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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests