03 Apr 22
@wildgrass saidNope. the tax, like most taxes, is after investment.
This would force the capitalists to only make $999 million in income per year, which would stifle innovation and motivation to succeed.
On the countrary, it will motivate innovation and expansion. Instead of stashing profits in ofshore accounts (which, of course, will also have to go) and just sit on the money, they would have to "use it or lose it"
If a future bezos would make 999 million and then just stop (which is unlikely) that's a good thing. Let them stop. If the demand is there , another little amazon will popup and then another. Not a multibillion, multi national monstrousity that stiffles competition. Right now, when corporations don't expand it's because there is no need to, not because the taxes are too oppressive.
03 Apr 22
@zahlanzi saidYou are saying that (the govt?) should tell man how mjuch money he 'needs'. Zahlanzi, it they had told Bezos that a billion should just be about enough for his ass, then we would not have an Amazon. And I guess no railroads if (the govt?) had cut off Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, Gould, et al.
"A consensus is where everybody loses. "
assume you mean compromise. So how do billionaires lose? They are allowed right now to make as much money as they want, they can buy politicians yo make laws in their favour, they dodge the laws they can't change, they get bailouts when they make bad calls, they can treat their employees like crap and the list goes on.
My proposa ...[text shortened]... rewood but the people around you are starving. And that firewood is just sitting there doing nothing
Ha, need I mention Henry Ford!?!??!??!?! Jesus. But again, your background can hardly qualify you to talk about money, riches, perseverance, creativity, independence, freedom and the things liberty allows us, in America anyway, to do what the hell we want to do.
Zahlanzi???
03 Apr 22
@zahlanzi saidJesus. I think I will never leave the Forum with this kind of entertainment available, for free!!!! Oh, the tax is AFTER investment!!! 🤔 🤔 🤔
Nope. the tax, like most taxes, is after investment.
On the countrary, it will motivate innovation and expansion. Instead of stashing profits in ofshore accounts (which, of course, will also have to go) and just sit on the money, they would have to "use it or lose it"
If a future bezos would make 999 million and then just stop (which is unlikely) that's a good thing. ...[text shortened]... orporations don't expand it's because there is no need to, not because the taxes are too oppressive.
@averagejoe1 saidThat's a shaky premise to suggest Amazon and Ford would not exist if our taxes were more progressive. As you said in the "taxpayers should build stuff for rich people" thread, he ain't pouring his own money into the company anymore.
You are saying that (the govt?) should tell man how mjuch money he 'needs'. Zahlanzi, it they had told Bezos that a billion should just be about enough for his ass, then we would not have an Amazon. And I guess no railroads if (the govt?) had cut off Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, Gould, et al.
Ha, need I mention Henry Ford!?!??!??!?! Jesus. But again, your b ...[text shortened]... hings liberty allows us, in America anyway, to do what the hell we want to do.
Zahlanzi???
In 2020, Jeff Bezos lost billions to divorce but remained the richest person in the world. In 2021 he made all of it back and then some ($177 billion). Those numbers seem to suggest somethings wrong with the system.
03 Apr 22
@zahlanzi saidTake a break, Zahlanzi, maybe a shot of Visinata and put your feet up.
"How can we let people in Mexico come into our country without passports"
You don't.
" Zhalanzi, we are friends . All of us here are friends "
No, we're not.
about 18,000 people will walk into the USA without passports everyday, there may be some Romanians among them with Yemenites, et al, the works. You know how I have mixing cultures!! I could scream. Without passports, Zahlanzi. You also misrepresent this very thread which you posted, that one MAN OWNS 30,000. Then you say here that, well, it is not relevant that it is really a separate entity, not one man. Everyone, Zahlanzi says there is no difference. I will not even waste an analogy on that one.
03 Apr 22
@wildgrass saidWhatever, Wildgrass. You know I made my point. IF govt had been involved controlling these men, nothing could have moved as fast as it did, and without red tape. Zalhanzi is about govt control, as are you, of course...so maybe that is the underlying issue, would you think.?
That's a shaky premise to suggest Amazon and Ford would not exist if our taxes were more progressive. As you said in the "taxpayers should build stuff for rich people" thread, he ain't pouring his own money into the company anymore.
In 2020, Jeff Bezos got divorced, lost $133 billion but remained the richest person in the world. In 2021 he made all of it back and then some ($177 billion). Those numbers seem to suggest somethings wrong with the system.
@averagejoe1 saidNo it's exactly the opposite. You are fine with gov't to fund vanity projects for rich people. Jeff Bezos tax rate is 0.98% and mine is 30. The government is directly participating in increases to billionaire wealth - at my expense. This example of a corporate CEO outbidding new home owners on tens of thousands of houses and then proclaiming that other people are choosing not to buy houses is just one example of that disturbing trend.
Zalhanzi is about govt control, as are you, of course...so maybe that is the underlying issue, would you think.?
03 Apr 22
@wildgrass saidAnd you are fine with govt control. What if a feller wants to buy and flip or rent houses. Govt says you can only own 10. Wilderass, does that limitation sound like America to you? Why, he wants to get richer than that. Zahlanzi says he should not be allowed to get richer. So, you are with Zahlanzi on that??
No it's exactly the opposite. You are fine with gov't to fund vanity projects for rich people. Jeff Bezos tax rate is 0.98% and mine is 30. The government is directly participating in increases to billionaire wealth - at my expense. This example of a corporate CEO outbidding new home owners on tens of thousands of houses and then proclaiming that other people are choosing not to buy houses is just one example of that disturbing trend.
@averagejoe1 said"it they had told Bezos that a billion should just be about enough for his ass, then we would not have an Amazon."
You are saying that (the govt?) should tell man how mjuch money he 'needs'. Zahlanzi, it they had told Bezos that a billion should just be about enough for his ass, then we would not have an Amazon. And I guess no railroads if (the govt?) had cut off Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, Gould, et al.
Ha, need I mention Henry Ford!?!??!??!?! Jesus. But again, your b ...[text shortened]... hings liberty allows us, in America anyway, to do what the hell we want to do.
Zahlanzi???
Good. We would have had more smaller Amazons, vying for a share of the market, maybe, dare i ask, offering better working conditions to their warehouse workers so they don't leave for a competitor.
"And I guess no railroads if (the govt?) had cut off Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, Gould, et al."
They weren't even remotely close to the obscene wealth today's billionaires have.
To say that the human race wouldn't have built railroads or cars if you didn't let a few exploit the many and amass obscene wealth is idiotic
"the things liberty allows us, in America anyway, to do what the hell we want to do."
It doesn't allow you to do "what the hell you want to do". You're the least free people among the first world countries. You can't leave a job because you will lose your healthcare which you can't pick for yourself because your employer pickst it for you. You can't start a business because Walmart or Amazon or whatever other corporation will run you bankrupt AND you have no healthcare. You can't get an education without incurring massive debt.
It's funny when you have no argument left and resort to "America, FREEDOM" as if that's not something most other countries have and more of it than you anyway.
Right now i am more free in my country, the one you so like to attack (because the ultimate test for a country doing well is to do better than Romania). I own my own house, i have 0 debt out of college, an ambulance ride to the hospital won't bankrupt me, on the rare occasions police stop me i don't worry about getting killed and we vote for our leaders on Sunday, not in the middle of the week at the only polling place for miles.
@zahlanzi saidRockefeller wealth in today's dollars : $418 Billion. Wrong on that one.
"it they had told Bezos that a billion should just be about enough for his ass, then we would not have an Amazon."
Good. We would have had more smaller Amazons, vying for a share of the market, maybe, dare i ask, offering better working conditions to their warehouse workers so they don't leave for a competitor.
"And I guess no railroads if (the govt?) had cut off Carneg ...[text shortened]... e vote for our leaders on Sunday, not in the middle of the week at the only polling place for miles.
There is quite a demand for express Amazon purchase and delivery business, , those little ones can have at it anytime, don't get you there. In socialistic thinking, you naturally think one such entity is just the way it is. One Nanny provider of shipped goods. And, What has working conditions got to do with your point? Everybody get a poster board.
Nothing idiotic about the way the railroads and cars came along. Maybe you think the govt should have put bids out for twelve different rails and 12 different car makers. Naaaa, USA was a bit busy to have some Nanny involved. It happened the way it happened, and there were many car manufacturers, some got started earlier than others.....and......Ford INVENTED the assembly line concept. Maybe gov should have said No, you can't do that, it is not fair?.
When I read your para about 'what the hell you want to do', that is EXACTLY what America is about. That paragraph reeks with the concept of freedom. Choose what healthcare you want, a LOT of competition in the arena, and my employer is not our life coach. You indeed can start a business, and if you make good decisions, no other entity can run you bankrupt. Oh, and you have a right to carry a sign in the street. Picket. And you mention other countries. So what about them, got nothing to do with USA.
I certainly do hope that you own your own house, sounds normal to me. Everyone has their own private college financing situations here, too. We have ambulances, insurance, and some police, though not enough because liberals are running them off.
We also have a govt that lets us be as successful as we want to be, which is probably the most impt line in this post. We need those people.
04 Apr 22
@zahlanzi said@zahlanzi said
"A consensus is where everybody loses. "
assume you mean compromise. So how do billionaires lose? They are allowed right now to make as much money as they want, they can buy politicians yo make laws in their favour, they dodge the laws they can't change, they get bailouts when they make bad calls, they can treat their employees like crap and the list goes on.
My proposa ...[text shortened]... rewood but the people around you are starving. And that firewood is just sitting there doing nothing
Quote {"A consensus is where everybody loses. "
assume you mean compromise. So how do billionaires lose? They are allowed right now to make as much money as they want, they can buy politicians yo make laws in their favour, they dodge the laws they can't change, they get bailouts when they make bad calls, they can treat their employees like crap and the list goes on.} End quote:
Some can do these things and do do these things. Not all. No matter what system one puts in place the really bad people will rise to the top. As I have stated before, capitalism in the best we have.
Quote " 99% tax above 1billion "
I am assuming you mean taxing the excess personal income of over 1billion per year at 99%. I can not find to much fault with that, though I am not sure how much right "I" have to compel someone else to agree to my ideologies.
Quote {At some point holding unto that much wealth becomes unethical in itself. Like havin 99% of all firewood in the village. You're already warm, there is no way you can use more firewood but the people around you are starving. And that firewood is just sitting there doing nothing }
Disagree in principle, I may be able to agree inasmuch as what they may do with that wealth. No-one "hangs onto" wealth in such simplistic terms. It is usually invested. Even cash has its place, allowing people to access a loan to get ahead. It allows people to live in a nice house, start a business, etc,etc, to get ahead themselves. That money can lift others, that take advantage of it, out of poverty. I believe that is whats happening in China.
@jimmac saidZahlanzi, sorry for my strong language above. I am Extemely for freedom to do what you want to so within the law., Build want you want to build, unfettered.
@zahlanzi said
Quote {"A consensus is where everybody loses. "
assume you mean compromise. So how do billionaires lose? They are allowed right now to make as much money as they want, they can buy politicians yo make laws in their favour, they dodge the laws they can't change, they get bailouts when they make bad calls, they can treat their employees like crap and the ...[text shortened]... lift others, that take advantage of it, out of poverty. I believe that is whats happening in China.
As to the firewood analogy above, I get it, but it is a bit of a stretch in a country like the USA. There is something for everyone here. No such restriction or lack of access as suggested by the firewood analogy.
There is no'holding on to wealth'. It is reinvested. 'Nuff said on that. And yes, the rich guy, all 400 of them, eat caviar whle their money works like a Son of a B...tch. So you want us all on the Forum to go light candles in front of their houses!?!??
Yes, some bad people will rise to the top. Liberals cannot stand the thought of that. Get on with our lives, the world is not perfect,. This is life, this is business. I never think about them. Do you really think about the rich people?
I only. at this moment see that Jimmmac said "No one hangs on to wealth, it is usually invested". I swear to Mary andJoseph that I had just typed that same thing above, before seeing Jmac post.. So you have two People trying to drive that home, but libs just do not get that, it is like there has been no education in economics.
04 Apr 22
@jimmac said"As I have stated before, capitalism in the best we have."
@zahlanzi said
Quote {"A consensus is where everybody loses. "
assume you mean compromise. So how do billionaires lose? They are allowed right now to make as much money as they want, they can buy politicians yo make laws in their favour, they dodge the laws they can't change, they get bailouts when they make bad calls, they can treat their employees like crap and the ...[text shortened]... lift others, that take advantage of it, out of poverty. I believe that is whats happening in China.
Capitalism can still exist with a progressive tax.
"No-one "hangs onto" wealth in such simplistic terms. It is usually invested. "
Nope. Billions of dollars sitting in offshore accounts.
"Even cash has its place, allowing people to access a loan to get ahead. It allows people to live in a nice house, start a business, etc,etc, to get ahead "
Regular people indeed do these things which is why it's better to give tax cuts to them instead of billionaires. Regular people actually do things with their money, they put it back into the economy. Billionaires don't
04 Apr 22
Smaller landlords do a service but this monopolisation of the housing market is not good for the economy of countries which have allowed this pernicious business model to bloom.
On the other hand I’m pleased that we now have Gen Z to talk about because I’m sick of hearing the whining Gen Y (millennials) who will soon be inheriting all the Boomer wealth they’ve been moaning about all their entitled lives.
04 Apr 22
@zahlanzi said@zahlanzi said
"As I have stated before, capitalism in the best we have."
Capitalism can still exist with a progressive tax.
"No-one "hangs onto" wealth in such simplistic terms. It is usually invested. "
Nope. Billions of dollars sitting in offshore accounts.
"Even cash has its place, allowing people to access a loan to get ahead. It allows people to live in a nice house, start ...[text shortened]... ar people actually do things with their money, they put it back into the economy. Billionaires don't
"As I have stated before, capitalism in the best we have."
Capitalism can still exist with a progressive tax.
We agree on this, though we may disagree on the semantics.
Nope. Billions of dollars sitting in offshore accounts.
Doing what, the depositor may " sit " the money in the account, but the money never simply sits.
Regular people indeed do these things which is why it's better to give tax cuts to them instead of billionaires. Regular people actually do things with their money, they put it back into the economy. Billionaires don't
Do you really think that it is that simple?? The top 1% in the US of A pay 40% of the personal income tax. In Aussie, not bothering to look it up, simply using anecdotal evidence, I doubt that the bottom 20% are net contributors to the tax base at all. Giving them benefits according to their circumstances is better than tax cuts as it is targeted, and usually their benefits far outweighing any tax paid, esp if you have kids. My guess would be young families The bottom 30% at least, have negative contributions. I am not saying that is bad in any way, kids are the future. That is just as I see it.