Michigan Democrat Mallory McMorrow compares the Trump administration to Nazi Germany

[Man With A Plan]

"Zero risks?" You have to be kidding me!

Who takes more risks, a guy behind a large desk who owns stock in oil companies, or the roughnecks who work on their companies oil wells?

Report Presents Complex Safety Picture as Fatalities Rise but Fatality Rate Dips

Members of the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers reported 32 fatalities and a 26% jump in hours worked in 2024, which lowered the rate by 0.03 per million hours worked.

jpt.spe.org

Interesting concept. By Federal law that roughneck is guaranteed his pay. The man that owns the oil company? He has zero guarantee of turning a profit. He may make one. He may not. That roughneck is the first to get paid...the owner is the LAST one to get paid and sometimes doesn't get paid at all! That roughneck doesn't make more than his wage because he doesn't risk anything but the time he's spent working for that wage...something that is guaranteed by law!

 

[Man With A Plan]

"Zero risks?" You have to be kidding me!

Who takes more risks, a guy behind a large desk who owns stock in oil companies, or the roughnecks who work on their companies oil wells?

Report Presents Complex Safety Picture as Fatalities Rise but Fatality Rate Dips

Members of the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers reported 32 fatalities and a 26% jump in hours worked in 2024, which lowered the rate by 0.03 per million hours worked.

jpt.spe.org

And if you work a job that is "high risk"? Your wage reflects that. When I was a young man I was a steelworker. I made great money because most people don't like heights. My wage was not at risk...that was guaranteed to me.

 

[Man With A Plan]

The flip side of that were several of the companies that I owned over the years that I didn't do well with. I risked capital. I spent long hours. I didn't get paid. That's the difference between me as an owner and me as an employee. When I walked off the job at 5 as a steel worker I didn't worry about how we were going to make payroll. I just went and had a beer. When I owned the company I essentially NEVER walked off the job! I was constantly trying to figure out how to make everything work. I know you on the left think every owner is out there taking advantage of the workers but the reality of things isn't close to that.

 

[LoveKimWexler]

In the US we tax "income". We don't tax wealth.

Again . . . I've advocating that we change the law. Last time I'll try to explain that to you.

But not to "tax wealth." To tax increases in wealth, which is what income is as well as capital gains.

In fact, it must have been some millionaires' tax attorneys that came up with the idea that making money from capital gains is completely different from making money by working. Either way, wealth is increasing for the individual.

That's something that someone has put away AFTER paying taxes on income. Why do you think government has the right to take more of that money?

Why does government have the right to take any money? Because if not, people will freeload off what's left of the treasury until it is gone, then government will collapse because we won't borrow a penny if we declare it illegal to tax people.

Do you really not know that ditch diggers pay very little in income taxes now? We have a progressive tax system. The wealthy already pay the bulk of taxes. Ditch diggers and other low income people pay almost nothing.

Good. Who should pay if not those who can afford it? Those who cannot afford it?

The wealthy have much greater influence on government than ditch diggers, and have benefitted much more from government than the ditch digger as you can plainly see when you compare a corner executive office to a muddy trench, and then compare the paychecks.

Then you claim that investor's are making "unearned income without paying taxes on it"? They WILL pay taxes as soon as they take the profit from that investment!

They take the profit as soon as the capital gain occurs. Who do you think owns that wealth?

That is what a capital gain refers to! You seem to think that those people are somehow ducking paying taxes on the profits that they make. That isn't the case! They pay taxes.

Yes, they pay taxes on income. But many of them avoid taxes on capital gains forever by borrowing against the capital gains, paying interests only until they die. Then their heirs never have to pay the capital gains tax if they cash out immediately.

Taxing capital gains as they accrue instead would level the playing field with the wealthy paying tax on wealth as they acquire it, same as the manager at Wendy's.

Don't you owe me an answer from upthread that would have settled this debate immediately? Let me look.

Yes, similar to the one I just asked:

I should have put this at the top. If you answer this honestly, debate is over.

No offense, but if you again refuse to answer, debate is also over, sorry.

 

[LoveKimWexler]

The flip side of that were several of the companies that I owned over the years that I didn't do well with. I risked capital. I spent long hours. I didn't get paid. That's the difference between me as an owner and me as an employee. When I walked off the job at 5 as a steel worker I didn't worry about how we were going to make payroll. I just went and had a beer. When I owned the company I essentially NEVER walked off the job! I was constantly trying to figure out how to make everything work. I know you on the left think every owner is out there taking advantage of the workers but the reality of things isn't close to that.

I'm an old school Democrat, which means I don't buy into the owners/business are evil idea. I'm not a leftie, I'm an American and proud of our system of free market with only needed regulation and taxes. But I know who does the work and who makes the money. Your workers risked working and not getting paid if the company collapsed, so they took the risk of failure almost as much as you did.

Weren't you the one complaining about people getting more benefits than they paid in taxes? Maybe not. I've noticed a lot of posters post exactly like other posters on here, so I don't try to keep up. Likely you got a subsidized small business loan, maybe more than one. Even if not, you benefitted from government in many ways as you opened and ran your businesses. Ever sit down and try to keep track of all that government did for you and your businesses?

Not saying that you were wrong to do so, but it means that you would have been one of the first to fail if we tried your idea of only giving people benefits that match their tax contributions for the year, especially if your first year were unprofitable as many start ups are. If in 2010, you made no profits to pay yourself with, so paid no income taxes, you should get zero government services and benefits the next year?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again . . . I've advocating that we change the law. Last time I'll try to explain that to you.

But not to "tax wealth." To tax increases in wealth, which is what income is as well as capital gains.

In fact, it must have been some millionaires' tax attorneys that came up with the idea that making money from capital gains is completely different from making money by working. Either way, wealth is increasing for the individual.

Why does government have the right to take any money? Because if not, people will freeload off what's left of the treasury until it is gone, then government will collapse because we won't borrow a penny if we declare it illegal to tax people.

Good. Who should pay if not those who can afford it? Those who cannot afford it?

The wealthy have much greater influence on government than ditch diggers, and have benefitted much more from government than the ditch digger as you can plainly see when you compare a corner executive office to a muddy trench, and then compare the paychecks.

They take the profit as soon as the capital gain occurs. Who do you think owns that wealth?

Yes, they pay taxes on income. But many of them avoid taxes on capital gains forever by borrowing against the capital gains, paying interests only until they die. Then their heirs never have to pay the capital gains tax if they cash out immediately.

Taxing capital gains as they accrue instead would level the playing field with the wealthy paying tax on wealth as they acquire it, same as the manager at Wendy's.

Don't you owe me an answer from upthread that would have settled this debate immediately? Let me look.

Yes, similar to the one I just asked:

View attachment 1255928
I should have put this at the top. If you answer this honestly, debate is over.

No offense, but if you again refuse to answer, debate is also over, sorry.

In fact, it must have been some millionaires' tax attorneys that came up with the idea that making money from capital gains is completely different from making money by working. Either way, wealth is increasing for the individual.

Words mean things. We tax income. We don't tax unrealized gains.

Now whine about it some more.

 

[BlindBoo]

Even if not, you benefitted from government in many ways as you opened and ran your businesses. Ever sit down and try to keep track of all that government did for you and your businesses?

"If you have a business, you didn't build that" [the incredible infrastructure in America]. "The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet" ..... "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
B. Obama

 

[Moonglow]

This is classic projection. One only has to look back at what the Democrats did to anyone that didn't want to get the Wuhan Flu mRNA vaccine.

Trump could never achieve the Third Reich, he's not smart enough or energetic enough, he's like the third string Nazi.

 

[Man With A Plan]

Again . . . I've advocating that we change the law. Last time I'll try to explain that to you.

But not to "tax wealth." To tax increases in wealth, which is what income is as well as capital gains.

In fact, it must have been some millionaires' tax attorneys that came up with the idea that making money from capital gains is completely different from making money by working. Either way, wealth is increasing for the individual.

Why does government have the right to take any money? Because if not, people will freeload off what's left of the treasury until it is gone, then government will collapse because we won't borrow a penny if we declare it illegal to tax people.

Good. Who should pay if not those who can afford it? Those who cannot afford it?

The wealthy have much greater influence on government than ditch diggers, and have benefitted much more from government than the ditch digger as you can plainly see when you compare a corner executive office to a muddy trench, and then compare the paychecks.

They take the profit as soon as the capital gain occurs. Who do you think owns that wealth?

Yes, they pay taxes on income. But many of them avoid taxes on capital gains forever by borrowing against the capital gains, paying interests only until they die. Then their heirs never have to pay the capital gains tax if they cash out immediately.

Taxing capital gains as they accrue instead would level the playing field with the wealthy paying tax on wealth as they acquire it, same as the manager at Wendy's.

Don't you owe me an answer from upthread that would have settled this debate immediately? Let me look.

Yes, similar to the one I just asked:

View attachment 1255928
I should have put this at the top. If you answer this honestly, debate is over.

No offense, but if you again refuse to answer, debate is also over, sorry.

The person who owns the investment obviously. But that increased value is still only realized when the investment is sold.

I'm an old school Democrat, which means I don't buy into the owners/business are evil idea. I'm not a leftie, I'm an American and proud of our system of free market with only needed regulation and taxes. But I know who does the work and who makes the money. Your workers risked working and not getting paid if the company collapsed, so they took the risk of failure almost as much as you did.

Weren't you the one complaining about people getting more benefits than they paid in taxes? Maybe not. I've noticed a lot of posters post exactly like other posters on here, so I don't try to keep up. Likely you got a subsidized small business loan, maybe more than one. Even if not, you benefitted from government in many ways as you opened and ran your businesses. Ever sit down and try to keep track of all that government did for you and your businesses?

Not saying that you were wrong to do so, but it means that you would have been one of the first to fail if we tried your idea of only giving people benefits that match their tax contributions for the year, especially if your first year were unprofitable as many start ups are. If in 2010, you made no profits to pay yourself with, so paid no income taxes, you should get zero government services and benefits the next year?

I get the feeling that you've never owned a business. Am I wrong? The fact that you think businesses benefit from government made me smile. I think if you asked most business owners they'd be amused by that as well. I spent a large amount of time trying to keep different government agencies happy. A very large amount of time! I believe the last time I checked the average small manufacturing company spends over a month of working days just complying with government regulations. Not building the business...just trying to keep government paper pushers secure in their jobs.

 

[DonGlock26]

Trump could never achieve the Third Reich, he's not smart enough or energetic enough, he's like the third string Nazi.

This is the Democrats try at the Third Reich: