(Meant all profit 'over' $100k)
What in the hell? What is the justification of that? He is going beyond city tax revenues?. Why? What if a really rich guy owns NO stock, but his neighbor gets taxed like hell on his $800k stock profit?
Do you headinthesand libs not care about this unfairness? Two equal neighbors, one invests in houses and makes $1.5 million in revenues, the other invests in stocks and makes $800k. First guy keeps his $1.5. but 2nd guy has to give some of his profits to the city. Can not one of you say that that sucks?
13 Sep 23
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidWhat is the justification of that?
(Meant all profit 'over' $100k)
What in the hell? What is the justification of that? He is going beyond city tax revenues?. Why? What if a really rich guy owns NO stock, but his neighbor gets taxed like hell on his $800k stock profit?
Do you headinthesand libs not care about this unfairness? Two equal neighbors, one invests in houses and makes $1.5 million in rev ...[text shortened]... 5. but 2nd guy has to give some of his profits to the city. Can not one of you say that that sucks?
I'll explain this to you Joe (again) Cities need services such as police, fire departments, record keeping, utilities, libraries, road maintenance, emergency services etc. As these services become more expensive, additional funds are required. The working poor making $12.00 - $15.00 per hour cannot afford additional tax's since they can barely afford a roof over their head, and enough food to live on. Those with stock profits of over 100K / year can easily afford a few extra dollars in taxes. That's the justification.
Got it now?
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147479
13 Sep 23
@mchill saidyou are a fukin idiot!
What is the justification of that?
I'll explain this to you Joe (again) Cities need services such as police, fire departments, record keeping, utilities, libraries, road maintenance, emergency services etc. As these services become more expensive, additional funds are required. The working poor making $12.00 - $15.00 per hour cannot afford additional tax's since they can ba ...[text shortened]... 100K / year can easily afford a few extra dollars in taxes. That's the justification.
Got it now?
read his post again dumbass
14 Sep 23
@averagejoe1 saidit's getting less and less fun to mock your stupidity
(Meant all profit 'over' $100k)
What in the hell? What is the justification of that? He is going beyond city tax revenues?. Why? What if a really rich guy owns NO stock, but his neighbor gets taxed like hell on his $800k stock profit?
Do you headinthesand libs not care about this unfairness? Two equal neighbors, one invests in houses and makes $1.5 million in rev ...[text shortened]... 5. but 2nd guy has to give some of his profits to the city. Can not one of you say that that sucks?
i am skipping this one
14 Sep 23
@mchill saidCongrats, you just joined Marauder at the Marxist rally, 8PM tonight at the Town Hall at 345 Verbotten Street.
What is the justification of that?
I'll explain this to you Joe (again) Cities need services such as police, fire departments, record keeping, utilities, libraries, road maintenance, emergency services etc. As these services become more expensive, additional funds are required. The working poor making $12.00 - $15.00 per hour cannot afford additional tax's since they can ba ...[text shortened]... 100K / year can easily afford a few extra dollars in taxes. That's the justification.
Got it now?
"FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITY, TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS".
(But you recall that I already knew it)
14 Sep 23
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidSlowly but surely, the greedy control-freaks are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
(Meant all profit 'over' $100k)
What in the hell? What is the justification of that? He is going beyond city tax revenues?. Why? What if a really rich guy owns NO stock, but his neighbor gets taxed like hell on his $800k stock profit?
Do you headinthesand libs not care about this unfairness? Two equal neighbors, one invests in houses and makes $1.5 million in rev ...[text shortened]... 5. but 2nd guy has to give some of his profits to the city. Can not one of you say that that sucks?
How would you like to live in NYC? - they have an income tax. That makes 4 withholdings from your paycheck,
and look at the crap city you have to live in. unreal.
14 Sep 23
@mchill said -
The working poor making $12.00 - $15.00 per hour cannot afford additional tax's
since they can barely afford a roof over their head, and enough food to live on.
--------------------------------
So very true!
So perhaps you can explain why you jolly democrats enjoy taxing the crap out of the working poor?
14 Sep 23
1 edit
@earl-of-trumps saidWell, the producers are already paying over 40% of all taxes paid, on individual can pay over 50% when you take all taxes into account.
@mchill said -
The working poor making $12.00 - $15.00 per hour cannot afford additional tax's
since they can barely afford a roof over their head, and enough food to live on.
--------------------------------
So very true!
So perhaps you can explain why you jolly democrats enjoy taxing the crap out of the working poor?
So, that is about enough, so the libs need more money to spread around, poor people are their only source.
Hey didn't Biden promise while campaigning to increase minimum wage? No one here seems to be upset about it. Hell, nothing about this pitiful man seems to upset them.
14 Sep 23
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidOK Joe - So you don't want the rich to pay for the increased cost of city services.
Congrats, you just joined Marauder at the Marxist rally, 8PM tonight at the Town Hall at 345 Verbotten Street.
"FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITY, TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS".
(But you recall that I already knew it)
Someone has to pay for these things Joe - - So, what's your plan? 😳
15 Sep 23
@mchill saidI'll play.....If there is a corner deli in this town, do you think that the rich guy should pay MORE for a pastrami sandwich than the little lady who works in the pharmacy next door should pay? Where are you going to draw the line on how much more the rich should pay?
OK Joe - So you don't want the rich to pay for the increased cost of city services.
Someone has to pay for these things Joe - - So, what's your plan? 😳
https://taxfoundation.org/blog/rich-pay-their-fair-share-of-taxes/
Yeah, I pulled this up to show how unrealistic your thinking is, the top ONE percent of tax payers account for 20% of all income. So the 40 % of ALL INCOME TAXES that they already pay is Twice their share of the Nation's income. So, follow that money into the roads and services of which you speak, and YOU tell ME just how much more of their money, with which they invest and create jobs, you want us to get from them.
How much more? Maybe you can finally be the poster here that tells us what would be 'fair',, what would be the fair share of the rich guy in town? Be careful with your answer, because he may send his company to another country, and your townspeople will be looking for work.
15 Sep 23
4 edits
@averagejoe1 saidThank You for your cute little corner deli story, but I'm still waiting for an answer.
I'll play.....If there is a corner deli in this town, do you think that the rich guy should pay MORE for a pastrami sandwich than the little lady who works in the pharmacy next door should pay? Where are you going to draw the line on how much more the rich should pay?
https://taxfoundation.org/blog/rich-pay-their-fair-share-of-taxes/
Yeah, I pulled this up to show ...[text shortened]... , because he may send his company to another country, and your townspeople will be looking for work.
Cities need $$ to pay for the many things they need to function properly (police, fire departments, record keeping, utilities, libraries, infrastructure maintenance and repairs, emergency services etc.) as these cost rise, and they always do, who should bear the additional cost?
15 Sep 23
2 edits
@mchill saidYour 'who should bear cost'.....that would be the citizens, the taxpayers. But you for some reason think that because he has more money, he should pay more of the cost, which, of course, is Marxism. If I won the lottery and brought $110M (After taxes) home, do you think that I should pay more for roads, police utilities, etc than everyone else?
Thank You for your cute little corner deli story, but I'm still waiting for an answer.
Cities need $$ to pay for the many things they need to function properly (police, fire departments, record keeping, utilities, libraries, infrastructure maintenance and repairs, emergency services etc.) as these cost rise, and they always do, who should bear the additional cost?
This a fair question, I would be interested in your answer, as it would shed a bit of light on your mindset. You cannot just say he should because he has more money....that is what Marx is saying.
It is what you, too, are saying, but you and he should explain the logic, or I will have nothing upon which to hinge my response.
Standing by.
One step at at time, as there are many factors. You said way above, a rich person can afford a few extra dollars. If they are already paying a huge percentage, how much more do you think they should pay? If you keep hitting them, they will not be able to afford that 3rd factory over on Main Street, where 500 of the citizens can work to support their families. (I hope that Max the welder didn't have more children than he could afford, but I digress. You would prob say he should pay that particular employee MORE than the guy that works next to him on the assembly line. Do you see where I am going with this?)
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147479
15 Sep 23
@mchill saidyou are missing the point AJ is making. and I think willfully so.
Thank You for your cute little corner deli story, but I'm still waiting for an answer.
Cities need $$ to pay for the many things they need to function properly (police, fire departments, record keeping, utilities, libraries, infrastructure maintenance and repairs, emergency services etc.) as these cost rise, and they always do, who should bear the additional cost?
Would you like paying more taxes than your neighbor because a mayor decided even numbered house should pay more than odd numbered houses?
15 Sep 23
1 edit
@mott-the-hoople saidMcHill is well intentioned, I am sure, but he will have a hard time getting through, or around, going after money of the successful and wealthy rich. I look forward to his rationale, need some good discussions. Even Bernie would never define 'Fair Share', because he would be saying in effect to bring the rich down all the way to the average USA income, around $70k. Any more income would not be 'fair' to the person making only$40k,,,,or $69k, for that matter.
you are missing the point AJ is making. and I think willfully so.
Would you like paying more taxes than your neighbor because a mayor decided even numbered house should pay more than odd numbered houses?
I do hope McHill will give us something to consider, and I will take his thoughts seriously, will actually try to agree with his philosophy on paper. Hope he doesn't get into emotion.
:"Some work harder than others". AvJoe