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

[Stryder50]

Federal flat tax for everyone making over $35,000. States can do whatever the hell they like.

Flat tax dollar amount or percentage ???

 

[Grumblenuts]

View attachment 1172719

https://x.com/i/grok/share/xkNZngwp5X0JjPjTZKaHSJBWj

Who owns X? Grok?
Who's the richest, greediest person in the world?
Why seek his opinion on this?

 

[Chuz Life]

If we go with a flat percentage rate (which for the most part we have) than the dollar volume paid by "the Rich" greatly exceeds that paid by any of the lower earners/wealthy/"poor folks".

I'm not convinced that a flat percentage rate is fair.

In fact, I'm arguing that it wouldn't be.

 

[Stryder50]

It said nothing about taxes. If anything, the post infers that, lacking intelligent concessions on the part of the absurdly "rich" minority, other means of addressing the situation will be employed. Taxes would be one of the more gentle forms.

It says the author is an idiot and greedy to boot!

The "rich" get that way by providing investment(capital) to make business/industry that employs the lesser intelligent and industrious worker/labor, providing a job and income. Meanwhile the "absurdly "rich" minority" takes on the risk and should their enterprise fail (bankrupt) than the "absurdly "rich" minority" takes the loss while the worker/labor is just out of a job, but hasn't lost any invested capital(wealth), and can go to another job with no stigma.

 

[Winco]

Include the remove of expectation that top income earners should have to invest to provide capital for the low earners to have a job and an income and you may have something (NOT!).

My entire point is this.

The top earners should NEVER pay a lower ETR than the low earners.
This may or may NOT be true, but if a 3,000,000 earner pays an ETR of 10%, this is corruption.

C'mon, defend this as either:

a). This doesn't happen
b). A smart tax payer

 

[Stryder50]

I'm not convinced that a flat percentage rate is fair.

In fact, I'm arguing that it wouldn't be.

I'm not convinced either.
But it is a starting point to work from.
Meanwhile is it "fair" to penalize any one who has wealth to invest as capital to create a business that provides employment to others ?

Taxes are an extortion to provide for other what they won't/can't provide for themselves.
Taxes are anything but fair, no matter who pays or how much.

 

[Winco]

I'm not convinced either.
But it is a starting point to work from.
Meanwhile is it "fair" to penalize any one who has wealth to invest as capital to create a business that provides employment to others ?

Taxes are an extortion to provide for other what they won't/can't provide for themselves.
Taxes are anything but fair, no matter who pays or how much.

Ok, I'm open for a round of discourse.

 

[Stryder50]

This might help you...

Why labour is more important than capital

If you think capital is the driving force of the economy, you might want to sit down when you read this.

albertaworker.ca

There is no capital for them to spend, without labor providing excess labor value... from which they gain their profit, gain their capital.

Chicken or egg ?

Without capital, there is nothing for labor to be employed by/with/for.
Labor is dirt poor literally unless there is capital to invest to provide the means for labor to be employed.

Labor on it's own doesn't often provide excess value, otherwise it wouldn't "need a job", to be employed by capital, so that labor gets more than a bare existence scratched out of the dirt..

 

[Stryder50]

How did money, come in to creation?

As a means to simplify the barter system.

 

[Winco]

Chicken or egg ?

Without capital, there is nothing for labor to be employed by/with/for.
Labor is dirt poor literally unless there is capital to invest to provide the means for labor to be employed.

Labor on it's own doesn't often provide excess value, otherwise it wouldn't "need a job", to be employed by capital, so that labor gets more than a bare existence scratched out of the dirt..

I notice how you avoided POST #145

Please answer.

 

[Stryder50]

Perhaps you don't understand the term "laborer" as opposed to employee.

Many self-employed are their own labor/employee, have no one else on their payroll.

 

[Stryder50]

Higher tax rates on big businesses or corporations, makes them wiser, makes them run their businesses more efficiently....

From experience, when the corporations decided to allot me less money in my budget than they did last year, while still having to beat last year's profits made...I had to really put my thinking cap on and figure out how I can do this in my area of business... And other Buyers and Merchandisers had to do the same.... From cutting waste in supplies, in travel expenses, and business dinners, to working a better deal with the vendors I bought from was all touched....and low and behold, the lower purchasing budget still worked out to the higher profit they expected with less money to make it.

Same thing with corporate taxes being raised or at high levels...it forces corporations to waste not, run more efficiently while still providing stock holders with their profit. They spend their money on things that bring their overall taxes down, like investing in expansion....which is tax free, investing in their employees, with raises or an increase in hires, because it is tax free....they would rather spend their money that way, giving them a future, than giving the govt 40% of their profit.....

Only to a point.
Businesses also have costs other than taxes, such as supplies, transportation, wages/benefits, overhead, 'rent' & utilities, etc. Means business has limit on how much efficiency can offset costs not under their control. And if the market demand for their goods/services doesn't keep pace with rising costs and overhead, than comes a breaking point where efficiency taps out and profits disappear, then shortly so does the business.

I doubt you have "experience" since you neglected most of the equation.

 

[Stryder50]

Why? are they going to share their profit?

Are you/labor willing to share the losses and remaining debts should there be no profits and the business fails ???

That is the meaning of risk, which you clearly don't understand.

 

[Stryder50]

Purely playing devil's advocate here, but I think the rationale is that people with higher incomes are benefiting more from government, so they should pay more.

Usually not.
People making more usually need less from the government and are providing into the economy more than higher taxes on them would provide.

One case in point is that with higher levels of consumption (goods and services) they have provided more employment in wealth creation sector than their higher paid taxes would have.

 

[Stryder50]

How about this answer>>>>>>

The top income earners should in NO WAY pay LESS of an ETR than a low earner.

Do you agree with this?

Start by stating which of these "ETR" you are meaning?
Or if you have another set ...

ETR

What does ETR stand for?

acronyms.thefreedictionary.com

 

[Stryder50]

I notice how you avoided POST #145

Please answer.

1) I don't have time to play games.
2) You aren't paying me so I don't respond to your demands.
3) Your acronym is unclear.
4) etc. etc. etc.

 

[BULLDOG]

Are you/labor willing to share the losses and remaining debts should there be no profits and the business fails ???

That is the meaning of risk, which you clearly don't understand.

Why would anybody enter an agreement like that without at least partial control of the business. Are you advocating socialism where the means of the production, distribution and exchange are owned or regulated by the workers?

 

[Care4all]

Chicken or egg ?

Without capital, there is nothing for labor to be employed by/with/for.
Labor is dirt poor literally unless there is capital to invest to provide the means for labor to be employed.

Labor on it's own doesn't often provide excess value, otherwise it wouldn't "need a job", to be employed by capital, so that labor gets more than a bare existence scratched out of the dirt..

Labor made the capital.... It brought capital in to existence. We traded labor in the beginning, then bartered. No capital existed.

 

[there4eyeM]

If the "rich" control 90% (or, whatever percentage), then naturally they should pay at least that percentage of the costs of defending the nation and their wealth. They also have an interest in the health of all the "poor" who make the nation function. It isn't a matter of "fair share", it is a matter of reasonable share.

 

[there4eyeM]

Labor made the capital.... It brought capital in to existence.

Labor creates wealth. Capital, alone, does not.