more and deregulate more?

I have not said any such thing, I asked a question.

you have constructed a huge strawman.

Maybe you don't care; I don't think that's the case but it's a possibility. You've carved out your niche in society and it's working for you. But I don't think you grasp the futility experienced by young people entering the job market for the first time today. I don't happen to be one of them... But people who work for me are, and certainly people I know are. Dual incomes, all for an SOL lower than their parents and grandparents enjoyed with 1!

you are now making huge assumptions absent any real informed basis to do so, at all.

You are assuming a great deal then crafting self aggrandizing homily's, you are not answering the question.

 

[Cuyo]

Well lets explore this from the middle out- what income, in $ is rich in that others get to decide that they are making is ‘too much’ and their contribution to the collective has to increase.?

Yes I have a good idea to good an idea what the tax brackets are and those are very simple benchmarks but lets look at this in grander terms because the media likes to feed us.

47k is the median salary in the US, their tax burden just based on that salary is basically zero.

So whats ‘rich’ where in the rich have to give the gov. say 20% of their income per year? 30%, 50%, 75%?

Society decides, and it's obviously not going to be the same today as it is in 10 years. That's why we have elections and set a new budget every year.

What would I personally like to see? Top-out around 50%. Of course, mathematically it's impossible for anyone to pay the full 50%, because their lower brackets are taxed at the lower bracket rates.

But what I want is as irrelevant as it is inconsequential.

you're dodging cuyo,your answer doesn't address mine really, at all.

sorry but there it is, and I am not asking society, I am asking you and people here.

The point is, we have tried this, and it's failing miserably for most people. Cutting taxes and de-regulating have been taking place for 30 years. Look where we landed! And you seriously want to tell me, the answer is cut more and deregulate more?

I have not said any such thing, I asked a question.

you have constructed a huge strawman.

Maybe you don't care; I don't think that's the case but it's a possibility. You've carved out your niche in society and it's working for you. But I don't think you grasp the futility experienced by young people entering the job market for the first time today. I don't happen to be one of them... But people who work for me are, and certainly people I know are. Dual incomes, all for an SOL lower than their parents and grandparents enjoyed with 1!

you are now making huge assumptions absent any real informed basis to do so, at all.

You are assuming a great deal then crafting self aggrandizing homily's, you are not answering the question.

I gave you the answer to your question. But the question - And answer - are irrelevant to the conversation. You're seeking a sum-certain that I would like to see as the top tax rate, to which I answered 50%. I'd also like to see capital gains, inheritance and gifts taxed identically to wages, as well as the upper limits removed from payroll taxes. But again - Sum certain is irrelevant. We're having a discussion on overall ideology.

And I made no assumptions. That entire post was silly and you know it. I said I don't think that's the case but it's possible, and pointed out that I don't think you grasp the plight of people trying to enter this shitty job market.

So now that I've addressed your concerns directly, please address mine.

 

[manifold]

That's a bit of an oversimplification. Probably plays well with guys like editec.

 

[Cuyo]

The basis for the left's encouragement of class warfare is that all money belongs to the government

'Wealth'. The word you want is 'wealth'. All the money does, by law, belong to the Fed/Mint.

"Tax Breaks" encourage businesses to stay in the US and expand

And yet as they keep getting tax cut after tax cut, they continue to outsource jobs.

Don't let obvious facts get in the way of blissful blind ideology.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Tax cuts don't cost the taxpayer anything so the whole comparison is BULLSHIT.

That's an (odd) opinion... And we're not talking about the budget.

If we were talking about the budget, I'd point out that whether you call it a 'Cost' or not is utterly irrelevant to the fiscal impact. More semantics from the RW echo chamber.

What do you think the heading on that chart in the OP titled "Tax Breaks For the Rich" means?

And tell me what is odd about the statement that tax cuts do not cost the taxpayer anything?

Indeed a tax cut leaves taxpayers with more of their own money not less. Government spending is what costs the taxpayers money let's not forget that.

 

[Trajan]

Society decides, and it's obviously not going to be the same today as it is in 10 years. That's why we have elections and set a new budget every year.

What would I personally like to see? Top-out around 50%. Of course, mathematically it's impossible for anyone to pay the full 50%, because their lower brackets are taxed at the lower bracket rates.

But what I want is as irrelevant as it is inconsequential.

you're dodging cuyo,your answer doesn't address mine really, at all.

sorry but there it is, and I am not asking society, I am asking you and people here.







I have not said any such thing, I asked a question.

you have constructed a huge strawman.

Maybe you don't care; I don't think that's the case but it's a possibility. You've carved out your niche in society and it's working for you. But I don't think you grasp the futility experienced by young people entering the job market for the first time today. I don't happen to be one of them... But people who work for me are, and certainly people I know are. Dual incomes, all for an SOL lower than their parents and grandparents enjoyed with 1!

you are now making huge assumptions absent any real informed basis to do so, at all.

You are assuming a great deal then crafting self aggrandizing homily's, you are not answering the question.

I gave you the answer to your question. But the question - And answer - are irrelevant to the conversation. You're seeking a sum-certain that I would like to see as the top tax rate, to which I answered 50%. I'd also like to see capital gains, inheritance and gifts taxed identically to wages, as well as the upper limits removed from payroll taxes. But again - Sum certain is irrelevant. We're having a discussion on overall ideology.

And I made no assumptions. That entire post was silly and you know it. I said I don't think that's the case but it's possible, and pointed out that I don't think you grasp the plight of people trying to enter this shitty job market.

So now that I've addressed your concerns directly, please address mine.

not quite-

this is the meat of my question-

So whats ‘rich’ where in the rich have to give the gov. say 20% of their income per year? 30%, 50%, 75%?

so lets say a bus man who after operating costs etc.for is bus., OR a salary slave, his personal net income ala AGI for;

5 Million, 1 million, 500k, 250k..150k 100k 75k..his tax on those amount should be...50%, 30, 20 10...what?

its not supposed to be exact, but it will give us a ballpark I think.


and this is part of an ideological discussion, I am trying to determine what your views are on distribution and re-distribution, via an individual, I made a post where in spoke to that in the ideological sense, a now we need to solidify some points.

when we have discussed mine, which I proffered first, I will be more than happy to discuss yours. The OP by the way spoke to what it thinks are hard numbers, so?

may I have the answers please?

 

[Cuyo]

not quite-

this is the meat of my question-

So whats ‘rich’ where in the rich have to give the gov. say 20% of their income per year? 30%, 50%, 75%?

so lets say a bus man who after operating costs etc.for is bus., OR a salary slave, his personal net income ala AGI for;

5 Million, 1 million, 500k, 250k..150k 100k 75k..his tax on those amount should be...50%, 30, 20 10...what?

its not supposed to be exact, but it will give us a ballpark I think.


and this is part of an ideological discussion, I am trying to determine what your views are on distribution and re-distribution, via an individual, I made a post where in spoke to that in the ideological sense, a now we need to solidify some points.

when we have discussed mine, which I proffered first, I will be more than happy to discuss yours. The OP by the way spoke to what it thinks are hard numbers, so?

may I have the answers please?

Trajan, I just don't find it relevant for me to pick numbers, when we're talking about overall ideology. I'm by no means an expert in the field nor have I prepared myself for such a question.

But, to appease you so we can move on (though I think you're trying to march me down a road where I don't want to go), let's say I propose returning to Clinton's numbers with an additional bracket of 50% for wages above $1m. As stated I'd also like upper limits removed from payroll taxes, and capital gains, inheritance, and gifts taxed identical to wages. EITC should be eliminated, as should dependent write-offs for non-working spouse and children.

edit: And why do Republicans like to issue the question of 'What rich is?' It's just such a silly sophistry to phrase the question that way... 'Rich' is so different across a broad array of criteria that any definition of 'Rich' could be easily defeated.

 

[Cuyo]

Tax cuts don't cost the taxpayer anything so the whole comparison is BULLSHIT.

That's an (odd) opinion... And we're not talking about the budget.

If we were talking about the budget, I'd point out that whether you call it a 'Cost' or not is utterly irrelevant to the fiscal impact. More semantics from the RW echo chamber.

What do you think the heading on that chart in the OP titled "Tax Breaks For the Rich" means?

And tell me what is odd about the statement that tax cuts do not cost the taxpayer anything?

Indeed a tax cut leaves taxpayers with more of their own money not less. Government spending is what costs the taxpayers money let's not forget that.

In your checkbook - What the heck is the difference in the bottom line if the deposits get smaller or the outlays get bigger? Nothin... The point is that when either happens your bottom line is lower.

 

[kiwiman127]

Another fact filled thread about wealth gap/redistribution of wealth upwards/war on the middle class and of course the deniers NEVER come up with anything factual to contradict the argument.
But true to their ideology, they still think they are right. It's sad and hilarious.

 

[Trajan]

not quite-

this is the meat of my question-

So whats ‘rich’ where in the rich have to give the gov. say 20% of their income per year? 30%, 50%, 75%?

so lets say a bus man who after operating costs etc.for is bus., OR a salary slave, his personal net income ala AGI for;

5 Million, 1 million, 500k, 250k..150k 100k 75k..his tax on those amount should be...50%, 30, 20 10...what?

its not supposed to be exact, but it will give us a ballpark I think.


and this is part of an ideological discussion, I am trying to determine what your views are on distribution and re-distribution, via an individual, I made a post where in spoke to that in the ideological sense, a now we need to solidify some points.

when we have discussed mine, which I proffered first, I will be more than happy to discuss yours. The OP by the way spoke to what it thinks are hard numbers, so?

may I have the answers please?

Trajan, I just don't find it relevant for me to pick numbers, when we're talking about overall ideology. I'm by no means an expert in the field nor have I prepared myself for such a question.

But, to appease you so we can move on (though I think you're trying to march me down a road where I don't want to go), let's say I propose returning to Clinton's numbers with an additional bracket of 50% for wages above $1m. As stated I'd also like upper limits removed from payroll taxes, and capital gains, inheritance, and gifts taxed identical to wages. EITC should be eliminated, as should write-offs for non-working spouse and children.

edit: And why do Republicans like to issue the question of 'What rich is?' It's just such a silly sophistry to phrase the question that way... 'Rich' is so different across a broad array of criteria that any definition of 'Rich' could be easily defeated.

I am not trying to lead you anywhere. I am asking for a framework, the terms rich and poor are thrown around willy nilly of course its subjective to an extent.

The op listed the usual tired graphic that speaks to the rich get off easy because they also the evil rich want to cut things while their shares of ‘tax cuts’ could pay for them......its ludicrous, the comparison is strained at best.

But money the end result in most cases of riches, the portion kept and not taxed of someone labor is represented by, dollars.

Its very easy, what portion of someone’s labor represented by dollars should he/she have to surrender? It’s the only metric we can quantify across the board is it not? I don't care what has been or is.

Frankly I think you are trying to lead me into an emotional argument, and no, I won’t go there because it doesn’t matter.
My personal feelings mean little in this context, say; I think defense needs more, you may think AFDC needs more...so it’s a wash. You think college should be free, I don’t...who cares?

I am trying to determine what you and others here think; what labor and the wealth derived there by should be subject to taking for the collective? I don’t know any other way to say it.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The answer isn't higher taxes any more than the answer is lower taxes. The answer is fair taxes.

7 + 7 on 3

7% general sales tax on every transaction, 7% tax on income in excess of $3 million for citizens, all income for non-citizens.

Buy a Ferrari, pay Ferrari tax - Buy a 7-year old Hyundai, pay less.

 

[Trajan]

The answer isn't higher taxes any more than the answer is lower taxes. The answer is fair taxes.

7 + 7 on 3

7% general sales tax on every transaction, 7% tax on income in excess of $3 million for citizens, all income for non-citizens.

Buy a Ferrari, pay Ferrari tax - Buy a 7-year old Hyundai, pay less.

that won't satisfy them.

and you know it won't be 7% for long.

 

[Foxfyre]

The answer isn't higher taxes any more than the answer is lower taxes. The answer is fair taxes.

7 + 7 on 3

7% general sales tax on every transaction, 7% tax on income in excess of $3 million for citizens, all income for non-citizens.

Buy a Ferrari, pay Ferrari tax - Buy a 7-year old Hyundai, pay less.

The only 'fair' tax is a tax that benefits all rather than any particular person or groups and that is necessary for the most effective and efficient society and cannot be accomplished more effectively and efficiently by the private sector.

So long as the mentality is that it is the government's role to rescue people from the consequences of their circumstances or choices, we will have unmanageable graft, corruption, and self-serving motives built into the system.

The governments role should be to promote the general welfare--meaning everybody equally regardless of their circumstances--and secure the rights of the people so that they can otherwise form whatever society they wish to have and pursue happiness as they see fit.

Nothing should ever be seen as belonging to the government in this country, but everything belongs to the people. And those we elect to government should be ever conscious of that and treat the people's property with as much respect and diligence as they would their own.

 

[cutter]

Our government will never be happy. You could give them 14 trillion every year and they would spend all of it and borrow more. Most Congress Critters think their job is to spend everything instead of managing the country's finances. They figure by the time the bill comes due they'll be dead and it will be someone else's problem. Everyone of them, except the Paul's, deserves to go to hell for what they've done to our country.

 

[Cuyo]

not quite-

this is the meat of my question-

So whats ‘rich’ where in the rich have to give the gov. say 20% of their income per year? 30%, 50%, 75%?

so lets say a bus man who after operating costs etc.for is bus., OR a salary slave, his personal net income ala AGI for;

5 Million, 1 million, 500k, 250k..150k 100k 75k..his tax on those amount should be...50%, 30, 20 10...what?

its not supposed to be exact, but it will give us a ballpark I think.


and this is part of an ideological discussion, I am trying to determine what your views are on distribution and re-distribution, via an individual, I made a post where in spoke to that in the ideological sense, a now we need to solidify some points.

when we have discussed mine, which I proffered first, I will be more than happy to discuss yours. The OP by the way spoke to what it thinks are hard numbers, so?

may I have the answers please?

Trajan, I just don't find it relevant for me to pick numbers, when we're talking about overall ideology. I'm by no means an expert in the field nor have I prepared myself for such a question.

But, to appease you so we can move on (though I think you're trying to march me down a road where I don't want to go), let's say I propose returning to Clinton's numbers with an additional bracket of 50% for wages above $1m. As stated I'd also like upper limits removed from payroll taxes, and capital gains, inheritance, and gifts taxed identical to wages. EITC should be eliminated, as should write-offs for non-working spouse and children.

edit: And why do Republicans like to issue the question of 'What rich is?' It's just such a silly sophistry to phrase the question that way... 'Rich' is so different across a broad array of criteria that any definition of 'Rich' could be easily defeated.

I am not trying to lead you anywhere. I am asking for a framework, the terms rich and poor are thrown around willy nilly of course its subjective to an extent.

The op listed the usual tired graphic that speaks to the rich get off easy because they also the evil rich want to cut things while their shares of ‘tax cuts’ could pay for them......its ludicrous, the comparison is strained at best.

But money the end result in most cases of riches, the portion kept and not taxed of someone labor is represented by, dollars.

Its very easy, what portion of someone’s labor represented by dollars should he/she have to surrender? It’s the only metric we can quantify across the board is it not? I don't care what has been or is.

Frankly I think you are trying to lead me into an emotional argument, and no, I won’t go there because it doesn’t matter.
My personal feelings mean little in this context, say; I think defense needs more, you may think AFDC needs more...so it’s a wash. You think college should be free, I don’t...who cares?

I am trying to determine what you and others here think; what labor and the wealth derived there by should be subject to taking for the collective? I don’t know any other way to say it.

T... I think this time, I very specifically answered the question. See red highlight. I don't know how I can be any more specific or what exactly you're asking me for.

 

[Foxfyre]

Our government will never be happy. You could give them 14 trillion every year and they would spend all of it and borrow more. Most Congress Critters think their job is to spend everything instead of managing the country's finances. They figure by the time the bill comes due they'll be dead and it will be someone else's problem. Everyone of them, except the Paul's, deserves to go to hell for what they've done to our country.

Well I won't consign them to hell because all of us are guilty of good intentions that produce very bad consequences and I have to believe that is the case with at least some of our elected leaders.

But I do think getting away from basic constitutional principles has corrupted the people so that most of those who now go to Washington generally lose sight of any idealism they once held and they become focused on increasing their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes at the people's expense. They become masters of trying to make themselves look really good while passing the consequences of what they do on down the road to other administrations and/or other generations. And they know it won't be them who will likely be blamed when the chickens finally go home to roost.

Well the chickens are roosting on stuff voted in many years ago and, unless we turn it around, that is only going to get worse.

You're right that Congress will spend however much it has to spend and more if the people allow that. We have allowed it for far too long. Some have become so dependent on a corrupt system that they vigorously resist any change in that system. Witness what has been going on in Wisconisn in recent weeks.

The only way to tame the beast is to starve it. And that means let them have only as much money as they absolutely have to have to fulfill the constitutional responsibilities of government.

 

[mnbasketball]

come on guys, it's the same with the inheritance tax. It was put into place to make sure a few families do not pass on wealth generation to generation which would give them a big advantage. The country is based on doing the best you can and getting as much as you can and most people don't have a problem with that.

But the truth is that most of the cost of running the country is so there is a place where you can go after your dream. But what most want on this board is an unfettered way to do it like they shouldn't be held to bigger share of paying for this system.

Most people are happy just getting a life out of our system, that they aren't trying to get all they can. But the truth is without them there is no system to improve with.
Everything in this country is slanted towards those who want to better themselves and they have done that at a high rate of success. But now that isn't good enough, as those who are elected are busy making sure they are aided in that attemp, while the rest of the country who is the major part is force to pay for much of what the wealthy have to have to get rich.

the truth is, those who have st-rived for the top have had pretty good results as they went from owing 40% of everything 60 years ago to 85% now. They don't need more tax cuts and breaks, the middle class are those in the 30% to 80% of the population, who are the ones who are suffering.


What makes any of you to think they need more help?

A year ago the koch bros were worth 36 billion, today that is 44 billion, do you think they need more tax breaks so they can do what?

 

[Foxfyre]

come on guys, it's the same with the inheritance tax. It was put into place to make sure a few families do not pass on wealth generation to generation which would give them a big advantage. The country is based on doing the best you can and getting as much as you can and most people don't have a problem with that.

But the truth is that most of the cost of running the country is so there is a place where you can go after your dream. But what most want on this board is an unfettered way to do it like they shouldn't be held to bigger share of paying for this system.

Most people are happy just getting a life out of our system, that they aren't trying to get all they can. But the truth is without them there is no system to improve with.
Everything in this country is slanted towards those who want to better themselves and they have done that at a high rate of success. But now that isn't good enough, as those who are elected are busy making sure they are aided in that attemp, while the rest of the country who is the major part is force to pay for much of what the wealthy have to have to get rich.

the truth is, those who have st-rived for the top have had pretty good results as they went from owing 40% of everything 60 years ago to 85% now. They don't need more tax cuts and breaks, the middle class are those in the 30% to 80% of the population, who are the ones who are suffering.


What makes any of you to think they need more help?

A year ago the koch bros were worth 36 billion, today that is 44 billion, do you think they need more tax breaks so they can do what?

What makes you think that Citizen A who chose to do what he needed to do to become prosperous owes anything to Citizen B who chose not to do what he needed to do to become prosperous?

 

[hipeter924]

The answer isn't higher taxes any more than the answer is lower taxes. The answer is fair taxes.

7 + 7 on 3

7% general sales tax on every transaction, 7% tax on income in excess of $3 million for citizens, all income for non-citizens.

Buy a Ferrari, pay Ferrari tax - Buy a 7-year old Hyundai, pay less.

that won't satisfy them.

and you know it won't be 7% for long.

7 x 7 = 49%

Who knows, that might get every congressman or senator a nice coffee, but not much else, they would never actually spend it on the people or on anything but themselves.

 

[mnbasketball]

well foxfrye it's like this, everything is about two things, providing a work force and paying for things that a workforce needs to survive. The only thing the govt does for the citizen is make sure those who would abuse the country and its people can't or are held accountable.


Tell me anything that the govt does beyond helping the poor that doesn't help provide what is needed for business to operate! What is done just for the purpose of helping a citizen that doesn't end up providing help for the business community or has been created to oversee what business does because they can't be trusted?