Jump to content

How wealth is distrubted


IsntLifeFunny

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Starkiller said:

Well you did word things poorly, but the fact that he could only attack you on that and not the substantive issues themselves is telling...

What part? Regular language? The premise it’s poorly worded over a technicality is laughable. Or you can cite examples unlike a guy named Todd. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Wealth inequality is the single greatest threat to our national security and to our way of life.  It's worth discussing, regardless of which side of the aisle you come from.  If I run into any Republi

Yes, wealth inequality is a big problem for many reasons. I personally don't think any able bodied person who wants to work and who contributes to society should have to struggle. Not just paying bill

Posted Images

54 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

What part? Regular language? The premise it’s poorly worded over a technicality is laughable. Or you can cite examples unlike a guy named Todd. 

The same guy that demands specifics, wants theories and thinks raising taxes on the wealthy is nothing more than revenge for success.  The whole thing is silly.  Why bother engaging with an economics major (his claim) who doesn't even understand supply-side/demand-side economics.  He wants me to break down why small businesses doing 80 billion worth of business and hiring 600,000 employees is better than Amazon doing 80,000 in business and hiring 60,000.

 

TDF thinks that any type of tax increase means the little guy is all of a sudden going to be paying 60% taxes and getting nothing in return.  1st, people get a ton of return for the taxes they pay in most of those countries and 2 no one has proposed a tax increase resembling anything close to that suggestion.  In fact, in my opinion, that would exacerbate the problem and not help things.

 

The guy making 60,000 a year needs to be making closer to 100,000 a year and the guy making 20 billion a year needs to be making closer to 10.  THAT is the crux of the argument.  Unfortunately, taxes seem to be the easiest way to do that short term but that has to go along with breaking up monopolies (we used to have anti-trust laws and for good reason), strengthening unions so that workers can leverage their production for better pay, and overhauling our education system so that we have a better-skilled workforce that can adapt to better jobs in the technology market.

 

Guys like Todd want to hurl around insults but the logic he's using is basic bitch simple and worse, he's completely wrong.  America is the richest country on earth but not for 70% of us.  For decades, America had the strongest middle class in the entire world.  By far.  That gap has closed and now we rank 6th in terms of median purchasing power.  Which means those other countries enjoy a higher quality of life for their citizens than the middle class in America does.  Most of those countries - Luxembourg, Norway, Sweeden, Australia, and Denmark have much lower income inequality.  Weird.  

 

People need to understand as well, that the proposals that are actually on the table (not the stupidity running around on 4chan and other places on the internet) involve raising payroll taxes on the ultra-wealthy, instituting capital-gains taxes, a warren buffet rule (which means if you make a million bucks a year, your tax rate needs to be at least 30%), and keeping the death tax for estates over 5 million.  Returning corporate tax rates to 25%.

 

These aren't crippling changes that turn us into a socialist country.  It's asking the ultra-rich to pay their fair share.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, The Toddster said:

So where's the theory that jacking up taxes on big companies and cutting them on small companies is a boon (your term) to the economy?  I mean, I love these random links to random things, but why can't you answer the simple question?  I mean, you're the guy pushing this idea -- why can't you explain it?

I thought after I read your first response you may have something interesting to say even though you were nitpicking and I saw the thread balloon. No such luck. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Toddster said:

Oh, yes.  Heard of them both and understand them both much better than you.  But neither suggest that taxing big companies/cutting breaks to smaller companies will be a boon to the economy.  

It’s pretty funny this is what you took from the OP. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, guys...guys let me tell you how it makes sense for the richest company in the world to get a tax return. 

 

Idiots: It isn’t them getting tax return, and we should definitely let these companies continue to be subsidized by the government. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Toddster said:

And, as we all know, demand-side economics was thought to work very well. Milton Friedman pointed out as early as the 1950s that there would be terrible long-run implications, such as high rates of inflation and unemployment, both of which demand-side economics were thought to be able to control.  Everyone laughed and laughed, and then the 1970s came, and we were introduced to high rates of unemployment and inflation AT THE SAME TIME, with the added bonus of high interest rates.  

 

And yet, here you are, trying to use your Google-Fu into convincing someone that it works.

Oh wow. This guy has never heard of Bretton Woods and the transition to the petrol dollar. 

Edited by IsntLifeFunny
Link to post
Share on other sites

It really is quite funny arguing with an idiot who has zero concept of how the FED works. Anyone who brings up inflation from the 70’s to back supply side economics is on the wrong side of the Dunning Kruger. 

Edited by IsntLifeFunny
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

What part? Regular language? The premise it’s poorly worded over a technicality is laughable. Or you can cite examples unlike a guy named Todd. 

For example, “Do you support Amazon getting a tax return?” I assume you meant something like getting a tax refund. Though even then I don’t think they got a refund, I would have said paying zero taxes. 

 

Or “Is it okay for Walmart to not pay income taxes while they purposely place their employees on Medicaid?” Unlike Amazon, Walmart does pay taxes. But you could have said “Is it okay for Walmart to pay their employees so little that the government has to subsidize them billions through Medicaid and food stamps?”

 

But as I said, he blew off the actual issues themselves, which is on him...

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Justafan said:

The same guy that demands specifics, wants theories and thinks raising taxes on the wealthy is nothing more than revenge for success.  The whole thing is silly.  Why bother engaging with an economics major (his claim) who doesn't even understand supply-side/demand-side economics.  He wants me to break down why small businesses doing 80 billion worth of business and hiring 600,000 employees is better than Amazon doing 80,000 in business and hiring 60,000.

 

TDF thinks that any type of tax increase means the little guy is all of a sudden going to be paying 60% taxes and getting nothing in return.  1st, people get a ton of return for the taxes they pay in most of those countries and 2 no one has proposed a tax increase resembling anything close to that suggestion.  In fact, in my opinion, that would exacerbate the problem and not help things.

 

The guy making 60,000 a year needs to be making closer to 100,000 a year and the guy making 20 billion a year needs to be making closer to 10.  THAT is the crux of the argument.  Unfortunately, taxes seem to be the easiest way to do that short term but that has to go along with breaking up monopolies (we used to have anti-trust laws and for good reason), strengthening unions so that workers can leverage their production for better pay, and overhauling our education system so that we have a better-skilled workforce that can adapt to better jobs in the technology market.

 

Guys like Todd want to hurl around insults but the logic he's using is basic bitch simple and worse, he's completely wrong.  America is the richest country on earth but not for 70% of us.  For decades, America had the strongest middle class in the entire world.  By far.  That gap has closed and now we rank 6th in terms of median purchasing power.  Which means those other countries enjoy a higher quality of life for their citizens than the middle class in America does.  Most of those countries - Luxembourg, Norway, Sweeden, Australia, and Denmark have much lower income inequality.  Weird.  

 

People need to understand as well, that the proposals that are actually on the table (not the stupidity running around on 4chan and other places on the internet) involve raising payroll taxes on the ultra-wealthy, instituting capital-gains taxes, a warren buffet rule (which means if you make a million bucks a year, your tax rate needs to be at least 30%), and keeping the death tax for estates over 5 million.  Returning corporate tax rates to 25%.

 

These aren't crippling changes that turn us into a socialist country.  It's asking the ultra-rich to pay their fair share.  

Why should someone's wealth be capped at $10 billion? Where does the $5 million cap on estates come from?

A fair share means everyone pays the same rate. So are you in favor of a flat tax? Or a consumption tax?

Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, LongTimeFan said:

Why should someone's wealth be capped at $10 billion? Where does the $5 million cap on estates come from?

A fair share means everyone pays the same rate. So are you in favor of a flat tax? Or a consumption tax?

1. He didn’t suggest a “cap” and those numbers are hypothetical. You’re misinterpreting his point or don’t understand the concept. He’s pointing out that if wealth in a country was structured correctly, the Uber rich would still be Uber rich.

 

2. Do you not know the historical exemptions of the Estate Tax? It was 5.49mill before the new tax code upped it to 11+ plus. He’s suggesting a logical return to the recent historical rate, roughly 5 million. 

 

3. Flat tax means Equal share based on percentage, not Fair Share. You’re misunderstanding the difference between the two. Fair share would imply what each person or family can realistically contribute to societal prosperity. For the poor, it may be very little. For the Uber rich, it may be a lot. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Soxcat said:

I'm all for a flat tax for individuals and business/corporations.  Make things as simple as you can when we file our tax returns.  Let people make all the money they want just tax them the same amount and that includes Social Security taxes which now have a maximum.  But here is the catch.  Whatever that flat amount is now becomes the amount the government has to spend.  And not a penny more.  So, tax everyone at 20% or whatever but then we are basically agreeing to run our government off that 20%.  Now everyone has a fair share of bitching when pork belly programs come into play.  We can fight over how that money is spent.  But we can't spend more. 

 

By the way that also means very few or no deductions.  As in there are no loop holes. 

 

On first thought, I would actually be in favor of a flat tax (for simplicity) if it came with a full tax exemption of any funds under the agreed upon National Poverty Line. 

 

If that poverty line is set at 25k (for example), then no American pays tax on that first 25k. If you want to make make more, then you pay flat tax on more money. 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Justafan said:

The same guy that demands specifics, wants theories and thinks raising taxes on the wealthy is nothing more than revenge for success.  The whole thing is silly.  Why bother engaging with an economics major (his claim) who doesn't even understand supply-side/demand-side economics.  He wants me to break down why small businesses doing 80 billion worth of business and hiring 600,000 employees is better than Amazon doing 80,000 in business and hiring 60,000.

 

TDF thinks that any type of tax increase means the little guy is all of a sudden going to be paying 60% taxes and getting nothing in return.  1st, people get a ton of return for the taxes they pay in most of those countries and 2 no one has proposed a tax increase resembling anything close to that suggestion.  In fact, in my opinion, that would exacerbate the problem and not help things.

 

The guy making 60,000 a year needs to be making closer to 100,000 a year and the guy making 20 billion a year needs to be making closer to 10.  THAT is the crux of the argument.  Unfortunately, taxes seem to be the easiest way to do that short term but that has to go along with breaking up monopolies (we used to have anti-trust laws and for good reason), strengthening unions so that workers can leverage their production for better pay, and overhauling our education system so that we have a better-skilled workforce that can adapt to better jobs in the technology market.

Hardly

What I've tried to point out, is that citizens in countries that offer more "free" stuff like health care and college and PTO and Family Leave, pay significantly higher taxes than you do.

Because bottom line, that shit isn't "free," it costs somebody their hard-earned cash.

This is unavoidable.  And politicians selling pie-in-the-sky social engineering plans don't care if the cost is hidden in the sales pitch, as long as more of your money paid in taxes passes through their hands first, so they can do with it as they please.  Sorry, but that's a universal truth.

Denmark didn't propose to their citizens that they pay a 56% tax rate overnight, they implemented it gradually.  The same will happen here if we don't talk about it and educate/remind people of how and why this happens.

 

So, are you willing to part with another 20 percentage points of your income, to get that "free" stuff? 

And have you calculated how much that would tally up to over a 40 year working career?

Do you think that's avoidable just because we have more people/citizens?  Or would that make it worse?

 

Or, do you insist on someone else paying for it just because they earn much more money than you?

Does the wealthy 50 y/o person without any children have an obligation to pay for your kids to attend college? 

To pay for the C-Section birth of your 3rd son? 

To pay for your wife's 6 months of maternity leave?

And if you think s/he does, why do you think that?  Because "they can afford it" but you can't? (never mind the question of why you're entitled to someone else's earnings)

How about the single moms in the poorer sections of town.  Are they entitled to your tax dollars to pay for the birth of their kids? Their college? Their maternity leave?

You make more money than they do after all.

 

Remember, Bernie is a full blown Socialist. (upper case S).  He doesn't care what it costs, because he's willing to implement any level of taxation to pay for it.  He's the guy that spent time in the Communist utopia that was the Soviet Union back in the '70s.  He sees nothing wrong with taking 80% of your wages, and doling it back out to you and whomever else in the form of government benefits/entitlements.

That's who those people were and a huge part of why they failed.

 

Maybe next we can discuss corporate and business taxes.  Taxes that corporations and businesses don't pay no matter how high the tax rate is.

They pass them on to the consumer in the price of their goods and services.  Higher taxes are just a pass-through.

And then we can talk about one of your pet peeves, the VAT tax, why it exists, sometimes at exorbitant rates even in places where the average income tax rate is 56%.  Like Denmark.

 

Because enough is never enough when you start handing out "free" stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Justafan said:

Explain your confusion over an incredibly simple concept and I’ll be more than happy to lay it all out for you when I get a chance.

I'm not confused.  I'm asking you to explain how you imagine that it would work.  But keep ducking and dodging if you feel the need.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...