Tax the Rich?

The current US Poverty level figure for a family of three is $20,420

At the much discussed minimum wage of $15/hr a full time employee would gross $31,200/yr. Take out 30% in taxes and other normal deductions and you're down to around $21,840 or just above that poverty level. Most workers don't get anywhere near that $15/hour either, so you have people who work full time jobs trying to support their family with poverty level income. And that doesn't even begin to cover medical or school expenses.



.

jaF0 said:

The current US Poverty level figure for a family of three is $20,420

At the much discussed minimum wage of $15/hr a full time employee would gross $31,200/yr. Take out 30% in taxes and other normal deductions and you're down to around $21,840 or just above that poverty level. Most workers don't get anywhere near that $15/hour either, so you have people who work full time jobs trying to support their family with poverty level income. And that doesn't even begin to cover medical or school expenses.



.

Click to expand...

YAWN!

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning.

In 1970, only 36 percent
of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

92 percent of poor households have a microwave.
Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.

Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.

Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70 percent have a VCR.

Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.

More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.

43 percent have Internet access.

One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.

One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo.

96 percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry at any time during the year because they could not afford food.

83 percent of poor families reported having enough food to eat.

82 percent of poor adults reported never being hungry at any time in the prior year due to lack of money for food.

http://www.heritage.org/poverty-and...erty-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about

After completely ruining the right wingers in this thread I thought I'd do a little more dancing on their sorry asses.

Now if you remember the Orange one declared he saved a bazillion jobs at Carrier. All it took was a lot of lying and a few million dollars from Mike "Women Scare Me" Pence.

Well it turns out the Orange Nazi couldn't save any jobs as Carrier has laid off a whole bunch of workers. I know I'm as shocked as you are that a company bilked these two right wing bozos for millions of dollars and then moved the plant to Mexico anyway.

If the world's greatest negotiator, Trump, can get duped what possible chance does a loser like Walker have? If you don't think Trump got duped well don't take my word for it. How about the Washington Examiner? They're pretty conservative.

Finally, and this is the real kicker. It's looking like the jobs will pay $30k. In other words: minimum wage. Plus, I'm sure these jobs will be non-union so Foxconn will be able to do exactly what Carrier has done: con right wing morons.

dan_c00000 said:

After completely ruining the right wingers in this thread I thought I'd do a little more dancing on their sorry asses.

Now if you remember the Orange one declared he saved a bazillion jobs at Carrier. All it took was a lot of lying and a few million dollars from Mike "Women Scare Me" Pence.

Well it turns out the Orange Nazi couldn't save any jobs as Carrier has laid off a whole bunch of workers. I know I'm as shocked as you are that a company bilked these two right wing bozos for millions of dollars and then moved the plant to Mexico anyway.

If the world's greatest negotiator, Trump, can get duped what possible chance does a loser like Walker have? If you don't think Trump got duped well don't take my word for it. How about the Washington Examiner? They're pretty conservative.

Finally, and this is the real kicker. It's looking like the jobs will pay $30k. In other words: minimum wage. Plus, I'm sure these jobs will be non-union so Foxconn will be able to do exactly what Carrier has done: con right wing morons.

Click to expand...

Well, we knew there was no intelligent life in NYC beforehand, so it's a good thing our expectations weren't very high for this one anyway!

dan_c00000 said:

I thought I'd do a little more dancing on their sorry asses.

Click to expand...

Rightguide said:

So tell the 3.6 to get their asses in gear and either evolve or get educated and motivated.

Click to expand...

You do know Oxfam is well a commie group that hates anything America stands for or has?

I am considered poor by the rich, evil by the left wing and taxed to pay for slackers and alternative lifestyle types who think the Government owes them stuff or has stuff to give.

The sad joke here is the Baby boomers, the guys who have been paying for everything are about to retire, die or just stop giving and start demanding the government give back what its taken.

And hey America the best place to be poor that will be on signs in all DNC controlled area soon!

coachdb18 said:

Well, we knew there was no intelligent life in NYC beforehand, so it's a good thing our expectations weren't very high for this one anyway!

Click to expand...

Have you noticed how dan_c00000 will either simply spout some irrelevancy like above and declare victory or, having been proved either a fool or a liar, simply flee the field? What a pathetic phony. I've come to pity him more than anything else.

Meanwhile, I'd like to get this thread back to it's original point by reiterating something the Left, teaching dan_c00000 his tactics, tries to either obfuscate or ignore:

DawnODay said:

Originally Posted by DawnODay

Originally Posted by XXXXXXXX

.... Taxes on the wealthy should be higher....

Click to expand...

....

Take, for instance, your belief that "[t]axes on the wealthy should be higher." There are two basic arguments against this. I'll start with the weaker of the two, which is fairness.

In 2014, the most recent year for which there is full data:

The top 1 percent [of taxpayers] paid a greater share of individual income taxes (39.5 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.1 percent).

The share of income earned by the top 1 percent of taxpayers rose to 20.6 percent in 2014. Their share of federal individual income taxes also rose, to 39.5 percent.

[T]he top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97.3 percent of all individual income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.7 percent.​

S. Greenberg, Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2016 Update, Tax Foundation (Feb. 1, 2017). These numbers are confirmed by CNBC, which I'm sure you admit has no right-wing bias. With the "one-percenters" paying 40% of all income taxes, and the top 50% paying almost all of income taxes, I assume you are not arguing "fairness" as a basis for why the "rich" should pay more....

Click to expand...

[Emphasis added.]



Comments?

Click to expand...

Well, I've pretty much ruined everyone in this thread. Let's close it down. Another right wing myth destroyed.

DawnODay said:

Comments?

Click to expand...

The reason to tax the wealthy is because they are the ones benefitting from the system. That is where the value of productivity produced by the workers of the US labor force is being concentrated and therefore that is where the distribution of the surplus value created should come from.

JackLuis said:

Click to expand...

I strongly doubt those figures. Can you support them?

Boxlicker101 said:

I strongly doubt those figures. Can you support them?

Click to expand...

The images look like Russian meme-mill propaganda pix, a typical how-to-lie-with-statistics gag. Bigger non-media companies pay less tax than the above. Oh, those figures probably show up online somewhere. They needn't be false, merely misleading.

How about a picture chart of all Tromp's cabinet members and their paid taxes?

dan_c00000 said:

Well, I've pretty much ruined everyone in this thread. Let's close it down. Another right wing myth destroyed.
...
[/IMG]

Click to expand...

DawnODay said:

Have you noticed how dan_c00000 will either simply spout some irrelevancy like above and declare victory or, having been proved either a fool or a liar, simply flee the field? What a pathetic phony. I've come to pity him more than anything else.
....

Click to expand...

BoyNextDoor said:

The reason to tax the wealthy is because they are the ones benefitting from the system. That is where the value of productivity produced by the workers of the US labor force is being concentrated and therefore that is where the distribution of the surplus value created should come from.

Click to expand...

The value produced by the workers goes into their paychecks, subject to federal deductions and withholding. By the time the lower 50% of earners receive their tax refunds, however, they effectively pay no federal income tax. Yet even these poorer workers, and even people living on welfare, receive plenty of benefits "from the system." Besides the benefits they earn mentioned in the preceding link, everyone in the USA benefits from federal services ranging from military protection to the interstate highway system and dozens of other things. Should not these workers also contribute to funding them?

Meanwhile, the "wealthy," the top 50% of earners, pay essentially all federal income taxes and the top 1% pay 39.5% of them. The original issue of this thread was the claim: "Taxes on the wealthy should be higher." Don't they already pay enough, and should not the lower 50% pay a share?

Boxlicker101 said:

JackLuis said:

Click to expand...

I strongly doubt those figures. Can you support them?

Click to expand...

To the extent that these figures may be true (and note this is in 2014, well into the Obama presidency), here is the reason, e.g.,


Indeed, the top contributors to Obama's 2008 campaign include Time Warner and a number of Wall Street "hedge fund" firms.

This is another reason why we need lower, simpler, and more fair taxes. Right now, the government can use the tax code to pick winners and losers. A simpler system with less impact on profits would decrease that. Get government out of the affairs of business, and you'll get business out of the affairs of government.

dan_c00000 said:

After completely ruining the right wingers in this thread I thought I'd do a little more dancing on their sorry asses.

Click to expand...

Except using bullshit for dance wax kills your routine.

BoyNextDoor said:

The reason to tax the wealthy is because they are the ones benefitting from the system.

Click to expand...

As it's been pointed out they aren't the only ones.

BoyNextDoor said:

That is where the value of productivity produced by the workers of the US labor force is being concentrated and therefore that is where the distribution of the surplus value created should come from.

Click to expand...

Why should there be a distribution of the surplus?

Why not just stop concentrating it (open markets up) and let the chips fall where they may?

Why not let people make their own livings, or not, of their own accord?

Everyone pays XX% to cover the F22's, infrastructure and emergency services....let the states deal with the rest.

After humilting the right wing it appears they came on here to piss and moan some more. I guess they really enjoy the butt hurt. I feel obliged to give it them.

Why should we tax the rich? Simple: it's a way to redistribute political power. The rich and powerful can donate to their political candidate and have infinitely more say than the average person can in politics. Just look at the likes of the Koch brothers, the Mercers (covered above), and Peter Thiel. It's through the rich's money they're able to affect public policy.

They can disenfranchise voters or put in place absurd voting restrictions. Take away health care. And, to give a recent example, close down a business because the workers wanted to unionize.

We know that cutting taxes on the rich is complete bullshit. No less a right winger than Bruce Bartlett said as much.

The goal of tax cuts for the rich, which is what the GOP is, basically amounts to keep the masses poor and the rich their lords. This is pretty clear in the way public policy is titled more and more to the wealthy.

Teahadists always claims that tax cuts for the rich will trickle down but they're unable to explain how if that wealth is trickling down the gap between rich and poor continues to grow or how the rich own an ever-increasing share of the wealth. There also unable to explain how Trump's "self-financed" campaign included donations from a whole bunch of rich folks included Wall Street types.

Only a moron would say that the tax code can be used to pick and choose winners. They have no grasp of reality or history. When the highest tax rate was significantly higher, up until the 1970s, the U.S. was a much more equal country in terms of wealth distribution. They are especially dumb because most Americans believe the rich should pay MORE not less and that the current distribution of wealth is unfair.

Taxing the rich ultimately has a two-fold benefits: it provides for services everyone can use (health care, infrastructure, national security, etc.) AND it prevents a democracy turning into an oligarchy where politicians exist to do the wealthy's bidding at the expense of the 99%.

dan_c00000 said:

The goal of tax cuts for the rich, which is what the GOP is, basically amounts to keep the masses poor and the rich their lords.

Click to expand...

Gup congresscritters' immediate goal is more prosaic. If they can't deliver humongous tax cuts, donations will dry up and they'll have to find honest jobs. The long-term goal is to continue receiving donations. And blowjobs. If such requires destroying our democratic republic and enslaving the populace, so be it.

dan_c00000 said:

Why should we tax the rich? Simple: it's a way to redistribute political power....

Click to expand...

OMG! dan_c00000!!!! You did it! You actually made a coherent argument!

It's misguided, unsupported by facts (you again use opinion pieces from ultra-biased sources and cite them as if they are actual evidence), and easily refutable (rhetorically, it's actually easier to refute a coherent argument than your usual emotional-based rants), but at least it's an actual argument presenting mostly self-consistent, albeit mistaken, ideas.

Wow. I really doubted you had it in you. You're growing, sir, you're growing. I'm so proud of you!

dan_c00000 said:

The goal of tax cuts for the rich, which is what the GOP is, basically amounts to keep the masses poor and the rich their lords.

Click to expand...

The goal for cutting taxes is to spur economic growth, which the historical record shows it will do. See, generally, B. Domitrovic & L. Kudlow, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan Proved Tax Cuts Work, Time (Sep. 29, 2016); M. Geewax, JFK's Lasting Economic Legacy: Lower Tax Rates, NPR (Nov. 14, 2013); D. Mitchell, The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates, (Aug. 13, 2003).

As far as I have seen, the only people who appear to want to keep people poor are the power elite (not the rank and file) of the Democrat party. Just look at the results of their policies of the past 50 years. By keeping a large group of Americans poor and dependent on government, then promising them meager improvements in the free stuff government will give them (from food assistance to free phones to the broken promise of affordable health care), the Democrat power elite try to maintain a dependable voting block to help them win elections, at least in the densely populated urban areas. That is the true conspiracy against the poor and even the middle class.

dan_c00000 said:

[T]hey're unable to explain how if that wealth is trickling down the gap between rich and poor continues to grow.

Click to expand...

I can explain it. (Actually, this is explained all the time by a lot of people; your argument is fallacious.) It's called "mathematics." Let's say the economy improves and every investor and worker sees a 10% growth in income. The janitor making $20,000 per year goes to $22,000, gaining $2,000; the manager making $100,000 per year goes to $110,000, gaining $10,000; and the factory owner making $1,000,000 per year goes to $1,100,000, gaining $100,000. While they have all benefited proportionately, the gap has still grown.

Of course, it usually doesn't work of quite like that. The real numbers may be more like a $2,000 raise for the janitor; a $15,000 raise for the manager, and a $250,000 increase in income for the owner. This is only fair. No matter how well he does his job, the janitor has little effect on increasing profits. The manager, however, probably played a significant role in doing so, while it is the owner risking his or her capital that created the factory, backed whatever improvements increased profits, and gave the janitor and the manager their jobs.

The point is, as conditions improve and the economy grows, everybody (except those kept in perpetual poverty by Democrat social policies) gains something. As has been said: "A rising tide lifts all boats." -- John F. Kennedy (1963).

dan_c00000 said:

Only a moron would say that the tax code can be used to pick and choose winners....

Click to expand...

This is the one place your argument breaks down and becomes not just inconsistent, but self-contradicting. If your goal is "to redistribute political power," then that is, by definition, picking winners. Both parties have been using tax policy and regulatory power for nearly a century "to pick and choose winners." The example of GE has already been cited. I would also point you to the Solyndra scandal.

But, dan_c00000, sincerely, that was a good first try at presenting a logical argument. Except in that last point, your logic worked, only your premises were flawed. Now, start looking at some real, relatively unbiased news sources (I recommend NPR, the BBC, and the WSJ), and, applying your new-found logic, you might just come to see how misguided you have been.

Dawn got fucking destroyed again. Does anyone else find it odd that "she" is replying to shit at 7am? Who's up that early trolling for evil rich people and corporations to have more money? I mean besides Orange Nazi supporters.

Anyway, you can tell Dawn didn't actually read anything I wrote because "she" is a fucking moron because there's a BBC link in my post! Specifically, this one! So we now know that Dawn can't read and lies about having read what "she" claims to have read. Where I come from we call that

DawnODay said:

The goal for cutting taxes is to spur economic growth, which the historical record shows it will do.

As far as I have seen, the only people who appear to want to keep people poor are the power elite (not the rank and file) of the Democrat party.


Of course, it usually doesn't work of quite like that. The real numbers may be more like a $2,000 raise for the janitor; a $15,000 raise for the manager, and a $250,000 increase in income for the owner.

Click to expand...

It only spurs economic growth for the upper cream that is getting the break. Especially if you don’t open up markets so that up and commers can take a shot.

No it doesn’t work anything like that. Janitors don’t get shit lower management gets an itunes/ Outback Steakhouse gift cards, upper management gets 1500 dollar bonus and the owner gets 2.8 BILLION that they won’t spend.

And Demz aren’t the only market mongering shits who want to keep others poor to protect their market control like the socialist shits over in the gop.

DawnODay said:

The value produced by the workers goes into their paychecks, subject to federal deductions and withholding.

Click to expand...

This is a false statement or at best, very incomplete statement. Some of the value created by the worker goes to their pay. The remainder, the surplus value they created, is appropriated by the corporation, owner, employer.

That surplus is where the wealth concentration is. That surplus is what should be taxed for the purpose of maintaining all of the infrastructure necessary for that corporation to keep taking the surplus.

You do understand that the Corporations are taxed when they buy,transport,use, create the X product materials and then are taxed again when placing the X product for consumer use by the Federal Government and later by the State.

Company's make profit off X product and then return the investment to is owners or supporters that allowed this all to happen while the Government did nothing but charge fee's for license's and taxes for all start up procedures .

Workers agree to an hourly payment and company benefits some even buy into the company but without investors, profit and X product you have nothing .

So just what is so hard to understand that about business and profit or evil about it?

I find that people in Antifa, the Commie party and Socialist group all use Apple products, products that are over priced , have a limited use and are outdated it screams look at me I support a failed belief system and love to over spend for junk products because of my hive like mindless hate of Capitalism and my lust for a bigger bloated government and more taxes.

Companies making money aren't evil but the IRS is and its football field volumes of tax code and ever changing rules meant to get what they, the government missed the first time.

DawnODay said:

The goal for cutting taxes is to spur economic growth, which the historical record shows it will do. See, generally, B. Domitrovic & L. Kudlow, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan Proved Tax Cuts Work, Time (Sep. 29, 2016); M. Geewax, JFK's Lasting Economic Legacy: Lower Tax Rates, NPR (Nov. 14, 2013); D. Mitchell, The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates, (Aug. 13, 2003).

Click to expand...

Look at what the top rate was at the time of the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts, and look at the top rate now. No comparison. The logical conclusion of what you're saying (cutting taxes always leads to economic growth) is that if we eliminated taxes entirely, we would have infinite economic growth.

And of course, we raised taxes in 1993 and the rest of the decade amounted to the best economic times since at least the 1950s. Funny how that's always left out of the conservative history books...

BoyNextDoor said:

This is a false statement or at best, very incomplete statement. Some of the value created by the worker goes to their pay. The remainder, the surplus value they created, is appropriated by the corporation, owner, employer.

That surplus is where the wealth concentration is. That surplus is what should be taxed for the purpose of maintaining all of the infrastructure necessary for that corporation to keep taking the surplus.

Click to expand...

If you take the surplus the corporation falls apart and society goes cannibal on itself.

This isn't 1918 Russia...sorry you missed your dream boat society comrade.

Wrong Element said:

Look at what the top rate was at the time of the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts, and look at the top rate now. No comparison. The logical conclusion of what you're saying (cutting taxes always leads to economic growth) is that if we eliminated taxes entirely, we would have infinite economic growth.

And of course, we raised taxes in 1993 and the rest of the decade amounted to the best economic times since at least the 1950s. Funny how that's always left out of the conservative history books...

Click to expand...

Raising taxes being effective also means the taxes make their way back to society. Meaning we have to have a legit budget and accountability for that spending.

This is something (D)'s and (R)'s both hate to see.

Wrong Element said:

Look at what the top rate was at the time of the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts, and look at the top rate now. No comparison.

Click to expand...

This was the point I made, which "she" didn't read.

Also, "she'll" forget that after cutting taxes Reagan raised them repeatedly throughout the rest of his two terms and the debt increased to the tune of trillions.

I'm also glad "she" pointed to the Heritage Foundation because if you look at the Freedom Index they create countries with higher tax rates are more "free" than America. I'm sure if Dawn was something more than a dick pretending to be a pussy "she'd" get that.