A challenge for the "Tax the rich more" crowd.

[Nostra]

It's always in proposed bills

next

What was it in the last one proposed?

 

[Bad Bob]

Whoever made that "point" was wrong.

Disagreed. It's all about the money.

 

[Dante]

What was it in the last one proposed?

Its something that evidently triggers you, so please -- do share.

Or is it that you are unable share anything, and it's about what keeps you up nights ?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You're a dipshit which debating is of little use. However, for the initiated who accidently walk into this dumbass thread:

• Federal Revenue used to collect 20% of the GDP in taxes back when we were running a balanced budget.
• Today Federal Revenue is only collecting 17% of GDP. Why?
  • 0.5% loss of revenue because companies used to pay 35% income tax which was cut to 21%
  • 0.3% loss of revenue from top marginal rate cut from 39.6% to 35% and raising threshold
  • 0.5% loss of revenue from all other tax tier cuts
  • Remaining 1.5% of GDP tax gap is doubling the standard deduction and tons of new tax credits.

NOTE:

• Top 1% own a third of everything ~32%
• Bottom 50% own ~2% of everything

IF YOU DONT LIKE A TOP TIER INCREASE THEN;

• Tax corporations at 35%
• Tax capital gains at 35%
• Keep top tier tax at 37% but lower the threshold to $500k which is similar to 90's top tier (adjusted for inflation)
• All 3 would add over $300B a year in taxes or $3T over 10 years.

ANSWER:

• Bottom 50%: 0% of taxes is my proposal in line with what they own (today they pay 2% of taxes in line with their wealth )
• 50% to 90% income ranges: 20% of taxes (today they pay 25% of taxes in line with their wealth)
• Top 10% are underpaying and need to pay more taxes - they own about 40% of everything and are paying about 30% of taxes. They need to pay about 38% of total picking up 2% from bottom and 5% from the 50-90 range.
• TOP 1% are paying more than their share of what they own but the marginal impact of that on their lives is negligible so they should pay around 42% of the taxes. (today they pay around that 42%)

There you go.

You want to create corporate inversions. Got it.

You literally have zero business acumen.

You’re a f*cking idiot.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Please. I've answered this 1000 times. You are just a dimwit. What you want to do is say any dime a wealthy person pays in higher tax rate based on their tax heaven buried income is unfair when that is bullshit.

No you did not. You provided nonsensical crap that didn’t make any logical sense.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I paid $340K in federal taxes last year. They are not done with mine this year. It would have gone to $370k without the Trump Big Beautiful Deficit Bill.


Ive already answered your stupid questions, you just arent bright enough to follow the simple discussion. If you dont start using your brain you will swallow your tongue.

That’s a complete lie: you did not not pay $340k in taxes last year. You have zero business acumen. You’re pulling numbers out of thin air

 

[Nostra]

Its something that evidently triggers you, so please -- do share.

Or is it that you are unable share anything, and it's about what keeps you up nights ?

Another of your bullshit claims you can’t back up.

 

[LoveKimWexler]

Inept attempt to move goal posts, but let's go with that--You can add the heavy vehicle tax those trucks pay to the tax burden that single mom you're so fond of pays. How about that, hmmm?

No moving the goal posts at all.

Okay, the owner pays the heavy vehicle tax. Once the heavy vehicle tax and the owner's personal imcome taxes do not cover the costs of the highways, the owner cannot use the roads anymore?

Are you seriously going to claim that it is only possible for a working poor person to get more in benefits than they pay in taxes?

Now you seem to be getting it. But I have my doubts.

Yes, I understood what you were proposing. I'm trying to explain how silly it is.

Certainly there is. That single mom you like to use as an example pays---say 10% of her $30K income or $3K to the gov't ---when she has collected her $3K in EBT/SNAP, free education for her kids, police, fire, medicaid, etc. all benefits stop. What is she going to do for the other 51 weeks of the year?

She's going to work her ass off to keep up with all her expenses if she doesn't want to slide into full-on dependency. Until she realizes that without those benefits the 30K her employer pays her isn't enough to live on.

Those benefits she gets are why she is willing to work for 30K per year, when she has kids. Cut them off because you somehow calculated that she "used up" her three thousand and she won't be able to survive on what her employer pays her. If her employer pays more in taxes to support those benefits than she does, that employer is getting a great return in the cheap labor.

We need to slap EVs with a mileage tax, which is essentially what a gas tax is.

They drive the same roads, and their cars are heavier, so they should pay for using the roads just like everyone else.

Fine with me. As I said from the beginning, I'm an old-school Democrat. I could care less about electric vehicles and I'm glad that waitresses are not having to pay subsidies for CEOs to Tesla "pickups." Tax them at the charger the way I get taxed at the pump, or figure some other way. I pay my share gladly, let them pay theirs.

Ever heard of fuel taxes? There are also fees on commercial trucks the state gets.

Next?

Business don't pay taxes, they collect them. Isn't that a Republican saying? The heavy use taxes/fees on commercial trucks are passed on to the the consumers of whatever the trucks deliver. So that single mom will pay that heavy use tax and commercial fee when she buys her next loaf of bread or can of formula.

So add that to the 3K worth of benefits she's got coming in your scenario.

Why in the world is a single mom, widow of a war hero, working to avoid welfare, the only target for your drive to cut the budget? Or do you actually want to cut her benefits, so that we cut the taxes of millionaires and billionaires?

 

[Bad Bob]

No moving the goal posts at all.

Okay, the owner pays the heavy vehicle tax. Once the heavy vehicle tax and the owner's personal imcome taxes do not cover the costs of the highways, the owner cannot use the roads anymore?

Are you seriously going to claim that it is only possible for a working poor person to get more in benefits than they pay in taxes?

Yes, I understood what you were proposing. I'm trying to explain how silly it is.


She's going to work her ass off to keep up with all her expenses if she doesn't want to slide into full-on dependency. Until she realizes that without those benefits the 30K her employer pays her isn't enough to live on.

Those benefits she gets are why she is willing to work for 30K per year, when she has kids. Cut them off because you somehow calculated that she "used up" her three thousand and she won't be able to survive on what her employer pays her. If her employer pays more in taxes to support those benefits than she does, that employer is getting a great return in the cheap labor.


Fine with me. As I said from the beginning, I'm an old-school Democrat. I could care less about electric vehicles and I'm glad that waitresses are not having to pay subsidies for CEOs to Tesla "pickups." Tax them at the charger the way I get taxed at the pump, or figure some other way. I pay my share gladly, let them pay theirs.


Business don't pay taxes, they collect them. Isn't that a Republican saying? The heavy use taxes/fees on commercial trucks are passed on to the the consumers of whatever the trucks deliver. So that single mom will pay that heavy use tax and commercial fee when she buys her next loaf of bread or can of formula.

Why in the world is a single mom, widow of a war hero, working to avoid welfare, the only target for your drive to cut the budget? Or do you actually want to cut her benefits, so that we cut the taxes of millionaires and billionaires?

I don't do text wall posts, but do agree that all cars, regardless of propulsion, should pay a user tax to help maintain the roads, bridges, etc.

 

[LoveKimWexler]

I don't do text wall posts, but do agree that all cars, regardless of propulsion, should pay a user tax to help maintain the roads, bridges, etc.

Me too.

Paying taxes is the best investment into our present and future that we can make.

 

[Concerned American]

Okay, the owner pays the heavy vehicle tax. Once the heavy vehicle tax and the owner's personal imcome taxes do not cover the costs of the highways, the owner cannot use the roads anymore?

SMH, the heavy vehicle tax has been determined to provide the owner's share of the damage caused by heavy vehicles. Please keep up.

I'm trying to explain how silly it is.

It's only silly to you, because it runs counter to the BS point you are trying to promote that the poor should get everything for free and the successful should be forced to pay for it.

She's going to work her ass off to keep up with all her expenses if she doesn't want to slide into full-on dependency. Until she realizes that without those benefits the 30K her employer pays her isn't enough to live on.

The $30K that she is paid is based on her value to the employer. If she wants more, she has to improve her skills and become more valuable. Employment is not charity. Would you pay more than the value of a product because it is an inferior product? Employee skills are the product they are marketing. SMH.

Business don't pay taxes, they collect them. Isn't that a Republican saying? The heavy use taxes/fees on commercial trucks are passed on to the the consumers of whatever the trucks deliver. So that single mom will pay that heavy use tax and commercial fee when she buys her next loaf of bread or can of formula.

LOL, and her employer is passing on the cost of her $30K wage and her sick leave and her FMLA and their half of her SS and taxes that support her medicaid, EBT and SNAP when they sell their product or service. Why do you think prices of fast food doubled when the minimum wage went from $10 to $20 (in CA) for burger flippers?

 

[LoveKimWexler]

SMH, the heavy vehicle tax has been determined to provide the owner's share of the damage caused by heavy vehicles. Please keep up.

Oh, really? LoL!

By what process has that been determined? How much did they spend weighing his vehicles, looking for loose items that may scrape the road, checking his tires, observing his drivers' braking habits, and ability to stay off the shoulders and delineator posts and any number of other factors that go into how much damage his vehicles do?

Dood, you are reaching!

"SMH?" I think you take this a little to seriously, guy.

It's only silly to you, because it runs counter to the BS point you are trying to promote that the poor should get everything for free and the successful should be forced to pay for it.

That's not my point.

The $30K that she is paid is based on her value to the employer. If she wants more, she has to improve her skills and become more valuable. Employment is not charity. Would you pay more than the value of a product because it is an inferior product? Employee skills are the product they are marketing. SMH.

I pay whatever the manufacturer charges if I believe that the price is worth it, and I can afford it.

Because of the subsidies for the working poor, the manufacturer can pay his or her employees less than the free market would set the price of their labor. Some of that savings is passed on to me, so I am happy to also pay taxes that keep those benefits going to the workers.

You want to freeload by having workers who move your goods and services down the line work for less than a living wage plus subsidies. It won't happen, until you can also get a law passed forcing people to work for less than what will sustain them.

LOL, and her employer is passing on the cost of her $30K wage and her sick leave and her FMLA and their half of her SS and taxes that support her medicaid, EBT and SNAP when they sell their product or service.

Yes, all kinds of costs get passed on constantly and every which way in a very complicated system of exchange of labor for money, money for goods, money for services. That's called economics.

You want to isolate one part of American economics, working class people getting subsidies that allow their wages to sustain them, and cut that part out.

And you think there will be no other consequence than the 30K per year pharmacy tech will only get one week's worth of benefits. In your plan, she'll keep working the rest of the 51 weeks at wages that won't sustain her and her family without those benefits.

She will do this for you, why? The goodness of her heart? Because she would hate to see the prices of your medications go up when the pharmacy has to hire three pharmacists instead of one pharmacist and two techs?

She will allow her children to stay home uneducated and unsupervised while she's counting your blood pressure pills?

Why do you think prices of fast food doubled when the minimum wage went from $10 to $20 (in CA) for burger flippers?

Don't look at me. I'm not advocating raising the minimum wage. I'd as soon see it eliminated.

We have an imperfect, but working, system of economic checks and balances that includes government helping low-income people trying to work their way up to middle and even high-income. You cannot just remove one part and all will be well, anymore than you can look under the hood of your car and remove a random part you don't like the looks of and expect the same performance as before.

Alternate definition of insanity: Doing something different and expecting the same result.

 

[Concerned American]

By what process has that been determined? How much did they spend weighing his vehicles, looking for loose items that may scrape the road, checking his tires, observing his drivers' braking habits, and ability to stay off the shoulders and delineator posts and any number of other factors that go into how much damage his vehicles do?

You really shouldn't speak about subjects that you are ignorant of. These vehicles are weighed, documented, safety checked---sometimes multiple times a day. How many times has YOUR vehicle been checked and weighed? Run along and educate yourself.

I pay whatever the manufacturer charges if I believe that the price is worth it, and I can afford it.

So does an employer. How long have you been in the work force?

You want to freeload by having workers who move your goods and services down the line work for less than a living wage plus subsidies.

I was in the workforce for over fifty years going from flipping burgers for $1.25/hour with no benefits to skilled labor to planning and maintaining the machinery in one of the most successful family-owned companies in the world. I was paid what my skills were worth and I never received one thin dime of public assistance EVER. I do not tolerate parasites.

Don't look at me. I'm not advocating raising the minimum wage.

You talk out of both sides of your face. One side says that unskilled workers should be compensated at a far greater rate than their skills demand and the other side says, "Oh no, not me, I didn't say that." LOL, you're trolling in circles and I'm not playing your ignorant game.

 

[LoveKimWexler]

You really shouldn't speak about subjects that you are ignorant of. These vehicles are weighed, documented, safety checked---sometimes multiple times a day. How many times has YOUR vehicle been checked and weighed? Run along and educate yourself.

I didn't say the weren't. I asked how much do they spend? Sounds like a buttload. Does that add to the owner's taxes owed before he loses benefits?

So does an employer. How long have you been in the work force?

Exactly. But the amount a worker is willing to work for is less, due to the benefits. Do you dispute that obvious fact?

I was in the workforce for over fifty years going from flipping burgers for $1.25/hour with no benefits to skilled labor to planning and maintaining the machinery in one of the most successful family-owned companies in the world. I was paid what my skills were worth and I never received one thin dime of public assistance EVER. I do not tolerate parasites.

You are the parasite, because when you were flipping burgers, there is no way you paid as much in taxes as you got in benefits. How old do you calculate you were by the time your taxes paid added up to even the cost of your K-12 education? In your thirties, at least, I would say. Dadgum freeloader!

You talk out of both sides of your face. One side says that unskilled workers should be compensated at a far greater rate than their skills demand and the other side says, "Oh no, not me, I didn't say that." LOL, you're trolling in circles and I'm not playing your ignorant game.

I did not say anything like that.

Why are you so angry?

 

[Concerned American]

Why are you so angry?

LOL, do you know what LOL means?

 

[Bad Bob]

I didn't say the weren't. I asked how much do they spend? Sounds like a buttload. Does that add to the owner's taxes owed before he loses benefits?

Exactly. But the amount a worker is willing to work for is less, due to the benefits. Do you dispute that obvious fact?

You are the parasite, because when you were flipping burgers, there is no way you paid as much in taxes as you got in benefits. How old do you calculate you were by the time your taxes paid added up to even the cost of your K-12 education? In your thirties, at least, I would say. Dadgum freeloader!

I did not say anything like that.

Why are you so angry?

MAGAts are always angry because they are full of fear. In American males, we're conditioned to become angry versus run when faced with a "Fight or Flight" scenario. They lap up all sorts of fearmongering such as Mexicans climbing over Trump's Wall to steal their low-paying jobs, Black men taking their women and Muslims passing Sharia laws forcing them to pray five times a day. It's silly, yes, but I've never met a bright MAGAt. The vast majority are born stupid, poorly educated and/or mentally ill.

Regarding the car tax, a Tesla does weigh about 25% more than a standard four-door sedan, about 1000 lbs more. Two-seater versions and trikes are lighter. In Texas, we have a lot of toll roads with a tag that can be read by sensors on the road. A user tax is fair.

The "tax the rich" thing is better solved by simply removing tax deductions that benefit a few. Most Americans can't live on the dividends of their multi-million dollar investments since they don't have them. Ergo, most Americans have to pay taxes on their wages while the rich pay little to no tax on their dividends. That should be fixed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

MAGAts are always angry because they are full of fear. In American males, we're conditioned to become angry versus run when faced with a "Fight or Flight" scenario. They lap up all sorts of fearmongering such as Mexicans climbing over Trump's Wall to steal their low-paying jobs, Black men taking their women and Muslims passing Sharia laws forcing them to pray five times a day. It's silly, yes, but I've never met a bright MAGAt. The vast majority are born stupid, poorly educated and/or mentally ill.

Regarding the car tax, a Tesla does weigh about 25% more than a standard four-door sedan, about 1000 lbs more. Two-seater versions and trikes are lighter. In Texas, we have a lot of toll roads with a tag that can be read by sensors on the road. A user tax is fair.

The "tax the rich" thing is better solved by simply removing tax deductions that benefit a few. Most Americans can't live on the dividends of their multi-million dollar investments since they don't have them. Ergo, most Americans have to pay taxes on their wages while the rich pay little to no tax on their dividends. That should be fixed.

The "tax the rich" thing is better solved by simply removing tax deductions that benefit a few. Most Americans can't live on the dividends of their multi-million dollar investments since they don't have them. Ergo, most Americans have to pay taxes on their wages while the rich pay little to no tax on their dividends. That should be fixed.

For 2025, qualified dividends are taxed at 0% if your taxable income is at or below $48,475 (single) or $96,950 (married filing jointly).

 

[citygator]

That’s a complete lie: you did not not pay $340k in taxes last year. You have zero business acumen. You’re pulling numbers out of thin air

Ok. Doesnt matter to me what you think. I made out great in corporate management... Just like most owners and executives. I talk about income inequity all the time on here but I benefit more than 99.4% of people based on it. Our company is reasonable. A C-suite exec makes just over $1M a year here. The CEO is the one outlier and hes more around $3-5M depending on our success. Many companies like ours have it way more lopsided than that.

 

[Nostra]

Ok. Doesnt matter to me what you think. I made out great in corporate management... Just like most owners and executives. I talk about income inequity all the time on here but I benefit more than 99.4% of people based on it. Our company is reasonable. A C-suite exec makes just over $1M a year here. The CEO is the one outlier and hes more around $3-5M depending on our success. Many companies like ours have it way more lopsided than that.

I paid $26 billion in taxes last year. Down a little from the previous year.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Ok. Doesnt matter to me what you think. I made out great in corporate management... Just like most owners and executives. I talk about income inequity all the time on here but I benefit more than 99.4% of people based on it. Our company is reasonable. A C-suite exec makes just over $1M a year here. The CEO is the one outlier and hes more around $3-5M depending on our success. Many companies like ours have it way more lopsided than that.

What does your company do? Revenue size? EBITDA? You’re basically saying you made about $1.2mil in gross so you’re evil according to Bernie Sanders and AOC.