What Is Wrong With America ?

[protectionist]

At some point the rich stop doing anything that makes more money. They might close businesses. They might just sit on property that should really be sold and generating capital gains taxation. But it takes a French president to come up with a "wealth tax" that takes a chunk of everything you have each year until it's all gone.

Nope. Wealth tax was advocated years ago by US Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

True - Bernie ran as an Independent but had openly declared himself to be a socialist. The Socialist Party was not recognized in Vermont at the time and the hurdles to get into the competition were lower for independents than for the creation of an entirely "new" party.

Yes. He did advocate it years ago and it was promptly laughed into oblivion. These days the prime advocate is President Hollande of France. He who instituted a 75% income tax on "the rich" but backed off when the majority of them departed and some renounced French citizenship entirely.

So what's wrong with a tax on wealth ? If you have an answer, let's hear it. And then I'll tell you what's right with it.

 

[HenryBHough]

So what's wrong with a tax on wealth ? If you have an answer, let's hear it. And then I'll tell you what's right with it.

Best you discover it for yourself.

Try a web search on keywords: "Goose" "Golden Egg".

Then read for comprehension. Sound each word out if you must. Or have someone read it to you. But do not allow anyone to explain it. You must find the meaning for your very own self.

 

[protectionist]

...raising the minimum wage and raising taxes on the rich,

i did not count the many times i read "minimum wage" and "the rich"

you people who want to raise the M.W., WHY ? let's say the burger flipper working at Gizmos Burger Joint makes $17.85 per hour, you are paying $6.79 for a plain cheeseburger, $3.95 for a 16 ounce Sizzle Cola, $4.49 for a 4 oz. bag of F.F.'s.., you are paying $15.23 for a burger, fries and cola, will your food stamps pay for that ? remember, you are on the .gov dole, you are one of the looooooong term unemployed, ,you are one of the workers who lost their job when the company named below went out of business, you were earning a respectable $$27.85 per hour, you are getting $350.00 (or more, one of you receiving unemployment $$$$ how much are you getting ??) a week, are you happy that you are supporting a low wage earner who is making $535.50 per week ?

economics.., don't ya just love it ?

"the rich", how many of you who have gotten a job, got it from a poor bum living under a bridge in a freezer carton ? the Richman's Gadget Mfg. Co. is owned by RICH man/woman is where you go for a job, raise his taxes and he will have to lay off 5 employes to pay for the tax increase, smart..., huh ? keep taxing him/her and their company goes out of business and 76 people lose their jobs, now THAT is really smart.., by democRAT/liarberal philosophy.

You stated the 2 most common myths about raising taxes and the MW, which millions of 18 year old college freshman know are false - once they've studied microeconomcs 101 ( I used to teach that course)

1. The firm CANNOT raise its prices above their already set market price. Doing so causes it to lose sales, income, profit.

2. The firm CANNOT lay people off to compensate for some new added cost. In the case of laying off workers, let's take an example >> My ex-wife owned a boutique in a mall. She had 10 workers, all at MW. If the MW went up, and she laid off one worker, guess what happens. Her sales go down, and she winds up making LESS PROFIT than before that layoff. It's simple. Why did she have 10 workers in the first place ? Because she was a philanthropist and wanted to give out an extra job ? Because 10 is her lucky number ?

She had 10 workers for only ONE REASON. Because she MADE MORE MONEY with 10 than any other number. So if she went to only 9, she suffers losses. No can do.

3. All the business owner has to do when the MW goes up is not panic, and enjoy the increase in sales$$ and profits (for almost all businesses), and the sweet sound of the cash register ringing much more often.

 

[OKTexas]

Nope. Wealth tax was advocated years ago by US Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

True - Bernie ran as an Independent but had openly declared himself to be a socialist. The Socialist Party was not recognized in Vermont at the time and the hurdles to get into the competition were lower for independents than for the creation of an entirely "new" party.

Yes. He did advocate it years ago and it was promptly laughed into oblivion. These days the prime advocate is President Hollande of France. He who instituted a 75% income tax on "the rich" but backed off when the majority of them departed and some renounced French citizenship entirely.

So what's wrong with a tax on wealth ? If you have an answer, let's hear it. And then I'll tell you what's right with it.

There is no justification for taxing one piece of property differently than another just because of where it falls in virtual stack. The millionth bill in the stack is worth no more or less than the first and they should be taxed the same.

 

[protectionist]

Somewhere in this thread I stated that we needed to raise the tax rate and more so on the rich. Not to punish them as you would do, but because the politicians have screwed us so badly, we have no choice.

Immie

Again, the tax raises that I propose HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PUNISHMENT. "Punishment" is something that occurs after someone has done something wrong. The rich haven't done something wrong. They just receive much more money than others do, because that's the way their business works out. And the tax system sorts it all out. You may now stop talking ridiculous.

The tax code is used as a means of backdoor legislation, to coerce behaviour that would be grossly unconstitutional if implemented as straightforward laws. It's used to reward friends and punish enemies by ambitious leaders looking to expand their power.

Some of the most creative works of art are produced by people who dislike taxes and talk about the tax code.

 

[dblack]

Nope. Wealth tax was advocated years ago by US Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

True - Bernie ran as an Independent but had openly declared himself to be a socialist. The Socialist Party was not recognized in Vermont at the time and the hurdles to get into the competition were lower for independents than for the creation of an entirely "new" party.

Yes. He did advocate it years ago and it was promptly laughed into oblivion. These days the prime advocate is President Hollande of France. He who instituted a 75% income tax on "the rich" but backed off when the majority of them departed and some renounced French citizenship entirely.

So what's wrong with a tax on wealth ? If you have an answer, let's hear it. And then I'll tell you what's right with it.

What's wrong is discriminatory taxation. It violates the fundamental concept of equal protection - the idea that we're all treated equally under the law. If it was merely a matter of taxing wealth, it wouldn't be a big deal. But that's not how it works. Income tax, combined with exemptions, incentives, deductions, and all the custom carve-outs Congress offers up to those who play along, amounts to a pervasive intrusion on our economic freedom.

 

[protectionist]

At some point the rich stop doing anything that makes more money. They might close businesses. They might just sit on property that should really be sold and generating capital gains taxation. But it takes a French president to come up with a "wealth tax" that takes a chunk of everything you have each year until it's all gone.

Nope. Wealth tax was advocated years ago by US Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

Right, one of your fellow socialist.

Whatever.

 

[protectionist]

So what's wrong with a tax on wealth ? If you have an answer, let's hear it. And then I'll tell you what's right with it.

Best you discover it for yourself.

Try a web search on keywords: "Goose" "Golden Egg".

Then read for comprehension. Sound each word out if you must. Or have someone read it to you. But do not allow anyone to explain it. You must find the meaning for your very own self.

Translation: No answer to give. Let us know if you come up with one.

 

[dblack]

Again, the tax raises that I propose HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PUNISHMENT. "Punishment" is something that occurs after someone has done something wrong. The rich haven't done something wrong. They just receive much more money than others do, because that's the way their business works out. And the tax system sorts it all out. You may now stop talking ridiculous.

The tax code is used as a means of backdoor legislation, to coerce behaviour that would be grossly unconstitutional if implemented as straightforward laws. It's used to reward friends and punish enemies by ambitious leaders looking to expand their power.

Some of the most creative works of art are produced by people who dislike taxes and talk about the tax code.

So, "I got nuthin"?

 

[HenryBHough]

Sorry your liberal education does not allow for reading comprehension. But thank you once again for proving that liberals don't wish to do anything for themselves. Idea: Send an e-mail to Your New Messiah - maybe he has a benefits program that might help.

 

[protectionist]

True - Bernie ran as an Independent but had openly declared himself to be a socialist. The Socialist Party was not recognized in Vermont at the time and the hurdles to get into the competition were lower for independents than for the creation of an entirely "new" party.

Yes. He did advocate it years ago and it was promptly laughed into oblivion. These days the prime advocate is President Hollande of France. He who instituted a 75% income tax on "the rich" but backed off when the majority of them departed and some renounced French citizenship entirely.

So what's wrong with a tax on wealth ? If you have an answer, let's hear it. And then I'll tell you what's right with it.

There is no justification for taxing one piece of property differently than another just because of where it fall in virtual stack. The millionth bill in the stack is worth no more or less than the first and they should be taxed the same.

Simply put. If somebody has vastly more wealth than they can even comprehend, and far more than they could ever need or use, the surplus is better used for things that are needed. These can vary by opinion of course. For me, I would put it to work eradicating illegal immigration, deporting the 8 million illegal aliens working in the US, and installing 8 million of the 10 million AMERICANS unemployed, into those jobs.

Note: if we stopped issuing work visas, the remaining 2 million unemployed AMERICANS could be put to work, reducing our unemployment to ZERO.

 

[OKTexas]

True - Bernie ran as an Independent but had openly declared himself to be a socialist. The Socialist Party was not recognized in Vermont at the time and the hurdles to get into the competition were lower for independents than for the creation of an entirely "new" party.

Yes. He did advocate it years ago and it was promptly laughed into oblivion. These days the prime advocate is President Hollande of France. He who instituted a 75% income tax on "the rich" but backed off when the majority of them departed and some renounced French citizenship entirely.

So what's wrong with a tax on wealth ? If you have an answer, let's hear it. And then I'll tell you what's right with it.

What's wrong is discriminatory taxation. It violates the fundamental concept of equal protection - the idea that we're all treated equally under the law. If it was merely a matter of taxing wealth, it wouldn't be a big deal. But that's not how it works. Income tax, combined with exemptions, incentives, deductions, and all the custom carve-outs Congress offers up to those who play along, amounts to a pervasive intrusion on our economic freedom.

It's called social engineering through the tax code, a system of carrots a sticks to get people to behave in a certain manner. Hike the tax rates then offer a discount if you only live the way we dictate, yep, land of the free.

 

[protectionist]

True - Bernie ran as an Independent but had openly declared himself to be a socialist. The Socialist Party was not recognized in Vermont at the time and the hurdles to get into the competition were lower for independents than for the creation of an entirely "new" party.

Yes. He did advocate it years ago and it was promptly laughed into oblivion. These days the prime advocate is President Hollande of France. He who instituted a 75% income tax on "the rich" but backed off when the majority of them departed and some renounced French citizenship entirely.

So what's wrong with a tax on wealth ? If you have an answer, let's hear it. And then I'll tell you what's right with it.

What's wrong is discriminatory taxation. It violates the fundamental concept of equal protection - the idea that we're all treated equally under the law. If it was merely a matter of taxing wealth, it wouldn't be a big deal. But that's not how it works. Income tax, combined with exemptions, incentives, deductions, and all the custom carve-outs Congress offers up to those who play along, amounts to a pervasive intrusion on our economic freedom.

EARTH TO DBLACK: Plenty of things are discriminatory, and properly so. We discriminate when we put people in prisons ( between law abiding and criminals). We discriminate when we choose who to go to war against, and who we don't. We discriminate on where we locate development (AKA Zoning). We discriminate on hundreds of things. What else is new ?

As far as the "custom carve-outs" are concerned, we get the govt that we ask or don't ask for.

1. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease."

2. "The only thing necessary for evil men to succeed is the good men do nothing."

 

[protectionist]

Sorry your liberal education does not allow for reading comprehension. But thank you once again for proving that liberals don't wish to do anything for themselves. Idea: Send an e-mail to Your New Messiah - maybe he has a benefits program that might help.

"Sorry" to spoil your fun, but I'm not a liberal. In fact, I've been called a super conservative.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/334662-obama-administration-the-muslim-brotherhood.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-...nvasion-of-the-united-states-1950-2012-a.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/321591-shouldn-t-islam-be-banned-in-the-usa.html

 

[OKTexas]

So what's wrong with a tax on wealth ? If you have an answer, let's hear it. And then I'll tell you what's right with it.

There is no justification for taxing one piece of property differently than another just because of where it fall in virtual stack. The millionth bill in the stack is worth no more or less than the first and they should be taxed the same.

Simply put. If somebody has vastly more wealth than they can even comprehend, and far more than they could ever need or use, the surplus is better used for things that are needed. These can vary by opinion of course. For me, I would put it to work eradicating illegal immigration, deporting the 8 million illegal aliens working in the US, and installing 8 million of the 10 million AMERICANS unemployed, into those jobs.

Note: if we stopped issuing work visas, the remaining 2 million unemployed AMERICANS could be put to work, reducing our unemployment to ZERO.

That has to be one of the most amazing displays of arrogance and ignorance I've seen displayed on these boards. Who the hell are you to decide someone has surplus property? And you did a great job evading my point on taxes, care to try again?

 

[protectionist]

So what's wrong with a tax on wealth ? If you have an answer, let's hear it. And then I'll tell you what's right with it.

What's wrong is discriminatory taxation. It violates the fundamental concept of equal protection - the idea that we're all treated equally under the law. If it was merely a matter of taxing wealth, it wouldn't be a big deal. But that's not how it works. Income tax, combined with exemptions, incentives, deductions, and all the custom carve-outs Congress offers up to those who play along, amounts to a pervasive intrusion on our economic freedom.

It's called social engineering through the tax code, a system of carrots a sticks to get people to behave in a certain manner. Hike the tax rates then offer a discount if you only live the way we dictate, yep, land of the free.

More creativity. This is as good as a visit to the Salvador Dali Museum.

 

[OKTexas]

Sorry your liberal education does not allow for reading comprehension. But thank you once again for proving that liberals don't wish to do anything for themselves. Idea: Send an e-mail to Your New Messiah - maybe he has a benefits program that might help.

"Sorry" to spoil your fun, but I'm not a liberal. In fact, I've been called a super conservative.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/334662-obama-administration-the-muslim-brotherhood.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-...nvasion-of-the-united-states-1950-2012-a.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/321591-shouldn-t-islam-be-banned-in-the-usa.html

By who, Hugo Chavez?

 

[protectionist]

There is no justification for taxing one piece of property differently than another just because of where it fall in virtual stack. The millionth bill in the stack is worth no more or less than the first and they should be taxed the same.

Simply put. If somebody has vastly more wealth than they can even comprehend, and far more than they could ever need or use, the surplus is better used for things that are needed. These can vary by opinion of course. For me, I would put it to work eradicating illegal immigration, deporting the 8 million illegal aliens working in the US, and installing 8 million of the 10 million AMERICANS unemployed, into those jobs.

Note: if we stopped issuing work visas, the remaining 2 million unemployed AMERICANS could be put to work, reducing our unemployment to ZERO.

That has to be one of the most amazing displays of arrogance and ignorance I've seen displayed on these boards. Who the hell are you to decide someone has surplus property? And you did a great job evading my point on taxes, care to try again?

I am a member and citizen of the USA, whose people decide how we will run our nation, not have some rich plutocrats tell us how it should be done, that's who I am.

And what point about taxes did you think I evaded ? Bring it on.

 

[protectionist]

Sorry your liberal education does not allow for reading comprehension. But thank you once again for proving that liberals don't wish to do anything for themselves. Idea: Send an e-mail to Your New Messiah - maybe he has a benefits program that might help.

"Sorry" to spoil your fun, but I'm not a liberal. In fact, I've been called a super conservative.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/334662-obama-administration-the-muslim-brotherhood.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-...nvasion-of-the-united-states-1950-2012-a.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/321591-shouldn-t-islam-be-banned-in-the-usa.html

By who, Hugo Chavez?

Didn't bother to click the links, right ? If you had, you wouldn't have to ask.

 

[OKTexas]

What's wrong is discriminatory taxation. It violates the fundamental concept of equal protection - the idea that we're all treated equally under the law. If it was merely a matter of taxing wealth, it wouldn't be a big deal. But that's not how it works. Income tax, combined with exemptions, incentives, deductions, and all the custom carve-outs Congress offers up to those who play along, amounts to a pervasive intrusion on our economic freedom.

It's called social engineering through the tax code, a system of carrots a sticks to get people to behave in a certain manner. Hike the tax rates then offer a discount if you only live the way we dictate, yep, land of the free.

More creativity. This is as good as a visit to the Salvador Dali Museum.

Whatever.