Wealth Tax and Income redistribution

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,748
Role
Diaper Lover
i can understand it to an extent, the base idea is this. Why should the rich pay more then x amount (do note they have to pay taxes) more then they should have to to cover for people that do not help themselves or want to leech. While again this is worth talking about and maybe some think tanks on what that amount is, it has nothing to do with the progressive tax model. No matter what tax model you use, this will be an issue, therefor the 2 are unrelated. So you need 2 different discussions, one that talks about how much the rich should pay, and another about the tax model we use and why its fair or not.

As several of us talked about, including yourself, the idea the rich pay too much to cover people that do not help themselves is an invalid one as they do not pay enough because of the loop holes they exploit. This argument itself has nothing to do with funding people that want to leech off the system because yet again, no matter what amount you tax, no matter the system you use, this issue would exist and therefor have to be treated as different issues.

My only guess I can give for not following this kind of logic may have to do being around a strong right wing echo chamber, where it may be hard to see other points of view from being around one way of thinking.
I really think they need to put the progressive tax system in place because I don't believe people should be able to abuse loopholes just because they have enough money to be able to do so

If they aren't gonna pay a livable wage with Benefits they ought to pay it back and then some via the Progressive Tax System

With that and some clever restructuring I am sure we could start to get back on track as a Country
 
Messages
108
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Other
Get off the strawmans and we can have a cavil conversation..
You know, I can do this for you, lets pretend you only said this:
"Again you seemed to have missed the entire argument. Again the question is "is it fair to raise taxes on the wealthy?"

I think you are confused. Like I said, everyone gets taxed the same. If you make 50k a year, 9k a year, 500 million a year, WHATEVER you make, that first 9k DOES NOT GET TAXED. WHAT IN THE HELL does the stuff I omitted have to do with this concept? NO MATTER IF YOU HAVE A FLAT tax, regressive tax, so on, those taxes are going to fund social programs that you are trying to right wing fear monger.

"You say there are freeloaders on the top of the pile but they are the ones that supplying products that everyone buys and are only their because we put them there. "

You are twisting my words around, no saying this does not make your point of view stronger. What I was trying to say is, you are trying to hate on the poor so much saying they have to pay more money in taxes, why? Why do you want to tax the poor more and tax the rich less? Do you understand what I was trying to explain? You want to tax the people that can't afford to be taxed more, while people that can afford it less. Do you think taxing people into being homeless will magically make people to "work hard" ?

"The question is what do we do about it? Bernie's main campain point is to nationalize everything such as energy, and healthcare and then tax the rich to pay for it. This is projected to add another 30 trillion dollar's to national debt (on top of current spending) over 10 years or something like that and it just isn't feasible. And who is to say these big conpanies wont just pack up and leave? "

you see trump's ideas working? No they are not. You are also been misrepresenting Bernie this whole thread so I am not commenting on details here because of that. Also what do you mean big companies wont just pack up and leave? a lot been already.. wth is the point of stating this and what does this have to do with the progressive tax system? You are mixing concepts together and not making much sense anymore.

First you need step back and understand there are TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES being talked here

1. the progressive tax system, how to make it "fair" and what is "fair"
subpoint- people free loading social programs have nothing to do with the progressive tax system, get off that train of thought. It is a strawman.

2. The taxation on big businsses and how much we can tax them before they simply leave. Do you have an idea what the best rate is? the best ballance? All I see is slaming democrat views and promoting right wing propaganda.
Our drug problem is complicated but it isn't the biggest drain on taxes. It's only a small part of the spending we do for general welfare, and welfare spending isn't that big compared to spending on the military or infrastructure. Many of our social programs, such as our education system, are more a part of our infrastructure than general welfare.

Our real problem is that we have been spending more than what we've been earning as a nation for the last 40 years, resulting in increased borrowing which has increased the national debt to an unprecedented level. We have become addicted to borrowing from our children's future and from foreign governments. We should all bow to the east and thank the Chinese for the last tax cut we gave ourselves. The U.S. no longer has any ambition to sustain itself and is dependent on global welfare to pay it's expenses. Only it's not technically welfare. It's money we are borrowing with no intention of paying back.

I still say that, when it comes to fairness in taxes, the emphasis should be placed on that amount of disposable income an individual has, rather than total income.
Welfare and social security make up over 60% of the mandatory spending budget so I would say that they are indeed the biggest drain on taxes since they are totally bankrupt. This is because, like you said, we keep borrowing from them to pay for things we want now (more so in the case of ss).

When we switch over to discretionary spending then yeah we spend like 600 billion dollars on military which is like 57% of the budget or something. In this budget too however, we allot additional funds to welfare, housing, and education in addition to the money that has already been allocated to those areas in the mandatory spending budget. In total the welfare and social securtiy spending is around 1200 billion for 2018 just over double what we spend on our military. Now we still spend more than like the 9 other countries combined on it which is nuts and we seem to keep fighting unnecessary battles, but you have to look also on the fact that we provide a majority of the world its military assurances. For example the Scandinavian countires don't have to spend money on a military because they know the united states will defend them if need be and we already secure the shipping lanes. This is why Trump keeps getting mad at the European countries and is demanding they pay their share, but this is a whole new forign policy tangent.

Back to speaking on taxes, I believe that it is completely justified to argue that both the poor and rich can benefit from a progressive tax system. Like I argued before the poor often don't have to pay any taxes and a lot abuse they system just as much as the rich do, but do little to help society in comparison. This how the arguments are related and is arguably the main point. People keep wanting to raise taxes (especially on the rich) in order to keep funding or provide more welfare benifits. To say that these two things are unrelated makes little sense because the only reason we have to raise taxes is to pay for them. You can't argue that we need to raise taxes and close loopholes with out arguing where that money will go.

Making taxes only on disposable income would be difficult because its really easy to change your disposable income (especially on paper) to avoid paying taxes. Its because of this that the progressive tax system seems unfair because in the end the middle class is always the one that gets screwed over by not being poor enough for handouts, but not rich enough for crazy deductions. Thats the problem with the current tax system, there is an incentive on the lower end to not make more money because it will then be taxed and you will lose your benifits. On the higher end there are incentives to donate to charities for massive deductions, or there are incentives to relocate your business outside of the us because of simple fact of its cheaper. Big companies are not dumb and will always find away to minimize costs, which normally means we foot the bill.

I know a flat tax obviously wouldn't work but arguing a system where eveyone pays the same percent of income seems like it would be more fair right? Doent matter if your rich or poor everyone pays 10% and we get rid of the complicated deductions and credits that so many people abuse.

Something obviously needs to change because, like you said, we are running a crazy deficit that increases every year and we are now facing a low child population that will not be able to support the next generation of retirees. That matched with our terrible global standings with education, it paints a pretty grim picture.

(If anyone is interested a paper by Robert Gordon called the 6 headwinds against economic growth is a good read that addresses a lot of these issues.)
 
Last edited:

CutePrincess

Contributor
Messages
2,440
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
I really think they need to put the progressive tax system in place because I don't believe people should be able to abuse loopholes just because they have enough money to be able to do so

If they aren't gonna pay a livable wage with Benefits they ought to pay it back and then some via the Progressive Tax System

With that and some clever restructuring I am sure we could start to get back on track as a Country
We have a progressive tax system, I was explaining how berine is adding to it with the weath tax and how it is not simply, OH you get 80% of your income in taxes because you have 35 million, this is what some here sounded like so I had to explain the system in detail so we could get a reasonable discussion.
I know a flat tax obviously wouldn't work but arguing a system where eveyone pays the same percent of income seems like it would be more fair right? Doent matter if your rich or poor everyone pays 10% and we get rid of the complicated deductions and credits that so many people abuse.
No it is not more fair, I explained this several times why. A flat tax benefits the wealthy, dropping what they pay, and makes the poor pay more. You are basically making a comment that THIS:
I point this video to you again at this time stamp:
even though some of his income is taxed at the 28% rate, if you compare what he made vs what was taken out, the effective tax rate was 20.98%

As I said several times, that you keep ignoring, if you had a flat tax rate, you are ether making it so high that the poor cant afford it, like 36% of 9000 is 3240, how you expect someone to live off of 5760? Or you are making it too low where the country can't get the revenue it needs and just making the rich , richer. Do you understand the problems with the flat tax rate now? The video even said someone tries to come out and propose a flat tax system that ends up never happening because it DOES NOT WORK. its not a "FRESH" idea because it is some revolutionary idea that we do not do it. We do not do it because it is not effective after you really look deep in the matter. Simple is not the best system in this case. He then also goes with a number that was propsoed before, 18% flat tax, again the poorer sees their taxes go up, while the upper class taxes go down (though that 100k example I would ague is middle class)
responded to already. I do not understand why you keep repeating the same thing, causing me to repeat the same thing to refute it.
Back to speaking on taxes, I believe that it is completely justified to argue that both the poor and rich can benefit from a progressive tax system. Like I argued before the poor often don't have to pay any taxes and a lot abuse they system just as much as the rich do, but do little to help society in comparison. This how the arguments are related and is arguably the main point. People keep wanting to raise taxes (especially on the rich) in order to keep funding or provide more welfare benifits. To say that these two things are unrelated makes little sense because the only reason we have to raise taxes is to pay for them. You can't argue that we need to raise taxes and close loopholes with out arguing where that money will go.
So what are you saying? we let the rich not pay taxes because you do not like where some of it is going? To me this also sounds like your trying to say, poor needs to be taxed more because they do not contribute to society much?

I was talking how USING the progressive tax system vs other systems where it is not an argument against the progressive tax system because of free loaders. a flat tax system or anything else you want to come up with is not going to prevent it, that is a different issue, where the money goes is a different issue.
Welfare and social security make up over 60% of the mandatory spending budget
right wing propaganda:
718/1296=.55
55% of the budget is nat defense, please look up information before blindly repeating propaganda.
 
Last edited:

KawaiiBabyjenni

Est. Contributor
Messages
397
Role
Adult Baby
Ask yourself this. Why should an average American pay approximately 1/3rd of their total income to income taxes when the average billionaire pays less than 1% of theirs?
 

CutePrincess

Contributor
Messages
2,440
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Ask yourself this. Why should an average American pay approximately 1/3rd of their total income to income taxes when the average billionaire pays less than 1% of theirs?
this is why we have the progressive tax system, god way to reword things
 

daddyconnor

Est. Contributor
Messages
357
Role
Carer
The real problem is the lies people are told about how wealth is actually accrued most of the time. They are given bad financial management advice and misinformation. They are taught the "participation trophy/A for effort" methodology that isn't even remotely how the world works.

They are also taught lies about rich people not deserving all their money. Or how CEOs are over paid. All because the number one factor and how much money you make is that you only make the value that you bring. Getting a raise because you been at a company for 10 years is not a reason to get a raise. Adding something tangible to their bottom line above and beyond what peers at your organization do is reason for a raise and financial reward.

I also love the far left politicians that have 3 homes and millions of dollars but blame the rich for all of societies problems.

Our societie also doesn't teach people the importance of personal responsibility.Your life is only going to be as good and successful is the life choices that you make. I own the bar and night club and I would frequently hear the blue collar workers complaining that they didn't have money to buy their kids school supplies. Never mind that they spent $100 a week in my bar between gambling alcohol cigarettes and food.

Much of poverty is self inflicted. It's unpopular to say because people don't like being told the truth. Not everyone needs to go to college. Not everyone is built for certain types of work. So we have people being told any college degree will instantly equate to a job paying $50k to start. And thats all just lies told to keep the bullshit college departments in business. No... you probably aren't going to get a job with your major in contemporary folk art, gender studies, or art history. Those typically require advanced degrees to be able to make anything modest.

I know though, "stem" is tough and thats why there is votec school... spend 6 months to a year learning a trade and how to make real money without the mountain of debt.

Idiots go to a $50k a year liberal arts college, spend 4 years and $200k to get a job that pays $35k a year?!!

To those companies, entities and organizations that prey upon the uniformed, exploit people, or use trickery to swindle people out of money... i'm all for tackling their leadership and dismantling every ill gotten gain from their portfolios.

To the people who are victims of unforeseeable circumstances or who are disabled, i have no problem paying taxes to help them out. I have no problem investing in providing a hand up to break the cycle of poverty.

But for those who are poor because of bad personal life choices... nah go screw yourselves. Got too many kids, use birth control so you dont make the problem worse. Go to community college for the first 60 hours of college and then a state school or other affordable option. Don't buy a new car, don't eat out every other meal, and for the sake of sanity do not use credit cards as a 28% interest loan system.

A parting thought, California's wealthy top 1% pay around 80% of all the bills in that state. California is facing a crisis now because the supervwealthy are leaving the state for places like Texas with lower costs of living and zero personal state income tax. It simply doesn't work to try to force the rich to do anything. They will just leave the table when they feel the demands are unreasonable. Just like they are doing in California.
 
Last edited:

daddyconnor

Est. Contributor
Messages
357
Role
Carer
Here is a fun thought, should you be forced to pay more for the same meal at a restaurant just because you can afford to pay more than the next person?

In my book, hellz nahz. But we try that same crap with the rich in terms of charging them more for the same services as everyone else gets for free or a miniscule fraction of what they are expected to pay.

Sure the millionaires pay a lower percentage... 1% of a billion is still 10 million in taxes. While the typical American pays $10k. We forget that the 1% is still pay 1000x what than everyone else pays.
 
Messages
108
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Other
We have a progressive tax system, I was explaining how berine is adding to it with the weath tax and how it is not simply, OH you get 80% of your income in taxes because you have 35 million, this is what some here sounded like so I had to explain the system in detail so we could get a reasonable discussion.

No it is not more fair, I explained this several times why. A flat tax benefits the wealthy, dropping what they pay, and makes the poor pay more. You are basically making a comment that THIS:

responded to already. I do not understand why you keep repeating the same thing, causing me to repeat the same thing to refute it.

So what are you saying? we let the rich not pay taxes because you do not like where some of it is going? To me this also sounds like your trying to say, poor needs to be taxed more because they do not contribute to society much?

I was talking how USING the progressive tax system vs other systems where it is not an argument against the progressive tax system because of free loaders. a flat tax system or anything else you want to come up with is not going to prevent it, that is a different issue, where the money goes is a different issue.

right wing propaganda:
718/1296=.55
55% of the budget is nat defense, please look up information before blindly repeating propaganda.
You clearly don't understand the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending... while it's true that military makes up 55% of discretionary, defense is only 16% of mandatory spending. Again you have either failed to read the post or just don't understand the argument presented.
You completly ignore things you can't make an argument for and call anything you dislike "right wing propaganda." This not healthy for any debate and notice that a majority of this discussion is not about politics but is about money, yet you seem compelled to make it so.

You seem so keen on taxing the rich becsuse they have money but fail to realize that the poor have just as many loopholes and ways to avoid taxes. The whole basis is should eveyone have to pay their fair share and is adding taxes specifically to the rich justified when it supports failing systems such as welfare?

The entire question I posted, minus tangents, is the idea going around that we must tax the rich to solve our problems. This is happening while a vast majority of issues are still happening on the lower ends of the tax brackets. You don't see anyone campaigning to reduce welfare checks or cut benifits because it is political suicide and "free stuff from taxing the rich" sounds so much better.

The easiest example to see this on is the college debt forgiveness idea. Why should we raise taxes to pay for other people's college loans? Is it fair to force someone to pay for another's lifestyle choice? How do you defend this idea?

As to the flat tax idea that you are so stuck on, I have said multiple times that a flat tax wouldnt work and I am not advocating for a flat tax. The theory behind it however sounds better than our current system with deductions and credits where people are able to escape paying a fair share. Why should someone with 5 kids for example get to pay 10k less in taxes than someone with no kids? Or why should a college student get to deduct tuition where a plumber does not get any such benefit?

And yes to a point rich people obviously contribute more to society than poor people. Whether it be donations, jobs, products, or services, they are providing something in return for the money they receive. Some (meaning not all) poor people on the other hand, just live off the system and do not contribute anything yet benifit from eveyone elses taxes. I.e. 911 systems, roadways, public schooling etc.
 
Last edited:
Messages
108
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Other
The real problem is the lies people are told about how wealth is actually accrued most of the time. They are given bad financial management advice and misinformation. They are taught the "participation trophy/A for effort" methodology that isn't even remotely how the world works.

They are also taught lies about rich people not deserving all their money. Or how CEOs are over paid. All because the number one factor and how much money you make is that you only make the value that you bring. Getting a raise because you been at a company for 10 years is not a reason to get a raise. Adding something tangible to their bottom line above and beyond what peers at your organization do is reason for a raise and financial reward.

I also love the far left politicians that have 3 homes and millions of dollars but blame the rich for all of societies problems.

Our societie also doesn't teach people the importance of personal responsibility.Your life is only going to be as good and successful is the life choices that you make. I own the bar and night club and I would frequently hear the blue collar workers complaining that they didn't have money to buy their kids school supplies. Never mind that they spent $100 a week in my bar between gambling alcohol cigarettes and food.

Much of poverty is self inflicted. It's unpopular to say because people don't like being told the truth. Not everyone needs to go to college. Not everyone is built for certain types of work. So we have people being told any college degree will instantly equate to a job paying $50k to start. And thats all just lies told to keep the bullshit college departments in business. No... you probably aren't going to get a job with your major in contemporary folk art, gender studies, or art history. Those typically require advanced degrees to be able to make anything modest.

I know though, "stem" is tough and thats why there is votec school... spend 6 months to a year learning a trade and how to make real money without the mountain of debt.

Idiots go to a $50k a year liberal arts college, spend 4 years and $200k to get a job that pays $35k a year?!!

To those companies, entities and organizations that prey upon the uniformed, exploit people, or use trickery to swindle people out of money... i'm all for tackling their leadership and dismantling every ill gotten gain from their portfolios.

To the people who are victims of unforeseeable circumstances or who are disabled, i have no problem paying taxes to help them out. I have no problem investing in providing a hand up to break the cycle of poverty.

But for those who are poor because of bad personal life choices... nah go screw yourselves. Got too many kids, use birth control so you dont make the problem worse. Go to community college for the first 60 hours of college and then a state school or other affordable option. Don't buy a new car, don't eat out every other meal, and for the sake of sanity do not use credit cards as a 28% interest loan system.

A parting thought, California's wealthy top 1% pay around 80% of all the bills in that state. California is facing a crisis now because the supervwealthy are leaving the state for places like Texas with lower costs of living and zero personal state income tax. It simply doesn't work to try to force the rich to do anything. They will just leave the table when they feel the demands are unreasonable. Just like they are doing in California.
Exactly! Money management is a thing that so many people just can't seem to wrap their heads around. It's honestly not hard to make a decent living, but it does take time, planninng, and good financial decisions. It seems that a lot of people today feel they should just receive everything for free because they deserve it? Or because they want it and it's unfair that some people have it they don't?
 

CutePrincess

Contributor
Messages
2,440
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
You clearly don't understand the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending... while it sand true that military makes up 55% of discretionary, defense is only 16% of mandatory spending. Again you have either failed to read the post or just don't understand the argument presented.
You completly ignore things
You are the one "completely" ignore things. Did you see the sources I gave to you? I see none from you. You are stating right wing propaganda, maybe you do not realize it but that is what you are doing. I gave a link to the white house government pdif, I do not see you showing references for this "discretionary, defense is only 16% of mandatory spending. Again you have either failed to read the post or just don't understand the argument presented. "

I am not the one "failing" here, if you can't show sources with your argument, that is on you, not me.

Also talking about taxes is politics, I have no clue how and why you are twitting things around.

"You seem so keen on taxing the rich becsuse they have money but fail to realize that the poor have just as many loopholes and ways to avoid taxes. The whole basis is should eveyone have to pay their fair share and is adding taxes specifically to the rich justified when it supports failing systems such as welfare? "

STRAWMAN !! I told you several times not to stop this. Not only that you are putting words in my mouth with this "You seem so keen on taxing the rich because they have money" If you are going to be this aggressive, I can return the favor, you seem to be so keen on taxing the poor because they do not benefit as much to society, why? So what is your solution? let everyone starve?

Here is why this is a blantant stawman, you put up an agurment for something I never stated and twisting my words to something that it isnt. I keep repeating over and over and I have to do this yet again, keep the ideas of a progressive tax system, why it is good and bad, away from "poor are leeching" me explaining how the progressive tax system works has nothing to do with "You seem so keen on taxing the rich because they have money" You are not addressing the basic core concepts I am trying to get you understand, you are adding things to make it more complex then what I am trying to get across and confusing things.

"As to the flat tax idea that you are so stuck on, I have said multiple times that a flat tax wouldnt work and I am not advocating for a flat tax. The theory behind it however sounds better than our current system with deductions and credits where people are able to escape paying a fair share. Why should someone with 5 kids for example get to pay 10k less in taxes than someone with no kids? Or why should a college student get to deduct tuition where a plumber does not get any such benefit? "

I know, you are basically saying "I am not advocating for a flat tax, but a flat tax sounds fair so a flat tax is better then a progressive system" If you do not mean this, you really need to get across your thoughts better because I got no clue what you are trying to say otherwise. I already explained time and time again why the progressive tax system is the most fair system we have and why I fully support it.

For the last part... really? you REALLY asked this and TELL ME~!!! I am not the one understanding things? did you ever think... MAYBE.. JUST MAYBE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! having 5 kids COSTS MORE to deal with then LIVING ALONE?!?!!?!?!? or the fact maybe someone just coming out of collage trying to get a job and get situated needs some breaks? It is a lot easier to maintain your house, etc after having it, then trying to start out. Do you play video games at all? this is reflected there as well. Or even the concept of friction and motion, easier keep an object moving then it is to start it to move.

"And yes to a point rich people obviously contribute more to society than poor people. Whether it be donations, jobs, products, or services, they are providing something in return for the money they receive. Some, not all, poor people on the other hand, just live off the system and do not contribute anything yet benifit from eveyone elses taxes. I.e. 911 systems, roadways, public schooling etc. "

so you want to tax them more then the rich because "do not contribute anything" you want the rich not to be taxed nothing because "do not contribute anything yet benifit from eveyone elses taxes"?
 

CutePrincess

Contributor
Messages
2,440
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Exactly! Money management is a thing that so many people just can't seem to wrap their heads around. It's honestly not hard to make a decent living, but it does take time, planninng, and good financial decisions. It seems that a lot of people today feel they should just receive everything for free because they deserve it? Or because they want it and it's unfair that some people have it they don't?
I really wish I can respond to this......
"It's honestly not hard to make a decent living"
you called me "naive" earlier on something, but the tables are reversed here. physical disabilities are a thing, mental disabilities are a thing also.. something you ignored:
How much did you research? what you think is wrong. Did you know concpts exist such as keeping poor areas poor due to a feedback loop of "we fund these schools in porpotion of the area" so you have pockets of poor naberhoods, and because of poor schooling, it is hard for the future generations to break out of it. IT DOES happen, but because it is harder, it acts like a fitler, deyng people sucess for no reason other then what they are born into. Take this vs trump. Trump is not smart, he did not get his wealth being smart. He got born into it, couched by daddy and front loaded by daddy and even when he failed daddy picked him up several times using bankruptcy laws and such. This isn't jealously, this is knowing how the world works.
 

CutePrincess

Contributor
Messages
2,440
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Can we go back and review this point please?
Get off the strawmans and we can have a cavil conversation..
You know, I can do this for you, lets pretend you only said this:
"Again you seemed to have missed the entire argument. Again the question is "is it fair to raise taxes on the wealthy?"

I think you are confused. Like I said, everyone gets taxed the same. If you make 50k a year, 9k a year, 500 million a year, WHATEVER you make, that first 9k DOES NOT GET TAXED. WHAT IN THE HELL does the stuff I omitted have to do with this concept? NO MATTER IF YOU HAVE A FLAT tax, regressive tax, so on, those taxes are going to fund social programs that you are trying to right wing fear monger.

Let me reword your question on what I think you mean:
"Why should the rich have increasing tax amount brackets?"

I explained this, if we kept the income we currently have, we would need around a 37% flat tax, and that is too much. So to offset this, the lower ends are smaller then this, then the upper brackets are bigger to make up for that. If you are making so much where you can give away 99.9% of your money and still have more then 50-80% of the population, you are able to cover a bit more taxes in those higher brackets. The taxes you pay goes into nat defense, social retirement... etc etc.. police fire .. etc.. someone needs to pay for all this, and the poor can't afford to.
I need you be clear what exactly you are saying, I never seen a confirmation if you where talking about each bracket specifically or the concept of it or the issue in regards to this.

What I am asking is for you to drop the whole idea there is people leeching off wellfare and other things and look at the basic concepts and go from there.

You are in agreement we need police, nat defense, and other basic public goods right? So how do you propose we as a county pay for those? you seem to dislike seeing people using goods and services that are not equially paid for, i/e the poor pay less into it then the rich do... but can you explain what you expect to get people to pay in all equially? We do not even put the same "value" on different tallants, so I got no idea what you expect from the public in general.
 

CutePrincess

Contributor
Messages
2,440
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
The real problem is the lies people are told about how wealth is actually accrued most of the time. They are given bad financial management advice and misinformation. They are taught the "participation trophy/A for effort" methodology that isn't even remotely how the world works.
sighs... I really dislike passive/ aggressive attacks to the " Millennial Trophies "
They are also taught lies about rich people not deserving all their money. Or how CEOs are over paid. All because the number one factor and how much money you make is that you only make the value that you bring. Getting a raise because you been at a company for 10 years is not a reason to get a raise. Adding something tangible to their bottom line above and beyond what peers at your organization do is reason for a raise and financial reward.
Who is "they" ? who is doing the teaching of these "lies"? who is making these lies? What does any of this have to do with amazon not paying anything in taxes by exploiting loopholes? You are also assuming everyone that goes above and beyond gets a raise, what about all those cases people get laid off just because the cooperiation wants to show bigger profit margens to the shareholders? Again I have to ask, what does this have to do with amazon not paying anything in taxes or making sure they pay a fair share to help keep our public services up and running.

I also love the far left politicians that have 3 homes and millions of dollars but blame the rich for all of societies problems.
I love it when far right politicians and supporters like to attack the person trying to say something rather then the issue itself.

Much of poverty is self inflicted. It's unpopular to say because people don't like being told the truth. Not everyone needs to go to college. Not everyone is built for certain types of work. So we have people being told any college degree will instantly equate to a job paying $50k to start. And thats all just lies told to keep the bullshit college departments in business. No... you probably aren't going to get a job with your major in contemporary folk art, gender studies, or art history. Those typically require advanced degrees to be able to make anything modest.

I know though, "stem" is tough and thats why there is votec school... spend 6 months to a year learning a trade and how to make real money without the mountain of debt.

Idiots go to a $50k a year liberal arts college, spend 4 years and $200k to get a job that pays $35k a year?!!
Source? again what does this have to do with amazon and other situations like it getting out of paying taxes? How can you say "Much of poverty is self inflicted" what is "much?" how do you know this? where does this come from? How common is the poverty cycle that you said you are willing to help out on? Why are we talking about this when this started out with azmaon not paying anything in taxes?

I own the bar and night club and I would frequently hear the blue collar workers complaining that they didn't have money to buy their kids school supplies. Never mind that they spent $100 a week in my bar between gambling alcohol cigarettes and food.
Are you taking what they say out of context? saying they shouldn't be charging 100 dollars for a book is a lot different then "didn't have money to buy their kids school supplies"
But for those who are poor because of bad personal life choices... nah go screw yourselves. Got too many kids, use birth control so you dont make the problem worse. Go to community college for the first 60 hours of college and then a state school or other affordable option. Don't buy a new car, don't eat out every other meal, and for the sake of sanity do not use credit cards as a 28% interest loan system.
You assume too much and to sit and read you think everyone fits this situation is very insulting. Yes that fits some, no it does not fit everyone that has a bad outcome linked to financial income.
A parting thought, California's wealthy top 1% pay around 80% of all the bills in that state. California is facing a crisis now because the supervwealthy are leaving the state for places like Texas with lower costs of living and zero personal state income tax. It simply doesn't work to try to force the rich to do anything. They will just leave the table when they feel the demands are unreasonable. Just like they are doing in California.
There is a thing called supply and demand, if texas is making living too cheap they will move there. But I can sympathise the general idea here. Yes them moving elsewhere if we demand too much tax is an issue but.... as explained on the first page, a lot of the wealthy get out of paying taxes due to loopholes and such.... so how can you come here and defend people not paying their fair share?
Here is a fun thought, should you be forced to pay more for the same meal at a restaurant just because you can afford to pay more than the next person?

In my book, hellz nahz. But we try that same crap with the rich in terms of charging them more for the same services as everyone else gets for free or a miniscule fraction of what they are expected to pay.

Sure the millionaires pay a lower percentage... 1% of a billion is still 10 million in taxes. While the typical American pays $10k. We forget that the 1% is still pay 1000x what than everyone else pays.
and yet it was proven how companies pay ZERO IN TAXES using LOOPHOLES!!!
 
Last edited:

PCPilot

Contributor
Messages
266
Role
Diaper Lover
Ask yourself this. Why should an average American pay approximately 1/3rd of their total income to income taxes when the average billionaire pays less than 1% of theirs?
I'd love to see some justification for this assertion. In my state, the median household income is $56,000. For a married couple that means that taxable income is $32,000 ($24k standard deduction). That means a federal tax liability of $3452 before any credits or above the line deductions. Add another 8% for FICA (SS/Medicare) and you're only looking at 14%. If that couple has two children, they have a zero federal tax liability.
 
Messages
108
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Other
You are the one "completely" ignore things. Did you see the sources I gave to you? I see none from you. You are stating right wing propaganda, maybe you do not realize it but that is what you are doing. I gave a link to the white house government pdif, I do not see you showing references for this "discretionary, defense is only 16% of mandatory spending. Again you have either failed to read the post or just don't understand the argument presented. "

I am not the one "failing" here, if you can't show sources with your argument, that is on you, not me.

Also talking about taxes is politics, I have no clue how and why you are twitting things around.

"You seem so keen on taxing the rich becsuse they have money but fail to realize that the poor have just as many loopholes and ways to avoid taxes. The whole basis is should eveyone have to pay their fair share and is adding taxes specifically to the rich justified when it supports failing systems such as welfare? "

STRAWMAN !! I told you several times not to stop this. Not only that you are putting words in my mouth with this "You seem so keen on taxing the rich because they have money" If you are going to be this aggressive, I can return the favor, you seem to be so keen on taxing the poor because they do not benefit as much to society, why? So what is your solution? let everyone starve?

Here is why this is a blantant stawman, you put up an agurment for something I never stated and twisting my words to something that it isnt. I keep repeating over and over and I have to do this yet again, keep the ideas of a progressive tax system, why it is good and bad, away from "poor are leeching" me explaining how the progressive tax system works has nothing to do with "You seem so keen on taxing the rich because they have money" You are not addressing the basic core concepts I am trying to get you understand, you are adding things to make it more complex then what I am trying to get across and confusing things.

"As to the flat tax idea that you are so stuck on, I have said multiple times that a flat tax wouldnt work and I am not advocating for a flat tax. The theory behind it however sounds better than our current system with deductions and credits where people are able to escape paying a fair share. Why should someone with 5 kids for example get to pay 10k less in taxes than someone with no kids? Or why should a college student get to deduct tuition where a plumber does not get any such benefit? "

I know, you are basically saying "I am not advocating for a flat tax, but a flat tax sounds fair so a flat tax is better then a progressive system" If you do not mean this, you really need to get across your thoughts better because I got no clue what you are trying to say otherwise. I already explained time and time again why the progressive tax system is the most fair system we have and why I fully support it.

For the last part... really? you REALLY asked this and TELL ME~!!! I am not the one understanding things? did you ever think... MAYBE.. JUST MAYBE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! having 5 kids COSTS MORE to deal with then LIVING ALONE?!?!!?!?!? or the fact maybe someone just coming out of collage trying to get a job and get situated needs some breaks? It is a lot easier to maintain your house, etc after having it, then trying to start out. Do you play video games at all? this is reflected there as well. Or even the concept of friction and motion, easier keep an object moving then it is to start it to move.

"And yes to a point rich people obviously contribute more to society than poor people. Whether it be donations, jobs, products, or services, they are providing something in return for the money they receive. Some, not all, poor people on the other hand, just live off the system and do not contribute anything yet benifit from eveyone elses taxes. I.e. 911 systems, roadways, public schooling etc. "

so you want to tax them more then the rich because "do not contribute anything" you want the rich not to be taxed nothing because "do not contribute anything yet benifit from eveyone elses taxes"?
Please answer this question as it is the basic mentality I am arguing against. You have avoided it thus far in multiple posts.

There is an idea being brought up by several people (Bernie included) that we should pay off the american student loan debt. In order to do this we would have no choice but to raise taxes in order to pay for it. Is this fair? Should someone be forced at gun point to pay off someone else's college debt? Should the people that didn't go to college be forced to do so? What about those that saved up for college while others partied and those that have already paid off their loans? Should they have to now pay off someone else's loans?

This is the mentality that doesn't make any sense to me, yet is one of the main talking points as to why we need to raise taxes please explain how this makes sense?
 
Last edited:

PCPilot

Contributor
Messages
266
Role
Diaper Lover
You seem so keen on taxing the rich becsuse they have money but fail to realize that the poor have just as many loopholes and ways to avoid taxes.
By and large, they do not. The bulk of their tax burden is taxes that are impossible to work around, namely consumption (sales) taxes and payroll taxes. It's easy to significantly reduce your tax burden if you have an extra $50k to shift into certain ways. When your surplus is $50, it's a LOT harder. What loopholes do you feel the poor have?

You don't see anyone campaigning to reduce welfare checks or cut benifits because it is political suicide and "free stuff from taxing the rich" sounds so much better.
We aren't pushing to cut welfare and food stamps because they're at a basic "don't die" level. Find out what the SNAP level is for your household size and try and feed yourself on that budget for a month. You'll be amazed. It's $20 a day for a family of four. There's no steak and caviar in that budget.

The easiest example to see this on is the college debt forgiveness idea. Why should we raise taxes to pay for other people's college loans? Is it fair to force someone to pay for another's lifestyle choice? How do you defend this idea?
We already subsidize loans by making them non-dischargable in bankruptcy. That's a giant hidden subsidy to higher education institutions.

But an educated population is a public good - it's why in a more enlightened age our governments founded many public universities and encouraged people after the war to attend. We require university or community college for many successful careers; it's no different than high school or elementary school. Do you complain about your neighbors' "lifestyle choices" when they decide to send their kids to kindergarten?

Some (meaning not all) poor people on the other hand, just live off the system and do not contribute anything yet benifit from eveyone elses taxes. I.e. 911 systems, roadways, public schooling etc.
Oh, you mean like senior citizens? They contribute to little to nothing and get a retirement and socialist healthcare subsidized by our tax dollars, way in excess of their actual contributions!
 

CutePrincess

Contributor
Messages
2,440
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Please answer this question as it is the basic mentality I am arguing against. You have avoided it thus far in multiple posts.
This applies to you, answer my questions first and ill move on to yours. You been ignoring me this WHOLE TIME. These issues make no sense to you because you want to ignore what is said. Stop ignoring ideas and cherry picking just because you disagree with them/ do not understand. ALL my posts so far was me explaining how you are not listening/ understanding/ ignoring everything I say, expect you backed off on the idea of a flat tax slightly, and even after asking what you meant by that, you ignore me further for that clarification.

Like your "made up facts" on the nat budget. You ignoring what I had to say after the "while it sand true that military makes up 55% of discretionary, defense is only 16% of mandatory spending" do you ignore this because it proves you wrong so you hope I forget about it by moving to something else?

I do not play the game of falling for strawman trap barrage till I give up. I will contiue be here, proving your disinformation as incorrect. I am a bit irrtated as well to see this route of my words keep getting twisted with my point ignored. Are you able to see that? are you able to see how irritating this thread was for me since the start? I am not saying it is properganda for the sake of it, I am saying it because it is propaganda. You ingoring how big companies do not pay taxes because of loopholes is propaganda.
I'd love to see some justification for this assertion. In my state, the median household income is $56,000. For a married couple that means that taxable income is $32,000 ($24k standard deduction). That means a federal tax liability of $3452 before any credits or above the line deductions. Add another 8% for FICA (SS/Medicare) and you're only looking at 14%. If that couple has two children, they have a zero federal tax liability.
it was an over exaggeration to dismiss the flat tax/ideas to increase tax to poor because for whatever reason people think the rich paying zero dollars in taxes is too much, it was not a notion that is our current reality.
 
Last edited:

PCPilot

Contributor
Messages
266
Role
Diaper Lover
for whatever reason people think the rich paying zero dollars in taxes is too much, it was not a notion that is our current reality.
So, I'll address the other side of the coin. Let's say you have an income of $1m in 2019. Outside of a magical Roth IRA/401k that had a million dollars, how would you structure that income so that you had zero tax liability, either under the standard tax code or AMT?
 

CutePrincess

Contributor
Messages
2,440
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
So, I'll address the other side of the coin. Let's say you have an income of $1m in 2019. Outside of a magical Roth IRA/401k that had a million dollars, how would you structure that income so that you had zero tax liability, either under the standard tax code or AMT?
Why are you asking me this? I am tried of getting ignored and going though strawman after strawman , never answering/ addressing the ordinal point. The start of the thread was using amazon as an example on how this big cooperation should not have the duty to be taxed x amount (this amount was never explained) because there is some people that abuse wellfare.

Then it was pointed out how amzaon and others pay ZERO dollars in taxes because of loopholes and I keep being pushed back to "we should not tax the rich because the poor take advantage of the system" Also your question to my post does not show full understanding on why that post was made in the first place, i am getting tired of going off tangents to try trap me in some way. WHY are you asking me this? my answer is whatever the current progressive tax system says to do.
 

PCPilot

Contributor
Messages
266
Role
Diaper Lover
Why are you asking me this?
Sorry, just addressing a statement of yours.

my answer is whatever the current progressive tax system says to do.
I'm a little late to the thread, but you're aware that corporate taxation is completely different than individual? To be honest, I wouldn't mind if corporations paid no "income tax". It's far easier and better (and fairer) to tax the money when the corporation spends it.
 
Top