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

[Arianrhod]

You mean the federal government didn't collect those taxes? Where did they go then?

Where they always go, politicians.

So politicians are not part of the government on your planet? That would explain so much. But here on Earth, in the U.S., the 1950s were a time of great prosperity, in large part because the corporations and the wealthy paid their fair share of taxes.

(See, if you wanted to look intelligent, you'd have demanded that I prove those tax rates. Instead, you're just flailing.)

Your "fair share" sounds like taxation without representation.

Taxes never go back to the masses...

Not today, which is the only system you know. It wasn't always like that. Which is why I compared today with the 1950s and pointed out that things were far better for the average American than they are now.

And here are the tax tables you didn't ask for:

Historical Highest Marginal Income Tax Rates

Tax Facts | Tax Facts Listing

Quite the crazy leftist that Eisenhower, huh? /sarcasm

You've committed the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. The fact that marginal rates were high in the 50s doesn't mean the were the reason for the prosperity of the 50s.

You no doubt have another explanation.

 

[bripat9643]

What I am saying we have been in debt in this nation for over a century, there can be no prosperity if in debt.

Don't you understand, if there is any debt how can it be paid for?

What I understand is that every nation has debt, but the U.S. is remiss in not teaching economics in high school...

If people were taught economics in high school, they would all become Republicans.

 

[JonK]

We wouldn't have such a welfare problem if the rich weren't so greedy.

Wrong, if the government was not so overbearing...

Embrace the suck

Wrong. The government is not so overbearing. Many corporations pay zero taxes.

That's because they lost money.

Or "made it" in the Cayman's or Ireland, like Apple did right?


Ireland to close Apple's tax loophole, but leave bigger one open


Ireland said on Tuesday it planned to shut down a much-criticized tax arrangement used by Apple Inc to shelter over $40 billion from taxation - but will leave open an even bigger loophole that means the computer giant is unlikely to pay any more tax.

Ireland to close Apple's tax loophole, but leave bigger one open

Why should Apple, or any corporation, pay taxes on income it didn't earn in the United States?

They don't need to, but HONESTY dictates YOU admitting they didn't "earn" $40 billion in Ireland, lol


INTELLECTUAL profits are counted in low tax nations. Cool right? JUST DON'T TRY TO BRING IT BACK WITHOUT PAYING US TAXES ON IT!!

 

[bripat9643]

There should not be a corporate tax, that is taxation without representation.

Yes I get it. You don't think there should be any taxes. Great plan. Pay for the military and infrastructure with no taxes.

That is the duty of the federal government, social programs are not. Thus the failure of social programs.

We wouldn't have such a welfare problem if the rich weren't so greedy.

The rich are no more greedy than anyone else on this planet.

How Wealth Reduces Compassion
As riches grow, empathy for others seems to decline

How Wealth Reduces Compassion



Upper class more likely to be scofflaws due to greed, study finds

The upper class has a higher propensity for unethical behavior, being more likely to believe – as did Gordon Gekko in the movie “Wall Street” – that “greed is good,” according to a new study from the University of California, Berkeley.

Upper class more likely to be scofflaws due to greed, study finds

What pinko professor on the government payroll did this so-called "study?"

"in seven separate studies conducted on the UC Berkeley campus,"

That's all we need to know to dismiss this obvious propaganda.

 

[JonK]

So politicians are not part of the government on your planet? That would explain so much. But here on Earth, in the U.S., the 1950s were a time of great prosperity, in large part because the corporations and the wealthy paid their fair share of taxes.

(See, if you wanted to look intelligent, you'd have demanded that I prove those tax rates. Instead, you're just flailing.)

We are paying for the so called "prosperity" of the silly 50's now

On your planet? That's sad. In America, we're paying the Waltons' taxes for them.

none of the programs were paid for, they were all formed on credit...

Gonna need some proof for that.

Bet you don't have any, just the usual Rightist Rant.

All social programs were formed to be payed for by future taxes/fees/fines, as it happens now less and less are paying in and more and more are taking out, that's called a failed social program.

So it was NEVER PAID FOR...

Social security is pay as you go, so it is ALWAYS paid for.

"Pay as you go" means its future obligations are not paid for.

Yep, but Reagan "saved social security by increasing tax revenues that are sitting in the "trust fund" that NEEDS to be paid back right? Almost $3 trillion today?

 

[bripat9643]

Where they always go, politicians.

So politicians are not part of the government on your planet? That would explain so much. But here on Earth, in the U.S., the 1950s were a time of great prosperity, in large part because the corporations and the wealthy paid their fair share of taxes.

(See, if you wanted to look intelligent, you'd have demanded that I prove those tax rates. Instead, you're just flailing.)

Your "fair share" sounds like taxation without representation.

Taxes never go back to the masses...

Not today, which is the only system you know. It wasn't always like that. Which is why I compared today with the 1950s and pointed out that things were far better for the average American than they are now.

And here are the tax tables you didn't ask for:

Historical Highest Marginal Income Tax Rates

Tax Facts | Tax Facts Listing

Quite the crazy leftist that Eisenhower, huh? /sarcasm

You've committed the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. The fact that marginal rates were high in the 50s doesn't mean the were the reason for the prosperity of the 50s.

You no doubt have another explanation.

Of course.

 

[bripat9643]

We are paying for the so called "prosperity" of the silly 50's now

On your planet? That's sad. In America, we're paying the Waltons' taxes for them.

none of the programs were paid for, they were all formed on credit...

Gonna need some proof for that.

Bet you don't have any, just the usual Rightist Rant.

All social programs were formed to be payed for by future taxes/fees/fines, as it happens now less and less are paying in and more and more are taking out, that's called a failed social program.

So it was NEVER PAID FOR...

Social security is pay as you go, so it is ALWAYS paid for.

"Pay as you go" means its future obligations are not paid for.

Yep, but Reagan "saved social security by increasing tax revenues that are sitting in the "trust fund" that NEEDS to be paid back right? Almost $3 trillion today?

There's nothing in the trust fund, so how would Reagan tax it?

 

[JonK]

What I am saying we have been in debt in this nation for over a century, there can be no prosperity if in debt.

Don't you understand, if there is any debt how can it be paid for?

What I understand is that every nation has debt, but the U.S. is remiss in not teaching economics in high school...

If people were taught economics in high school, they would all become Republicans.

What's that, do the usual dine and ditch and blame the Dems?

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong, if the government was not so overbearing...

Embrace the suck

Wrong. The government is not so overbearing. Many corporations pay zero taxes.

That's because they lost money.

Or "made it" in the Cayman's or Ireland, like Apple did right?


Ireland to close Apple's tax loophole, but leave bigger one open


Ireland said on Tuesday it planned to shut down a much-criticized tax arrangement used by Apple Inc to shelter over $40 billion from taxation - but will leave open an even bigger loophole that means the computer giant is unlikely to pay any more tax.

Ireland to close Apple's tax loophole, but leave bigger one open

Why should Apple, or any corporation, pay taxes on income it didn't earn in the United States?

They don't need to, but HONESTY dictates YOU admitting they didn't "earn" $40 billion in Ireland, lol


INTELLECTUAL profits are counted in low tax nations. Cool right? JUST DON'T TRY TO BRING IT BACK WITHOUT PAYING US TAXES ON IT!!

Honesty doesn't dictate anything of the sort. If the IRS could prove they didn't earn the money in Ireland, don't you think the IRS would have audited Apple and charged them for any taxes they owed?

 

[bripat9643]

What I am saying we have been in debt in this nation for over a century, there can be no prosperity if in debt.

Don't you understand, if there is any debt how can it be paid for?

What I understand is that every nation has debt, but the U.S. is remiss in not teaching economics in high school...

If people were taught economics in high school, they would all become Republicans.

What's that, do the usual dine and ditch and blame the Dems?

I always blame the Dems because they are responsible for all the problems this country has.

 

[JonK]

Yes I get it. You don't think there should be any taxes. Great plan. Pay for the military and infrastructure with no taxes.

That is the duty of the federal government, social programs are not. Thus the failure of social programs.

We wouldn't have such a welfare problem if the rich weren't so greedy.

The rich are no more greedy than anyone else on this planet.

How Wealth Reduces Compassion
As riches grow, empathy for others seems to decline

How Wealth Reduces Compassion



Upper class more likely to be scofflaws due to greed, study finds

The upper class has a higher propensity for unethical behavior, being more likely to believe – as did Gordon Gekko in the movie “Wall Street” – that “greed is good,” according to a new study from the University of California, Berkeley.

Upper class more likely to be scofflaws due to greed, study finds

What pinko professor on the government payroll did this so-called "study?"

"in seven separate studies conducted on the UC Berkeley campus,"

That's all we need to know to dismiss this obvious propaganda.

 

[Brain357]

Yes I get it. You don't think there should be any taxes. Great plan. Pay for the military and infrastructure with no taxes.

That is the duty of the federal government, social programs are not. Thus the failure of social programs.

We wouldn't have such a welfare problem if the rich weren't so greedy.

Wrong, if the government was not so overbearing...

Embrace the suck

Wrong. The government is not so overbearing. Many corporations pay zero taxes.

That's because they lost money.

Wrong.

Forget Inversions, These 20 Huge, Profitable Companies Already Pay Zero Tax

 

[bripat9643]

That is the duty of the federal government, social programs are not. Thus the failure of social programs.

We wouldn't have such a welfare problem if the rich weren't so greedy.

We wouldn't have a welfare problem if the takers weren't so greedy.

So who is greedier: somebody that wants to keep more of their money that they earn or somebody that doesn't make money and wants somebody else's money instead?

All the takers are far from rich. The greedy are the ones with all the money.

It doesn't matter if or how rich they are. Greedy people are those that take from others who have earned it. Is it greedy of you because you have a savings account? Is it greedy of you to ask your employer for a raise? Is it greedy of you to look for bargains and deals at the stores or service centers? Of course not. You are only looking to keep more of what you earned. That's exactly what rich people do.

Greed is making lots of money while paying employees so little they are on welfare.

So the fact that you pay a wage to people who have no marketable skills means you are greedy?

 

[JonK]

On your planet? That's sad. In America, we're paying the Waltons' taxes for them.

Gonna need some proof for that.

Bet you don't have any, just the usual Rightist Rant.

All social programs were formed to be payed for by future taxes/fees/fines, as it happens now less and less are paying in and more and more are taking out, that's called a failed social program.

So it was NEVER PAID FOR...

Social security is pay as you go, so it is ALWAYS paid for.

"Pay as you go" means its future obligations are not paid for.

Yep, but Reagan "saved social security by increasing tax revenues that are sitting in the "trust fund" that NEEDS to be paid back right? Almost $3 trillion today?

There's nothing in the trust fund, so how would Reagan tax it?

Reagan increased taxes on SS to "save it" (at the same time as he was draining revenues with his tax cuts for the rich, 40%


Trust Fund Data

End of 2014

$2,789,476 Trillion owed

I THINK PERHAPS BUSH'S TAX CUTS AND WARS WERE SUPPLEMENTED BY THESE?

Trust Fund Data

 

[bripat9643]

That is the duty of the federal government, social programs are not. Thus the failure of social programs.

We wouldn't have such a welfare problem if the rich weren't so greedy.

The rich are no more greedy than anyone else on this planet.

How Wealth Reduces Compassion
As riches grow, empathy for others seems to decline

How Wealth Reduces Compassion



Upper class more likely to be scofflaws due to greed, study finds

The upper class has a higher propensity for unethical behavior, being more likely to believe – as did Gordon Gekko in the movie “Wall Street” – that “greed is good,” according to a new study from the University of California, Berkeley.

Upper class more likely to be scofflaws due to greed, study finds

What pinko professor on the government payroll did this so-called "study?"

"in seven separate studies conducted on the UC Berkeley campus,"

That's all we need to know to dismiss this obvious propaganda.

View attachment 52768

No, that's not an ad hominem argument.

 

[Brain357]

What I am saying we have been in debt in this nation for over a century, there can be no prosperity if in debt.

Don't you understand, if there is any debt how can it be paid for?

What I understand is that every nation has debt, but the U.S. is remiss in not teaching economics in high school...

If people were taught economics in high school, they would all become Republicans.

I know a lot about economics and choose to be independent. Republicans don't deliver. Bush was handed a balanced budget, look what he did.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The government stopped redlining.

The only "unintended" consequence of that was gentrification.

The government had nothing to do with "forcing" the banks to make bad loans.

They did that on their own.

Total 100% complete bullshit.

 

[Brain357]

We wouldn't have such a welfare problem if the rich weren't so greedy.

We wouldn't have a welfare problem if the takers weren't so greedy.

So who is greedier: somebody that wants to keep more of their money that they earn or somebody that doesn't make money and wants somebody else's money instead?

All the takers are far from rich. The greedy are the ones with all the money.

It doesn't matter if or how rich they are. Greedy people are those that take from others who have earned it. Is it greedy of you because you have a savings account? Is it greedy of you to ask your employer for a raise? Is it greedy of you to look for bargains and deals at the stores or service centers? Of course not. You are only looking to keep more of what you earned. That's exactly what rich people do.

Greed is making lots of money while paying employees so little they are on welfare.

So the fact that you pay a wage to people who have no marketable skills means you are greedy?

If they are employed they obviously have skills.

 

[bripat9643]

We wouldn't have a welfare problem if the takers weren't so greedy.

So who is greedier: somebody that wants to keep more of their money that they earn or somebody that doesn't make money and wants somebody else's money instead?

All the takers are far from rich. The greedy are the ones with all the money.

It doesn't matter if or how rich they are. Greedy people are those that take from others who have earned it. Is it greedy of you because you have a savings account? Is it greedy of you to ask your employer for a raise? Is it greedy of you to look for bargains and deals at the stores or service centers? Of course not. You are only looking to keep more of what you earned. That's exactly what rich people do.

Greed is making lots of money while paying employees so little they are on welfare.

Is that what greed is?

If you need your car repaired and you have two garages to take it to, which one would you choose? The one that's going to charge you $850.00 or the one that's going to charge you $625.00?

If you decide to have somebody else cut and take care of your lawn, do you choose the company that's going to charge you $45.00 per cut, or are you going to use the company that charges $70.00 per cut?

Why would you or anybody else for that matter pay people more money than the job they are doing is worth? That's a sure sign of failure. And if you are overpaying your workers, you too will be looking for a job real soon because your competition will wipe you out in no time at all.

Well this extreme underpaying is what grows government. As long as the rich pay so little the gov will grow.

"Underpaying" what? How does paying less grow government?

 

[bripat9643]

We wouldn't have a welfare problem if the takers weren't so greedy.

So who is greedier: somebody that wants to keep more of their money that they earn or somebody that doesn't make money and wants somebody else's money instead?

All the takers are far from rich. The greedy are the ones with all the money.

It doesn't matter if or how rich they are. Greedy people are those that take from others who have earned it. Is it greedy of you because you have a savings account? Is it greedy of you to ask your employer for a raise? Is it greedy of you to look for bargains and deals at the stores or service centers? Of course not. You are only looking to keep more of what you earned. That's exactly what rich people do.

Greed is making lots of money while paying employees so little they are on welfare.

So the fact that you pay a wage to people who have no marketable skills means you are greedy?

If they are employed they obviously have skills.

Wrong.