The truth about taxes

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

People who have wealth pay sales taxes on what they spend, and pay property taxes on real estate they own, and pay fuel taxes on the gasoline they put in their cars or whatever. But it doesn't matter how much people own that determines how much income tax they pay. It matters how much their earn.

The liberals/statists/progressives/leftists/poltical class want to charge sky high income taxes on the rich because they have so much. But the net effect is simply to encourage the rich to a) not use their money because they'll be punished for it if they do or b) to take their money elsewhere to invest where the tax climate is friendlier.

In other words, the class envy group invariably cuts off their noses to spite their faces in their obsession with somehow taking down the rich.

How much more compassionate, productive, and reasonable would it be to encourage those rich as much as possible to use their money to start and grow businesses and hire people and give folks a chance to become rich? Or at least richer? And a uniform flat tax would accomplish just that.

Modern day American conservatives mostly think like that. But others simply can't put aside their envy, jealousy, and resentment of the rich long enough to see the forest amidst the trees.

It would be counterproductive for most of the people at the very top to help others start businesses. Those businesses would just compete with their own interests. Much more effective to create an environment where average people are afraid they might get axed and for the jobs that can be moved, find the lowest paid slave labor they can.

Not really counterproductive at all. If a rich individual wants to establish a chain of high class hotels, or inquire the help of an executive chef to help run one within a chain of culinary restaurants, he has to look to an individual to oversee his business when he can't be there. Expanding businesses opens up a whole array of possibilities, just look at the founder of the idea behind Home Depot, or Best Buy, or an Applebee's, Regal Cinemas, or Hilton Hotels, as examples. Every chain starts with a founder with a marketing idea, whether big or small, high class or to address the simple budgets of middle America.

 

[Redfish]

Boo hooo hooo, the rich pay all the federal income taxes. Boo hoo hoo. But they pay shit in state taxes and payroll taxes, and they really don't pay that high of a percentage in federal taxes because most of their earnings are from capital gains. Quit ignoring all other forms of taxation. Tell me why it is the same people you cry about paying all the income taxes are not paying their fair share of all other taxes. Got an answer?

Here is a much more realistic graph of who pays what when all taxes are taken into account. We do have more than one form of tax in this country. Obviously you are oblivious to that little bit of information.

Now go cry me a fucking river.

The numbers don't lie [MENTION=12997]auditor0007[/MENTION]. The top 1% earns 13% of the income but pays 39% of the taxes.

You people need to stop crying a fucking river, get up off your lazy asses, and go earn your own way through life.

Richest 1% earn biggest share since Roaring '20s

The gulf between the richest 1 percent and the rest of America is the widest it's been since the Roaring '20s.

The very wealthiest Americans earned more than 19 percent of the country's household income last year—their biggest share since 1928, the year before the stock market crash. And the top 10 percent captured a record 48.2 percent of total earnings last year.

U.S. income inequality has been growing for almost three decades. And it grew again last year, according to an analysis of Internal Revenue Service figures dating to 1913 by economists at the University of California, Berkeley, the Paris School of Economics and Oxford University.

Richest 1% earn biggest share since Roaring '20s

You also miss the point that much of the top 1% income is not from wages and therefore not considered income. Last of all, when it comes to actual wealth, the numbers become staggering with the top 1% controlling over 40% of the wealth. The worst part of it is that the bottom 80% only control 7% of the wealth. If we want to discuss distribution of wealth, it is easy to see that the vast majority of the wealth lies in the hands of the very few.

What has happened over the past 40 years is not good in any way, regardless of how it happened.

The last chart should make anyone cringe.

yes, the very rich have done very well under Obama, whats your point?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I can guarantee that I have way more in common with Steve Jobs than you do you fucking moron. There comes a point when throwing more money at something doesn't create any further effect. (I thought that was a conservative cornerstone.) People are no more motivated to do what they do if you give them billions of dollars than if you gave them a hundred million.

That's the same type of argument which could be said about the "war on poverty". With all the billions and billions of dollars being thrown, there is no data to show that people are any more motivated to get themselves out of poverty.

What's a person to do when there's no job to be had and they don't own any land they can use to grow crops? Not saying that the government is handling it optimally - I would make people on assistance do something productive. Clean up freeways and inner cities, remove graffiti, whatever.

Well let's see, public education is still free for children to go to school. From there we have scholarships and grants they can apply for to help them with college costs. Those who don't want to go down that road, can do as I have and look to the military to acquire a trade skill. The tools are already out there, you just have to be willing to do a little research and apply yourself.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Not quite. I advocate a strongly progressive income tax (and similar capital gains tax) at least of the type that existed during the Reagan years - preferably the one that JFK put in place.

Why? what exactly do you think that would accomplish? punishing the rich is not an acceptable answer.

How would taking more money from successful people and giving it to the government help the economy and make everyone better off?

But lets take your idea to its logical extreme. How about if the government takes 100% of everything earned by all citizens and then allocates it back out as it sees fit?

At the very least, it would provide the funds for government to provide the infrastructure and social support to keep the country running.

And let's not take it to the logical extreme. We never have before - not even when the top tax bracket was over 90%.

Doing a little history on the "interstate" I found that the responsibility to maintain this infrastructure and bridges were handed over to the individual states through tolls or various taxes. The Federal Government gave each state funding to initially establish the interstate, but then handed it over after they were built. Why else do you think states initially had tolls to begin with, if not to help maintain the roads and build revenue in the state's budget?

 

[Kosh]

truth:

The far left only pretends to care about women's "rights" due to the fact that women live longer in men and pay more in taxes. If not for that the far left could care less.

 

[JoeNormal]

Why? what exactly do you think that would accomplish? punishing the rich is not an acceptable answer.

How would taking more money from successful people and giving it to the government help the economy and make everyone better off?

But lets take your idea to its logical extreme. How about if the government takes 100% of everything earned by all citizens and then allocates it back out as it sees fit?

At the very least, it would provide the funds for government to provide the infrastructure and social support to keep the country running.

And let's not take it to the logical extreme. We never have before - not even when the top tax bracket was over 90%.

The government already has plenty of revenue. Do you think that private businesses, states, charities, and individuals cannot provide "social support" more efficiently than the government?

when the top bracket was 90%, no one paid that. There were thousands of deductions and exemptions so the rich actually paid less than they do now. Careful what you wish for.

I do agree that we have some infrastructure issues that need to be addressed. How about reallocating some funds from wasteful things like foreign aid and military bases in foreign countries and wasteful stupid wars, and using that money for roads and bridges,etc.

the problem is not that the govt is short of money, the problem is that the govt is wasting our money.

No doubt, a few things are bloated (defense) but I don't buy that everything across the board is as mismanaged as right wing pundits would have us believe.

 

[JoeNormal]

People who have wealth pay sales taxes on what they spend, and pay property taxes on real estate they own, and pay fuel taxes on the gasoline they put in their cars or whatever. But it doesn't matter how much people own that determines how much income tax they pay. It matters how much their earn.

The liberals/statists/progressives/leftists/poltical class want to charge sky high income taxes on the rich because they have so much. But the net effect is simply to encourage the rich to a) not use their money because they'll be punished for it if they do or b) to take their money elsewhere to invest where the tax climate is friendlier.

In other words, the class envy group invariably cuts off their noses to spite their faces in their obsession with somehow taking down the rich.

How much more compassionate, productive, and reasonable would it be to encourage those rich as much as possible to use their money to start and grow businesses and hire people and give folks a chance to become rich? Or at least richer? And a uniform flat tax would accomplish just that.

Modern day American conservatives mostly think like that. But others simply can't put aside their envy, jealousy, and resentment of the rich long enough to see the forest amidst the trees.

It would be counterproductive for most of the people at the very top to help others start businesses. Those businesses would just compete with their own interests. Much more effective to create an environment where average people are afraid they might get axed and for the jobs that can be moved, find the lowest paid slave labor they can.

Not really counterproductive at all. If a rich individual wants to establish a chain of high class hotels, or inquire the help of an executive chef to help run one within a chain of culinary restaurants, he has to look to an individual to oversee his business when he can't be there. Expanding businesses opens up a whole array of possibilities, just look at the founder of the idea behind Home Depot, or Best Buy, or an Applebee's, Regal Cinemas, or Hilton Hotels, as examples. Every chain starts with a founder with a marketing idea, whether big or small, high class or to address the simple budgets of middle America.

The things you consider successes are the same things that I believe have killed small business. How many mom and pop shops have big boxes like Home Depot, Best Buy, Walmart, Staples, etc killed?

 

[Redfish]

At the very least, it would provide the funds for government to provide the infrastructure and social support to keep the country running.

And let's not take it to the logical extreme. We never have before - not even when the top tax bracket was over 90%.

The government already has plenty of revenue. Do you think that private businesses, states, charities, and individuals cannot provide "social support" more efficiently than the government?

when the top bracket was 90%, no one paid that. There were thousands of deductions and exemptions so the rich actually paid less than they do now. Careful what you wish for.

I do agree that we have some infrastructure issues that need to be addressed. How about reallocating some funds from wasteful things like foreign aid and military bases in foreign countries and wasteful stupid wars, and using that money for roads and bridges,etc.

the problem is not that the govt is short of money, the problem is that the govt is wasting our money.

No doubt, a few things are bloated (defense) but I don't buy that everything across the board is as mismanaged as right wing pundits would have us believe.

Can you name one government program that is well managed? Just one.

 

[Redfish]

It would be counterproductive for most of the people at the very top to help others start businesses. Those businesses would just compete with their own interests. Much more effective to create an environment where average people are afraid they might get axed and for the jobs that can be moved, find the lowest paid slave labor they can.

Not really counterproductive at all. If a rich individual wants to establish a chain of high class hotels, or inquire the help of an executive chef to help run one within a chain of culinary restaurants, he has to look to an individual to oversee his business when he can't be there. Expanding businesses opens up a whole array of possibilities, just look at the founder of the idea behind Home Depot, or Best Buy, or an Applebee's, Regal Cinemas, or Hilton Hotels, as examples. Every chain starts with a founder with a marketing idea, whether big or small, high class or to address the simple budgets of middle America.

The things you consider successes are the same things that I believe have killed small business. How many mom and pop shops have big boxes like Home Depot, Best Buy, Walmart, Staples, etc killed?

The way to save small businesses in your hometown is to buy from them, I do, do you?


The problem is that most people go where they get the most for their hard earned dollars--and that means walmart, etc.

Do you have a solution for that? and remember, those big box stores employ thousands of people.

 

[JoeNormal]

That's the same type of argument which could be said about the "war on poverty". With all the billions and billions of dollars being thrown, there is no data to show that people are any more motivated to get themselves out of poverty.

What's a person to do when there's no job to be had and they don't own any land they can use to grow crops? Not saying that the government is handling it optimally - I would make people on assistance do something productive. Clean up freeways and inner cities, remove graffiti, whatever.

Well let's see, public education is still free for children to go to school. From there we have scholarships and grants they can apply for to help them with college costs. Those who don't want to go down that road, can do as I have and look to the military to acquire a trade skill. The tools are already out there, you just have to be willing to do a little research and apply yourself.

If you've applied what you learned in the military to a successful civilian life, you're one of a fortunate minority from the statistics that I've read. And yes, education is an avenue that has some possibilities - one of the bits of popular propaganda has been that high tech, knowledge jobs would replace the manufacturing labor that was lost. I'm one of the fortunate minority for whom that's worked out on the other hand. In either case, that paradigm isn't working for a large number of people any longer.

 

[JoeNormal]

Not really counterproductive at all. If a rich individual wants to establish a chain of high class hotels, or inquire the help of an executive chef to help run one within a chain of culinary restaurants, he has to look to an individual to oversee his business when he can't be there. Expanding businesses opens up a whole array of possibilities, just look at the founder of the idea behind Home Depot, or Best Buy, or an Applebee's, Regal Cinemas, or Hilton Hotels, as examples. Every chain starts with a founder with a marketing idea, whether big or small, high class or to address the simple budgets of middle America.

The things you consider successes are the same things that I believe have killed small business. How many mom and pop shops have big boxes like Home Depot, Best Buy, Walmart, Staples, etc killed?

The way to save small businesses in your hometown is to buy from them, I do, do you?


The problem is that most people go where they get the most for their hard earned dollars--and that means walmart, etc.

Do you have a solution for that? and remember, those big box stores employ thousands of people.

I do indeed patronize the locals first. As a matter of fact, until recently, we hardly ever stepped through the door of a Walmart. I still avoid it as much as possible but since they've killed most of their competition, there are some things we can't find anywhere else.

And yeah, they do employ thousands - thousands of wage slaves.

 

[Redfish]

What's a person to do when there's no job to be had and they don't own any land they can use to grow crops? Not saying that the government is handling it optimally - I would make people on assistance do something productive. Clean up freeways and inner cities, remove graffiti, whatever.

Well let's see, public education is still free for children to go to school. From there we have scholarships and grants they can apply for to help them with college costs. Those who don't want to go down that road, can do as I have and look to the military to acquire a trade skill. The tools are already out there, you just have to be willing to do a little research and apply yourself.

If you've applied what you learned in the military to a successful civilian life, you're one of a fortunate minority from the statistics that I've read. And yes, education is an avenue that has some possibilities - one of the bits of popular propaganda has been that high tech, knowledge jobs would replace the manufacturing labor that was lost. I'm one of the fortunate minority for whom that's worked out on the other hand. In either case, that paradigm isn't working for a large number of people any longer.

why have those manufacturing jobs left this country? Any idea? Why is there no longer a textile mill in South Carolina or Georgia? why is the once great city of detroit a cess pool of crime and corruption and misery?

Here's your answer-----------Taxes and Unions.
Secondary answer----------liberalism.
third answer--------lack of fiscal responsibility i.e. liberalism

 

[JoeNormal]

The government already has plenty of revenue. Do you think that private businesses, states, charities, and individuals cannot provide "social support" more efficiently than the government?

when the top bracket was 90%, no one paid that. There were thousands of deductions and exemptions so the rich actually paid less than they do now. Careful what you wish for.

I do agree that we have some infrastructure issues that need to be addressed. How about reallocating some funds from wasteful things like foreign aid and military bases in foreign countries and wasteful stupid wars, and using that money for roads and bridges,etc.

the problem is not that the govt is short of money, the problem is that the govt is wasting our money.

No doubt, a few things are bloated (defense) but I don't buy that everything across the board is as mismanaged as right wing pundits would have us believe.

Can you name one government program that is well managed? Just one.

I'll name two - Medicare and the VA Hospital.

 

[Redfish]

The things you consider successes are the same things that I believe have killed small business. How many mom and pop shops have big boxes like Home Depot, Best Buy, Walmart, Staples, etc killed?

The way to save small businesses in your hometown is to buy from them, I do, do you?


The problem is that most people go where they get the most for their hard earned dollars--and that means walmart, etc.

Do you have a solution for that? and remember, those big box stores employ thousands of people.

I do indeed patronize the locals first. As a matter of fact, until recently, we hardly ever stepped through the door of a Walmart. I still avoid it as much as possible but since they've killed most of their competition, there are some things we can't find anywhere else.

And yeah, they do employ thousands - thousands of wage slaves.

Does Walmart pay its check out clerks more or less than your local grocery store? Careful, you will probably be wrong.

 

[JoeNormal]

Well let's see, public education is still free for children to go to school. From there we have scholarships and grants they can apply for to help them with college costs. Those who don't want to go down that road, can do as I have and look to the military to acquire a trade skill. The tools are already out there, you just have to be willing to do a little research and apply yourself.

If you've applied what you learned in the military to a successful civilian life, you're one of a fortunate minority from the statistics that I've read. And yes, education is an avenue that has some possibilities - one of the bits of popular propaganda has been that high tech, knowledge jobs would replace the manufacturing labor that was lost. I'm one of the fortunate minority for whom that's worked out on the other hand. In either case, that paradigm isn't working for a large number of people any longer.

why have those manufacturing jobs left this country? Any idea? Why is there no longer a textile mill in South Carolina or Georgia? why is the once great city of detroit a cess pool of crime and corruption and misery?

Here's your answer-----------Taxes and Unions.
Secondary answer----------liberalism.
third answer--------lack of fiscal responsibility i.e. liberalism

No, it's because we were sold out by trade agreements that don't place any sort of penalty on cheap goods entering the country.

 

[JoeNormal]

The way to save small businesses in your hometown is to buy from them, I do, do you?


The problem is that most people go where they get the most for their hard earned dollars--and that means walmart, etc.

Do you have a solution for that? and remember, those big box stores employ thousands of people.

I do indeed patronize the locals first. As a matter of fact, until recently, we hardly ever stepped through the door of a Walmart. I still avoid it as much as possible but since they've killed most of their competition, there are some things we can't find anywhere else.

And yeah, they do employ thousands - thousands of wage slaves.

Does Walmart pay its check out clerks more or less than your local grocery store? Careful, you will probably be wrong.

It's probably minimum wage in either case but where you have 1 manager for every 10 cashiers in a local grocery store, there might be a greater than remote chance of moving up. That's not the way Walmarts are structured.

 

[Redfish]

No doubt, a few things are bloated (defense) but I don't buy that everything across the board is as mismanaged as right wing pundits would have us believe.

Can you name one government program that is well managed? Just one.

I'll name two - Medicare and the VA Hospital.

Medicare is going broke, it is full of massive waste, fraud, and abuse. Now, if you want an example of a well run medicare program--------look at medicare advantage, run by insurance companies using medicare funds, provides excellent low cost coverage for millions of seniors---------oh, and obama took 700 billion from it to fund obamacare.

Some VA hospitals are OK, but many are the last place you want to go if you are sick.

 

[Redfish]

I do indeed patronize the locals first. As a matter of fact, until recently, we hardly ever stepped through the door of a Walmart. I still avoid it as much as possible but since they've killed most of their competition, there are some things we can't find anywhere else.

And yeah, they do employ thousands - thousands of wage slaves.

Does Walmart pay its check out clerks more or less than your local grocery store? Careful, you will probably be wrong.

It's probably minimum wage in either case but where you have 1 manager for every 10 cashiers in a local grocery store, there might be a greater than remote chance of moving up. That's not the way Walmarts are structured.

Walmart promotes from within, they have excellent management training programs.

so I guess you are saying that your local store employs your neighbors as wage slaves too since you admit that they are paying minimum wage. I think you need to check what your local walmart is paying-------I bet you $50 its not minimum wage.

 

[Redfish]

If you've applied what you learned in the military to a successful civilian life, you're one of a fortunate minority from the statistics that I've read. And yes, education is an avenue that has some possibilities - one of the bits of popular propaganda has been that high tech, knowledge jobs would replace the manufacturing labor that was lost. I'm one of the fortunate minority for whom that's worked out on the other hand. In either case, that paradigm isn't working for a large number of people any longer.

why have those manufacturing jobs left this country? Any idea? Why is there no longer a textile mill in South Carolina or Georgia? why is the once great city of detroit a cess pool of crime and corruption and misery?

Here's your answer-----------Taxes and Unions.
Secondary answer----------liberalism.
third answer--------lack of fiscal responsibility i.e. liberalism

No, it's because we were sold out by trade agreements that don't place any sort of penalty on cheap goods entering the country.

thats part of it, but not the major part. we have dealt with China like they are kings and queens---probably since they hold so much of our debt.

 

[JoeNormal]

why have those manufacturing jobs left this country? Any idea? Why is there no longer a textile mill in South Carolina or Georgia? why is the once great city of detroit a cess pool of crime and corruption and misery?

Here's your answer-----------Taxes and Unions.
Secondary answer----------liberalism.
third answer--------lack of fiscal responsibility i.e. liberalism

No, it's because we were sold out by trade agreements that don't place any sort of penalty on cheap goods entering the country.

thats part of it, but not the major part. we have dealt with China like they are kings and queens---probably since they hold so much of our debt.

It's because it's hugely profitable for major corporations to reduce their manufacturing labor to near zero. Accusing them of selling out the American people seems to have lost its sting and a lot of right wingers support this attitude by claiming that their ONLY responsibility is to create profit. It's sickening.