Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Aquila King

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez - HUGE SCANDAL!!!!

759 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Earl.Of.Trumps
1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

Allow me to correct some misperceptions here.  When I'm talking of the wealthy, I'm talking people who make more than $10 million/year.  $134,000 per year is considered a middle class income in urban areas. (check it out: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/09/06/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/)

And yes, we middle class folks pay most of the income tax.  Remember Trump's brag that he pays no income tax?  That's because he's got tax shelters and any business loss (including ones he takes deliberately) can be used to wipe out his tax bill.

The rest of us don't have that option.

Venture capitalists aren't the ones creating those jobs.  They act as banks and give loans but they don't actually say "go out and hire 5,000 people."  They fund something and expect a payback -- investors, not owners.

Yeah, I think they need to have their loopholes shut down and pay taxes like the rest of us.  30% wouldn't hurt, and if they did that, we could relieve some of the tax burden on poorer Americans or at least fund some highway and bridge infrastructure projects, no matter how small.

 

I don't know how else to put it to you. Dueling statistics...?

Top 1% Pay Almost Half of Income Taxes

According to a projection from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent of Americans will pay 45.7 percent of the individual income taxes in 2014—up from 43 percent in 2013 and 40 percent in 2012 (the oldest period available)

 

It seems "fair" to me that if the 1% pays a much bigger share of taxes, when the tax cuts do come, the cut on the 1% should be proportionally large. The libs don't like this because they are greedy and want it ALL.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
9 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Bllionaires do not create jobs, the market does. 

I'm no business guru, trust me, tat. But I say billionaires and or industrialists create markets. 

Was there a "market" for home computers before Jobs invented the Apple home computer??   Ditto for Edison with the light bulb etc.

9 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Billionaires have a seat at the table and have the resources to ride the trend up and turn it into more resources.  The incentive is always there and it is more than money. 

Yes. It is a source of pride for inventors and investors. keeps them going

9 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

If all anybody with a billion dollars can make is 10% , their money doubles in about seven years.   And so does ours if we invest properly.   Jobs are made by people who want something, like an I phone, badly enough to buy it.

The "job market" is just that - a market.  Just because one wants a job, does not mean he'll find one, it depends.  Right now, the job market is booming, thanks to Trump.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
12 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I don't know how else to put it to you. Dueling statistics...?

Top 1% Pay Almost Half of Income Taxes

According to a projection from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent of Americans will pay 45.7 percent of the individual income taxes in 2014—up from 43 percent in 2013 and 40 percent in 2012 (the oldest period available)

 

It seems "fair" to me that if the 1% pays a much bigger share of taxes, when the tax cuts do come, the cut on the 1% should be proportionally large. The libs don't like this because they are greedy and want it ALL.

And yet we haven't increased the tax rates in those years.  So why is it that the amount that they are paying is going up?  Could it be that they are getting a bigger and bigger piece of the pie?  An increasing wealth inequality isn't a real good reason for a tax cut.

If you want the lower 99% to pay more, perhaps you should be working on a method to get them more of the pie to tax?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
16 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

And yet we haven't increased the tax rates in those years.  So why is it that the amount that they are paying is going up?  Could it be that they are getting a bigger and bigger piece of the pie?

I'm not doing the research into whether or not there have been any tax changes so I"ll take your word on it.  It seems logical that yes, they made more money. And I know that to you and libs, this is no less than a damm crime!   So sorry.  If I had a great invention and became fabulously wealthy, I would to think that you would congratulate me, not decry "my ilk"

16 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

  An increasing wealth inequality isn't a real good reason for a tax cut.

In the dems book of rules,  there is NEVER a good reason for tax cuts.  So sorry again.

16 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

If you want the lower 99% to pay more, perhaps you should be working on a method to get them more of the pie to tax?

the "lower 99" did get a tax break but because they paid less in, they get less rebated. very simple.  I am not a socialist, I'm a freedomist. I don't demand that people fall into certain categories so that their number placements are pleasing to the eye.  In other words, "it is what it is". For many workers now, more important than the tax break they got, is the JOB they got that produces the paycheck that gets taxed less.  Lest we forget.. the JOB.

Come election time, many people across America that got jobs in this good job market including - Latinos, Afros, Women etc.. will remember who was a speaker of substance and who was nothing but hot air.

Happy motoring

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
2 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I'm not doing the research into whether or not there have been any tax changes so I"ll take your word on it.  It seems logical that yes, they made more money. And I know that to you and libs, this is no less than a damm crime!   So sorry.  If I had a great invention and became fabulously wealthy, I would to think that you would congratulate me, not decry "my ilk"

In the dems book of rules,  there is NEVER a good reason for tax cuts.  So sorry again.

the "lower 99" did get a tax break but because they paid less in, they get less rebated. very simple.  I am not a socialist, I'm a freedomist. I don't demand that people fall into certain categories so that their number placements are pleasing to the eye.  In other words, "it is what it is". For many workers now, more important than the tax break they got, is the JOB they got that produces the paycheck that gets taxed less.  Lest we forget.. the JOB.

Come election time, many people across America that got jobs in this good job market including - Latinos, Afros, Women etc.. will remember who was a speaker of substance and who was nothing but hot air.

Happy motoring

It's pretty simply actually.  We tax the dollar when it cycles.  If the tops 1% owns 50% of all the dollars, they will invariably pay 50% of the taxes.  If they own 90% of everything they will pay 90%.  Cutting their taxes because you think they are paying too much just because they pay the same rate as they own is silly.

You are also forgetting what is important.  Without taxes we get no walls, bullets for our military, roads, police, mail, etc.  Our tax rate has to be focused on paying the bills first and making companies money second.  It's not the government's job to make companies profitable after all- it's the companies themselves. 

And lets face it, election time came and the people spoke.  My state (Iowa) voted in a Republican governor, house and senate.  But when it came to the federal level we voted in 3/4 democrats with the fourth republican winning with the lowest margin in his decades of political career.  Trump really screwed up with our Republican farmers and agriculture business.

(And btw, jobs really aren't that big of a deal in Iowa.  We've had crazy low unemployment and a worker shortage even back in the Obama days.)

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
2 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I don't know how else to put it to you. Dueling statistics...?

Top 1% Pay Almost Half of Income Taxes

According to a projection from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent of Americans will pay 45.7 percent of the individual income taxes in 2014—up from 43 percent in 2013 and 40 percent in 2012 (the oldest period available)

 

It seems "fair" to me that if the 1% pays a much bigger share of taxes, when the tax cuts do come, the cut on the 1% should be proportionally large. The libs don't like this because they are greedy and want it ALL.

That was before the Trump tax cut, which favored them... and it's a projection of what they pay based on income levels.

From your article...

Quote

The CBO said that the average federal income tax rate paid by the top 1 percent has also dropped since 1979—falling from 22.7 percent in 1979 to 20.3 percent in 2011.

But this is deviating away from the initial point of the argument, which is that they are NOT job creators.  They are investors.  While companies they own may be hiring, it's not due to them running out and hiring people.

Do you really think Bill Gates will be shoved into poverty if he's asked to pay another $50,000 in taxes each year?  He makes over 170,000/hour (not a typo: https://www.techtipsunfold.com/how-much-does-bill-gates-make-a-second/

I don't quite get your getting upset over the idea of taxing someone making $170,000 per hour being asked to pay $34,000 of that (per hour) in taxes.  We all benefit from it (roads, police service, military, fire departments, parks, libraries, records, etc, etc.  He does pay just over a million dollars in property tax -- less than two weeks of 8-hour workday pay at what he earns each hour.

Now, I rather like the idea of a flat tax with nobody being allowed to take any deductions.

...but we were talking about job creation.  I tend to prefer smaller businesses creating local jobs - in most case then the wealth stays in the community rather than going elsewhere (including overseas, as happens since a number of large companies have investors or owners who are not American.)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

'm no business guru, trust me, tat. But I say billionaires and or industrialists create markets. 

Was there a "market" for home computers before Jobs invented the Apple home computer??   Ditto for Edison with the light bulb etc.

A market is supply on one side and demand on the other.  If a billionaire sinks all of his money today in producing buggy whips, he might not be a billionaire tomorrow. Demands are objects or services people need, desire or want.

Wozniak and Jobs started out as hackers. They went to homebrew computer meetings in Palo Alto when they were kids.  There was already a core of people building personal computers.  Altair, which was an early home computer programmed by a row of on/off switches on the front and sold for a few thousand dollars at the time was already on the market.  Wozniak came up with a better idea out of his experience with the early hacker community.  Home computers took off when they filled needs wants and desires.  For example,  for some users a Word Processor is superior to a typewriter and a printer better than carbon paper and a mimeograph machine.   Think a billionaire could create a market for mimeograph machines today?

Think people were sitting around in the dark before Edison?   There were kerosene lamps and candles (spermacetti candles, the best because they were smokeless) Also there were electric arc lights, and gas street lights with their attendant lamplighters.

Edison filled an existing need with a better product, people already wanted light.  Remember he started out as a telegraph operator not a billionaire.

We are so terrified of communism that the mention of "Workers"  makes our hair stand up.   We have migrated the opposite direction and tell ourselves that it is capital and the rich who are all important.  We almost worship and fear  the rich as the source of our prosperity and don't want to do anything to upset them.

It takes workers and capital and IDEAs to create an economy.  None of today's tech billionaires started off with more than a few thousand dollars, and none of today's old school and established billionaires  brought us the innovations, jobs, and economic growth these guys did.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
2 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

The "job market" is just that - a market.  Just because one wants a job, does not mean he'll find one, it depends.  Right now, the job market is booming, thanks to Trump.

Jobs are not supplied by billionaires out of the goodness of their heart.  The job market is booming because people want, need, desire the products and services of mind and hand.  I don't thank Trump, or Obama or anybody for that.  I thank the free market system.  I have a job because I provide a service to my employer that makes him money.  I work for an unsentimental but honest employer who tells me I have to generate 2,25 times my salary and benefits to keep my chair and my desk.  I am a worker who works with his brain and I am lucky that I can distinguish myself in that endeavor. I get bonuses and job perks because they want to keep me working for them and not go elsewhere, I am a resource with a good ROI,,  Manufacturing workers on the shop floor are  held to 3X wages by requirements for attendance, productivity, and quality.

 I believe in myself and my own worth. I don't consider myself a socialist, but I don't know what a freedomist is. I have survived three major layoffs of engineers less valuable to the company than myself. I wished them well, some of them are my friends, but I did not think the company owed them a job.  However, if you told me you were going to take 10% of the money I generate for my employer and convert it to investments in infrastructure, roads, bridges, the power grid, and better schools, I would think it was a pretty good idea. and not unfair   I know where the money comes from.  It is money that I and my fellow engineers and all the people on the factory floor generate.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS
1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

That was before the Trump tax cut, which favored them... and it's a projection of what they pay based on income levels.

From your article...

But this is deviating away from the initial point of the argument, which is that they are NOT job creators.  They are investors.  While companies they own may be hiring, it's not due to them running out and hiring people.

Do you really think Bill Gates will be shoved into poverty if he's asked to pay another $50,000 in taxes each year?  He makes over 170,000/hour (not a typo: https://www.techtipsunfold.com/how-much-does-bill-gates-make-a-second/

I don't quite get your getting upset over the idea of taxing someone making $170,000 per hour being asked to pay $34,000 of that (per hour) in taxes.  We all benefit from it (roads, police service, military, fire departments, parks, libraries, records, etc, etc.  He does pay just over a million dollars in property tax -- less than two weeks of 8-hour workday pay at what he earns each hour.

Now, I rather like the idea of a flat tax with nobody being allowed to take any deductions.

...but we were talking about job creation.  I tend to prefer smaller businesses creating local jobs - in most case then the wealth stays in the community rather than going elsewhere (including overseas, as happens since a number of large companies have investors or owners who are not American.)

I like flat and fair tax ideas too but I have a better question. Why should the government be entitled to nearly 3/4 of a person's earnings regardless of how much they make. What makes the government more entitled to that money than the guy who generated it?

40% tax tops. After that it becomes theft.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
16 hours ago, Kenemet said:

That was before the Trump tax cut, which favored them... and it's a projection of what they pay based on income levels.

oy vey :blink:   you're doing everything you can to avoid the issue. And that is, the top 1% is paying it's fair share before or after Trump.  And I know, some people have very strange ideas of what "fair" is. For liberals, it's "take everything the rich have".

16 hours ago, Kenemet said:

From your article...

But this is deviating away from the initial point of the argument, which is that they are NOT job creators.  They are investors.  While companies they own may be hiring, it's not due to them running out and hiring people.

Kenemet, you just don't get it.   if you invest your money, you create jobs whether you intend to or not. even if you save your money in a bank account you are creating jobs.  We are sitting in a job market right now that is as good as we've seen in a long, long time and you are doing everything in your power to convince me it has nothing to do with Trump's tax cut. pssst.. .it ain't working

16 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Do you really think Bill Gates will be shoved into poverty if he's asked to pay another $50,000 in taxes each year?  He makes over 170,000/hour (not a typo: https://www.techtipsunfold.com/how-much-does-bill-gates-make-a-second/

I'd much rather have Gates control the $50K than the gov, because he know's what to do with it. the gov will just pee it away in bureaucracy and useless social programs. did you know that 65% of welfare costs pay for administration of welfare? Ya, if you want to give a person $100 in benefits, you have to give $300 to welfare. but I digress

16 hours ago, Kenemet said:

I don't quite get your getting upset over the idea of taxing someone making $170,000 per hour being asked to pay $34,000 of that (per hour) in taxes.  We all benefit from it (roads, police service, military, fire departments, parks, libraries, records, etc, etc.  He does pay just over a million dollars in property tax -- less than two weeks of 8-hour workday pay at what he earns each hour.

taking more money from the top 1% will surely sway many people to get their money out of the US again. Then the gloomy economy returns, depending on how much money leaves the US.  We don't have a rich person problem, we have an OBESE uber rich government problem.  How come you don't look at government INCOME and view the 541 members of congress as rich.

16 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Now, I rather like the idea of a flat tax with nobody being allowed to take any deductions.

yes. I do too. Everyone earning up $100,000 - ZERO taxes. after that, 25% flat rate, NO deductions. that will get rid of a lot of paperwork.  But the greedy politicians would never go for that because there's a lot of gold in poor people's pockets because there are more poor people.

16 hours ago, Kenemet said:

...but we were talking about job creation.  I tend to prefer smaller businesses creating local jobs - in most case then the wealth stays in the community rather than going elsewhere (including overseas, as happens since a number of large companies have investors or owners who are not American.)

All big businesses need working capital when they start up. If they can't borrow money from banks due to a shortage of money, the business does not start and jobs are not created. Kenemet, this is FUNDAMENTAL to virtually all businesses, and I can't understand why you just don't get it.

anyway, good posting

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
15 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Jobs are not supplied by billionaires out of the goodness of their heart. 

Well, jeeez, Louise!! Really?? LOLOL    Come on, Tat, that is a given.

15 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

The job market is booming because people want, need, desire the products and services of mind and hand.  I don't thank Trump, or Obama or anybody for that.  I thank the free market system. 

Yes, but you have to understand the free market got a little bit MORE free due to tax cuts. Taxes can impede free market. The nation of Qatar just passed a 100% tax on alcohol. What do toy think that will do to sales...? and as a result, PRODUCTION?.  people will surely be laid off. I don't know why you don't see that

15 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

I have a job because I provide a service to my employer that makes him money.  I work for an unsentimental but honest employer who tells me I have to generate 2,25 times my salary and benefits to keep my chair and my desk.  I am a worker who works with his brain and I am lucky that I can distinguish myself in that endeavor. I get bonuses and job perks because they want to keep me working for them and not go elsewhere, I am a resource with a good ROI,,  Manufacturing workers on the shop floor are  held to 3X wages by requirements for attendance, productivity, and quality.

Nice. Now, you  look at why you have ti haul in 2.5 times your wage. You will see a SLEW of things your boss is mandated to pay - like an equal contribution to social security, unemployment, etc etc, which, ,frankly, causes some employers to hire under the table workers. It's burdensome.

15 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

 I believe in myself and my own worth. I don't consider myself a socialist, but I don't know what a freedomist is. I have survived three major layoffs of engineers less valuable to the company than myself. I wished them well, some of them are my friends, but I did not think the company owed them a job.  However, if you told me you were going to take 10% of the money I generate for my employer and convert it to investments in infrastructure, roads, bridges, the power grid, and better schools, I would think it was a pretty good idea. and not unfair   I know where the money comes from.  It is money that I and my fellow engineers and all the people on the factory floor generate.

cool city

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
4 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

oy vey :blink:   you're doing everything you can to avoid the issue. And that is, the top 1% is paying it's fair share before or after Trump.  And I know, some people have very strange ideas of what "fair" is. For liberals, it's "take everything the rich have".

I would argue that they're not paying their fair share.  If we had a flat tax, no exemptions, then I'm right there with you... they paid their fair share and should be left alone.  But they don't.

Don't take my word for it.  Here's what Warren Buffet, one of the 10 richest men in the world has to say (summary: he pays less percentage-wise in taxes than his secretary does) https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?module=inline

Like Buffet says, the rich and super-rich should pay their fair share.  But they haven't been doing this.  Earning a lot more money shouldn't equal getting a lot more tax breaks.

Quote

Kenemet, you just don't get it.   if you invest your money, you create jobs whether you intend to or not. even if you save your money in a bank account you are creating jobs.  We are sitting in a job market right now that is as good as we've seen in a long, long time and you are doing everything in your power to convince me it has nothing to do with Trump's tax cut. pssst.. .it ain't working

I think you've got the wrong end of the point I was making. 

It's not that investing money doesn't create jobs.

What I'm saying is that they then passively take income for the most part and it's not the super-rich who are running companies and deciding whether to hire or not.  The company becomes a separate entity -- it has its own bank account not tied to the owner and can take out loans not tied to the owner. 

Quote

I'd much rather have Gates control the $50K than the gov, because he know's what to do with it. the gov will just pee it away in bureaucracy and useless social programs. did you know that 65% of welfare costs pay for administration of welfare? Ya, if you want to give a person $100 in benefits, you have to give $300 to welfare. but I digress

We do disagree about the value of social programs, probably because I was born in a time when few were available and the poor parts of rural America looked like something from a third world country.  But we can have a conversation about this at another time.

Quote

taking more money from the top 1% will surely sway many people to get their money out of the US again. Then the gloomy economy returns, depending on how much money leaves the US.  We don't have a rich person problem, we have an OBESE uber rich government problem.  How come you don't look at government INCOME and view the 541 members of congress as rich.

The rich aren't the engine that drives the economy.  Let's look at Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and compare this with the city I live in:  Dallas.

Warren Buffet has $80 billion (with a "b") dollars.  The average 2 bedroom home in Dallas costs about $350,000 each (lots of variables but that's a good average.)

Doing the simple math, Warren could buy around 228,570 homes in Dallas.

Warren the super-rich might buy 100 cars -- but those 228,570 homes buy one or two cars apiece and they drive them almost every day.  That's far more money than Warren spends driving his cars around.

...and so on through a lot of similar examples.  Warren (who seems to be a genuinely nice person) contributes to the economy, but if he moved his entire fortune to Switzerland, it's not going to hurt Dallas.  

If every rich person suddenly ran off to Switzerland and renounced their American citizenship, we'd still be okay because the rest of us are buying gas and food and shopping at Amazon and all the other stores around.  People would have jobs, companies would still be buying and selling products, and so forth.

And that's why I disagree with your assessment.

Quote

yes. I do too. Everyone earning up $100,000 - ZERO taxes. after that, 25% flat rate, NO deductions. that will get rid of a lot of paperwork.  But the greedy politicians would never go for that because there's a lot of gold in poor people's pockets because there are more poor people.

I don't think this is workable ... and by the way, you just taxed the rich, there (which I thought you were against!)

Quote

All big businesses need working capital when they start up. If they can't borrow money from banks due to a shortage of money, the business does not start and jobs are not created. Kenemet, this is FUNDAMENTAL to virtually all businesses, and I can't understand why you just don't get it.

Jobs are created by both big businesses and small businesses... and there's not just one type of business model (there's co-ops and a lot of other things.)  You seem to think that all the jobs were because of large companies, and this wasn't true (many companies in the construction sector, for instance, are fairly small.)

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
19 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

I would argue that they're not paying their fair share.  If we had a flat tax, no exemptions, then I'm right there with you... they paid their fair share and should be left alone.  But they don't.

Don't take my word for it.  Here's what Warren Buffet, one of the 10 richest men in the world has to say (summary: he pays less percentage-wise in taxes than his secretary does) https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?module=inline

Like Buffet says, the rich and super-rich should pay their fair share.  But they haven't been doing this.  Earning a lot more money shouldn't equal getting a lot more tax breaks.

If there are wrongful deductions available to them, then that's congress' fault. But. holding up one or two examples as if to imply this what the ALL do, is false or where did the 45% that the feds get come from??

19 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

I think you've got the wrong end of the point I was making. 

It's not that investing money doesn't create jobs.

What I'm saying is that they then passively take income for the most part and it's not the super-rich who are running companies and deciding whether to hire or not.  The company becomes a separate entity -- it has its own bank account not tied to the owner and can take out loans not tied to the owner. 

I cannot agree. Warren Buffet, as an example, owns Berkshire Hathaway. Any cash that business has is HIS. And he is super rich,and he does INVEST. Same with most of the uber rich, if they are self made rich.

19 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

We do disagree about the value of social programs, probably because I was born in a time when few were available and the poor parts of rural America looked like something from a third world country.  But we can have a conversation about this at another time.

The rich aren't the engine that drives the economy.  Let's look at Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and compare this with the city I live in:  Dallas.

Warren Buffet has $80 billion (with a "b") dollars.  The average 2 bedroom home in Dallas costs about $350,000 each (lots of variables but that's a good average.)

Doing the simple math, Warren could buy around 228,570 homes in Dallas.

Warren the super-rich might buy 100 cars -- but those 228,570 homes buy one or two cars apiece and they drive them almost every day.  That's far more money than Warren spends driving his cars around.

I understand that. But if you tell Warren Buffet  that he does not need all that cash and start taking large chunks of  it from him arbitrarily, believe me,  he will stop investing in the US and a lot of folks like that would move OUT of the US. Also, new entrempeneurs woud cease to exist. You'd essentially have Cuba or North Korea.

19 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

...and so on through a lot of similar examples.  Warren (who seems to be a genuinely nice person) contributes to the economy, but if he moved his entire fortune to Switzerland, it's not going to hurt Dallas.  

not directly but indirectly, yes it would.  You drive away all the investors in the US and you end up with North Korea. The gov cannot function without MONEY. 

19 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

If every rich person suddenly ran off to Switzerland and renounced their American citizenship, we'd still be okay because the rest of us are buying gas and food and shopping at Amazon and all the other stores around.  People would have jobs, companies would still be buying and selling products, and so forth.

very wrong here. nobody would have jobs, eventually. and nobody would be buying food and shopping at Amazon. And Amazon would move out, too.

19 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

And that's why I disagree with your assessment.

I don't think this is workable ... and by the way, you just taxed the rich, there (which I thought you were against!)

I'm not against taxing the rich at all. I loathe big gov and the greedy pols that are in washington. They take a lot of  people's money - not because they need it but because they want it. And picking on one segment of the population to me, is wrongful. make the fair share REALLY fair.

19 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Jobs are created by both big businesses and small businesses... and there's not just one type of business model (there's co-ops and a lot of other things.)  You seem to think that all the jobs were because of large companies, and this wasn't true (many companies in the construction sector, for instance, are fairly small.)

I understand.   Small business Role

"... in fact roughly 99 percent of all independent enterprises in the country employ fewer than 500 people,"

If you put some kind of magical cap on earnings and tell these small businesses that if they exceed a certain earnings level they will be taxed heavily, most will stop growing and hiring. Ever hear the expression, "you gotta feed the chickens"?   This is how it would work, not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
2 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

If there are wrongful deductions available to them, then that's congress' fault. But. holding up one or two examples as if to imply this what the ALL do, is false or where did the 45% that the feds get come from??

Again you are confusing what they have with what they pay.

I can tax a guy who makes $100, 90% of his money and a guy that makes $1,000,000 at 1%.  At the end of the day the guy making the big bucks is still pay $10,000 while the little guy is paying 90$.

By your logic because the big guy is paying 99% of the bills, he needs a tax cut and the little guy needs to step up.

 

As for the rest:  The main difference between the poor and billionaires is that the poor spend all their money locally whereas billionaires invest globally.  That new auto plant going up in China?  That start-up in the middle east?  That Monsanto plant in Brazil?  Trump golf course in Scotland?  Guess who is bank rolling it.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
deusex

I don't see a point arguing with libs/socials/communists (all the same to me)  You want to change American system? move to Russia and tell me how it works out.  increasing taxes to 70% is the most idiotic idea ever and trying to go "green" in 10yrs will destroy this country, wtf is this crazy lady even talking about.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, deusex said:

I don't see a point arguing with libs/socials/communists (all the same to me)  You want to change American system? move to Russia and tell me how it works out.  increasing taxes to 70% is the most idiotic idea ever and trying to go "green" in 10yrs will destroy this country, wtf is this crazy lady even talking about.

Russia is an Oligarchy where the top 1% own 70% of everything. 

Figure I should add a link: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/inequality-and-the-putin-economy-inside-the-numbers/

Edited by Gromdor
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
13 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Again you are confusing what they have with what they pay.

I can tax a guy who makes $100, 90% of his money and a guy that makes $1,000,000 at 1%.  At the end of the day the guy making the big bucks is still pay $10,000 while the little guy is paying 90$.

By your logic because the big guy is paying 99% of the bills, he needs a tax cut and the little guy needs to step up.

Gromdor, I am not saying to give the rich a tax break.  What I have tried to say all along is that  Trump's tax break to businesses brought money back into the US, investing took place, and unemployment fell like a rock.  The argument since  has been clearly convoluted and added on to.

Quote

 

As for the rest:  The main difference between the poor and billionaires is that the poor spend all their money locally whereas billionaires invest globally.  That new auto plant going up in China?  That start-up in the middle east?  That Monsanto plant in Brazil?  Trump golf course in Scotland?  Guess who is bank rolling it.

Yes but *where* people tend to invest has very much to do with tax structure of the country 

I don't know why we labor over the obvious.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
10 minutes ago, deusex said:

I don't see a point arguing with libs/socials/communists (all the same to me)  You want to change American system? move to Russia and tell me how it works out.  increasing taxes to 70% is the most idiotic idea ever and trying to go "green" in 10yrs will destroy this country, wtf is this crazy lady even talking about.

she might be crazy but she has support. Hey, there are people in Venezuela that support Maduro, too. Of course 3 million  have picked up and left the country, but hey!

All this talk of "tax the rich to death" is in support of making uber rich people in Washington and their friends... UBER rich.  It's all greed based.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
26 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I cannot agree. Warren Buffet, as an example, owns Berkshire Hathaway. Any cash that business has is HIS. And he is super rich,and he does INVEST. Same with most of the uber rich, if they are self made rich.

Happy Monday Earl.  I get where you are coming from on some of your points.  Keep in mind, I haven't advocated or mentioned anything about increasing  tax rates  on the wealthy or corporations.  So far, I have been giving you my views on what creates markets and growth, that it is demand, not supply of money to invest.  But I want to stop for a fact check here.

Read up on Berkshire Hathaway.  It is publicly traded and you can buy a share in it if you can afford one. Warren Buffett does not own all of the shares of Berkshire Hathaway.  In fact with his net worth of $80 billion against Berkshire's total worth of $618 billion, indicates that he owns about 13% of the company.  The other 87% is owned by private investors.   They invest with Mr. Buffett because they believe he is smart and has a good track record of making good investments.    It is not HIS money, only a part of it is. He has a responsibility to his investors.  One of his best qualities apart from his down-to-earth humility is that he takes that responsibility seriously.

This doesn't change the topic, but I thought you should know that fact.  Regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky

Nice sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
37 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Russia is an Oligarchy where the top 1% own 70% of everything. 

Figure I should add a link: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/inequality-and-the-putin-economy-inside-the-numbers/

Sadly, the US isn't that far behind them in that.

Study: US is an Oligarchy, not a Democracy

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
14 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Yes but *where* people tend to invest has very much to do with tax structure of the country 

I don't know why we labor over the obvious.   

Greetings Earl, we are not yet on common ground on this one.  Where people "invest" their money is where markets are hot and provide a good return at minimal risk.  Tax rates are calculated into that return.  Where people "stash" their money is in secret of low tax rate areas,  Those are off shore tax shelters, Barbados, Cayman Islands,even the Isle of Man.  They have zero or very low taxes.  Billions of dollars flow into the banks and investment houses of those countries.   It makes the bankers, lawyers, and advisers a  ton of money.  Except for the climate of the Caribbean ones, I bet you wouldn't want to live there, most of the people living there are not even what we would call middle class.

For example, lets say you could invest $1000 dollars.  You could invest with adviser A  who provides you with a $500 dollar per year return, but charges you $100 dollars for the safety and near guarantee of a stable return.  You net $400.

Or you could invest with Adviser B  who provides you with a $400 dollar rate of return (nearly as good)  and only charges you a $50 dollars fee.  (what a bargain).  With cheaper fees, you net $350. You check and find your money is not quite as safe and Adviser B's record is a little spotty.  Where do you invest your money?

So where does the money in all of those gigantic bank accounts get invested?  Where markets are hot; US, China, Brazil and other places  The US can maintain an advantage if it has good infrastructure, an educated work force, and a stable government.  Investing and stashing are separate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

49759182_2008959705806034_90521427803688

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
10 minutes ago, aztek said:

49759182_2008959705806034_90521427803688

Her proposal only applies to those earning $10,000,000 a year or more, which comes out to only roughly 16,000 Americans. Calculate that, and it means those at the bottom to whom it still applies still earn $3,000,000 a year, which is well above the overwhelming majority of American's paychecks anyway. That doesn't even count those earning hundreds of millions a year, if not billions.

Your meme fails on so many fronts its hard to adequately put into words...

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.