The problem with taxing the rich

[LoneLaugher]

Good.

All income up to 50k.......0%
All income between 50k 150k......28%
All income between 150k and 250k......36%
All income between 250k and 1m.......40%
All income between 1m and 10m......50%
All income above 10m.......70%


All income subject to FICA of 3%

Lets do it! Everyone pays the same!

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.

 

[Boss]

Good.

All income up to 50k.......0%
All income between 50k 150k......28%
All income between 150k and 250k......36%
All income between 250k and 1m.......40%
All income between 1m and 10m......50%
All income above 10m.......70%


All income subject to FICA of 3%

Lets do it! Everyone pays the same!

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?

 

[Boss]

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.

The Lincoln quote is out of context for the times. You are attempting to use it to make a statement about today when it was intended for yesterday, when it was said. It does not "stand on it's own context" because labor and capitalism have a completely different relationship today.

No, all rich people are not power-hungry megalomaniacs. Besides, if you raise their taxes, they aren't making as much money and there are other options to make more money with less risk, and without your ability to tax their profits. Rich people are smarter than you, Ed. They will always be two steps ahead of whatever you do.

I'm smart enough to know that just repeating your bullshit does not make it any less bullshit. The Lincoln quote is timeless and just as apt today as when he first said it.

"Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Well you should be smart enough to know that repeating your bullshit also doesn't make it any less bullshit. The Lincoln quote was made in a time where we had legal slavery, no... it's not in the same context with today. The quote by Ike is completely different, and I agree with it. But what you want to do is kill jobs, not create more.

 

[edthecynic]

The Lincoln quote is out of context for the times. You are attempting to use it to make a statement about today when it was intended for yesterday, when it was said. It does not "stand on it's own context" because labor and capitalism have a completely different relationship today.

No, all rich people are not power-hungry megalomaniacs. Besides, if you raise their taxes, they aren't making as much money and there are other options to make more money with less risk, and without your ability to tax their profits. Rich people are smarter than you, Ed. They will always be two steps ahead of whatever you do.

I'm smart enough to know that just repeating your bullshit does not make it any less bullshit. The Lincoln quote is timeless and just as apt today as when he first said it.

"Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Well you should be smart enough to know that repeating your bullshit also doesn't make it any less bullshit. The Lincoln quote was made in a time where we had legal slavery, no... it's not in the same context with today. The quote by Ike is completely different, and I agree with it. But what you want to do is kill jobs, not create more.

The Lincoln quote has nothing to do with slavery or unions and is almost identical to the Eisenhower quote 100 years later with unions and no slavery.

"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

 

[Boss]

Look dim bulb... if there is no job, there is no labor. If there is no capitalist investor, there is no job. You can get as philosophical as you like, thems the facts of life.

 

[edthecynic]

Look dim bulb... if there is no job, there is no labor. If there is no capitalist investor, there is no job. You can get as philosophical as you like, thems the facts of life.

That is a load of bull. No labor no capital. There is always labor. The farmer's labor grows his crops, he sells them producing capital. Labor precedes capital. No labor no capital. Them's the facts of business.

 

[Boss]

Labor doesn't precede jobs. Sorry.

 

[edthecynic]

Look dim bulb... if there is no job, there is no labor. If there is no capitalist investor, there is no job. You can get as philosophical as you like, thems the facts of life.

That is a load of bull. No labor no capital. There is always labor. The farmer's labor grows his crops, he sells them producing capital. Labor precedes capital. No labor no capital. Them's the facts of business.

Labor doesn't precede jobs. Sorry.

I say one thing and you see another. It must be nice living in your own little fantasy world.

 

[Boss]

Look dim bulb... if there is no job, there is no labor. If there is no capitalist investor, there is no job. You can get as philosophical as you like, thems the facts of life.

That is a load of bull. No labor no capital. There is always labor. The farmer's labor grows his crops, he sells them producing capital. Labor precedes capital. No labor no capital. Them's the facts of business.

Labor doesn't precede jobs. Sorry.

I say one thing and you see another. It must be nice living in your own little fantasy world.

I know what you said, but you aren't making sense. Labor can precede capitalism all day long, it doesn't precede jobs. In order for there to be labor, there first has to be a job. We're discussing what you and your ilk have been doing to kill jobs or drive jobs away. Without them, there is no labor to precede capitalism.

The farmer can't grow crops if there is no money available for him to borrow, so that he can buy seeds, put fuel in his tractor, pay labor to help him harvest, etc. When you kill capitalist investors, you kill his source of capital to do this, so he can't do it. I don't know why it's so hard to get this through your granite-like cranium, but if we ever manage to do so, perhaps it will stay there.

 

[Boss]

Speaking of jobs, do you know what kind of jobs are out there right now, asswipe? Shitty part time minimum wage jobs... you know why? Because of the idiotic health care mandates on employers, and this administration's anti-capitalist policies. All the good paying manufacturing jobs have moved overseas, and your 'brilliant solution' is to tax production! The Left is essentially brain dead when it comes to capitalism, and I can't figure out if you're just that ignorant and stupid, or if it's by Socialist design, that you all seem to have this void between your ears.

 

[edthecynic]

That is a load of bull. No labor no capital. There is always labor. The farmer's labor grows his crops, he sells them producing capital. Labor precedes capital. No labor no capital. Them's the facts of business.

Labor doesn't precede jobs. Sorry.

I say one thing and you see another. It must be nice living in your own little fantasy world.

I know what you said, but you aren't making sense. Labor can precede capitalism all day long, it doesn't precede jobs. In order for there to be labor, there first has to be a job. We're discussing what you and your ilk have been doing to kill jobs or drive jobs away. Without them, there is no labor to precede capitalism.

The farmer can't grow crops if there is no money available for him to borrow, so that he can buy seeds, put fuel in his tractor, pay labor to help him harvest, etc. When you kill capitalist investors, you kill his source of capital to do this, so he can't do it. I don't know why it's so hard to get this through your granite-like cranium, but if we ever manage to do so, perhaps it will stay there.

I am obviously making sense or you wouldsn't have stooped to personal insults.
Thank you.

The farmer starts small, homesteads a piece of land, does his own planting and harvesting, uses the capital generated by his labor to expand. Capitalists did not just snap their fingers to get their capital they invest. Even if they panned for gold, that took labor. How do you think the first capitalist got their capital??????? And don't tell me they have a goose that lays golden eggs.

 

[edthecynic]

Speaking of jobs, do you know what kind of jobs are out there right now, asswipe? Shitty part time minimum wage jobs... you know why? Because of the idiotic health care mandates on employers, and this administration's anti-capitalist policies. All the good paying manufacturing jobs have moved overseas, and your 'brilliant solution' is to tax production! The Left is essentially brain dead when it comes to capitalism, and I can't figure out if you're just that ignorant and stupid, or if it's by Socialist design, that you all seem to have this void between your ears.

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

 

[Boss]

I am obviously making sense or you wouldsn't have stooped to personal insults.
Thank you.

The farmer starts small, homesteads a piece of land, does his own planting and harvesting, uses the capital generated by his labor to expand. Capitalists did not just snap their fingers to get their capital they invest. Even if they panned for gold, that took labor. How do you think the first capitalist got their capital??????? And don't tell me they have a goose that lays golden eggs.

Well here's your first problem, Ed... you believe that when someone calls you an idiot for spewing idiocy, it means you are making sense!

We are talking about large-scale corporations and business who hire folks, Ed... not some anecdotal example you pulled out of your ass. Modern farmers who produce the bulk of our food supply, do not start off small and homestead anymore, that hasn't happened for over 100 years in America. Small farmers can't compete with large-scale operations. It doesn't matter what the first capitalists did, or what Abe Lincoln had to say... you seem to be living in the 1800s or something.

The thing we are discussing here, is capital gains tax rates, and whether we should jack those up to the same as earned income tax rates, or reduce them even more. Capital investment is what drives economic growth and expansion of industry. It's utterly stupid to do things which discourage capital investments. All you're doing is killing more jobs... that's all! You aren't punishing rich folk, like you think, because they don't care what you do. Take away their incentive to invest, and they will do something else.

The problem the Lefties have, is not being able to think dynamically. You presume that if X number of people are making $X in investments today, that they will do the same thing tomorrow when you've jacked up the tax rates, and that isn't reality of what happens. That's why you continue to fall on your face and fail, you don't comprehend that your actions affect things and have dire consequences. When you saddle employers with massive health care and benefit costs for their employees, they will stop hiring full time workers. They're not just going to keep doing the same thing and pay whatever you demand.

You nonchalantly suggested we tax production instead of consumption, claiming it was the same thing, but it's certainly not. Production is not going to just continue as always when you impose the tax, that isn't reality. The more you try to tax capitalists, the more they will find a way around your taxes. You say, well... we'll just go take their property then... no you won't, not unless you want a revolution.

Face it, Ed... you are a Socialist PROLE. You come here to carry the water for your Socialist comrades, but you don't have the mental wattage to argue the points. This leaves you twisting in the wind on threads like this, making a complete and utter fool of yourself, quoting Abe Lincoln on labor policies. Then, when someone like me points out what a ******* idiot you are, you think that you've made your point.

 

[Boss]

Speaking of jobs, do you know what kind of jobs are out there right now, asswipe? Shitty part time minimum wage jobs... you know why? Because of the idiotic health care mandates on employers, and this administration's anti-capitalist policies. All the good paying manufacturing jobs have moved overseas, and your 'brilliant solution' is to tax production! The Left is essentially brain dead when it comes to capitalism, and I can't figure out if you're just that ignorant and stupid, or if it's by Socialist design, that you all seem to have this void between your ears.

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?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Good.

All income up to 50k.......0%
All income between 50k 150k......28%
All income between 150k and 250k......36%
All income between 250k and 1m.......40%
All income between 1m and 10m......50%
All income above 10m.......70%


All income subject to FICA of 3%

Lets do it! Everyone pays the same!

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.

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?

OK, dummy.....let me try one more time.

If you read what I wrote closely, you should be able to answer this question with no problem.

Under the method that I proposed, and leaving out the FICA...how much in taxes would a person who earns $10m pay? I will give you three choices.

A) $5m
B) $4.86m
C) $7m

If you answer correctly, you will discover that your previous posts on this subject are retarded.

All the best.

 

[Boss]

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

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

 

[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.

 

[edthecynic]

I am obviously making sense or you wouldsn't have stooped to personal insults.
Thank you.

The farmer starts small, homesteads a piece of land, does his own planting and harvesting, uses the capital generated by his labor to expand. Capitalists did not just snap their fingers to get their capital they invest. Even if they panned for gold, that took labor. How do you think the first capitalist got their capital??????? And don't tell me they have a goose that lays golden eggs.

Well here's your first problem, Ed... you believe that when someone calls you an idiot for spewing idiocy, it means you are making sense!

We are talking about large-scale corporations and business who hire folks, Ed... not some anecdotal example you pulled out of your ass. Modern farmers who produce the bulk of our food supply, do not start off small and homestead anymore, that hasn't happened for over 100 years in America. Small farmers can't compete with large-scale operations. It doesn't matter what the first capitalists did, or what Abe Lincoln had to say... you seem to be living in the 1800s or something.

The thing we are discussing here, is capital gains tax rates, and whether we should jack those up to the same as earned income tax rates, or reduce them even more. Capital investment is what drives economic growth and expansion of industry. It's utterly stupid to do things which discourage capital investments. All you're doing is killing more jobs... that's all! You aren't punishing rich folk, like you think, because they don't care what you do. Take away their incentive to invest, and they will do something else.

The problem the Lefties have, is not being able to think dynamically. You presume that if X number of people are making $X in investments today, that they will do the same thing tomorrow when you've jacked up the tax rates, and that isn't reality of what happens. That's why you continue to fall on your face and fail, you don't comprehend that your actions affect things and have dire consequences. When you saddle employers with massive health care and benefit costs for their employees, they will stop hiring full time workers. They're not just going to keep doing the same thing and pay whatever you demand.

You nonchalantly suggested we tax production instead of consumption, claiming it was the same thing, but it's certainly not. Production is not going to just continue as always when you impose the tax, that isn't reality. The more you try to tax capitalists, the more they will find a way around your taxes. You say, well... we'll just go take their property then... no you won't, not unless you want a revolution.

Face it, Ed... you are a Socialist PROLE. You come here to carry the water for your Socialist comrades, but you don't have the mental wattage to argue the points. This leaves you twisting in the wind on threads like this, making a complete and utter fool of yourself, quoting Abe Lincoln on labor policies. Then, when someone like me points out what a ******* idiot you are, you think that you've made your point.

No, you spew insults because you have no real 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.

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

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.

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.

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

 

[edthecynic]

Speaking of jobs, do you know what kind of jobs are out there right now, asswipe? Shitty part time minimum wage jobs... you know why? Because of the idiotic health care mandates on employers, and this administration's anti-capitalist policies. All the good paying manufacturing jobs have moved overseas, and your 'brilliant solution' is to tax production! The Left is essentially brain dead when it comes to capitalism, and I can't figure out if you're just that ignorant and stupid, or if it's by Socialist design, that you all seem to have this void between your ears.

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?

How is the cartoon changing the subject? YOU bring up the administration's anti-capitalist policies and the cartoon is about the president of the anti-business administration.

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.

 

[Boss]

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?