Debates
28 Aug 21
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
29 Aug 21
@averagejoe1 saidAlways wrong....
He will have to. The money to run this country comes not from the rich, but from the middle class, small business, etc. Hatred of corps keep the forum pot boiling, but it is mis-directed. Money of rich folks won't be adequate. And I am doubly sure it will happen,, because I think Kamala will rise to the Presidency in a few months, and,,,,,,,hey, it was not a promise th ...[text shortened]... te it, but it is going to have to happen. We need the money to pay for Biden's very expensive plans.
Isn't it tiring, Less than AverageJoe?
29 Aug 21
@jimm619 saidTiring was MGM post on the Chaplain post. What is it with you libs. And I asked Marauder a question, 3 questions, tonite, and he answered not one of them, like an octopus sliding back into his den. Did you libs see My Octopus Teacher on Netflix? A perfect lib documentary, this guy falls in love with a 13 inch octopus...for almost a YEAR!!!! maybe that is what happened to Marauder, he is off the grid.
Always wrong....
Isn't it tiring, Less than AverageJoe?
@averagejoe1 saidGet a life, Joe; maybe you want to spend your entire weekend posting in these forums but I have better things to do.
Tiring was MGM post on the Chaplain post. What is it with you libs. And I asked Marauder a question, 3 questions, tonite, and he answered not one of them, like an octopus sliding back into his den. Did you libs see My Octopus Teacher on Netflix? A perfect lib documentary, this guy falls in love with a 13 inch octopus...for almost a YEAR!!!! maybe that is what happened to Marauder, he is off the grid.
Anyway the problem isn't I don't answer your fool questions; your problem is you don't like my answers but having no real rational response have to pretend I didn't answer them in order to continue your bootlicking whining.
30 Aug 21
@sonhouse saidWow, a mind blowing thought, Make the wealthiest ( have to define them 1st ) GIVE 10% of their now owned assets away, or should they sell 10%. Not sure how that can work. What do you think that would do?? I am for taxing future earnings, thats for sure but 10% of current assets, no way.
@AverageJoe1
So their wealth is some 40 TRILLION. about twice the national debt.
So if they even got a TEN PERCENT tax, that would yield near 5 TRILLION dollars.
So lets see, call us 300 million in the US. So if we needed 5 trillion in one year,
we would need near 17 thousand dollars for every man woman and child in the US.
Note, if those super rich did get a ten ...[text shortened]... ax, they would still have 90% left over.
How much left over would there be for the common folk eh?
Do you not even begin to comprehend the damage that would do, and how much of that wealth belongs to the woke, environment warriors, will/can never happen.
And then we have to decide how often this crazy has to happen, every year, every 10yrs, or whenever you feel damn well feel like it, damn crazy, sorry but it is.
30 Aug 21
@no1marauder saidYou didnt and couldnt
Get a life, Joe; maybe you want to spend your entire weekend posting in these forums but I have better things to do.
Anyway the problem isn't I don't answer your fool questions; your problem is you don't like my answers but having no real rational response have to pretend I didn't answer them in order to continue your bootlicking whining.
30 Aug 21
@sonhouse saidI am saying that you "couldn't" do it. Tax income, and or profits, I am fine with that, But once someone has money leave them alone. In Australia, if your money makes money then "that" is taxed.
@jimmac
That ten % could be over several years, so if over three years, 3.3% tax per year.
You have some problem with THAT?
But you have no problem taxing the poor population with 20-30% do you?
You realize that so many of the rich that you seem to hate are the woke, victim lovers that you worship. They will never let it happen and neither should it. Both sides are rich and I have no problem with that.
I am not sure about the US but in Australia, the poor do not pay anywhere near as much tax as the benefits that the receive.
I have always said that the tax base MUST come predominantly from the middle class, but for that to work you need to have a large middle class.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
30 Aug 21
@averagejoe1 said.Less than Averagejoe....You are so funny...
OK, so we will have a friendly disagreement. I do think with all due respects that the majority of posters just don't like people to be rich. So, whether the govt needs it or not, methinks you just want to hit up the rich....for being rich.
Don't like people to be rich, where did you hear that?
Are you still watching FOX, or have you graduated to NEWSMAX?
I was astounded when WARREN BUFFET mused,
that...... ''my secretary pays a higher tax rate than I do''
Course, your boy, Trump has us all beat....He ain't paid federal taxes in 20 years.
30 Aug 21
@eladar saidOf course you tax businesses, but I feel that taxing the middle class reaps more if you have a larger middle class and is easier. This is not to say do not tax the rich, I believe in a progressive taxation system that gets high at the top end.
@jimmac
I would say that a government's taxes should come from taxing businesses, including tariffs.
Taxing wages just turns free people into serfs.
The problem with simply taxing businesses, which you must btw, is that to many know how to avoid it, and legally to boot,
Also note that I believe that each individual has a responsibility to pay their fair share. In a system that creates a large middle class, and that should be the goal, that is the best target.
How does taxing create serfs? You would only create serfs in the event that they were overtaxed and that money was used against/not for them appropriately
30 Aug 21
@jimmac saidWhy is a tax on total assets above a certain level so hard to comprehend? Most people in the US already pay a sort of "wealth tax" i.e. the property tax.
Wow, a mind blowing thought, Make the wealthiest ( have to define them 1st ) GIVE 10% of their now owned assets away, or should they sell 10%. Not sure how that can work. What do you think that would do?? I am for taxing future earnings, thats for sure but 10% of current assets, no way.
Do you not even begin to comprehend the damage that would do, and how much of that wealt ...[text shortened]... , every year, every 10yrs, or whenever you feel damn well feel like it, damn crazy, sorry but it is.
Anyway, my point wasn't to endorse any particular tax but to show, contrary to Joe's rantings, that the wealthy, in this case the top 1%, have plenty of assets which could be taxed and even at low rates could provide sufficient revenue to fund the present infrastructure bill and Sanders budget blueprint (which spend $4.5 trillion over ten years or about 2% of GNP).
30 Aug 21
@no1marauder saidMy view/opinion on this is not entirely relevant, I am no economist, I have no need to comprehend. Just like with climate crap, no need to comprehend. My point was as much that it cannot/will not happen because ( aside from my not agreeing with it ) the wealthy are woke and they are hypocrites all, well, predominantly. You tell me they will give back their money without a fight. They "will" make "you" pay.
Why is a tax on total assets above a certain level so hard to comprehend? Most people in the US already pay a sort of "wealth tax" i.e. the property tax.
Anyway, my point wasn't to endorse any particular tax but to show, contrary to Joe's rantings, that the wealthy, in this case the top 1%, have plenty of assets which could be taxed and even at low rates could provide ...[text shortened]... ure bill and Sanders budget blueprint (which spend $4.5 trillion over ten years or about 2% of GNP).
Best to create/grow a middle class and use that as your tax base.
30 Aug 21
@sonhouse saidYou can get your answers by watching CNBC this morning, Maria Bartiromo. Economists, (not me) explain things such as the 'tax capitalization effect". When you raise taxes on something, its value declines. The investment yield will be lower than the yield on a property with lower taxes. And so forth. The moor you tax wealth, the less valuable it becomes. Affects everybody. If you tax wealth, the less valuable it is, the less tax revenue. You would be killing the golden goose, Sonhouse. Note that the people you want to tax don't have treasure chests just full of cash. Their assets are something else that they have to 'turn into cash'.
@jimmac
That ten % could be over several years, so if over three years, 3.3% tax per year.
You have some problem with THAT?
But you have no problem taxing the poor population with 20-30% do you?
One economist proves the wealth is a good thing we should leave these people alone. It makes the world go round. When a society saves enough that the amount of capital per person begins to grow, it ushers in new growth and opportunity.
My opinion? You folks will choke the hell out of that idea. Y'all dont care about prosperity or success, you NEVER even use words like that in posts. I use them all the time. Leave the rich alone in their swimming pools, we probably would not like them very much. But see, like the economists do, the big picture. It is childish to simply say let us get their money. It would reverberate in the wrong direction.
@no1marauder saidSee my note to Sonhouse above. You say 'the wealthy have plenty of assets...." Notice that you do NOT say the wealthy have plenty of cash. You see the difference? My note to Sonhouse touches on that. How do you think the wealthy would raise cash? Right! Dump the assets. And so on.
Why is a tax on total assets above a certain level so hard to comprehend? Most people in the US already pay a sort of "wealth tax" i.e. the property tax.
Anyway, my point wasn't to endorse any particular tax but to show, contrary to Joe's rantings, that the wealthy, in this case the top 1%, have plenty of assets which could be taxed and even at low rates could provide ...[text shortened]... ure bill and Sanders budget blueprint (which spend $4.5 trillion over ten years or about 2% of GNP).
I am not an economist, but just that alone gives food for thought for the uninitiated as to the reverberation in society if you mess with the Golden Goose.