The Wealthy Do Pay Income Taxes

Yup, and my state is ahead of many others economically because it is a very liberal blue state. Here, marijuana was legalized. I don't care because I don't like it. But Trump is believed to be developing a plan to enforce a federal ban on it and to go after those who bought it and arrest them and send them to jail, so my state is working on a law that makes dispensaries delete and eliminate all records of purchases. Screw you trump!

 

This is a gross misrepresentation of what is being claimed. What is being claimed is that the income becomes "super-income" that tax rates effectively go down which is the opposite of the "progressive tax" principles where more income would result in a higher tax rate.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-lower-taxes-for-real/?utm_term=.435715492f09

Our income tax codes are also designed to only tax income above the "cost of living" and only roughly 53% of American households have income that exceeds their cost of living.

That isn't true when it comes to the second largest federal revenue source, the Social Security/Medicare tax, that is imposed on gross income.

In 2013 the median income of those paying into Social Security was $44,888 a year and workers, not wealthy investors, provided this federal revenue.
https://www.nasi.org/learn/socialsecurity/who-pays

Studies like the Pew Research, the Heritage Foundation, and the Tax Policy Institute are nefarious when they only address the personal income tax and ignore the Security/Medicare taxes that workers fund annually.

Income Taxes $1.6 trillion
Social Insurance Taxes $0.9 trillion

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/...=fed&state=US&title=US_fed_government_revenue

 

Because that wealth is what's leftover after taxes....do you seriously not get this?

Claiming that wealth should be taxed is one of the dumber things I've heard. This is equivalent to claiming that a person should not only be taxed when they earn income, but whatever they save (after the income has already been taxed) will be taxed again and again because it now contributes to you wealth.

Good luck trying to defend this asinine position of yours.

 

Legal in 18 counties, perma banned in 12 with 5 coming up for vote in Nov and hardly legal federally. I own a nice chunk of land in Jackson County, holding out until they tie up all the loose ends then I'm selling it

 

My opinion is that if we spend it, we should tax for it to pay for it. Nothing would create downward pressure on the federal budget like making us actually pay for our spending.

That pressure would double if the 1% had to pay more to pay our spending. I can guarantee that.

 

It's called "preventing an aristocracy".

 

"But you can't document your claim so I should just believe it. Riiiiiight."

You can't document yours either. Why is it ok for you to do it but not someone else?....wait i remember, hypocrisy is ok for the left.

"OH! It happens!.... to about 1% of the population. You hold up rare examples as the norm. That is what's idiotic."

No, this is idiotic. You've yet again made a claim you can't document. The vast majority of people who work their entire lives are in a better earning position near the end of their careers than they were at the beginning. Care to dispute this?...it'll be fun if you do try.

"(2.3% or so.)"

Oh the undocumented claims just keep coming. You first criticize someone else for doing exactly what you did and then you proceed to continue to do it for the rest of your post.

These types of posts kill your credibility.

 

If course I understand that wealth is what is left over after taxes. What you have not done is made a case for why all wealth should be completely exempt from further taxes for eternity. This is not saying that regular peoples savings should be taxed. There are things like death tax that could be used and have it only on wealth above 50 million or some such thing. Would you object to this ?

 

No, you just killed your own credibility. I said "But you can't document your claim so I should just believe it. " I didn't complain that he didn't. I said he CAN'T because I know there is no data to support his claim.

And my percentages may not be precisely accurate, but my point was that the numbers are so low as to be insignificant, yet the right pretends the numbers are more like a majority.

And the BS about the "vast majority of people who work their entire lives are in a better earning position near the end of their careers than they were at the beginning", Sanscrit had said "the 'poor' are, for the most part, the same people as 'the rich,' just at different points in their careers. That is what I was responding to, and in spite of your failure to find out that was what it was about, his statement was BS.

 

It’s really amusing reading the ‘have not’s’ defending the super rich. Of course they all pay their fair share of taxes on income and I read a chapter of Peter Pan every night because it is so true to life.
Millionaire accountants? They don’t exist. Tax Havens? Never heard of them. Bought Politicians? Not true.
The one percent doesn’t have to bother with bullxxxx propaganda to screw you anymore that battle was won some time ago.

I watched the golf at Augusta National last week, enjoyed the golf but also the sheer beauty of the course. But hold on, I read that California was suffering from a severe drought a month ago and to keep Augusta in that prime condition it takes a helluv amount of water where did that come from?

Another piece of gossip from the Augusta caddie. One member enjoyed walking his dog on the course in the morning, but was told he couldn't do so because his dog was not a member. He resolved the issue by paying a guest fee for his dog.

So there you have it. A dog is more welcome at Augusta National than you are.

Forget the American Dream, its time to wake up.

 

Perma banned? No. Currently banned from sales, not possession.
http://www.theweedblog.com/which-areas-of-oregon-allow-marijuana-sales-and-which-dont/

 

Of course I'd object.

You're telling me that once I've paid taxes, what's left isn't really mine to do with as I see fit. I'm not the one who needs to defend my position. You need to somehow justify your position that says even after you pay taxes, your money still isn't really yours. Good luck.

 

Stop trying to back your way out of this on a technicality. It was crystal clear that you were calling into question the validity of what he said with your comment and then you turned around and did the same thing over and over again.

[/QUOTE]
And my percentages may not be precisely accurate, but my point was that the numbers are so low as to be insignificant, yet the right pretends the numbers are more like a majority.

And the BS about the "vast majority of people who work their entire lives are in a better earning position near the end of their careers than they were at the beginning", Sanscrit had said "the 'poor' are, for the most part, the same people as 'the rich,' just at different points in their careers. That is what I was responding to, and in spite of your failure to find out that was what it was about, his statement was BS.[/QUOTE]

Not only are they not accurate, you just completely made them up and now you're claiming that they're basically true (only slightly off). Way to double down.

I read what Sanskrit said and it's nowhere near what you just claimed it to be. I knew exactly what you responded to and now I find out that you apparently had no clue what you were responding to....interesting. Sanskrit simply said the poor remain poor due to life choices (for the most part). That is accurate. I have no idea what counter argument you could possibly come up with but I'd love to hear you try.

 

Once you've paid taxes, what's left is yours to do with as you see fit within the law. You cannot use it to fund an overthrow of government. You cannot use it to buy anti-aircraft weapons or nuclear bombs. You cannot give it to your neighbor without tax consequences. There are reasons for laws that stop you from doing certain things with your wealth, and one good law would be that inheritance over $5 million must be taxed at a high rate, like 75%, so as to prevent an aristocracy from arising and destroying what's left of this Constitutional system of government.

 

I fixed your coding. You're welcome.
Yes, but your thinking is foggy again. Yes, I questioned the validity of what he said, and your response was essentially an admission that his statement was an opinion and unprovable. Now you seem to object to your admission and you claim my statements were also unprovable. But they aren't negatives and you didn't ask me to prove them. There's a difference between "can't" and "haven't".

So you believe that the poor are, for the most part, the same people as the rich, just at different points in their careers? No difference but timing? All those poor people will one day be rich? Really?

No he didn't. That is your interpretation of it. It's not what he said, as I just showed.

 

"Sanskrit: The rich and poor in the US are, for the most part, the same people, just at different points in their careers.
Sanskrit: My example couldn't have been more clear, and that you or anyone could argue that people don't generally start out low on the income and wealth totem pole when young, and then increase their income and wealth over their whole career is idiotic.
Kode: OH! It happens!.... to about 1% of the population. You hold up rare examples as the norm. That is what's idiotic.

One of the most annoying things about attempting political discussions with leftists is that they refuse to stipulate to even the most self-evident claims ("what evidence do you have that most people sleep every night? I often pull all nighters!" or here, "only 1% of people earn more over their careers," they think it's a sly, smart debating tactic, it isn't). A corollary is they demand absolute epistemological certainty for anything anyone else says, while NEVER honestly documenting their own harebrained assertions about identity/resentment politics, income/wealth disparity and any of their other false, repetitive advertisements. I call this the "concerned social scientist" canard. It's what allows them to skip pretty much -all- the steps in their own claims and conclusions while expecting only a string of peer reviewed studies from everyone else. So, it's why you need a written record to keep them straight. Don't bother otherwise, they have no need for consistency, reason, logic or any other thing that doesn't salve their disorder-tending feelz in the moment. It takes a written record so others can see how foolish they are.

As a preliminary, here is Thomas Sowell explaining in detail the obvious lie behind the rich/poor lie narrative, the necessary lie to create a resentment/class warfare narrative that is not representative of our actual society, yet repeated endlessly by the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex. This is crystal clear in easy language even a leftist can understand:



In case Sowell's crystal clarity isn't enough, getting out the crayons to an absurd degree.

1. People who aren't named Benjamin Button or Merlin travel one way through time during their lives, from young to old, then death. Babies are more helpless than children who are more helpless than teens, etc.
2. 10s of millions of young people start working when they are teenagers or soon after (I did, in 1977 at 13, earning $2.10 an hour for hard physical work). With rare exceptions, these people earn entry level wages, even minimum wages, that matches the level of their skills and lack of experience. People also work odd jobs during school and even after. It's not unusual to see engineering, law or medical students working as baristas or the like. If not factored or accounted out, as Sowell notes, these people would look like "the poor" yet are really just "the young." They are no more "the poor" in the way that term is generally used than a healthy baby is a "mutant" because of its rapid cellular growth.

Moreover, lots of people go back to school later, leave the workforce to have children then go back, earn low for many years then high when they cash in, etc. CHANGE IS THE CONSTANT in people's real (not graphed by a public union such as NEA or SEIU) lives. We all know this, but by slyly -freezing- their graphs in time, in pie charts, they seek to fool you into believing in static, near permanent classes of people that don't exist in contextual reality. When called on it, they shift to another bullshit horn of the lie narrative. "Oh, rich and poor aren't static? Well here's a graph showing low social mobility in the US!" based on equally absurd spin, omission of context, out and out lies, as the original lie narrative.

3. Yet the lie narratives on wealth in the US never account for our born, aging, dying, schooling, experience-gaining, asset accumulating, NON-STATIC reality. I've never seen anyone classifying "nonstudent poor" or "30+ poor," "nonstudent minimum wage earners," "minimum wage earners over 30," or "perpetual poor" The reason they don't do this is obvious. They need to include young, old, children in "the poor" to present a lopsided picture of wealth and income in the US, to make you resentful and buy into a hoax of fabricated class warfare the likes that hasn't existed in over 100 years here, if even then. They think you are STUPID enough to swallow that big lie (are you?)
4. Why do they create such obvious, whopper lie narratives instead of approaching social issues honestly and contextually in ways that might SOLVE or at least improve them? Two reasons 1. Because it's not about the ostensible social issue, dummy! It's about enriching THEMSELVES by taking more and more of YOUR middle class, not wealthy class, money to bump their do-nothing pay from 75k over 6 figures, to get their niece a social worker job, to get the next contract selling taxpayers $4 plastic forks. They know full well they can't tax the teeny tiny handful of ultra rich enough to make a difference, they are trying to get the 40% who pay NOTHING to vote to tax YOU more. When they go on about "the rich don't pay their fair share" it's YOU, small business owners, savers, doctors engineers, working folks, not the tiny handful of Wall Street hedge fund d-bags. YOU. YOUR children... and "you" basically means the entire non Complex private sector. 2. When all the context is included and "feelz" and lie narratives omitted, turns out the voluntary market of commerce, warts and all, destroys central fiat power in terms of efficacy, cost, corruption, solving actual social problems. This makes the Complex mostly unnecessary, or at least on a central level. WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!

Again, are they fooling you?

 

I'm talking sales

 

Who knew?

 

And now you argue the point? If the rich and poor in the US are, for the most part, the same people, just at different points in their careers, then at another "point in their careers" a poor person will be a rich person, right? LOL!!!!

Don't fault my comment as "wrong" when the problem now seems to be your sloppy wording.

 

Augusta is in Georgia......

 

Well it will certainly effect the value of land, right

 

My posts on this issue are so clear that even a child could understand them; sorry you seem unable to. Remember folks, always have a written record of any attempted discussions with leftists.

And yeah, at another point in their careers, a poor person will be a rich person, or at least far, far wealthier than when they started. People start at entry level, minimum wage jobs, and provided they don't make disastrous life choices like having kids too young, having kids out of wedlock, gambling, doing drugs, partying, committing crimes, majoring in bogus leftist fields of resentment studies and incurring huge student loans, etc., the average person WILL earn significantly more as they gain experience over their careers, some start lower and go higher, some start higher and don't go as high, the KEY point is that the categories are NOT as STATIC as the Complex wants to fool you they are. Do all start poor and get rich? of course not. Do a vast majority of the rich start young and comparatively poor? YES. These are such well-documented, common sense, foregone conclusions of working life and our economy in the superfortunate U.S. that I really hope you keep questioning it and make yourself look even more foolish by doing so.

The usual leftist/Complex/union label next step in the self-serving lie narrative includes 1. Introducing slanted, inaccurate and out of context "data" on how there is "no social mobility in America." This "data" will be fraught with the same fatal flaws as the "static rich/static poor" data are. 2. Trying to shift the narrative back to generalities and lie narratives about "the rich" and "the 1%" (this is why we always want a written record, and have seen quite a bit of this already in the thread). 3. Try to start working towards calling the honest, contextual truth-teller "racist" or "elitist" or a "wealth/1% apologist," substituting raw emotions and ad hominem for reason and any actual concern for the FACTS of the SOCIAL ISSUES at hand, tipping their hand that it's really all about them and their crooked government job, their subsidized place in academia at all levels, their union, their govcontract, their grant, their lawsuit, their junk consumerist profiteering based on redistributed income, their virtue signaling, rather than any actual concern for the few, VERY few in the US, actual stuck "poor" people who didn't get there via perpetual stupidity or vice and didn't grow out of being "poor" as they gained work experience and better jobs.

EDIT: Oh, wanted to add something else. The reason Complex denizens have such trouble with admitting that in the US, the poor and the rich are mostly the same people, just at different points in their careers, is that acknowledging that highlights their own laziness, bad decisions, lack of focus, character or discipline, etc. This creates immense cognitive dissonance in people who have never been challenged or criticized, told by their single mom how special and perfect they are.

In school, for example, they majored in an easy or fun major and slept in after partying while the guy across the hall got up at 6 for a 7AM lab class. They got wound up in bogus SJW time wasters while others were doing meaningful networking for the future (a group of resentful, crybaby, triggered snowflake kids doesn't make for the best networking opportunities down the road ROFL). They avoided any objective thinking/logic skills classes, math, science, finance, business, and get passed over when employers see through their weak, fragile critical thinking skills. It was too easy to be "buds" with the gut professors in the social sciences.

It's no wonder these types hate to admit most people make better choices than they do, and can have fulfilling private sector work while they are stuck in dead end Complex jobs. The only way they advance themselves is fooling the ignorant into voting to steal more and more from their betters in the private sector. The net has cracked this scam wide open, the Trump movement is a mere EARLY symptom, and the union label, lying left Complex is on the way OUT OUT OUT! Thanks goodness for that.

 

It appears a child is equally as able as you to write a clear statement. Your posts show you are not a good communicator.

 

Remember folks, never discuss -anything- with a leftist without a written record of what was said. Readers can certainly -read the thread- and make up their own minds as to the degree of clarity in my posts. Or if that's too tough for them/you, they can watch the Sowell video that couldn't possibly be expressed in any clearer terms.