47% total tax maximum seems fair. Assuming a marginal system stays the same and we add a 70% for over 10 million how much do you need to make before you hit 47%?
Hint: a shit ton.
Kamala Harris got ahead the old fashioned way
- Thread starter UCFKnight85
- Start date
Hint: a shit ton.
Of course it is. There are plenty of other countries to do business in if 47% is too much for you but if you personally make 30 million in income I have 0 problem with you only clearing 15.5 million.
Taxing an individual/family more than 47% total -- all sales, property, income, gains, medicare, etc... is where many people are already at if they are small business owners with $250K/year. I don't think you understand basic bookeeping.
Again, you're only looking at federal income tax. Total taxation is not just federal income tax, or even plus gains. Are you that foolish?
It looks like about $30,000,000
Also ...
How many people do you think make $10M+/year? The 1% makes a median of only $720K/year, mean of around $1.2-1.3M.
Are you confusing net worth with income+gains again? Their mean $10M net worth is not income!
Damn you Progressives just like to move your arguments to fantasyland. There is not remotely enough money to find here!!!
And that's before we consider that even 70%, let alone 90%, of just federal income tax would mean they wouldn't bring home anything, and actually owe. Why? It's not the '30s any more, many things are not tax deductible.
Anyone who has run a successful small business knows this. It's bookeeping 101.
I'm not doing any of what you said. I understand the difference between income and assets.
I have a economics undergrad and an MBA with 6 years working with business lending and I own my own company.
You should also know that consumption taxes are not a significant factor past 100k income. Property tax I guess could be but you would need to own billions of dollars of assets personally for that number to get high enough to impact people.
So my question to you is, if it's not 30million income per year to hit the 47% what do you think it is? 20 million income? 15 million income?
Why are we so furiously defending the ultra rich. Do you see them fighting to have your taxes lowered?
Of course you wouldn't mind. Like most all liberals, you think that punitively deciding what those goddamn rich people are allowed to keep is getting back at society or something.
You guys know your bullshit "soak the rich" plans don't actually fund anything of significance but you push it as a singular tax plan because it feeds the left wing base. The losers who think that getting back at rich people will make them feel better about failing in their own careers.
I'm not defending anyone.
I'm saying there's not remotely enough money there to even cover a fraction of the deficit, or even just the interest on the debt.
If you really have a MBA, you'd know this already.
It's basic math.
So if we can't wipe out the entire deficit it's not worth doing? Is that really the position you think liberals should have?
The problem is that Progressives think it will wipe out the deficit, when it will not ... not remotely. And then Progressives think it will pay for yet another $1.5T/year in spending!
The other problem is that you don't recognize what it will do to American investment.
We Libertarians have constantly stated the only way to do anything is to reduce spending. And gutting the military isn't remotely enough (which we Libertarians do want to do as well -- kill off most FoBs and reduce the Naval capabilities to western hemi only). Will you concede this is reality?
Understand I'm not in agreement with Trump, so stop arguing against that. I'm not a Republican.
QUOTE="NinjaKnight, post: 1541689, member: 950"]Drink[/QUOTE]
There legitimately needs to be a drinking game every time Bull Shit issues his Pavlovian diarrhea of "Progressives" "Libertarians" "Hillary" "Podesta" or "sheep." Drunk in no time.
How his wife hasn't killed him in his sleep is beyond me.
There legitimately needs to be a drinking game every time Bull Shit issues his Pavlovian diarrhea of "Progressives" "Libertarians" "Hillary" "Podesta" or "sheep." Drunk in no time.
How his wife hasn't killed him in his sleep is beyond me.
There legitimately needs to be a drinking game every time Bull Shit issues his Pavlovian diarrhea of "Progressives" "Libertarians" "Hillary" "Podesta" or "sheep." Drunk in no time.
How his wife hasn't killed him in his sleep is beyond me.[/QUOTE]
Damn that's a bit rough.
QUOTE="UCFKnight85, post: 1541703, member: 478"]There legitimately needs to be a drinking game every time Bull Shit issues his Pavlovian diarrhea of "Progressives" "Libertarians" "Hillary" "Podesta" or "sheep." Drunk in no time.
How his wife hasn't killed him in his sleep is beyond me.[/QUOTE]
Damn that's a bit rough.[/QUOTE]
Hyperbole
How his wife hasn't killed him in his sleep is beyond me.[/QUOTE]
Damn that's a bit rough.[/QUOTE]
Hyperbole
There legitimately needs to be a drinking game every time Bull Shit issues his Pavlovian diarrhea of "Progressives" "Libertarians" "Hillary" "Podesta" or "sheep." Dead in no time.
How he is married is beyond me.[/QUOTE]
FIFY
Just because you think something is true, doesn't make it true.
Let's bump this up to see 85 "being openly sexist and bigoted. Incredible."
...and to see UCFBS talking about our deficit getting "back to normal."
...and to see UCFBS talking about our deficit getting "back to normal."
