WaPo: US billionaires paid a lower effective tax rate than the lowest 50% in 2018

[IGotWorms 3,302]

Just now, Baker Boy said:

Here is the problem, there is plenty of money but it is how the government spends/wastes our money. If we would eliminate corruption and waste we would be running a surplus.

That’s a separate question. No matter how much you cut spending there will still be some necessary amount and how that burden is split up still remains it’s own issue.

[IGotWorms 3,302]

10 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

Yet their rates were even lower under Obama.

No that is not true. Obama didn’t do much to help the situation, no doubt about that. But he didn’t pass yet another massive handout to the rich as Trump did with his tax cuts.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,593]

32 minutes ago, sderk said:

Why?

Why do you always have to hate people who work hard and smart and earn more than you do?

 

While I agree with this thought on the whole, let's not act like every rich person worked their ass off and took tremendous risk to get it. Many of them have. But many, like Wall Street and  the banks, have not. I separate a businessman who employs people from the finance gangs that don't bring much to the table. 

[IGotWorms 3,302]

8 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

While I agree with this thought on the whole, let's not act like every rich person worked their ass off and took tremendous risk to get it. Many of them have. But many, like Wall Street and  the banks, have not. I separate a businessman who employs people from the finance gangs that don't bring much to the table. 

You ought to separate those folks further from the vast majority of rich people who simply inherited their wealth 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,593]

12 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

You ought to separate those folks further from the vast majority of rich people who simply inherited their wealth 

Sure. I don't know why the money Paris Hilton gets should be taxed at a lower rate than the money I earn. But I still don't understand why my friends innthe right are still so eager to go to bat for the super wealthy when most of them are libtards setting the agenda. I say tax the Fock out of  George Clooney and Jane Fonda and LeBron. 

[IGotWorms 3,302]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Sure. I don't know why the money Paris Hilton gets should be taxed at a lower rate than the money I earn. But I still don't understand why my friends innthe right are still so eager to go to bat for the super wealthy when most of them are libtards setting the agenda. I say tax the Fock out of  George Clooney and Jane Fonda and LeBron. 

Sure. And the Koch Brother and Sheldon Adelson and Trump.

[Intense Observer 344]

2 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

G0ddamn some of you people are thick as molasses. And it’s always the same folks on the same “side.”

As a government you pick how and to what extent to tax people. All of them have value judgments and ramifications.
If you go with a progressive income tax then rich people are paying more, and as well they should.

If you go with a property tax then people with larger/more expensive homes and properties are paying more, so again the rich but that’s also a bit dangerous because the largest asset most middle class folks have is their home, so you’re hitting them as well (albeit not to the same extent).

If you go with an estate tax that only kicks in above a certain value then hooray! you’re only taxing the wealthiest individuals. And the person who will be receiving the estate inheritance hasn’t personally done jack sh1t to earn it. So yes this is definitely one of the best taxes and in my opinion we ought to lower the ceiling that Trump lifted as a huge gift to his rich friends and also make the rate like 70%.

But, if you go with a sales tax, it applies to everyone and at the same rate. There is a certain amount basically everyone has to spend on the necessities of life and we’re all being taxed on that equally regardless of how filthy rich or terribly poor we might be. Ah but the rich spend more! True but only to really a pretty minimal extent in the grand scheme of things. Generally they don’t spend all those excess millions and billions, they hoard it in trusts and so forth. Where, obviously, no sales tax is incurred. At most maybe they end up paying some property taxes or capital gains taxes at much much lower rates though often they manage to avoid even that. This is why sales tax is one of the most regressive forms of taxation.

So yeah, you gotta look at all forms and rates of taxation and you can’t ignore the most regressive forms just because you don’t care for the outcome. Bottom line the rich are making out like focking bandits and have been since at least the 80s—it just gets worse and worse every passing decade. Meanwhile the middle class is squeezed to death. The rich aren’t paying high taxes because they’ve bought the politicians and brainwashed the people. The poor aren’t paying much in taxes because they simply don’t have it. So who does that leave? That’s right, everyday folks like you and me constantly getting worked over more and more with each passing year.

The gift that keeps on giving.

Congrats on finally figuring out that when you raise taxes on "the rich" it is the middle class that ends up paying.

Now go explain that to your communist overlords. (Who, btw, are the very rich people who benefit from these absurd tax laws)

[Reality 2,710]

29 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Sure. I don't know why the money Paris Hilton gets should be taxed at a lower rate than the money I earn. But I still don't understand why my friends innthe right are still so eager to go to bat for the super wealthy when most of them are libtards setting the agenda. I say tax the Fock out of  George Clooney and Jane Fonda and LeBron. 

I'm coming around to agreeing with you. Especially considering these are the same folks that love to preach to us on all subjects, as if their opinions are any more important than the guy who buffs the floors at the office building I work in. Those folks always have the option to pay more if they choose, do they? You know the answer to that.

[cbfalcon 824]

2 hours ago, sderk said:

Why?

Why do you always have to hate people who work hard and smart and earn more than you do?

 

Thinking the country is better off if a certain group pays more in taxes doesn’t equal hating that certain group. Thanks. 

[sderk 1,040]

37 minutes ago, cbfalcon said:

Thinking the country is better off if a certain group pays more in taxes doesn’t equal hating that certain group. Thanks. 

If you think this way, then just offer it up. There's a point where you stop forcing others to contribute, and simply offer it yourself if you think it will help. How is Warren Buffett keeping you from being successful and living a quality life?

Thanks.

[cbfalcon 824]

23 minutes ago, sderk said:

If you think this way, then just offer it up. There's a point where you stop forcing others to contribute, and simply offer it yourself if you think it will help. How is Warren Buffett keeping you from being successful and living a quality life?

Thanks.

I think a progressive system makes sense, but beyond that, I’m not arguing any specifics. But your indication that such a belief equates to “hating” all rich people is illogical and destructive to the discourse. 

[sderk 1,040]

6 minutes ago, cbfalcon said:

I think a progressive system makes sense, but beyond that, I’m not arguing any specifics. But your indication that such a belief equates to “hating” all rich people is illogical and destructive to the discourse. 

I'm not saying you, but I do believe a lot of people hate those who are well off. Now, it's hard to define "rich" by just saying the word. Is a person who makes 6 figures over a certain amount of time rich? Or is it 7 figures? It's hard to say. And a lot of times, there are certain groups of people who praise their own kind for someone being wealthy, but dislike the those associated with the majority who have wealth.

I don't know, it just seems that if someone is wealthy, they usually pay into the system more than those who are not wealthy simply by spending and many of them donate more than what others make in a year. I lived very broke for years, living paycheck to paycheck and just hoping to meet my food and shelter needs. But now I am not in the least. I still feel like the same person I have always been in my fundamental view of things in this country.

[IGotWorms 3,302]

12 minutes ago, sderk said:

I'm not saying you, but I do believe a lot of people hate those who are well off. Now, it's hard to define "rich" by just saying the word. Is a person who makes 6 figures over a certain amount of time rich? Or is it 7 figures? It's hard to say. And a lot of times, there are certain groups of people who praise their own kind for someone being wealthy, but dislike the those associated with the majority who have wealth.

I don't know, it just seems that if someone is wealthy, they usually pay into the system more than those who are not wealthy simply by spending and many of them donate more than what others make in a year. I lived very broke for years, living paycheck to paycheck and just hoping to meet my food and shelter needs. But now I am not in the least. I still feel like the same person I have always been in my fundamental view of things in this country.

It’s wealth, not income. I’d say you’re not “wealthy” until you’ve got at least $5 million. And that’s about where they used to put it with the estate tax, until Trump more than doubled the threshold with his huge gift to the rich.

[sderk 1,040]

38 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

It’s wealth, not income. I’d say you’re not “wealthy” until you’ve got at least $5 million. And that’s about where they used to put it with the estate tax, until Trump more than doubled the threshold with his huge gift to the rich.

Who has been more influential in creating jobs in this country? Bill Gates or your trailer home neighbor? 

[IGotWorms 3,302]

48 minutes ago, sderk said:

Who has been more influential in creating jobs in this country? Bill Gates or your trailer home neighbor? 

Bill Gates of course, though I’d be a bit wary of using him as your champion these days: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-bill-gates.amp.html

[sderk 1,040]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

Bill Gates of course, though I’d be a bit wary of using him as your champion these days: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-bill-gates.amp.html

I don't have a champion. Just like I mentioned earlier that I don't have a boy like you suggested.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,593]

Innthe history of our country, this is without a doubt the most useless, lucky, pandered to group of super rich people ever. The robber barons were Scumbags no doubt, but they built actual things. When the stock market crashed in 1929, people jumped out of buildings. No one was doing that in 2008. Beciase they were still filthy rich. 

[edjr 5,547]

7 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Innthe history of our country, this is without a doubt the most useless, lucky, pandered to group of super rich people ever. The robber barons were Scumbags no doubt, but they built actual things. When the stock market crashed in 1929, people jumped out of buildings. No one was doing that in 2008. Beciase they were still filthy rich. 

Well said and thanks Obama for keeping them filthy rich.

[IGotWorms 3,302]

57 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Innthe history of our country, this is without a doubt the most useless, lucky, pandered to group of super rich people ever. The robber barons were Scumbags no doubt, but they built actual things. When the stock market crashed in 1929, people jumped out of buildings. No one was doing that in 2008. Beciase they were still filthy rich. 

Troof 

[Bert 1,087]

22 hours ago, KSB2424 said:

I’ve always though if we just severely simplified the tax code it’d stop loopholes and tax havens.

That won't work.  The flat tax died because the low and middle income groups would pay more in tax than they currently do.  

[IGotWorms 3,302]

23 minutes ago, Bert said:

That won't work.  The flat tax died because the low and middle income groups would pay more in tax than they currently do.  

One can simplify without going to a flat tax

[Bert 1,087]

8 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

One can simplify without going to a flat tax

True but our elected officials have no desire to simplify.  A simplified tax scheme would take power away from these officials.

ETA:  It would also put a sh!t ton of lawyers out of work.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,566]

35 minutes ago, Bert said:

That won't work.  The flat tax died because the low and middle income groups would pay more in tax than they currently do.  

it would work if the flat tax started at 40,000 a year

[Bert 1,087]

5 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

it would work if the flat tax started at 40,000 a year

Not when you eliminate the Mortgage Deduction, deductions for children, tax free contributions to retirement savings, charitable contributions. etc.  Removing those deductions kill the middle class. 

[Baker Boy 1,479]

23 hours ago, Baker Boy said:

Here is the problem, there is plenty of money but it is how the government spends/wastes our money. If we would eliminate corruption and waste we would be running a surplus.

 

23 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

That’s a separate question. No matter how much you cut spending there will still be some necessary amount and how that burden is split up still remains it’s own issue.

Where did I mention cutting spending? 

 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,566]

1 hour ago, Bert said:

Not when you eliminate the Mortgage Deduction, deductions for children, tax free contributions to retirement savings, charitable contributions. etc.  Removing those deductions kill the middle class. 

not if everyone is given 40k in deductions as a flat rate

20% starts on money over 40k, 50k you only pay 1k a year