I won’t argue that....the rich person is indeed getting richer (heaven forbid! Lock him up!) by hiring people to work for him. Yes he sits and does no picking. I will venture that Henry Ford did not do any building of the cars. Let’s relax here. I’m assuming Richie acquired the island legally. Libs at some point in these discussions need always stipulate that ‘rich’ people, except for the inherited few, took a Risk to start their companies. (Steve Jobs went door to door to get a radio-shack type store to consign his 20 pitiful machines.) So he’s assessed his coconut inventory and hired people to pick.
Am I missing something here. So you say ‘that’s Capitalism ‘ Right. It is. Tomorrow about 300M people will do Capitalism. Are you suggesting another concept. But More importantly,are you mad at the island owner (who’s creating jobs?). By the way, nobody has to work for him, they can kayak out of there.
@averagejoe1 saidDepends on if there are more coconuts that others can pick or not.
Hoarding the coconuts is not producing? Picking them is being productive, which is the issue. Working, or not working. All I’m saying is that hangers-on in our society should produce or get out of the way. And at the end of the day, I am sweating, sitting on a pile of coconuts that I’ll use at the local college to educate my kids. What would you have me do with the cocon ...[text shortened]... We would all be amazed at the people in the society who would think nothing of that. Creepy indeed
@averagejoe1 saidI think there is a very good argument
I won’t argue that....the rich person is indeed getting richer (heaven forbid! Lock him up!) by hiring people to work for him. Yes he sits and does no picking. I will venture that Henry Ford did not do any building of the cars. Let’s relax here. I’m assuming Richie acquired the island legally. Libs at some point in these discussions need always stipulate that ‘rich’ peopl ...[text shortened]... d owner (who’s creating jobs?). By the way, nobody has to work for him, they can kayak out of there.
for inherited money to be taxed heavily.
I think there is a very good argument for unearned
income to be taxed at a higher rate than earned income.
I think there is a very good argument for
the rate of income tax to be linked to income.
I think there is a good argument for people in the lowest quartile to
pay no tax at all. Perhaps even everyone below median income.
Entrepreneurship should be encouraged by allowing business losses to be
offset against future profits for individuals, partnerships and companies.
None of those proposals would deter Richie
from working or investing or creating jobs.
1)The rate of income tax IS linked to income.
2)Actually, People in the lowestTWO quartiles pay no income tax at all. Those mean rich people pay it for them.
3) If a law is passed that a Richie cannot pass along his life’s work to his children, that they might learn philanthropy and carry on his works, he’d probably not bother making it. So, he’d close his doors and many jobs would be lost. You are aware, I assume, that the government has no money of its own So his workers would become poor people. As would their children. However, if the govt goes to the public and seizes money from its citizens, well, yes, his children might be able to get some support from the goovvveerrrnnmment. Whew.
4) “Unearned income” includes alimony, social security, child support, interest on savings.... You say above that it should be taxed more than earned income. That would hurt a lot of people. Best re-think that one.
Finally you are probably right, even given what I’ve weighed in on... The Richies of the world, because they are who they are will figure out how to continue to prosper, create jobs. create wealth and carry our nation forward one way or another, probably no matter what the government tries to do to them. Sure am glad the government didn’t regulate Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, or we would not be sitting with these gadgets right now. Why, I think I’ll write my Afghanistan brother right Noel!
Entrepreneurs can offset business losses with future profits? Please elaborate, but let’s be sure we don’t somehow have govt involved in shoring up losses with taxpayer money. Do you know govt has been subsidizing GM for years, all to no avail. It is sinking. If I have a barber shop and you have a bike repair shop, my ups and downs should in no way be involved in your ups and downs.
@averagejoe1 saidThe government didn't regulate Bill Gates or Steve Jobs? Are you sure?
1)The rate of income tax IS linked to income.
2)Actually, People in the lowestTWO quartiles pay no income tax at all. Those mean rich people pay it for them.
3) If a law is passed that a Richie cannot pass along his life’s work to his children, that they might learn philanthropy and carry on his works, he’d probably not bother making it. So, he’d close his doors and ...[text shortened]... be sitting with these gadgets right now. Why, I think I’ll write my Afghanistan brother right Noel!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc.
@averagejoe1 saidAre we talking about USA? (There are other countries)
1)The rate of income tax IS linked to income.
2)Actually, People in the lowestTWO quartiles pay no income tax at all. Those mean rich people pay it for them.
3) If a law is passed that a Richie cannot pass along his life’s work to his children, that they might learn philanthropy and carry on his works, he’d probably not bother making it. So, he’d close his doors and ...[text shortened]... t didn’t regulate Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, or we would not be sitting with these gadgets right now.
1. Income tax brackets are obviously linked to income. I propose that the
absolute rate be linked to income. (Probably a logarithmic scale)
2. Rubbish. The median income is approx $60K, taxation can start at $10K
3. I didnt say Richie should not be able to pass on his wealth, only that it
is taxed heavily. That would not deter him from making money would it?
4. Only a fool would misinterpret what I meant by unearned income. The
phrase is understood in UK and NZ and does not include your examples
but does include interest payments, and money made on investments.
And finally - you do a great disservice to Mr Gates and Mr Jobs if you think a
fairer taxation system would have deterred them from starting their businesses.
@averagejoe1 saidQuite simple
Entrepreneurs can offset business losses with future profits? Please elaborate, but let’s be sure we don’t somehow have govt involved in shoring up losses with taxpayer money. Do you know govt has been subsidizing GM for years, all to no avail. It is sinking. If I have a barber shop and you have a bike repair shop, my ups and downs should in no way be involved in your ups and downs.
I have a start up business - goes bust, I lose $50,000 of my own money.
5 years later I start up another (different) business.
Makes $100,000 in second year.
My suggestion is to offset 50,000 against the previous business loss.
This would be a great incentive to small
business entrepreneurs. And reward risk-takers fairly.
The ups and downs of your barber shop and bike repair shop are intrinsic
to society and the economy. Of course taxation and subsidisation should
be art of a civilised economic policy - two sides of the same coin.
@averagejoe1 saidWhy aren't you answering my question? We can't have a discussion about taxes if you refuse to state your position about how, broadly speaking, you'd like the taxation system to be designed.
1)The rate of income tax IS linked to income.
2)Actually, People in the lowestTWO quartiles pay no income tax at all. Those mean rich people pay it for them.
3) If a law is passed that a Richie cannot pass along his life’s work to his children, that they might learn philanthropy and carry on his works, he’d probably not bother making it. So, he’d close his doors and ...[text shortened]... be sitting with these gadgets right now. Why, I think I’ll write my Afghanistan brother right Noel!
Can’t speak to to ways of the UK. Charles best prepare for a big surprise though, how much of Elizabeth’s money do you think the government should take? (650Mill estate) That is like asking How many immigrants do the libs want to let in! No one wants to answer that question either .
I say don’t tax a man’s estate at his death, because that money was taxed when he earned it. Richie is a farmer. He dies. His family gets his estate to Continue Farming! Over here, a family man builds a life for his family, and for his grandkids. But alas, the government knocks on the farm door and next thing you know the family has toSELL the farm to pay the inheritance tax. Think on that. It is not the governments business (in the USA) what a man does with his money. Do the society chiefs on the coconut island come get all the coconuts of the deceased and spread them around? That is of course what you are suggesting. This thread has found its socialist?? There are a lot of chess players here who do Not pay the $14/month for the privilege of using this site. As I do, I am paying for their recreation. Think on that too. How much should a man pay, even after his death, into the pockets of other people? How much? Does he have some debt to these people? The top 1% of taxpayers pay almost 50% of the income taxes. How much more do yo think they should pay?
@lemondrop saidYou mean like his present state of mind not being able to do the job he was elected for, like the G20 thing right now where he is just brooding in the corner unable to do the job of negotiation with the other world leaders on trade, defense and such, he can't do that job BECAUSE of his corruption now so apparent back here at home. Already canceled his appointment with SC president, and no meeting now with Putin, I think mainly because of the combination of Cohen flipping completely and the senate voting to not do military deals with Saudi Arabia because Trump LOVES dictators, cozying up to Putin and Kim Jong Un, his mentors it seems. Putting down our REAL allies around the world, making the US a laughing stock for real, remember the US visit by Trump where he said Germany will have to depend on Russian oil, followed by belly laughs? You think that is funny right wingnuts?
I have a dozen books on Nixon and Watergate
a couple on Clinton
twenty on Trump so far
this man is the greatest show on earth
he's in your face 24/7 and I just love hating him
when he's out of office and the usual crooks take center stage
BORING
Trump is DANGEROUS right now, unpredictable like a volcano about to go off, and will use his power to do SOMETHING really bad, maybe even starting some BS war with Iran or some such as a super distraction from his self created corruption problems at home. Hint: There WAS collusion by Trump with Russia and that will be proven. Rightwingnuts, you LOSE bigtime.
That is not you Lemon, I am referring to Whodey, Mott and that crowd who are Trump sycophants, sucking up to him just as his brainwashed so-called base.
Now 60% DISAPPROVAL rating already, wait till the shyte REALLY hits the fan, even his frothing at the mouth supporters will have to rethink their love of this narcissistic sociopath we have as POTUS.
As dumb as he is, Pence will be a spring rain compared to the Trump tornado.
Re the $50,000 lost in a business which you feel should be ‘recouped’ from profit in another business. This seems simple enough , as I think you are saying that when I make $100K in the new business I can take 50k of that to cover my loss in the old business. I would do that in a heartbeat. But I can already do that. So, what other concept are you suggesting? That the govt be involved? Please, no.