War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[RKMBrown]

Ayup... if you really want to tax the rich it's gonna have to be with a property tax or some other form of tax on existing assets. The really rich folks don't need jobs, they don't need income for that matter. They can live on company properties, drive company cars, eat company food, and fly on company jets. Oh yeah... and they can leave with their money if we try to go after it.

Property and existing assets are already taxed. Whenever you raise taxes on anything, you get less of it happening. So if you raise tax on property, more of it will be liquidated. Many wealthy people are already acutely aware of this 'movement' to confiscate their wealth, and have taken appropriate measures to secure their wealth. Some invest in tax-free municipal bonds... you wanna start taxing those? We'll see cities become ghost towns overnight.

You wanna tax offshore investments? Okay, what about these countries who depend on those investments? Collapsing the world economy doesn't seem very smart to me. Cutting off the money supply to our allies doesn't seem like a very diplomatic thing to do. The bottom line is, no matter what you come up with, the rich will find a way around it and you'll end up with an even bigger problem on your hands.

I've said all along, the best thing to do would be to get rid of the income tax and go to a consumption tax. The rich can't escape a consumption tax. Nor can the millions of people operating under the table and avoiding income tax.

Just as taxing labor slows labor, taxing consumption slows consumption. But yes IMO taxing consumption is the best type of tax of the many bad types of taxes. voiding consumption tax on property is done, with the proviso that there is an annual smaller property tax. I'd like to see property taxes capped to the consumption (sales tax) rate. IOW when you buy a house you pay property taxes on that house till the sum adds up to the sales tax rate.

move out to the sticks if you want lower property tax. if you can't handle the tax get out of the kitchen in the higher markets. it's just the business you have chosen. supply and demand and judging of others worth. stop complaining about property tax and start increasing investment taxes as if the rich need more incentives to sell us all out. dah

I live in the sticks in TX. The property tax is by county and state. You can't avoid it. I'm not complaining about property tax. What made you think I was?

you better move to a more sane state that's not so vain. everything's big in texas except brains and humility. wow. what a backward ass state that is. I pray it breaks away and mexican drug lord's attack it. then all you gun nuts and fake bible thumpers can destroy one another. shalom to you tho.

I like it here. My ranch is big, my guns are big, my balls are big, my family very successful, and I like texicans.

 

[The Rabbi]

Property and existing assets are already taxed. Whenever you raise taxes on anything, you get less of it happening. So if you raise tax on property, more of it will be liquidated. Many wealthy people are already acutely aware of this 'movement' to confiscate their wealth, and have taken appropriate measures to secure their wealth. Some invest in tax-free municipal bonds... you wanna start taxing those? We'll see cities become ghost towns overnight.

You wanna tax offshore investments? Okay, what about these countries who depend on those investments? Collapsing the world economy doesn't seem very smart to me. Cutting off the money supply to our allies doesn't seem like a very diplomatic thing to do. The bottom line is, no matter what you come up with, the rich will find a way around it and you'll end up with an even bigger problem on your hands.

I've said all along, the best thing to do would be to get rid of the income tax and go to a consumption tax. The rich can't escape a consumption tax. Nor can the millions of people operating under the table and avoiding income tax.

Just as taxing labor slows labor, taxing consumption slows consumption. But yes IMO taxing consumption is the best type of tax of the many bad types of taxes. voiding consumption tax on property is done, with the proviso that there is an annual smaller property tax. I'd like to see property taxes capped to the consumption (sales tax) rate. IOW when you buy a house you pay property taxes on that house till the sum adds up to the sales tax rate.

move out to the sticks if you want lower property tax. if you can't handle the tax get out of the kitchen in the higher markets. it's just the business you have chosen. supply and demand and judging of others worth. stop complaining about property tax and start increasing investment taxes as if the rich need more incentives to sell us all out. dah

I live in the sticks in TX. The property tax is by county and state. You can't avoid it. I'm not complaining about property tax. What made you think I was?

you better move to a more sane state that's not so vain. everything's big in texas except brains and humility. wow. what a backward ass state that is. I pray it breaks away and mexican drug lord's attack it. then all you gun nuts and fake bible thumpers can destroy one another. shalom to you tho.

I like it here. My ranch is big, my guns are big, my balls are big, my family very successful, and I like texicans.

Texas sounds great. I really appreciate a place that values freedom as much as they do. I hear the hill country is very pretty.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I

Today the members of the hoi polloi find fees rising for everything - .

so do the top 1% . Under Reagan they paid 22% of all federal tax, now they pay 40%. The govt can waste all the money there is!!

Think about that dude. . People pay tax on income. The more income the more tax paid. Ultra rich and rich people have seen large increases in their income. Of fucking course they pay more tax now. Their income is greater. Much greater..

You act like that increase in the amount of tax paid is the result of an increase in rates. It ain't fucking so.
It's because they have the increase in income.

Not so fast. That's not how the math works.

Here's what happened:

Before the first three quintiles of income earners were paying a lot more taxes. Now they pay pretty much zero for the first two quintiles to very low for the third quintile. The bottom three quintiles of income earners have passed their share of the tax burden to the two upper quintiles. Thus the massive increase in relative amounts paid by the upper quintiles.

So, why not raise the minimum wage to equal the income of those rich souls who are being exploited (sarcasm alert)?

Have you considered the fact that the upper middle class and higher income persons have access to tax shelters, mostly legal, because The Congress has passed legislation which benefits the wealthy?

The working poor don't have income which allows them to open a Roth or Traditional IRA and most do not have employer retirement plans or provide health insurance.

A progressive income tax on income is a fair tax, since the same percentage of tax is applied equally to rich and poor alike. The percentage rises as income rises and once in the recent past the top percentage was 90%.

See for example:

From Eisenhower to Obama What Wealthy Americans Like Mitt Romney Pay in Taxes - ABC News

Hve you been huffing glue again?
First off, the super wealthy will always find ways of sheltering their income. ANd the higher the tax rate, the more incentive to find ways to do it because it's more profitable,
A progressive income tax does not apply the same percentage to rich and poor (or more accurately high earners and low earners). That's why it's progressive. IT applies different rates, higher rates for higher levels of income. The top percentage might have been 90% under Kennedy (if that's recent to you) but they whole structure was different. For example you could deduct any interest payment whatsoever and also income average.

Why introduce deductions? Of course they repealed interest payments, as was income averaging, as part of tax reform by Reagan. Also by the way, reducing the amount they could deduct for paying into healthcare, and union dues.

Who did this reform hurt and who did that help? The person who didn't have the disposable income to pay off debt. The person who received a huge year, or the minumum wage worker who didn't receive a Christmas Bonus or a bundle of stock opinions in the Xmas Stocking?

 

[RKMBrown]

Just as taxing labor slows labor, taxing consumption slows consumption. But yes IMO taxing consumption is the best type of tax of the many bad types of taxes. voiding consumption tax on property is done, with the proviso that there is an annual smaller property tax. I'd like to see property taxes capped to the consumption (sales tax) rate. IOW when you buy a house you pay property taxes on that house till the sum adds up to the sales tax rate.

move out to the sticks if you want lower property tax. if you can't handle the tax get out of the kitchen in the higher markets. it's just the business you have chosen. supply and demand and judging of others worth. stop complaining about property tax and start increasing investment taxes as if the rich need more incentives to sell us all out. dah

I live in the sticks in TX. The property tax is by county and state. You can't avoid it. I'm not complaining about property tax. What made you think I was?

you better move to a more sane state that's not so vain. everything's big in texas except brains and humility. wow. what a backward ass state that is. I pray it breaks away and mexican drug lord's attack it. then all you gun nuts and fake bible thumpers can destroy one another. shalom to you tho.

I like it here. My ranch is big, my guns are big, my balls are big, my family very successful, and I like texicans.

Texas sounds great. I really appreciate a place that values freedom as much as they do. I hear the hill country is very pretty.

It is great. Yes, I live in the hill country. Flowers cover my ranch from late feb to November. Hills, creek, tall thick oaks and pecans... are my view... really nice here.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Property and existing assets are already taxed. Whenever you raise taxes on anything, you get less of it happening. So if you raise tax on property, more of it will be liquidated. Many wealthy people are already acutely aware of this 'movement' to confiscate their wealth, and have taken appropriate measures to secure their wealth. Some invest in tax-free municipal bonds... you wanna start taxing those? We'll see cities become ghost towns overnight.

You wanna tax offshore investments? Okay, what about these countries who depend on those investments? Collapsing the world economy doesn't seem very smart to me. Cutting off the money supply to our allies doesn't seem like a very diplomatic thing to do. The bottom line is, no matter what you come up with, the rich will find a way around it and you'll end up with an even bigger problem on your hands.

I've said all along, the best thing to do would be to get rid of the income tax and go to a consumption tax. The rich can't escape a consumption tax. Nor can the millions of people operating under the table and avoiding income tax.

Just as taxing labor slows labor, taxing consumption slows consumption. But yes IMO taxing consumption is the best type of tax of the many bad types of taxes. voiding consumption tax on property is done, with the proviso that there is an annual smaller property tax. I'd like to see property taxes capped to the consumption (sales tax) rate. IOW when you buy a house you pay property taxes on that house till the sum adds up to the sales tax rate.

move out to the sticks if you want lower property tax. if you can't handle the tax get out of the kitchen in the higher markets. it's just the business you have chosen. supply and demand and judging of others worth. stop complaining about property tax and start increasing investment taxes as if the rich need more incentives to sell us all out. dah

I live in the sticks in TX. The property tax is by county and state. You can't avoid it. I'm not complaining about property tax. What made you think I was?

you better move to a more sane state that's not so vain. everything's big in texas except brains and humility. wow. what a backward ass state that is. I pray it breaks away and mexican drug lord's attack it. then all you gun nuts and fake bible thumpers can destroy one another. shalom to you tho.

I like it here. My ranch is big, my guns are big, my balls are big, my family very successful, and I like texicans.

Good for you. You forgot to add, "my bullshit is big and my ignorance bigger".

 

[RKMBrown]

Just as taxing labor slows labor, taxing consumption slows consumption. But yes IMO taxing consumption is the best type of tax of the many bad types of taxes. voiding consumption tax on property is done, with the proviso that there is an annual smaller property tax. I'd like to see property taxes capped to the consumption (sales tax) rate. IOW when you buy a house you pay property taxes on that house till the sum adds up to the sales tax rate.

move out to the sticks if you want lower property tax. if you can't handle the tax get out of the kitchen in the higher markets. it's just the business you have chosen. supply and demand and judging of others worth. stop complaining about property tax and start increasing investment taxes as if the rich need more incentives to sell us all out. dah

I live in the sticks in TX. The property tax is by county and state. You can't avoid it. I'm not complaining about property tax. What made you think I was?

you better move to a more sane state that's not so vain. everything's big in texas except brains and humility. wow. what a backward ass state that is. I pray it breaks away and mexican drug lord's attack it. then all you gun nuts and fake bible thumpers can destroy one another. shalom to you tho.

I like it here. My ranch is big, my guns are big, my balls are big, my family very successful, and I like texicans.

Good for you. You forgot to add, "my bullshit is big and my ignorance bigger".

I can bullshit with the best of them... yes. And I have a very good understanding of just how much of the universe I don't know, so yes my ignorance of all things is immense.

 

[The Rabbi]

so do the top 1% . Under Reagan they paid 22% of all federal tax, now they pay 40%. The govt can waste all the money there is!!

Think about that dude. . People pay tax on income. The more income the more tax paid. Ultra rich and rich people have seen large increases in their income. Of fucking course they pay more tax now. Their income is greater. Much greater..

You act like that increase in the amount of tax paid is the result of an increase in rates. It ain't fucking so.
It's because they have the increase in income.

Not so fast. That's not how the math works.

Here's what happened:

Before the first three quintiles of income earners were paying a lot more taxes. Now they pay pretty much zero for the first two quintiles to very low for the third quintile. The bottom three quintiles of income earners have passed their share of the tax burden to the two upper quintiles. Thus the massive increase in relative amounts paid by the upper quintiles.

So, why not raise the minimum wage to equal the income of those rich souls who are being exploited (sarcasm alert)?

Have you considered the fact that the upper middle class and higher income persons have access to tax shelters, mostly legal, because The Congress has passed legislation which benefits the wealthy?

The working poor don't have income which allows them to open a Roth or Traditional IRA and most do not have employer retirement plans or provide health insurance.

A progressive income tax on income is a fair tax, since the same percentage of tax is applied equally to rich and poor alike. The percentage rises as income rises and once in the recent past the top percentage was 90%.

See for example:

From Eisenhower to Obama What Wealthy Americans Like Mitt Romney Pay in Taxes - ABC News

Hve you been huffing glue again?
First off, the super wealthy will always find ways of sheltering their income. ANd the higher the tax rate, the more incentive to find ways to do it because it's more profitable,
A progressive income tax does not apply the same percentage to rich and poor (or more accurately high earners and low earners). That's why it's progressive. IT applies different rates, higher rates for higher levels of income. The top percentage might have been 90% under Kennedy (if that's recent to you) but they whole structure was different. For example you could deduct any interest payment whatsoever and also income average.

Why introduce deductions? Of course they repealed interest payments, as was income averaging, as part of tax reform by Reagan. Also by the way, reducing the amount they could deduct for paying into healthcare, and union dues.

Who did this reform hurt and who did that help? The person who didn't have the disposable income to pay off debt. The person who received a huge year, or the minumum wage worker who didn't receive a Christmas Bonus or a bundle of stock opinions in the Xmas Stocking?

The reform hurt accountants by making it less possible for them to save clients money.
OTOH since reagan also lowered rates across the board it helped everyone. The high income earners both earned more money after taxes and they paid more in taxes. It was a win-win. SO tell me why Obama opposes similar reform.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Think about that dude. . People pay tax on income. The more income the more tax paid. Ultra rich and rich people have seen large increases in their income. Of fucking course they pay more tax now. Their income is greater. Much greater..

You act like that increase in the amount of tax paid is the result of an increase in rates. It ain't fucking so.
It's because they have the increase in income.

Not so fast. That's not how the math works.

Here's what happened:

Before the first three quintiles of income earners were paying a lot more taxes. Now they pay pretty much zero for the first two quintiles to very low for the third quintile. The bottom three quintiles of income earners have passed their share of the tax burden to the two upper quintiles. Thus the massive increase in relative amounts paid by the upper quintiles.

So, why not raise the minimum wage to equal the income of those rich souls who are being exploited (sarcasm alert)?

Have you considered the fact that the upper middle class and higher income persons have access to tax shelters, mostly legal, because The Congress has passed legislation which benefits the wealthy?

The working poor don't have income which allows them to open a Roth or Traditional IRA and most do not have employer retirement plans or provide health insurance.

A progressive income tax on income is a fair tax, since the same percentage of tax is applied equally to rich and poor alike. The percentage rises as income rises and once in the recent past the top percentage was 90%.

See for example:

From Eisenhower to Obama What Wealthy Americans Like Mitt Romney Pay in Taxes - ABC News

Hve you been huffing glue again?
First off, the super wealthy will always find ways of sheltering their income. ANd the higher the tax rate, the more incentive to find ways to do it because it's more profitable,
A progressive income tax does not apply the same percentage to rich and poor (or more accurately high earners and low earners). That's why it's progressive. IT applies different rates, higher rates for higher levels of income. The top percentage might have been 90% under Kennedy (if that's recent to you) but they whole structure was different. For example you could deduct any interest payment whatsoever and also income average.

Why introduce deductions? Of course they repealed interest payments, as was income averaging, as part of tax reform by Reagan. Also by the way, reducing the amount they could deduct for paying into healthcare, and union dues.

Who did this reform hurt and who did that help? The person who didn't have the disposable income to pay off debt. The person who received a huge year, or the minumum wage worker who didn't receive a Christmas Bonus or a bundle of stock opinions in the Xmas Stocking?

The reform hurt accountants by making it less possible for them to save clients money.
OTOH since reagan also lowered rates across the board it helped everyone. The high income earners both earned more money after taxes and they paid more in taxes. It was a win-win. SO tell me why Obama opposes similar reform.

It was't equitable reform. It was an attack on unions, more subtle than Walker's (the new Messiah of the far right) and a way to cut taxes across the board while hiding the new fees and lack of income tax credits to the workers who shower after work.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not so fast. That's not how the math works.

Here's what happened:

Before the first three quintiles of income earners were paying a lot more taxes. Now they pay pretty much zero for the first two quintiles to very low for the third quintile. The bottom three quintiles of income earners have passed their share of the tax burden to the two upper quintiles. Thus the massive increase in relative amounts paid by the upper quintiles.

So, why not raise the minimum wage to equal the income of those rich souls who are being exploited (sarcasm alert)?

Have you considered the fact that the upper middle class and higher income persons have access to tax shelters, mostly legal, because The Congress has passed legislation which benefits the wealthy?

The working poor don't have income which allows them to open a Roth or Traditional IRA and most do not have employer retirement plans or provide health insurance.

A progressive income tax on income is a fair tax, since the same percentage of tax is applied equally to rich and poor alike. The percentage rises as income rises and once in the recent past the top percentage was 90%.

See for example:

From Eisenhower to Obama What Wealthy Americans Like Mitt Romney Pay in Taxes - ABC News

Hve you been huffing glue again?
First off, the super wealthy will always find ways of sheltering their income. ANd the higher the tax rate, the more incentive to find ways to do it because it's more profitable,
A progressive income tax does not apply the same percentage to rich and poor (or more accurately high earners and low earners). That's why it's progressive. IT applies different rates, higher rates for higher levels of income. The top percentage might have been 90% under Kennedy (if that's recent to you) but they whole structure was different. For example you could deduct any interest payment whatsoever and also income average.

Why introduce deductions? Of course they repealed interest payments, as was income averaging, as part of tax reform by Reagan. Also by the way, reducing the amount they could deduct for paying into healthcare, and union dues.

Who did this reform hurt and who did that help? The person who didn't have the disposable income to pay off debt. The person who received a huge year, or the minumum wage worker who didn't receive a Christmas Bonus or a bundle of stock opinions in the Xmas Stocking?

The reform hurt accountants by making it less possible for them to save clients money.
OTOH since reagan also lowered rates across the board it helped everyone. The high income earners both earned more money after taxes and they paid more in taxes. It was a win-win. SO tell me why Obama opposes similar reform.

It was't equitable reform. It was an attack on unions, more subtle than Walker's (the new Messiah of the far right) and a way to cut taxes across the board while hiding the new fees and lack of income tax credits to the workers who shower after work.

Yeah it was all a big plot. Run with that. IN traffic.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, why not raise the minimum wage to equal the income of those rich souls who are being exploited (sarcasm alert)?

Have you considered the fact that the upper middle class and higher income persons have access to tax shelters, mostly legal, because The Congress has passed legislation which benefits the wealthy?

The working poor don't have income which allows them to open a Roth or Traditional IRA and most do not have employer retirement plans or provide health insurance.

A progressive income tax on income is a fair tax, since the same percentage of tax is applied equally to rich and poor alike. The percentage rises as income rises and once in the recent past the top percentage was 90%.

See for example:

From Eisenhower to Obama What Wealthy Americans Like Mitt Romney Pay in Taxes - ABC News

Hve you been huffing glue again?
First off, the super wealthy will always find ways of sheltering their income. ANd the higher the tax rate, the more incentive to find ways to do it because it's more profitable,
A progressive income tax does not apply the same percentage to rich and poor (or more accurately high earners and low earners). That's why it's progressive. IT applies different rates, higher rates for higher levels of income. The top percentage might have been 90% under Kennedy (if that's recent to you) but they whole structure was different. For example you could deduct any interest payment whatsoever and also income average.

Why introduce deductions? Of course they repealed interest payments, as was income averaging, as part of tax reform by Reagan. Also by the way, reducing the amount they could deduct for paying into healthcare, and union dues.

Who did this reform hurt and who did that help? The person who didn't have the disposable income to pay off debt. The person who received a huge year, or the minumum wage worker who didn't receive a Christmas Bonus or a bundle of stock opinions in the Xmas Stocking?

The reform hurt accountants by making it less possible for them to save clients money.
OTOH since reagan also lowered rates across the board it helped everyone. The high income earners both earned more money after taxes and they paid more in taxes. It was a win-win. SO tell me why Obama opposes similar reform.

It was't equitable reform. It was an attack on unions, more subtle than Walker's (the new Messiah of the far right) and a way to cut taxes across the board while hiding the new fees and lack of income tax credits to the workers who shower after work.

Yeah it was all a big plot. Run with that. IN traffic.

And you deny that your stupid and a partisan hack. Denial, deflect and damn anyone who disagrees with you. Yep, you're a D student for sure!

 

[Boss]

A progressive income tax on income is a fair tax, since the same percentage of tax is applied equally to rich and poor alike.

Again illustrating that you don't understand the difference between being wealthy and earning high income. Please educate yourself. A high income does not mean you are wealthy. A low income doesn't mean you are poor. A multi-billionaire can earn $30k in income for a year... is he poor?

 

[Wry Catcher]

A progressive income tax on income is a fair tax, since the same percentage of tax is applied equally to rich and poor alike.

Again illustrating that you don't understand the difference between being wealthy and earning high income. Please educate yourself. A high income does not mean you are wealthy. A low income doesn't mean you are poor. A multi-billionaire can earn $30k in income for a year... is he poor?

No, likely his wealth is produced by the import of drugs or his daddy left he and his brother a business. Why do you and Rabbit continue to post non sequiturs?

 

[zeke]

Simple example. Two workers over three years. Worker 1 earns 10 apples, worker 2 earns 20 apples.

You dumb fuck. We are talking about comparing people with 10 million in income to people with 50k in income.
Try comparing those "apples",

A progressive income tax on income is a fair tax, since the same percentage of tax is applied equally to rich and poor alike.

Again illustrating that you don't understand the difference between being wealthy and earning high income. Please educate yourself. A high income does not mean you are wealthy. A low income doesn't mean you are poor. A multi-billionaire can earn $30k in income for a year... is he poor?

No, likely his wealth is produced by the import of drugs or his daddy left he and his brother a business. Why do you and Rabbit continue to post non sequiturs?

That's all they've got. Fuckers are crazy.

To fucking even post that a multi BILLIONAIRE would only have 30k in income is astoundingly stupid. I mean unbelievably stupid. Amazingly stupid. A billion dollars at .5% return is what, 5 million dollars. And that asshole boss is talking multi billionaire. Amazing. Dude is an idiot.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Simple example. Two workers over three years. Worker 1 earns 10 apples, worker 2 earns 20 apples.

You dumb fuck. We are talking about comparing people with 10 million in income to people with 50k in income.
Try comparing those "apples",

A progressive income tax on income is a fair tax, since the same percentage of tax is applied equally to rich and poor alike.

Again illustrating that you don't understand the difference between being wealthy and earning high income. Please educate yourself. A high income does not mean you are wealthy. A low income doesn't mean you are poor. A multi-billionaire can earn $30k in income for a year... is he poor?

No, likely his wealth is produced by the import of drugs or his daddy left he and his brother a business. Why do you and Rabbit continue to post non sequiturs?

That's all they've got. Fuckers are crazy.

To fucking even post that a multi BILLIONAIRE would only have 30k in income is astoundingly stupid. I mean unbelievably stupid. Amazingly stupid. A billion dollars at .5% return is what, 5 million dollars. And that asshole boss is talking multi billionaire. Amazing. Dude is an idiot.

Two words: Warren Buffett

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[zeke]

Two words: Warren Buffett

Seven words; what the fuck are you babbling about?

 

[Boss]

A progressive income tax on income is a fair tax, since the same percentage of tax is applied equally to rich and poor alike.

Again illustrating that you don't understand the difference between being wealthy and earning high income. Please educate yourself. A high income does not mean you are wealthy. A low income doesn't mean you are poor. A multi-billionaire can earn $30k in income for a year... is he poor?

No, likely his wealth is produced by the import of drugs or his daddy left he and his brother a business. Why do you and Rabbit continue to post non sequiturs?

You have no idea where someone's wealth came from. WTF? Drug dealer or daddy left him and his brother a business? What the hell is that supposed to even mean? Again.... WEALTHY people do not need to earn incomes. If you think that is who is earning high incomes in America, you are ignorant. By and large, the majority of taxpayers in the top marginal bracket are small business owners. ALL small businesses file income tax as individuals.

 

[Boss]

That's all they've got. Fuckers are crazy.

To fucking even post that a multi BILLIONAIRE would only have 30k in income is astoundingly stupid. I mean unbelievably stupid. Amazingly stupid. A billion dollars at .5% return is what, 5 million dollars. And that asshole boss is talking multi billionaire. Amazing. Dude is an idiot.

What you are now talking about is not earned income, it is investment dividends. Raising the top marginal income tax rate does not effect investment dividends... completely different animal.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Are you really trying to claim the taxes went up a substantial amount on the ultra rich?

yes in fact way up. No country depends on the very rich they way the USA does, not even European countries. NYC and CA get 50% of their state budgets from the very rich. This is a major reason why we now have slow economic growth.

 

[zeke]

That's all they've got. Fuckers are crazy.

To fucking even post that a multi BILLIONAIRE would only have 30k in income is astoundingly stupid. I mean unbelievably stupid. Amazingly stupid. A billion dollars at .5% return is what, 5 million dollars. And that asshole boss is talking multi billionaire. Amazing. Dude is an idiot.

What you are now talking about is not earned income, it is investment dividends. Raising the top marginal income tax rate does not effect investment dividends... completely different animal.

You are stupid boss. I mean really fucking stupid. You are so stupid it isn't any fun slamming you anymore.
You are that stupid. You want ANOTHER example? Here you go.

A multi-billionaire can earn $30k in income for a year... is he poor?

That says it all right there. A multi billionaire with 30k of income. Stupid dude. Stupid.

And income is income. Wages, dividends, interest, royalties, etc. Lots of ways to earn income. They can even be taxed differently. But if you received money from your job or your investments, that is your income.

Get a fucking clue dude. Really.

 

[zeke]

. ALL small businesses file income tax as individuals.

By God, you just keep on giving up examples of how stupid you are.

So no small business files as an LLC. Or an S Corp? Or a partnership. All small business simply fill out Sch C.

Are you trying to be this stupid? Or have you been drinking all day?