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

I don't think even the filthy rich would complain about being taxed more, as long as it is not insane, like many democrats want to go back to 90% tax, that is just stupid beyond reason. Remove some but not all tax breaks, many tax breaks encourage investment, expansion, creates jobs.

Corporate taxes are just dumb. No corporation pays taxes, none, if they have a tax bill the money comes from higher costs of goods or services or lower pay for employees, that is the simple truth. Corp taxes should be no more than 5%.

EVERYONE should pay some tax, even if you are dirt poor you should have some skin in the game. Welfare unchecked leads to more welfare. If you don't pay taxes then you should not get to vote. or at the very least you should not get to vote for any measure that raises taxes for someone else but not thee.

 

Sorry, you are right: you quoted and replied to my response to doofenschmirtz, and he didn't, so I assumed you were him.

Perhaps you should look up the word, "lie" in a good dictionary. In any case, forum rules do not permit accusations of lying against fellow members. A word to the self-evidently less than wise.

Not until you stop proving it accurate.

Right: you supported and voted for it because it would sacrifice others on the altar of your greed for unearned wealth.

No it doesn't.

Housing being more affordable is a good thing. Duh.

I.e., you helped landowners cash in the multi-hundred-thousand-dollar gifts of land value the community had given them in return for nothing.

BWAHAHAHHHAAAAA!! Yeah, it sure looks like it. Have you been to CA lately?

A free market in private land titles is logically impossible because private ownership of land inherently forces everyone to subsidize landowners. Forced subsidies can't exist in a free market.

Garbage. There was nothing extreme about them. The rates were not even in the top five states. What you helped people do was cash in the multi-hundred-thousand-dollar gifts of land value the community had given them:
"Pity this poor, oppressed landowner who paid $100K for the land his house is sitting on, and then the stupid, incompetent, wasteful, corrupt government went and made his land worth $500K for him. So now he can't afford to repay even 1% of what he has been given, and has to pocket the $400K capital gain in return for nothing! Oh the humanity!"

I'm the one telling the truth here, and I will thank you to remember it.

You misspelled "rich, greedy, privileged parasites."

So, the more unaffordable Prop 13 made housing for Californians, the more money you pocketed. Shocker!

People like to watch a good fight. But this has been more of a beat-down.

Well! His only lie is at 1:50, where he claims you pay 1% of the value of the property. That is a lie. You pay 1% of the acquisition cost of the property, with increases capped at 2%/yr, which is typically well under the actual increase in market value. The result is that those who have held the same property since 1978 -- mostly corporations -- now pay just a small fraction of 1% of actual market value.

 

What high taxes and regulations do is put money in wealth preservation schemes, not only do businesses move overseas, but so do investment dollars.

 

That depends on what is taxed, and how. A high tax on location value, for example, stimulates investment and economic activity because the landholder has to use the land productively to avoid losing money to the tax. Landholders can't avoid it by investing elsewhere because land can't move, and its value is already discounted by the future tax liability. That is why high taxation of location value has been a magnet for investment everywhere it has ever been tried: Meiji Japan, Kiaochow, the California water districts, Renaissance Venice, Amsterdam, Denmark, Hong Kong and now China, the list goes on.

 

Socialism typically starts as popular revolution, but then there are always powerful people who direct the movement for their own personal gain.

For example, the Russian revolution of 1917 was very popular, because the Tsar and other nobles were seen as elitists who only cared about their own wealth and power and we're happy to see the people starve as long as they were protected.
But following the revolution, as the new government began to form, a small group, led by Lennon began to take control for themselves, and the government was designed to keep them in power.

 

You are not interested in this topic and one wonders where you picked up the trash you spread here all the time?

 

Communism only benefited the elite politicians and left citizens wishing the Tsar returned.

I had a college political science teacher from Russia (1957) who had to flee Russia to China when his family was mass murdered as he and a servant were out hunting for game. He was so upset the system mass murdered his family and told we students at the time what communism was all about. Supposedly things would improve. I was in communist Germany in 1963 and things had not improved. I have had Russians who managed to get out when Reagan was president who told me plenty of stories of how bad it still was in Russia.

Democrats want you to believe how good Communism is. Putin speaks highly of Joe Biden and says the Soviets and Biden are very nearly the same thing.

 

A high tax on location value? Are you kidding unless your talking about something other than real estate, why the hell would you pay a premium to live somewhere? SF NYC are losing people hand over fist.

 

That makes no sense. What it it someone incurs $600k earning that $500k?

 

I see: you have been comprehensively and conclusively demolished and humiliated, you know it, and you have no answers. Simple.

 

Ask the people who do. They wouldn't care if they were paying the community that creates their locations' value for it instead of a private parasite who doesn't.

Rents are high there because people are willing to pay that much for the location advantages. Not rocket science.

 

Except there is no money now to invest in cheap college and training period- for the last 30 years period -or infrastructure.

 

That's communism always a dictatorship. Socialism as understood everywhere but conservative America and conservative UK is fair capitalism with a good safety net. Like in every modern country but us lol. Thanks to you....

 

Everybody pays about 27% in taxes. All taxes . A huge giveaway to the rich period and screwjob for everyone else. Thanks to you...

 

Only if you are brainwashed into believing only federal income taxes count. If you count all taxes we have a flat tax system, a gigantic giveaway to the rich period for 30 years now period and slowly ruining middle class and infrastructure. Great job! Google the only tax graph you need to know.

 

You familiar with Pell Grants? You want cheap training join a union...
Or go to a trade school you can get a grant for that too.
Reestablish vocational schools. And quit treating the cat that programs the CNC lathe that makes you stuff like he's a damn moron.

 

As a share of federal revenue payroll taxes and corporate taxes have flipped over the past half century. I believe that is what fuels fairness arguments though we somehow get into individual income tax arguments. Similar to when there is a loss in federal revenue it’s followed by federal spending and deficit arguments.

To me, how do we reduce the tax burden on those earning roughly 138K or less? Is the question. The roughly 138K represents the cap on FICA.

Removing that cap while simultaneously reducing the rate would help. Smaller percentage rate required to meet goal If pulling from a larger pool.

Employ the opposite on the individual income tax to reduce rates for 138K and below.

Another area to tap in Federal Tax Revenue is the “other” category which has fallen dramatically over the last half century too. Estate, excise, yadda yadda. We can likely take the estate tax back fifty years adjusting for inflation and find replacement revenue to reduce the burden on 138K and below earners.

Taking the corporate rate back to 28% would also generate replacement revenue to lower the burden.

Essentially remove much of the burden shifting that has occurred over the half century.

Also, we need to look at policy that flipped income growth on it’s head plus infinity in the last forty years. That’s more of a structural issue: tolerance for corporate consolidation, loss of workers bargaining power, corporate governance, campaign finance, tolerance for our financial sector’s “innovations”.

If the consumer is king the system should be designed to treat them like one.

 

all these things have gotten more expensive much more quickly than inflation thanks to the GOP giveaway to the rich duh period we have no argument on vocational schools just nomenclature. God knows what your last sentence means LOL

 

So if you worked hard to get more than others, they should be able to take it because you did?

 

Yep.

 

Had nothing to do with it. It is nonsense to believe that tax cuts caused price increases at universities when the increases began well before Reagan. Note between1966 and 1975 tuition at the directional school I attended nearly doubled and the cost of textbooks went from merely outrageous to damn near insane. And dorm room rents were more than either. Part of the reason for the increase is the government all but declared war on private training institutions. Which were far cheaper than universities in no small part because they didn't try to make history buffs out if IT workers. There was no core curriculum, you took only the classes you need to excel in the field in which you wished to work.

Pell Grants only cost tax payers and stupid people can't program a CNC lathe.

 

prices for University skyrocketed with Reagan and afterwards period no sacrifice is too great to save the greedy idiots GOP Rich from paying their Fair share. And Reagan basically started the whole thing in California as governor in the '60s. The Berkeley protests were about that as much as Vietnam.... Talk about owned by corporations and the rich.....

 

So why would you work hard?

 

To have more money.

 

Do the wealthy work harder than you do? If so, then they should have more money than you, right?