The Wealthy Do Pay Income Taxes

This "collectiveness" is why France is such an economic and innovation powerhouse compared to the US, and has been so for decades (god bless the great minds of France who brought us computers, the internet, and many of the other innovation blessings of the collectivized world... in a couple of months, they are very likely to bring us institutionally approved pedophilia in the statehouse to boot, O JOY for world culture!!) This "collectiveness" is why the world looks to North Korea, Yemen and Syria as beacons of hope for the future in a world darkened by the strong property rights, rule of law, sophisticated capital markets, constitutional republic of oppressive tyrannies such as the US. This is why the whole world sits in amazement watching the ongoing economic miracle unfold in Venezuela! <brraaaaaaaaappp>

Oh, but but the OECD darlings you say? Well, yes, teeny eensy weensy very white countries with immense natural resources like Norway can do GREAT with collectivism. Frankly, with that much oil per capita they could govern by Magic 8 Ball or Ouija Board and do just fine.

Well, -maybe- you can make that choice. One of the inconvenient FACTS about your darling collectivism is that like as not, they won't let you LEAVE... alive anyway. Betcha lots of folks in your collectivist playgrounds worldwide would swim quite a ways to get to the freedom of that desert island.

Some things are so poorly stated that even my LW decoder ring set to "max stupid" can't decipher them.

Well, maybe Mr. Spock, or maybe let's just go ahead and formulate the above in another of its accepted iterations, the way Pol Pot did, "the end justifies the means," a slogan used to commit mass genocide for thousands of years of human history before the innovation of the constitutional republic, and sadly for hundreds of years after it and to date as well.

You have a looong way to go to evidence such "wild differences" in the US anyway, where the rich and poor have the same big TVs, same cheap municipal water and electric, same cheap internet, same cellphones, same computers, same access to inexpensive transportation, etc., etc., etc.



In the US, the poor have most of the things the rich have as a matter of fact, not opinion.

In fact, in a world with REAL crushing, lifelong poverty in many places (mostly the collective places), I submit that anyone in the US or most of Europe expressing or participating in "wealth resentment" lie narratives while typing on a cheap computer connected to the internet or tapping out posts on a cheap super-computer in their hand in climate controlled shelter and wearing clean, fashionable clothes is an arrogant, insensitive dick, who if they are concerned about true lack of "wealth" should go out and work at remedying it in the places of the world where poverty actually exists.

I have personally debunked this union label lie narrative numerous times on the forum. You LW never learn, so will compress it thus. Any narrative of US tax policy including a discussion of the 1986 IRC Reform must include the necessary context of all the eliminated tax shelters, boosted AMT, limited deductions, that accompanied the much-needed streamlining of rates. NO ONE PAID THOSE HIGH RATES (very very few) due to tax shelters, unlimited deductions and a weak AMT. Any narrative of the 1986 Reform absent such necessary context is a LIE NARRATIVE crafted to fool the ignorant. Did it work? Did they fool you?

Oh yes, that accounting and legal term of art the "instant gushing up," a sure sign that erudition will follow.

1. They always plop down their graphs and unevidenced claims without DEFINING TERMS. What is "wealth?" What is "household wealth?" What is included and not included? It's all sleight of hand, a feeb attempt by the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-Complex to get in YOUR, not the rich's pocket. To steal more and more from YOU not the rich.

As a matter of fact and not opinion "wealth" is an abstraction, and a subjective one at that. I wouldn't take $2000 for my $200 briefcase due to sentimental value. I would give my entire net worth to cure my mother's dementia. How much of the Roman Treasury would Caesar have paid for just 100 modern functioning cellphones, $10 billion current equivalent? $100 billion? Wealth means different things to different people, so when they try to take a subjective abstraction and plop it into graph form, you already know they are running a con.

What they SHOULD be focusing on are tangible factors that play into QUALITY OF LIFE. Questions like "what average lifespan among non substance abusing income quintiles?" "what speed of tech proliferation among income quintiles?" What cultural, business and infrastructure factors (shopping malls, big box retail, casual dining, utility availability, etc), most importantly, HOW HAS CONCRETE QUALITY OF LIFE IMPROVED OR DECLINED OVER TIME?

But of course, this not only wouldn't foment the resentment they need to, it would expose all their narratives on income inequality to be the LIES they are.

When I was young, a phone was an expensive thing that hung on a wall. A computer was something at a college lab, the average lifespan was 65-70, etc. THESE CHANGES ARE EASY TO MEASURE... but what do they do instead? Sell resentment snakeoil for their own enrichment based on a bogus, subjective abstraction.

(To be continued)

 

2. Moving on to the REAL reasons for the differences in what they call "household wealth."

A. The 99.9% may not own mansions, but they own hundreds of millions more houses than the .1%. Housing crashed in 2008 as we all know, but does that really mean "wealth" decreased? If your house loses $100k of value does a room fall off? Of course not, yet the graph suggests something real was lost. This is the main reasons such graphs are hoodoo. Picketty is just another Complex HACK, not an honest social scientist.
B. The era from 1980 and the invention of MS DOS to date arguably comprises the greatest tech boom in human history, in which people line up by the BILLIONS, and importantly VOLUNTARILY, to trade their dollars for the new tech. The upshot is that Billions of people end up with a new Iphone and a few people end up with a gigantic pile of dollars. Can they eat those dollars? F them? No. BILLIONS OF PEOPLE made a VOLUNTARY decision that they'd rather have IPHONES than dollars. The wealth difference these kinds of choices bring is GOOD wealth inequality because the people are so rich that they can make that choice.
C. As a tangent, when those folks get the stacks of dollars, they start giving it away hand over fist, and to lots of LW causes. The Complex lie narratives NEVER include this because it spoils the narrative and they are really only repeating the narrative to get THEIR BEAKS wet, to enrich themselves at your expense. To the greedy Complex, all that charitable giving from the rich is BAD because it reduces the need for their parasitic asses, hence they never mention the HUGE amounts of charity from the rich.
D. Massive changes in states' corporate law created accounting differences that change wealth and income charts from 1980 to date. Does the LW Complex acknowledge these? OF course not.

Will stop there for now.

 

OK, and at what level of income has your research shown this to be a significant, and by what quantitative degree can the wealth of an individual making $450k be attributed to this, thereby validating a 39% income tax bracket?

 

Nope, not "INCOME" earners, but WAGE income earners. The truly WEALTHY do NOT work for wages.

I will let your MessiahRushie explain it to you:
The Truth About Taxes
August 6, 2007
RUSH: But there's no tax on wealth. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.
I'm talking about genuine wealth, not the way Democrats define "rich."

 

Exactly, Slick Willie Wittless wants you to believe that a poor person having a used 13" CRT TV is the same as the rich having an 80" 4k smart TV, and a poor person with a small window AC cooling one room is the same as the rich having central air cooling their entire house.

 

As a matter of fact, and not opinion, the poor in the US have most of the things the rich do. I have offered legitimate data in support of that, and it's really common sense. You of course have and will offer nothing but BS in reply. Your transparent TV hyperbole above is noted. A nice 40-50" TV in the US costs as little as $300... or even less used. That's less than a week's pay on minimum wage. Your obvious lie attempt failed in print for all to see.

 

What are you blathering about?

 

I couldn't figure that post out either, even with my LW decoder ring.

 

Even that chart is misleading because it is based on income AFTER ADJUSTMENT!
For example Tramp on his FEC report declared a yearly income of $557 million, but his recently released tax return showed an income of only $150 million after adjustment. The truly wealthy are able to "adjust" their taxable income to only a tiny fraction of their real income.

 

It is your MessiahRushie's "blather."

 

Who the F*** is "MessiahRushie's" and what does it have to do with the rich paying the majority of the Federal taxes in the United States.

So again, what are you blathering about? Care to make some sense?

 

Don't bet on it. Bet on lots of semi-literate gibberish and -anything- other than addressing the actual topic in clear, direct statements, claims, reasoning, examples, analogies, facts, or other indicia of adult discussion.

Because... LW.

 

I will let your MessiahRushie give you a further explanation about the DIFFERENT kinds of "INCOME" the tax rates are based on:
August 7, 2007
CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT

December 06, 2012
RUSH: The problem is, in Warren Buffett's case, you could raise the income tax rate to a hundred percent and you're gonna be collecting taxes on about $120,000 of income. The rest of his income is not earned, so to speak. It's dividend, capital gains. He's got his wealth. You're going to have to institute a wealth tax to go get people like Buffett and many moguls and many executives. They've insured themselves.
You have to understand, the income tax is to prevent you from accruing wealth.

 

Sanskrit: "Don't bet on it. Bet on lots of semi-literate gibberish and -anything- other than addressing the actual topic in clear, direct statements, claims, reasoning, examples, analogies, facts, or other indicia of adult discussion.

Because... LW."

QED, my crystal ball working great today, need to go buy some LEAPS.

 

Amen to that! The internet has some weird cats.....

 

As your own MessiahRushie has pointed out, the "rich" are able to shield the bulk of their "income" from taxes by using things like "charities," That is what Limbaugh means by his saying, "That's how 'the rich' do it. They don't have 'earned' income."

June 14, 2007
RUSH: -- a lot of people, a lot of people wealthy people set up foundations and they do this to keep the government from getting the money.

 

When the Right are trapped by facts, they play dumb!!!

 

Well since I am not going to search this forum for a post where you provided such a thing, ... LINK!!!

Knowing you your "legitimate data" is probably distorted BS. But let's see it. Show me I'm wrong.

 

What's the problem? I'm a fussbudget about clarity and I had no trouble. It looks like you are just trying to find a way to object to something you cannot find anything objectionable in.

 

I've linked it twice in the thread. The data comes from a Heritage Foundation Study, but you dismissed it -ignorantly- because it was in a Bill Whittle video. You can either address the actual data and methodology of the Heritage study together with the other 20 or so points in my long posts, or you can troll, derail, lie and post gibberish which we both know is what you are actually going to do. I don't care one iota for the need to prove anything to someone like you.

 

St Ronnie became president Jan 1981 with 7.6% UE and the Great Reagan Recession began July, 1981 and went until Nov, Dec 1982 with 10.8% UE. How could Reagan "inherit" a recession that hadn't begun yet?????

 

LOL!!! A right wing think tank link found in a right wing video. Are you kidding? Why can't you provide anything objectively valid?

 

I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Except you ignored the entire premise that the top 1% of income earners pay an even higher percentage share of overall income taxes than their share of income justifies. If things were fair, the top 1% would only have to pay 20% of total income taxes since 20% is their share of total income. Alas, the rich pay almost double what they owe. On the flip side, the bottom 50% who earn 12.75% of total earnings only pay 2.7% in total taxes. But, as we learned above, most of the bottom 50% are elderly or poor.

Also, a lot of Americans who are wealthy actually have earned income.

 

You are just being stubborn, As I pointed out their income "share" is greatly modified, removing the bulk of their real income from the small "share" that is taxable. It is only the small "earned income" that the wealthy are taxed on. Tramp reported an income of $557 million in his FEC disclosure, but his IRS tax form showed a taxable income of only $150 million, so a REAL tax rate of 6.8% was made to look like a tax rate of 25%.

December 06, 2012

RUSH: The problem is, in Warren Buffett's case, you could raise the income tax rate to a hundred percent and you're gonna be collecting taxes on about $120,000 of income. The rest of his income is not earned, so to speak. It's dividend, capital gains. He's got his wealth. You're going to have to institute a wealth tax to go get people like Buffett and many moguls and many executives. They've insured themselves.
You have to understand, the income tax is to prevent you from accruing wealth.

 

And "intense"? I think this is an indication: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qA8QmxrSIpk/SjJf7NmaWdI/AAAAAAAAAGY/DqhcDgXnTg8/s400/USrecessions