The Wealthy Do Pay Income Taxes

I like this argument. Only the government is pure while all others are helpless without the support of the collective.

 

Western Europe and its barely hanging on economies are great examples. Also, great theory behind your answer which you left out.

 

When I say that the wealthy are under taxed it's because they are increasing their wealth at an accelerated rate while the middle class is accumulating wealth at a retarded rate. To reduce taxes on the wealthy only increases the rate at which they accumulate wealth at a time when it's the middle class and poor that needs the boost.


That's it in a nutshell

 

You've been corrected on this before, yet here you go again. You are just as bad as some of the leftists on this forum.

1. Any discussion of the Eisenhower tax rates that does not include the immensely greater deductions, shelters and loopholes available at the time is a lie narrative, lying by omission. The only people who ever paid those super high rates were people who got caught offguard by surprise windfalls without time to plan.
2. The claim that CEOs make "thousands of times" what line workers make is also a lie narrative and has been debunked numerous times on this forum. It is based on considering only the largest .002% of companies and ignoring the other 29,992,000.

Let's see if you are capable of reading and learning this time:

http://chiefexecutive.net/how-much-does-the-average-ceo-really-earn/

The average CEO pay of the 30 million US companies is about $400,000 per year. The average CEO pay of private companies with at least a billion in revenues is ~$1.7 million, NOT "thousands of times" what workers earn.

These are not differences of opinion but of factual data. Keep posting these errors purposefully and keep spreading disproven, debunked lie narratives.

 

You haven't proven anything. The notion "wealth" is an abstraction as a matter of fact and not opinion. It is an abstract, subjective class or category for conveniently describing groups of things with similar characteristics. Union label LW liars who try to equate it to some measure of dollars are perpetuating lie narratives. Proof that wealth is an abstraction (and subjective) is that some people consider their family their greatest measure of wealth, others their friends, others their W-L records in Xbox games. It's becoming apparent that you don't understand what "abstract" means. Sorry bout that, just another consequence of our awful schools. Rest of the post is similar nonsensical gibberish.

 

Figures don't lie but . . .

I remember the fifties.
Do you?

I take experience over figures any day.
ttfn and correct away again and again

And take the last word as you chose too.​

 

I'm an attorney, licensed in the United States, who lives in and practices tax law in the United States. ARE YOU?

 

Digital wealth has no end, well any sort of end this planet will achieve, but you believe what you like as I'll not be pasting a cite over and over to counter your silly opinion

Is there an end to numbers?

 

Keep practicing, maybe one day you'll understand.

 

Oh, I see, you feel the need to chime in with an empty inanity (because... leftism)... much like this error-filled list you posted earlier:

Incorrect. Governments also collect lots of items called "fees," which are not taxes. In addition, they collect things called "fines" for legal and regulatory violations, not the same as taxes. Government run businesses collect revenues like any other business, and governments sell certain services and publications as well. So despite however you are going to try to rationalize your errors in this definition, you're wrong.

Muddling the difference between income and payroll taxes by including payroll taxes here and also in their own category is erroneous. Payroll taxes are distinct in that employers pay a portion of them, should not be lumped in with income taxes.

There are similar glaring errors in your definitions of "debt," "wealth," "disposable income" and "discretionary spending," more severe, obvious errors in the claims that follow.

Unfortunately, my professional opinion is that because the errors are so profound, no matter how much you practice, your understanding will not improve... at least in an average human lifespan.

 

Yeah, right - The wealthy do pay taxes. Just not their fair share. (And our tax rates are one of the lowest of any developed nation - see here.)

Don't forget when Romney back in 2008 foolishly admitted that he paid only 14% taxation on his taxes in mid-electoral campaigning. Here is what FactCheck had to say about how the calculation was made:

For as long as the US has such very low tax rates, there will be incentives for some warped individuals to make a quick megabuck - as the banksters did in the SubPrime Mess that caused the Great Recession and sent millions of us into joblessness penury.

The incentive with such low taxation (instituted by Reckless Ronnie) is just too strong. And for what? You can't spend more money if you earn (and keep) ten megabucks than if you earned a thousand megabucks. You die ultimately and it goes to the kids who never worked to get it*.

With a progressive tax rate and a cap of 99% at incomes above $10M a year, there will be plenty of incentive to take risk a profit handsomely. And also enough tax-revenue for our kids to get a Tertiary Education (free, gratis and for nothing) by which to earn a decent living ...

*The Trump family is a prime example of what happens. All the kids are multimillionaires because of either their father or their mother ...

 

The inanity is because you write so poorly, have poor comprehension skills and claim to be a lawyer.

Yes there are dozens of other small incomes that the IRS and White House budget refers to as "other" because it is rather a small amount and not worth itemizing unless absolutely needed. It isn't in this case. Should I condemn you because you didn't mention the luxury tax? It's pointless.

FICA payroll taxes are never listed by the right yet they would include SS and Medicare in expenses. "employers pay a portion of them," is not accurate. Not one employer pays one dime unless they have an employee therefore it is in reality a part of the employees compensation. That is called smoke and mirrors.

"Unfortunately, my professional opinion is that because the errors are so profound, no matter how much you practice, your understanding will not improve... at least in an average human lifespan."

And in my opinion, if you are indeed a lawyer, I hope for your sake you have a whopper load of malpractice insurance. If you try and tell a judge "Your honor, my client is not a wealthy man. Sure he has three houses, a plane, $17 million in stocks and bonds but he is in fact a poor man. He has no children, the poor man. Everyone hates him the poor man. He is virtually destitute because he has no friends." I think we can safely say that the judge would first look at you in amazement, then fine you for contempt, then rule against your client and probably start disbarment procedures.

 

Maybe where you live, but where I live (here in France) they are still a force to be reckoned with.

And it is unfortunate that in both France and the US they are no longer a predominant, noteworthy force in the negotiation of collective work agreements. This collective right to negotiate working conditions is primordial in any effective market-economy in order to have a balance-of-power between the vested-interests of corporations and the workers they employ ...

 

Stopped reading there. Remember folks, when attempting ANY discussion with a leftist, always have a written record.

 

Piffle 'n drivel, drivel 'n piffle.

When the Replicants get a policy right (and not Right) pigs will fly ...

 

Why is it the responsibility of any citizen to pay more of their income than another?
Why do you feel you should be subsidized by others?

 

This is a good time to remind people, claims of expertise here mean nothing. I could claim to be a volunteer development worker in central Africa and you'd have no way of knowing. Or someone could claim to be a tax lawyer who in real life works the 2AM Run for the border window at Taco Bell.

 

Nonresponsive

 

A COLLECTIVE MARKET-ECONOMY

This is the essence of a Social Democracy, and the most profound manner in which it differs from the America's Money Democracy.

What many do not understand is that we live in a market-economy. Why is that so important? Because it is the collectiveness of a nation that assures the functioning of a market-economy. (Collectiveness = Of, relating to, characteristic of, or made by a number of people acting as a group: such as a collective decision, or a collective responsibility.)

Of course, if you want to go off an live on a deserted island, that is a choice you can make. But, don't expect to become a millionaire or even the least bit "rich". The richness of an individual is a comparative distinction found only in a collective market-economy.

If the "collectiveness" is the predominant criteria of a market-economy, and "individuality" is a subordinate criteria, then what is best for all is more important than what is best for just a select few.

But how does an economy generate the wild differences seen in some economies between the rich, and middle-class and the poor. It is taxation, particularly in the US, that defines the diversity of classification. In the US and the 1980s, Reagan reduced upper-incomes from 70% (having been brought down by LBJ in the early 1960s from 90%) to below 30%.

The result was an instant gushing up of Income into Wealth. This was found by researchers from the UofCal, and shown here:


Can you explain why, in the 1980s, the share of Wealth held by 0.1% of Americans went from 8% to 20% - the equivalence of the share held by the other 90% of Americans???

And if you can, you might like also to justify how this is "fair and just" in a collective market-economy. No, it's not because "people worked hard so they deserve the riches!"

More than anything, aside from working hard, they happened to be "in the right country at the right time" when taxation changed radically ...

MY POINT1

Then, also, you will explain to me how, since WW2, it was America's "poor slobs" (mostly poor to middle-class) who died for their country defending a economic principle that was basically unfair and inequitable due to perverse taxation of the upper-class.

They died protecting whose Wealth?

MY POINT2

I am not promoting "equality of either income or wealth". We are all different with different capacities and our work (along with a bit of luck) determines comparative Wealth outcomes.

What I am saying is that whilst an economy will always demonstrate the difference between the very poor and the very rich, that differentiation is one that WE DECIDE (and not just circumstance).

Which is why we need Progressive Taxation to obtain that "fairness".

 

The above is true, which is why I often encourage readers to do their own research and not just take my word (or anyone's). I've NEVER EVER seen a LW poster express similar, expecting all the nonsensical, harebrained garbage they post here (like your list of inanities I called out earlier) be taken at face value.

Oh, and it's very plain what side tends to have more intelligent, reasoned posts here reflecting knowledge, experience and accomplishment, and what side tends to have posts reflecting low intelligence, inexperience, ignorance and low accomplishment. Readers and lurkers can certainly decide which is which for themselves.

 

You know the recession that Regan inherited was actually more intense than the so called "great recession" that Obama struggled with.

 

You misquoted the facts. Very badly I might add. The top .1% had 10% of the wealth at the time Regan cut the tax rate. And only increased to 12% during the rest of his term. On the other hand, Obama raised the top rate twice, and the wealthy 0.1% went from 16% to 22%. So taxes are not the problem, or the cure.

 

With this I agree, one side is.prone to post citations from the Washington Post, NPR Reuters, cnn and other multiple Pulitzer and Peabody winning publications and the other tends to fox news and breitbart that have a combined total of...zero.

 

Reagan's "recession" was intentionally induced by the FED to get a grip on inflation cause by baby boomers hitting the job market and becoming consumers. Here's a good explanation from Forbes.https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...-economy-its-literally-no-contest/amp/?espv=1

 

In other words, you like to take from others.
Don't hide behind collective good bullshit as cover for your personal desire for other people's stuff