Taxing The Rich

[Ray From Cleveland]

See? By asking that question, you expose your ignorance. You’re blind, but don’t know it.

I may not know, but obviously you don't either because you can't answer the question.

 

[gipper]

See? By asking that question, you expose your ignorance. You’re blind, but don’t know it.

I may not know, but obviously you don't either because you can't answer the question.

It’s not my job to educate the blind. I’ve found it’s impossible.

 

[gmeyers1944]

The Democrat plans to tax the rich are futile and ignorant. They sound good to the uneducated, but they don't work very well. When you raise tax rates or reduce deductions on the rich, their typical response is to divert more of their money into tax shelters where they pay less tax. They can afford tax lawyers and CPAs who find ways to reduce their taxes dramatically and it's all legal.

Donald Trump knows how. For several years at a time, he paid no income tax. I don't know all the shelters he used but I can guess. One would be accelerated depreciation on the buildings and furniture he owns. Another would be Net Loss Carryover. When you have a loss in one year, the IRS Code allows you to deduct that loss on the returns for following years. If the NLC is large enough, it can give you zero tax liability for 5 or 6 years. Even people of moderate income can use tax shelters. I have 2 of them.

If you don't try and target the rich, they will pay a fair share of taxes just like everybody else. If you target them with high tax rates, they run for tax shelters.

These Dem idiots never learned what Kennedy, Reagan and Trump learned. Cutting taxes puts more money into the economy and the Fed coffers than raising them ever did. They will never, ever learn that lesson.

Imbeciles is what they are.

Trickle down economics has never worked, but it does enrich the rich enormously.

Leftists (self identifying as liberals, but are not) have convinced a lot of people that that lie is the truth.

 

[gipper]

The Democrat plans to tax the rich are futile and ignorant. They sound good to the uneducated, but they don't work very well. When you raise tax rates or reduce deductions on the rich, their typical response is to divert more of their money into tax shelters where they pay less tax. They can afford tax lawyers and CPAs who find ways to reduce their taxes dramatically and it's all legal.

Donald Trump knows how. For several years at a time, he paid no income tax. I don't know all the shelters he used but I can guess. One would be accelerated depreciation on the buildings and furniture he owns. Another would be Net Loss Carryover. When you have a loss in one year, the IRS Code allows you to deduct that loss on the returns for following years. If the NLC is large enough, it can give you zero tax liability for 5 or 6 years. Even people of moderate income can use tax shelters. I have 2 of them.

If you don't try and target the rich, they will pay a fair share of taxes just like everybody else. If you target them with high tax rates, they run for tax shelters.

These Dem idiots never learned what Kennedy, Reagan and Trump learned. Cutting taxes puts more money into the economy and the Fed coffers than raising them ever did. They will never, ever learn that lesson.

Imbeciles is what they are.

Trickle down economics has never worked, but it does enrich the rich enormously.

Leftists (self identifying as liberals, but are not) have convinced a lot of people that that lie is the truth.

Since Reagan, what has happened with income inequality? Any guesses?

 

[Zorro!]

After all they do for us little people, they shouldn't have to pay any taxes at all.

Progs have had many opportunities at the Federal Level to get the rich to pay their " fair share". They did not. They could have shut loopholes down with the old tax code and did nothing. All of the rich Progs who complain about the rich not paying what they should, use the loopholes themselves. Progs do not give the general population a massive tax cut. Yet feign so much concern for them. You are the real party of corporatists.

If we want to effectively tax the rich, we need a national sales tax, but, there is so much opportunity for graft by writing loopholes in tax law, that, we'll never effectively tax the rich. It's just a political slogan that means nothing. Now, with the SALT deduction limitation, well, the rich caught some fresh taxes, and getting rid of the SALT deduction limitation, in order to LOWER the taxes on the rich is one of the Left's priorities, but, Mitch says NO!

 

[Grumblenuts]

Oregon used to have some manner of "Bacon-Davis" wage requirements for construction workers on government buildings ... union scale, about double the Free Market wages ... we had the very best workers on those sites, most skilled, most talented ... best buildings in town ... worker productivity out the roof, owners got rich fast ... Bigger Government is always better ...

Trust me, union workers do not equate to the best workers. I'm from a construction family. My father got me to join the bricklayers union when I was much younger. Couldn't stand construction so I went into the transportation industry. Speaking of which, if I went to a company I knew nothing about for a delivery, didn't talk to anybody about their company, I could tell you within five minutes if they were union or not. In fact the company I worked for had a policy of not going to any of the UAW auto plants for that reason. He just didn't have ability to have a driver in one place for six hours whereas most places can have you unloaded between 20 and 40 minutes.

Big government is better? Sure, they will pay top dollar because it's not their money they are wasting--it's ours, so they don't care. Years ago in my suburb they had new schools built. With financial help from the state, they had it figured out to the penny. Construction started, and the unions copped a bitch because it was non-union companies doing the work. They had to pay prevailing wage which of course broke our budget big time. Guess who had to pay for that? That's right, we taxpayers.

When I pay for insurance for my buildings, the insurance company has to set their rates according to what it would cost if I had a total loss and it had to be rebuilt. They use union wages to figure that cost out, and it doesn't matter if you hire a union company or not. Thanks to unions, all of us have to pay higher insurance costs as well.

Gotta say, it's amusing watching how you keep imagining you know stuff out loud. But not that amusing because it's clear you just never shut up and, like Limbaugh, probably manage to convince some stupid people to work against their own best interests. So yeah, no, you're really just a prick like so many others here, probably enjoying being just that, and getting paid for it.

 

[gipper]

Oregon used to have some manner of "Bacon-Davis" wage requirements for construction workers on government buildings ... union scale, about double the Free Market wages ... we had the very best workers on those sites, most skilled, most talented ... best buildings in town ... worker productivity out the roof, owners got rich fast ... Bigger Government is always better ...

Trust me, union workers do not equate to the best workers. I'm from a construction family. My father got me to join the bricklayers union when I was much younger. Couldn't stand construction so I went into the transportation industry. Speaking of which, if I went to a company I knew nothing about for a delivery, didn't talk to anybody about their company, I could tell you within five minutes if they were union or not. In fact the company I worked for had a policy of not going to any of the UAW auto plants for that reason. He just didn't have ability to have a driver in one place for six hours whereas most places can have you unloaded between 20 and 40 minutes.

Big government is better? Sure, they will pay top dollar because it's not their money they are wasting--it's ours, so they don't care. Years ago in my suburb they had new schools built. With financial help from the state, they had it figured out to the penny. Construction started, and the unions copped a bitch because it was non-union companies doing the work. They had to pay prevailing wage which of course broke our budget big time. Guess who had to pay for that? That's right, we taxpayers.

When I pay for insurance for my buildings, the insurance company has to set their rates according to what it would cost if I had a total loss and it had to be rebuilt. They use union wages to figure that cost out, and it doesn't matter if you hire a union company or not. Thanks to unions, all of us have to pay higher insurance costs as well.

Gotta say, it's amusing watching how you keep imagining you know stuff out loud. But not that amusing because it's clear you just never shut up and, like Limbaugh, probably manage to convince some stupid people to work against their own best interests. So yeah, no, you're really just a prick like so many others here, probably enjoying being just that, and getting paid for it.

No. He’s just another duped con. He really believes the stupid shit Rush has told him.

 

[Flash]

Take money from those that earned and giving it away to those that didn't earn it. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[LeftofLeft]

Bullshit. Another “blame America first” theory on Middle East immigrants from already war-torn, oppressed countries. How about all of the non whites choosing to come to US from Central and South America, Asia, and Africa? You going to blame all of that on US too?

What part of this are you confused about?

It was US troops that produced war-torn countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Central American asylum seekers are fleeing violence stemming from US meddling in countries like Honduras.

How Pentagon Officials May Have Encouraged a 2009 Coup in Honduras

You still have not answered my core question.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Gotta say, it's amusing watching how you keep imagining you know stuff out loud. But not that amusing because it's clear you just never shut up and, like Limbaugh, probably manage to convince some stupid people to work against their own best interests. So yeah, no, you're really just a prick like so many others here, probably enjoying being just that, and getting paid for it.

So who's paying me? I don't imagine anything. I speak to people in various professions to educate me how things work. In the case of how insurance works, I have a cousin in the industry.

You don't go to political blogs to shut up. If you go to political blogs to be quiet, you probably don't have very much on your mind.

Working against their own best interests? Assuming you voted for Biden, you voted for a guy that's going to increase taxes on your employer or his industry., thus making it difficult for you to get pay increases. If you are looking for a job, forget about it. Biden's plans on a national $15.00 minimum wage will inspire employers to invest in automation to replace humans or move more jobs overseas. Either that or cut down on hiring more people. If you live in the suburbs, Biden's plan is to move low-income, high-crime people into your area thus decreasing your property value to half of what it is today. Imagine your playground or park turning into project buildings. Imagine your police department so busy they have to call neighboring suburbs for help. Do you like paying more for energy? Hope so if you voted for Biden. He and Whorris both stated they would eliminate fracking in our country which is totally responsible for us paying $2.00 per gallon of gasoline. Currently, we are the worlds largest exporter in energy. That will come to a screeching halt as your energy costs double. Hoping your labor will become more valuable? Not likely when Biden stops the wall construction and rescinds all of Trump's successful policies of keeping illegal immigrants out of this country.

So who are the stupid people working against their very own best interests again?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It’s not my job to educate the blind. I’ve found it’s impossible.

I think you better educate yourself so before you make a statement, you can explain what you meant.

 

[gipper]

It’s not my job to educate the blind. I’ve found it’s impossible.

I think you better educate yourself so before you make a statement, you can explain what you meant.

A problem arises when one is completely unaware of reality. When reality is revealed, they recoil in indignation.

 

[hadit]

The dems don’t understand economics or even math.
They think that the rich are somehow locked into staying in high tax areas. They think that their money can’t be moved into other countries.
They don’t realize that businesses can leave money overseas Instead of bringing it into the U.S. where it spends just as well there.
They don’t realize that businesses are not going to take a hit to the bottom line, they will just pass that hit onto higher prices for the consumer.

Raise the minimum wage to raise more tax revenue.

Raise minimum wage to increase prices for goods. Then minimum wage purchases the exact same amount of goods or services.
so it ends up as a wash other then it looks good.

Yep. When you increase the minimum wage, you increase everyone else's wages because minimum wage by definition goes to the lowest value employees. So you have to pay the others proportionately more.

Then their companies raise prices and it all balances out again. Then a Democrat raises their hand and says I have an idea, let's increase the minimum wage ...

The problem is that's best case for low end workers, that it just doesn't work. The reality is that businesses constantly use those increased costs to streamline, optimize and automate processes. Which results in fewer low end jobs.

The low end workers are actually the victims of minimum wage increases. Democrats of course don't care, it was never about helping anyone. They want them to be poor so they stay Democrats

The left has a solution for that. Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation our at-will employment States.

What Daniel is trying to say is that he wants to be paid even if he refuses to work a job. He doesn't understand that at-will means you can quit and you can be fired, that's it.

What right wingers keep stating is that their bigotry not the law is what is important. At-will means at the will of either party not just the employer or the State.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No, in the law, at will employment means you can't be forced into a job and the boss can't be forced to keep you. That's all it means. Seriously, learn something.

 

[hadit]

"Above all things, good policy is to be used that the treasure and monies in a state be not gathered into few hands. For otherwise a state may have a great stock, and yet starve. And money is like muck, not good except it be spread"
-- Francis Bacon; from 'Of Seditions and Troubles'

Raise the minimum wage to raise more tax revenue.

You just don’t get it. Raise minimum wage prices go up. So the only thing you are doing is making the poor slob have less money in their pocket because of taxes. So I guess you want people to either stop working or have less money to spend

Prices have been going up anyway; only the minimum wage was not being raised on a regular basis to keep up with inflation.

I don’t know where you live but where most people live the cost of labor has been going up. In my area you can go to work at McDonalds for more then minimum wage.
Minimum wage of $15.00 an hour will not get you the same things as other areas.
I know that you are unable to comprehend this but why not allow states to set minimum wage since they understand their economy better then the federal government? Oh I know because then the federal government would not be in charge of everything in people’s lives

Then why complain about the less than five percent who work minimum wage jobs getting a higher statutory minimum wage that is a simple cost of living adjustment?

You're ignoring the ripple effect. More than half the work force makes $20/hr or less. All of them would demand a raise. Add to that everyone who now makes between $7 and $15, and no, it's not 5%.

A cost of living adjustment. Or, stop complaining that the Poor don't pay enough in taxes or cost too much in social services.

A COLA that would bankrupt the country. You can't go that far that fast without bad consequences.

 

[hadit]

The dems don’t understand economics or even math.
They think that the rich are somehow locked into staying in high tax areas. They think that their money can’t be moved into other countries.
They don’t realize that businesses can leave money overseas Instead of bringing it into the U.S. where it spends just as well there.
They don’t realize that businesses are not going to take a hit to the bottom line, they will just pass that hit onto higher prices for the consumer.

Raise the minimum wage to raise more tax revenue.

Raise minimum wage to increase prices for goods. Then minimum wage purchases the exact same amount of goods or services.
so it ends up as a wash other then it looks good.

No, it doesn't. Some studies show less than five percent increase in prices. Simply beating the rate of inflation means greater purchasing power for Labor and their propensity to consume. The doubling of the minimum wage will not result in a doubling of prices for anything.

So you're going to increase labor costs by 100% but claim that prices will only go up 5%? You're not the brightest bulb on the tree...are you, Daniel?

Due to minimum wage increases. Other wages could raise it more, but the pay increases need merely beat inflation. Who cares if prices go up if we can afford it with the higher wage. And, a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage also generates several times more in federal income tax revenue.

How does this work, Daniel? The profit margin of your typical brick and mortar store is less than 5%. Their largest expense will typically be payroll which you're now increasing by 100%. So where do you make up the difference?

Prices won't double even if the minimum wage does. The multiplier effect does the rest.

I asked a rather simple question, Daniel...which you've failed to answer. How do you raise labor costs 100% in a business that only has a 5% profit margin and NOT raise the price of goods and services provided by that business?

It is about the minimum wage and minimum wage labor. What percentage of any workforce makes the minimum wage?

Answer the question, Daniel. If you can't...then admit you have no clue what you're talking about...tuck tail and find another string!

You are the one begging the question. You have nothing but Hoax not any understanding of economics.

So your "answer" to a very simple question...is that I have "Hoax"? If you can't answer something that basic, Daniel then it's obvious your minimum wage ideas fall flat on their face.

I took Economics classes at UMass, Amherst College and Boston University. What is your background on the subject?

I'd give it up. You'll never get anything but empty rhetoric from Danny Boy

lol. You have nothing but Hoax, not any valid arguments for rebuttal.

Awwwwk! Polly wanna hoaxcracker!

Still no valid arguments. How many times do I have to repeat myself to get a valid response from right wingers?

Okay here's one. If a lazy Dem dreg needs more money, then tell him to get a job or a better one if by accident he already has one. Raising minimum wage makes the dregs dreggier.

Raising the minimum wage means more federal income tax revenue for Government.

Why? The dregs milk the system for every dollar they can get even better than the uberrich. Consumer prices go up and any taxes the dregs pay are miniscule if at all.

Not at all. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage generates several times more in federal income tax revenue. So what if the employer cuts a few jobs. The unemployed should be able to obtain unemployment compensation for as long as they want.

And there it is, the admission that you want to get paid even if you refuse to work a job. What you want is welfare, not unemployment compensation.

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics or the law. Equal protect of the law is not means tested welfare. Only the right wing, never gets it but want to be taken "morally seriously" anyway with nothing but Hoax.

No one is taking you seriously because you spout nonsense. Equal protection of the law means the law is applied to everyone. That means that ANYONE who meets the criteria can get welfare. That's all it means. Let's put it this way, since you are so dogmatic about it. The law states that a person who earns under a certain amount of money each year ends up paying no federal income taxes. Under your twisted interpretation, that is not equal protection under the law because the very wealthy have to pay a lot of taxes. It's means tested taxation, so give me a solid rationale why the two are different and you support the one but not the other.

 

[hadit]

The dems don’t understand economics or even math.
They think that the rich are somehow locked into staying in high tax areas. They think that their money can’t be moved into other countries.
They don’t realize that businesses can leave money overseas Instead of bringing it into the U.S. where it spends just as well there.
They don’t realize that businesses are not going to take a hit to the bottom line, they will just pass that hit onto higher prices for the consumer.

Raise the minimum wage to raise more tax revenue.

How are you going to increase the value of that job when it's not worth the increased wage?

By moving the goal posts via the socialism of Government with our fiat money. The value of any minimum wage labor is what Government says it is. Capitalist simply need to review their accounting to make a profit.

You have absolutely no idea how a business actually operates, do you? You can't if you think you can arbitrarily increase costs and the company won't do anything about it.

That is your straw man argument. Capitalists merely need to review their accounting to make a profit is my rebuttal.

It's a stupid rebuttal because they already review their accounting all the time. In fact, they have accountants do it for them. They already know how much a job costs them and how much it contributes to the bottom line. IOW, nonsense.

 

[danielpalos]

The dems don’t understand economics or even math.
They think that the rich are somehow locked into staying in high tax areas. They think that their money can’t be moved into other countries.
They don’t realize that businesses can leave money overseas Instead of bringing it into the U.S. where it spends just as well there.
They don’t realize that businesses are not going to take a hit to the bottom line, they will just pass that hit onto higher prices for the consumer.

Raise the minimum wage to raise more tax revenue.

Raise minimum wage to increase prices for goods. Then minimum wage purchases the exact same amount of goods or services.
so it ends up as a wash other then it looks good.

Yep. When you increase the minimum wage, you increase everyone else's wages because minimum wage by definition goes to the lowest value employees. So you have to pay the others proportionately more.

Then their companies raise prices and it all balances out again. Then a Democrat raises their hand and says I have an idea, let's increase the minimum wage ...

The problem is that's best case for low end workers, that it just doesn't work. The reality is that businesses constantly use those increased costs to streamline, optimize and automate processes. Which results in fewer low end jobs.

The low end workers are actually the victims of minimum wage increases. Democrats of course don't care, it was never about helping anyone. They want them to be poor so they stay Democrats

The left has a solution for that. Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation our at-will employment States.

What Daniel is trying to say is that he wants to be paid even if he refuses to work a job. He doesn't understand that at-will means you can quit and you can be fired, that's it.

What right wingers keep stating is that their bigotry not the law is what is important. At-will means at the will of either party not just the employer or the State.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No, in the law, at will employment means you can't be forced into a job and the boss can't be forced to keep you. That's all it means. Seriously, learn something.

It means you can quit on an at-will basis with no legal or moral prejudice.

 

[danielpalos]

"Above all things, good policy is to be used that the treasure and monies in a state be not gathered into few hands. For otherwise a state may have a great stock, and yet starve. And money is like muck, not good except it be spread"
-- Francis Bacon; from 'Of Seditions and Troubles'

Raise the minimum wage to raise more tax revenue.

You just don’t get it. Raise minimum wage prices go up. So the only thing you are doing is making the poor slob have less money in their pocket because of taxes. So I guess you want people to either stop working or have less money to spend

Prices have been going up anyway; only the minimum wage was not being raised on a regular basis to keep up with inflation.

I don’t know where you live but where most people live the cost of labor has been going up. In my area you can go to work at McDonalds for more then minimum wage.
Minimum wage of $15.00 an hour will not get you the same things as other areas.
I know that you are unable to comprehend this but why not allow states to set minimum wage since they understand their economy better then the federal government? Oh I know because then the federal government would not be in charge of everything in people’s lives

Then why complain about the less than five percent who work minimum wage jobs getting a higher statutory minimum wage that is a simple cost of living adjustment?

You're ignoring the ripple effect. More than half the work force makes $20/hr or less. All of them would demand a raise. Add to that everyone who now makes between $7 and $15, and no, it's not 5%.

A cost of living adjustment. Or, stop complaining that the Poor don't pay enough in taxes or cost too much in social services.

A COLA that would bankrupt the country. You can't go that far that fast without bad consequences.

In right wing fantasy you are Always Right; it just seems like Hoax to the rest of us.

 

[danielpalos]

No one is taking you seriously because you spout nonsense. Equal protection of the law means the law is applied to everyone. That means that ANYONE who meets the criteria can get welfare. That's all it means. Let's put it this way, since you are so dogmatic about it. The law states that a person who earns under a certain amount of money each year ends up paying no federal income taxes. Under your twisted interpretation, that is not equal protection under the law because the very wealthy have to pay a lot of taxes. It's means tested taxation, so give me a solid rationale why the two are different and you support the one but not the other.

lol. You have no understanding only right wing fantasy. Employment is at the will of either party.

 

[danielpalos]

It's a stupid rebuttal because they already review their accounting all the time. In fact, they have accountants do it for them. They already know how much a job costs them and how much it contributes to the bottom line. IOW, nonsense.

You have no sense. Government can move the goal posts merely by fixing new Standards.