Since we know that trickledown economics is a GOP lie, why are republicans still opposed to taxing the very wealthy more?

[DukeU]

Generally speaking, CEOs don't come up with too may of those brilliant ideas. It's done by committee.

You have every right to choose what you wish to do with your money. Don't want to patronize certain/any corporations fine.

 

[progressive hunter]

The wealth disparity in the US is the widest in the world. We KNOW corporate subsidies and tax breaks do not benefit the middle class or poor on any significant level. It's simply a myth they would choose to invest the extra money into lower level work forces. Why pay the fast food worker more if republican policy allows the fat cats to just keep the money they save from tax loopholes or meat subsidies? No point in that for them. There is no incentive.


"Under this legislation," the proposal noted above a list of billionaires in America, "the families of all 657 billionaires in America who have a combined net worth of over $4.26 trillion would owe up to $2.7 trillion in estate taxes."

Estate tax proposal from Bernie Sanders would mean big bills for America's wealthiest

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) recently introduced an estate tax plan that specifically lists the wealthiest Americans.

www.yahoo.com

currently about 50% of the population pay nothing in taxs and the uber rich pay the highest part of taxs,,

fix that problem and we can talk about you stupid idea,,

We certainly can fix that problem. 99% of the wealth is owned by the top 20%. But the top 20% pay less than 99% of the taxes. Using your logic, we lower the percentage of wealth to the top 20%. Wonder how that's going to go over?

sounds like youre jealous,,,

maybe you should stop being a lazy piece of shit and get out there and do something,,


all of these rich people employ hundreds or thousands of people and when they use their money to buy the nice stuff they also help the job market,,

paying higher taxs takes money from the people and gives it to the government to waste on turtle tunnels and gender studies in pakistan,,

No it doesn't. A case in point was a guy here that owned an entire chain of McDonalds. He complained to a reporter that the raise in min wage would cause him to cut workers. He was being interviewed in the Airport on his 6th vacation that year to Hawaii. Meanwhile, his workers were all on the poverty list. And before you go off on all the jobs were being done by High Schoolers, they weren't. The Job Market has forced some people with families to have to take those jobs with no future of advancement.

Trickle only works on trickle up.

The thing is, he is lying about having to cut workers because of minimum wage.

The only reason why an employer will cut workers is if there are more workers than actual work to be done.

If the McDonald's employer cuts workers without having a reduction in business, he will cause a reduction of business because people aren't going to wait around in a long line waiting for an order. They are going to go to the restaurant that has enough workers to properly handle the job of running the day to day business.

A lot of what the rich say about increased wages and taxes is nothing but a lie to prevent from having to pay their workers a living wage and having to pay their fair share in taxes.

its obvious you know nothing about how a business works,,,

have you ever figured out what a living wage is??

inquiring minds want to know,,

 

[AMart]

Why don't you leftists provide us with 150K guaranteed salaried jobs? It should be easy.

 

[Vrenn]

The wealth disparity in the US is the widest in the world. We KNOW corporate subsidies and tax breaks do not benefit the middle class or poor on any significant level. It's simply a myth they would choose to invest the extra money into lower level work forces. Why pay the fast food worker more if republican policy allows the fat cats to just keep the money they save from tax loopholes or meat subsidies? No point in that for them. There is no incentive.


"Under this legislation," the proposal noted above a list of billionaires in America, "the families of all 657 billionaires in America who have a combined net worth of over $4.26 trillion would owe up to $2.7 trillion in estate taxes."

Estate tax proposal from Bernie Sanders would mean big bills for America's wealthiest

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) recently introduced an estate tax plan that specifically lists the wealthiest Americans.

www.yahoo.com

I have never understood why some people who pay less income taxes than their neighbor, would demand that the neighbor pay more.

About half of Americans pay no federal income tax at all; the rest of us pay it for them.

The richest among us tend to pay the most taxes, generally about 27% for the top 1%. They pay so much more than most of us do. Personally, I am thankful and wish them even greater future success, but I do pay a tidy sum of taxes myself.

To answer your original query:
This wealthiest among us owe us squat. They can take their money and run after firing everyone.

But instead, they make more money by continuing to employ people who buy homes and other things, paying property, sales, social security and other taxes, while these employers are paying similar taxes themselves.

The wealthiest among us pay most of the taxes, and that pays for most of the operations of the government, including schools, roads, law and order, defense, energy, etc.

Demonizing the successful has to stop. We need to encourage success. Everyone would love to be successful. Everyone can be, if they strive to do so, every day.

It's simply a lie that half of workers do not pay taxes. ANY worker at least pays payroll taxes. In fact, 1/5 of a poor person's income goes to their taxes.

You're conveniently not acknowledging the EFFECTIVE taxes rich people pay. 2/3 of corporations do not pay any federal income taxes because of the taxe loopholes they take advantage of. The "official" tax rate is effectively meaningless.

> It's simply a lie that half of workers do not pay taxes.

I said, "About half of Americans pay no federal income tax at all; the rest of us pay it for them."

Pay attention, and quit being so anxious to call people liars.

You want people who already pay way more taxes than you to pay even more. That does not seem fair to me.

Yes, it is simple economics that wealthy people must pay more in taxes. It’s not about what’s “fair”. It’s about what is realistic.

the wealthy already pay not just more taxs but the majority of taxs,,

If the top 20% owns 99% of the wealth and income, I would think that they should also be paying 99% of the taxes. They don't. But yes, they do pay the majority of the taxes at the federal and state level. But when you total up all the other taxes, they really don't pay the majority. You leave out the taxes that are not figured in on an annual or quarterly basis.

> If the top 20% owns 99% of the wealth and income, I would think that they should also be paying 99% of the taxes.

No. Wealth is acquired over a lifetime through hard work.

Not sure why you think you can confiscate other people's property they have already paid taxes on to acquire. Self-entitiled much?

LOL, tell that to Rump. Or almost any other inherited baby in history. Sorry, but it's almost impossible to get that rich these days through hard work. You get there by using other peoples efforts and ideas. Gates and his Partner started out doing hard work but didn't get their real fortune until Gates learned to "Barrow" other's efforts and call it his own. Even Henry Ford used other peoples blood, sweat and tears.

The ones that originated the Companies that later became Corporations did do the blood, sweat and tears but at some point, their blood, sweat and tears are assumed by others. They don't work over 300 times harder than they did before they aquired all that wealth.

 

[Ben Thomson]

We know that trickle up poverty is a reality.

So you're just going to deflect the topic like a little bitch?

It's what the wingers do..if they don't have a valid response they respond with vulgarity or some childish retort.

 

[DukeU]

A lot of what the rich say about increased wages and taxes is nothing but a lie to prevent from having to pay their workers a living wage and having to pay their fair share in taxes.

What a pile of bs.

Define "living wage".

Also, why do democrats get to decide what "fair" means?

 

[Rambunctious]

If you want to tax the wealthy than tax all of the wealthy...not just income tax but a wealth tax...a tax that takes into account all of your savings and holdings that you already paid taxes on...and tax that at lets say 10%....

And then lets say the minimum cut off is zero...meaning everyone is taxed for their wealth and income.....

And then you are living in China....because that's their tax system in a nut shell....one thing to look at in there system is even the poor pay taxes in China and are often jailed for not paying their quarterly....

Enjoy libtards....enjoy.....

 

[Vrenn]

Generally speaking, CEOs don't come up with too may of those brilliant ideas. It's done by committee.

You have every right to choose what you wish to do with your money. Don't want to patronize certain/any corporations fine.

We are back to being taxed fairly. If 99% of the earning is received by the top 20%, all taxes should be paid at the same rate. It's not. In fact, when you total all the taxes, the top 20% doesn't even contribute 50%.

 

[progressive hunter]

Generally speaking, CEOs don't come up with too may of those brilliant ideas. It's done by committee.

You have every right to choose what you wish to do with your money. Don't want to patronize certain/any corporations fine.

We are back to being taxed fairly. If 99% of the earning is received by the top 20%, all taxes should be paid at the same rate. It's not. In fact, when you total all the taxes, the top 20% doesn't even contribute 50%.

wrong again,,,

 

[Vrenn]

Generally speaking, CEOs don't come up with too may of those brilliant ideas. It's done by committee.

You have every right to choose what you wish to do with your money. Don't want to patronize certain/any corporations fine.

We are back to being taxed fairly. If 99% of the earning is received by the top 20%, all taxes should be paid at the same rate. It's not. In fact, when you total all the taxes, the top 20% doesn't even contribute 50%.

wrong again,,,

Not wrong. Doing the right thing is not always a reality.

 

[progressive hunter]

Generally speaking, CEOs don't come up with too may of those brilliant ideas. It's done by committee.

You have every right to choose what you wish to do with your money. Don't want to patronize certain/any corporations fine.

We are back to being taxed fairly. If 99% of the earning is received by the top 20%, all taxes should be paid at the same rate. It's not. In fact, when you total all the taxes, the top 20% doesn't even contribute 50%.

wrong again,,,

Not wrong. Doing the right thing is not always a reality.

thats two different things,,

how about you provide a link to back up your claim,,

 

[PatriotJohn888]

Wow! There's some real intelligence is on display in this thread.

While it may seem reasonable to expect the government to figure out the best tax legislation to enact, I think the problems lie more with average Americans being wasteful, complacent, and ignorant all while having no skin in the game.

As mentioned, the fact that more than 50% of all taxpayers pay nothing into the system is egregious. EVERYONE should contribute something. No matter what.
If everyone contributed, people would pay more attention to government spending and there and voters would end up better informed. Everyone would have skin in the game. Politicians would be forced to consume less pork. In addition, people would pay better attention to their own personal finances and perhaps learn to rely less on the government to get them through.

We have created a situation that is unfair to the rich and creates dependency by the poor. It only makes the divide worse.

 

[Dana7360]

He complained to a reporter that the raise in min wage would cause him to cut workers.

That wasn't a complaint... that's a cold, hard fact. The more a worker costs, the fewer you can hire at the same productivity.

And the more vacations he and his family can take to Hawaii or Rome or wherever. And the new Mercedes and Porches and the new half million dollar boat and.. And you expect the welfare department to make up the difference with your workers between starving and not starving. It's called Corporate Welfare.

and when they spend money in those places it helps the workers there,,

thats called trickle down,,

Considering that they don't spend more money "there" there is no trickle down, just layoffs and 1 person is now expected to do the work of 2.

If the business lays off needed workers it will harm the business because the remaining workers won't be able to properly do the job.

It will cause the existing employees to have to work overtime which is more expensive.

It will also cause high turn over for the business because people can't be worked like that for very long until they look for another job. Especially if the first job doesn't pay well.

An employer will only lay off employees if there is a decrease in work for the existing workers to do.

If the employer reduces the workers without the necessary decline in business the employer will harm or even destroy the business.

 

[otto105]

Do tell about that massive wealth bitch.

Well, it's enough to pay his way around environmental laws in Hawaii.

Oceanfront Property Tied to Obama Granted Exemption From ...

Don't see where Obama is part of this project.

 

[progressive hunter]

He complained to a reporter that the raise in min wage would cause him to cut workers.

That wasn't a complaint... that's a cold, hard fact. The more a worker costs, the fewer you can hire at the same productivity.

And the more vacations he and his family can take to Hawaii or Rome or wherever. And the new Mercedes and Porches and the new half million dollar boat and.. And you expect the welfare department to make up the difference with your workers between starving and not starving. It's called Corporate Welfare.

and when they spend money in those places it helps the workers there,,

thats called trickle down,,

Considering that they don't spend more money "there" there is no trickle down, just layoffs and 1 person is now expected to do the work of 2.

If the business lays off needed workers it will harm the business because the remaining workers won't be able to properly do the job.

It will cause the existing employees to have to work overtime which is more expensive.

It will also cause high turn over for the business because people can't be worked like that for very long until they look for another job. Especially if the first job doesn't pay well.

An employer will only lay off employees if there is a decrease in work for the existing workers to do.

If the employer reduces the workers without the necessary decline in business the employer will harm or even destroy the business.

you are wrong on so many levels,,,

 

[otto105]

Wow! There's some real intelligence is on display in this thread.

While it may seem reasonable to expect the government to figure out the best tax legislation to enact, I think the problems lie more with average Americans being wasteful, complacent, and ignorant all while having no skin in the game.

As mentioned, the fact that more than 50% of all taxpayers pay nothing into the system is egregious. EVERYONE should contribute something. No matter what.
If everyone contributed, people would pay more attention to government spending and there and voters would end up better informed. Everyone would have skin in the game. Politicians would be forced to consume less pork. In addition, people would pay better attention to their own personal finances and perhaps learn to rely less on the government to get them through.

We have created a situation that is unfair to the rich and creates dependency by the poor. It only makes the divide worse.

john, by nothing you just mean income taxes....right.

 

[Vrenn]

Generally speaking, CEOs don't come up with too may of those brilliant ideas. It's done by committee.

You have every right to choose what you wish to do with your money. Don't want to patronize certain/any corporations fine.

We are back to being taxed fairly. If 99% of the earning is received by the top 20%, all taxes should be paid at the same rate. It's not. In fact, when you total all the taxes, the top 20% doesn't even contribute 50%.

wrong again,,,

Not wrong. Doing the right thing is not always a reality.

thats two different things,,

how about you provide a link to back up your claim,,

Wow, the Vinnie Barbarno Defense. It's already been covered in here. I can't help that when confronted with it, you covered both eyes and starting screaming "LALALALALA" and over again while you were clicking the thumbs down button.

 

[DukeU]

Don't see where Obama is part of this project.

Not surprising. Here let me help.

But the property owners, including Marty Nesbitt, chair of the Obama Foundation, argued they needed an exemption to protect the sprawling compound they are building in eastern Oahu. State officials and community members say the former president, who was born and raised in Hawaii, is expected to be among the property’s future occupants

 

[otto105]

If you want to tax the wealthy than tax all of the wealthy...not just income tax but a wealth tax...a tax that takes into account all of your savings and holdings that you already paid taxes on...and tax that at lets say 10%....

And then lets say the minimum cut off is zero...meaning everyone is taxed for their wealth and income.....

And then you are living in China....because that's their tax system in a nut shell....one thing to look at in there system is even the poor pay taxes in China and are often jailed for not paying their quarterly....

Enjoy libtards....enjoy.....

I will enjoy.

Very much so.

Because the current system is failing.

 

[otto105]

Don't see where Obama is part of this project.

Not surprising. Here let me help.

But the property owners, including Marty Nesbitt, chair of the Obama Foundation, argued they needed an exemption to protect the sprawling compound they are building in eastern Oahu. State officials and community members say the former president, who was born and raised in Hawaii, is expected to be among the property’s future occupants

So, some future this or that...