« First « Previous Comments 30 - 69 of 109 Next » Last » Search these comments
After his blatant disregard of facts, unwillingness to make cogent arguments, and unreasoning stupidity, I'm downgrading indigenous to status of "schill."
My advice would be to pay no attention to this pawn of the bankers and wealthy elite.
Projecting, care to point out where I have done that on this thread?
Flat consumption tax is the only fair way to tax the people. Income taxes are completely unfair since you're discriminating against those that make more money.
The "tyranny of democracy" requires that at least 50% of the electorate goes along with the program.
plutocracy -- one dollar one vote -- doesn't even have that low bar to clear, and we got enough of that both here in the US and in Europe over the centuries.
though of course without democratic processes any system will quickly devolve into one bullet one vote, since violence is a more effective lever of power than mere money, wealth, etc.
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." -- Churchill, speaking as leader of the Opposition, 1947.
Flat consumption tax is the only fair way to tax the people. Income taxes are completely unfair since you're discriminating against those that make more money.
Flat consumption tax is the only fair way to tax the people. Income taxes are completely unfair since you're discriminating against those that make more money.
Taxes are not creating the inequality
Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." -- Churchill, speaking as leader of the Opposition, 1947.
A Republic is better. Churchill was not all he was cracked up to be...
The speaker in the video that not one of you mutts will watch brought up that very point and said that the Chinese Politburo was better.
reasoning.Bellingham Bill says
The only thing keeping the game going is our immense government redistribution:
Closer, you have an addiction to graphs, at the expense of deductive reasoning.
Deductive reasoning is not a requirement to follow or comment on Patnet. rofl
Flat consumption tax is the only fair way to tax the people. Income taxes are completely unfair since you're discriminating against those that make more money.
All taxes are unfair. Fairness is completely irrelevant. The tax structure has to be designed to create a healthy economy.
Deductive reasoning is not a requirement to follow or comment on Patnet. rofl
It is if you want to separate the wheat from the chaff.
All taxes are unfair. Fairness is completely irrelevant. The tax structure has to be designed to create a healthy economy.
Now that's a central planner talking if I ever heard one. Screw individual rights and let's do what "I" think is best for the greater good.
Now that's a central planner talking if I ever heard one. Screw individual rights and let's do what "I" think is best for the greater good.
Uh, how does setting up a tax structure screw individual rights?
Are you under the impression that rich people have the RIGHT to pay lower taxes than middle class and poor people?
^ yeah, that's my take too.
The question is if they can keep some of the people -- enough to stay in power -- fooled all of the time.
Start with the top 5% as inside-party economic elite, add another 20% as the nomenklatura in media, military, police, they're still 25% away from power in our democratic system.
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-crazification.html
says ~27% is the crazification factor here. Shit!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_international_investment_position_per_capita
is the scoreboard, and we ain't even on it. $5.5T in the hole the other way, actually.
Uh, how does setting up a tax structure screw individual rights?
Are you under the impression that rich people have the RIGHT to pay lower taxes than middle class and poor people?
I didn't say that setting up a tax structure screws individual rights. Setting up a tax structure that makes higher income people pay more than others is a violation of equal property rights. That's like forcing someone who is rich to pay double the price for a movie ticket.
How are rich people paying less taxes? We have a progressive tax structure that forces them to pay far more. I know for a fact that my effective tax rate is much higher than someone making half my income.
I didn't say that setting up a tax structure screws individual rights. Setting
up a tax structure that makes higher income people pay more than others is a
violation of equal property rights.
What exactly are equal property rights?
How are rich people paying less taxes? We have a progressive tax structure
that forces them to pay far more. I know for a fact that my effective tax rate
is much higher than someone making half my income.
That's pretty simple. Real rich people don't earn their income as wages, they earn as capital gains. As I'm sure you know, capital gains rate is not progressive and relatively low. The fact that you earn as wages means you aren't among the really rich.
What exactly are equal property rights?
Property is something you own such as a house or actual money that you earn as income. Equal property rights would be treating everyone exactly the same as to what they're allowed to do with that property and how it's taxed by the gov't.
That's pretty simple. Real rich people don't earn their income as wages, they earn as capital gains. As I'm sure you know, capital gains rate is not progressive and relatively low. The fact that you earn as wages means you aren't among the really rich.
But the capital gains rate is the same for everyone, and it's based on a percentage. Percentages, by nature, are progressive already because the amount you pay goes up by the amount you earn. Not sure why you still think the rich are paying less...nothing is stopping others from taking advantage of it. Go see how much Warren Buffett pays in taxes compared to yourself, and see who pays more.
Regardless, I don't think there should be any taxes on capital gains or dividends anyway. We should have consumption taxes only.
Equal property rights would be treating everyone exactly the same as to what
they're allowed to do with that property and how it's taxed by the gov't.
Have "equal property rights" as you describe them ever existed?
A tax structure as you desire is a quick way to Mad Max status.
But the capital gains rate is the same for everyone, and it's based on a
percentage. Percentages, by nature, are progressive already because the amount
you pay goes up by the amount you earn. Not sure why you still think the rich
are paying less...nothing is stopping others from taking advantage of it. Go see
how much Warren Buffett pays in taxes compared to yourself, and see who pays
more.
Regardless, I don't think there should be any taxes on capital gains or
dividends anyway. We should have consumption taxes only.
Yes, why don't those poor people just start buying more stocks??? What the hell is wrong with them?
Again--your ideas are why the 1% own 30% (and growing) of the wealth right now. If you can't see why that is bad, then you need take a step back and try to understand how the economy works.
why don't those poor people just start buying more stocks???
more people's money in the market would just push yields lower than they are now, too.
"I don't think there should be any taxes on capital gains or
dividends anyway."
while with my Georgist hat on I might think this is great in theory, in the real world, not taxing the rich at all will just result in ever-increasing wealth concentration, since money "makes" money and mere labor has no chance to compete against it any more, if it ever did.
But preferable to the Piketty solution would be just to eliminate the rents in housing, healthcare, FIRE, our trade deficit directly. For the first three, this would require "public options" I guess (changing our economy to look more like what Finland/Sweden/Germany/Denmark/Norway are doing), and the latter requires either import tariffs and/or printing to match what China and our other trade partners are doing.
As I'm sure you know, capital gains rate is not progressive and relatively low. The fact that you earn as wages means you aren't among the really rich.
you got a dislike by the resident moron here, but you are correct.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data
shows "the 1%" collected between 1/6 and 1/5 the national income and paid a 23.5% tax rate on that take.
1% taking 20%. Business as usual here!
Have "equal property rights" as you describe them ever existed?
A tax structure as you desire is a quick way to Mad Max status.
I thought it existed before the federal income tax was instituted back in the early 1900s. Were we mad max back then without taking into consideration technological advancements? I don't think so.
Yes, why don't those poor people just start buying more stocks??? What the hell is wrong with them?
Again--your ideas are why the 1% own 30% (and growing) of the wealth right now. If you can't see why that is bad, then you need take a step back and try to understand how the economy works.
Like I said, make all taxes consumption-based and then the capital gains/income tax issue goes away. Everyone pays for usage of something or sales....the rich will pay more because they spend/use more, but that's their decision.
I think consumption-based taxation will ultimately end up taxing the rich more because you'd eliminate the stupid loopholes. But along with all of this, we need to shrink gov't and leave more money in the private sector to innovate and produce, which will lift the tide for all boats.
Like I said, make all taxes consumption-based and then the capital gains/income tax issue goes away. Everyone pays for usage of something or sales....the rich will pay more because they spend/use more, but that's their decision.
I think consumption-based taxation will ultimately end up taxing the rich more because you'd eliminate the stupid loopholes. But along with all of this, we need to shrink gov't and leave more money in the private sector to innovate and produce, which will lift the tide for all boats.
Just wanted to read that again
Just wanted to read that again
Good. Now print it out, frame it, put it on your wall, and jerk off to it fortnightly.
jerk off to it fortnightly
I like the post, but not that much. OTH do what ever the fuck you want to
Like I said, make all taxes consumption-based and then the capital gains/income tax issue goes away. Everyone pays for usage of something or sales....the rich will pay more because they spend/use more, but that's their decision.
Consumption taxes - do you mean national sales tax, VAT, or consumption taxes on specific items (like luxury vehicle taxes, for example)
Like I said, make all taxes consumption-based and then the capital gains/income tax issue goes away. Everyone pays for usage of something or sales....the rich will pay more because they spend/use more, but that's their decision.
Consumption taxes - do you mean national sales tax, VAT, or consumption taxes on specific items (like luxury vehicle taxes, for example)
Yes. Gas taxes, toll roads, definitely luxury taxes, sales taxes, energy usage taxes, etc.
Yes, why don't those poor people just start buying more stocks??? What the hell is wrong with them?
Again--your ideas are why the 1% own 30% (and growing) of the wealth right now. If you can't see why that is bad, then you need take a step back and try to understand how the economy works.
Like I said, make all taxes consumption-based and then the capital gains/income tax issue goes away. Everyone pays for usage of something or sales....the rich will pay more because they spend/use more, but that's their decision.
I think consumption-based taxation will ultimately end up taxing the rich more because you'd eliminate the stupid loopholes. But along with all of this, we need to shrink gov't and leave more money in the private sector to innovate and produce, which will lift the tide for all boats.
Fully agree.
Like I said, make all taxes consumption-based and then the capital gains/income tax issue goes away. Everyone pays for usage of something or sales....the rich will pay more because they spend/use more, but that's their decision.
By percentage, you'd be giving the rich a huge tax cut and the middle and lower classes a huge tax increase. You would end up paying more taxes.
I think consumption-based taxation will ultimately end up taxing the rich more because you'd eliminate the stupid loopholes. But along with all of this, we need to shrink gov't and leave more money in the private sector to innovate and produce, which will lift the tide for all boats.
You think incorrectly. And as Bill says--shrinking government means laying off a LOT of people. I don't disagree that we need to cut defense spending, but until we figure a way to reduce inequality, it will make things worse. Not better.
By percentage, you'd be giving the rich a huge tax cut and the middle and lower classes a huge tax increase. You would end up paying more taxes.
The tone of your statement is based on the assumption that lower and middle classes pay too much already when, in fact, they pay too little.
The tone of your statement is based on the assumption that lower and middle classes pay too much already when, in fact, they pay too little.
lol. If you think so, why don't you quit your job and see how you like paying "too little" taxes?
If you think so, why don't you quit your job and see how you like paying "too little" taxes?
If I quit my job then I don't make any income, which means I don't pay any taxes. Not sure I understand your statement.
If you think so, why don't you quit your job and see how you like paying "too little" taxes?
If I quit my job then I don't make any income, which means I don't pay any taxes. Not sure I understand your statement.
Then you would be paying too little, ie zero.
By percentage,
Ahhh, playing the "percentage" card again.....
You're right, we should all just pay $100k annually in taxes. Anyone who doesn't pay is guilty of tax evasion, a felony. All felons cannot vote.
Sound about right?
By percentage,
Ahhh, playing the "percentage" card again.....
You're right, we should all just pay $100k annually in taxes. Anyone who doesn't pay is guilty of tax evasion, a felony. All felons cannot vote.
Sound about right?
Perfect! (I'll take that decrease)
BAHAHAHAHAHA!
Good one.
If you can't survive without working for somebody else, you ain't middle class.
Middle class means you're either a professional who works for themselves, you rent tools or housing, or have enough assets that generate enough income to live off of, even if that's at survival/poverty levels.
If you need to work for a living you are working class.
Grandma Jenkins owns a big house free and clear, by renting out the rooms or running a B&B she can survive. She's Middle Class, even though she only makes $20k a year not counting Social Security.
John Dewey-Cheatham is a lawyer, he makes $100k a year. Even if he lost 3/4 of his client base, he would make $25k a year. He is middle class.
Ernest McAdams is a C++ programmer, he owns a new car, $100k in his stocks, and 27-years left on a 30 year mortgage. If he is fired from his $50k job, he's fucked, because he owns no rental property and cannot live off dividends or appreciation on his stocks. Sucking craigslist "I could do my own website, but I don't want to bother so here is $100" dick wouldn't provide enough to even remotely meet his basic living expenses. He is WORKING Class.
« First « Previous Comments 30 - 69 of 109 Next » Last » Search these comments
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/opinion/paul-krugman-inequality-is-a-drag.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0&gwh=337B58A1D3C9A03D5ED63047B4E8AAD0&gwt=pay&assetType=opinion