What do liberals want the US to be?

[rightwinger]

Why must the super wealthy hide behind small business?

That is how they justified their current 38% tax rate. Fact is our wealthiest Americans are paying historically low tax rates and hide behind capital gains

Lets tax every dollar the same whether it is earned by sweat or investment

every dollar the same for everyone? Or do you want to pick and choose who pays taxes and who you give discounts too? For example, the super rich who don't need any income of any type... those people we'll just ignore. The professionals who went to school for 8years they pay twice as much as everyone else by percentage of income and the laborers who never went to school they pay no federal income taxes. Is that what you want?

That is why I want to target capital gains

Right now, mega wealthy CEOs can brag that they only receive $1 a year in salary while they take tens of millions in untouchable capital gains

ROFL Capital gains already went up, you need a new shtick.

They need to match the rates paid on earned income

Money earned from sweat should be taxed at the same rate as money earned from investment

You mean rich people should pay the same for both, right? You don't want poor people to pay the same tax rates as everyone else do you?

The rich currently pay 23.8% on capital gains... the poor and middle class pay 0.0% on capital gains. But to you that's not fair for the poor people right? The rich are getting such a huge tax break right?

The rich pay 23.8% on capital gains while someone working for the money pays 38%

Guess how the wealthy choose to be compensated?

 

[candycorn]

Depends on age. White males entering said racist environment are screwed by the supposed sins of their forefathers in hiring to many white guys and thus are the target of racial profiling against white males. Of course when layoffs come around getting rid of expensive white males is a double bonus as you are also correcting racial and gender numbers, course who gives a shit whether the people staying based on race and gender know how to tie their shoe laces. It's all about race and gender.

Somehow

White males seem to still be doing pretty well 50 years after affirmative action

RKM claims to have paid "millions" in taxes. I know, he's full of shit and all but here is his "testimony"...

Gasoline Below 3.00 A Gallon Thank You Mr. President Page 100 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Which means he's personally made tens of millions of dollars...all under affirmative action. Obviously, the deck is stacked to hurt that moron.

You're a moron... only morons think the upper middle class is limited to 20% in taxes. My corporation was not subject to AA because I never took a government contract. Other companies I worked for, other than my own, did have AA and that did affect me in negative ways dozens of times, both directly and indirectly.

FYI millions in taxes divided over 30years does not equal filthy rich.

Actually millions (plural) in taxes does equal "filthy" rich. If you were actually wealthy, you'd know that.
Either that or you have some accountants who are either dumber than you (doubtful) or have sticky fingers.

Well then your definition of "filthy" rich is upper middle class, which BTW is the reason many republicans don't like democrats. You think professionals are "evil rich."

Quote where I called anyone "evil". The very term is child-like and frankly stupid...as if something makes one do something bad or anti-social. Grow the hell up loser.

As far as statistics go, I'm upper middle class. I have paid no-where near a million in federal income taxes much less "millions". You're simply ignorant.

You think I'm evil cause I studied hard to be an Engineer and I work for a good living as an Engineer thus end up paying the top income tax rate + AMT + SS (both sides) + med + local property + sales. ROFL yeah I'm evil cause it makes you feel better to take my money while having an excuse.

I really doubt you have much money to take if you're on an obscure message board as much as you are and you're recommending we use "bookies".

 

[candycorn]

Seattle venture capitalist Nick Hanauer

Hanauer said he doesn't consider himself a "job creator." If no one can afford to buy what he's selling, the jobs his companies create will evaporate, he reasons. In his view, what the nation needs is more money in the hands of regular consumers.

"A higher minimum wage is a very simple and elegant solution to the death spiral of falling demand that is the signature feature of our economy,"

How does the minimum wage create more money?

Take an economics course Bubba. It's called a multiplier effect! Or we just keep giving it to the top 1/10th of 1% of US who hold it offshore out of circulation?

The so-called "multiplier effect" is keynesian Voo Doo. It's obvious horseshit. Politicians love it because it allows them to delude themselves and the public that they are doing something beneficial when they spend us into bankruptcy. It's like getting an award for peeing in the punch bowl.

Got it, you don't like the field of economics, you prefer to live in myths and fairy tales of libertarian bullshit!

And they think the rich want what is fair for their broke asses. Not a chance. This reminds me. Did you notice that the airlines didn't lower their prices when gas went down? So much for right wing logic that the corporations will pass the costs on to us if we tax them. The fact is, the corporations will charge us whatever they think they can get away with. Give them tax breaks or let them buy cheap shit from China aint going to lower prices any. Just fatten the CEO bonus'.

Fortunately for me, I don't NEED to fly. But I do need to drive a car.
.

If you recall, under the previous administration....airlines received an $18.6 BILLION dollar bailout due to the 9/11 attacks. They needed it. Nobody thinks they didn't. What happened after the bail out?

Source: CNN Money 9/20/2001

The airlines were saved.
The airline employees were not.

 

[Mathbud1]

Is success not currently attainable by anyone? Is anyone legally banned from being successful?

For all intent and purposes, some may as well be. Here is a graphic you'll ignore immediately of course but here it is anyway:

It shows the percentage of blacks who get LIPNP vs. whites charged with comparative crimes. I'm not debating whether they are guilty or what put them there...just the sentencing. The upshot of this is that for every green and blue pixel, someone is growing up without a father or mother; aunt or uncle perhaps.

Maybe, just maybe, had there been a clearer path to success for these individuals, they would have taken it. Shame on them for not taking it.

To tell if the numbers in the chart mean anything I would have to have more information. Information about the crimes committed, information about the past history of the individuals involved, information about the mental state and attitude of the individuals involved, etc. Without that information it isn't really anything but a pretty graphic. That said, if there is really an imbalance it should be addressed. I fully believe in punishing equally for equal crimes, with equal history and equal mental state.

What would you do to create a "clearer path to success?"

I can't speak for others, but my views are not so simple that they can be summed up in such a trite manner, and if they could it certainly wouldn't look like that.

Why do you think the party that represents "conservative values" loses women as a group?
Why do you think the party that represents "conservative values" loses blacks as a group?
Why do you think the party that represents "conservative values" loses Hispanics as a group?
Why do you think the party that represents "conservative values" loses non-Christians as a group?
Why do you think the party that represents "conservative values" loses lower income voters as a group?

I would guess that the groups you mention disagree with the positions of "the party that represents 'conservative values'" or at least what they think those positions are. Personally I think it is a mistake to lump people into groups and assume you know what is motivating all of their actions or even that the members of the "groups" are all motivated by the same things.

Are there women who vote Republican?
Are there blacks who vote Republican?
Are there Hispanics who vote Republican?
Are there non-Christians who vote Republican?
Are there lower income voters who vote Republican?

Tax all income the same as in every dollar a rich person earns is taxed the same as every dollar a poor person earns? As in a flat tax?

Sort of but not precisely the same thing.

In what way is what you are proposing different precisely?

Are you or are you not proposing that the 1st dollar you earn, no matter how you earn it, be taxed the same as the 10,000,000,000,000th dollar you earn, no matter how you earn it?

If not, what specifically are you proposing?

You'll have to explain what you mean by "do what they want with their bodies."
Shall we let people use their body to beat others? Shall we let people use their body to stand in the middle of the street and block traffic? Shall we let people expose their bodies to our little children?

No. Abortion. A woman's right to choose.

Your free right to choose what to do with your body can be limited when that choice impacts another correct? This is the justification for laws against murder, abuse, rape, etc.

The conservative argument against abortion is not about limiting the woman's right to choose what to do with her body, but about preventing those choices from impacting another person.

Liberals counter with the argument that the fetus is not alive, and is thus not another person.

The disagreement is about life and "personhood" not about choice. If liberals agreed that the fetus was a person, would they still support the right of the woman to abort that person's life for the sake of nothing but convenience? I would certainly hope not.

"Treat all criminal suspects the same. I doubt you meant that a serial rapist should be treated just like a shoplifter, but maybe you did.

No. If you're going to have a "crackdown" on seatbelt wearers or drunk drivers, pull over roughly the same amount of whites, blacks, Hispanics etc.... Let go roughly the same number of Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, etc... with warnings Keep roughly the same amount of Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, etc.... for prosecution.

So your contention is that police should pay more attention to race rather than less? As in I have already pulled over one drunk-driving white guy, so now I need to let the next few drunk-driving white guys go by until I can pull over a drunk-driving black guy? Then I need to let any drunk-driving white or black guys go by until I can get me a drunk-driving Hispanic?

What do I do on nights where I only ever see one race driving drunk? "It's your lucky night guys, I couldn't find any drunk black guys to pull over, so you white and Hispanic guys get a free pass tonight."

On the other hand you could use this definition of fair: free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice.

Is it free from bias to manipulate society to take from some and give to others?

Of course nobody suggested such a thing. Just leveling out the playing field when it can be done is the message. We can certainly do that.

Nobody suggested such a thing?

I seem to remember hearing someone say they thought government should redistribute the wealth.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe nobody has said such a thing.

Dunno...quote someone saying it if you can...

How about next time I hear such an argument I'll bring it to you. Fair?

 

[rightwinger]

And so did Bush. So did Clinton.

And yes he did leave him a projected surplus. If spending remained and if taxes coming in remained the same, Bush would have a surplus. But NOTHING stayed the same. Bush gave the rich tax breaks. Strike 1. Lied us into 2 wars. Strike 2. Let illegals flood in to compete with American workers for "jobs Americans won't do". Strike 3. Sent all the good paying union manufacturing jobs overseas. Strike 4. Deregulated the banks and mortgage companies who would no doubt use those deregulations to fuckin ruin the economy.

And it was all by design. The rich got everything they wanted. Its called Disaster Capitalism. Cause a crisis so we have to implement your policies you say will fix the crisis and when they don't work blame it on the other side.

1. Who would you give the breaks to if not the ones paying the taxes?
2. Nobody lied.... that BS has been debunked for a decade now.
3. Yeah, Bush invented this....
4. Better read up on the CRA bub... you people got what you wanted with SISA loans and all that stupid shit. Bush actually warned of an impending crisis and the DEM's laughed.

I've heard all these arguments/lies from the right in 2009. Piss off stupid.

I would give the tax breaks to the middle class and poor. Remember Bush wanted to not be in an official recession so he sent everyone $300? Why didn't he just give his rich friends the money? Because he knew they wouldn't go SPEND IT like the middle class and poor will. And this way even benefits the rich because if the poor and middle class are spending, the rich are making more money.

Our way works, your way does not. Sorry.

Stop crying about what's fair. Ask yourself what works.

Yeah, what you guys are doing is working wonders... worst economy in thirty years, record unemployed, lowest workforce participation since Jimmy Carter...

Seriously how old are you? 15? You sound very immature and frankly, irrational. Do you smoke a lot of weed?

Stop projecting dummy

Dec 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush
The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair


Dubya lost 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years of 'job creator' policies. Obama has a NET of over 7+ million

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data



Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.


The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post



I do believe you might be 15?

Just think of our great Democratic presidents vs. the GOP bunch. Forget about while in office. What did Bush or Bush do after they got out of office? Not much. But look at how much Carter and Clinton have done and all the awards they have received. No doubt Obama will do the same.

What is HW doing? Jumping out of planes. GW? Painting silly paintings like a retard. No Nobel Peace Prizes in their futures.

It will be interesting to see what the post presidential role of Obama will be

He will still be young and have another 25 years to make an impact

 

[RKMBrown]

every dollar the same for everyone? Or do you want to pick and choose who pays taxes and who you give discounts too? For example, the super rich who don't need any income of any type... those people we'll just ignore. The professionals who went to school for 8years they pay twice as much as everyone else by percentage of income and the laborers who never went to school they pay no federal income taxes. Is that what you want?

That is why I want to target capital gains

Right now, mega wealthy CEOs can brag that they only receive $1 a year in salary while they take tens of millions in untouchable capital gains

ROFL Capital gains already went up, you need a new shtick.

They need to match the rates paid on earned income

Money earned from sweat should be taxed at the same rate as money earned from investment

You mean rich people should pay the same for both, right? You don't want poor people to pay the same tax rates as everyone else do you?

The rich currently pay 23.8% on capital gains... the poor and middle class pay 0.0% on capital gains. But to you that's not fair for the poor people right? The rich are getting such a huge tax break right?

The rich pay 23.8% on capital gains while someone working for the money pays 38%

Guess how the wealthy choose to be compensated?

Hello, McFly!!!! A family has to be earning IN EXCESS OF FOUR HUNDRED and SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR IN INCOME BEFORE THEY GET TO THE 39.6% TAX BRACKET.

Choose to be compensated? WTF does that mean? How do you choose to be compensated in capital gains vs. income? Don't you have to invest in capital first? Yes or No?

It does not work the way you think it works.

The rich avoid income because the tax rate is too high. When capital gains are to high they will also avoid capital investments.

The way they avoid taxes is by avoiding that which carries unreasonable rates of tax. You make both income and gains unreasonably taxed... hell yes they will be avoided.

 

[sealybobo]

That is why I want to target capital gains

Right now, mega wealthy CEOs can brag that they only receive $1 a year in salary while they take tens of millions in untouchable capital gains

ROFL Capital gains already went up, you need a new shtick.

They need to match the rates paid on earned income

Money earned from sweat should be taxed at the same rate as money earned from investment

You mean rich people should pay the same for both, right? You don't want poor people to pay the same tax rates as everyone else do you?

The rich currently pay 23.8% on capital gains... the poor and middle class pay 0.0% on capital gains. But to you that's not fair for the poor people right? The rich are getting such a huge tax break right?

The rich pay 23.8% on capital gains while someone working for the money pays 38%

Guess how the wealthy choose to be compensated?

Hello, McFly!!!! A family has to be earning IN EXCESS OF FOUR HUNDRED and SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR IN INCOME BEFORE THEY GET TO THE 39.6% TAX BRACKET.

Choose to be compensated? WTF does that mean? How do you choose to be compensated in capital gains vs. income? Don't you have to invest in capital first? Yes or No?

It does not work the way you think it works.

The rich avoid income because the tax rate is too high. When capital gains are to high they will also avoid capital investments.

The way they avoid taxes is by avoiding that which carries unreasonable rates of tax. You make both income and gains unreasonably taxed... hell yes they will be avoided.

We should just tax them and put that money into infrastructure and education. Trust me, it is an investment. These rich people make a fortune in America. They need to pay their fair share.

Look at it this way. The tax system was what it was when these people were not yet rich but becoming rich. They became rich under that system. Clearly that tax system worked. But then they got rich and paid off the politicians to change the tax laws so that basically the game is now rigged in their favor.

It's like climbing the corporate ladder but then pulling up the ladder so that no one after you can climb up.

 

[rightwinger]

That is why I want to target capital gains

Right now, mega wealthy CEOs can brag that they only receive $1 a year in salary while they take tens of millions in untouchable capital gains

ROFL Capital gains already went up, you need a new shtick.

They need to match the rates paid on earned income

Money earned from sweat should be taxed at the same rate as money earned from investment

You mean rich people should pay the same for both, right? You don't want poor people to pay the same tax rates as everyone else do you?

The rich currently pay 23.8% on capital gains... the poor and middle class pay 0.0% on capital gains. But to you that's not fair for the poor people right? The rich are getting such a huge tax break right?

The rich pay 23.8% on capital gains while someone working for the money pays 38%

Guess how the wealthy choose to be compensated?

Hello, McFly!!!! A family has to be earning IN EXCESS OF FOUR HUNDRED and SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR IN INCOME BEFORE THEY GET TO THE 39.6% TAX BRACKET.

Choose to be compensated? WTF does that mean? How do you choose to be compensated in capital gains vs. income? Don't you have to invest in capital first? Yes or No?

It does not work the way you think it works.

The rich avoid income because the tax rate is too high. When capital gains are to high they will also avoid capital investments.

The way they avoid taxes is by avoiding that which carries unreasonable rates of tax. You make both income and gains unreasonably taxed... hell yes they will be avoided.

You have a point somewhere?

The issue is earned is earned income vs capital gains and how they are taxed

Chief executives don't choose how they are compensated? Are you that naive?
You think they want mega million salaries when they can take the money as a capital gain? The rich avoid income tax because THEY write the tax laws. Earning your money as salary is for suckers. Take the capital gain and only declare it when you withdraw

What a country!

 

[RKMBrown]

ROFL Capital gains already went up, you need a new shtick.

They need to match the rates paid on earned income

Money earned from sweat should be taxed at the same rate as money earned from investment

You mean rich people should pay the same for both, right? You don't want poor people to pay the same tax rates as everyone else do you?

The rich currently pay 23.8% on capital gains... the poor and middle class pay 0.0% on capital gains. But to you that's not fair for the poor people right? The rich are getting such a huge tax break right?

The rich pay 23.8% on capital gains while someone working for the money pays 38%

Guess how the wealthy choose to be compensated?

Hello, McFly!!!! A family has to be earning IN EXCESS OF FOUR HUNDRED and SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR IN INCOME BEFORE THEY GET TO THE 39.6% TAX BRACKET.

Choose to be compensated? WTF does that mean? How do you choose to be compensated in capital gains vs. income? Don't you have to invest in capital first? Yes or No?

It does not work the way you think it works.

The rich avoid income because the tax rate is too high. When capital gains are to high they will also avoid capital investments.

The way they avoid taxes is by avoiding that which carries unreasonable rates of tax. You make both income and gains unreasonably taxed... hell yes they will be avoided.

We should just tax them and put that money into infrastructure and education. Trust me, it is an investment. These rich people make a fortune in America. They need to pay their fair share.

Look at it this way. The tax system was what it was when these people were not yet rich but becoming rich. They became rich under that system. Clearly that tax system worked. But then they got rich and paid off the politicians to change the tax laws so that basically the game is now rigged in their favor.

It's like climbing the corporate ladder but then pulling up the ladder so that no one after you can climb up.

If I build a company that is worth a billion dollars and has no profit; and I have no capital gains or personal income, how do you propose to tax me? If you can answer that question you'll understand why income and capital gains taxes target the upper middle class income folks not the rich people you "regressive" folks from the democrat party like to complain about.

 

[Conservative65]

ROFL Capital gains already went up, you need a new shtick.

They need to match the rates paid on earned income

Money earned from sweat should be taxed at the same rate as money earned from investment

You mean rich people should pay the same for both, right? You don't want poor people to pay the same tax rates as everyone else do you?

The rich currently pay 23.8% on capital gains... the poor and middle class pay 0.0% on capital gains. But to you that's not fair for the poor people right? The rich are getting such a huge tax break right?

The rich pay 23.8% on capital gains while someone working for the money pays 38%

Guess how the wealthy choose to be compensated?

Hello, McFly!!!! A family has to be earning IN EXCESS OF FOUR HUNDRED and SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR IN INCOME BEFORE THEY GET TO THE 39.6% TAX BRACKET.

Choose to be compensated? WTF does that mean? How do you choose to be compensated in capital gains vs. income? Don't you have to invest in capital first? Yes or No?

It does not work the way you think it works.

The rich avoid income because the tax rate is too high. When capital gains are to high they will also avoid capital investments.

The way they avoid taxes is by avoiding that which carries unreasonable rates of tax. You make both income and gains unreasonably taxed... hell yes they will be avoided.

We should just tax them and put that money into infrastructure and education. Trust me, it is an investment. These rich people make a fortune in America. They need to pay their fair share.

Look at it this way. The tax system was what it was when these people were not yet rich but becoming rich. They became rich under that system. Clearly that tax system worked. But then they got rich and paid off the politicians to change the tax laws so that basically the game is now rigged in their favor.

It's like climbing the corporate ladder but then pulling up the ladder so that no one after you can climb up.

What about the half in this country that don't pay a dime in income taxes? When are they going to pay their fair share of income taxes? Hate to break it to you but zero isn't a fair share.

 

[RKMBrown]

ROFL Capital gains already went up, you need a new shtick.

They need to match the rates paid on earned income

Money earned from sweat should be taxed at the same rate as money earned from investment

You mean rich people should pay the same for both, right? You don't want poor people to pay the same tax rates as everyone else do you?

The rich currently pay 23.8% on capital gains... the poor and middle class pay 0.0% on capital gains. But to you that's not fair for the poor people right? The rich are getting such a huge tax break right?

The rich pay 23.8% on capital gains while someone working for the money pays 38%

Guess how the wealthy choose to be compensated?

Hello, McFly!!!! A family has to be earning IN EXCESS OF FOUR HUNDRED and SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR IN INCOME BEFORE THEY GET TO THE 39.6% TAX BRACKET.

Choose to be compensated? WTF does that mean? How do you choose to be compensated in capital gains vs. income? Don't you have to invest in capital first? Yes or No?

It does not work the way you think it works.

The rich avoid income because the tax rate is too high. When capital gains are to high they will also avoid capital investments.

The way they avoid taxes is by avoiding that which carries unreasonable rates of tax. You make both income and gains unreasonably taxed... hell yes they will be avoided.

You have a point somewhere?

The issue is earned is earned income vs capital gains and how they are taxed

Chief executives don't choose how they are compensated? Are you that naive?
You think they want mega million salaries when they can take the money as a capital gain? The rich avoid income tax because THEY write the tax laws. Earning your money as salary is for suckers. Take the capital gain and only declare it when you withdraw

What a country!

There are two points there. One, you are being disingenuous when you ignore the fact that the poor and middle class pay nearly zero in income tax and zero in capital gains taxes, then turn around and whine about the rich not paying enough on both when clearly they pay the most on both.

Two, you don't seem to understand that you can't have gains without investments. How do you take a capital gain without making a capital investment? You can't just "choose." You have to invest. For example, if you opt to be paid in stock options vs. personal income then you have to pay personal income tax on the basis of the options, then you pay gains tax on the gain.

 

[candycorn]

Is success not currently attainable by anyone? Is anyone legally banned from being successful?

For all intent and purposes, some may as well be. Here is a graphic you'll ignore immediately of course but here it is anyway:

It shows the percentage of blacks who get LIPNP vs. whites charged with comparative crimes. I'm not debating whether they are guilty or what put them there...just the sentencing. The upshot of this is that for every green and blue pixel, someone is growing up without a father or mother; aunt or uncle perhaps.

Maybe, just maybe, had there been a clearer path to success for these individuals, they would have taken it. Shame on them for not taking it.

To tell if the numbers in the chart mean anything I would have to have more information. Information about the crimes committed, information about the past history of the individuals involved, information about the mental state and attitude of the individuals involved, etc. Without that information it isn't really anything but a pretty graphic. That said, if there is really an imbalance it should be addressed. I fully believe in punishing equally for equal crimes, with equal history and equal mental state.

What would you do to create a "clearer path to success?"

Invest heavily in a federal vocational program to where every district in the nation could have a vocational education center that would teach kids the trades like carpentry, plumbing, welding, etc.
Kids can walk right off the graduation platform and into a job.

Expand the JROTC programs.

Expand intramural but eliminate inter-murals that extend past the normal school day. This would free up funding to expand the number of teachers, reduce class size, etc....

As for out of school programs; create a program by which the first 2 years of college are paid for by uncle sam. I've described this before.

Tying this together with regular income people being able to keep more of their income would help in the areas of fairness.

I would guess that the groups you mention disagree with the positions of "the party that represents 'conservative values'" or at least what they think those positions are. Personally I think it is a mistake to lump people into groups and assume you know what is motivating all of their actions or even that the members of the "groups" are all motivated by the same things.

Are there women who vote Republican?
Are there blacks who vote Republican?
Are there Hispanics who vote Republican?
Are there non-Christians who vote Republican?
Are there lower income voters who vote Republican?

Which is why I put it in terms of "as a group".

Are you or are you not proposing that the 1st dollar you earn, no matter how you earn it, be taxed the same as the 10,000,000,000,000th dollar you earn, no matter how you earn it?

If not, what specifically are you proposing?

That is what I'm proposing.

The "flat tax" often means ridding ourselves of deductions. I don't mean for that. Just income being taxed the same regardless of where they come from.

So your contention is that police should pay more attention to race rather than less? As in I have already pulled over one drunk-driving white guy, so now I need to let the next few drunk-driving white guys go by until I can pull over a drunk-driving black guy? Then I need to let any drunk-driving white or black guys go by until I can get me a drunk-driving Hispanic?

What do I do on nights where I only ever see one race driving drunk? "It's your lucky night guys, I couldn't find any drunk black guys to pull over, so you white and Hispanic guys get a free pass tonight."

No but if you pull over a white dude for drunk driving, you do a warrant sweep if that is police procedure. Just don't do it for black folks. If you're going to let 1 in 3 whites go with a warning, let 1 in 2.85 blacks go. I'm sure most of the time there is no way of knowing the race of a driver but once it's determined, it shouldn't matter.

As for what I think? Let's deal with what I know.

This guy shot a US Congress woman:

This guy shot a cop:

This guy punched a cop

This guy...I'm not even sure what he did:

Minorites who performed much less violent acts seem to e getting killed by the authorities than whites who commit much more violent acts.

 

[rightwinger]

They need to match the rates paid on earned income

Money earned from sweat should be taxed at the same rate as money earned from investment

You mean rich people should pay the same for both, right? You don't want poor people to pay the same tax rates as everyone else do you?

The rich currently pay 23.8% on capital gains... the poor and middle class pay 0.0% on capital gains. But to you that's not fair for the poor people right? The rich are getting such a huge tax break right?

The rich pay 23.8% on capital gains while someone working for the money pays 38%

Guess how the wealthy choose to be compensated?

Hello, McFly!!!! A family has to be earning IN EXCESS OF FOUR HUNDRED and SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR IN INCOME BEFORE THEY GET TO THE 39.6% TAX BRACKET.

Choose to be compensated? WTF does that mean? How do you choose to be compensated in capital gains vs. income? Don't you have to invest in capital first? Yes or No?

It does not work the way you think it works.

The rich avoid income because the tax rate is too high. When capital gains are to high they will also avoid capital investments.

The way they avoid taxes is by avoiding that which carries unreasonable rates of tax. You make both income and gains unreasonably taxed... hell yes they will be avoided.

We should just tax them and put that money into infrastructure and education. Trust me, it is an investment. These rich people make a fortune in America. They need to pay their fair share.

Look at it this way. The tax system was what it was when these people were not yet rich but becoming rich. They became rich under that system. Clearly that tax system worked. But then they got rich and paid off the politicians to change the tax laws so that basically the game is now rigged in their favor.

It's like climbing the corporate ladder but then pulling up the ladder so that no one after you can climb up.

What about the half in this country that don't pay a dime in income taxes? When are they going to pay their fair share of income taxes? Hate to break it to you but zero isn't a fair share.

Why do you choose to go after the 40% of Americans that only have 2 TENTHS of a percent of our total wealth when you look for additional revenue?

Guess which slice of the pie I would look to for additional tax revenue?

 

[RKMBrown]

You mean rich people should pay the same for both, right? You don't want poor people to pay the same tax rates as everyone else do you?

The rich currently pay 23.8% on capital gains... the poor and middle class pay 0.0% on capital gains. But to you that's not fair for the poor people right? The rich are getting such a huge tax break right?

The rich pay 23.8% on capital gains while someone working for the money pays 38%

Guess how the wealthy choose to be compensated?

Hello, McFly!!!! A family has to be earning IN EXCESS OF FOUR HUNDRED and SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR IN INCOME BEFORE THEY GET TO THE 39.6% TAX BRACKET.

Choose to be compensated? WTF does that mean? How do you choose to be compensated in capital gains vs. income? Don't you have to invest in capital first? Yes or No?

It does not work the way you think it works.

The rich avoid income because the tax rate is too high. When capital gains are to high they will also avoid capital investments.

The way they avoid taxes is by avoiding that which carries unreasonable rates of tax. You make both income and gains unreasonably taxed... hell yes they will be avoided.

We should just tax them and put that money into infrastructure and education. Trust me, it is an investment. These rich people make a fortune in America. They need to pay their fair share.

Look at it this way. The tax system was what it was when these people were not yet rich but becoming rich. They became rich under that system. Clearly that tax system worked. But then they got rich and paid off the politicians to change the tax laws so that basically the game is now rigged in their favor.

It's like climbing the corporate ladder but then pulling up the ladder so that no one after you can climb up.

What about the half in this country that don't pay a dime in income taxes? When are they going to pay their fair share of income taxes? Hate to break it to you but zero isn't a fair share.

Why do you choose to go after the 40% of Americans that only have 2 TENTHS of a percent of our total wealth when you look for additional revenue?

Guess which slice of the pie I would look to for additional tax revenue?

The distribution of wealth is not the distribution of capital gains, or personal income. This is the part that you democrats can't seem to get through your stubborn skulls.

The reason everyone should pay the same tax rates is so that everyone has some skin in the game.

In days gone by taxes were a percentage of wealth, for example a percentage of property, or cows, etc. Not sure why democrats don't understand the difference. Sales taxes and property taxes are ways to tax the evil rich. Capital gains and personal income taxes are ways to stop people from becoming rich.

 

[rightwinger]

The rich pay 23.8% on capital gains while someone working for the money pays 38%

Guess how the wealthy choose to be compensated?

Hello, McFly!!!! A family has to be earning IN EXCESS OF FOUR HUNDRED and SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR IN INCOME BEFORE THEY GET TO THE 39.6% TAX BRACKET.

Choose to be compensated? WTF does that mean? How do you choose to be compensated in capital gains vs. income? Don't you have to invest in capital first? Yes or No?

It does not work the way you think it works.

The rich avoid income because the tax rate is too high. When capital gains are to high they will also avoid capital investments.

The way they avoid taxes is by avoiding that which carries unreasonable rates of tax. You make both income and gains unreasonably taxed... hell yes they will be avoided.

We should just tax them and put that money into infrastructure and education. Trust me, it is an investment. These rich people make a fortune in America. They need to pay their fair share.

Look at it this way. The tax system was what it was when these people were not yet rich but becoming rich. They became rich under that system. Clearly that tax system worked. But then they got rich and paid off the politicians to change the tax laws so that basically the game is now rigged in their favor.

It's like climbing the corporate ladder but then pulling up the ladder so that no one after you can climb up.

What about the half in this country that don't pay a dime in income taxes? When are they going to pay their fair share of income taxes? Hate to break it to you but zero isn't a fair share.

Why do you choose to go after the 40% of Americans that only have 2 TENTHS of a percent of our total wealth when you look for additional revenue?

Guess which slice of the pie I would look to for additional tax revenue?

The distribution of wealth is not the distribution of capital gains, or personal income. This is the part that you democrats can't seem to get through your stubborn skulls.

The reason everyone should pay the same tax rates is so that everyone has some skin in the game.

In days gone by taxes were a percentage of wealth, for example a percentage of property, or cows, etc. Not sure why democrats don't understand the difference. Sales taxes and property taxes are ways to tax the evil rich. Capital gains and personal income taxes are ways to stop people from becoming rich.

Who said it was?

It shows where the money is....and it ain't with the bottom 40%

 

[RKMBrown]

Hello, McFly!!!! A family has to be earning IN EXCESS OF FOUR HUNDRED and SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR IN INCOME BEFORE THEY GET TO THE 39.6% TAX BRACKET.

Choose to be compensated? WTF does that mean? How do you choose to be compensated in capital gains vs. income? Don't you have to invest in capital first? Yes or No?

It does not work the way you think it works.

The rich avoid income because the tax rate is too high. When capital gains are to high they will also avoid capital investments.

The way they avoid taxes is by avoiding that which carries unreasonable rates of tax. You make both income and gains unreasonably taxed... hell yes they will be avoided.

We should just tax them and put that money into infrastructure and education. Trust me, it is an investment. These rich people make a fortune in America. They need to pay their fair share.

Look at it this way. The tax system was what it was when these people were not yet rich but becoming rich. They became rich under that system. Clearly that tax system worked. But then they got rich and paid off the politicians to change the tax laws so that basically the game is now rigged in their favor.

It's like climbing the corporate ladder but then pulling up the ladder so that no one after you can climb up.

What about the half in this country that don't pay a dime in income taxes? When are they going to pay their fair share of income taxes? Hate to break it to you but zero isn't a fair share.

Why do you choose to go after the 40% of Americans that only have 2 TENTHS of a percent of our total wealth when you look for additional revenue?

Guess which slice of the pie I would look to for additional tax revenue?

The distribution of wealth is not the distribution of capital gains, or personal income. This is the part that you democrats can't seem to get through your stubborn skulls.

The reason everyone should pay the same tax rates is so that everyone has some skin in the game.

In days gone by taxes were a percentage of wealth, for example a percentage of property, or cows, etc. Not sure why democrats don't understand the difference. Sales taxes and property taxes are ways to tax the evil rich. Capital gains and personal income taxes are ways to stop people from becoming rich.

Who said it was?

It shows where the money is....and it ain't with the bottom 40%

I'll ask again, cause it just does not seem to be able to penetrate democrat skulls.

Why do you think higher personal income and higher capital gains taxes is going to change the distribution of wealth?

 

[hazlnut]

To answer the OP:

Better!


There is enough wealth in this country to fix every public school, feed every hungry person, care for every sick person.

Why don't we just do it?

We say we're number 1, but the things we're number 1 in are shameful.

Let's be number 1 in something that matters.

 

[Nosmo King]

We should just tax them and put that money into infrastructure and education. Trust me, it is an investment. These rich people make a fortune in America. They need to pay their fair share.

Look at it this way. The tax system was what it was when these people were not yet rich but becoming rich. They became rich under that system. Clearly that tax system worked. But then they got rich and paid off the politicians to change the tax laws so that basically the game is now rigged in their favor.

It's like climbing the corporate ladder but then pulling up the ladder so that no one after you can climb up.

What about the half in this country that don't pay a dime in income taxes? When are they going to pay their fair share of income taxes? Hate to break it to you but zero isn't a fair share.

Why do you choose to go after the 40% of Americans that only have 2 TENTHS of a percent of our total wealth when you look for additional revenue?

Guess which slice of the pie I would look to for additional tax revenue?

The distribution of wealth is not the distribution of capital gains, or personal income. This is the part that you democrats can't seem to get through your stubborn skulls.

The reason everyone should pay the same tax rates is so that everyone has some skin in the game.

In days gone by taxes were a percentage of wealth, for example a percentage of property, or cows, etc. Not sure why democrats don't understand the difference. Sales taxes and property taxes are ways to tax the evil rich. Capital gains and personal income taxes are ways to stop people from becoming rich.

Who said it was?

It shows where the money is....and it ain't with the bottom 40%

I'll ask again, cause it just does not seem to be able to penetrate democrat skulls.

Why do you think higher personal income and higher capital gains taxes is going to change the distribution of wealth?

How about narrowing the wage gap? Higher wages would make it just a little easier for the vast majority of Americans to obtain a better standard of living, a higher education, a more secure neighborhood, a brighter future.

The pie has been divided so that the lion's share go to those who do not 'earn' a living. Rather they have made a killing in the market (a rigged game). What is more noble: the rich open factories and pay a fair wage or; the rich protect their wealth with tax breaks and off shore accounts where their wealth does not circulate through our economy?

I realize that putting these two choices in the realm of nobility is a tough choice for anyone who merely thinks of their own good first and the wider American society as an after thought. But there it is. Should we strengthen the American economy by bolstering the buying power of the many, or do we advance our economy by sequestering wealth among the very few?

 

[rightwinger]

We should just tax them and put that money into infrastructure and education. Trust me, it is an investment. These rich people make a fortune in America. They need to pay their fair share.

Look at it this way. The tax system was what it was when these people were not yet rich but becoming rich. They became rich under that system. Clearly that tax system worked. But then they got rich and paid off the politicians to change the tax laws so that basically the game is now rigged in their favor.

It's like climbing the corporate ladder but then pulling up the ladder so that no one after you can climb up.

What about the half in this country that don't pay a dime in income taxes? When are they going to pay their fair share of income taxes? Hate to break it to you but zero isn't a fair share.

Why do you choose to go after the 40% of Americans that only have 2 TENTHS of a percent of our total wealth when you look for additional revenue?

Guess which slice of the pie I would look to for additional tax revenue?

The distribution of wealth is not the distribution of capital gains, or personal income. This is the part that you democrats can't seem to get through your stubborn skulls.

The reason everyone should pay the same tax rates is so that everyone has some skin in the game.

In days gone by taxes were a percentage of wealth, for example a percentage of property, or cows, etc. Not sure why democrats don't understand the difference. Sales taxes and property taxes are ways to tax the evil rich. Capital gains and personal income taxes are ways to stop people from becoming rich.

Who said it was?

It shows where the money is....and it ain't with the bottom 40%

I'll ask again, cause it just does not seem to be able to penetrate democrat skulls.

Why do you think higher personal income and higher capital gains taxes is going to change the distribution of wealth?

Good question

Less wealth is being left at the upper levels. Less to "trickle down" (in other words, less for them to pocket)

Now, what do we do with that wealth?
Should we just hand it to the poor and working Americans?

Nooooooooo....
We use it to reduce the burden of healthcare, we use it to fund education and post secondary education, we use it to improve infrastructure and create ....JOBS

By doing that we end up with less wealth in the 1% and more wealth in the 40%

 

[Mathbud1]

Invest heavily in a federal vocational program to where every district in the nation could have a vocational education center that would teach kids the trades like carpentry, plumbing, welding, etc.
Kids can walk right off the graduation platform and into a job.

Where would you get the money for the additional programs? Higher taxes or by reevaluating existing federal programs and eliminating some to create the new programs? If through higher taxes, need I ask who you would like to see pay more taxes?

I think vocational education is a very practical thing to advocate for.

Expand the JROTC programs.

Expand intramural but eliminate inter-murals that extend past the normal school day. This would free up funding to expand the number of teachers, reduce class size, etc....

As for out of school programs; create a program by which the first 2 years of college are paid for by uncle sam. I've described this before.

Again, how would you fund this?

Tying this together with regular income people being able to keep more of their income would help in the areas of fairness.

What do you mean by "regular income people?"

Which is why I put it in terms of "as a group".

I'm fully aware that you used the term "as a group." I objected to that usage. When you lump people into a "group" and ask why that group is voting a certain way, you ignore the individual nature of the "group" members. There may not be a unifying reason why a perceived group is voting a certain way. Each individual chooses how they will vote based on their own motivations, perceptions, thoughts, history, emotions, etc. It is a mistake to assume that you know what motivates a "group."

Some people like to label people into groups and use those groups divisively. Women do this, white's do that, men are like this, blacks are like that. As though being a woman was the most important thing about every individual woman rather than the specific individuality of that particular woman being the most important thing about her. I don't vote the way I do because I am a man. I vote the way I do because of the particular things I've thought, felt, heard, said, seen, read, and otherwise experienced. Everyone does.

That is what I'm proposing.

The "flat tax" often means ridding ourselves of deductions. I don't mean for that. Just income being taxed the same regardless of where they come from.

But you would eliminate the progressive tax structure? No more income brackets?

No but if you pull over a white dude for drunk driving, you do a warrant sweep if that is police procedure. Just don't do it for black folks. If you're going to let 1 in 3 whites go with a warning, let 1 in 2.85 blacks go. I'm sure most of the time there is no way of knowing the race of a driver but once it's determined, it shouldn't matter.

Are you assuming that the motivation was race or do you know it?

If I grab a coin and flip it 50 times, statistically I should get 25 heads and 25 tails because there is a 50/50 chance of it landing either way. In reality I may get 49 heads and only one tails. Does that mean that the coin was biased, or was it just chance?

Maybe racism is still rampant, but jumping to that conclusion without even considering any other explanation is foolish and divisive.

As for what I think? Let's deal with what I know.

This guy shot a US Congress woman:

View attachment 35100

This guy shot a cop:

This guy punched a cop

This guy...I'm not even sure what he did:
View attachment 35101

Minorites who performed much less violent acts seem to e getting killed by the authorities than whites who commit much more violent acts.

It is easy to cherry-pick 4 scenarios and look only at the outcomes without considering anything else. I could go find two cases of white guys getting killed by white guy cops. Would that indicate a widespread problem of white on white racism?

You admitted "I'm not even sure what he did" yet somehow you are sure that what the cops did was racially motivated?

Even if you looked at every case in the country, the outcome is only part of the story. Without extensive details about each case you would be a fool to draw any conclusions.