Question for the liberals on this board about "fair share"

[Crazyhole]

What is my fair share of the income you make and the assets you've accumulated?

 

[Crazyhole]

If they didn't earn it...all of it

I wonder how much of @DaShuckster assets should be given to @ChrisKnight06

 

[Crazyhole]

So libs just pass their money back and forth? Eventually run out of other people's money so fighting among themselves. The next step I see is attacking 401ks for a wealth tax but not tax extra on government pensions.

Glaciers is probably really poor. What portion of ninjaknights assets should be transferred to him?

 

[_glaciers]

I'm not sure given that NinjaKnight's screen name is after a cheap Japanese motorcycle. 🤔

But I'll play. He has to hand over his motorcycle since Glaciers doesn't own one. Not fair!

if the BLM co-founder has 3 houses, it would be progressive of me to have a 3rd motorcycle

 

[UCFBS]

So libs just pass their money back and forth? Eventually run out of other people's money so fighting among themselves.

Well, it's Progressives and an increasing number of Conservatives, but yes ... largely left. They are also the ones advocating for Greece-type asset seizure too.

The next step I see is attacking 401ks for a wealth tax but not tax extra on government pensions.

Yep. IRAs first, then 401ks, especially Roths, but most of them in general.

Every financial advisor asks me the same question ...

Their Q: "Why do you put 50% of your 401K and IRAs in Roth?"
My A: "Because at least one has to be taxed less."

Not one of them has not only not laughed ... they all do, but ... they literally say, "I'm using that from now on. Damn that's too much truth."

Since I figure my IRAs/401ks will be 'taxed' -- i.e., assets seized -- soon, I'm seriously considering spending it on law school up to the maximum amount allowed that incurs no penalty.

 

[chemmie]

Meanwhile...

Super rich’s wealth concentration surpasses Gilded Age levels

America's richest of the rich just passed the Rockefeller-Carnegie cohort in wealth concentration, according to Berkeley economist Gabriel Zucman.

finance.yahoo.com

 

[Nautiknight]

Meanwhile...

Super rich’s wealth concentration surpasses Gilded Age levels

America's richest of the rich just passed the Rockefeller-Carnegie cohort in wealth concentration, according to Berkeley economist Gabriel Zucman.

finance.yahoo.com

So Chemmie, show me on this doll where Jeff Bezos wealth or Warren Buffets wealth harmed you. Show me where they harmed your family?

We focus on the 500 richest people in America and say bad,bad bad. Yet their wealth is often not begotten on illegal gain or means. Yet we ignore the the true harm being done to everyone us and future generations by 533 elected people in DC with their reckless spending and debt accumulation which we the citizen are responsible for by paying taxes (those of us who actually pay said taxes) . I argue the 533 elected people are harming me and my family significantly more than the 500 richest people. Wealth is not a finite fixed pie but debt , debt is sbsolute and we do owe it. we owe China big time . Lastly the 500 richest people really can't take away my rights . They can't put me in jail or take my family away and send them to camps to be never seen again. The 533 can do that and have done most of it before and ih my opinion if they could get away with it ,do it again.

We should kill the progressive tax code and start over with a fair tax ( national sales tax) and possibly use a flat tax capped at 10%.

The 14th Amendment says we are all afforded equal protection under the law. The IRS tax code is the law and we all are not treated equal . Over half don't pay any taxes and the top 20% income earners pay 80% of the taxes. How is this equal protection when the law is more harsh on 20% of the people and not applied to the bottom half at all. at least with a fair tax Everytime you buy a slurpee or BMW or mega yacht or flat screen TV everyone pays into the system. Everyone contributes and the more you spend the more you pay which is truly an equitable way to do it. That's fair. Thus way the rich really will pay their fair share .

 

[hemightbejeremy]

So Chemmie, show me on this doll where Jeff Bezos wealth or Warren Buffets wealth harmed you. Show me where they harmed your family?

We focus on the 500 richest people in America and say bad,bad bad. Yet their wealth is often not begotten on illegal gain or means. Yet we ignore the the true harm being done to everyone us and future generations by 533 elected people in DC with their reckless spending and debt accumulation which we the citizen are responsible for by paying taxes (those of us who actually pay said taxes) . I argue the 533 elected people are harming me and my family significantly more than the 500 richest people. Wealth is not a finite fixed pie but debt , debt is sbsolute and we do owe it. we owe China big time . Lastly the 500 richest people really can't take away my rights . They can't put me in jail or take my family away and send them to camps to be never seen again. The 533 can do that and have done most of it before and ih my opinion if they could get away with it ,do it again.

We should kill the progressive tax code and start over with a fair tax ( national sales tax) and possibly use a flat tax capped at 10%.

The 14th Amendment says we are all afforded equal protection under the law. The IRS tax code is the law and we all are not treated equal . Over half don't pay any taxes and the top 20% income earners pay 80% of the taxes. How is this equal protection when the law is more harsh on 20% of the people and not applied to the bottom half at all. at least with a fair tax Everytime you buy a slurpee or BMW or mega yacht or flat screen TV everyone pays into the system. Everyone contributes and the more you spend the more you pay which is truly an equitable way to do it. That's fair. Thus way the rich really will pay their fair share .

In order to have equitable federal tax revenue (practically mandatory due to non discretionary plus defense spending) with a flat tax rate applicable to all income levels (as opposed to the progressive tax rate currently in place), it would necessitate lowering the current tax burden on the top 1.4 million earners by an average of 12%. At the same time it would require increasing the tax burden on the poorest 71.6 million earners (50 times as many) by an average of 10%. This would arrive us at the approx 14.7% aggregate rate that the federal government currently receives on all earned income in the country. It’s a non starter. Not to mention a horrible idea that only seems good on the surface. And it’s hardly more “fair”. The fair tax is an even worse idea. Nothing like taxing the hell out of retiring boomers who paid income tax all their life and are now in solely a spend mode.

 

[chemmie]

In order to have equitable federal tax revenue (practically mandatory due to non discretionary plus defense spending) with a flat tax rate applicable to all income levels (as opposed to the progressive tax rate currently in place), it would necessitate lowering the current tax burden on the top 1.4 million earners by an average of 12%. At the same time it would require increasing the tax burden on the poorest 71.6 million earners (50 times as many) by an average of 10%. This would arrive us at the approx 14.7% aggregate rate that the federal government currently receives on all earned income in the country. It’s a non starter. Not to mention a horrible idea that only seems good on the surface. And it’s hardly more “fair”. The fair tax is an even worse idea. Nothing like taxing the hell out of retiring boomers who paid income tax all their life and are now in solely a spend mode.

If Neil Boortz is your source for sound economic theory, you're likely an idiot. No need to even acknowledge Fair Tax buffoons. They are too far gone. Like ultra-libertarians on steroids.

I know, I used to be one of them.

 

[sk8knight]

If Neil Boortz is your source for sound economic theory, you're likely an idiot. No need to even acknowledge Fair Tax buffoons. They are too far gone. Like ultra-libertarians on steroids.

I know, I used to be one of them.

Irony is someone that champions Marxism calling anyone else an idiot based on economics.

 

[chemmie]

Irony is someone that champions Marxism calling anyone else an idiot based on economics.

I've championed Marxism? That's news to me.

 

[DaShuckster]

I've championed Marxism? That's news to me.

Haven't you been paying attention? Anybody who is troubled by examples of police violence against Blacks is a Marxist.

 

[chemmie]

Haven't you been paying attention? Anybody who is troubled by examples of police violence against Blacks is a Marxist.

Anyone who thinks there could possibly be a better way than letting monster corporations rule our existence, working 60 hour weeks, being the richest country in the world with nothing to show for it, and a pool of wealth at the very top that eclipses The Guilded Age, is a Marxist.

I like this game.

 

[sk8knight]

Anyone who thinks there could possibly be a better way than letting monster corporations rule our existence, working 60 hour weeks, being the richest country in the world with nothing to show for it, and a pool of wealth at the very top that eclipses The Guilded Age, is a Marxist.

I like this game.

You’re a Marxist because you’ve espoused Marxist concepts on these boards for years. It goes far beyond the three points that you made right there.

 

[UCFBS]

In order to have equitable federal tax revenue (practically mandatory due to non discretionary plus defense spending) with a flat tax rate applicable to all income levels (as opposed to the progressive tax rate currently in place), it would necessitate lowering the current tax burden on the top 1.4 million earners by an average of 12%. At the same time it would require increasing the tax burden on the poorest 71.6 million earners (50 times as many) by an average of 10%. This would arrive us at the approx 14.7% aggregate rate that the federal government currently receives on all earned income in the country. It’s a non starter. Not to mention a horrible idea that only seems good on the surface. And it’s hardly more “fair”. The fair tax is an even worse idea. Nothing like taxing the hell out of retiring boomers who paid income tax all their life and are now in solely a spend mode.

And yet this is what socialist countries do... lower corporate taxes, have much higher middle class taxes, and introduce regressive value add tax.

Why? Well, there's not enough money to extract from 'The Rich.' But also...


So companies don't go overseas. They also match tariffs and do to China what China does to them. We try to do the same thing in the US, and American consumers scream about costs.

Well, how's inflation now working out since we make so little in the US?