Zone1 Tax the Rich! Make them Pay their Fair Share!

[Care4all]

Simply not true.

Labor is one of the values.

But without the concept of a business, no product is created.

And, without the raw materials for a business, no product is created.

And, without the refining of raw materials for a business, no product is created.

And, without the machinery to put the refine the materials together for a business, no product is created.

And without the plan to acquire all the needed components for a product, no product is created.

I agree that without the labor, all of the above is meaningless.

But, still, without the acquisition of the plots of land to build the plants and offices and then the construction of those plants and offices, no product is created.

Then we can talk about the obviously necessary distribution and sales of the product without which, the creation of the product is pointless. And if it’s pointless, the company ceases to exist because no income flows in.

And if the company goes out of business, no labor force for the company can be maintained; and, labor becomes unemployed.

Without the laborer, none of those things or components or supplies and materials etc you mentioned, would be available for the rich man to buy to start his new business.

You can own a mountain of granite, or a field full of clay, or a forest filled with wood or caves filled with gold....or land rich in oil....

All of it worthless, without the laborer....to retrieve it for you, to make it in to a widget to sell for you...

We, the laborers, are worth more than you, and we all collectively realize....imo.

When we produce more than what the owners are paying us to make it, or do it, that becomes the owners profit...in the simplest of terms.

As our productivity increases, we the worker, are making the company more profit....especially if our salaries are not increased somewhat, proportionately with the increase in what we are producing for them in the same amount of time.

A rich man, could not have become the rich man, without laborers...

 

[DukeU]

A rich man, could not have become the rich man, without laborers...

Where would the laborer be without a rich man to labor for?

 

[Chuz Life]

Its amazing how you think anyone who is rich employs people. Just to name an actor, Jon Hamm (sp) probably doesn't employ very many people. Neither does Aaron Judge. So they're not going to "raise their price". Lets say you make that cokehead Don Jr. start paying SS taxes on every penny he ears. Is he going to "raise his price"....on what exactly? LOL

Sounds to me you have a "fucktarded" brain.

Diversion noted.

Will increasing tariffs result in higher prices? Disproportionately affecting the poor?

Will increasing the taxes on the rich and corporations also result in higher prices that disproportionately affect the poor?

Yes or no questions that even a fucktard ought to comprehend.

 

[candycorn]

Diversion noted.

You brought it up.

Will increasing tariffs result in higher prices? Disproportionately affecting the poor?

Yes.

Will increasing the taxes on the rich

and corporations also result in higher prices that disproportionately affect the poor?

Not necessarily. It depends on what "the rich" do. If you tax Elon Musk more, the price of TESLA's may go up. Its unclear how that's going to hurt the poor.

If Lebron James's taxes go up...please tell us how that will affect the poor.

Yes or no questions that even a fucktard ought to comprehend.

Well, as you are demonstrating over and over again, you're a massive fucktard and you're having trouble comprehending it.

 

[Care4all]

Where would the laborer be without a rich man to labor for?

Trading or bartering with his labor.*

 

[leftwinger]

Sp flat tax candyPorn is fir everyone to pay say 10% income tax correct? Guy makes $100K pays $10K. Guy makes $200M pays $20M.

Can't Argue with that. Shocking.

 

[Chuz Life]

You brought it up.

Yes.

Not necessarily. It depends on what "the rich" do. If you tax Elon Musk more, the price of TESLA's may go up. Its unclear how that's going to hurt the poor.

If Lebron James's taxes go up...please tell us how that will affect the poor.

Well, as you are demonstrating over and over again, you're a massive fucktard and you're having trouble comprehending it.

Diversions and projections noted again.

Anything to avoid the point that higher taxes on corporations, rich people and producers are costs that are passed DOWN and essentially amount to a tax on the poor, consumers.

 

[Care4all]

Diversions and projections noted again.

Anything to avoid the point that higher taxes on corporations, rich people and producers are costs that are passed DOWN and essentially amount to a tax on the poor, consumers.

Answer her question, please.

 

[Care4all]

Diversions and projections noted again.

Anything to avoid the point that higher taxes on corporations, rich people and producers are costs that are passed DOWN and essentially amount to a tax on the poor, consumers.

Do you support Trump's tariffs?

 

[candycorn]

Diversions and projections noted again.

Anything to avoid the point that higher taxes on corporations, rich people and producers are costs that are passed DOWN and essentially amount to a tax on the poor, consumers.

You keep spouting that off without explaining how Lebron James paying more taxes will translate into higher prices for poor people.

The floor is yours dick breath. Let's hear it.

 

[Captain Caveman]

AGI is an income tax term for "Adjusted Gross Income".

That is the income tax model, which isn't what I'm trying to get people to think about. It's burden as a function of ALL taxes by income level.

Oh, and just to be clear, that $1M AGI isn't paying 39%, even with no other deductions/adjustments the rate would be 31% since they don't pay the highest riate on all AGI income. It's a progressive system where the lower amounts are applied first in a ladder effect. So got FIT (from the web):

10% on the first $11,600: $1,160
12% on income from $11,601 to $47,150: $4,266
22% on income from $47,151 to $100,525: $11,742.50
24% on income from $100,526 to $191,950: $21,942
32% on income from $191,951 to $243,725: $16,568
35% on income from $243,726 to $609,350: $127,963.75
37% on income over $609,350: $132,270.50

WW

So tax bands discriminate against those that earn more!

 

[there4eyeM]

Simply not true.

Labor is one of the values.

But without the concept of a business, no product is created.

And, without the raw materials for a business, no product is created.

And, without the refining of raw materials for a business, no product is created.

And, without the machinery to put the refine the materials together for a business, no product is created.

And without the plan to acquire all the needed components for a product, no product is created.

I agree that without the labor, all of the above is meaningless.

But, still, without the acquisition of the plots of land to build the plants and offices and then the construction of those plants and offices, no product is created.

Then we can talk about the obviously necessary distribution and sales of the product without which, the creation of the product is pointless. And if it’s pointless, the company ceases to exist because no income flows in.

And if the company goes out of business, no labor force for the company can be maintained; and, labor becomes unemployed.

"I agree that without the labor, all of the above is meaningless."

 

[Chuz Life]

Do you support Trump's tariffs?

Grok

Grok is an AI assistant built by xAI. Chat, create images, write code, and get real-time answers from the web and X.

grok.com

 

[WorldWatcher]

So tax bands discriminate against those that earn more!

"Discriminate" is a negatively charged word in this country usually used to make a tenious association with a slavery and discrimination against minorities. But as a Brit I'm assuming you mean "discriminate", groupings within a dataset based on some criteria.
.
.
.
.
But yes, the US has on it's face a progressive Federal Income Tax system, but many aspects of overal tax burden are regressive. The OP askes about "tax burdent" which any honest examination of tax burden looks at tax burden as a percentage of income and all taxes paid.

Who has the higher tax burden as a percentage of income when total tax is a factor including:

• Effective Federal Income Tax Rate
• Effective State Income Tax rates
• FICA Taxes
• Property Tax (Land)
• Property Tax (Non-land)
• Sales Tax
• Embedded Taxes (local, state, federal)

WW

Quote Reply WorldWatcher

 

[Chuz Life]

"Discriminate" is a negatively charged word in this country usually used to make a tenious association with a slavery and discrimination against minorities. But as a Brit I'm assuming you mean "discriminate", groupings within a dataset based on some criteria.
.
.
.
.
But yes, the US has on it's face a progressive Federal Income Tax system, but many aspects of overal tax burden are regressive. The OP askes about "tax burdent" which any honest examination of tax burden looks at tax burden as a percentage of income and all taxes paid.

Who has the higher tax burden as a percentage of income when total tax is a factor including:

• Effective Federal Income Tax Rate
• Effective State Income Tax rates
• FICA Taxes
• Property Tax (Land)
• Property Tax (Non-land)
• Sales Tax
• Embedded Taxes (local, state, federal)

WW

Quote Reply WorldWatcher

I HONESTLY don't agree that "percentage of income" is a FAIR way to establish anyone's tax burden.

Calling it "fair" doesn't mean it is.

Fair, would be everyone pays the same amount.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I HONESTLY don't agree that "percentage of income" is a FAIR way to establish anyone's tax burden.

Calling it "fair" doesn't mean it is.

Fair, would be everyone pays the same amount.

So there was some math establishing total Federal Budget divided by population. Each individual would owe $21,000 under your model.

So a single Mom making $25,000 per year pays $21,000 and has $4,000 per year to pay her bills and support her children.

Wait, $21,000 is Budget divided by Population, that means that her child ALSO owes $21,000. So how is that child supposed to pay $21,000 in federal taxes. Hmmmm maybe we just make the Mom making $25,000 pay a $42,000 tax bill.

Then we have a blue collar worker making $60,000, well he is your tax bill for $21,000, leaving $39,000.

Then we have someone with $1,000,000 in income, here is your tax bill for $21,000, leaving $979,000.

Then we have someone with $10,000,000 in income, here is your tax bill for $21,000, leaving $9,979,000.

That is what you bumper sticker results in.

Or do we need to rework the math based on $7,000,000,000,000 budget and 170,000,000 working adults meaning an individual worker tax of $46,666.67 each?

WW

 

[there4eyeM]

I HONESTLY don't agree that "percentage of income" is a FAIR way to establish anyone's tax burden.

Calling it "fair" doesn't mean it is.

Fair, would be everyone pays the same amount.

That might be a form of equality, but is not at all fair in human terms. Does everyone pay the same insurance rate?

 

[BackAgain]

Without the laborer, none of those things or components or supplies and materials etc you mentioned, would be available for the rich man to buy to start his new business.

You can own a mountain of granite, or a field full of clay, or a forest filled with wood or caves filled with gold....or land rich in oil....

All of it worthless, without the laborer....to retrieve it for you, to make it in to a widget to sell for you...

We, the laborers, are worth more than you, and we all collectively realize....imo.

When we produce more than what the owners are paying us to make it, or do it, that becomes the owners profit...in the simplest of terms.

As our productivity increases, we the worker, are making the company more profit....especially if our salaries are not increased somewhat, proportionately with the increase in what we are producing for them in the same amount of time.

A rich man, could not have become the rich man, without laborers...

Without the raw materials, nothing would be available.

Without the structural organization and oversight of a capitalist, nothing would be available.

Without the arduous work (such as invention) that goes into creating the concept of the product and the efforts of the capitalist and her or his company to then arrange for the creation of the needed machinery and the securing of the lands and the construction of the buildings, etc., etc., etc., nothing would be available.

And so on.

Is labor a necessary ingredient in the workings of an economic system? Obviously.

But you merely reiterate that it is the “most” crucial without supporting that contention.

It still is not. What it is, obviously? Is the one we naturally identify with since it is closest to home.

 

[Chuz Life]

So there was some math establishing total Federal Budget divided by population. Each individual would owe $21,000 under your model.

So a single Mom making $25,000 per year pays $21,000 and has $4,000 per year to pay her bills and support her children.

Wait, $21,000 is Budget divided by Population, that means that her child ALSO owes $21,000. So how is that child supposed to pay $21,000 in federal taxes. Hmmmm maybe we just make the Mom making $25,000 pay a $42,000 tax bill.

Then we have a blue collar worker making $60,000, well he is your tax bill for $21,000, leaving $39,000.

Then we have someone with $1,000,000 in income, here is your tax bill for $21,000, leaving $979,000.

Then we have someone with $10,000,000 in income, here is your tax bill for $21,000, leaving $9,979,000.

That is what you bumper sticker results in.

Or do we need to rework the math based on $7,000,000,000,000 budget and 170,000,000 working adults meaning an individual worker tax of $46,666.67 each?

WW

That might be a form of equality, but is not at all fair in human terms. Does everyone pay the same insurance rate?

1. I understand the math won't math TODAY, with what I think is "fair" (everybody should share the burden equally.) Income taxes did not begin in the U.S. (permanently) until 1913 with the passing of the 16th Amendment.

The first State to tax income was Wisconsin (1911.)

So how did the U.S. Government survive and function before 1913?

2. I understand that this ship is now too ******* big and too far off course to turn on a dime.

My reason for this thread is to make the point that the current system "is not fair." It's far from it (involuntary servitude and government mandated redistribution of wealth.)

Those who support the status quo should at least pull my ******* hair or give me a reach around by admitting to the systematic theft.

3. As the Declaration of Independence says, the Government passes laws (and taxes) with the "Consent of the Governed."

I am surely in the minority opinion on the "fairness" of the progressive taxation based on percentage of income.

One way to replace it with something (anything) more "fair" is to have conversations, like this one, about it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

1. I understand the math won't math TODAY, with what I think is "fair" (everybody should share the burden equally.) Income taxes did not begin in the U.S. (permanently) until 1913 with the passing of the 16th Amendment.

The first State to tax income was Wisconsin (1911.)

So how did the U.S. Government survive and function before 1913?

2. I understand that this ship is now too ******* big and too far off course to turn on a dime.

My reason for this thread is to make the point that the current system "is not fair." It's far from it (involuntary servitude and government mandated redistribution of wealth.)

Those who support the status quo should at least pull my ******* hair or give me a reach around by admitting to the systematic theft.

3. As the Declaration of Independence says, the Government passes laws (and taxes) with the "Consent of the Governed."

I am surely in the minority opinion on the "fairness" of the progressive taxation based on percentage of income.

One way to replace it with something (anything) more "fair" is to have conversations, like this one, about it.

Fair enough. What do you suggest?