The problem with taxing the rich

[Boss]

Desperately trying to change the subject and still spewing your hate-filled insults, obviously you know you have lost the argument.
Thank you.

LMFAO... Oh the goddamn nerve! You accuse me of changing subjects, then post a cartoon about the stock markets? Hypocritical much, Ed?

The market is strong right now because capital gains taxes are still low. It's funny as hell, you ***** and moan about Wall Street, then crow about the success of the stock market! Were you dropped on your head as baby, or were you just born this stupid, Ed?

Here you go again making up arguments I never made so you can rationalize spewing your hateful personal insults. I never uttered a peep about Wall Street, positive or negative, those voices in your head are not mine. Grow up, child.

LOL... You just posted a cartoon chuckling about the "record high markets" and you don't think you mentioned Wall Street?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Well you said 70% for $10m, so that is $7m.

That's not the same rate or amount of someone making $50k @ 28%

Wrong.

You are that stupid. My bad. I overestimated you.

Well, if that isn't what you intended or meant to say, then the problem is not me. Perhaps you can attempt to explain what you said again, so that it might be clarified? That's generally how mature reasonable people have dialogue. I sometimes state things in a way that causes confusion, people misinterpret what I've said, and I have to go back and re-state it another way, so that they understand what I meant to say. I don't hike my ass on my shoulders and become a prick about it.

When I read "$10m....70%" I assumed you meant incomes of $10m would be taxed at a rate of 70%, but you say that is wrong... so please, do explain what you meant?

The answer is B. 4.86m.

I assure you, the problem is on your end. A person who makes 10m is taxed as follows:

His/her 1st 50k..............0%..........$0
His/ her next 100k........28%..........28k
His/ her next 100k....... 36%.........36k
His/her next 750k..........40%..........300k
His/her next 9m.............50%.........4.5m


None of his/her income is taxed at 70%.

Now.......please get that education you were talking about. It starts with reading comprehension.

 

[edthecynic]

LMFAO... Oh the goddamn nerve! You accuse me of changing subjects, then post a cartoon about the stock markets? Hypocritical much, Ed?

The market is strong right now because capital gains taxes are still low. It's funny as hell, you ***** and moan about Wall Street, then crow about the success of the stock market! Were you dropped on your head as baby, or were you just born this stupid, Ed?

Here you go again making up arguments I never made so you can rationalize spewing your hateful personal insults. I never uttered a peep about Wall Street, positive or negative, those voices in your head are not mine. Grow up, child.

LOL... You just posted a cartoon chuckling about the "record high markets" and you don't think you mentioned Wall Street?

The cartoon is making the point that for such an anti-capitalist president, the capitalists are doing very well, putting the lie to your previous claims. So explain how the cartoon makes ME bitching and moaning about Wall Street.

What is the point of trying to discuss anything with you since you have to control both sides of the argument?

 

[Boss]

No, you spew insults because you have no real arguments.

My argument was presented in my OP. So far, you've not refuted my arguments.

You try to change the subject by stereotyping anyone who does not agree with you and then attacking your stereotype. And lastly you misrepresent what is said because you can't argue the facts.

No, that's what you do, Ed. This shit is getting old. You seem to want to continue accusing me of doing the things you are doing. I've not stereotyped anyone, I've attacked your bogus arguments and viewpoints with legitimate facts. You just continue to spew nonsense you can't back up, and in most cases, doesn't even make logical sense.

You didn't explain how the first capitalist got their capital.

Because it's irrelevant today. The first capitalists in America didn't have massive central government dictating what they could and couldn't do, limiting their ability to engage in capitalism at every turn, implementing one regulation after another and imposing excessive taxation on their efforts. Still, a good many of these earliest capitalists were able to gather other capitalists together to fund projects like the Erie Canal and a transcontinental railroad. Had the railroad been conceived under today's standards, with you and your ******* socialists standing there with your hand out, demanding they fork over 70% of any profit on their investment, the damn thing would have never been built.

I pointed out that a consumption tax jacks the price the same way a corporate tax jacks the price and therefore the argument against a corporate tax is also an argument against a consumption tax. I didn't call for a corporate tax, I just used it as an argument against a consumption tax. There is a difference.

Consumption tax is a tax on consumption. It doesn't jack the price the same way a corporate tax would at all, it's a completely different dynamic. Your idiotic insistence it's the same thing, is not an argument. It's YOU trying to strongarm your opinion onto me, and make yourself right, regardless of anything I have to say. And YES, Ed, you most certainly DID say that we should raise corporate taxes. You then argued that we should tax production instead of consumption, but you have yet to support your viewpoint with anything approaching rationality, as I've pointed out how stupid you are.

I especially love how you argue with yourself pretending you are arguing with me, like claiming I would take away the property of the wealthy.

Wealth is property. You or one of your fellow Socialists suggested we levy a heavy penalty for "hoarding wealth" in other countries. Well, we can't do that because of the Constitution. Of course, the constitution doesn't seem to mean a damn thing to any of you these days.

So keep spewing your personal insults and stereotypes if it helps you sleep at night, because it only makes me pity you.

I don't need your pity, I would like to have an intelligent conversation with you, but I am starting to realize that is impossible, your brain is not capable of such a thing. I don't mean to be insulting you, it's just what you continue to illustrate.

 

[Boss]

The cartoon is making the point that for such an anti-capitalist president, the capitalists are doing very well, putting the lie to your previous claims. So explain how the cartoon makes ME bitching and moaning about Wall Street.

What is the point of trying to discuss anything with you since you have to control both sides of the argument?

The royal "you" ...jackass. I assume you are a Leftie, because you have spewed nothing but Marxist propaganda for days on end. Nearly every conversation about the economy I have had with lefties, involves a tirade about the greedy Wall Street capitalists. But hey... when the stock market appears to make King Obama look good, you don't mind being total hypocrites with your little cartoons and whatnot.

You didn't prove my previous claims a lie. I explained to you why markets are doing well, it's because capital gains tax rates are still low, they haven't been changed. European markets are unstable and risky, so the rich folk are investing in the US markets at the moment, but if you jack up the cap gains rate, that will all go away. Some people sense that is exactly what is going to happen soon, so they are making hay while the sun shines. Hence, the market continues to go up.

 

[zeke]

I don't get this, are you retarded or did you fail math? 70% is not the same as 28%.

Do you want to know what will happen, if your "plan" ever came to fruition? There would be no more $10m incomes. There would be very few $1-10 million incomes. There would be fewer $250k - $1m incomes. Instead of income compensations, companies would move to benefit packages that did not count as "income" and wouldn't be taxable. Maybe that is a "corporate home" or property? Maybe that's the use of the corporate jet and luxury vacation destination? Maybe it's an unlimited expense account? Maybe it's a security trust? Maybe it's stock in a foreign country, where you are unable to levy tax? In any event, they will find a way to compensate their high-end executives without it being considered "earned income" and you have fucked yourself.

You are smarter than that. Read it again.

Okay, I read it again... 28% is still not the same as 70%... should I sniff some glue? Smoke some crack?

SHOULD I....you ask. Hell. when you made the comment that rich people don't have lobbyists, I was pretty sure that you ARE smoking SOMETHING. Crack? Glue? Something has rotted your brain. Why would you make that claim?

 

[zeke]

Hell Boss man. Yesterday President Obama attended a fund raiser in CA. You think he went to a poor persons house to raise funds? YOU think that the rich persons attending this event did not lobby the President or his people for some sort of favorable consideration about something?

Rcih people just give away big bucks to politicians and expect NOTHING in return. Is that really what you think?

 

[Boss]

Zeke, I was told the GOP was being lobbied by the rich, I just asked what the lobby group was. I haven't gotten an answer yet. Now it seems you want to just bow up and claim that rich people control all politicians whether republican or democrat, and because they are rich, they don't even need a lobby group.

Well, if your guy is controlled by the rich, and my guy is controlled by the rich, and all politicians are controlled by the rich, what are we to do? I guess we need to spark a People's Revolution and install a Maoist ruler, huh?

 

[zeke]

Zeke, I was told the GOP was being lobbied by the rich, I just asked what the lobby group was. I haven't gotten an answer yet. Now it seems you want to just bow up and claim that rich people control all politicians whether republican or democrat, and because they are rich, they don't even need a lobby group.

Well, if your guy is controlled by the rich, and my guy is controlled by the rich, and all politicians are controlled by the rich, what are we to do? I guess we need to spark a People's Revolution and install a Maoist ruler, huh?[/QUOTE]

Nah. We just need to learn how to move forward and prosper in a plutocracy.

To the best of my knowledge there is no way back machine. You will not be able to convince the ultra wealty, after they have spent millions of dollars to get things going their direction, to give up their gains. Why should they? Favorable tax treatments, tax havens, government bail outs, favorable government contracts, etc etc. The ultra wealthy will not give those things up.

Money rules in our political system. But then, you know that. You are the "Boss?"

 

[Boss]

Zeke, I was told the GOP was being lobbied by the rich, I just asked what the lobby group was. I haven't gotten an answer yet. Now it seems you want to just bow up and claim that rich people control all politicians whether republican or democrat, and because they are rich, they don't even need a lobby group.

Well, if your guy is controlled by the rich, and my guy is controlled by the rich, and all politicians are controlled by the rich, what are we to do? I guess we need to spark a People's Revolution and install a Maoist ruler, huh?[/QUOTE]

Nah. We just need to learn how to move forward and prosper in a plutocracy.

To the best of my knowledge there is no way back machine. You will not be able to convince the ultra wealty, after they have spent millions of dollars to get things going their direction, to give up their gains. Why should they? Favorable tax treatments, tax havens, government bail outs, favorable government contracts, etc etc. The ultra wealthy will not give those things up.

Money rules in our political system. But then, you know that. You are the "Boss?"

So what is your point then? It obviously doesn't matter who we elect or how our government operates anymore, it's all out of our control, right? You see, this is exactly what Mao Zedong preached to the masses before the People's Revolution. Almost word for word, as a matter of fact. He worked the people up into such a frenzy, they overthrew their government and installed him as their ruler.

 

[RKMBrown]

Here you go again making up arguments I never made so you can rationalize spewing your hateful personal insults. I never uttered a peep about Wall Street, positive or negative, those voices in your head are not mine. Grow up, child.

LOL... You just posted a cartoon chuckling about the "record high markets" and you don't think you mentioned Wall Street?

The cartoon is making the point that for such an anti-capitalist president, the capitalists are doing very well, putting the lie to your previous claims. So explain how the cartoon makes ME bitching and moaning about Wall Street.

What is the point of trying to discuss anything with you since you have to control both sides of the argument?

The Market is high for one reason and one reason only. The dollar is low.

It now costs two dollars to buy the stock that one dollar would have bought at the start of Obama's campaign to destroy this country.

Why? Easy... quantitative easing.

 

[RKMBrown]

No, you spew insults because you have no real arguments.

My argument was presented in my OP. So far, you've not refuted my arguments.

You try to change the subject by stereotyping anyone who does not agree with you and then attacking your stereotype. And lastly you misrepresent what is said because you can't argue the facts.

No, that's what you do, Ed. This shit is getting old. You seem to want to continue accusing me of doing the things you are doing. I've not stereotyped anyone, I've attacked your bogus arguments and viewpoints with legitimate facts. You just continue to spew nonsense you can't back up, and in most cases, doesn't even make logical sense.



Because it's irrelevant today. The first capitalists in America didn't have massive central government dictating what they could and couldn't do, limiting their ability to engage in capitalism at every turn, implementing one regulation after another and imposing excessive taxation on their efforts. Still, a good many of these earliest capitalists were able to gather other capitalists together to fund projects like the Erie Canal and a transcontinental railroad. Had the railroad been conceived under today's standards, with you and your ******* socialists standing there with your hand out, demanding they fork over 70% of any profit on their investment, the damn thing would have never been built.



Consumption tax is a tax on consumption. It doesn't jack the price the same way a corporate tax would at all, it's a completely different dynamic. Your idiotic insistence it's the same thing, is not an argument. It's YOU trying to strongarm your opinion onto me, and make yourself right, regardless of anything I have to say. And YES, Ed, you most certainly DID say that we should raise corporate taxes. You then argued that we should tax production instead of consumption, but you have yet to support your viewpoint with anything approaching rationality, as I've pointed out how stupid you are.

I especially love how you argue with yourself pretending you are arguing with me, like claiming I would take away the property of the wealthy.

Wealth is property. You or one of your fellow Socialists suggested we levy a heavy penalty for "hoarding wealth" in other countries. Well, we can't do that because of the Constitution. Of course, the constitution doesn't seem to mean a damn thing to any of you these days.

So keep spewing your personal insults and stereotypes if it helps you sleep at night, because it only makes me pity you.

I don't need your pity, I would like to have an intelligent conversation with you, but I am starting to realize that is impossible, your brain is not capable of such a thing. I don't mean to be insulting you, it's just what you continue to illustrate.

If wealth is property, then what's that stuff the fed creates from thin air? Worthless property?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Talk about your Elitism, Capital Gains Tycoons think they are so special they are ENTITLED to special tax rates!!! Their ENTITLEMENTS should be the first entitlements eliminated before Congress goes after any programs that help the poor.

Wages are even more important to economic growth than capital. An economy needs wage earners to buy goods and services. Wages are like a magic money fairy because when they are spent they can be turned over thus multiplying their power to stimulate an economy. The more a business can turn over their money the less investment they need. Someone can start a small business without any outside invested capital, and as long as they can turn over their stock by selling to wage earners their growth is unlimited. Capital is not as important as the Tycoons would mislead you to believe.

Capital gains already has tax advantages wages don't have which are incentive enough, they don't need a lower rate on top of them. For example, Capital gains grow tax free, like an unlimited IRA, until the gain is "realized." Capital Gains Tycoons are not satisfied with that hugh advantage and are not even satisfied with paying a lower rate on the profit that tax free gain once it is realized. They are lobbying the GOP to make the tax rate on realized gains a big whopping ZERO%. I'm sure even if they got that they still would not be satisfied and next would demand that they get paid to invest.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
President Abraham Lincoln, annual message to Congress, December 3, 1861

*sigh* No Ed, they don't think they are special, they don't think they are entitled. In fact, they mostly don't give a flying **** what you decide with regard to the rate capital gains are taxed. These people have plenty of wealth to live on, they don't need more wealth. The reason we lowered capital gains tax rates, was to encourage these people to invest... many of them still do not use their wealth to invest. If we jack that rate up the same as earned income, they will simply stop investing. It doesn't matter one way or the other to them, they will be perfectly fine with it, no matter what you do.

Wages ARE important to the economy, but in order to have wages, you first have to create jobs. Well, killing capital investment, kills jobs, it doesn't create them. Before any company can realize the first penny in profits, they must first pay wages and costs of operations... where do they get that money from? Right now, they get it from capital investors, who have the available capital to invest.

As for your Lincoln quote... you do realize this was BEFORE we had unionized labor, minimum wage, 40-hour work weeks, OSHA, employer-paid health care, family leave, and dozens of other protections against exploitation of labor, including outright slavery? Let's TRY to gain a little context here?

Except the wealthy seek more wealth because wealth is POWER and no matter how well they live, they never have enough power. So if we jack their rate they will still invest because they will always want more power.

And your diversions have nothing to do with the Lincoln quote which stands on its own context.

Except for the fact California has the highest property and the highest income tax in the nation, they also have the highest corporate tax of any state in the western United States. As a result business are moving out of California in record numbers. You have this delusion that if you raise taxes on corporations that they will simply choose to remain in the United States out of their good graces. To remain competitive in a "global" market, they will simply relocate to a country that actually desires and encourages businesses to establish their manufacturing in their country. As a result, YOUR need to raise taxes will simply influence manufacturing to close their doors, relocate, and layoff those workers that depend on them for income.

Can you tell me edthecynic, what policies actually ENCOURAGES businesses to build in the United States as opposed to Europe, China, or Latin America? I'd be willing to bet you haven't really taken the time to think that far ahead, have you? You can believe in raising taxes as high as you like, you just have to be willing to accept the consequences. As the old saying goes, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

 

[Truthseeker420]

The problem with taxing the rich

The collective whine from Trailer Park Republicans will be unbearable?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Hell Boss man. Yesterday President Obama attended a fund raiser in CA. You think he went to a poor persons house to raise funds? YOU think that the rich persons attending this event did not lobby the President or his people for some sort of favorable consideration about something?

Rcih people just give away big bucks to politicians and expect NOTHING in return. Is that really what you think?

You would think with all that money the Hollywood elites and liberals gladly gave to Obama, that it would have been better served writing a check to the state? After all California IS the most indebted state in the union, why put all that burden on the middle class through such a high income tax? I thought the left was compassionate towards those who are less fortunate? What a way to stick it to middle America that are trying hard to make a living in California.