This is why we need to tax the wealthy

[Nostra]

They have to pay 39% of their income in taxes, and unfortunately, many of them end up paying very little, if anything, due to having their money hidden in tax havens abroad and manipulating the system.

I figure you are a college sophomore. Would say freshman, but you have obviously been there long enough to get a good brain washing.

Here, get a real education, Simp.

 

[Papageorgio]

Even better, just place me on ignore. Click "ignore".

Why would he place you on ignore when you are the one triggered? I don’t put people on ignore for more than a couple days and it’s very rare

 

[TruthNotBS]

IF that is true, how does this happen?

Well of course if you have more money, you pay more in taxes. Do you actually believe capitalism is sustainable without workers/customers? A society with gross inequality, where workers are struggling to make ends meet no matter how hard they work? If there's no social safety net for America's workforce or an affordable means to educate and train people to make them marketable, our society will fail, just as it's been doing for years. From worse to worse, especially today with all of the advanced technology that replaces human wage labor, we're heading for a collapse, without serious reforms.

BTW there are no taxes in marketless socialism, only in market socialism.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I figure you are a college sophomore. Would say freshman, but you have obviously been there long enough to get a good brain washing.

Here, get a real education, Simp.

View attachment 886023

Read my last post dumbass.

 

[Nostra]

Define “fair share” ChristianMan

What percent of the total tax burden should the Top 1% pay? Top 10%?

Give us a number.

 

[hadit]

If you want to tax unrealized gains, you should also be ready to accept deductions for unrealized losses. Sounds fair to me.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Why would he place you on ignore when you are the one triggered? I don’t put people on ignore for more than a couple days and it’s very rare

Stop projecting your triggered feelings on me.

 

[Oldestyle]

Wow...speaking as a history major...is ANY of the lengthy diatribe you just forced me to read based even slightly on actual events? You hold forth on how great Communism is while you totally ignore the reality of it!

I "hold forth" how "great communism is" while totally ignoring the reality of it. Let's see what you "hold forth" as the reality of communism.

Take one part of the assistance given to Stalin by the US...the 400,000 trucks that were provided as part of the Lend-Lease program. Those trucks not only helped the Soviets to defeat the Nazis...they were a crucial part of the Soviet economy following the war!

Wow, the Allies sent weapons and supplies to Soviet Russia, to help it fight those four million Nazis that invaded them. I guess the Soviets didn't do much after all, huh? Have you ever taken a course in logic?

"Roosevelt on December 8, 1940, proposed the concept of lend-lease, and the U.S. Congress passed his Lend-Lease Act in March 1941. This legislation gave the president the authority to aid any nation whose defense he believed vital to the United States and to accept repayment “in kind or property, or any other direct or indirect benefit which the President deems satisfactory.” Though lend-lease had been authorized primarily in an effort to aid Britain, it was extended to China in April and to the Soviet Union in September. The principal recipients of aid were the British Commonwealth countries (about 63 percent) and the Soviet Union (about 22 percent), though by the end of the war more than 40 countries had received lend-lease help. Much of the aid, valued at $49.1 billion, amounted to outright gifts. Some of the cost of the lend-lease program was offset by so-called reverse lend-lease, under which Allied nations gave U.S. troops stationed abroad about $8 billion worth of aid."

I'm not diminishing the value and importance of the assistance the US gave its Soviet ally in WW2, but nonetheless, it should be mentioned that the Soviets had to fight most of Nazi Germany's military, being that 7 out of 10 Nazis were deployed on the Eastern Front against the USSR. We lost 0.03% of our population, approximately 460K Americans whereas the Soviets lost 28 million (17 million civilians and 9 million soldiers, approximately 14% of its population). The lend-lease program was a great deal for the USA. Many baby boomers would probably not be alive today, if not for the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany.

To pretend that the US sending the USSR assistance during the war somehow magically nullifies the great sacrifice the Soviets made in their fight against the Nazis is quite illogical if not disingenuous. The fact is that the Soviets had a sufficient industrial base in Siberia to support their war effort, hence the American lend-lease assistance wasn't the deciding factor in the Soviets repelling the Germans from their country and invading Germany.

February 04, 1943 - Franklin D Roosevelt - His Letter to Stalin:

"As commander in chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America, I congratulate you on the brilliant victory at Stalingrad of the armies under your supreme command. The 162 days of epic battle for the city which has forever honored your name and the decisive result that all Americans are celebrating today will remain one of the proudest chapters in this war of the peoples united against Nazism and its emulators.

The commanders and fighters of your armies at the front and the men and women who have supported them in factory and field have combined not only to cover with glory their country's arms, but to inspire by their example fresh determination among all the United Nations to bend every energy to bring about the final defeat and unconditional surrender of the common enemy."

Franklin D. Roosevelt, Congratulations to Marshal Stalin on the Russian Victory at Stalingrad Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project Congratulations to Marshal Stalin on the Russian Victory at Stalingrad | The American Presidency Project

Department of State Bulletin, November 8, 1941.
Franklin D Roosevelt states:

"We realize fully how vitally important to the defeat of Hitlerism is the brave and steadfast resistance of the Soviet Union and we feel therefore that we must not in any circumstances fail to act quickly and immediately in this matter on planning the program for the future allocation of our joint resources."

There was a lot more to the Soviet victory than just the lend-lease program. To believe otherwise is silly.

I hate to burst your bubble but the person in charge of the Soviet defense...stated that without aid from the US there would have been no way that the USSR could have reconstituted it's military to counter the Nazis. Would you like me to provide his quote on that? The Soviets literally didn't have gunpowder to make bullets...didn't have the steel to make tanks.

As to why the Soviets lost so many men in WWII? Much of that was due to Stalin's killing the bulk of his military leaders to consolidate his own power prior to war breaking out. The USSR was totally unprepared for the attack by the Germans because Stalin was more worried about a coup by one of his generals than he was about Hitler.

 

[Papageorgio]

Stop projecting your triggered feelings on me.

Oh cool an internet tough guy, you got us all shaking! Lol!

 

[Soupnazi630]

Well of course if you have more money, you pay more in taxes. Do you actually believe capitalism is sustainable without workers/customers? A society with gross inequality, where workers are struggling to make ends meet no matter how hard they work? If there's no social safety net for America's workforce or an affordable means to educate and train people to make them marketable, our society will fail, just as it's been doing for years. From worse to worse, especially today with all of the advanced technology that replaces human wage labor, we're heading for a collapse, without serious reforms.

BTW there are no taxes in marketless socialism, only in market socialism.

WRONG

In markegtless socialism there is %100 percent taxation for all. There is no private property permited especially money

Advanced technology demands more capitalism.

Your reforms are garbage and a proven failure world wide

 

[DBA]

The wealthy can afford to pay more taxes.

What does that have to do with anything? Using this logic, we should just have a "wealth" tax added to everything we buy. If you are deemed "wealthy", you pay $20 for your value meal vs $8 for everyone else. Better yet, why not just add a surcharge based on some calculation of your actual net worth? For example, I may pay $25 for value meal and Elon Musk may pay $25,000,000. That would only be fair, right, after all, he can afford it.

 

[Oldestyle]

Well of course if you have more money, you pay more in taxes. Do you actually believe capitalism is sustainable without workers/customers? A society with gross inequality, where workers are struggling to make ends meet no matter how hard they work? If there's no social safety net for America's workforce or an affordable means to educate and train people to make them marketable, our society will fail, just as it's been doing for years. From worse to worse, especially today with all of the advanced technology that replaces human wage labor, we're heading for a collapse, without serious reforms.

BTW there are no taxes in marketless socialism, only in market socialism.

Interesting concept. You claim that without a"social safety net" our society will fail? What was the social safety net for much of our nation's history? Why didn't our society fail before the advent of entitlements?

 

[TruthNotBS]

Define “fair share” ChristianMan

What percent of the total tax burden should the Top 1% pay? Top 10%?

Give us a number.

In my opinion, society should prohibit anyone from hoarding capital beyond a hundred million or having a net income of more than $12 million yearly. Having people in a society with more money than a country undermines democracy and creates social unrest. It's dangerous. Capitalism is more sustainable with a few boundaries. A mixed market economy is what has worked best so far, with plenty of capitalism within a consumer goods industry and socialism for heavy, vital industries like energy, mining, utilities, and a few others. Those mixed economies also have robust social safety nets for their working class, which mitigates the endemic problems of capitalism.

Here in the United States we have a brutal, corrupt plutocracy that serves the vested interests of the highest bidder at the expense of the public good. It wasn't that bad after WW2, when the US was the manufacturing hub of the world. My grandfather migrated here from another country with a few cents in his pocket, a wife, and kids, and four years later, working a blue-collar job, he purchased his house cash, free of a bank loan or any assistance from the government. He retired with a pension in the 1980s and lived ten more years.

Most of you on this forum are in your 60s and 70s, with some even older, hence you remember the good old days, but unfortunately, the American worker is no longer part of the aristocracy of labor. We're at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to the standard of living among modern, industrialized nations. The lowest stats and public satisfaction among citizens are here in the US. Look it up. We score at the bottom. We're good at war.

​

Save it. I don't have to go anywhere, it's all of you who constantly tell me to leave when I point out our problems and flaws who need to leave. We need to fix it, not leave. FIX IT.

 

[Soupnazi630]

In my opinion, society should prohibit anyone from hoarding capital beyond a hundred million or having a net income of more than $12 million yearly. Having people in a society with more money than a country undermines democracy and creates social unrest. It's dangerous. Capitalism is more sustainable with a few boundaries. A mixed market economy is what has worked best so far, with plenty of capitalism within a consumer goods industry and socialism for heavy, vital industries like energy, mining, utilities, and a few others. Those mixed economies also have robust social safety nets for their working class, which mitigates the endemic problems of capitalism.

Here in the United States we have a brutal, corrupt plutocracy that serves the vested interests of the highest bidder at the expense of the public good. It wasn't that bad after WW2, when the US was the manufacturing hub of the world. My grandfather migrated here from another country with a few cents in his pocket, a wife, and kids, and four years later, working a blue-collar job, he purchased his house cash, free of a bank loan or any assistance from the government. He retired with a pension in the 1980s and lived ten more years.

Most of you on this forum are in your 60s and 70s, with some even older, hence you remember the good old days, but unfortunately, the American worker is no longer part of the aristocracy of labor. We're at the bottom of the totem poll when it comes to the standard of living among modern, industrialized nations. The lowest stats and public satisfaction among citizens are here in the US. Look it up. We score at the bottom. We're good at war.

​

Save it. I don't have to go anywhere, it's all of you who constantly tell me to leave when I point out our problems and flaws. We need to fix it, not leave. FIX IT.

WRONG

Those stats are contrived and long since disproven

Boundaries merely throttle innovation. Disparity of wealth harms NO ONE

 

[DBA]

We're at the bottom of the totem poll when it comes to the standard of living among modern, industrialized nations.

Said absolutely NOBODY that has traveled the world.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Said absolutely NOBODY that has traveled the world.

I have traveled much of the world. I've even been an expat in several countries.

PS: I fixed the typo already before anyone pointed it out. I can go through anyone's posts in their history and find plenty of typos.

 

[Oldestyle]

I have traveled much of the world. I've even been an expat in several countries.

PS: I fixed the typo already before anyone pointed it out. I can go through anyone's posts in their history and find plenty of typos.

I note that you don't want to respond to my question about social safety nets, Christian. Why is that?

 

[TruthNotBS]

Interesting concept. You claim that without a"social safety net" our society will fail? What was the social safety net for much of our nation's history? Why didn't our society fail before the advent of entitlements?

It would've failed if not for labor unions and the abolition of chattel slavery. We fought a civil war and then went through a period of incredible social unrest and turmoil, on the brink of collapse. If FDR hadn't convinced the American ruling class to support the New Deal that would've been the end of America. Even the New Deal wasn't enough until the government intervened with serious price controls and rationing to support our troops in WW2. The war effort resurrected the US economy. In a way the war saved America and turned it into the world's manufacturing hub, providing good quality materials and products to everyone. We're not living in that era anymore, even capitalism has changed since then. We live in a different country now.

Our manufacturing base was gutted in the 1980s, along with labor unions and the working class. The ruling wealthy elites of this country got their revenge for the New Deal primarily through Reagan and now we're paying for it. The top marginal tax rate when he entered office in 1981 was 77%. It was 28%, lower than it is today when he left office. Today CEOs of Fortune 500 companies make 1000x what their average worker makes, unlike in the 1950s and 60s when CEOs made maybe 20x, 30x more than the average salary in their companies. We're living in a different economy and country, thanks to government policies that serve the rich at the expense of working-class people.

 

[Nostra]

In my opinion, society should prohibit anyone from hoarding capital beyond a hundred million or having a net income of more than $12 million yearly. Having people in a society with more money than a country undermines democracy and creates social unrest. It's dangerous. Capitalism is more sustainable with a few boundaries. A mixed market economy is what has worked best so far, with plenty of capitalism within a consumer goods industry and socialism for heavy, vital industries like energy, mining, utilities, and a few others. Those mixed economies also have robust social safety nets for their working class, which mitigates the endemic problems of capitalism.

Here in the United States we have a brutal, corrupt plutocracy that serves the vested interests of the highest bidder at the expense of the public good. It wasn't that bad after WW2, when the US was the manufacturing hub of the world. My grandfather migrated here from another country with a few cents in his pocket, a wife, and kids, and four years later, working a blue-collar job, he purchased his house cash, free of a bank loan or any assistance from the government. He retired with a pension in the 1980s and lived ten more years.

Most of you on this forum are in your 60s and 70s, with some even older, hence you remember the good old days, but unfortunately, the American worker is no longer part of the aristocracy of labor. We're at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to the standard of living among modern, industrialized nations. The lowest stats and public satisfaction among citizens are here in the US. Look it up. We score at the bottom. We're good at war.

​

Save it. I don't have to go anywhere, it's all of you who constantly tell me to leave when I point out our problems and flaws who need to leave. We need to fix it, not leave. FIX IT.

I still see no ‘fair share”.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I still see no ‘fair share”.

You being a right-wing Republican disagree with what I consider fair and necessary. I'm not surprised.