Do you support taking money from the rich and giving it to those that are poor?

Given 'the rich's tendency to make war, I think it does not.

 

What isn't fair is that people who don't understand the difference between income and wealth are allowed to vote.

That stems from misinformation based on a news story in print and video from a few years back.

Yes, it is true that one year Buffet's secretary paid more in income taxes than he paid.

What is the operand? The operand in income taxes is "income."

Buffet's annual income is $1.

No, I did not stutter. That's One United States Dollar.

Buffet is free to pay himself any amount he wants or nothing at all. He has historically paid himself a tokem $1/year.

No one earning $1/year owes or pays any federal income taxes. Again, the operand is "income."

Does that mean Buffet pays $0/year in federal taxes?

No, Buffet pays far more in Capital Gains taxes than his secretary does in income taxes.

Studies by the US Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service, the Office of Management & Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service and the Ohio State University Economics Department all prove that the US lost $TRILLIONs in tax revenues because the Capital Gains tax was set too high.

High Capital Gains rates reduce revenues; low Capital Gains rates increase revenues.

I'll be the first to admit that is counter-intuitive to the casual observer, but there is a perfectly logical reason why that is so.

The Ohio State study showed that the optimal revenue-generating Capital Gains rate is between 9.5%-10.5%.

That study confirmed a study by the Italian government, which lowered its Capital Gains rate to 10% then saw its revenues fly through the roof, and additionally it spurred economic development.

I mention that because Liberal Göbbelizations are intended to deceive people.

Liberals Göbbelize when they falsely equivocate income with the wealth.

They want you to believe that this wealth is the same as cold hard cash, when it is not.

They don't want you to know that all of your Billionaires are paper Billionaires, meaning they don't have $Billions in cash.

Your Millionaires? The majority are paper Millionaires, meaning they don't have $Millions in cash.

There are Millionaires who may actually have a few $Million in cash, but most of it is non-cash assets.

Someone might have a net worth of $107 Million, but they only have $650,000 in cash. The other $106,350,000 is non-cash assets, you know, like a $1.7 Million Ming-dynasty vase.

The government can tax income only because you have a constitutional amendment that says you can tax income.

The amendment doesn't say the government can tax wealth or assets.

B-b-b-b-b-b-but Capital Gains!

Nope. That is an individual tax on the proceeds from the sale of assets, not on the assets themselves.

Article I Section 9 Clause 4 states: No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Do you all understand what that means?

Here's a clue: "unless in proportion to the census...." Get it? It's not Quantum String Theory.

I'll show you an example of how an income tax would play out in the absence of the 16th Amendment.

Let's say the federal government levied a 20% income tax. Your population is 330 Million

The least populated State is Wyoming, with a population of 563,626.

563,626 / 330,000,000 * 20% = 0.03%

The people of Wyoming would pay an apportioned tax rate of 0.03% on their income.

Tennessee has 6,346,105 people, so:

6,346,105 / 330,000,000,* 20% = 0.38% is what people in Tennessee would pay.

California has a population of 37,254,523 people so:

37,254,523 / 330,000,000 * 20% = 2.26%

If you had more than one tax bracket, then the IRS would have more employees than the entire federal government and the military combined just to sort it out.

Anyway to tax wealth, you'd need a constitutional amendment, and that will never happen.

 

That's a lie.

You cannot cite a primary source to support your lie.

All you can do is link to blogs that link to other blogs that link to websites that link to websites but none link to a primary source.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Labor Department refutes your lie.

The average CEO salary is $248,610/annually.

For those desiring to understand how Liberal Göbbels-lovers lie, they cherry-pick publicly-traded corporations, which are 3% of all US businesses or roughly 780,000 publicly-traded corporations.

Out of that 780,000, they cherry-pick the Fortune 500 (or sometimes the Fortune 400).

That's 0.06% of all publicly-traded corporations and 0.002% of all US businesses.

Then, out of the Fortune 500, they cherry-pick the top 15-25 CEOs and claim that it is somehow representative of every US business when it is clearly not even remotely representative.

But, the lying and deception doesn't end there.

Federal law requires total CEO compensation for publicly-traded corporations to be reported.

Example: It is known that the CEO of Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield received one year:

$7 Million salary + $16 Million non-cash benefits = $23 Million Total Compensation.

In the proudest tradition of Herr Josef Göbbels, Liberals use the $23 Million to artificially inflate their deceptive numbers.

 

None of those things would ever happen.

No, income tax is what you pay for the services you receive.

If that is so, then you are solely to blame for not electing competent politicians.

Newsflash: Democrat does not automatically mean Liberal or even left-wing any more than Republican means Conservative or right-wing.

 

And, like most, you're part of the problem.

You got it ass backwards.

Instead of paying 0%-3.7% to your State and 10%-35% to the federal government, you should be paying 0%-3.7% to the federal governmetn and 10% to 35% to your State.

With the exception of diplomacy, defense and coining money, there is nothing the federal government does that the States cannot do better, cheaper and more efficiently.

As a point of fact, few domestic programs were actually created by the federal government.

Those programs were created by the several States and the federal government pulled a Castro/Allende/Mossadeq/Cardenas/Faisal/Qasim and nationalized those programs.

Social Security? Wrong answer. A Republican governor created social security. FDR established a social security program for New York State modeled on the programs of several other States when he was governor. At the time the Social Security Act of 1935 went into effect, 32 States had social security programs, 12 States had pending legislation to create social security programs and the remaining 4 States (there were only 48 States...remember?) had established committees to study such programs.

Social Security Disability? Wrong answer. All 48 States and the Territories of Alaska and Hawai'i had disability programs superior in every way, shape and form to what you have now at the time Eisencoward pulled Castro/Allende/Mossadeq/Cardenas/Faisal/Qasim and nationalized those programs.

Food Stamps? Wrong answer. States had food stamp programs as early as the late 19th Century.

Public Housing? Wrong answer. States, as well as counties and cities, had public housing programs decades before the federal government started meddling.

The federal government is short on answers but long on muscling its way in and usurping the power of the States.

 

Bulletin. I did not say different.

 

Correctly explained is above.

 

Absolutely correct.

 

Why present these old tired lies again? What value do you think it adds to the discussion? Are you mad that Xiden didn't pay his taxes?

 

I still think you should be allowed to vote

 

I think the rich of either party should pay the same tax per dollar the middle class pays

 

People move around too much today for Social Security and Medicare to be handled by the states.

 

What matters is that most Americans want the rich to pay higher taxes and we want more services from the government.

 

Easy solution. Lower the tax rate for the middle class.

 

agree, it should be lowered, the right will say, how you gonna pay for it?

problem is, the right has been giving tax cuts to the rich for years and years, let's go back to the rates of Reagan

 

Wealth should be confiscated beyond a Billion dollars. I realize that means no one will try to make beyond a billion dollars but we will still see such accumulations of capital in corporate entities which are already stringently regulated

 

If you think the trend over the last century for more and more wealth and land to consolidate into the hands of fewer and fewer people is going to somehow reverse itself ...then I guess don't worry about it. It seems to me that trend only has two possible conclusions- one of them involves most of us owning nothing and existing only at the whim of those who own the rest, and the other involves us trying to stop them with methods that we're not willing to try yet.

I spose I should've said 'realistically', not "technically". Technically you are correct. Realistically, the IRS can only enforce taxation on Federal Reserve notes. Barter (including gold) is technically taxable, but nearly impossible to enforce.

Perhaps. It seems to me competent people don't even enter politics, so the pool is crap from the start. The only way to get normal folks into office would be by installing them against their will... and that wouldn't work well either.

Agreed.

 

Stupid question. It needs expansion or clarification.

E.G. Do I support support 'taking' money from the rich to redistribute to the poor via the tax system so that they have access to public goods like education and health care they might not afford otherwise? Yes.

Do I support 'taking' money from the rich by walking into their homes and then arbitrarily confiscating them so that they can be occupied by the poor or destitute? No.

There's a vast ocean of 'grey' in the question yet the only options your allowed to give have to be either 'black' or 'white'.

 

Every government policy, including collection of taxes is based on actual or implied threat of imprisonment. Government is about the exercise of power and nothing else.

 

Then don't have one.

I suggest you move to Somalia, they haven't had what anyone would call a functioning government in generations. Try it or someplace similar. No central authority, no rule of law no-one in charge. You might like it. I'd tell you to write and let me know how its going but I don't think they have a functioning postal service.

 

So a tax cut then? That's awfully generous of you.

 

The point is not to have no government, but to have small government with limited powers...exactly as intended by the authors of the Constitution.

 

they pay less per dollar, so you think we need even more tax cuts for the rich?

 

Hmm.. What lie is this then? If I'm paying 39% on every dollar and a more modest income is paying 20%, If I pay the same rate per dollar, that is a net tax cut for me, isn't it. And when you say, "they pay less per dollar", you have no reference point which defines what tax type or definition of it you're using. So, again, why craft a narrative that you know isn't truthful?

 

I pay a large amount too, that is the point, why should people like Trump pay less per dollar than you or I