Taxing the wealthy more will have little to no impact on your life or anyone around you

[bripat9643]

The federal government deserves nothing, no matter the size...

It's not their money to begin with... It's the individual's.

Taxation without representation is what the death tax is...

The 'individuals' have voted the government the authority to tax, and the elected representatives have been given the power to spend.

Therefore, some of your money does belong to the government. Legally.

That doesn't give them to tax irresponsibly, which they do in spades.

Actually it does. If you don't like how they're taxing you, you vote for somebody else.

Taxing is just another word for taking...

Is that what passes for profound in your world?

You prefer anarchy. We get it. But you won't get it here.

Yes, anything short of your vast oppressive fascist welfare state is anarchy. Freedom is so scare to the servile.

 

[SAYIT]

It should be used to pay off the debt. Those tax breaks for the rich sure didn't help the economy.

Says who? You?
I was easily making six figures prior to the crash. I won't claim that it was tax cuts that did it but it sure as hell wasn't something that carried over into Obama's administration.
You morons claim one thing but your only scape goat is the crash. The crash that was partially caused by Democratic policies. So desperate to help the poor that everyone paid the price.

Just look at how the economy has done, the evidence is clear.

Our economy crashed because of shady trading & financial practices. Partially thanks to people like Barney Frank and their bullshit "help the poor" policies.
The economy stayed in the shitter because we elected a fucking amatuer who knew NOTHING about economics & had the same God damn philosophy that got us there in the first place.

None of the "help the poor" policies contributed to the economic crisis.

That's been debunked over and over again.

Forcing banks to grant mortgages to people who couldn't pay them is what caused the crisis, so your claim is pure bullshit.

I am always mystified at the ease with which some people ignore the unintended consequences of gov't meddling in business.

They conveniently forget it was gov't policy - as well intentioned as it may have been - that fueled the housing bubble and predictable implosion.

The same peeps whine incessantly about the jobs we export yet fail to recognize (or refuse to admit) that gov't policies - like those of the EPA - are directly responsible.

Deep down inside they may know that more gov't is a guarantee of failure but their solution is - drum roll, please - MORE GOV'T.

 

[Rustic]

The federal government deserves nothing, no matter the size...

It's not their money to begin with... It's the individual's.

Taxation without representation is what the death tax is...

The 'individuals' have voted the government the authority to tax, and the elected representatives have been given the power to spend.

Therefore, some of your money does belong to the government. Legally.

That doesn't give them to tax irresponsibly, which they do in spades.

Actually it does. If you don't like how they're taxing you, you vote for somebody else.

Taxing is just another word for taking...

Is that what passes for profound in your world?

You prefer anarchy. We get it. But you won't get it here.

You do know all the assets of this nation are ours not the governments??
And the country and government are two different things?

There for taxation without representation for the last century plus...

 

[rightwinger]

In many cases, that money has not been taxed

You don't pay taxes on a capital gain until that gain is realized. So, if you paid a million for stocks and they are now worth ten million you do not pay taxes on the nine million profit until you sell

If you die. That ten million goes to your heirs

It's called risk...
Taxing risk makes no sense...

Of course it does

If the risk does not pay off, you are not taxed
if the risk pays off, you are

...you just don't understand.

The federal government has no skin in the game, why should they be rewarded??

We the people are rewarded

It is your entry fee into the game

Being looted is being rewarded? When you say "we the people" you really mean "we the ticks on the ass of society."

If you want to consider 330 million people ticks on the ass of society, you are welcome

Investment should be taxed the same as labor

 

[Camp]

You can not name a business or industry that does not depend on the government in some way to support the business or industry. Tax payers pay for those supports and infrastructures that make all business and industries possible. Go ahead and name one that doesn't.

It's the individual who allowed for the federal government to do all those things, for the businesses in turn for the individual to succeed.

The federal government should be seen and not heard...

You are evading the question and challenge and offering an opinion. A statement has been made that the government has no skin in the game and therefore has no reason or right to tax. That idea is being challenged and called bullshit. The basis for that concept is false and misrepresents reality. It is a talking point that does not hold up and never has. You can not name one industry or business that does not require direct or indirect government tax payer support.

You're the one deflecting, the federal government should for the individual success, not the progressives(village).
Paying into a pot and spending out of that same pot, has never worked for the good in history, hence socialism.

This country was envisioned to be a capitalist republic, not a socialist democracy therefore crazy debt, overbearing fed, progressive politicians and unhappy masses, ending in a failed government.

Embrace the suck

I am not deflecting at all. I keep asking you the same question. You keep failing to answer and instead give a lecture or opinions without answering the question. That is the definition of a deflection. All I am doing is asking the same question over and over. It just means your opinion can not be backed up and mine can. Your concept and idea that government has no business taxing citizens or business and industry is based on fraudulent bullshit. My contention that it does holds up under scrutiny.

You obviously do not know what a republic is, look it up.

Translation, you got nothing and are completely befuddles and out of you league in the discussion going on here today. Your final answer is to look up a subject that could entail an entire semester of university study, if not more. In your mind it is something that you can quickly learns from a quick google search.

 

[Rustic]

Na

It's called risk...
Taxing risk makes no sense...

Of course it does

If the risk does not pay off, you are not taxed
if the risk pays off, you are

...you just don't understand.

The federal government has no skin in the game, why should they be rewarded??

We the people are rewarded

It is your entry fee into the game

Being looted is being rewarded? When you say "we the people" you really mean "we the ticks on the ass of society."

If you want to consider 330 million people ticks on the ass of society, you are welcome

Investment should be taxed the same as labor

Na, that is what a socialist nation would do, socialism always has failed into dictatorship...

 

[Rustic]

It's the individual who allowed for the federal government to do all those things, for the businesses in turn for the individual to succeed.

The federal government should be seen and not heard...

You are evading the question and challenge and offering an opinion. A statement has been made that the government has no skin in the game and therefore has no reason or right to tax. That idea is being challenged and called bullshit. The basis for that concept is false and misrepresents reality. It is a talking point that does not hold up and never has. You can not name one industry or business that does not require direct or indirect government tax payer support.

You're the one deflecting, the federal government should for the individual success, not the progressives(village).
Paying into a pot and spending out of that same pot, has never worked for the good in history, hence socialism.

This country was envisioned to be a capitalist republic, not a socialist democracy therefore crazy debt, overbearing fed, progressive politicians and unhappy masses, ending in a failed government.

Embrace the suck

I am not deflecting at all. I keep asking you the same question. You keep failing to answer and instead give a lecture or opinions without answering the question. That is the definition of a deflection. All I am doing is asking the same question over and over. It just means your opinion can not be backed up and mine can. Your concept and idea that government has no business taxing citizens or business and industry is based on fraudulent bullshit. My contention that it does holds up under scrutiny.

You obviously do not know what a republic is, look it up.

Translation, you got nothing and are completely befuddles and out of you league in the discussion going on here today. Your final answer is to look up a subject that could entail an entire semester of university study, if not more. In your mind it is something that you can quickly learns from a quick google search.

Simple answer, our socialist/progressive government has failed. Point proven.

Embrace the suck... It's all downhill from here.

 

[rightwinger]

Na

Of course it does

If the risk does not pay off, you are not taxed
if the risk pays off, you are

...you just don't understand.

The federal government has no skin in the game, why should they be rewarded??

We the people are rewarded

It is your entry fee into the game

Being looted is being rewarded? When you say "we the people" you really mean "we the ticks on the ass of society."

If you want to consider 330 million people ticks on the ass of society, you are welcome

Investment should be taxed the same as labor

Na, that is what a socialist nation would do, socialism always has failed into dictatorship...

In Socialism, the government controls the means of production. What part of what I posted is socialism?

 

[SAYIT]

I'm just shocked that you have such a limited understanding of how business works.
Taxes are a cost of doing business.
When those costs rise the prices rise right along with them. Do you think the owner is just going to eat those costs?

I know perfectly well how business works, comrade

And taxes are not a cost of doing business since they pay taxes on profits (which is by definition income minus cost)

Also, businesses already maximize profit. If they could raise prices without consequences they would have already have done so, that's why I asked how higher taxes lead to higher prices for the consumer.

Yep, taxes on profits are how ticks on the ass of society steal from future generations. Profits are the seed corn for future production. Tax profits and you reduce corporate expansion and reduce the wealth of future generations.

God, how many times have we heard that one?

Very little of the profits go into corporate expansion. Those that do get written off. Most of the profit is used for dividends or held in reserve

Businesses use whatever assets they must to accommodate their current market share and future potential. That is why they are in biz.

What can be "written off" are legit (according to the tax code) expenses with capital improvements getting depreciation treatment according to rules set by the IRS.

 

[Brain357]

You can't be serious. So the poor pay the same as the wealthy even though the wealthy benefit so much more I suppose? Oh and everyone pays even the poorest right?

Right now the bottom 47% very little to no "income" tax...

Put a flat tax on purchases...

Yes the very poor and the retired. Why would you want to tax either more?

If a flat tax is put on purchases then the individual can control what the pay in taxes thus better controls on federal government expenditure...

And it hurts the poor more than the rich.

Na, the richest spend more...

If a rich person buys the same thing as a poor person they are both taxed the same amount.

 

[Brain357]

Bullshit.
They dont raise prices because they have to stay competitive with the competition.
When there is a tax hike all businesses take the hit and all of them raise prices.
So no you dont have any idea how business works.

That's not logical, according to the "free" market ideology, prices are determined by supply and demand. There is a price that maximizes profit, it doesn't matter if you tax that profit by 10%, 20% or 30%, the price that maximizes profit is still the same.

And calling me comrade is akin to calling Bernie Kernal Sanders a right wing extremist.
Giving the impression you know nothing of politics as well.

And Bernie isn't a right wing extremist, just a moderate rightwinger.

I call lots of people comrade, no need to get upset. I could also call you a clueless Ayn Rand fanatic but I try not to be insulting.

So in your opinion the business will just eat the added expense?
You do realize a lot of businesses run on razor thin margins and any added increase that cant be offset by price hikes will be made up in lower pay for employees or the down sizing of staff,or the closing of the business all together.


And why would I be upset at your stupidity?

That is why corporate tax breaks should be based on employing in the US, wages, and benefits. Everyone wins.

I agree totally

I have no problem with providing tax breaks to job creators. I do have a problem with classifying every wealthy person as a job creator

Now why is it conservatives have a problem with it? They are pretty quiet.

 

[Brain357]

An income tax is unconstitutional...

And you'd pay for your military how without it?

Somehow we managed before 1916. There's a good argument that without the income tax we would have never gotten involved in WW I. It would have been financially impossible.

We didn't spend anywhere near as much on the military then.

 

[Mac1958]

It will only enable the government to spend more money on stupid ass senseless projects like shrimp on treadmills.You stupid liberals will vote for it and see NONE OF IT. It will be blown on wasteful spending just like the vast majority of your taxes

Indeed, this part of the personal taxation issue is virtually never discussed: What would that money be used for, and how efficient would that spending be?

Right now, it appears extra revenue would only be to reduce/eliminate the debt based on current spending, which, in itself, is fine. But increased net spending would obviously require even more revenue.

From my perspective, increased personal (repeat: personal) income taxes would not mean damage to the economy per se, but there has to be better clarity on the efficiency of the spending.

Unfortunately, taxing/spending is a political issue, which means it's immediately dumbed down and turned into shallow bumper sticker slogans.
.

 

[BluesLegend]

It will only enable the government to spend more money on stupid ass senseless projects like shrimp on treadmills.
You stupid liberals will vote for it and see NONE OF IT. It will be blown on wasteful spending just like the vast majority of your taxes

The Democrat drones fall for it every damn election thinking they are going to get a slice of the tax increase. Who gets it? Yes the public employee unions. Why? Because they fund the Democrat campaigns. Its a brilliant scam, Dem's raise taxes and give the money to the public employee unions, the unions kick part of the money back to the Dem's campaign funds. It would make a mob boss blush.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Taxing the wealthy more will have little to no impact on your life or anyone around you


Did you get your job from a poor person?

If you tax away enough of the wealthy's money, what do you think they will have to cut as a result?

 

[Brain357]

Taxing the wealthy more will have little to no impact on your life or anyone around you


Did you get your job from a poor person?

If you tax away enough of the wealthy's money, what do you think they will have to cut as a result?

Yet we have had much stronger economies when the rich were being taxed more.

 

[Rustic]

Na

...you just don't understand.

The federal government has no skin in the game, why should they be rewarded??

We the people are rewarded

It is your entry fee into the game

Being looted is being rewarded? When you say "we the people" you really mean "we the ticks on the ass of society."

If you want to consider 330 million people ticks on the ass of society, you are welcome

Investment should be taxed the same as labor

Na, that is what a socialist nation would do, socialism always has failed into dictatorship...

In Socialism, the government controls the means of production. What part of what I posted is socialism?

Hate to break it to ya, our current government is more socialist/progressive than not.
That being the whole reason why it's broke(figuratively and financially)

Embrace the suck

 

[Brain357]

Na

We the people are rewarded

It is your entry fee into the game

Being looted is being rewarded? When you say "we the people" you really mean "we the ticks on the ass of society."

If you want to consider 330 million people ticks on the ass of society, you are welcome

Investment should be taxed the same as labor

Na, that is what a socialist nation would do, socialism always has failed into dictatorship...

In Socialism, the government controls the means of production. What part of what I posted is socialism?

Hate to break it to ya, our current government is more socialist/progressive than not.
That being the whole reason why it's broke(figuratively and financially)

Embrace the suck

Really? So what is so much more socialist than say when Bush was president? I haven't really noticed much of a difference.

 

[Rustic]

Right now the bottom 47% very little to no "income" tax...

Put a flat tax on purchases...

Yes the very poor and the retired. Why would you want to tax either more?

If a flat tax is put on purchases then the individual can control what the pay in taxes thus better controls on federal government expenditure...

And it hurts the poor more than the rich.

Na, the richest spend more...

If a rich person buys the same thing as a poor person they are both taxed the same amount.

Sure, but the wealthy generally spend more and on higher end items, thus taxed more consumption wise. Similar to a luxury tax but not progressive.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Big difference from Iraq , who told us to go .

Our main problem. A "president" who can be told, and does.