The wealthy and corporations will pay their "fair share", if Biden is elected

Conspiracy theory..that's what tax lawyers are paid to do

 

The fair share is 40% income tax on the middle class. I have no idea how that translates to higher/lower income brackets.

 

So let me get this straight a middle class worker, by the time you figure in state local and county taxes, gas taxes federal state and local, is only entitled to keep about 30 cents out of every dollar? Why the hell would anyone ever take that job?

 

You have absolutely NO factual or rational basis for your claim.

 

Please demonstrate your answer to be sound.

 

Since a majority of the Fortune 500 companies in America pay no taxes, & for at least 7 of the last 10 years, our current President has paid no taxes, & neither of these examples are exceptions, Biden's promise to raise taxes on everyone making over $400,000. per year, & raise corporate taxes to a 28% rate, is a sound plan that is long overdue. For too long, these extremely rich individuals, families & corporations, have taken advantage over those of us less fortunate who actually DO pay taxes. The current status quo is far from "fair."

 

The way I see it, it's the only way to run a surplus in the federal budget and pay down the debt. We have many programs that need funding, not even considering new spending.

Once we pay down the debt, only then we can dare talk about tax cuts.

It beats having the government closing all the banks and grabbing all the money from everyones bank accounts like they did in Greece during the great recession.

 

Well, in the government simulator game(1) I played, raising the income tax from 35% to 40% helped me run a budget surplus and pay down the debt over the 3 terms it took as president of the USA.

(1) Government Simulator, from Ambiera. Windows only.

I realize it's just a game, and US presidents don't get 3 terms, but how are you supposed to explore other options other than running a simulator?


Back in the real world, I also suggested taxing the taxes on the middle class to 40% to the democrats polling me. And then a few days later they started putting on the "tax the rich" theatre show, so who knows if that's actually on the horizon?

 

Ok - thanks.

 

Where are you getting that from? State and local are very rarely even close to Federal

 

Daniel, one has to ask how much of the federal budget is wasted in the first place. In terms of inefficiency, I think no business could last a year being as wasteful as government.
A good part of "our share" goes to nothing but waste.

I believe we are paying more than our fair share of what realistic costs should be, and that government should learn to operate on a stable percentage of national income.
Keep waiting for a political power that perspective to surface.

 

No, it's socialism when the people own the means of production Socialism is an actual thing, it's not just "anything I don't like".

It's very rarely existed in the modern world. Certainly not ever in the Soviet Union or the Chinese Democratic Republic

 

What? Why? What is fair about taxing people's wages at all?

 

It's rarely "the people" who own anything. In most cases of socialism it's controlled by a small group of people, such was the case in Cuba, Russia, China, North korea,and most other major socialist counties. Socialism is too easily corrupted. So is capitalism for that matter. A blend of the two, as used by the US is the best way

 

Laughable. The result of that won't be paying down the debt it'll balloon it as more and more middle class people go bankrupt and join the ranks if the poor.

 

State and local and county, taxes include ad valorum, sales taxes, gas taxes, excise taxes, car tags, turnpike fees, etc.

 

Oh and I'd forgot you've still got Medicare/Medicaid and SS coming out so it would be more like 15-20% out if you salary to cover good clothing and shelter and transportation to and from work. Lots of damn luck with that.

 

Your statement #1 is an outright lie since I did not ever state what you claim I stated.
Real Estate salesmen are far more than salesmen/women. They are agents of the seller or the buyer, and with permission can represent both the seller and buyer. So you lied by smearing licensed real estate agents. Learn the law of Agency and apologize for the smear.

Proposition did reduce property taxes as i voted for them to do and explained this to you and posters here.

When the Tax forces the selling of property to others, it does bad things. It reduces the prices of the property due to need to sell. I listed and sold homes due to the CA super high property taxes. Things vastly improved once Proposition 13 was enforced as law.

RE prices are dictated by the open and free market. And YES me and other agents did sell homes due to conditions like loss of income due to divorce, deaths of a spouse and of course the then extreme taxes we then had on CA property.
This infuriates the socialists and they attack me when I tell the forum the plain truth. I spent 47 years of my life as a top notch agent who represented many of the public. I trained several companies agents and owned some of the companies.

But you shoot off your face and pick fights.

Since you post so much nonsense, that will do it for now.

 

If there is more wealth due to high taxes, it has to be way back when the Democrats created those tax laws. As you say correctly, firms will be driven elsewhere due to taxes so long as they are able to move and do not legally need to stay in the USA.

 

Actually those were put there by Democrats. And the nerve of Democrats to discuss this.

 

CA state law declares I am an expert on CA law reference Real Estate and such tax matters impacting on Real estate. I am also expert on broker operation of real estate firms. I am an expert on training agents to sell inside the law and to not ever violate law. I happened to be a Broker when the Proposition law passed and myself and clients spoke of it often at that time. Today people are used to the law and one hardly hears it mentioned. All Buyers and sellers of real estate are very interested in their own self interest so your attempt to smear me did not work at all. FAIL is the correct title of your claims.

Frankly you do not even claim to be expert on a single subject so clearly you are not an expert. You are an EX Spurt.

 

That reaches way into the past ahead of more recent theories and no that is not a law of anything.

George was into Government spending. Proposition 13 was not for that purpose. Proposition 13 was for the general welfare of the public and complied with the welfare clause by promoting our well being.

"The grant of power to “provide . . . for the general welfare” raises a two-fold question: how may Congress provide for “the general welfare” and what is “the general welfare” that it is authorized to promote? The first half of this question was answered by Thomas Jefferson in his opinion on the Bank as follows: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 147–149 (Library Edition, 1904). The clause, in short, is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power. Although a broader view has been occasionally asserted,See W. CROSSKEY, POLITICS AND THE CONSTITUTION IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES (1953). " Congress has not acted upon it and the Court has had no occasion to adjudicate the point."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constit...n-8/clause-1/spending-for-the-general-welfare

 

Bingo. Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production, but collectives are always politically controlled. Socialists are attracted to socialism because they think it will be easier for them to get what they want by political means than in value-for-value exchange.

 

So, you're an expert on the minutiae of landowner parasitism in CA: i.e., your own financial self-interest.

Because no one is allowed to explain to them why it is the biggest public policy blunder committed by any US state since the Civil War.

That's kinda the point: the real estate "industry" is all about landowner greed, privilege and parasitism.

Well, I actually am an expert in certain things: if it weren't for the pandemic, I'd be teaching economics. But mostly I'm just intelligent, informed, and honest. The Trifecta.

 

Wrong again. It is a law of economics, and one of the most important ones, and it was proved in 1979. Here, try to at least minimally inform yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem

He was into justice. You self-evidently are not.

True: it was certainly not for the purpose of justice.

No it wasn't. It was to force the state and all local governments in CA to give exorbitant, increasing, and unsustainable subsidies to landowners, and its disastrous effects on the well being of Californians is too glaringly obvious to be disputed. It can only be denied. In 1978 CA was a leading state in virtually every measure of good governance and quality of life. Now it is near the bottom of the list. That change is entirely the result of Prop 13.