All This Talk About Taxes

[dukeanthony]

it would be about the same, as almost all of the spending was in place before he got there.

you can credit him with $787 billion, most of which ended up in our pockets as tax breaks.

You are Forgetting about a lot of that 787 billion other than the tax breaks
-Wasnt spent
- was loans that got paid back
-was money that was going to be spent anyways and just fell under the economic stimulus

WWW.RECOVERY.GOV

 

[Charlie Ventura]

The debt is a measurement of how much more we spend than we tax, not just a measurement of how much we spend. The fact is that we spend less than most countries, but we also tax less two, especially when it comes to large corporations and the wealthy.

Many other countries spend much more than we do and do not have massive debt. We didn't have massive debt until we decided to stop taxing the wealthy.

The crazy thing about this is that even if proof is provided that our government spending is not above average, you'd completely ignore that reality and keep repeating the same false rhetoric.

I really don't understand. What do you get out of repeating that lie? Why even bother?

We don't tax the wealthy? Show proof, please.

Question: If we taxed the "wealthy" 100% of everything they own, the private jets, their estates in Kennedybunkport, their Rolls Royces and Ferraris, their yachts ... how much would that reduce the 15 trillion national debt?

 

[canndo]

We don't tax the wealthy? Show proof, please.

Question: If we taxed the "wealthy" 100% of everything they own, the private jets, their estates in Kennedybunkport, their Rolls Royces and Ferraris, their yachts ... how much would that reduce the 15 trillion national debt?

Then the real question becomes.... If we taxed the middle class AND the poor one hundred percent, how much would THAT reduce the national debt. A whole lot less than if we taxed the rich 100 percent. So what is your point?

 

[NoDrama]

That video is very cute, but it's also extremely deciving. When right wingers talking about "income" of the wealthy they are only including paycheck income + bonuses. It is not including stock, dividends, investment, or any other financial industry related income. That makes up ~90% of the wealthy's income. Not exactly a minor detail he's leaving out there. He's under exaggerating the wealthy's income by a significant amount.

Well at least you somewhat understand where the problem lies instead of blindly saying that the rich should have their income taxed more. Very wealthy people may not have much income, but may have huge capital gains and capital gains is capped at a maximum taxation of 15%. If I buy 100 trillion dollars worth of stock and sell it a year later for 1 quadrillion dollars then I will only pay 15% tax on the 900 trillion I made. That's how the wealthy do it, they don't go out and get 9-5 jobs or cause themselves to have too much "Income".

If you tax the wealthy at say 90% and closed all the loopholes, you can be sure that all the wealthy people will leave the USA for some other place with less restrictive taxation. Look at New York, they increased the taxes and 30% of the rich left the state. This caused tax revenues to be even lower, the exact opposite effect as intended. While this may not be the case everywhere, in most places people are tightening their belts because they see what is happening.

The problem with the plan of borrowing in bad times and paying back during the good times is that it just never happens, we never pay off jack shit in the good times, we just keep spending. That is the core problem with Keynesian thought, that there is no limit to how far you can keep rolling over the debt into an ever larger genie in a bottle. Eventually that principal amount will have so much interest due that 100% taxation won't even cover the minimum payment.

 

[canndo]

"If you tax the wealthy at say 90% and closed all the loopholes, you can be sure that all the wealthy people will leave the USA for some other place with less restrictive taxation"

Like where? Isn't this the "land of opportunity"? Isn't this the "greatest country on earth"? If I recall, shortly before and after wwII the tax rate was about 90 percent - few of the rich left.

 

[canndo]

OF course there WERE some loopholes - but those are the loopholes that kept factories open and continued to favor employment.

 

[redivider]

Well at least you somewhat understand where the problem lies instead of blindly saying that the rich should have their income taxed more. Very wealthy people may not have much income, but may have huge capital gains and capital gains is capped at a maximum taxation of 15%. If I buy 100 trillion dollars worth of stock and sell it a year later for 1 quadrillion dollars then I will only pay 15% tax on the 900 trillion I made. That's how the wealthy do it, they don't go out and get 9-5 jobs or cause themselves to have too much "Income".

If you tax the wealthy at say 90% and closed all the loopholes, you can be sure that all the wealthy people will leave the USA for some other place with less restrictive taxation. Look at New York, they increased the taxes and 30% of the rich left the state. This caused tax revenues to be even lower, the exact opposite effect as intended. While this may not be the case everywhere, in most places people are tightening their belts because they see what is happening.

The problem with the plan of borrowing in bad times and paying back during the good times is that it just never happens, we never pay off jack shit in the good times, we just keep spending. That is the core problem with Keynesian thought, that there is no limit to how far you can keep rolling over the debt into an ever larger genie in a bottle. Eventually that principal amount will have so much interest due that 100% taxation won't even cover the minimum payment.

there we go.... again into the taxation and how the rich are the ones who spur the economy....

you know what would happen if all the rich people decided to leave the US?? somebody would take their place.

the US isn't the biggest economy in the world because there's a bunch of rich guys. it's because there's a population of people that are willing to work together in peace and compromise for the better good of our country.

it's because we have vast resources, a large population, a stable government, and a stable currency.

if all the rich americans decide to leave there would be a shit ton of other americans more than willing to take their place.

it's not because we have rich people that we have a good economy. it's our stable economy that allows people to get rich. don't be mistaken.

 

[dukeanthony]

No we are the best country in the world because at one time we were a manufacturing powerhouse

 

[NoDrama]

"If you tax the wealthy at say 90% and closed all the loopholes, you can be sure that all the wealthy people will leave the USA for some other place with less restrictive taxation"

Like where? Isn't this the "land of opportunity"? Isn't this the "greatest country on earth"? If I recall, shortly before and after wwII the tax rate was about 90 percent - few of the rich left.

View attachment 1881583

25% tax on Capital Gains in 1946, rich people can just buy something at a less price today, sell it for way more tomorrow and never pay more than 25% tax. Since there were no other countries that had a manufacturing base except the USA, there wasn't a whole lot of choice for the Wealthy to move.

 

[NoDrama]

there we go.... again into the taxation and how the rich are the ones who spur the economy....

you know what would happen if all the rich people decided to leave the US?? somebody would take their place.

the US isn't the biggest economy in the world because there's a bunch of rich guys. it's because there's a population of people that are willing to work together in peace and compromise for the better good of our country.

it's because we have vast resources, a large population, a stable government, and a stable currency.

if all the rich americans decide to leave there would be a shit ton of other americans more than willing to take their place.

it's not because we have rich people that we have a good economy. it's our stable economy that allows people to get rich. don't be mistaken.

did you even read my reply? At all? cuz if you did your understanding of the points made is 0%. Not even once in the whole thing did I say one word that the rich are the ones who are responsible for spurring the economy, I didn't even allude to that. The rich will just buy assets and sit on them and turn them into capital gains instead of income. Watch the prices of commodities go through the roof as the rich pour trillions of dollars into them, bidding prices up high and then selling them for capital gains which will only be taxed at 15%. Won't it be great when oil is at $400 a barrel and gas is $10 a gallon and Corn costs $30 a bushel?


As far as resources go. how much oil can we get out of the Gulf of Mexico? How much can we get out of ANWR?
A stable currency? The US dollar has lost 95% of its value in the last hundred years, that isn't even close to being stable. China has a larger population, greater manufacturing capacity, large amounts of natural resources but not much oil. Their currency is Exactly as stable as the US Dollar. Their Government is also very stable.

 

[canndo]

25% tax on Capital Gains in 1946, rich people can just buy something at a less price today, sell it for way more tomorrow and never pay more than 25% tax. Since there were no other countries that had a manufacturing base except the USA, there wasn't a whole lot of choice for the Wealthy to move.

What are you talking about? Didn't THE RICH make their own manufacturing base? Notice as well, those high tax rates continued on through the 70's - lots of booms between the 30's and the 70's and what? Tax rates were much higher than today. There is no correlation between the highest tax rate and any other indicator of economic health. None.

 

[NoDrama]

What are you talking about?

You don't understand the difference between what Capital gains are and what income is?

Didn't THE RICH make their own manufacturing base? Notice as well, those high tax rates continued on through the 70's - lots of booms between the 30's and the 70's and what? Tax rates were much higher than today.

The rich cannot MAKE a manufacturing base without customers willing to purchase their products. Since the rest of the world had been smashed, all the other countries wanted our products.

There is no correlation between the highest tax rate and any other indicator of economic health. None.

Exactly, you cannot correlate high income taxation levels to economic health. Look at the period before income taxes, greatest growth of any nation ever. 0% income tax. Economic health has nothing to do with taxes, you can have great economy and high taxes just as much as you can have a great economy with no taxes. The big difference is how the government uses those taxes. Currently taxes are used to grow the government ever bigger and ever more powerful in the everyday lives of people.

 

[dukeanthony]

You don't understand the difference between what Capital gains are and what income is?
The rich cannot MAKE a manufacturing base without customers willing to purchase their products. Since the rest of the world had been smashed, all the other countries wanted our products.
Exactly, you cannot correlate high income taxation levels to economic health. Look at the period before income taxes, greatest growth of any nation ever. 0% income tax. Economic health has nothing to do with taxes, you can have great economy and high taxes just as much as you can have a great economy with no taxes. The big difference is how the government uses those taxes. Currently taxes are used to grow the government ever bigger and ever more powerful in the everyday lives of people.

AND
Zero Immigration Rules
Zero Job Safety and Minimum wage laws
Zero Regulations

Yes lets all go back to that Golden age where you worked from 8 years of age until you died at a tender old age of 40

 

[Coals]

Tax rate discussion are uber ghey because they don't matter. Tax me at 100% or 0% and the debt will still rise because we buy our money at interest off international gangsters. Tax me at 100% and the economy will take longer to fail, tax mat at 0% and it will fail quickly. At the end of the day it still fucking fails.

So I say spend spend spend. If were not going to cut ties with the perpetual debt system then we need to fucking party like the Greeks. Take us much as we can as fast as we can for as little as we can.

 

[Charlie Ventura]

there we go.... again into the taxation and how the rich are the ones who spur the economy....

you know what would happen if all the rich people decided to leave the US?? somebody would take their place.

the US isn't the biggest economy in the world because there's a bunch of rich guys. it's because there's a population of people that are willing to work together in peace and compromise for the better good of our country.

it's because we have vast resources, a large population, a stable government, and a stable currency.

if all the rich americans decide to leave there would be a shit ton of other americans more than willing to take their place.

it's not because we have rich people that we have a good economy. it's our stable economy that allows people to get rich. don't be mistaken.

Finally! A cogent post from you. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that wealth is an expanding pie and not static, right?

 

[Charlie Ventura]

Then the real question becomes.... If we taxed the middle class AND the poor one hundred percent, how much would THAT reduce the national debt. A whole lot less than if we taxed the rich 100 percent. So what is your point?

My point is that there is no point in demonizing the rich ... other than jealousy and envy.

 

[dukeanthony]

My point is that there is no point in demonizing the rich ... other than jealousy and envy.

Im not Jealous
They worked to get there (some of them)
But that doesnt give them the right to Leach off society and take everything

 

[NoDrama]

AND
Zero Immigration Rules
Zero Job Safety and Minimum wage laws
Zero Regulations

Yes lets all go back to that Golden age where you worked from 8 years of age until you died at a tender old age of 40

Huh? You think it was the income tax that made all those things possible? Are you trying to say that prior to 1913 we had no laws or rules, all people were child laborers? Is that REALLY what you think it was like?

 

[dukeanthony]

Huh? You think it was the income tax that made all those things possible? Are you trying to say that prior to 1913 we had no laws or rules, all people were child laborers? Is that REALLY what you think it was like?

Well If you want a taste of that good Life

Move to Somalia

 

[NoDrama]

Im not Jealous
They worked to get there (some of them)
But that doesnt give them the right to Leach off society and take everything

Its the bottom 50% who take, the top 10% pay almost 100 billion times more taxes than the bottom 50%, not only are they paying their fair share, they are paying the bottom half's fair share too. I suppose you won't be happy until the rich pay all the taxes and the middle class, the working class and the poor pay nothing.