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

In my view, fairness means we all pay the same.

Change My Mind.
The concept of "fairness" is subjective, not objective. Your mind cannot be changed, to what I want, because we like differnt things.

For years public opinion surveys have indicated majority support for a more progrssife tax system, and little support for specific cuts in the domestic budget.

This is the Democrat's strongest issue. I wish they exploited it rather than social issues, where the GOP has the advantage.
 
Banks used cheap capital to create a bubble. Their lending strategies fueled and fed off the housing bubble, and they did so using mortgage products whose performance was premised on continued growth of that bubble.

Banks used cheap capital to create a bubble.

I know! The Fed was too loose up to and after Y2K.

and they did so using mortgage products whose performance was premised on continued growth of that bubble.

Yeah, bubbles do that.
 
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reviewed Pinto’s research extensively. But staffers could find no way to reconcile his risk categorizations to actual loan performance. The FCIC’s findings were soon echoed by the research of David Min, then of the Center for American Progress. Four years later, Zandi’s updated analysis confirms and validates the earlier assessments made by Min, and almost all FCIC commissioners.


As the one Pinto-skeptic in the room, Zandi proceeded to answer his own question, “Where are the losses? As of year-end 2013, approximately $1 trillion in credit losses on pre-crisis loans had been realized. But the realized loss rate among different sectors varied considerably. Best in class were Fannie and Freddie, with a realized loss rate of 3%. Then came depository institutions, like banks, which had a realized loss rate of 6%.


The strong outlier was private label mortgage securities, with a realized loss rate of 23%, seven times that of the GSEs.
These numbers are in line with Laurie Goodman’s 2010 projections, which showed a 24% overall loss rate on private 1st lien securities. And Zandi’s 2013 numbers are consistent with his year-end 2012 numbers, which showed private label losses as 51% of the grand total, and GSE losses as 14% of the nationwide total.



These lopsided disparities are confirmed over and over from data going back two decades. By any standard — delinquencies, defaults, loss severity — GSE mortgages perform exponentially better than the rest of the market, whereas private label mortgages perform exponentially worse. To state otherwise is to lie.





GSE mortgages perform exponentially better than the rest of the market,

Ok. So what?
 
The concept of "fairness" is subjective, not objective. Your mind cannot be changed, to what I want, because we like differnt things.

For years public opinion surveys have indicated majority support for a more progrssife tax system, and little support for specific cuts in the domestic budget.

This is the Democrat's strongest issue. I wish they exploited it rather than social issues, where the GOP has the advantage.
Fairness can and should be constructed to be objectively "fair."

The less it is "objectively" the less it is in reality.
 
Fairness can and should be constructed to be objectively "fair."

The less it is "objectively" the less it is in reality.
There is no such thing as objective fair. You and I have different concepts of fairness. I think it is unfair that the rich have so much money. I want the government to take most of away from them in the form of high taxes.
 
There is no such thing as objective fair. You and I have different concepts of fairness. I think it is unfair that the rich have so much money. I want the government to take most of away from them in the form of high taxes.

Why do you think it is unfair?
 
There is no such thing as objective fair. You and I have different concepts of fairness. I think it is unfair that the rich have so much money. I want the government to take most of away from them in the form of high taxes.
The fact that you have a right to be wrong and even the right to believe you have it all figured out.

You are still capable of being wrong.

If you think you have more rights to another person's money than they do? . Take them to court and make your case or stfu.
 
Last edited:
The fact that you have a right to be wrong and even the right to believe you have it all figured out.

You are still capable of being wrong.

If you think you have more rights to another person's money than they do? . Take them to court and make your case or stfu.
I have the right to vote. The government has the right to tax. I want the government to raise taxes on the rich. So do most Americans.

Pew Research
Roughly six-in-ten adults now say the feeling that some wealthy people (61%) and corporations (60%) don’t pay their fair share bothers them a lot. These percentages are largely unchanged in recent years.
 
I have the right to vote. The government has the right to tax. I want the government to raise taxes on the rich. So do most Americans.

Pew Research
Roughly six-in-ten adults now say the feeling that some wealthy people (61%) and corporations (60%) don’t pay their fair share bothers them a lot. These percentages are largely unchanged in recent years.
Let me know when you realize that raising taxes on the rich will only result in higher costs for goods and services to the poor.

Rich people who aren't smart enough to pass their higher tax burdens down to their consumers will not remain rich for long.

You tardz continually underestimate the most simple things about how capitalism works.
 
Let me know when you realize that raising taxes on the rich will only result in higher costs for goods and services to the poor.

Rich people who aren't smart enough to pass their higher tax burdens down to their consumers will not remain rich for long.

You tardz continually underestimate the most simple things about how capitalism works.
During the 1950's and 1960's the rich paid much higher taxes. the standard of living rose for working class and middle class Americans. The national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product was reduced.
 
Last edited:
There is no such thing as objective fair. You and I have different concepts of fairness. I think it is unfair that the rich have so much money. I want the government to take most of away from them in the form of high taxes.
You want the federal government to enforce your version of morality. Who would have guessed.

The federal government cannot tax the wealth of the rich, just their income. You'll never take their wealth away.
 
Last edited:
During the 1950's and 1960's the rich paid much higher taxes.
Until Kennedy dropped the top marginal rates in the first instance of "trickle down" economics.
the standard of living rose for working class and middle class Americans. The national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product was reduced.
Unless you can demonstrate the necessary relationship between the cause you claim and the effect you specify, you present a post-hoc fallacy.
 
A couple of years ago, at a family function (graduation party), the subject of taxation came up. It wasn't me that brought it up, but I did make the mistake of kicking the hornets' nest.

The subject was mostly about the economy and Trump (again, it wasn't me), and one of my in-laws said something about "tax cuts for the rich," or "the rich not paying their fair share."

I wanted a clear answer and explanation for how to know or calculate what "their fair share" should be. That's all.

You would have thought I threatened them with a gun or something.

Needless to say, I never got an answer.

In my view, each and every citizens "tax burden" should initially be the same dollar amount. Thereafter, there should be taxes based on usage. For example, if you have a trucking company with 200 trucks running up and down the road every day.

My reasoning goes like this.

If Trump, Musk, or any other Billionaire were standing in line to buy a gallon of milk at the grocery store, should their cost for their gallon of milk be exponentially higher than what I pay, just because they have and make more money than I do?

In my view, fairness means we all pay the same.

Change My Mind.


This idea sounds logical....
but a far, far, far, far, far better idea was put forward by Economist Milton Friedman.



x. The Distribution of IncomeFriedman examines the progressive income tax, introduced in order to redistribute income to make things more fair, and finds that, in fact, the rich take advantage of numerous loopholes, nullifying the redistributive effects. It would be far more fair just to have a uniform flat tax with no deductions, which could meet the 1962 tax revenues with a rate only slightly greater than the lowest tax bracket at that time.

xi. Social Welfare MeasuresThough well-intentioned, many social welfare measures don't help the poor as much as some think. Friedman focuses on Social Security as a particularly large and unfair system.

xii. Alleviation of PovertyFriedman regarded welfare programs as misguided and inefficient. To replace them, he advocates a negative income tax, giving everyone a guaranteed minimum income.

xiii. ConclusionThe conclusion to the book centers on how, time and time again, government intervention often has an effect opposite of that intended. Most good things in the United States and the world come from the free market, not the government, and they will continue to do so. The government, despite its good intentions, should stay out of areas where it does not need to be.


 
This idea sounds logical....
but a far, far, far, far, far better idea was put forward by Economist Milton Friedman.

Alleviation of Poverty Friedman regarded welfare programs as misguided and inefficient. To replace them, he advocates a negative income tax, giving everyone a guaranteed minimum income.

His plan didn't give everyone a government handout. You know that, right?
 
Alleviation of Poverty Friedman regarded welfare programs as misguided and inefficient. To replace them, he advocates a negative income tax, giving everyone a guaranteed minimum income.

His plan didn't give everyone a government handout. You know that, right?


Who owns the USA Dollar?

Several hundred corrupt elected officials in the Washington, D. C. Swamp?

Or Three hundred and thirty million American citizens?

This is an elephant in the room that even professors at university tend to ignore in their fear regarding their retirement plans.

Thank God for economics professors like Dr. Irving Fisher who observed the Worgl Austria Local Money Experiment back in 1932.


[The Truth About Money: The Money SystemIsnt There a Better Way?
by Francis and Lia Ayley] :

"City in Austria Printed Local Currency
Worgl, like many other European towns and cities, was hit hard by the Great Depression. There was mass unemployment; four of the five local factories had closed, and the people were starving in the streets. Nobody had any money to buy anything. One of the features of an economic depression is that there is not enough money in circulation to ensure that people can meet their basic needs, and in the 1930s, the shortage of currency in many countries of the world became catastrophic.

The mayor of Worgl, together with local businessmen, decided to try to break this economic impasse by creating their own local currency. They printed and issued 60,000 Austrian shillings worth of local currency. These shillings could only be spent in Worgl, so they remained in the local community and were exchanged over and over again.

The positive impact was immediate and surprising to everyone. In only six weeks, unemployment disappeared, all the factories had reopened and everyone had food. For the inhabitants of Worgl, the economic depression was gone. This dramatic transformation became known as the “miracle of Worgl.” Surrounding towns, inspired by the success of Worgl, immediately started printing their own local currencies.

Sadly, the miracle did not last long. When the Austrian Central Bank heard about Worgl’s local currency, they initiated legal proceedings against the mayor and local businessmen. According to Austrian banking law, it was illegal for anyone except the Austrian Central Bank to issue money. The bank won the court case, and the mayor was ordered to shut down the local currency, which he did, under threat of imprisonment. The town then returned to the devastating economic depression of the 1930s, with all the human pain and suffering associated with this catastrophe. Factories closed, and once again, the people starved.

Alternative Currency in the U.S.
Irving Fisher, an American professor of economics at Yale University, visited Worgl before the local currency was suppressed and witnessed the ‘miracle’ firsthand. When he returned to the United States, Fisher spread the word by traveling and lecturing across the country, advocating the use of the Worgl ‘scrip’ everywhere. Inspired by his vision, hundreds of communities began issuing their own currency, and by 1934 there were over 1,000 local communities using ‘scrip’ throughout the U.S.

Every one of these communities experienced a tremendous rejuvenation of their local economies. They thrived while others suffered. Fisher then met with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, proposing the implementation of government-sanctioned local ‘scrip’ in every community in America. When FDR consulted with his top financial advisors and bankers, however, he was advised to shut all the ‘scrip’ systems down, which he did. Instead, he borrowed large amounts of money from bankers, at interest, and used it to pay for the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and the other work-creation projects, which collectively came to be known as the ‘New Deal.’ So ended the last widespread use of a local currency within the U.S.

This pattern of economic collapse and re-emergence of local currencies has occurred thousands of times in many parts of the world. When these currencies have failed or have been suppressed, banks have not always been to blame. Sometimes, local currencies fail because they have been badly designed or implemented. Sometimes, people lose interest in them when the mainstream economy recovers. But they have always returned in one form or another during times of economic failure.

Our present world situation is uniquely different. Despite a relatively prosperous and stable world economy, a quiet monetary revolution has been occurring around the globe over the last 20 years. Awareness is growing about the flaws in our current monetary system, and people are re-creating viable alternatives. We are witnessing for the first time the worldwide creation of money systems designed by the people who use them, instead of by central banks.

Time Dollars in Whatcom County"

[ The Truth About Money: The Money SystemIsnt There a Better Way?
by Francis and Lia Ayley}



 
15th post
Who owns the USA Dollar?

Several hundred corrupt elected officials in the Washington, D. C. Swamp?

Or Three hundred and thirty million American citizens?

This is an elephant in the room that even professors at university tend to ignore in their fear regarding their retirement plans.

Thank God for economics professors like Dr. Irving Fisher who observed the Worgl Austria Local Money Experiment back in 1932.

Who owns the USA Dollar?

I own some. They're in my wallet.

the Worgl Austria Local Money Experiment back in 1932

During a severe deflation, those things can work. Now, not so much.
 
Who owns the USA Dollar?

I own some. They're in my wallet.

the Worgl Austria Local Money Experiment back in 1932

During a severe deflation, those things can work. Now, not so much.

And interestingly enough....
a couple of dozen concerned Canadian citizens can legally print Calgary Dollars....
but there is a catch.....
they have to claim them as they earn them....
and pay the same rate of income tax on them as if they had earned Canadian Dollars.


www.CalgaryDollars.ca/
 
Who owns the USA Dollar?

Several hundred corrupt elected officials in the Washington, D. C. Swamp?

Or Three hundred and thirty million American citizens?

This is an elephant in the room that even professors at university tend to ignore in their fear regarding their retirement plans.

Thank God for economics professors like Dr. Irving Fisher who observed the Worgl Austria Local Money Experiment back in 1932.







His plan didn't give everyone a government handout. You know that, right?
 
This idea sounds logical....
but a far, far, far, far, far better idea was put forward by Economist Milton Friedman.
Your goal or ideal is the "redistribution of wealth?"

You think that is what taxation is for?
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom