Republicans stunned to learn voters understand exactly what their tax cut did

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

44 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

Just as I thought, nobody is suggesting anything of the sort.

So exactly what ARE you suggesting?  All I have heard thus far is that rich people should give up more of their money so that everyone can live better.  What other concept could we possibly infer from yours and Keith’s suggestions?

[Póg mo 1,749]

29 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

So exactly what ARE you suggesting?  All I have heard thus far is that rich people should give up more of their money so that everyone can live better.  What other concept could we possibly infer from yours and Keith’s suggestions?

I am just looking for the bit where someone suggested a 100% tax. So far the replies have been predictably evasive, but I continue to hold out hope that I will get a cogent reply.

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

3 hours ago, Satisfied said:

Keith, you must have overlooked my question about what you said, because what you wrote is patently false.

 

How can a group of people earning more, and paying a higher percentage of taxes, be said to pay relatively less taxes than "the poor", who pay zero or not very much tax?

 

Explain your math, please?

I answered your question.. 

"the rest are flat fees which disprortiatly affect low income. " 

 

I shouldn't have to throw out random numbers to prove something that's already an economic fact. The more the working poor get taxed , the less  resources they have to invest in the basic necessities for improving quality of life.. meanwhile with the top 1 percentile ,  taxation just simple eats at their incredibly large disposable income. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2018 by Keith & Arileidi

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Póg mo said:

I am just looking for the bit where someone suggested a 100% tax. So far the replies have been predictably evasive, but I continue to hold out hope that I will get a cogent reply.

I asked YOU specifically what YOU think would be fair.  No one is claiming a 100% tax.  So if you make more than say, $200K per year, how much of that should be given to someone who earned less than $30K?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

45 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

I answered your question.. 

"the rest are flat fees which disprortiatly affect low income. " 

 

I shouldn't have to throw out random numbers to prove something that's already an economic fact. The more the working poor get taxed , the less  resources they have to invest in the basic necessities for improving quality of life.. meanwhile with the top 1 percentile ,  taxation just simple eats at their incredibly large disposable income. 

 

Great, we are making progress here!  Yes, 10% of xxxx is xxx.  And 10% of xxxxxxxxxx is xxxxxxxxx.  Simple math.  So the rich pay much more in taxes than the poor.  As is required by law currently.

 

Are you saying that the poor should be taxed at a lower level than the rich?  Because they already are, at both the state and federal income levels.  City and county rates are flat, but have to be, because no one wants to take the time to verify income at the point of sale.

To clear up what Pog Mo has muddied the waters with... do you think that those who make more should be taxed higher, and some of those taxes given to those who earn less, so that we all live a more comfortable lifestyle?

 

ETA: If you want to have more disposable income, like the folks you seem to think don’t deserve to have, why not just get a better paying job, or work more hours to achieve your goal of more disposable income?

Edited September 28, 2018 by Satisfied

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

1 hour ago, Satisfied said:

Great, we are making progress here!  Yes, 10% of xxxx is xxx.  And 10% of xxxxxxxxxx is xxxxxxxxx.  Simple math.  So the rich pay much more in taxes than the poor.  As is required by law currently.

 

Are you saying that the poor should be taxed at a lower level than the rich?  Because they already are, at both the state and federal income levels.  City and county rates are flat, but have to be, because no one wants to take the time to verify income at the point of sale.

To clear up what Pog Mo has muddied the waters with... do you think that those who make more should be taxed higher, and some of those taxes given to those who earn less, so that we all live a more comfortable lifestyle?

 

ETA: If you want to have more disposable income, like the folks you seem to think don’t deserve to have, why not just get a better paying job, or work more hours to achieve your goal of more disposable income?

I'm not a tax expert, and never claimed to be.

 

But yes the working poor should be taxed at a relatively lower rate. While you can't really adjust sales tax,  we can start by implementing progressive taxes at the state level. 

 

We also need to bring corporate taxes back to what they were before. 

The amount of wealth they hold compared to how many public resources they use needs to come to an equalibrium. 

 

And yes ... No one needs that much disposable income. Most of it just gets horded having very little affect on the economy. 

Edited September 28, 2018 by Keith & Arileidi

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

11 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

I'm not a tax expert, and never claimed to be.

 

But yes the working poor should be taxed at a relatively lower rate. While you can't really adjust sales tax,  we can start by implementing progressive taxes at the state level. 

 

We also need to bring corporate taxes back to what they were before. 

The amount of wealth they hold compared to how many public resources they use needs to come to an equalibrium. 

 

And yes ... No one needs that much disposable income. Most of it just gets horded having very little affect on the economy.

So you ARE advocating for giving some of my income to people who don’t make as much as I do.  (Just wanted to clear that up for Pog Mo, who seems to have missed that part of your posts.)

 

So how much of your salary are you willing to give to me so I don’t have ot work as hard to get ahead?

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

18 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

So you ARE advocating for giving some of my income to people who don’t make as much as I do.  (Just wanted to clear that up for Pog Mo, who seems to have missed that part of your posts.)

 

So how much of your salary are you willing to give to me so I don’t have ot work as hard to get ahead?

No I'm not advocating that. 

I don't know your circumstance, and whether a transfer payment would be right way to do things. 

 

The point is to create valuable public services that everyone can use. This needs to be paid for some how. So people and corporations that have extremely high incomes should contribute to these services. 

 

You are trying to over simplify an extremely complicated problem. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

33 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

No I'm not advocating that.

I don't know your circumstance, and whether a transfer payment would be right way to do things. 

 

The point is to create valuable public services that everyone can use. This needs to be paid for some how. So people and corporations that have extremely high incomes should contribute to these services. 

 

You are trying to over simplify an extremely complicated problem. 

But you DID.  You said:

Quote

No one needs that much disposable income. Most of it just gets horded having very little affect on the economy.

 

Let’s say you make 50% more than I make: I make $50k, and you make $75k.  So you should give some of your excess to me, since I have less disposable income than you do, and it’s all about equity.  So how much of your excess are you willing to give me, so that we can have more equitable lifestyles?  I wanna be like Keith, so help a brother out here...

 

Edited September 28, 2018 by Satisfied

[Dashinka 24,754]

On 9/28/2018 at 7:28 PM, Satisfied said:

But you DID.  You said:

 

Let’s say you make 50% more than I make: I make $50k, and you make $75k.  So you should give some of your excess to me, since I have less disposable income than you do, and it’s all about equity.  So how much of your excess are you willing to give me, so that we can have more equitable lifestyles?  I wanna be like Keith, so help a brother out here...

 

Wait a minute, I get first dibs since I only make $49k.  It is interesting where the feelings of those on the left say the rich should just give their money, that amount above a reasonable COL, to the government.  Does their hard earned money belong to the government?  Will the government make better or more efficient use of it?  When will the Left learn the government is not an economic producer?

Edited September 30, 2018 by Bill & Katya

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

6 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Wait a minute, I get first dibs since I only make $49k.  It is interesting where the feelings of those on the left say the rich should just give their money, that amount above a reasonable COL, to the government.  Does their hard earned money belong to the government?  Will the government make better or more efficient use of it?  When will the Left learn the government is not an economic producer?

Some people cannot view the past and apply lessons learned...

[TBoneTX 46,041]

The basis of (and the problem with) redistribution of wealth is that the "evil rich" are those who make one dime more than you do.

[Dashinka 24,754]

2 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

The basis of (and the problem with) redistribution of wealth is that the "evil rich" are those who make one dime more than you do.

I can think of another big problem with wealth redistribution.  The middle class would be completely destroyed and we would be left with the poor, and the leadership class making the decisions for the masses.

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

On 10/1/2018 at 1:56 AM, TBoneTX said:

The basis of (and the problem with) redistribution of wealth is that the "evil rich" are those who make one dime more than you do.

Not really.. 

But keep thinking that while Americas income gap keeps getting wider. 

 

 

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

On 10/1/2018 at 4:55 AM, Bill & Katya said:

I can think of another big problem with wealth redistribution.  The middle class would be completely destroyed and we would be left with the poor, and the leadership class making the decisions for the masses.

This is just wrong.. and goes against just about every economic principle. Lol. 

 

And your assumption that leaders only emerge for economic game is a slap in the face to many historical figures.