It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Clinton to propose four percent income-tax 'surcharge' on wealthy

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 10:21 PM
link   
I don't believe a word that comes out of Hillary mouth. She will say anything to get people votes.




posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 10:21 PM
link   
You all do understand these political posers say they will do all kinds of things to get elected into office, yes?.

Sounds almost good enough to be true, but then the wealthy will simply change the name they tag onto their incomes.

She is probably lying anyway as she has a history of doing such things, she is a lawyer, yes?.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

i see, itsn't that a form of tax anyways? isnt tax just the state taking money from x person?

im not a communist but i do understand that exploitation is a problem that never gets any attention



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113

No, it's not the same as taxing.

Capping income means you will never be allowed to make more than X.

Taxing is saying: we get to take Y% of X, X being whatever you make.

There is a big difference.

You make a million, Gov get's 30% of it let's say in taxes. You make more, say 10 million, again the Gov takes 30%, and it keeps going.

A Cap on the other hand says (and let's put it at that million mark) you can't make more than 1 million. Anything over that and we take it.

So you make 50 million. Gov. get's to take 49 million........is that fair? And where does that stop?

Is that truly living in a country where you are suppose to be free?

Or is that living in a country who's government just does and takes what it wants?

I don't have an issue with the rich being taxed. I don't have an issue where we all have to pay taxes. I do have an issue when Fred the billionare ends up not having to pay anything, and I do. Yes, I have issues with that.

But I have even more issues with a government that says Fred isn't allowed to make that money, and must hand all but X amount over.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   
in anyway, maybe capping an individual's income may be a good idea. for example

an individual that exploits and sucks up money from x culture then doesnt reinject it into x culture's economy, is a problem.

if a martian came to earth and exploited 99% of the wealth from earth, then kept it all or moved said currency to another planet (off shore banks) instead of reinjecting that wealth back into earth, is a problem. it would ruin that economy, and imagine that said martian only created jobs that doesnt allow people to save enough money to start their own business if they wanted.

capping wealth could be a way to ensure our economy from capitalistic sabotage by people that dont understand economics or simply dont care about the rest of society
edit on 11-1-2016 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

I think I'm the one who said that, and I wasn't even really being serious. In reality, I support a tiered tax system where each tier is taxed separately, and at a higher and higher rate, eventually reaching 90%-ish for the super wealthy.

If you actually put in a flat cap, people would just move overseas every time they hit it.


edit on 11/1/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful

Then of course that limit puts limit on other things. Someone realizes that the thing they've created that's making them quite rich, is going to go over that limit. What to do?

Why you stop producing it. Lay off the people that are helping produce it, and stop selling it.

While I'm sure that having a hundred million is certainly more than enough to live off of (it certainly would be for me), I certainly would not want others just taking everything after that from me. I earned it. I created it. It belongs to me.

It doesn't lift everyone up. It only brings many things down.

So what then? Now you have a shortage of it. People start yelling about not having it.

Let's vote someone in that will pass laws that keeps someone from not only making too much money, but let's also make laws that they can't shut it down either, they must keep it going so we still get our stuff, and the government can just take all that money past the cap.

Hey! Gov. will LOVE that idea! More money for them! (oh you thought they were going to give that to you? Ha! They got some very expensive tastes....I mean 800 billion a year for the military alone!)......and then, since they were given the power to put that cap in money in place......why not lower it a bit? I mean 200 million is too much, really, let's lower it to 100 million........and then later, we can do it again and drop it to 50 million......

Know what? We just can't stop spending! We need more money!

That's it, you can't make more than a million, everything beyond that is OURS! And we can do it! You let us!


And that is quite the lesson on exactly how the progression
takes place, very very well said.

At that point, folks should shiver in their shoes if they still
have any, it seems from there on "they" take it all, own it
all and you get to work for them if you are so "blessed"
while they run your business and that is the end.

Eventually, "they" can not run your business as
well as you did, and things go downhill, so everyone
gets less...desperation sets in and crime, and
violence, set in, and war looks promising as a means
to take more from those who still have.
I could go on.....


edit on 11-1-2016 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 10:41 PM
link   
I think wealth inequality is a problem. Not in and of itself, but the level it is currently at. I don't think many people would dispute that unless they're the anarchistic "rule of the strong" types. The question we are facing is, how do we deal with it? Corruption must be taken out of the government. That is why I support Sanders. He's the only person I'm aware of that is even suggesting something like the campaign finance reform.

@erik, burntheships

Relevant.

Maybe the Government really would try to do what you're talking about. Isn't that what your guns are there for?
edit on 11/1/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

You hit 90 percent and you might as well have that cap, as it would result in the same thing.

Why should people who were smart enough to get rich be punished (and that's exactly what it is: punishing them).

After a while, NO ONE would strive for it. Instead, they either leave, or simply do not work as hard to get that high. Not if they are going to be punished for it and have that much taken from them.

Two kids, two lemonade stands. One kid makes his lemonade taste really good. He puts a lot of effort into it. The other does a quick job, and his lemonade doesn't taste that good.

The kid who put the hard effort into it is selling more, and making a lot more money than the other kid.

Someone comes along and decides that's not fair, and takes 90 percent of what the kid who made the most money.

What was learned? What was learned was: If you put a lot of time and effort into something, you'll make a lot of money, only to have it taken away from you, so why bother? Let's just not put that effort into it......if we do that, no one will come and try to take almost all of what they earned.....and what happens is:

Everyone is forced to drink the lemonade that tastes like crap.

Flat tax. Flat tax is fair. Everyone is required to pay the same percentage. You make less? You pay less. You make more? You pay more.

It's the same thing with sales tax: The more you buy, the more you'll have to pay, the less you buy, the less you have to pay.

However, what some people want to do is make it like this (using the sales tax example): John buys a 10 dollar lamp, and has to only play 1 dollar in taxes, because he only pays 10 percent tax. Fred on the other hand bought a car for 30,000 dollars......so he has to pay 90 percent or an extra 27,000 dollars (so the car ended up costing Fred 57,000 dollars).

That's insane. Fred get's punished for having enough money to buy a car. A flat tax of say 10 percent, John still pays only 1 dollar, but Fred will have to pay 3,000 dollars for his car.....and in reality, this is how sales tax works.

Income tax should be the same: A flat rate that everyone has to pay. That's fair.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

No, my guns are because I live WAAAAAAAY out in the country where it takes the cops up to 30 minutes or more to get to me.

And: we have critters here....some that you do not want to meet up with without a gun.

And: I can also put meat on my table if I want to.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

again you are saying that the working class should pay just as much as the business men that use capitalism to exploit the working class. thats why flat tax is unfair. the only reason someone is able to make lots of money is because we let them, so why is it not fair to tax them more than someone that can barely make enough to survive?

i mean, i have the world smallest violin for someone that plays the victim because they can stockpile enough money for 100 lifetimes when there are children starving to death and going hungry for days. but if you dont care, thats fine, being an asshole is not illegal at all.
edit on 11-1-2016 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
Corruption must be taken out of the government.



Agreed, that would be the beginning of a new era, most needed.

As for the last question, my answer would be No, and No especially
not at that point in a grand scale social shift in government.

Our recourse should be first through the three branches of government.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

You once had a 90%+ rate. It didn't result in that same thing. You are wrong. You are starting with a false premise.


Why should people who were smart enough to get rich be punished (and that's exactly what it is: punishing them).


Not, it's not. On another note, you can also become rich through inheritance so it's a moot point. They may not be smart enough, or talented enough, or [insert positive trait here] enough, but they were born to rich parents. That is not the only way, of course, but it is far easier to make money if you already have money. Smart people make 300K a year, lucky people become millionaires, lucky and morally bankrupt people become billionaires.


After a while, NO ONE would strive for it. Instead, they either leave, or simply do not work as hard to get that high. Not if they are going to be punished for it and have that much taken from them.


1934-1981 (approx.) disagrees.


Two kids, two lemonade stands. One kid makes his lemonade taste really good. He puts a lot of effort into it. The other does a quick job, and his lemonade doesn't taste that good.

The kid who put the hard effort into it is selling more, and making a lot more money than the other kid.

Someone comes along and decides that's not fair, and takes 90 percent of what the kid who made the most money.


That's not how it works. Not even close. Do you understand the tiered system I described?


Flat tax. Flat tax is fair.


No, it's not. I believe the reasons why were discussed here on ATS, in fact.

What you earn is not the same as what you buy. They are unrelated.

You really seem to have an issue with viewing taxation as a 'punishment.
edit on 11/1/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

Understandable. Where I am from, most critters will kill you before you are aware of their presence. One snake in particular has a bite that is usually painless. You will simply die from internal bleeding while experiencing headaches and abdominal pain several minutes later.

I have been told many times that guns are for protection against a tyrannical government, and that is what the second amendment is for.
Perhaps I was misled.
edit on 11/1/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I've always said, if some rich person wants to trade incomes, I'll be happy to swap, and I won't think twice about what the taxes are I have to pay. I don't give it any thought now. I've moved up the ladder in my life, and as I've earned higher salaries, my tax responsibility went up. So?

Life is way too short for me to care about my tax liabilities or that of a billionaire. Want to raise taxes on everyone and every corporation? Fine with me.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   
It starts in the government schools.

Parents strive to make sure their child has all the listed supplies required only to find out later that students were forced to empty book bags and divy up the supplies.

Been going on long enough that it's starting to show as a norm for many so-called adults.

I shan't go on as you know who you are!



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113


its very backwards that wanna be entrepreneurs dont want to pay people enough to live in a house and have the common necessities for life, even though they depend on the working class and the society that allows them to practice capitalism.


Quite.

The Terrible Fear of Paying the Poor Too Much

It's just 'too much' for them.

Not to mention how Wall Street is fully automated now, and nothing more than a giant Casino......
those people don't "work" for that money! They "gamble".

As far as "who decides how much you need?" ..... Well, the lowest common denominator is the beginning of the equation.....

Do people need shelter and clothing and food? Yes. ALL PEOPLE need that.
Do some people have enough to share AND to live a comfy, jetsetting, yachting and $1000 sweater type lifestyle? Yes.

If I win the Powerball lottery tomorrow (and I've given this much thought), I'll take the lump sum payout.....nearly half a billion dollars. I'll pay off all of my loved ones' debt, and my own, and then make a will. Because, as I learned yesterday, if you do the 'annuity' payout - well, when you die, you can't leave it to your kids.....

but - the 1% can leave their money and incomes and assets to their kids.......

how is that fair? If I win, and take the annuity, and die in two months - the rest of that money is forfeited.......

according to my bestie who runs a lottery outlet.......


edit on 1/12/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Because, as I learned yesterday, if you do the 'annuity' payout - well, when you die, you can't leave it to your kids.....


You most certainly can leave the remaining annuities to your children, who can opt at that point to continue receiving them, or take a lump sum early payout at that time.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: usernameconspiracy

Huh! Maybe it varies state to state?

I'll have to ask her where she learned that...
thanks for the correction.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join