Do The Wealthy Even Pay Taxes?

[maxo]

As a wage earner, I never had any dealings with that sort of thing. But even if it does happen, I would consider it as just a little payback from the taxes that the wealthy don't pay.

A-GAIN.... WE DO NOT TAX WEALTH!!!!

I was talking about taxing income. Not wealth.

Oh sorry... when you say things like "taxes the wealthy don't pay" it sounds like you think we tax wealth and not income.

Put it this way. Just take any idea of what money the wealthy may have on hand and stick it up your ass. Then we can just concentrate on earned income. Such as the $10,000 a year a poor person may make and the $40,000 on up that a wealthy person may earn in a year.

 

[maxo]

Next, you bring up another way in which the poor pay more. Say a poor person who only makes $10,000 a year bought a pair of jeans. Let's say the sales tax was $2.00. What percentage of his yearly income would that be. Now what if somebody made $100,000 a year and bought the same pair of jeans. Which he too paid $2.00 in sales tax. What percentage of his yearly income would that be. And to that you can add gas, insurance, paper towels, postage stamps or any of the zillions of other things that somebody buys. Like it or not, when it comes to the percentage of their income, the poor pay more.

But EVERYBODY has to pay those. Hey look... Bill Gates can buy a $100k car to haul groceries in... I'd have to LIVE in such a car! Rich people can buy more than poor people can... not a lot we can do about that unless we take everyone's wealth like they do in North Korea.

This is called "Class Warfare" and it's the tool of Socialist Marxists. It is fully intended to play on your envy and jealousy of others who have more than you. It worked beautifully across Europe and Asia where people are born into their class and that's where they live their whole life because that's how things are. But in THIS country, you are perfectly FREE to achieve ANY class you desire and millions of people have.

Nobody is against the wealthy having more. Especially if they earned it. And not have it fall into their lap like a modern day titled aristocrat. And the class warfare isn't a Marxist tool. Chimpanzees and many other creatures do the same sort of thing.

Also, I remember seeing something on 60 Minutes where they would take children and set them at a table with a four sectioned checkerboard type of thing in front of them. On the section near them on the left, there were a few things that the child would value. Across from it, there was nothing. On the right near them, there were more of the things the child would value. Across from it there were a few of the things a child would value. The children were told that whatever section near them that they chose, some other child would get what was across from it. The vast majority of the children chose the fewer items. As long as it meant that some other child would receive nothing at all. I guess it is a built in sort of status thing.

They did something else where they would bring children is a room to take a small test. They were also given a sheet that was placed face down on a desk with the answers on it. Which they were told to not look at. Half of the desks were those small kind that had a little table attached to it. The other half of the desks were large, nice desks. I don't think any of the children seated at the small desks cheated and looked at the answers. But a good number, maybe even most seated at the large desks did. What all this is getting at is that for the wealthy, there is no such thing as too much.

If you want to see the things I mentioned, I think they can all be found by looking up the episode of 60 minutes called "Bigoted Babies."

Thanks for the comparison of Marxist philosophy with the thinking of chimps and children... apropos indeed! Well done sir!

Again... Go study how Marxism became popular. You will find that it was promoted to the masses across Europe and Asia using the same exact "Class Warfare" tactics we see today from the progressive left. Whenever you have people who feel hopeless, like they can't escape the class they are in... the idea of Marxism is appealing. The thing is, the American Dream has never been hopeless... our free market capitalist free enterprise system churns out more millionaires and billionaires than anything man has ever created. You're not confined to your class in this country. That's how you can go, literally, from being a sexually-molested black girl living in a tar-paper shack in Mississippi to the wealthiest woman in America... ask Oprah Winfrey.

You know who inspired me more than anyone in my life? A Cuban immigrant who I worked for as a teen. He could barely speak English, he never graduated high school. He came to America with the shirt on his back and $2. He built one of the most successful and popular Italian food chains in the South... it took him about 17 years. I looked at him and thought, if he can do it, anyone can do it!

You missed half the point. The thinking of the wealthy is reflected in the thinking of chimps and children too. If not more so than the poor. As I pointed with children sitting at a large nice desk being more prone to cheat, the same applies to the wealthy. Obviously, when seeking what they want, which is never enough, they are more likely to use dishonest means to do it. In case you don't know, that is NOT a good thing.

As for Oprah, **** her. (If you would even want to) She didn't get to where she got by being intellectually superior. She got there because the anti-white jewish sand nigg (ers) who control the media wanted to give a real nigg (er) a job. As for the cuban spi (ck), Let me guess. He waved a magic fuckin wand. Also, you seem to ignore the main way that capitalism works. It's like a pyramid scheme. For somebody to get ahead, they have to do it by stepping on a hell of a lot of other people.

 

[maxo]

There is a lot of talk on the news about taxing the rich. But do they even pay taxes? How would you know. Any information you hear comes from them! As for what any government agency may have to say, we all know what a revolving door it is between the private sector (the wealthy) and the political sector. And of course, the politicians that run the government agencies I mentioned are part of that.

Also, there are banks all over the world where the wealthy can deposit anonymously. Thereby avoiding taxes. Also, tax laws themselves are written by and for the wealthy. The wealthy can also afford to hire tax lawyers to find any of what are probably zillions of loopholes written into those tax laws. On top of all that, every year there are many companies that pay no taxes at all. Which I call corporate welfare.

On top of all that, back in the 60's, the average salary for a company executive was around 25 times what the average worker made. Today, it is around 250 times that. And not all that long ago, it for closer to 400 times what the average worker made! And the wealthy complain about being taxed too much?! Boo fukin Hoo!!!

The only fair way to tax everyone is to take away some of the "luxury deduction" that only the very wealthy get. The only president to do that was Ronald Reagan. Liberals be aware the ones that scream the loudest about this is the democrats. The wealthiest in this country are democrats. It is unfair to tax those that are working and striving to be wealthy and yet we allow people like the Kennedy family to go freely with old family money that has been passed down to them. I personally do not believe in the death tax for anyone even the Kennedy's who have avoided such through the use of a complicated system and the use of their tax lawyers.

I doubt what you say about Reagan. He is the last person who would tax the luxury items of the wealthy. And even if he did, you can bet your ass that he made up for it to them in some other way.

 

[maxo]

Banks in Switzerland are famous for it. Next, ever hear of "cooking the books?" Next, let's go to an admittedly extreme example. Bill gated made about $1,380,000 per hour. I don't know what the hourly wage was for average microsoft employee. But how many times that was what Bill Gates made. Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands?

Bill gated made about $1,380,000 per hour.

How'd he do that? Any specifics?

Well he was the CEO of microsoft, wasn't he?

He was. You think his salary was $1.38 million an hour?

I don't "think" it. I KNOW it. From what I remember, he made about $141.00 a second.

I don't "think" it. I KNOW it. From what I remember, he made about $141.00 a second.

Ummmm.....that's $507,600 an hour, not $1.38 million an hour.

Gates has several investments outside Microsoft, which in 2006 paid him a salary of $616,667 and $350,000 bonus totalling $966,667.

Bill Gates - Wikipedia

Less than 1 million a year?
That make you an idiot.
Unless he only worked an hour or two a year?

I already looked it up myself. I googled, "How much did Bill Gates make per hour. It was what I said it was. Though I was wrong about what he made per second. He made about $385.80 per second. Sorry about the mistake.

 

[maxo]

You do realize that you get your information from liars, don't you. Also, do you pay taxes? If you said yes, I say BULLSHEIT! At least you don't pay what you think you pay. I know. Because if you were anything like me, every paycheck had taxes removed from it. But in the new year after you filed your tax returns, you got most of it back.

So for the most part, what you call taxes were nothing more than a temporary government loan. In fact, you were probably glad about it. Because instead of trying to save money, you got a nice fat tax return. To buy something you normally wouldn't have been able to afford. Am I right or am I wrong. Also, I will include a graph that shows the tax burden for state taxes by income level. See how your "top 20% paying 84%" fits into that.

That graph says "State Residents" but you don't say what state and besides we are talking about federal taxes

I guess it is an average of all states. Also, if state taxes are that way, it is a good bet that federal taxes mirror them.

you guess?

I think it's a chart of a single state therefore irrelevant

What you "think" doesn't stand for a whole lot. I was able to get this "spam" graph from somebody named cultsmasher. It shoes what percentage of income is taxed in a number of states. It comes from a website called "Who Pays? 5th Edition - ITEP."

and that has nothing to do with federal taxes

talking about state taxes is ridiculous since this is a national forum and taxes vary too much from state to state

I was mainly defending my graph that showed what percentage of income went to state taxes. Some idiot, somehow, decided that it only applied to Washington state. Also, how the state taxes work is probably reflected in how federal taxes work. Which is that the poor pay more.

 

[maxo]

There is a lot we could do with 420 billion dollars. Rather than just flush it down the toilet. For example, that would pay for about 21 U.S.-mexico border walls.

Border walls?

We could also buy 40 million miniature golf courses for the money.

I don't think that playing miniature golf with decapitated mexican heads would work very well. But I would love to try!

Just more, "right wing fantasy"?

Flushing 420 billion dollars down the toilet every year is no fantasy. And if you didn't use that kind of money to build around 21 U.S.-mexico border walls, but instead use it to build 40 million miniature golf courses, wouldn't it be a good idea to use those miniature golf courses in a way that would act as well as a U.S.-mexico border wall?

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law. We have the largest economy in the world, even with illegal immigration. And, Mexico is our third largest trading partner. That suggests, the problem is not immigration.

Why not end the drug war, if y'all wan to be, fiscally responsible.

The thing is, the U.S could be so much BETTER if we didn't have the mexies and niggies around. As for mexico, ( say sarcastically) yeah, it's wonderful. That's why so many of their citizens are invading the U.S. To get away from the wonderfulness. As for drugs, there would be a HELL of a lot less of them in the U.S. if we didn't have NAFTA. In the future, please don't sniff glue before replying to me.

 

[Boss]

Who are you to say who is poor or not. Either you make $10,000 a year or you don't. End of story.

Again... $10k is not a measure of my wealth, it's just an income for the year. I may be a billionaire for all you know. The fact that I only made $10k in income doesn't tell you anything about my wealth.

It is a measure of wealth if you earn a weekly income and at the end of the year all those weekly checks added up to $10,000. Am I leaving out what the tooth fairy may have left under the pillow?

It's certainly NOT a measure of wealth... it's a measure of income earned for the year. It has nothing to do with your wealth. Why is this not computing in your brain? If all my checks add up to $10k for the year... AND.... I also have $50 billion in the bank.... am I poor or rich? So how are my checks a measure of my wealth?

Now you're just being stupid. (er?) If you had 50 billion in the bank, why in the hell would you be working some job that only paid $10,000 a year. As far as that goes, if you had 50 billion in a bank, why in the hell would you be working some job that paid $100,000 a year.

Don't call ME stupid, the point is still flying comfortably over your empty noggin. My income has nothing to do with my wealth. Maybe I "worked a job" that paid $100k and I had so many deductions that my taxable income was $10k? Perhaps a business venture I anticipated paying much more ended up going sour and I lost my ass... resulting in paltry $10k for the year.... there are all kinds of scenarios.... I could be a CEO with all kinds of company-paid perks... housing, clothing, food, servants, car, etc., and the $10k is my salary which is my pocket money? Maybe I didn't work a job all year and I merely provided "consulting" to someone who paid me $10k and that was my reported income for the year? You ******* don't know, it could be anything. THE POINT IS... my income has nothing whatsoever to do with my WEALTH. It's two completely different things and if you don't understand that, hard head, I can't explain it any clearer. Go put the dunce cap on and sit in the corner until you've figured it out.

 

[Boss]

Put it this way. Just take any idea of what money the wealthy may have on hand and stick it up your ass. Then we can just concentrate on earned income. Such as the $10,000 a year a poor person may make and the $40,000 on up that a wealthy person may earn in a year.

Put it this way... you're still a dingleberry who is equating INCOME with WEALTH and I've already destroyed that myth with common sense and logic. You just defined a "wealthy" person as someone earning $40k a year... a ******* manager at McDonalds makes that much, IDIOT!

And let me educate you some more... $40k a year won't buy you a ******* cardboard box in Los Angeles, CA. But in Waterloo, MS, you can live pretty well on $40k.

I personally have assets in excess of $20 million... do you want to know how much taxable income I had last year? Just over $17k.... and that was by my choice because I took a voluntary distribution. I pretty much took the year off because I wanted to enjoy life a little bit. I don't have to work another day in my life. I can live comfortably (for me) and I'm happy. But you know what... I bet you think my wealth makes me rich... I've been in a room with a hundred people who could drop $20 million on their ******* vacations! I'm nowhere near "rich" by their standards. And ya know what else... not a damn one of them goes to a job and punches a clock and earns a paycheck. Wealthy people don't have to earn incomes ....they're WEALTHY!

INCOME does not equal WEALTH!

Dipshit!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bill gated made about $1,380,000 per hour.

How'd he do that? Any specifics?

Well he was the CEO of microsoft, wasn't he?

He was. You think his salary was $1.38 million an hour?

I don't "think" it. I KNOW it. From what I remember, he made about $141.00 a second.

I don't "think" it. I KNOW it. From what I remember, he made about $141.00 a second.

Ummmm.....that's $507,600 an hour, not $1.38 million an hour.

Gates has several investments outside Microsoft, which in 2006 paid him a salary of $616,667 and $350,000 bonus totalling $966,667.

Bill Gates - Wikipedia

Less than 1 million a year?
That make you an idiot.
Unless he only worked an hour or two a year?

I already looked it up myself. I googled, "How much did Bill Gates make per hour. It was what I said it was. Though I was wrong about what he made per second. He made about $385.80 per second. Sorry about the mistake.

How much did Bill Gates make per hour. It was what I said it was.

Your mistake was claiming that was his salary.

 

[deskeptify]

Put it this way. Just take any idea of what money the wealthy may have on hand and stick it up your ass. Then we can just concentrate on earned income. Such as the $10,000 a year a poor person may make and the $40,000 on up that a wealthy person may earn in a year.

Put it this way... you're still a dingleberry who is equating INCOME with WEALTH and I've already destroyed that myth with common sense and logic. You just defined a "wealthy" person as someone earning $40k a year... a ******* manager at McDonalds makes that much, IDIOT!

And let me educate you some more... $40k a year won't buy you a ******* cardboard box in Los Angeles, CA. But in Waterloo, MS, you can live pretty well on $40k.

I personally have assets in excess of $20 million... do you want to know how much taxable income I had last year? Just over $17k.... and that was by my choice because I took a voluntary distribution. I pretty much took the year off because I wanted to enjoy life a little bit. I don't have to work another day in my life. I can live comfortably (for me) and I'm happy. But you know what... I bet you think my wealth makes me rich... I've been in a room with a hundred people who could drop $20 million on their ******* vacations! I'm nowhere near "rich" by their standards. And ya know what else... not a damn one of them goes to a job and punches a clock and earns a paycheck. Wealthy people don't have to earn incomes ....they're WEALTHY!

INCOME does not equal WEALTH!

Dipshit!

I couldn't resist replying. Seeing much of the back and forth, here is what I would suggest. Forget income. Instead, just say that person "A" has $10,000 in his pocket to live off for a year. And person "B" has $100,000 dollars in his pockets to live off for a year. Now, apply that to any argument you may have.

 

[Boss]

I couldn't resist replying. Seeing much of the back and forth, here is what I would suggest. Forget income. Instead, just say that person "A" has $10,000 in his pocket to live off for a year. And person "B" has $100,000 dollars in his pockets to live off for a year. Now, apply that to any argument you may have.

Okay... MONEY is simply a representation of an individual's production. If I have $100k, I have invested my time, my work, my ingenuity or talent to produce something which resulted in my acquisition of that wealth. And if I didn't, someone did.

So what makes it okay for some to believe it's acceptable to take what I've earned and give it to someone who didn't earn it? Isn't that essentially saying that some people are obligated to provide the fruit of their efforts for others who put forth no effort? And if this is the world we're going to live in, wouldn't it be more desirable to not put forth any effort and just wait to obtain the benefit of the efforts put forth by others?

Removing the incentives of putting forth an effort to earn wealth is a recipe for economic disaster, which is why Socialism always fails.

 

[deskeptify]

I couldn't resist replying. Seeing much of the back and forth, here is what I would suggest. Forget income. Instead, just say that person "A" has $10,000 in his pocket to live off for a year. And person "B" has $100,000 dollars in his pockets to live off for a year. Now, apply that to any argument you may have.

Okay... MONEY is simply a representation of an individual's production. If I have $100k, I have invested my time, my work, my ingenuity or talent to produce something which resulted in my acquisition of that wealth. And if I didn't, someone did.

So what makes it okay for some to believe it's acceptable to take what I've earned and give it to someone who didn't earn it? Isn't that essentially saying that some people are obligated to provide the fruit of their efforts for others who put forth no effort? And if this is the world we're going to live in, wouldn't it be more desirable to not put forth any effort and just wait to obtain the benefit of the efforts put forth by others?

Removing the incentives of putting forth an effort to earn wealth is a recipe for economic disaster, which is why Socialism always fails.

If you think having money somehow makes you genetically superior, you couldn't be more wrong. Next, I am not against those who work harder having more. But there HAS to be limits. Also, wealth is like a pyramid scheme. They get it by stomping on many many many others below them. That doesn't make for a healthy society.

Next, the vast majority of people put forth effort. Who are you to decide if that effort lives up to your standards. Next, what kind of incentives do those in the military have to do the difficult things they do. Next, the socialism in Nazi Germany didn't fail. It was crushed from outside. And for any other failures of socialism, that is only because it hasn't been done right.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I couldn't resist replying. Seeing much of the back and forth, here is what I would suggest. Forget income. Instead, just say that person "A" has $10,000 in his pocket to live off for a year. And person "B" has $100,000 dollars in his pockets to live off for a year. Now, apply that to any argument you may have.

Okay... MONEY is simply a representation of an individual's production. If I have $100k, I have invested my time, my work, my ingenuity or talent to produce something which resulted in my acquisition of that wealth. And if I didn't, someone did.

So what makes it okay for some to believe it's acceptable to take what I've earned and give it to someone who didn't earn it? Isn't that essentially saying that some people are obligated to provide the fruit of their efforts for others who put forth no effort? And if this is the world we're going to live in, wouldn't it be more desirable to not put forth any effort and just wait to obtain the benefit of the efforts put forth by others?

Removing the incentives of putting forth an effort to earn wealth is a recipe for economic disaster, which is why Socialism always fails.

And for any other failures of socialism, that is only because it hasn't been done right.

Lol, how many tries ya need?

It will never work, it's been proven time and time again

 

[deskeptify]

I couldn't resist replying. Seeing much of the back and forth, here is what I would suggest. Forget income. Instead, just say that person "A" has $10,000 in his pocket to live off for a year. And person "B" has $100,000 dollars in his pockets to live off for a year. Now, apply that to any argument you may have.

Okay... MONEY is simply a representation of an individual's production. If I have $100k, I have invested my time, my work, my ingenuity or talent to produce something which resulted in my acquisition of that wealth. And if I didn't, someone did.

So what makes it okay for some to believe it's acceptable to take what I've earned and give it to someone who didn't earn it? Isn't that essentially saying that some people are obligated to provide the fruit of their efforts for others who put forth no effort? And if this is the world we're going to live in, wouldn't it be more desirable to not put forth any effort and just wait to obtain the benefit of the efforts put forth by others?

Removing the incentives of putting forth an effort to earn wealth is a recipe for economic disaster, which is why Socialism always fails.

And for any other failures of socialism, that is only because it hasn't been done right.

Lol, how many tries ya need?

It will never work, it's been proven time and time again

I have a "try" for you. I hope your report button is still functioning. Go to the race relations section and look at my thread "Nazi Racism Revealed." But you better do it quick. Because I don't expect it to last long.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I couldn't resist replying. Seeing much of the back and forth, here is what I would suggest. Forget income. Instead, just say that person "A" has $10,000 in his pocket to live off for a year. And person "B" has $100,000 dollars in his pockets to live off for a year. Now, apply that to any argument you may have.

Okay... MONEY is simply a representation of an individual's production. If I have $100k, I have invested my time, my work, my ingenuity or talent to produce something which resulted in my acquisition of that wealth. And if I didn't, someone did.

So what makes it okay for some to believe it's acceptable to take what I've earned and give it to someone who didn't earn it? Isn't that essentially saying that some people are obligated to provide the fruit of their efforts for others who put forth no effort? And if this is the world we're going to live in, wouldn't it be more desirable to not put forth any effort and just wait to obtain the benefit of the efforts put forth by others?

Removing the incentives of putting forth an effort to earn wealth is a recipe for economic disaster, which is why Socialism always fails.

And for any other failures of socialism, that is only because it hasn't been done right.

Lol, how many tries ya need?

It will never work, it's been proven time and time again

I have a "try" for you. I hope your report button is still functioning. Go to the race relations section and look at my thread "Nazi Racism Revealed." But you better do it quick. Because I don't expect it to last long.

Nah, I'm good. If you think Socialism will ever work there isn't much hope

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I couldn't resist replying. Seeing much of the back and forth, here is what I would suggest. Forget income. Instead, just say that person "A" has $10,000 in his pocket to live off for a year. And person "B" has $100,000 dollars in his pockets to live off for a year. Now, apply that to any argument you may have.

Okay... MONEY is simply a representation of an individual's production. If I have $100k, I have invested my time, my work, my ingenuity or talent to produce something which resulted in my acquisition of that wealth. And if I didn't, someone did.

So what makes it okay for some to believe it's acceptable to take what I've earned and give it to someone who didn't earn it? Isn't that essentially saying that some people are obligated to provide the fruit of their efforts for others who put forth no effort? And if this is the world we're going to live in, wouldn't it be more desirable to not put forth any effort and just wait to obtain the benefit of the efforts put forth by others?

Removing the incentives of putting forth an effort to earn wealth is a recipe for economic disaster, which is why Socialism always fails.

If you think having money somehow makes you genetically superior, you couldn't be more wrong. Next, I am not against those who work harder having more. But there HAS to be limits. Also, wealth is like a pyramid scheme. They get it by stomping on many many many others below them. That doesn't make for a healthy society.

Next, the vast majority of people put forth effort. Who are you to decide if that effort lives up to your standards. Next, what kind of incentives do those in the military have to do the difficult things they do. Next, the socialism in Nazi Germany didn't fail. It was crushed from outside. And for any other failures of socialism, that is only because it hasn't been done right.

If you think having money somehow makes you genetically superior, you couldn't be more wrong.

He didn't use the word superior. He didn't mention genetics.

Next, I am not against those who work harder having more. But there HAS to be limits.

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

And for any other failures of socialism, that is only because it hasn't been done right.

DERP!

 

[Boss]

If you think having money somehow makes you genetically superior, you couldn't be more wrong.

Huh???

Where in the everloving hell did you get that from anything I posted?

Next, I am not against those who work harder having more. But there HAS to be limits.

WHY does there have to be limits?

Merely stating this as your opinion, you contradict your first sentence. You certainly ARE against those who work harder having more. It's akin to saying: I'm not against people being able to drive as fast as they want to but there HAS to be limits.... you defeat your own argument.

Also, wealth is like a pyramid scheme. They get it by stomping on many many many others below them. That doesn't make for a healthy society.

No, wealth is NOT like a pyramid scheme. The only people in the world who obtain wealth by stomping on people below them are tyrant dictators in totalitarian regimes. American capitalists produce products and services that consumers voluntarily purchase. People also voluntarily accept jobs to help them produce the products and services. You're not forced to do anything in this country except pay taxes and obey the law.

Next, the vast majority of people put forth effort. Who are you to decide if that effort lives up to your standards. Next, what kind of incentives do those in the military have to do the difficult things they do. Next, the socialism in Nazi Germany didn't fail. It was crushed from outside. And for any other failures of socialism, that is only because it hasn't been done right.

Yes, people in a FREE society put forth the effort because there is the reward of wealth acquisition. If there isn't much reward, you're not going to put forth much effort.

I never said that it's up to me to decide what is or isn't adequate effort of others. Clearly, that's a personal determination. Look... some people are comfortable doing a 9-5 job, punching a clock, making what they make. Others are more motivated to obtain better things and more wealth.

People in the military, like the rest of society, have a variety of motivations and incentives. Perhaps it's education? Perhaps it's duty to country or patriotism? Could be the veteran's benefits? I can't answer for everyone, each person has their own incentives.

As for German socialism, we don't know how it would've worked out because it never happened. ANY new Socialist system is resoundingly successful in the beginning... look at Venezuela! What happens is, it takes years sometimes to bleed off the built up bounty of capitalism. Eventually, people become less and less motivated because there is no incentive to work harder.

What we do know from history is, time and time again, Socialist systems devolve into chaos. Sometimes, into outright genocide. This is an abhorrent ideology with over 150 million deaths in it's wake. Contrast this with Free Market Capitalist systems which have produced more millionaires and billionaires and lifted more out of poverty than ANY system mankind has ever devised. There isn't even a close second.

 

[Boss]

And for any other failures of socialism, that is only because it hasn't been done right.

We've heard this since the very inception of Socialism! Every time it fails, usually with million dying, we're told... well, it just wasn't done right! Another "version" is concocted and promoted until it is tried... resulting in more death and misery... same excuse... it wasn't done right! History is full of various incarnations... Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Trotskyism, Nationalist-Socialism, Democratic-Socialism. It never works, it always fails... People usually suffer and die.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Put it this way. Just take any idea of what money the wealthy may have on hand and stick it up your ass. Then we can just concentrate on earned income. Such as the $10,000 a year a poor person may make and the $40,000 on up that a wealthy person may earn in a year.

Put it this way... you're still a dingleberry who is equating INCOME with WEALTH and I've already destroyed that myth with common sense and logic. You just defined a "wealthy" person as someone earning $40k a year... a ******* manager at McDonalds makes that much, IDIOT!

And let me educate you some more... $40k a year won't buy you a ******* cardboard box in Los Angeles, CA. But in Waterloo, MS, you can live pretty well on $40k.

I personally have assets in excess of $20 million... do you want to know how much taxable income I had last year? Just over $17k.... and that was by my choice because I took a voluntary distribution. I pretty much took the year off because I wanted to enjoy life a little bit. I don't have to work another day in my life. I can live comfortably (for me) and I'm happy. But you know what... I bet you think my wealth makes me rich... I've been in a room with a hundred people who could drop $20 million on their ******* vacations! I'm nowhere near "rich" by their standards. And ya know what else... not a damn one of them goes to a job and punches a clock and earns a paycheck. Wealthy people don't have to earn incomes ....they're WEALTHY!

INCOME does not equal WEALTH!

Dipshit!

I couldn't resist replying. Seeing much of the back and forth, here is what I would suggest. Forget income. Instead, just say that person "A" has $10,000 in his pocket to live off for a year. And person "B" has $100,000 dollars in his pockets to live off for a year. Now, apply that to any argument you may have.

and if we did that what would we learn???

 

[danielpalos]

Next, you bring up another way in which the poor pay more. Say a poor person who only makes $10,000 a year bought a pair of jeans. Let's say the sales tax was $2.00. What percentage of his yearly income would that be. Now what if somebody made $100,000 a year and bought the same pair of jeans. Which he too paid $2.00 in sales tax. What percentage of his yearly income would that be. And to that you can add gas, insurance, paper towels, postage stamps or any of the zillions of other things that somebody buys. Like it or not, when it comes to the percentage of their income, the poor pay more.

But EVERYBODY has to pay those. Hey look... Bill Gates can buy a $100k car to haul groceries in... I'd have to LIVE in such a car! Rich people can buy more than poor people can... not a lot we can do about that unless we take everyone's wealth like they do in North Korea.

This is called "Class Warfare" and it's the tool of Socialist Marxists. It is fully intended to play on your envy and jealousy of others who have more than you. It worked beautifully across Europe and Asia where people are born into their class and that's where they live their whole life because that's how things are. But in THIS country, you are perfectly FREE to achieve ANY class you desire and millions of people have.

Dear, Mr. Trump and the poor only pay the taxes we are legally obligated to pay. Don't complain, be Patriotic!