Green New Deal: Ocasio-Cortez aims to make air travel obsolete, aid those ‘unwilling’ to work

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

29 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

Like I was saying, some people do seem to have trouble with the concept of income tax deductions. 

Perhaps you could explain it to us lowly, uneducated folk?

[Póg mo 1,749]

1 minute ago, ALFKAD said:

Perhaps you could explain it to us lowly, uneducated folk?

I already did. Do try to keep up.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

13 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

70% after earning 10 million is not that high. Most social democracies apply the top rate when someone earns around sixty thousand. 

 

  Earned income is earned income. That means you work for it. If you have a skill where you can earn that much, then yeah having 70% taken is "that high". I don't get the rationale that thinks it's fair to take 2/3 of every dollar someone earns. I'm not against progressive taxation at all, but that is something that goes up by percentage points. You don't double the tax rate because you think someone makes too much.

 

  So far the only argument I'm hearing for this is it's fair because they are "rich". I don't buy that. I think we accept progressive taxation not because it's fair, but because it's probably the lesser of evils. When I get taxed 2% more on a certain level of income, I don't like it, but I can accept it as part of the social structure we are in. Tax me 40% more on that income, sorry, it's not going to happen. Believe me, there are way's to get around that. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Just now, Póg mo said:

I already did. Do try to keep up.

Where did you cover tax deductions?  I saw where you erroneously tried to talk about record high taxes at some point in the past...

Edited February 14, 2019 by ALFKAD

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Here’s the rub, in my opinion...

 

Proposing a 70% tax on the rich will get votes from many constituents, because it does not affect them.  But in reality, there won’t be all that much revenue generated due to the few people it affects.

 

But a 2% increase of the current margins will generate billions more revenue; but won’t be popular with voters.  I think it all boils down to this.

[Póg mo 1,749]

10 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Earned income is earned income. That means you work for it. If you have a skill where you can earn that much, then yeah having 70% taken is "that high". I don't get the rationale that thinks it's fair to take 2/3 of every dollar someone earns. I'm not against progressive taxation at all, but that is something that goes up by percentage points. You don't double the tax rate because you think someone makes too much.

 

  So far the only argument I'm hearing for this is it's fair because they are "rich". I don't buy that. I think we accept progressive taxation not because it's fair, but because it's probably the lesser of evils. When I get taxed 2% more on a certain level of income, I don't like it, but I can accept it as part of the social structure we are in. Tax me 40% more on that income, sorry, it's not going to happen. Believe me, there are way's to get around that. 

You are completely missing the point of taxing incomes above a certain level at a high rate. It is not necessarily about raising taxes off of high incomes, but more to do with discouraging companies from making their CEOs excessively wealthy at their employees expense.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Just now, Póg mo said:

You are completely missing the point of taxing incomes above a certain level at a high rate. It is not necessarily about raising taxes off of high incomes, but more to do with discouraging companies from making their CEOs excessively wealthy at their employees expense.

You are talking an issue of scale.  If I do work that a company has deemed is worth a salary of $30,000 per year, then they will pay me that much.

 

If somoene benefits a company $300,000 per year, the company will pay them that.

 

If a third person has been deemed worthy of a salary of $30,000,000 per year, and is willing to pay them that, why not?  Why be jealous of the person making millions, and try to take a higher percentage of their earned income, than the poor guy down at the thousands rate?

 

Why should the insanely rich be punished more than you or I?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, Póg mo said:

You are completely missing the point of taxing incomes above a certain level at a high rate. It is not necessarily about raising taxes off of high incomes, but more to do with discouraging companies from making their CEOs excessively wealthy at their employees expense.

 

   That's a completely separate issue. It is a legitimate one to a certain extent, but there are other way's to do that. However if companies value CEO's at that level of compensation, that is their prerogative. Don't support those corporations if you don't agree with the philosophy. People complain about Jeff Bezos' wealth but everybody shops on Amazon. 

 

  To address your point though, firstly, I would say taxation is a means to fund government spending. That is basically all it's for. It's not to punish or discourage anything. It's not a means to limit wealth. We don't need to make it that. Secondly, compensation at that level does not heave to be earned income. It's a fools game to think higher tax levels would reduce overall compensation. It would just change the means by which it is paid.

 

  

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

5 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

You are talking an issue of scale.  If I do work that a company has deemed is worth a salary of $30,000 per year, then they will pay me that much.

 

If somoene benefits a company $300,000 per year, the company will pay them that.

 

If a third person has been deemed worthy of a salary of $30,000,000 per year, and is willing to pay them that, why not?  Why be jealous of the person making millions, and try to take a higher percentage of their earned income, than the poor guy down at the thousands rate?

 

Why should the insanely rich be punished more than you or I?

Because it doesn't affect him/her at all, it just feels right I guess to be given the fruits of someone else's labor

[Steeleballz 7,550]

Just now, Randyandyuni said:

Because it doesn't affect him/her at all, it just feels right I guess to be given the fruits of someone else's labor

 

  I have seen somewhere before, the best approach to government policy is to view it from a neutral perspective. Instead of who you are, imagine you are just starting out in life. You might end up broke, you might be middle class, you might become wealthy. Now write legislation that you could live with and accept in any of those scenario's.

 

 It's an interesting thought experiment in what is actually fair. A progressive tax system such as we have is not inherently fair, but I think we sort of understand that there is a trade off that makes it somewhat acceptable and beneficial. I also think it can quickly transition from progressive to punitive if we start to only look at it from one side of things.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

1 minute ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  I have seen somewhere before, the best approach to government policy is to view it from a neutral perspective. Instead of who you are, imagine you are just starting out in life. You might end up broke, you might be middle class, you might become wealthy. Now write legislation that you could live with and accept in any of those scenario's.

 

 It's an interesting thought experiment in what is actually fair. A progressive tax system such as we have is not inherently fair, but I think we sort of understand that there is a trade off that makes it somewhat acceptable and beneficial. I also think it can quickly transition from progressive to punitive if we start to only look at it from one side of things.

Agreed, however the marginal rate moving in either direction at such a high rate is not the answer.

 

Subsidizing the unwilling to work while allowing them to choose not to work should not be the responsibility of someone who through effort or pure dumb luck is wealthy. Where is the motivation to better one's self?

 

 

[Póg mo 1,749]

22 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   That's a completely separate issue. It is a legitimate one to a certain extent, but there are other way's to do that. However if companies value CEO's at that level of compensation, that is their prerogative. Don't support those corporations if you don't agree with the philosophy. People complain about Jeff Bezos' wealth but everybody shops on Amazon. 

 

  To address your point though, firstly, I would say taxation is a means to fund government spending. That is basically all it's for. It's not to punish or discourage anything. It's not a means to limit wealth. We don't need to make it that. Secondly, compensation at that level does not heave to be earned income. It's a fools game to think higher tax levels would reduce overall compensation. It would just change the means by which it is paid.

 

  

Is that a fact? Have you ever bought a pack of cigarettes? Tell me how much a ten dollar pack of cigarettes really cost, and why the tax is so much?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

34 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Here’s the rub, in my opinion...

 

Proposing a 70% tax on the rich will get votes from many constituents, because it does not affect them.  But in reality, there won’t be all that much revenue generated due to the few people it affects.

 

But a 2% increase of the current margins will generate billions more revenue; but won’t be popular with voters.  I think it all boils down to this.

 

  I think you pretty much nailed it right there.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, Póg mo said:

Is that a fact? Have you ever bought a pack of cigarettes? Tell me how much a ten dollar pack of cigarettes really cost, and why the tax is so much?

 

   I haven't ever bought cigarettes, however the tax on cigarettes is not an income tax, it's a sales tax. Sales tax is a completely different kettle of fish, and not a tangent I want to get into, since we were very specifically discussing income tax in the previous post(s).

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

7 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

Is that a fact? Have you ever bought a pack of cigarettes? Tell me how much a ten dollar pack of cigarettes really cost, and why the tax is so much?

It's obviously the rich putting down the proletariat, riding up on the backs of the poor and down trodden ....