Well there is always a 1st!

If you want to say something that doesent fit anywhere else!
MAIN WEBSITE: http://www.wheelchairdriver.com

Well there is always a 1st!

Postby sacharlie » 02 Sep 2017, 05:24

Did this slip by the MSM programers? But Carlson could get fired. How dare he ask why earned income of the working class should be taxed at twice the rate of investment income. Shame on him.


youtu.be/NBzCF2bjbLM
sacharlie
 
Posts: 1801
Joined: 01 Aug 2010, 18:52
Location: USA

Re: Well there is always a 1st!

Postby Burgerman » 02 Sep 2017, 12:48

That's easy. He is as ignorant as you. And cannot see that RATE isn't the same as QUANTITY of dollars. Rate as in percentage, is the way the poor or middle class get to make the rich pay for them.
And the other guy is right. Its YOUR money he is managing and if you don't want economic collapse or even contraction you must incentivise investment...

If the average earner paid 70% tax they would STILL pay less dollars than the 1% do. So the system is already rigged in the favour of the middle class wage earner.

The only FAIR breakdown of income tax bill should be total amount gov spent, divided by number of tax payers = x dollars each. But you wouldn't like this... Since it would be more than your wages. So you must use a percentage scale instead to make those with more income pay more than their share. Its a form of socialism.

And of course you NEED that low tax incentive for them to invest as much money as possible. Because that's the money that the average Dumbo needs to use and borrow on his credit cards, HP on cars etc, and mortgages because they never understood the economics well enough to save and invest FIRST. Its also the money that your businesses use as overdraft to run on to employ the middle and lower classes. And the money the country borrows to run on. You are of course as usual clueless.

It pays for this:

Image

And tax it, and they wont invest.
And no money. then the country and YOU are screwed.

Read this simple explanation of why you MUST incentivise for investment (your hedge fund guy that you despise so, even though he is propping you up in several ways) https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-the ... bt-3306124

As usual, you have not told us why you think those with more should pay more for the same services than you do? So as to help support your standard of living. So what's your answer?
User avatar
Burgerman
Site Admin
 
Posts: 65050
Joined: 27 May 2008, 21:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Well there is always a 1st!

Postby sacharlie » 02 Sep 2017, 16:36

Burgerman wrote:
If the average earner paid 70% tax they would STILL pay less dollars than the 1% do. So the system is already rigged in the favour of the middle class wage earner.

The only FAIR breakdown of income tax bill should be total amount gov spent, divided by number of tax payers = x dollars each.


Thats really stupid. That thinking is no different than a merchant dumb enough to divide the total value of mixed items in inventory by the total number of item and then sell each item for the same price. Take the Dow Jones Industrial Average, with your thinking the stock of any company should be the same as another.
sacharlie
 
Posts: 1801
Joined: 01 Aug 2010, 18:52
Location: USA

Re: Well there is always a 1st!

Postby Burgerman » 02 Sep 2017, 16:52

No its not. The items each buys are IDENTICAL.

And you know it. Each person gets the same social structure, schools, etc, and the same roads, same libraries. same services, same sup[port net if no money/job and so on. Except the 1 percent are likely to make less use of some of it. So they should each pay the same share.

The conservative party tried this for property tax in the UK - they scrapped it. Because its another unfair tax. Why should someone that's worked harder and bought a bigger house pay more? He likely didn't waste it on cigarettes, loans, holidays etc and worked and saved. He gets the same services why should he pay more for the same? And some houses have 1 occupant, some live 4 to a room... So it wasn't a fair way to pay for local services. So they divided the tax up by the members of the community over 18 instead. It was called the pole tax. The house owner now paid the same as every other community member. About 380 UK pounds, instead of 1700... There was an uproar and massive non payment by all those not used to paying. Like students, or people living in hostels, or wherever. Because the ones with the bigger houses that were say just a married couple were no longer supporting the immigrants living 4 to a room.

The income tax system is no different. Each has the country protected by the same police, military, same infrastructure, same bins emptied, same massive gov debt to service, same navy, same everything worth worrying about. So lets try again. What gives you the right to expect them to pay more dollars into the system by large margin than you do? Why do you think you have a right to more of their cash to help subsidise yours for the society you live in?

Do you want me to say it for you?
OK.
They have more than you. So you think its easier for them. And harder for you. And THAT is what makes you a socialist. And we know that this simply causes everyone to be poorer! You collapse the economy or at least shrink it, and end up like every socialist country on the planet has. POORER!

I don't get how you can be this ignorant. There's NO PIE!
There's no money box with some fixed arbitrary amount of dollars...
You are not taking some from the rich to give to the poor by taxing them more. You are just deflating the entire system by removing the investment capital and will to expand, grow, etc. You are just shrinking the growth that pays for your current standard of living. As all communist/socialist economies do. And that always works out great!
User avatar
Burgerman
Site Admin
 
Posts: 65050
Joined: 27 May 2008, 21:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Well there is always a 1st!

Postby sacharlie » 02 Sep 2017, 17:09

Burgerman wrote:No its not. The items each buys are IDENTICAL.

And you know it. Each person gets the same social structure, schools, etc, and the same roads, same libraries. same services, same sup[port net if no money/job and so on. Except the 1 percent are likely to make less use of some of it. So they should each pay the same share.



Some taxpayers have kids (some don't), some taxpayers drive cars (some ride bikes) yet there is no tax rate adjustment for that.
sacharlie
 
Posts: 1801
Joined: 01 Aug 2010, 18:52
Location: USA

Re: Well there is always a 1st!

Postby Burgerman » 02 Sep 2017, 17:13

That's true. So the overall cost has to be averaged over the population which of course it is. So it changes nothing. The averaged cost of ALL GOVERNMENT services, including schools, should be the same for ALL. That's how social(list) care works.

So again. Why do you think you have the right to the 1 percent's extra tax to help pay for your share?

I know why. You WANT it! So you cant answer this sensibly. And have to start with the illogic all over again.

Do you want me to say it for you?
OK.
They have more than you. So you think its easier for them. And harder for you. And THAT is what makes you a socialist. And we know that this simply causes everyone to be poorer! You collapse the economy or at least shrink it, and end up like every socialist country on the planet has. POORER!

I don't get how you can be this ignorant. There's NO PIE!
There's no money box with some fixed arbitrary amount of dollars...
You are not taking some from the rich to give to the poor by taxing them more. You are just deflating the entire system by removing the investment capital and will to expand, grow, etc. You are just shrinking the growth that pays for your current standard of living. As all communist/socialist economies do. And that always works out great!
User avatar
Burgerman
Site Admin
 
Posts: 65050
Joined: 27 May 2008, 21:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Well there is always a 1st!

Postby sacharlie » 02 Sep 2017, 18:03

Are you saying the childless should pay for schools?
sacharlie
 
Posts: 1801
Joined: 01 Aug 2010, 18:52
Location: USA

Re: Well there is always a 1st!

Postby Burgerman » 02 Sep 2017, 18:10

Yes. That was already extremely clear. In the same way that the 1% pay for the unemployed, those that are disabled pay for sports stadiums, or those that cant read pay for libraries. Or do you not understand the concept of averages?

You divide the bill, that the gov pay, all of it, the cost of the national debt, the cost of airports that many never use, and EVERYTHING that they spend the tax money on, by the number of taxpayers. This means all pay the same, thats what an averaged cost per citizen IS. That IS the socialist care and services part of the government. And splitting the bill equally between every tax payer is the only fair way to run your community, or country. So everyone pays the same for the same.

But the bill would be way too high for the average worker. So the average person wins big, by taxing the rich as a percentage, so they are unfairly made to pay more to subsidise you. Which by your own figures showed that they paid an enormous amount more than you do. Already. And you still want even more from them. But wont tell me why.

But I already know:

Do you want me to say it for you?
OK.
They have more than you. So you think its easier for them. And harder for you. And THAT is what makes you a socialist. And we know that this simply causes everyone to be poorer! You collapse the economy or at least shrink it, and end up like every socialist country on the planet has. POORER!

I don't get how you can be this ignorant. There's NO PIE!
There's no money box with some fixed arbitrary amount of dollars...
You are not taking some from the rich to give to the poor by taxing them more. You are just deflating the entire system by removing the investment capital and will to expand, grow, etc. You are just shrinking the growth that pays for your current standard of living. As all communist/socialist economies do. And that always works out great!
User avatar
Burgerman
Site Admin
 
Posts: 65050
Joined: 27 May 2008, 21:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Well there is always a 1st!

Postby sacharlie » 02 Sep 2017, 18:20

Burgerman wrote:Yes. In the same way that the 1% pay for the unemployed, those that are disabled pay for sports stadiums, or those that cant read pay for libraries. Or do you not understand the concept of averages?

You divide the bill, that the gov pay, all of it, the cost of the national debt, the cost of airports that many never use, and EVERYTHING that they spend the tax money on, by the number of taxpayers. This means all pay the same, thats what an averaged cost per citizen IS. That IS the socialist care and services part of the government. And splitting the bill equally between every tax payer is the only fair way to run your community, or country.

But the bill would be way too high for the average worker. So the average person wins big, by taxing the rich as a percentage, so they are unfairly made to pay more to subsidise you. Which by your own figures showed that they paid an enorous amount more than you do. Already. And you still want even more from them. But wont tell me why.

Because there is not such thing as a self made man. Although you seem to believe that way.
sacharlie
 
Posts: 1801
Joined: 01 Aug 2010, 18:52
Location: USA

Re: Well there is always a 1st!

Postby Burgerman » 02 Sep 2017, 18:23

Do you want me to say it for you?
OK.
They have more than you. So you think its easier for them. And harder for you. And THAT is what makes you a socialist. YOU want THEIR money.


This is the bit you should think about.
User avatar
Burgerman
Site Admin
 
Posts: 65050
Joined: 27 May 2008, 21:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Well there is always a 1st!

Postby sacharlie » 02 Sep 2017, 18:52

Everyone is in the same boat. The merchant would have no income without suppliers and buyers. If anyone of them earns 100x another one of them that does not mean his tax RATE should be 100x less than the other so they all averge out in a head count. You have to count the money not the heads.
sacharlie
 
Posts: 1801
Joined: 01 Aug 2010, 18:52
Location: USA

Re: Well there is always a 1st!

Postby sacharlie » 02 Sep 2017, 19:20

It's not just millionaires and workers or someone with 100x the income of another. Just turn your wrong assumption around for a minute. Take the investor with $1mil income that only pays a 15% capital gains rate, that is $150k in taxes. Put that up against the wage earner of $1mil that has to pay the 35% earned income rate, that is $350k. The idea of income classification is just wrong.
sacharlie
 
Posts: 1801
Joined: 01 Aug 2010, 18:52
Location: USA

Re: Well there is always a 1st!

Postby Burgerman » 02 Sep 2017, 19:44

No its not.
It's not just millionaires and workers or someone with 100x the income of another. Just turn your wrong assumption around for a minute. Take the investor with $1mil income that only pays a 15% capital gains rate, that is $150k in taxes. Put that up against the wage earner of $1mil that has to pay the 35% earned income rate, that is $350k. The idea of income classification is just wrong.

No whats wrong is that you have no clue about economics. That money he is gambling has already been income and had tax paid on it. And so this 15% is ANOTHER bite of his money. And investments go down as well as up. When was the last time the goverment paid the invester when he lost money? And when was the last time that you paid your employer for working? You make as much sense as a chocolate fireguard.

And no investors, or LESS investment because you took away the desire, and part of the money, and so business funding, expansion, growth employment, etc and there is no WAGE EARNER!
Everyone is in the same boat. The merchant would have no income without suppliers and buyers.

CORRECT and under a system where there is total free trade and wages and everything is allowed to find its natural value and worth (meaning either NO taxation or the same each) you have the perfect capitalist economy that makes your country as rich as its people and resourses can make it. That works GREAT! Its where his suppliers, and the buyers come from, and how they earn or MAKE money. Not this is new money not from some pot! Its why the most capitalist countries are the richest, and why those that do the opposite, are always the poorest.
If anyone of them earns 100x another one of them that does not mean his tax RATE should be 100x less than the other so they all averge out in a head count. You have to count the money not the heads.

Wrong. You scrap percentages commpletely because thats an UNFAIR and SOCIALIST way of collecting taxes. You simply divide the tax burden by the number of tax payers. Since they all get the same value. To not do this hinders the free capitalist system and hurts the very businesses that you all depend on to not end up like venuzuala. Thats the very reason trump is lowering tax to the high earners and dropping corporation tax from a rediculous 39 percent to FIFTEEN percent if your congress let him, to get some of your countries business and manufacturing, and investment money back into the country. You chased it all away. Along with your jobs. And your standards of living.

Because to take more from the rich introduces distortions into the free capitalist market by unfairly taking more from those in the best position to USE IT to improve and expand thier businesses. Or to invest it so other businesses can do the same. That is called REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. And always results in a poorer performing economy and a poorer country just as all socialist systems end up. You reduce the gains possible for risking all, opening a new factory, introducing a better widget or blowing it on development or better machinery etc. So business is less efficient, shrinks, and performs worse instead of better. Everyone ends up poorer.

The only thing wrong is that the rich are ALREADY subsidising you in direct taxation. Whilst also being the ones that start, run, invest in, all the things that also empoly the masses, and produce the income that your country depends on. And again you didnt explain:

Why you think they should subsidise YOUR meagre input into the same system that they already pay more towards. In other words why you think you have a right to their money?
User avatar
Burgerman
Site Admin
 
Posts: 65050
Joined: 27 May 2008, 21:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Well there is always a 1st!

Postby Burgerman » 02 Sep 2017, 19:56

Why am I bothering. I dont think you are capable of understanding.

Note that, apart from paying less direct tax than the rich do, by an enormous margin you also:

Do not produce any goods yourself if you work for a company. The company does that. You part is simply offer your skills/labour for a fee. Your transaction/contract is simple, direct and agreed based on your worth to the employer if you both agree. Whereas they do produce the goods (and have all the business/development risk). Which are then sold, for profit and so taxed again, and also VAT on top when sold to the public! All this is taxation is due to the original high earner owner or investor, not you. And the company or individual private owner or shareholder too and remember shares are not wages, they also go down and you lose your house. So they are taxed on wages, product profits, and as VAT. And they also employ you on some safe agreed contract, so now you have a wage, and pay tax, and VAT on everything you spend that on.

However, much investor risk, and many business failures, mean that these people can lose billions too. And the government dont give them this back. So comparing yourself as a no risk, simple wage earner with unions, garanteed conditions, known hours, holiday or redundancy pay, etc is not comparing like with like. But its convenient for you to always ignore this stuff and all of the rest in my 5 posts on this page and keep crying because of some percentage garbage bullshit. When they are already paying more than you do.
User avatar
Burgerman
Site Admin
 
Posts: 65050
Joined: 27 May 2008, 21:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Well there is always a 1st!

Postby sacharlie » 03 Sep 2017, 05:15

Burgerman wrote:No its not.
It's not just millionaires and workers or someone with 100x the income of another. Just turn your wrong assumption around for a minute. Take the investor with $1mil income that only pays a 15% capital gains rate, that is $150k in taxes. Put that up against the wage earner of $1mil that has to pay the 35% earned income rate, that is $350k. The idea of income classification is just wrong.


No whats wrong is that you have no clue about economics. That money he is gambling has already been income and had tax paid on it. And so this 15% is ANOTHER bite of his money. And investments go down as well as up. When was the last time the goverment paid the invester when he lost money? And when was the last time that you paid your employer for working? You make as much sense as a chocolate fireguard.



Well I see you are confused but that's OK. There is so much bullshit put out by the plutocracy that many folks run around confused. Read carefully as I explain some of the terminology here. His capital investment has already been taxed once. Capital gains tax is a tax on his GAIN over and above his capital investment. Maybe some numbers will be clearer for you. If an investor buys $100k worth of stock and then sells all that he bought a year later for $300k he realizes a $200k capital GAIN and pays the 15% tax rate only on the $200k GAIN. He does not pay 15% tax on his original $100k investment.

Also if he loses his $100k investment he gets a $100k deduction against present or future GAINS in other investments. Now the last time the government paid the investor that lost was the Wall Street Banks and Insurers bailouts in 2007, 08 & 09.

Your last question makes no sense unless interning at an accounting or law firm could be called paying your dues. But I have never paid an employer for working; they paid me.

Hope I was of some help to you. But it's late here and I never wanted to be a teacher. Goodnight
sacharlie
 
Posts: 1801
Joined: 01 Aug 2010, 18:52
Location: USA

Re: Well there is always a 1st!

Postby Burgerman » 03 Sep 2017, 10:09

Well I see you are confused but that's OK. There is so much bullshit put out by the plutocracy that many folks run around confused. Read carefully as I explain some of the terminology here. His capital investment has already been taxed once. Capital gains tax is a tax on his GAIN over and above his capital investment.


Correct. He is an INVESTOR. That is gambling with money. HALF of the investors lose their house. The risk is very high. Approx 50% Do you ever go to work on your nice secured protected contract and get to PAY your employer instead of being paid? Thought not. You gain every time. All a wage earner does is exchange his time for an agreed amount. No risk. And thats the point. However if you risk your house, or business capital on the stock market (investment) you have an approx 50/50 chance of winning/losing depending on how well you choose. But the goverment does NOT give you the tax back if you lose. Its simply gone. So to make it worthwhile to an investor to put his life on the stock market the rewards must be worthwhile. If there was a further huge tax to pay it quite literally changes the odds. And so the investment you need to run the country vanishes or reduces and you and those like you lose your safe secure jobs. Venzuala here we come. You are as retarded as jeremy corbin and show you have no clue.

Maybe some numbers will be clearer for you. If an investor buys $100k worth of stock and then sells all that he bought a year later for $300k he realizes a $200k capital GAIN and pays the 15% tax rate only on the $200k GAIN. He does not pay 15% tax on his original $100k investment.


Correct. But you ommited to mention that the gamble is approx 50 percent likely to succeed to he may lose his house. Or that his original amount that he is betting was ALREADY TAXED and so should not be taxed again if he gambles and wins. If it is, then he should get PAID tax if he loses any money too. You show a level of ignorance that is frankly astounding. How many investors do you suppose lose everything? And you are trying to compare this huge risk exposure to a safe job with holiday pay and all the protections your contract and the law gives you. "that investment banker has loads of money, give it to me"... To get them to invest at all REQUIRES incentives. You are retarded!

Also if he loses his $100k investment he gets a $100k deduction against present or future GAINS in other investments. Now the last time the government paid the investor that lost was the Wall Street Banks and Insurers bailouts in 2007, 08 & 09.


And if he loses his house and has no other investment? What does he get then? Correct the promis of not paying as much tax if he can somehow get his house back. You want to compare your safe job, with a guy risking his OWN money. Sorry but if you think its so great, remorgage your own house, and put it all on gold and see how that feels. You cannot compare investments to jobs. Which is why you dont go into work one month and the employer charges YOU because they had a bad month/year/... And THAT is the diference.
Your last question makes no sense unless interning at an accounting or law firm could be called paying your dues. But I have never paid an employer for working; they paid me.


Exactly YOU have no risk! Why not give the boss the money or the title to your house to finance his business. IF he makes a profit, you get to win, and pay tax on it. Even though you already have! And if his business goes bust you lose the lot. THAT is investing. You keep trying to compare it to taxing wages. You are seriously retarded!

Hope I was of some help to you. But it's late here and I never wanted to be a teacher. Goodnight


The only thing you taught me was that you are utterly clueless. But you do that every time you refuse to ever answer ANY of my question, while I can easily answer yours and do.

I have 2 questions for you.

1. Why should gambling with money on investments, where you risk losing your money by 50% you were already taxed on, be retaxed AGAIN anyway? And since it is:

2. Why do you think that it should be taxed at the same rate as a secure job income with no risk of loss attached?

Of course you cant! Because to do so makes you look as dumb as that newsreader in post 1.
User avatar
Burgerman
Site Admin
 
Posts: 65050
Joined: 27 May 2008, 21:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Well there is always a 1st!

Postby Lord Chatterley » 15 Sep 2017, 18:36

sacharlie wrote:Did this slip by the MSM programers? But Carlson could get fired. How dare he ask why earned income of the working class should be taxed at twice the rate of investment income. Shame on him.


Where do you imagine the earned income of the working classes comes from? EVERY SINGLE PENNY of the earned income of the working classes comes from the capital investment of capitalists. When China relied solely on the wealth creating capacities of its workers they were reduced to literal cannibalism.
They then allowed the free flow of capital - particularly foreign capital - and now we see the result.

If you really want to help the working classes then the lesson is clear - abolish all taxes on capital and particularly on those directing the profitable allocation of capital.

LC
Lord Chatterley
 
Posts: 2915
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 13:12

Re: Well there is always a 1st!

Postby Burgerman » 15 Sep 2017, 20:31

I have been telling him this for what seems like forever, in more ways than I imagined were possible. Yet still all he sees "rich people have more" so thinks that it would help (him) if they pay more tax dollars than he does, to help prop him up. And no amount of reason, logic, examples seems to help. So like all socialists, the grasp of basic economics is beyond him.
User avatar
Burgerman
Site Admin
 
Posts: 65050
Joined: 27 May 2008, 21:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Well there is always a 1st!

Postby Lord Chatterley » 16 Sep 2017, 17:28

Burgerman wrote:I have been telling him this for what seems like forever, in more ways than I imagined were possible. Yet still all he sees "rich people have more" so thinks that it would help (him) if they pay more tax dollars than he does, to help prop him up. And no amount of reason, logic, examples seems to help. So like all socialists, the grasp of basic economics is beyond him.


Class warfare propaganda has become so widespread that people scarcely recognise it. People don't seem to realise that they are being played by cronyists who seek to use the state to protect their businesses from competitors - and political power lusters are all too willing to help them always in the name of somehow the protecting "the poor" or some other group.

LC
Lord Chatterley
 
Posts: 2915
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 13:12


Return to Anything

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 87 guests

cron

 

  eXTReMe Tracker