Taxing the wealthy the most isn’t about what’s fair - it’s about what is realistic

[pknopp]

You need to explain your position to Trump.

Trump pledged to protect Medicare and Medicaid, but his 2020 budget calls for major spending cuts

Allow me to explain it to you first. Each President creates a budget for the Executive branch (the branch they have constitutional responsibility for and authority over).

Where does the budget go once it is created? Congress. Why? Because they control the “purse strings”. Congress can reject his budget.

But more importantly, cutting money to it is not the same thing as eliminating it. Only Congress can do that.

He can run on exactly what he proposed in his budget. Run on cutting it. Run on "Elect Republican's so we can cut S.S. and Medicaid". I 100% support him running on that. Heck I might even contribute to the campaign.

You are confused Moon Bat

Trump is a big government Liberal. He supports a $4.8 trillion Federal budget, debt and all the filthy ass welfare shit that you Moon Bats love so much. He even increased the size of the Federal budget. He has curtailed some right to keep and bear arms rights and is even talking about more. He is one of you but your TDS mental illness prevents your from pulling your head out of your ass..

It would be nice if we actually had political leaders that would do the right thing and really do away with dumbass shit like SS and Medicare and al that other destructive crap but we haven't seen one lately.

We do not disagree that Trump loves huge unfunded budgets. It's others that are confused over that.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm an investment advisor. CFP, ChFC, CLU, 7/65/63. This is my profession and my life.

You are just another talk radio winger. You only "know" what you are fed. Play with someone else, you're out of your league here, and I no longer have the requisite patience.

Dismissed.
.

As an investment adviser, do you shame your clients into paying more of their fair share?

I work with them to mitigate tax law as it stands at any given time.

I have very few wealthy clients who bitch and moan about taxes anywhere near as frequently as the rank & file GOP does.
.

Where do you draw the line? Who do you consider "rich" and should pay a sigificantly higher rate?

I don't use the word "rich". That's one of the many terms that have been over-used to the point of dilution. It means very little.

I'm perfectly comfy with graduated tax margins. Since the range of individual income is now so profound, I'd be in favor of adding four new margins on the top end.
.

Ok, define “the top end”.

Right now the top bracket is 37% for anything over $612,351 married/joint. So you cap that at $1,000,000 (for example) and make the next caps $1.5M, $2.0M, $2.5M and $3.0M (for example) with higher rates. All of this assumes current deductions and credits.
.

 

[Flash]

[


Never should have allowed them to vote, eh?

In one of my earlier post I said that a basic principle of taxation should be that only the people that paid the taxes should be allowed to vote for an increase in taxes and for it to pass in must be 100% voting for that. All the welfare queens would be excluded and that is a good thing. You should never be allowed to vote to steal other people's money.

It is despicable the way the filthy ass Democrats used welfare to create a dependent voting block. A welfare state is bad enough by itself because it is state sanctioned thievery but for it exist to provide a power base for a political party is even more despicable.

 

[pknopp]

[


Never should have allowed them to vote, eh?

In one of my earlier post I said that a basic principle of taxation should be that only the people that paid the taxes should be allowed to vote for an increase in taxes and for it to pass in must be 100% voting for that. All the welfare queens would be excluded and that is a good thing. You should never be allowed to vote to steal other people's money.

It is despicable the way the filthy ass Democrats used welfare to create a dependent voting block. A welfare state is bad enough by itself because it is state sanctioned thievery but for it exist to provide a power base for a political party is even more despicable.

So that would be yes, they shouldn't have been allowed to vote.

 

[Norman]

You have never studied Economics, have you? That is understandable because all you Moon Bats are just as ignorant of Economics as you are of History, Biology, Ethics, Climate Science and the Constitution.

I'm an investment advisor. CFP, ChFC, CLU, 7/65/63. This is my profession and my life.

You are just another talk radio winger. You only "know" what you are fed. Play with someone else, you're out of your league here, and I no longer have the requisite patience.

Dismissed.
.

As an investment adviser, do you shame your clients into paying more of their fair share?

I work with them to mitigate tax law as it stands at any given time.

I have very few wealthy clients who bitch and moan about taxes anywhere near as frequently as the rank & file GOP does.
.

Where do you draw the line? Who do you consider "rich" and should pay a sigificantly higher rate?

He should put the statements as adverts to his profile.

"Loves people to pay big taxes"

A total hit!

 

[LeftofLeft]

As an investment adviser, do you shame your clients into paying more of their fair share?

I work with them to mitigate tax law as it stands at any given time.

I have very few wealthy clients who bitch and moan about taxes anywhere near as frequently as the rank & file GOP does.
.

Where do you draw the line? Who do you consider "rich" and should pay a sigificantly higher rate?

I don't use the word "rich". That's one of the many terms that have been over-used to the point of dilution. It means very little.

I'm perfectly comfy with graduated tax margins. Since the range of individual income is now so profound, I'd be in favor of adding four new margins on the top end.
.

Ok, define “the top end”.

Right now the top bracket is 37% for anything over $612,351 married/joint. So you cap that at $1,000,000 (for example) and make the next caps $1.5M, $2.0M, $2.5M and $3.0M (for example) with higher rates. All of this assumes current deductions and credits.
.

Ok, I sincerely appreciate you defining a top-end. The challenge I see, and this is where Democrats can’t help themselves, is that there are not enough people making that kind of money annually to cover their spending so their definition of “top end” invariably creeps into the Middle Class and Small business owners.

 

[Mac1958]

I work with them to mitigate tax law as it stands at any given time.

I have very few wealthy clients who bitch and moan about taxes anywhere near as frequently as the rank & file GOP does.
.

Where do you draw the line? Who do you consider "rich" and should pay a sigificantly higher rate?

I don't use the word "rich". That's one of the many terms that have been over-used to the point of dilution. It means very little.

I'm perfectly comfy with graduated tax margins. Since the range of individual income is now so profound, I'd be in favor of adding four new margins on the top end.
.

Ok, define “the top end”.

Right now the top bracket is 37% for anything over $612,351 married/joint. So you cap that at $1,000,000 (for example) and make the next caps $1.5M, $2.0M, $2.5M and $3.0M (for example) with higher rates. All of this assumes current deductions and credits.
.

Ok, I sincerely appreciate you defining a top-end. The challenge I see, and this is where Democrats can’t help themselves, is that there are not enough people making that kind of money annually to cover their spending so their definition of “top end” invariably creeps into the Middle Class and Small business owners.

Well, that's the other half of this. Right now, all we do is keep doing is spending more, and both parties have their hands in it.

Maybe if we instituted term limits and some kind of balanced budget amendment, those thugs could be brought more in line.
.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Where do you draw the line? Who do you consider "rich" and should pay a sigificantly higher rate?

I don't use the word "rich". That's one of the many terms that have been over-used to the point of dilution. It means very little.

I'm perfectly comfy with graduated tax margins. Since the range of individual income is now so profound, I'd be in favor of adding four new margins on the top end.
.

Ok, define “the top end”.

Right now the top bracket is 37% for anything over $612,351 married/joint. So you cap that at $1,000,000 (for example) and make the next caps $1.5M, $2.0M, $2.5M and $3.0M (for example) with higher rates. All of this assumes current deductions and credits.
.

Ok, I sincerely appreciate you defining a top-end. The challenge I see, and this is where Democrats can’t help themselves, is that there are not enough people making that kind of money annually to cover their spending so their definition of “top end” invariably creeps into the Middle Class and Small business owners.

Well, that's the other half of this. Right now, all we do is keep doing is spending more, and both parties have their hands in it.

Maybe if we instituted term limits and some kind of balanced budget amendment, those thugs could be brought more in line.
.

Agreed!

 

[Flash]

[


Never should have allowed them to vote, eh?

In one of my earlier post I said that a basic principle of taxation should be that only the people that paid the taxes should be allowed to vote for an increase in taxes and for it to pass in must be 100% voting for that. All the welfare queens would be excluded and that is a good thing. You should never be allowed to vote to steal other people's money.

It is despicable the way the filthy ass Democrats used welfare to create a dependent voting block. A welfare state is bad enough by itself because it is state sanctioned thievery but for it exist to provide a power base for a political party is even more despicable.

So that would be yes, they shouldn't have been allowed to vote.

If they are on welfare then they shouldn't have the ability to use the government to steal money from other people. Not a racial thing. Of course since at any one time over 40% of Negroes or on welfare and during their lifetimes 90% of the were on welfare it would exclude a lot of them.

Democracy is a terrible form of government when it allows the 51% to use the government to steal from the 49%. You shouldn't get a vote if you benefit from the thievery. That is wrong.

 

[pknopp]

[


Never should have allowed them to vote, eh?

In one of my earlier post I said that a basic principle of taxation should be that only the people that paid the taxes should be allowed to vote for an increase in taxes and for it to pass in must be 100% voting for that. All the welfare queens would be excluded and that is a good thing. You should never be allowed to vote to steal other people's money.

It is despicable the way the filthy ass Democrats used welfare to create a dependent voting block. A welfare state is bad enough by itself because it is state sanctioned thievery but for it exist to provide a power base for a political party is even more despicable.

So that would be yes, they shouldn't have been allowed to vote.

If they are on welfare then they shouldn't have the ability to use the government to steal money from other people. Not a racial thing. Of course since at any one time over 40% of Negroes or on welfare and during their lifetimes 90% of the were on welfare it would exclude a lot of them.

Democracy is a terrible form of government when it allows the 51% to use the government to steal from the 49%. You shouldn't get a vote if you benefit from the thievery. That is wrong.

Under your scenario no one or very, very few get to vote.

 

[Flash]

[


Never should have allowed them to vote, eh?

In one of my earlier post I said that a basic principle of taxation should be that only the people that paid the taxes should be allowed to vote for an increase in taxes and for it to pass in must be 100% voting for that. All the welfare queens would be excluded and that is a good thing. You should never be allowed to vote to steal other people's money.

It is despicable the way the filthy ass Democrats used welfare to create a dependent voting block. A welfare state is bad enough by itself because it is state sanctioned thievery but for it exist to provide a power base for a political party is even more despicable.

So that would be yes, they shouldn't have been allowed to vote.

If they are on welfare then they shouldn't have the ability to use the government to steal money from other people. Not a racial thing. Of course since at any one time over 40% of Negroes or on welfare and during their lifetimes 90% of the were on welfare it would exclude a lot of them.

Democracy is a terrible form of government when it allows the 51% to use the government to steal from the 49%. You shouldn't get a vote if you benefit from the thievery. That is wrong.

Under your scenario no one or very, very few get to vote.

The Founding Fathers originally thought only White landowning males would get to vote. That is fine with me but the fucking Libtards changed it. Sorry bastards!

If you don't pay taxes then you should get the ability to vote to get other people to pay taxes so that the money goes to you. That is only fair. It would cut down on a lot of welfare, wouldn't it?

As an alternative I would like to see the Robert Heinlein Starship Trooper model of only those that have actually proven their worth to society by sacrifice be given citizenship. None of the welfare queens would ever qualify.

 

[Flash]

This is what happens when you are a Libtard Commie state that taxes people. They vote with their feet and leave, you know, because taxes suck. I wonder why stupid Moon Bats love taxes so much? Come the election next yearevery one of those idiots will vote for a Democrat clown that will be running on a platform to increase taxes. How stupid can they be?

That idiot Crooked Hillary ran on a platform to increase taxes and look where it got her.

Outline - Read & annotate without distractions

Florida raking in billions as Americans abandon high-tax states

State governments can benefit greatly from an influx of movers – enjoying everything from increased tax revenues to new business activity.

Recently, changes to the U.S. tax code have encouraged an increasing number of people to move – taking their cash to lower-tax states like Florida.

As it turns out, however, Florida has been banking on moving trends even prior to the implementation of the new tax law.

Florida is unique in that it also draws a large proportion of higher net-worth individuals – more than 85 percent of its net inflow of income came from people earning at least six-figures.

On the flip side, New York lost the largest amount of adjusted gross income from migration, about $8.8 billion.