Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What is so hard about the "fair share" idea?
After cutting total Federal government expenses by 10%, it is the amount of tax dollars needed from the ultra wealthy to increase income to the point that the Treasury has a surplus at the end of each year.
And that number is????????????magic.
If I told ya I'd have to shoot me. Around 45% should do it. Combined with the cuts and the elimination of the EIC.
Never gonna happen.
Wrong. Redistribution at the point of a gun is not how capitalism should be reigned in so to speak. Besides it won't work.
The way to keep capitalists from taking over is by breaking up monopolies and oligopolies, this is Govco's job.
>> Why can they purchase so much influence?
Because people like you can be bought with promises of redistribution checks.
>> multi billion dollar market for bottled water
What do you have against bottled water? Advertising is "propaganda?" WTH?
>> Democracy depends on an informed electorate.
We are a republic that is sliding into a democracy, that's a big part of the problem.
>>> We are being robbed of it. It has to stop.
We allowed the government to take over education. This is one of the results of letting your government educate your kids. Surprise, you get an education that promotes government solutions for every issue under the sun.
''Redistribution at the point of a gun is not how capitalism should be reigned in so to speak. Besides it won't work.''
No guns are required. We are all as free to relocate as to choose among new cars.
'' The way to keep capitalists from taking over is by breaking up monopolies and oligopolies, this is Govco's job.''
I agree. However wealthy people aren't monopolies or oligopolies.
'' Advertising is "propaganda?''
Yes.
''We are a republic that is sliding into a democracy, that's a big part of the problem.''
We've never had a monarch so have always been a Republic. True of most governments today.
We've been a democracy since 1930 with the universal suffrage Ammendment. I don't see going back on that.
'' We allowed the government to take over education. This is one of the results of letting your government educate your kids. Surprise, you get an education that promotes government solutions for every issue under the sun.''
Public schools have been a governmental obligation from the beginning.
The only way that we stand a chance of being competitive around the world is good education for all. We can't afford any wasted brains. This site demonstrates the impact of unregulated information sources depriving adults of their education.
I don't know the solution but the problem is clear.
>> No guns are required. We are all as free to relocate as to choose among new cars.
Wrong: Jeff Duncan questions IRS gun usage - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com
Additionally, you can not avoid taxes by fleeing the country. The IRS goon squad will come for you no matter where you try to hide.
>>> I agree. However wealthy people aren't monopolies or oligopolies.
Many wealth people run monopolies and many are members of oligopolies. My favorite one to rail against is the CEO / Executive board room oligopoly across this country that sets Executive pay rates with no input from the owners of the companies (the stock holders). Break up the monopolies and oligopolies and the result is opportunity for capitalism to spawn new business new money new success. Don't break them up and you get people like Soros, Heinz, Gates, Koch, Buffet, ...
>>> We've never had a monarch so have always been a Republic.
Electing the senate by majority has resulted in all three branches reporting to the majority rather than having the senate report to the state legislatures as a check on tyranny of the majority. Further the 14th and 16th amendments to the constitution rendered the tenth pretty much moot, thus rendering state power, over time, to tyranny of the majority as well. Having a Monarch, does not mean what you think it means.
>>> Public schools have been a governmental obligation from the beginning.
Not so much. The role of the federal government wrt education is nothing like it used to be even in my lifetime.
>>> Ads are propaganda...
There are truth in advertising laws to designed to prohibit advertizing from being propaganda. You'd need to point out an example, for me to understand where you are heading with this blanket statement.
>>> The only way that we stand a chance of being competitive around the world is good education for all. We can't afford any wasted brains. This site demonstrates the impact of unregulated information sources depriving adults of their education.
We were more competitive before the federal government got involved. Capitalism is the way. Socialism and socialists in particular are the reason it has been failing.
Ask that PMZ jerk, he's the only one that has been making that claim.Why would anyone believe that down is the only way that wealth can be moved, and government is the only system that can move it?
I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"
But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called communists.
QUOTE]
It's actually fairly simple--in theory and in practice. The RICH (we'll DEFINE IT as a MILLION a year in INCOME--NO MATTER THE SOURCE) shouldn't EVER PAY LES PERCENTAGE than the BOTTOM EARNERS (yes, FICA will excluded from the argument and calculation). And then the TOP EARNERS, different bracket than the 'RICH', we'll put that at about $250,00--SAME FORMULA. S
EXAMPLE: The year ROSS PEROT RAN, he paid 10% on $330,000,000 income. I paid 17% that year on an income MY little calculator here doesn't have enough zeros for the percentage of my income compared to ROSS'.
Life has never been fair. If it was we'd all have and pay the same. Instead we do what works best.
''Redistribution at the point of a gun is not how capitalism should be reigned in so to speak. Besides it won't work.''
No guns are required. We are all as free to relocate as to choose among new cars.
'' The way to keep capitalists from taking over is by breaking up monopolies and oligopolies, this is Govco's job.''
I agree. However wealthy people aren't monopolies or oligopolies.
'' Advertising is "propaganda?''
Yes.
''We are a republic that is sliding into a democracy, that's a big part of the problem.''
We've never had a monarch so have always been a Republic. True of most governments today.
We've been a democracy since 1930 with the universal suffrage Ammendment. I don't see going back on that.
'' We allowed the government to take over education. This is one of the results of letting your government educate your kids. Surprise, you get an education that promotes government solutions for every issue under the sun.''
Public schools have been a governmental obligation from the beginning.
The only way that we stand a chance of being competitive around the world is good education for all. We can't afford any wasted brains. This site demonstrates the impact of unregulated information sources depriving adults of their education.
I don't know the solution but the problem is clear.
>> No guns are required. We are all as free to relocate as to choose among new cars.
Wrong: Jeff Duncan questions IRS gun usage - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com
Additionally, you can not avoid taxes by fleeing the country. The IRS goon squad will come for you no matter where you try to hide.
>>> I agree. However wealthy people aren't monopolies or oligopolies.
Many wealth people run monopolies and many are members of oligopolies. My favorite one to rail against is the CEO / Executive board room oligopoly across this country that sets Executive pay rates with no input from the owners of the companies (the stock holders). Break up the monopolies and oligopolies and the result is opportunity for capitalism to spawn new business new money new success. Don't break them up and you get people like Soros, Heinz, Gates, Koch, Buffet, ...
>>> We've never had a monarch so have always been a Republic.
Electing the senate by majority has resulted in all three branches reporting to the majority rather than having the senate report to the state legislatures as a check on tyranny of the majority. Further the 14th and 16th amendments to the constitution rendered the tenth pretty much moot, thus rendering state power, over time, to tyranny of the majority as well. Having a Monarch, does not mean what you think it means.
>>> Public schools have been a governmental obligation from the beginning.
Not so much. The role of the federal government wrt education is nothing like it used to be even in my lifetime.
>>> Ads are propaganda...
There are truth in advertising laws to designed to prohibit advertizing from being propaganda. You'd need to point out an example, for me to understand where you are heading with this blanket statement.
>>> The only way that we stand a chance of being competitive around the world is good education for all. We can't afford any wasted brains. This site demonstrates the impact of unregulated information sources depriving adults of their education.
We were more competitive before the federal government got involved. Capitalism is the way. Socialism and socialists in particular are the reason it has been failing.
>> No guns are required. We are all as free to relocate as to choose among new cars.
Wrong: Jeff Duncan questions IRS gun usage - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com
Additionally, you can not avoid taxes by fleeing the country. The IRS goon squad will come for you no matter where you try to hide.
Believe me. If you get to the point where you are not expecting or consuming American government services, you will have no American tax obligation. The biggest evidence of disingenuousness on the part of national whiners is they want the benefits without the cost.
>>> I agree. However wealthy people aren't monopolies or oligopolies.
Many wealth people run monopolies and many are members of oligopolies. My favorite one to rail against is the CEO / Executive board room oligopoly across this country that sets Executive pay rates with no input from the owners of the companies (the stock holders). Break up the monopolies and oligopolies and the result is opportunity for capitalism to spawn new business new money new success. Don't break them up and you get people like Soros, Heinz, Gates, Koch, Buffet, ...
Give us some examples of unregulated monopolies in the US.
>>> We've never had a monarch so have always been a Republic.
Electing the senate by majority has resulted in all three branches reporting to the majority rather than having the senate report to the state legislatures as a check on tyranny of the majority. Further the 14th and 16th amendments to the constitution rendered the tenth pretty much moot, thus rendering state power, over time, to tyranny of the majority as well. Having a Monarch, does not mean what you think it means.
Democracy is tyranny of the majority. Thats the freest position possible because anything else is tyranny of a minority down to one person. Like plutocracy is.
>>> Public schools have been a governmental obligation from the beginning.
Not so much. The role of the federal government wrt education is nothing like it used to be even in my lifetime.
Thats good thing. We were mostly taught BS other than in language, math and science.
>>> Ads are propaganda...
There are truth in advertising laws to designed to prohibit advertizing from being propaganda. You'd need to point out an example, for me to understand where you are heading with this blanket statement.
Advertising is by definition propaganda. One side of the story. Definitely not the truth, the whole truth and noting but.
>>> The only way that we stand a chance of being competitive around the world is good education for all. We can't afford any wasted brains. This site demonstrates the impact of unregulated information sources depriving adults of their education.
We were more competitive before the federal government got involved. Capitalism is the way. Socialism and socialists in particular are the reason it has been failing.
What is so hard about the "fair share" idea?
After cutting total Federal government expenses by 10%, it is the amount of tax dollars needed from the ultra wealthy to increase income to the point that the Treasury has a surplus at the end of each year.
And that number is????????????magic.
If I told ya I'd have to shoot me. Around 45% should do it. Combined with the cuts and the elimination of the EIC.
Never gonna happen.
Define ultra wealthy. Is that 90k, 150k, 250, a cool million? If our government wanted to take half of everyone's salary over a certain income level, why would anyone report income over that level? Anyone with half a brain would come up with ways to get compensation by other means.
Mr Brown wants to make the point that wealthy people deserve special treatment. They are the salt of the earth.
I'd like to make the point that the middle class is the salt of the earth. Wealth creating workers. Responsible parents. Concerned citizens. People who give back. People who don't have to show off but assume that they are here to work and give and try their best to move their causes forward.
The salt of America.
Mr Brown wants to make the point that wealthy people deserve special treatment. They are the salt of the earth.
I'd like to make the point that the middle class is the salt of the earth. Wealth creating workers. Responsible parents. Concerned citizens. People who give back. People who don't have to show off but assume that they are here to work and give and try their best to move their causes forward.
The salt of America.
You are nothing but a bigoted asshole.
What is so hard about the "fair share" idea?
After cutting total Federal government expenses by 10%, it is the amount of tax dollars needed from the ultra wealthy to increase income to the point that the Treasury has a surplus at the end of each year.
And that number is????????????magic.
If I told ya I'd have to shoot me. Around 45% should do it. Combined with the cuts and the elimination of the EIC.
Never gonna happen.
Define ultra wealthy. Is that 90k, 150k, 250, a cool million? If our government wanted to take half of everyone's salary over a certain income level, why would anyone report income over that level? Anyone with half a brain would come up with ways to get compensation by other means.
There are certainly many wealthy criminals. Thats why we have law enforcement.
Mr Brown wants to make the point that wealthy people deserve special treatment. They are the salt of the earth.
I'd like to make the point that the middle class is the salt of the earth. Wealth creating workers. Responsible parents. Concerned citizens. People who give back. People who don't have to show off but assume that they are here to work and give and try their best to move their causes forward.
The salt of America.
Life has never been fair. If it was we'd all have and pay the same. Instead we do what works best.
Mr Brown wants to make the point that wealthy people deserve special treatment. They are the salt of the earth.
I'd like to make the point that the middle class is the salt of the earth. Wealth creating workers. Responsible parents. Concerned citizens. People who give back. People who don't have to show off but assume that they are here to work and give and try their best to move their causes forward.
The salt of America.
What is so hard about the "fair share" idea?
After cutting total Federal government expenses by 10%, it is the amount of tax dollars needed from the ultra wealthy to increase income to the point that the Treasury has a surplus at the end of each year.
And that number is????????????magic.
If I told ya I'd have to shoot me. Around 45% should do it. Combined with the cuts and the elimination of the EIC.
Never gonna happen.
Define ultra wealthy. Is that 90k, 150k, 250, a cool million? If our government wanted to take half of everyone's salary over a certain income level, why would anyone report income over that level? Anyone with half a brain would come up with ways to get compensation by other means.
Increase FICA to 350? Rofl.
You gonna pay them three times more in ss or are you just stealing their money?
.
Ho boy, this silly, simplistic, naive notion that a bunch of professional politicians and the federal bureaucracy can legislate "fairness", too funny. Like anything else -- I know the partisans will hate this -- structuring a tax system is a matter of finding proper equilibrium.
On one side, yes, we all benefit by many (not all) of the things that taxes create. Roads, bridges, police, yawn. I'm not aware of anyone who has ever said that they were not willing to pay for roads, bridges and police, but I know that's somehow a real big argument. So yes, we all benefit there, and we've all gotta pay for it. So I'm thrilled we have that terribly complicated issue out of the way.
On the other side, you cannot simplistically and punitively tax those who create wealth through investment and business ownership to the point where you have damaged their financial motiviation to do so. Nor can we provide services that motivate people at the bottom end to improve their own lives.
Do I really need to point this out? Actually, I'm pretty sure I do, which is pretty goddamn freakin' amazing to me.
So then, we are left with three essential moving parts to consider: The amount of "support" we are providing the lower ends of the economic spectrum, the tax code and the marginal tax rates within that code.
I won't even bother addressing the support we're providing the lower ends of the economic spectrum, because it's clear we're becoming more and more dependent on that on a cellular, cultural level; nor would I bother thinking about simplying our hilarious tax code, because our "leaders" clearly don't have the balls to take that on to any extent. I'll let someone else sort all that shit out, I've given up.
The first thing I would do is drop the corporate tax rate to 0%. There is no freakin' way to describe the amount of domestic economic activity on multiple levels that would spur immediately, or the amount of capital that would be immediately re-patriated by our own corporations, not to mention the literal fucking FLOOD of international capital that come our way sometime, oh, next week. To be perfectly honest, I don't even know if our economic infrastructure would be able to handle the increase in positive economic activity, but I'd freakin' love to find out.
Guess what that would do? It would increase both the incomes of those all over our economic strata and create a few zillion new jobs. That would, by itself, create a fucking flood of new tax revenue with which our "leaders" can purchase votes.
And that leaves us with our wonderfully comedic marginal tax rates, which are just a little old.
Since there's not a fucking thing I can do about our tax system, all we could do then is fiddle with the numbers on the marginal tax rates. And, because incomes at the top end have now risen to stratospheric levels, I would add two (2) new marginal levels.
And remember, before any conservative heads explode here, these rates would be marginal only and we would keep all personal deductions for investing, capital gains, estate tax, etc. Plenty of ways, zillions of ways, to work with that. So maybe something like this (new rates in bold):
Something like that. Maybe a touch higher on the top end. Then we look at ways to deal with spending, but I've wasted enough bandwidth.
- 10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,925, plus
- 15% on taxable income over $8,925 to $36,250, plus
- 25% on taxable income over $36,250 to $87,850, plus
- 28% on taxable income over $87,850 to $183,250, plus
- 33% on taxable income over $183,250 to $398,350, plus
- 35% on taxable income over $398,350 to $400,000, plus
- 39.6% on taxable income over $400,000 to $750,000, plus
[*]44.9% on taxable income over $750,000 to $1,000,000, plus
[*]49.9% on taxable income over $1,000,000
I suspect both "ends" will hate this, which is always a good sign.
.
.
Ho boy, this silly, simplistic, naive notion that a bunch of professional politicians and the federal bureaucracy can legislate "fairness", too funny. Like anything else -- I know the partisans will hate this -- structuring a tax system is a matter of finding proper equilibrium.
On one side, yes, we all benefit by many (not all) of the things that taxes create. Roads, bridges, police, yawn. I'm not aware of anyone who has ever said that they were not willing to pay for roads, bridges and police, but I know that's somehow a real big argument. So yes, we all benefit there, and we've all gotta pay for it. So I'm thrilled we have that terribly complicated issue out of the way.
On the other side, you cannot simplistically and punitively tax those who create wealth through investment and business ownership to the point where you have damaged their financial motiviation to do so. Nor can we provide services that motivate people at the bottom end to improve their own lives.
Do I really need to point this out? Actually, I'm pretty sure I do, which is pretty goddamn freakin' amazing to me.
So then, we are left with three essential moving parts to consider: The amount of "support" we are providing the lower ends of the economic spectrum, the tax code and the marginal tax rates within that code.
I won't even bother addressing the support we're providing the lower ends of the economic spectrum, because it's clear we're becoming more and more dependent on that on a cellular, cultural level; nor would I bother thinking about simplying our hilarious tax code, because our "leaders" clearly don't have the balls to take that on to any extent. I'll let someone else sort all that shit out, I've given up.
The first thing I would do is drop the corporate tax rate to 0%. There is no freakin' way to describe the amount of domestic economic activity on multiple levels that would spur immediately, or the amount of capital that would be immediately re-patriated by our own corporations, not to mention the literal fucking FLOOD of international capital that come our way sometime, oh, next week. To be perfectly honest, I don't even know if our economic infrastructure would be able to handle the increase in positive economic activity, but I'd freakin' love to find out.
Guess what that would do? It would increase both the incomes of those all over our economic strata and create a few zillion new jobs. That would, by itself, create a fucking flood of new tax revenue with which our "leaders" can purchase votes.
And that leaves us with our wonderfully comedic marginal tax rates, which are just a little old.
Since there's not a fucking thing I can do about our tax system, all we could do then is fiddle with the numbers on the marginal tax rates. And, because incomes at the top end have now risen to stratospheric levels, I would add two (2) new marginal levels.
And remember, before any conservative heads explode here, these rates would be marginal only and we would keep all personal deductions for investing, capital gains, estate tax, etc. Plenty of ways, zillions of ways, to work with that. So maybe something like this (new rates in bold):
Something like that. Maybe a touch higher on the top end. Then we look at ways to deal with spending, but I've wasted enough bandwidth.
- 10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,925, plus
- 15% on taxable income over $8,925 to $36,250, plus
- 25% on taxable income over $36,250 to $87,850, plus
- 28% on taxable income over $87,850 to $183,250, plus
- 33% on taxable income over $183,250 to $398,350, plus
- 35% on taxable income over $398,350 to $400,000, plus
- 39.6% on taxable income over $400,000 to $750,000, plus
[*]44.9% on taxable income over $750,000 to $1,000,000, plus
[*]49.9% on taxable income over $1,000,000
I suspect both "ends" will hate this, which is always a good sign.
.
But please do try. Why would a 0 corporate tax rate spur consumer demand? Are they gonna send the consumer a check to buy product with? I mean explain WHY you think I would all of a sudden need to buy what ever product a company makes, just because the company won't pay any income tax.
Maybe you are talking about HUGE businesses like a GE or Cat. Aero space companies.
You know, companies that primarily do business with governments. Cool that these companies could get huge rewards from tax paid contracts and not pay ANY income tax on said profits back to the Treasury. I can see why the companies would like that program.
But it is utter bullshit and you know it.
.
Ho boy, this silly, simplistic, naive notion that a bunch of professional politicians and the federal bureaucracy can legislate "fairness", too funny. Like anything else -- I know the partisans will hate this -- structuring a tax system is a matter of finding proper equilibrium.
On one side, yes, we all benefit by many (not all) of the things that taxes create. Roads, bridges, police, yawn. I'm not aware of anyone who has ever said that they were not willing to pay for roads, bridges and police, but I know that's somehow a real big argument. So yes, we all benefit there, and we've all gotta pay for it. So I'm thrilled we have that terribly complicated issue out of the way.
On the other side, you cannot simplistically and punitively tax those who create wealth through investment and business ownership to the point where you have damaged their financial motiviation to do so. Nor can we provide services that motivate people at the bottom end to improve their own lives.
Do I really need to point this out? Actually, I'm pretty sure I do, which is pretty goddamn freakin' amazing to me.
So then, we are left with three essential moving parts to consider: The amount of "support" we are providing the lower ends of the economic spectrum, the tax code and the marginal tax rates within that code.
I won't even bother addressing the support we're providing the lower ends of the economic spectrum, because it's clear we're becoming more and more dependent on that on a cellular, cultural level; nor would I bother thinking about simplying our hilarious tax code, because our "leaders" clearly don't have the balls to take that on to any extent. I'll let someone else sort all that shit out, I've given up.
The first thing I would do is drop the corporate tax rate to 0%. There is no freakin' way to describe the amount of domestic economic activity on multiple levels that would spur immediately, or the amount of capital that would be immediately re-patriated by our own corporations, not to mention the literal fucking FLOOD of international capital that come our way sometime, oh, next week. To be perfectly honest, I don't even know if our economic infrastructure would be able to handle the increase in positive economic activity, but I'd freakin' love to find out.
Guess what that would do? It would increase both the incomes of those all over our economic strata and create a few zillion new jobs. That would, by itself, create a fucking flood of new tax revenue with which our "leaders" can purchase votes.
And that leaves us with our wonderfully comedic marginal tax rates, which are just a little old.
Since there's not a fucking thing I can do about our tax system, all we could do then is fiddle with the numbers on the marginal tax rates. And, because incomes at the top end have now risen to stratospheric levels, I would add two (2) new marginal levels.
And remember, before any conservative heads explode here, these rates would be marginal only and we would keep all personal deductions for investing, capital gains, estate tax, etc. Plenty of ways, zillions of ways, to work with that. So maybe something like this (new rates in bold):
Something like that. Maybe a touch higher on the top end. Then we look at ways to deal with spending, but I've wasted enough bandwidth.
- 10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,925, plus
- 15% on taxable income over $8,925 to $36,250, plus
- 25% on taxable income over $36,250 to $87,850, plus
- 28% on taxable income over $87,850 to $183,250, plus
- 33% on taxable income over $183,250 to $398,350, plus
- 35% on taxable income over $398,350 to $400,000, plus
- 39.6% on taxable income over $400,000 to $750,000, plus
[*]44.9% on taxable income over $750,000 to $1,000,000, plus
[*]49.9% on taxable income over $1,000,000
I suspect both "ends" will hate this, which is always a good sign.
.
But please do try. Why would a 0 corporate tax rate spur consumer demand? Are they gonna send the consumer a check to buy product with? I mean explain WHY you think I would all of a sudden need to buy what ever product a company makes, just because the company won't pay any income tax.
Maybe you are talking about HUGE businesses like a GE or Cat. Aero space companies.
You know, companies that primarily do business with governments. Cool that these companies could get huge rewards from tax paid contracts and not pay ANY income tax on said profits back to the Treasury. I can see why the companies would like that program.
But it is utter bullshit and you know it.
As I predicted, neither end would like my opinion.
Always a good sign.
.
