War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[The Rabbi]

Hey rabbit, If the ultra wealthy had all the income, they could pay all the income tax.

If the ultra wealthy had no income, they wouldn't have to pay ANY income tax. And they would still be ultra wealthy. And you all would be denied one of your favorite rants.

You think the loss of millions of good paying manufacturing jobs caused the amount of income tax collected from the middle class to drop? Probably not knowing how weird you think.

Here's an easy one rabbit. Which person pays more in income tax. The person with 150k in income or the person with 30k income.

Zeke, man. Can you sober up for 2 seconds and answer whether you understand the difference between wealthy and high income?

 

[RKMBrown]

I

Today the members of the hoi polloi find fees rising for everything - .

so do the top 1% . Under Reagan they paid 22% of all federal tax, now they pay 40%. The govt can waste all the money there is!!

Think about that dude. . People pay tax on income. The more income the more tax paid. Ultra rich and rich people have seen large increases in their income. Of fucking course they pay more tax now. Their income is greater. Much greater..

You act like that increase in the amount of tax paid is the result of an increase in rates. It ain't fucking so.
It's because they have the increase in income.

Not so fast. That's not how the math works.

Here's what happened: (gobblydigook)

Before the first three quintiles of income earners were paying a lot more taxes. Now they pay pretty much zero for the first two quintiles to very low for the third quintile. The bottom three quintiles of income earners have passed their share of the tax burden to the two upper quintiles. Thus the massive increase in relative amounts paid by the upper quintiles.

You as stupid as your buddy boss ain't ya.

Are you really trying to claim the taxes went up a substantial amount on the ultra rich?

It's one of two things you idiot. Either rates went up on the ultra rich or their incomes went up. And we know it wasn't the rates that increased. And we absolutely know that their income has risen dramatically.

And nobody "passed their share" to anybody. If you have no income, less income or declining income, you will pay less in tax. If you have more, increasing income you pay more tax. Now which groups you mentioned have seen the increase in income?

Math is just not your strong suit is it?

Simple example. Two workers over three years. Worker 1 earns 10 apples, worker 2 earns 20 apples. Taxes in the first year take 2 apples from worker 1 (20% tax), and 6 apples from worker 2 (30% tax). With me so far? In year two worker 1 gets a 100% tax break and worker 2 gets a 50% tax break. That means worker 1 gets 2 apples back and worker 2 gets 3 apples back. You would call that tax cuts for the rich because worker 2 got more apples back, right? The government only collected 3 apples from worker 2 but guess what, the richer guy paid all of the taxes with the poor guy paying no taxes at all. The poor guy takes home 10 apples the rich guy a whooping 17 apples, not fair huh?

Anyhow in year 3 worker 2 gets a 20% raise so now he's making 24 apples! (evil rich guys taking all the apples...) Also in year 3 the tax breaks for rick folk are voted out so the rich guy is back to 30% taxes. So now the rich guy is paying a little over 7 apples, with the poor guy still paying nothing.

That explains one of the reasons the upper middle class is paying a larger share in taxes.. 1) the Bush tax cuts for the "rich" are gone; 2) the people with less income still have the Bush tax cuts.

 

[RKMBrown]

Hey rabbit, If the ultra wealthy had all the income, they could pay all the income tax.

If the ultra wealthy had no income, they wouldn't have to pay ANY income tax. And they would still be ultra wealthy. And you all would be denied one of your favorite rants.

You think the loss of millions of good paying manufacturing jobs caused the amount of income tax collected from the middle class to drop? Probably not knowing how weird you think.

Here's an easy one rabbit. Which person pays more in income tax. The person with 150k in income or the person with 30k income.

Zeke, man. Can you sober up for 2 seconds and answer whether you understand the difference between wealthy and high income?

Ayup... if you really want to tax the rich it's gonna have to be with a property tax or some other form of tax on existing assets. The really rich folks don't need jobs, they don't need income for that matter. They can live on company properties, drive company cars, eat company food, and fly on company jets. Oh yeah... and they can leave with their money if we try to go after it.

 

[Boss]

And you stupid fuck, the topic was taxes paid on taxable "income".
Are you smart enough to understand that income tax is paid on taxable income. Or is that two hard for you to understand? LMAO.

No, the topic was raising taxes on "the rich" by raising top marginal income tax rates. You argue that all rich people have very high incomes and they've seen their incomes increase substantially in recent years, so we need to jack up the top marginal rates so the rich pay their fair share.

But what you are arguing and what is factual, are two different things. Income taxes are paid on earned income. Most "rich people" don't earn income. They receive dividends on investments, but they no longer need to earn incomes... they are rich. The people who are earning the high incomes you want to tax, are small business owners. These are people trying to become rich, they haven't gotten there yet.

Now what you want to do to tax "the rich" is raise the tax rates for investment dividends. But there is a problem with that too. You see, these "rich people" do not NEED to invest. We need for them to, in order to have capital available for business expansion and growth. The less of their money you have being invested, the more it costs to finance anything. We can return to 21% prime interest rates again, like we had under Jimmy Carter, but most economists would say that's a really bad idea.

 

[Boss]

Ayup... if you really want to tax the rich it's gonna have to be with a property tax or some other form of tax on existing assets. The really rich folks don't need jobs, they don't need income for that matter. They can live on company properties, drive company cars, eat company food, and fly on company jets. Oh yeah... and they can leave with their money if we try to go after it.

Property and existing assets are already taxed. Whenever you raise taxes on anything, you get less of it happening. So if you raise tax on property, more of it will be liquidated. Many wealthy people are already acutely aware of this 'movement' to confiscate their wealth, and have taken appropriate measures to secure their wealth. Some invest in tax-free municipal bonds... you wanna start taxing those? We'll see cities become ghost towns overnight.

You wanna tax offshore investments? Okay, what about these countries who depend on those investments? Collapsing the world economy doesn't seem very smart to me. Cutting off the money supply to our allies doesn't seem like a very diplomatic thing to do. The bottom line is, no matter what you come up with, the rich will find a way around it and you'll end up with an even bigger problem on your hands.

I've said all along, the best thing to do would be to get rid of the income tax and go to a consumption tax. The rich can't escape a consumption tax. Nor can the millions of people operating under the table and avoiding income tax.

 

[haissem123]

No need in chronicling the various left-wing memes, we see them daily being presented as "arguments" for justifying this insidious war against the wealthy. Form the anti-capitalists bemoaning "multi-national corporations" to the Occutards who seem to think "Wall Street" is this lumbering out-of-control monster that is gobbling up everyone's wealth except for the wealthiest. Oh... and those evil "bankers" who simply have all this unlimited supply of money and won't willingly hand it out to deadbeat liberals because they are just mean and greedy.

On and on, these people have convinced themselves that it's a great idea and 'noble cause' to wage all-out war on the rich. It is arguably the most stupid political idea ever in the history of mankind, and I am here to tell you why.

The first and foremost reason is, it's a losing strategy. In fact, it is worse of a boondoggle than Vietnam ever could have hoped to be. It's literally a war that cannot ever be won. Rich people, it just so happens, are very smart when it comes to their wealth. This fact of the matter has prompted the formation of such sayings as... "A fool and his money are soon parted." Their ability to be one step ahead of you is astonishing and impressive to say the least. No matter how much you may believe that we can use the forces of government to confiscate the wealth of the rich, it ain't ever going to happen. The more you try, the more you fail.

What you manage to do in the process is bomb your own facilities and resources. You plant land mines for unsuspecting middle-income people trying to obtain wealth through small business. You rig booby-traps for poor people who are struggling to get to middle-income with better jobs. The so-called "rich" are rarely ever affected by your actions. They simply remain a few moves ahead of you, and we never touch their wealth.

Okay, so we're going to "punish" these wealthy people and corporations by burdening them with high income taxes and corporate tax, more regulations and fines, more penalties and fees... but it never works. Tax the rich person's earned income more and they stop earning income, because they are rich and don't have to earn income anymore. Make it harder for a corporation and they close the doors or move someplace else. More regulations, mandates, burdens... they simply eliminate jobs. Obamacare alone is responsible for trillions of dollars in potential raises and bonuses for the middle-income that will never be realized now. You see, you gifted to them the ultimate excuse... "no pay raise this year... Obamacare!"

Wall Street is a location in New York City, it's where capitalists go to trade public stocks with each other in our free market capitalist system. All the crap we hear about Wall Street would lead one to believe a silver stake is needed to kill this horrible evil creature who is destroying us all. If we don't have this location in NYC where capitalists can freely trade their public stocks, what do you think will take the place of it? Because, capitalists are still going to be capitalists, it's what they do. So think about that for a moment, and explain to me what you envision the alternative would be to a Wall Street?

Okay, so we're going to "punish" all these greedy capitalists on Wall Street by implementing all sorts of trade restrictions and penalties, heap more hassle and burden on them to prevent them capitalizing TOO much... Wrong! What you are going to do is force capitalists away from your market and allow foreign markets to obtain a portion of their wealth instead. *You see, as much as you may hate the rich, other countries seem to really LIKE the rich. (*I mention this for the sheeple out there who like to follow what other countries do.)

For the past 8 years of this de facto "war against the rich" being waged by the left, we've managed to keep the economy floating by borrowing and printing more money. We've infused trillions of dollars so far, and will continue to do this as long as Obama and the Democrats are in charge politically. Now this is all money we will have to repay at some point, but for now, it's keeping the economy of America from going tits up. As this has happened, the screws have been tightened on the 'rich greedy capitalists' but the results are not forthcoming. In fact, they are moving in the opposite direction rather rapidly. Wealthy capitalists are at least two moves ahead at all times. It's how they got to be rich, for the most part.

So, ostensibly, you are waging a war you can't win against an enemy who cannot be defeated. In the process, you are destroying yourself and your only remaining resources. You will only be able to borrow and print for so long to float the economy. The only proven thing in the history of man to ever recover any failing economy is free market capitalism. Some will brazenly claim "Keynesianism" has worked, but the only times where Keynes policies ever were successful, were under a ripe and ready capitalist economy. You can't have Keynesianism without Capitalism, the numbers simply don't work.

Oh, but what about the terrible growing disparity in wealth? Well, what about that? Okay, imagine a marathon race... this represents the acquisition of wealth. In the marathon are competitors who are well-trained athletes, who know how to win, who have trained hard to win, and will ultimately be in a position to win. Also, we have some couch potatoes who have never had much interest in the race, they are just there for the free gatorade. Then there are a whole bunch of people in the middle, who are not couch potatoes or athletes, but honestly hope to be able to compete and do well in the race. Now.... logically speaking, who is going to likely lead this race and extend their lead as the race progresses? Is there ever going to be a time where the couch potatoes are gaining more ground on the athletes and catching up, or are the athletes always going to be pulling away?

The point of the analogy is, the wealthy naturally become wealthier at a faster rate than the poor. So, this "gap" is normal in a free capitalist system and it's normal for the "gap" to continue to grow. Now, what can be done about this? Well, one thing that doesn't ever work is to hobble the athlete so the couch potatoes can catch up, because the couch potato is only interested in free gatorade, they had just as soon not race at all. The best alternative to deal with this growing disparity is to motivate the couch potato. Get them into the race. They may not ever win, they may not ever catch the athlete, but if they are at least competing, they are improving the situation and limiting the growing disparity. At the same time, you encourage the athletes to mentor the competitors in the middle who earnestly want to learn to be a better athlete. There are any number of free market ways to do this, we just need to explore those possibilities. But we first need to take the ball and chain off the legs of the athletes and admit this is a stupid idea.

Or now.... We CAN do as Chairman Mao tried to do in China... Gather all the rich greedy capitalists in front of an open ditch and put a bullet in their head, confiscate their assets and try to implement anti-capitalism as a legitimate form of government. Last time, it resulted in 70 million deaths and still didn't work.

when any peoples let a few take much more then they are worth at the expense and very lives of others, that people is doomed and must reset the so called worth of their most valuable players. any team spelt with all eyes cannot see it's own demise. just like now. we have billionaires everywhere and wonder why the world is going to hell literally. wake up you greedy bastards. you aren't worth billions and when hell's fires erupt around you all you will all scream out "my God what have I done'" but it will be too late then. don't worry. it will be a dry heat. enjoy

 

[haissem123]

And you stupid fuck, the topic was taxes paid on taxable "income".
Are you smart enough to understand that income tax is paid on taxable income. Or is that two hard for you to understand? LMAO.

No, the topic was raising taxes on "the rich" by raising top marginal income tax rates. You argue that all rich people have very high incomes and they've seen their incomes increase substantially in recent years, so we need to jack up the top marginal rates so the rich pay their fair share.

But what you are arguing and what is factual, are two different things. Income taxes are paid on earned income. Most "rich people" don't earn income. They receive dividends on investments, but they no longer need to earn incomes... they are rich. The people who are earning the high incomes you want to tax, are small business owners. These are people trying to become rich, they haven't gotten there yet.

Now what you want to do to tax "the rich" is raise the tax rates for investment dividends. But there is a problem with that too. You see, these "rich people" do not NEED to invest. We need for them to, in order to have capital available for business expansion and growth. The less of their money you have being invested, the more it costs to finance anything. We can return to 21% prime interest rates again, like we had under Jimmy Carter, but most economists would say that's a really bad idea.

there's plenty of work to be done but you all want to make tinnker toys and shiny phones. don't mind the fires burning around you. lol. we need you to invest. that's funny. we need you to create jobs. hilarious. go to hell you erroneous owners of this collapsing and doomed world of vanity.

 

[RKMBrown]

Ayup... if you really want to tax the rich it's gonna have to be with a property tax or some other form of tax on existing assets. The really rich folks don't need jobs, they don't need income for that matter. They can live on company properties, drive company cars, eat company food, and fly on company jets. Oh yeah... and they can leave with their money if we try to go after it.

Property and existing assets are already taxed. Whenever you raise taxes on anything, you get less of it happening. So if you raise tax on property, more of it will be liquidated. Many wealthy people are already acutely aware of this 'movement' to confiscate their wealth, and have taken appropriate measures to secure their wealth. Some invest in tax-free municipal bonds... you wanna start taxing those? We'll see cities become ghost towns overnight.

You wanna tax offshore investments? Okay, what about these countries who depend on those investments? Collapsing the world economy doesn't seem very smart to me. Cutting off the money supply to our allies doesn't seem like a very diplomatic thing to do. The bottom line is, no matter what you come up with, the rich will find a way around it and you'll end up with an even bigger problem on your hands.

I've said all along, the best thing to do would be to get rid of the income tax and go to a consumption tax. The rich can't escape a consumption tax. Nor can the millions of people operating under the table and avoiding income tax.

Just as taxing labor slows labor, taxing consumption slows consumption. But yes IMO taxing consumption is the best type of tax of the many bad types of taxes. voiding consumption tax on property is done, with the proviso that there is an annual smaller property tax. I'd like to see property taxes capped to the consumption (sales tax) rate. IOW when you buy a house you pay property taxes on that house till the sum adds up to the sales tax rate.

 

[haissem123]

And you stupid fuck, the topic was taxes paid on taxable "income".
Are you smart enough to understand that income tax is paid on taxable income. Or is that two hard for you to understand? LMAO.

No, the topic was raising taxes on "the rich" by raising top marginal income tax rates. You argue that all rich people have very high incomes and they've seen their incomes increase substantially in recent years, so we need to jack up the top marginal rates so the rich pay their fair share.

But what you are arguing and what is factual, are two different things. Income taxes are paid on earned income. Most "rich people" don't earn income. They receive dividends on investments, but they no longer need to earn incomes... they are rich. The people who are earning the high incomes you want to tax, are small business owners. These are people trying to become rich, they haven't gotten there yet.

Now what you want to do to tax "the rich" is raise the tax rates for investment dividends. But there is a problem with that too. You see, these "rich people" do not NEED to invest. We need for them to, in order to have capital available for business expansion and growth. The less of their money you have being invested, the more it costs to finance anything. We can return to 21% prime interest rates again, like we had under Jimmy Carter, but most economists would say that's a really bad idea.

there's plenty of work to be done but you all want to make tinnker toys and shiny phones. don't mind the fires burning around you. lol. we need you to invest. that's funny. we need you to create jobs. hilarious. go to hell you erroneous owners of this collapsing and doomed world of vanity.

ya, the billions made on selling others lives isn't taxable income. stupid. because the rich made those billions giving us worth and jobs and we should be glad they did so and not tax them on selling the lives and souls of their fellow man. don't worry be happy they are running this world right into the ground. it's the human way. destroy rebuild and slave for a few vain spoiled children. we will all be better for it.

 

[haissem123]

Ayup... if you really want to tax the rich it's gonna have to be with a property tax or some other form of tax on existing assets. The really rich folks don't need jobs, they don't need income for that matter. They can live on company properties, drive company cars, eat company food, and fly on company jets. Oh yeah... and they can leave with their money if we try to go after it.

Property and existing assets are already taxed. Whenever you raise taxes on anything, you get less of it happening. So if you raise tax on property, more of it will be liquidated. Many wealthy people are already acutely aware of this 'movement' to confiscate their wealth, and have taken appropriate measures to secure their wealth. Some invest in tax-free municipal bonds... you wanna start taxing those? We'll see cities become ghost towns overnight.

You wanna tax offshore investments? Okay, what about these countries who depend on those investments? Collapsing the world economy doesn't seem very smart to me. Cutting off the money supply to our allies doesn't seem like a very diplomatic thing to do. The bottom line is, no matter what you come up with, the rich will find a way around it and you'll end up with an even bigger problem on your hands.

I've said all along, the best thing to do would be to get rid of the income tax and go to a consumption tax. The rich can't escape a consumption tax. Nor can the millions of people operating under the table and avoiding income tax.

Just as taxing labor slows labor, taxing consumption slows consumption. But yes IMO taxing consumption is the best type of tax of the many bad types of taxes. voiding consumption tax on property is done, with the proviso that there is an annual smaller property tax. I'd like to see property taxes capped to the consumption (sales tax) rate. IOW when you buy a house you pay property taxes on that house till the sum adds up to the sales tax rate.

move out to the sticks if you want lower property tax. if you can't handle the tax get out of the kitchen in the higher markets. it's just the business you have chosen. supply and demand and judging of others worth. stop complaining about property tax and start increasing investment taxes as if the rich need more incentives to sell us all out. dah

 

[Boss]

Ayup... if you really want to tax the rich it's gonna have to be with a property tax or some other form of tax on existing assets. The really rich folks don't need jobs, they don't need income for that matter. They can live on company properties, drive company cars, eat company food, and fly on company jets. Oh yeah... and they can leave with their money if we try to go after it.

Property and existing assets are already taxed. Whenever you raise taxes on anything, you get less of it happening. So if you raise tax on property, more of it will be liquidated. Many wealthy people are already acutely aware of this 'movement' to confiscate their wealth, and have taken appropriate measures to secure their wealth. Some invest in tax-free municipal bonds... you wanna start taxing those? We'll see cities become ghost towns overnight.

You wanna tax offshore investments? Okay, what about these countries who depend on those investments? Collapsing the world economy doesn't seem very smart to me. Cutting off the money supply to our allies doesn't seem like a very diplomatic thing to do. The bottom line is, no matter what you come up with, the rich will find a way around it and you'll end up with an even bigger problem on your hands.

I've said all along, the best thing to do would be to get rid of the income tax and go to a consumption tax. The rich can't escape a consumption tax. Nor can the millions of people operating under the table and avoiding income tax.

Just as taxing labor slows labor, taxing consumption slows consumption. But yes IMO taxing consumption is the best type of tax of the many bad types of taxes. voiding consumption tax on property is done, with the proviso that there is an annual smaller property tax. I'd like to see property taxes capped to the consumption (sales tax) rate. IOW when you buy a house you pay property taxes on that house till the sum adds up to the sales tax rate.

Well, property taxes are not done at the federal level. I don't think it's constitutional to do so. In any event, most states already tax consumption... sales tax is a consumption tax. There doesn't seem to be less consuming in states where there is a sales tax. Perhaps a national sales tax would reduce consumption, but do you understand what that does? Supply and demand... Less demand (consumption) and more supply, means lower prices. So a little less consumption would actually be a good thing for us consumers. Too much of it wouldn't be good, as capitalists would reduce supply which would cut jobs.

 

[Boss]

No need in chronicling the various left-wing memes, we see them daily being presented as "arguments" for justifying this insidious war against the wealthy. Form the anti-capitalists bemoaning "multi-national corporations" to the Occutards who seem to think "Wall Street" is this lumbering out-of-control monster that is gobbling up everyone's wealth except for the wealthiest. Oh... and those evil "bankers" who simply have all this unlimited supply of money and won't willingly hand it out to deadbeat liberals because they are just mean and greedy.

On and on, these people have convinced themselves that it's a great idea and 'noble cause' to wage all-out war on the rich. It is arguably the most stupid political idea ever in the history of mankind, and I am here to tell you why.

The first and foremost reason is, it's a losing strategy. In fact, it is worse of a boondoggle than Vietnam ever could have hoped to be. It's literally a war that cannot ever be won. Rich people, it just so happens, are very smart when it comes to their wealth. This fact of the matter has prompted the formation of such sayings as... "A fool and his money are soon parted." Their ability to be one step ahead of you is astonishing and impressive to say the least. No matter how much you may believe that we can use the forces of government to confiscate the wealth of the rich, it ain't ever going to happen. The more you try, the more you fail.

What you manage to do in the process is bomb your own facilities and resources. You plant land mines for unsuspecting middle-income people trying to obtain wealth through small business. You rig booby-traps for poor people who are struggling to get to middle-income with better jobs. The so-called "rich" are rarely ever affected by your actions. They simply remain a few moves ahead of you, and we never touch their wealth.

Okay, so we're going to "punish" these wealthy people and corporations by burdening them with high income taxes and corporate tax, more regulations and fines, more penalties and fees... but it never works. Tax the rich person's earned income more and they stop earning income, because they are rich and don't have to earn income anymore. Make it harder for a corporation and they close the doors or move someplace else. More regulations, mandates, burdens... they simply eliminate jobs. Obamacare alone is responsible for trillions of dollars in potential raises and bonuses for the middle-income that will never be realized now. You see, you gifted to them the ultimate excuse... "no pay raise this year... Obamacare!"

Wall Street is a location in New York City, it's where capitalists go to trade public stocks with each other in our free market capitalist system. All the crap we hear about Wall Street would lead one to believe a silver stake is needed to kill this horrible evil creature who is destroying us all. If we don't have this location in NYC where capitalists can freely trade their public stocks, what do you think will take the place of it? Because, capitalists are still going to be capitalists, it's what they do. So think about that for a moment, and explain to me what you envision the alternative would be to a Wall Street?

Okay, so we're going to "punish" all these greedy capitalists on Wall Street by implementing all sorts of trade restrictions and penalties, heap more hassle and burden on them to prevent them capitalizing TOO much... Wrong! What you are going to do is force capitalists away from your market and allow foreign markets to obtain a portion of their wealth instead. *You see, as much as you may hate the rich, other countries seem to really LIKE the rich. (*I mention this for the sheeple out there who like to follow what other countries do.)

For the past 8 years of this de facto "war against the rich" being waged by the left, we've managed to keep the economy floating by borrowing and printing more money. We've infused trillions of dollars so far, and will continue to do this as long as Obama and the Democrats are in charge politically. Now this is all money we will have to repay at some point, but for now, it's keeping the economy of America from going tits up. As this has happened, the screws have been tightened on the 'rich greedy capitalists' but the results are not forthcoming. In fact, they are moving in the opposite direction rather rapidly. Wealthy capitalists are at least two moves ahead at all times. It's how they got to be rich, for the most part.

So, ostensibly, you are waging a war you can't win against an enemy who cannot be defeated. In the process, you are destroying yourself and your only remaining resources. You will only be able to borrow and print for so long to float the economy. The only proven thing in the history of man to ever recover any failing economy is free market capitalism. Some will brazenly claim "Keynesianism" has worked, but the only times where Keynes policies ever were successful, were under a ripe and ready capitalist economy. You can't have Keynesianism without Capitalism, the numbers simply don't work.

Oh, but what about the terrible growing disparity in wealth? Well, what about that? Okay, imagine a marathon race... this represents the acquisition of wealth. In the marathon are competitors who are well-trained athletes, who know how to win, who have trained hard to win, and will ultimately be in a position to win. Also, we have some couch potatoes who have never had much interest in the race, they are just there for the free gatorade. Then there are a whole bunch of people in the middle, who are not couch potatoes or athletes, but honestly hope to be able to compete and do well in the race. Now.... logically speaking, who is going to likely lead this race and extend their lead as the race progresses? Is there ever going to be a time where the couch potatoes are gaining more ground on the athletes and catching up, or are the athletes always going to be pulling away?

The point of the analogy is, the wealthy naturally become wealthier at a faster rate than the poor. So, this "gap" is normal in a free capitalist system and it's normal for the "gap" to continue to grow. Now, what can be done about this? Well, one thing that doesn't ever work is to hobble the athlete so the couch potatoes can catch up, because the couch potato is only interested in free gatorade, they had just as soon not race at all. The best alternative to deal with this growing disparity is to motivate the couch potato. Get them into the race. They may not ever win, they may not ever catch the athlete, but if they are at least competing, they are improving the situation and limiting the growing disparity. At the same time, you encourage the athletes to mentor the competitors in the middle who earnestly want to learn to be a better athlete. There are any number of free market ways to do this, we just need to explore those possibilities. But we first need to take the ball and chain off the legs of the athletes and admit this is a stupid idea.

Or now.... We CAN do as Chairman Mao tried to do in China... Gather all the rich greedy capitalists in front of an open ditch and put a bullet in their head, confiscate their assets and try to implement anti-capitalism as a legitimate form of government. Last time, it resulted in 70 million deaths and still didn't work.

when any peoples let a few take much more then they are worth at the expense and very lives of others, that people is doomed and must reset the so called worth of their most valuable players. any team spelt with all eyes cannot see it's own demise. just like now. we have billionaires everywhere and wonder why the world is going to hell literally. wake up you greedy bastards. you aren't worth billions and when hell's fires erupt around you all you will all scream out "my God what have I done'" but it will be too late then. don't worry. it will be a dry heat. enjoy

Oh yes... I know.... our free market capitalist free enterprise system has created more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man... and that's a terrible thing! If ONLY we could come up with some way to keep all these fuckers from becoming wealthy!! Then we could truly implement Marxism, Communism, Socialism worldwide, and everyone would be relegated to lives of poverty equally!

 

[RKMBrown]

Ayup... if you really want to tax the rich it's gonna have to be with a property tax or some other form of tax on existing assets. The really rich folks don't need jobs, they don't need income for that matter. They can live on company properties, drive company cars, eat company food, and fly on company jets. Oh yeah... and they can leave with their money if we try to go after it.

Property and existing assets are already taxed. Whenever you raise taxes on anything, you get less of it happening. So if you raise tax on property, more of it will be liquidated. Many wealthy people are already acutely aware of this 'movement' to confiscate their wealth, and have taken appropriate measures to secure their wealth. Some invest in tax-free municipal bonds... you wanna start taxing those? We'll see cities become ghost towns overnight.

You wanna tax offshore investments? Okay, what about these countries who depend on those investments? Collapsing the world economy doesn't seem very smart to me. Cutting off the money supply to our allies doesn't seem like a very diplomatic thing to do. The bottom line is, no matter what you come up with, the rich will find a way around it and you'll end up with an even bigger problem on your hands.

I've said all along, the best thing to do would be to get rid of the income tax and go to a consumption tax. The rich can't escape a consumption tax. Nor can the millions of people operating under the table and avoiding income tax.

Just as taxing labor slows labor, taxing consumption slows consumption. But yes IMO taxing consumption is the best type of tax of the many bad types of taxes. voiding consumption tax on property is done, with the proviso that there is an annual smaller property tax. I'd like to see property taxes capped to the consumption (sales tax) rate. IOW when you buy a house you pay property taxes on that house till the sum adds up to the sales tax rate.

move out to the sticks if you want lower property tax. if you can't handle the tax get out of the kitchen in the higher markets. it's just the business you have chosen. supply and demand and judging of others worth. stop complaining about property tax and start increasing investment taxes as if the rich need more incentives to sell us all out. dah

I live in the sticks in TX. The property tax is by county and state. You can't avoid it. I'm not complaining about property tax. What made you think I was? My complaint is against income tax, not property tax. To avoid income tax, I took a job that pays less.

 

[haissem123]

No need in chronicling the various left-wing memes, we see them daily being presented as "arguments" for justifying this insidious war against the wealthy. Form the anti-capitalists bemoaning "multi-national corporations" to the Occutards who seem to think "Wall Street" is this lumbering out-of-control monster that is gobbling up everyone's wealth except for the wealthiest. Oh... and those evil "bankers" who simply have all this unlimited supply of money and won't willingly hand it out to deadbeat liberals because they are just mean and greedy.

On and on, these people have convinced themselves that it's a great idea and 'noble cause' to wage all-out war on the rich. It is arguably the most stupid political idea ever in the history of mankind, and I am here to tell you why.

The first and foremost reason is, it's a losing strategy. In fact, it is worse of a boondoggle than Vietnam ever could have hoped to be. It's literally a war that cannot ever be won. Rich people, it just so happens, are very smart when it comes to their wealth. This fact of the matter has prompted the formation of such sayings as... "A fool and his money are soon parted." Their ability to be one step ahead of you is astonishing and impressive to say the least. No matter how much you may believe that we can use the forces of government to confiscate the wealth of the rich, it ain't ever going to happen. The more you try, the more you fail.

What you manage to do in the process is bomb your own facilities and resources. You plant land mines for unsuspecting middle-income people trying to obtain wealth through small business. You rig booby-traps for poor people who are struggling to get to middle-income with better jobs. The so-called "rich" are rarely ever affected by your actions. They simply remain a few moves ahead of you, and we never touch their wealth.

Okay, so we're going to "punish" these wealthy people and corporations by burdening them with high income taxes and corporate tax, more regulations and fines, more penalties and fees... but it never works. Tax the rich person's earned income more and they stop earning income, because they are rich and don't have to earn income anymore. Make it harder for a corporation and they close the doors or move someplace else. More regulations, mandates, burdens... they simply eliminate jobs. Obamacare alone is responsible for trillions of dollars in potential raises and bonuses for the middle-income that will never be realized now. You see, you gifted to them the ultimate excuse... "no pay raise this year... Obamacare!"

Wall Street is a location in New York City, it's where capitalists go to trade public stocks with each other in our free market capitalist system. All the crap we hear about Wall Street would lead one to believe a silver stake is needed to kill this horrible evil creature who is destroying us all. If we don't have this location in NYC where capitalists can freely trade their public stocks, what do you think will take the place of it? Because, capitalists are still going to be capitalists, it's what they do. So think about that for a moment, and explain to me what you envision the alternative would be to a Wall Street?

Okay, so we're going to "punish" all these greedy capitalists on Wall Street by implementing all sorts of trade restrictions and penalties, heap more hassle and burden on them to prevent them capitalizing TOO much... Wrong! What you are going to do is force capitalists away from your market and allow foreign markets to obtain a portion of their wealth instead. *You see, as much as you may hate the rich, other countries seem to really LIKE the rich. (*I mention this for the sheeple out there who like to follow what other countries do.)

For the past 8 years of this de facto "war against the rich" being waged by the left, we've managed to keep the economy floating by borrowing and printing more money. We've infused trillions of dollars so far, and will continue to do this as long as Obama and the Democrats are in charge politically. Now this is all money we will have to repay at some point, but for now, it's keeping the economy of America from going tits up. As this has happened, the screws have been tightened on the 'rich greedy capitalists' but the results are not forthcoming. In fact, they are moving in the opposite direction rather rapidly. Wealthy capitalists are at least two moves ahead at all times. It's how they got to be rich, for the most part.

So, ostensibly, you are waging a war you can't win against an enemy who cannot be defeated. In the process, you are destroying yourself and your only remaining resources. You will only be able to borrow and print for so long to float the economy. The only proven thing in the history of man to ever recover any failing economy is free market capitalism. Some will brazenly claim "Keynesianism" has worked, but the only times where Keynes policies ever were successful, were under a ripe and ready capitalist economy. You can't have Keynesianism without Capitalism, the numbers simply don't work.

Oh, but what about the terrible growing disparity in wealth? Well, what about that? Okay, imagine a marathon race... this represents the acquisition of wealth. In the marathon are competitors who are well-trained athletes, who know how to win, who have trained hard to win, and will ultimately be in a position to win. Also, we have some couch potatoes who have never had much interest in the race, they are just there for the free gatorade. Then there are a whole bunch of people in the middle, who are not couch potatoes or athletes, but honestly hope to be able to compete and do well in the race. Now.... logically speaking, who is going to likely lead this race and extend their lead as the race progresses? Is there ever going to be a time where the couch potatoes are gaining more ground on the athletes and catching up, or are the athletes always going to be pulling away?

The point of the analogy is, the wealthy naturally become wealthier at a faster rate than the poor. So, this "gap" is normal in a free capitalist system and it's normal for the "gap" to continue to grow. Now, what can be done about this? Well, one thing that doesn't ever work is to hobble the athlete so the couch potatoes can catch up, because the couch potato is only interested in free gatorade, they had just as soon not race at all. The best alternative to deal with this growing disparity is to motivate the couch potato. Get them into the race. They may not ever win, they may not ever catch the athlete, but if they are at least competing, they are improving the situation and limiting the growing disparity. At the same time, you encourage the athletes to mentor the competitors in the middle who earnestly want to learn to be a better athlete. There are any number of free market ways to do this, we just need to explore those possibilities. But we first need to take the ball and chain off the legs of the athletes and admit this is a stupid idea.

Or now.... We CAN do as Chairman Mao tried to do in China... Gather all the rich greedy capitalists in front of an open ditch and put a bullet in their head, confiscate their assets and try to implement anti-capitalism as a legitimate form of government. Last time, it resulted in 70 million deaths and still didn't work.

when any peoples let a few take much more then they are worth at the expense and very lives of others, that people is doomed and must reset the so called worth of their most valuable players. any team spelt with all eyes cannot see it's own demise. just like now. we have billionaires everywhere and wonder why the world is going to hell literally. wake up you greedy bastards. you aren't worth billions and when hell's fires erupt around you all you will all scream out "my God what have I done'" but it will be too late then. don't worry. it will be a dry heat. enjoy

Oh yes... I know.... our free market capitalist free enterprise system has created more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man... and that's a terrible thing! If ONLY we could come up with some way to keep all these fuckers from becoming wealthy!! Then we could truly implement Marxism, Communism, Socialism worldwide, and everyone would be relegated to lives of poverty equally!

you all have a problem paying taxes to the government, that was supposed to be for the people and by the people, but have no problem rendering unto any and all ceasars all sort of uncounted taxes and tributes in vain hopes that the empire will last till you get your moments in the sun of a false man made lime light not the true light of God's son light. lime light is sour up until mankinds' last vain hour. when all see God's true power and mankind truly begins to flower

 

[haissem123]

Ayup... if you really want to tax the rich it's gonna have to be with a property tax or some other form of tax on existing assets. The really rich folks don't need jobs, they don't need income for that matter. They can live on company properties, drive company cars, eat company food, and fly on company jets. Oh yeah... and they can leave with their money if we try to go after it.

Property and existing assets are already taxed. Whenever you raise taxes on anything, you get less of it happening. So if you raise tax on property, more of it will be liquidated. Many wealthy people are already acutely aware of this 'movement' to confiscate their wealth, and have taken appropriate measures to secure their wealth. Some invest in tax-free municipal bonds... you wanna start taxing those? We'll see cities become ghost towns overnight.

You wanna tax offshore investments? Okay, what about these countries who depend on those investments? Collapsing the world economy doesn't seem very smart to me. Cutting off the money supply to our allies doesn't seem like a very diplomatic thing to do. The bottom line is, no matter what you come up with, the rich will find a way around it and you'll end up with an even bigger problem on your hands.

I've said all along, the best thing to do would be to get rid of the income tax and go to a consumption tax. The rich can't escape a consumption tax. Nor can the millions of people operating under the table and avoiding income tax.

Just as taxing labor slows labor, taxing consumption slows consumption. But yes IMO taxing consumption is the best type of tax of the many bad types of taxes. voiding consumption tax on property is done, with the proviso that there is an annual smaller property tax. I'd like to see property taxes capped to the consumption (sales tax) rate. IOW when you buy a house you pay property taxes on that house till the sum adds up to the sales tax rate.

move out to the sticks if you want lower property tax. if you can't handle the tax get out of the kitchen in the higher markets. it's just the business you have chosen. supply and demand and judging of others worth. stop complaining about property tax and start increasing investment taxes as if the rich need more incentives to sell us all out. dah

I live in the sticks in TX. The property tax is by county and state. You can't avoid it. I'm not complaining about property tax. What made you think I was?

you better move to a more sane state that's not so vain. everything's big in texas except brains and humility. wow. what a backward ass state that is. I pray it breaks away and mexican drug lord's attack it. then all you gun nuts and fake bible thumpers can destroy one another. shalom to you tho.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I

Today the members of the hoi polloi find fees rising for everything - .

so do the top 1% . Under Reagan they paid 22% of all federal tax, now they pay 40%. The govt can waste all the money there is!!

Think about that dude. . People pay tax on income. The more income the more tax paid. Ultra rich and rich people have seen large increases in their income. Of fucking course they pay more tax now. Their income is greater. Much greater..

You act like that increase in the amount of tax paid is the result of an increase in rates. It ain't fucking so.
It's because they have the increase in income.

Not so fast. That's not how the math works.

Here's what happened:

Before the first three quintiles of income earners were paying a lot more taxes. Now they pay pretty much zero for the first two quintiles to very low for the third quintile. The bottom three quintiles of income earners have passed their share of the tax burden to the two upper quintiles. Thus the massive increase in relative amounts paid by the upper quintiles.

So, why not raise the minimum wage to equal the income of those rich souls who are being exploited (sarcasm alert)?

Have you considered the fact that the upper middle class and higher income persons have access to tax shelters, mostly legal, because The Congress has passed legislation which benefits the wealthy?

The working poor don't have income which allows them to open a Roth or Traditional IRA and most do not have employer retirement plans or provide health insurance.

A progressive income tax on income is a fair tax, since the same percentage of tax is applied equally to rich and poor alike. The percentage rises as income rises and once in the recent past the top percentage was 90%.

See for example:

From Eisenhower to Obama What Wealthy Americans Like Mitt Romney Pay in Taxes - ABC News

 

[haissem123]

I

Today the members of the hoi polloi find fees rising for everything - .

so do the top 1% . Under Reagan they paid 22% of all federal tax, now they pay 40%. The govt can waste all the money there is!!

Think about that dude. . People pay tax on income. The more income the more tax paid. Ultra rich and rich people have seen large increases in their income. Of fucking course they pay more tax now. Their income is greater. Much greater..

You act like that increase in the amount of tax paid is the result of an increase in rates. It ain't fucking so.
It's because they have the increase in income.

Not so fast. That's not how the math works.

Here's what happened:

Before the first three quintiles of income earners were paying a lot more taxes. Now they pay pretty much zero for the first two quintiles to very low for the third quintile. The bottom three quintiles of income earners have passed their share of the tax burden to the two upper quintiles. Thus the massive increase in relative amounts paid by the upper quintiles.

So, why not raise the minimum wage to equal the income of those rich souls who are being exploited (sarcasm alert)?

Have you considered the fact that the upper middle class and higher income persons have access to tax shelters, mostly legal, because The Congress has passed legislation which benefits the wealthy?

The working poor don't have income which allows them to open a Roth or Traditional IRA and most do not have employer retirement plans or provide health insurance.

A progressive income tax on income is a fair tax, since the same percentage of tax is applied equally to rich and poor alike. The percentage rises as income rises and once in the recent past the top percentage was 90%.

See for example:

From Eisenhower to Obama What Wealthy Americans Like Mitt Romney Pay in Taxes - ABC News

dont tell them the truth of how they are bending the laws and bowing to a few rich men that own us all. they can't handle the truth. they will always be cowards declaring a false and fake freedom unto their enslaved bodies and souls.

 

[RKMBrown]

Ayup... if you really want to tax the rich it's gonna have to be with a property tax or some other form of tax on existing assets. The really rich folks don't need jobs, they don't need income for that matter. They can live on company properties, drive company cars, eat company food, and fly on company jets. Oh yeah... and they can leave with their money if we try to go after it.

Property and existing assets are already taxed. Whenever you raise taxes on anything, you get less of it happening. So if you raise tax on property, more of it will be liquidated. Many wealthy people are already acutely aware of this 'movement' to confiscate their wealth, and have taken appropriate measures to secure their wealth. Some invest in tax-free municipal bonds... you wanna start taxing those? We'll see cities become ghost towns overnight.

You wanna tax offshore investments? Okay, what about these countries who depend on those investments? Collapsing the world economy doesn't seem very smart to me. Cutting off the money supply to our allies doesn't seem like a very diplomatic thing to do. The bottom line is, no matter what you come up with, the rich will find a way around it and you'll end up with an even bigger problem on your hands.

I've said all along, the best thing to do would be to get rid of the income tax and go to a consumption tax. The rich can't escape a consumption tax. Nor can the millions of people operating under the table and avoiding income tax.

Just as taxing labor slows labor, taxing consumption slows consumption. But yes IMO taxing consumption is the best type of tax of the many bad types of taxes. voiding consumption tax on property is done, with the proviso that there is an annual smaller property tax. I'd like to see property taxes capped to the consumption (sales tax) rate. IOW when you buy a house you pay property taxes on that house till the sum adds up to the sales tax rate.

Well, property taxes are not done at the federal level. I don't think it's constitutional to do so. In any event, most states already tax consumption... sales tax is a consumption tax. There doesn't seem to be less consuming in states where there is a sales tax. Perhaps a national sales tax would reduce consumption, but do you understand what that does? Supply and demand... Less demand (consumption) and more supply, means lower prices. So a little less consumption would actually be a good thing for us consumers. Too much of it wouldn't be good, as capitalists would reduce supply which would cut jobs.

What's the difference between sales tax on property and property tax on property?

When the internet came around many people started buying from amazon to avoid local sales tax.

In your story you are leaving out the part about people having more income due to no income tax. More income usually translates to more spending. Albeit a lot of that spending would go to the new federal sales tax.

 

[The Rabbi]

I

Today the members of the hoi polloi find fees rising for everything - .

so do the top 1% . Under Reagan they paid 22% of all federal tax, now they pay 40%. The govt can waste all the money there is!!

Think about that dude. . People pay tax on income. The more income the more tax paid. Ultra rich and rich people have seen large increases in their income. Of fucking course they pay more tax now. Their income is greater. Much greater..

You act like that increase in the amount of tax paid is the result of an increase in rates. It ain't fucking so.
It's because they have the increase in income.

Not so fast. That's not how the math works.

Here's what happened:

Before the first three quintiles of income earners were paying a lot more taxes. Now they pay pretty much zero for the first two quintiles to very low for the third quintile. The bottom three quintiles of income earners have passed their share of the tax burden to the two upper quintiles. Thus the massive increase in relative amounts paid by the upper quintiles.

So, why not raise the minimum wage to equal the income of those rich souls who are being exploited (sarcasm alert)?

Have you considered the fact that the upper middle class and higher income persons have access to tax shelters, mostly legal, because The Congress has passed legislation which benefits the wealthy?

The working poor don't have income which allows them to open a Roth or Traditional IRA and most do not have employer retirement plans or provide health insurance.

A progressive income tax on income is a fair tax, since the same percentage of tax is applied equally to rich and poor alike. The percentage rises as income rises and once in the recent past the top percentage was 90%.

See for example:

From Eisenhower to Obama What Wealthy Americans Like Mitt Romney Pay in Taxes - ABC News

Hve you been huffing glue again?
First off, the super wealthy will always find ways of sheltering their income. ANd the higher the tax rate, the more incentive to find ways to do it because it's more profitable,
A progressive income tax does not apply the same percentage to rich and poor (or more accurately high earners and low earners). That's why it's progressive. IT applies different rates, higher rates for higher levels of income. The top percentage might have been 90% under Kennedy (if that's recent to you) but they whole structure was different. For example you could deduct any interest payment whatsoever and also income average.

 

[RKMBrown]

I

Today the members of the hoi polloi find fees rising for everything - .

so do the top 1% . Under Reagan they paid 22% of all federal tax, now they pay 40%. The govt can waste all the money there is!!

Think about that dude. . People pay tax on income. The more income the more tax paid. Ultra rich and rich people have seen large increases in their income. Of fucking course they pay more tax now. Their income is greater. Much greater..

You act like that increase in the amount of tax paid is the result of an increase in rates. It ain't fucking so.
It's because they have the increase in income.

Not so fast. That's not how the math works.

Here's what happened:

Before the first three quintiles of income earners were paying a lot more taxes. Now they pay pretty much zero for the first two quintiles to very low for the third quintile. The bottom three quintiles of income earners have passed their share of the tax burden to the two upper quintiles. Thus the massive increase in relative amounts paid by the upper quintiles.

So, why not raise the minimum wage to equal the income of those rich souls who are being exploited (sarcasm alert)? (because they are not worth the money either, sarcasm alert...)

Have you considered the fact that the upper middle class and higher income persons have access to tax shelters, mostly legal, because The Congress has passed legislation which benefits the wealthy? Yes, I have considered that, those same shelters are available to all, including the people with no income at all, such as the poor and the rich.

The working poor don't have income which allows them to open a Roth or Traditional IRA and most do not have employer retirement plans or provide health insurance. They chose to be what they are, I was poor and choose to be a software engineer and company owner. It was a lot of work. But yes I could have chosen to remain at minimum wage, like I was when I was 15, and bitch about it not being high enough and not work hard to get a higher income.

A progressive income tax on income is a fair tax, since the same percentage of tax is applied equally to rich and poor alike. The percentage rises as income rises and once in the recent past the top percentage was 90%. Progressive income taxes are the opposite of fair, they punish effort and reward sloth.

See for example:

From Eisenhower to Obama What Wealthy Americans Like Mitt Romney Pay in Taxes - ABC News

in blue