Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: Reuters/Ipsos poll

[Aldo Raine]

Where did I say that? When was the last time the Uber wealthy paid anywhere near an effective rate of 35%?

Why don't you go look at the chart I posted. You have a big surprise coming.

Ta Da!

With their expenditures they pay a lower effective tax rate then I.

Go look at the chart. It will tell you what they are paying over the years.

What expenditures are you speaking of?

The uber wealthy have incentives I can never get to because not wealthy enough.

Ok s0 get rid of the incentives and lower the tax rate accordingly. Otherwise the money is going to find a home somewhere else (overseas).

Dewey that is what I have been advocating from the start. Back to the kiddie table with you.

 

[Ken Mac]

You don't understand deductions then. Let's say I want to replace the windows in one of my apartments. I spend 15K in new windows. The government does not give me that 15K back in cash, What it does mean is I am refunded the tax that I paid on that money when I earned it. However with the deduction I will get from that purchase, it helps me to be able to make that investment.

-- an investment you wouldn't make without the "help". Again, that's bad for markets, and it's bad for society.

How is that screwing people?

Giving some people tax breaks - because they jump through whatever hoops Congress has set up - and denying those tax breaks to everyone who won't jump through those hoops - is screwing those who don't do as they're told. I'm sorry you can't see it.

That's not screwing anybody. Our economic system is setup to encourage growth. It's like the lower capital gains rates. Why are they lower? Because it encourages people with money to invest in the market. When that happens, the economy grows, little people with their IRA money invested in the market get a more secure retirement account, which in the end, is less burden on our government. Companies use that money others invested in their industry to make investments of their own and create jobs.

It's just like dependent write-offs. They were designed to help our country grow, to encourage people to have families, encourage a spouse to stay home and raise those children. Do you think people who rent instead of own are getting screwed because they have no mortgage interest to write off?

Yrs, they are. Why should two people that make the exact same amount pay different rates based upon whether they have debt or not?

To encourage house purchases, that's why.

Nope. It encourages mortgages.

You're playing word salad. If you get rid of incentives to buy a home, prices will plummet and those that have assets in excess of their home will be selling and moving the money elsewhere. The pricing of homes would spiral down and the wealth of the US would move overseas. It would be great! Huh?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Where do you think those deductions a company has come from? They come from spending money, such as business expansion or equipment replacement. Deductions encourage companies to invest and create more jobs.

People don't get deductions because of where they live, but I do. Without deductions, I would have no choice but to drastically increase rent on my tenants. Having the dozens and dozens of deductions I have allow me to keep rent at a reasonable rate. If I didn't have them, then it costs me more money to do business, and I have to pass on that loss. None of my tenants are wealthy. They rent from me for a reason.

Bottom line is that without deductions, businesses of all kinds would have to pass that loss on to their customers.

I get it Ray you are all for corporate welfare. You do not need to explain it. I am advocating a way lower base rate with no deductions. You want them to have it all. Here is a solution for you Ray no corporations pay any kind of tax ever. Is that fair enough for you now.

Obviously I do need to explain it because you don't understand that welfare does not mean letting people keep more of what they earned. That's not welfare. It was a term created by the commies to convince voters that they are paying for companies to exist. Corporate welfare is something AOC actually believes.

Deductions encourage people to invest. Take that away, you will have much less investment, which means a much slower economy.

I am allowing people to keep more of their own money by lowering their rate to 10%. A business like a person should then be able to plan and save to improve their lives or business opportunities. Why is this difficult for you Dewey.?

You are dense. If your tax idea were to be implemented, some would save money, but many others would lose money. Not many would invest, because it wouldn't make financial sense to invest.

Why Ray because we have given more of their own money back in their own pockets and taken away government handouts? That's right you are all for giving more to the least needy. You my friend are not even close to a free enterprise capitalist.

What I am is a realist. You are not. You are one of those leftists who refuse to believe the theory or action/ reaction.

When you take a negative action against somebody, a negative reaction is likely to follow. When you take a positive action on somebody, it's likely to be met with a positive reaction.

So if you take a negative action on businesses, expect a negative reaction. Taking a negative action against somebody or something, and expecting a positive reaction is simply not logical.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

-- an investment you wouldn't make without the "help". Again, that's bad for markets, and it's bad for society.

Giving some people tax breaks - because they jump through whatever hoops Congress has set up - and denying those tax breaks to everyone who won't jump through those hoops - is screwing those who don't do as they're told. I'm sorry you can't see it.

That's not screwing anybody. Our economic system is setup to encourage growth. It's like the lower capital gains rates. Why are they lower? Because it encourages people with money to invest in the market. When that happens, the economy grows, little people with their IRA money invested in the market get a more secure retirement account, which in the end, is less burden on our government. Companies use that money others invested in their industry to make investments of their own and create jobs.

It's just like dependent write-offs. They were designed to help our country grow, to encourage people to have families, encourage a spouse to stay home and raise those children. Do you think people who rent instead of own are getting screwed because they have no mortgage interest to write off?

Yrs, they are. Why should two people that make the exact same amount pay different rates based upon whether they have debt or not?

To encourage house purchases, that's why.

Nope. It encourages mortgages.

You're playing word salad. If you get rid of incentives to buy a home, prices will plummet and those that have assets in excess of their home will be selling and moving the money elsewhere. The pricing of homes would spiral down and the wealth of the US would move overseas. It would be great! Huh?

I think dblack has it kind of backwards. If house sales are down, how will that decrease the price? The carpenters are not going to work for less money, neither are the electricians or bricklayers. Land is not going to go down much. Wood may get a little cheaper since lumber is a commodity and the market may drive that down. But I don't see how housing would dramatically drop with less people buying them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So with no deductions, where would people work? Where would they live? Because getting rid of deductions would have an impact on those things.

Why should people get deductions because of where they live?
Why would deductions impact where someone works.

Where do you think those deductions a company has come from? They come from spending money, such as business expansion or equipment replacement. Deductions encourage companies to invest and create more jobs.

People don't get deductions because of where they live, but I do. Without deductions, I would have no choice but to drastically increase rent on my tenants. Having the dozens and dozens of deductions I have allow me to keep rent at a reasonable rate. If I didn't have them, then it costs me more money to do business, and I have to pass on that loss. None of my tenants are wealthy. They rent from me for a reason.

Bottom line is that without deductions, businesses of all kinds would have to pass that loss on to their customers.

Why should the public pay for a company to upgrade to make more money. Glad you are so into corporate welfare!!!!

You really think that companies pay taxes? The taxes they pay are passed on to the consumer. It's a wash.

So yours and Ray's solution is no taxes on corps and free government cheese? Brilliant!!!

And your solution is to make false accusations about something I never said?

 

[Ken Mac]

The uber wealthy have incentives I can never get to because not wealthy enough.[/QUOTE]

Ok s0 get rid of the incentives and lower the tax rate accordingly. Otherwise the money is going to find a home somewhere else (overseas).[/QUOTE]


Dewey that is what I have been advocating from the start. Back to the kiddie table with you.[/QUOTE]

So you resort to name calling and belittlement. That's nice. Really helps with your credibility. I, for one, am so behind you now. You're awesome!

 

[Aldo Raine]

I get it Ray you are all for corporate welfare. You do not need to explain it. I am advocating a way lower base rate with no deductions. You want them to have it all. Here is a solution for you Ray no corporations pay any kind of tax ever. Is that fair enough for you now.

Obviously I do need to explain it because you don't understand that welfare does not mean letting people keep more of what they earned. That's not welfare. It was a term created by the commies to convince voters that they are paying for companies to exist. Corporate welfare is something AOC actually believes.

Deductions encourage people to invest. Take that away, you will have much less investment, which means a much slower economy.

I am allowing people to keep more of their own money by lowering their rate to 10%. A business like a person should then be able to plan and save to improve their lives or business opportunities. Why is this difficult for you Dewey.?

You are dense. If your tax idea were to be implemented, some would save money, but many others would lose money. Not many would invest, because it wouldn't make financial sense to invest.

Why Ray because we have given more of their own money back in their own pockets and taken away government handouts? That's right you are all for giving more to the least needy. You my friend are not even close to a free enterprise capitalist.

What I am is a realist. You are not. You are one of those leftists who refuse to believe the theory or action/ reaction.

When you take a negative action against somebody, a negative reaction is likely to follow. When you take a positive action on somebody, it's likely to be met with a positive reaction.

So if you take a negative action on businesses, expect a negative reaction. Taking a negative action against somebody or something, and expecting a positive reaction is simply not logical.

The negative action of cutting taxes for all, oh the horror. You are truly a dupe.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Why should people get deductions because of where they live?
Why would deductions impact where someone works.

Where do you think those deductions a company has come from? They come from spending money, such as business expansion or equipment replacement. Deductions encourage companies to invest and create more jobs.

People don't get deductions because of where they live, but I do. Without deductions, I would have no choice but to drastically increase rent on my tenants. Having the dozens and dozens of deductions I have allow me to keep rent at a reasonable rate. If I didn't have them, then it costs me more money to do business, and I have to pass on that loss. None of my tenants are wealthy. They rent from me for a reason.

Bottom line is that without deductions, businesses of all kinds would have to pass that loss on to their customers.

Why should the public pay for a company to upgrade to make more money. Glad you are so into corporate welfare!!!!

You really think that companies pay taxes? The taxes they pay are passed on to the consumer. It's a wash.

So yours and Ray's solution is no taxes on corps and free government cheese? Brilliant!!!

And your solution is to make false accusations about something I never said?

I advocated lowering their taxes over 100% and you cry for them poor mistreated corporations.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Obviously I do need to explain it because you don't understand that welfare does not mean letting people keep more of what they earned. That's not welfare. It was a term created by the commies to convince voters that they are paying for companies to exist. Corporate welfare is something AOC actually believes.

Deductions encourage people to invest. Take that away, you will have much less investment, which means a much slower economy.

I am allowing people to keep more of their own money by lowering their rate to 10%. A business like a person should then be able to plan and save to improve their lives or business opportunities. Why is this difficult for you Dewey.?

You are dense. If your tax idea were to be implemented, some would save money, but many others would lose money. Not many would invest, because it wouldn't make financial sense to invest.

Why Ray because we have given more of their own money back in their own pockets and taken away government handouts? That's right you are all for giving more to the least needy. You my friend are not even close to a free enterprise capitalist.

What I am is a realist. You are not. You are one of those leftists who refuse to believe the theory or action/ reaction.

When you take a negative action against somebody, a negative reaction is likely to follow. When you take a positive action on somebody, it's likely to be met with a positive reaction.

So if you take a negative action on businesses, expect a negative reaction. Taking a negative action against somebody or something, and expecting a positive reaction is simply not logical.

The negative action of cutting taxes for all, oh the horror. You are truly a dupe.

Who said it's cutting taxes for all? There are plenty of corporations that pay less than that with their deductions. For them it would be a tax increase which is my point.

 

[Aldo Raine]

The uber wealthy have incentives I can never get to because not wealthy enough.

Ok s0 get rid of the incentives and lower the tax rate accordingly. Otherwise the money is going to find a home somewhere else (overseas).[/QUOTE]


Dewey that is what I have been advocating from the start. Back to the kiddie table with you.[/QUOTE]

So you resort to name calling and belittlement. That's nice. Really helps with your credibility. I, for one, am so behind you now. You're awesome![/QUOTE]


I have been advocating for the lowering of the tax rate from the start of this discussion and suddenly when you mention it it is a great idea. Yup you are Dewey.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Where do you think those deductions a company has come from? They come from spending money, such as business expansion or equipment replacement. Deductions encourage companies to invest and create more jobs.

People don't get deductions because of where they live, but I do. Without deductions, I would have no choice but to drastically increase rent on my tenants. Having the dozens and dozens of deductions I have allow me to keep rent at a reasonable rate. If I didn't have them, then it costs me more money to do business, and I have to pass on that loss. None of my tenants are wealthy. They rent from me for a reason.

Bottom line is that without deductions, businesses of all kinds would have to pass that loss on to their customers.

Why should the public pay for a company to upgrade to make more money. Glad you are so into corporate welfare!!!!

You really think that companies pay taxes? The taxes they pay are passed on to the consumer. It's a wash.

So yours and Ray's solution is no taxes on corps and free government cheese? Brilliant!!!

And your solution is to make false accusations about something I never said?

I advocated lowering their taxes over 100% and you cry for them poor mistreated corporations.

All I'm saying is that your theory is flawed. You think you can have a flat tax with no negative ramifications. What I am saying is that if you made such a drastic change, it would have a lot of negative results.

 

[Aldo Raine]

I am allowing people to keep more of their own money by lowering their rate to 10%. A business like a person should then be able to plan and save to improve their lives or business opportunities. Why is this difficult for you Dewey.?

You are dense. If your tax idea were to be implemented, some would save money, but many others would lose money. Not many would invest, because it wouldn't make financial sense to invest.

Why Ray because we have given more of their own money back in their own pockets and taken away government handouts? That's right you are all for giving more to the least needy. You my friend are not even close to a free enterprise capitalist.

What I am is a realist. You are not. You are one of those leftists who refuse to believe the theory or action/ reaction.

When you take a negative action against somebody, a negative reaction is likely to follow. When you take a positive action on somebody, it's likely to be met with a positive reaction.

So if you take a negative action on businesses, expect a negative reaction. Taking a negative action against somebody or something, and expecting a positive reaction is simply not logical.

The negative action of cutting taxes for all, oh the horror. You are truly a dupe.

Who said it's cutting taxes for all? There are plenty of corporations that pay less than that with their deductions. For them it would be a tax increase which is my point.

How dare your values corporations pay their fair share. Let the people pay it.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Why should the public pay for a company to upgrade to make more money. Glad you are so into corporate welfare!!!!

You really think that companies pay taxes? The taxes they pay are passed on to the consumer. It's a wash.

So yours and Ray's solution is no taxes on corps and free government cheese? Brilliant!!!

And your solution is to make false accusations about something I never said?

I advocated lowering their taxes over 100% and you cry for them poor mistreated corporations.

All I'm saying is that your theory is flawed. You think you can have a flat tax with no negative ramifications. What I am saying is that if you made such a drastic change, it would have a lot of negative results.

And more positive results. No system will be perfect. Let's try more fair.

 

[jc456]

You really think that companies pay taxes? The taxes they pay are passed on to the consumer. It's a wash.

So yours and Ray's solution is no taxes on corps and free government cheese? Brilliant!!!

And your solution is to make false accusations about something I never said?

I advocated lowering their taxes over 100% and you cry for them poor mistreated corporations.

All I'm saying is that your theory is flawed. You think you can have a flat tax with no negative ramifications. What I am saying is that if you made such a drastic change, it would have a lot of negative results.

And more positive results. No system will be perfect. Let's try more fair.

what is the objective? what is it you're trying to solve? me? Spending.

BTW, what is meant by fair? Please explain. six years in here, not one of you pukes has answered that question.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You are dense. If your tax idea were to be implemented, some would save money, but many others would lose money. Not many would invest, because it wouldn't make financial sense to invest.

Why Ray because we have given more of their own money back in their own pockets and taken away government handouts? That's right you are all for giving more to the least needy. You my friend are not even close to a free enterprise capitalist.

What I am is a realist. You are not. You are one of those leftists who refuse to believe the theory or action/ reaction.

When you take a negative action against somebody, a negative reaction is likely to follow. When you take a positive action on somebody, it's likely to be met with a positive reaction.

So if you take a negative action on businesses, expect a negative reaction. Taking a negative action against somebody or something, and expecting a positive reaction is simply not logical.

The negative action of cutting taxes for all, oh the horror. You are truly a dupe.

Who said it's cutting taxes for all? There are plenty of corporations that pay less than that with their deductions. For them it would be a tax increase which is my point.

How dare your values corporations pay their fair share. Let the people pay it.

Tell you what, next time you go to work, and if you can talk to the company owner, present your idea to him or her and see what kind of reply you get. Chances are, the company you work for takes a fair if not large amount of deductions. And if they do, and lose those deductions, what do you think would happen to your future with the company?

 

[jc456]

Why Ray because we have given more of their own money back in their own pockets and taken away government handouts? That's right you are all for giving more to the least needy. You my friend are not even close to a free enterprise capitalist.

What I am is a realist. You are not. You are one of those leftists who refuse to believe the theory or action/ reaction.

When you take a negative action against somebody, a negative reaction is likely to follow. When you take a positive action on somebody, it's likely to be met with a positive reaction.

So if you take a negative action on businesses, expect a negative reaction. Taking a negative action against somebody or something, and expecting a positive reaction is simply not logical.

The negative action of cutting taxes for all, oh the horror. You are truly a dupe.

Who said it's cutting taxes for all? There are plenty of corporations that pay less than that with their deductions. For them it would be a tax increase which is my point.

How dare your values corporations pay their fair share. Let the people pay it.

Tell you what, next time you go to work, and if you can talk to the company owner, present your idea to him or her and see what kind of reply you get. Chances are, the company you work for takes a fair if not large amount of deductions. And if they do, and lose those deductions, what do you think would happen to your future with the company?

Can't make it up Ray

 

[Ken Mac]

Why don't you go look at the chart I posted. You have a big surprise coming.

Ta Da!

With their expenditures they pay a lower effective tax rate then I.

Go look at the chart. It will tell you what they are paying over the years.

What expenditures are you speaking of?

The uber wealthy have incentives I can never get to because not wealthy enough.

Ok s0 get rid of the incentives and lower the tax rate accordingly. Otherwise the money is going to find a home somewhere else (overseas).

Dewey that is what I have been advocating from the start. Back to the kiddie table with you.

Are you for lowering the tax rate on the rich?

You are dense. If your tax idea were to be implemented, some would save money, but many others would lose money. Not many would invest, because it wouldn't make financial sense to invest.

Why Ray because we have given more of their own money back in their own pockets and taken away government handouts? That's right you are all for giving more to the least needy. You my friend are not even close to a free enterprise capitalist.

What I am is a realist. You are not. You are one of those leftists who refuse to believe the theory or action/ reaction.

When you take a negative action against somebody, a negative reaction is likely to follow. When you take a positive action on somebody, it's likely to be met with a positive reaction.

So if you take a negative action on businesses, expect a negative reaction. Taking a negative action against somebody or something, and expecting a positive reaction is simply not logical.

The negative action of cutting taxes for all, oh the horror. You are truly a dupe.

Who said it's cutting taxes for all? There are plenty of corporations that pay less than that with their deductions. For them it would be a tax increase which is my point.

How dare your values corporations pay their fair share. Let the people pay it.

What are you saying?

 

[Aldo Raine]

So yours and Ray's solution is no taxes on corps and free government cheese? Brilliant!!!

And your solution is to make false accusations about something I never said?

I advocated lowering their taxes over 100% and you cry for them poor mistreated corporations.

All I'm saying is that your theory is flawed. You think you can have a flat tax with no negative ramifications. What I am saying is that if you made such a drastic change, it would have a lot of negative results.

And more positive results. No system will be perfect. Let's try more fair.

what is the objective? what is it you're trying to solve? me? Spending.

Spending definitely needs to be cut. I am also for cutting tax rate for all.

 

[Ken Mac]

And your solution is to make false accusations about something I never said?

I advocated lowering their taxes over 100% and you cry for them poor mistreated corporations.

All I'm saying is that your theory is flawed. You think you can have a flat tax with no negative ramifications. What I am saying is that if you made such a drastic change, it would have a lot of negative results.

And more positive results. No system will be perfect. Let's try more fair.

what is the objective? what is it you're trying to solve? me? Spending.

Spending definitely needs to be cut. I am also for cutting tax rate for all.

I'm not. I think the taxes paid by the rich are about right at this time. You're proposing cutting them a huge deal. How is this going to square with the deficit?

And forget about a wealth tax. That is basically confiscating (stealing) money and assets from people which have already been taxed. That will certainly send money overseas.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

To encourage house purchases, that's why.

That is not the government’s job. Taxes should be used to raise money to pay for the governments spending, nothing more.
It is wrong to use the tax code for social engineering.