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.

 

Liberals, You just don't get it!

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: MRinder

I'm middle class and have no problem paying more taxes for universal healthcare and education.




posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: MRinder

Firstly you would have to give some sources for the figures quoted





So if they each sold 100 million in stock a year you would get another $45 million


What does this even mean? Are you saying the 3 richest mens shares are all equally worth 45 cents each?

Somehow I dont think all conservatives add up math like you, I could be wrong though.

Please explain and then we could move forward in comparing other countries to yours where here for instance in Australia we can still afford private healthcare and still have some of the best public hospitals in the world to cater for our uninsured.

Maybe if we spent trillions on defence and fighting foreign wars like the USA we would be in your position. Nothing to do with if your left or right, lib or conservative.

Try cutting back on the ARMS industry and Big Pharma - you'd be surprised how your standard of living would increase.



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: MRinder

I'm middle class and have no problem paying more taxes for universal healthcare and education.


How much more tax are you willing to pay? Double your current taxes? Triple? Do you even know what you paid in taxes last year?



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Let me try up break it down for you. It means if each of the three sold 100 million dollars or their stock that would be 3 people x 100 mil = 300 million in stock total. 300 million taxed at the15pct capital gains tax rate would equal 45 million in taxes total. Do you understand now?



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Edumakated

Personally I would consider the idiots to be people who can't have a discussion about tax policy without resorting to personal insults...

I understand the difference between income and wealth perfectly well. Dividends and interest on cash holdings are also income as well and can be taxed so not sure the point of your example?

It's perfectly possible to set tax policy to pay for greater social provision or reduce inequality. There are large parts of the developed world that do just that. The ones arguing against actual reality are those saying it's not possible.


Your previous post indicates otherwise if you are questioning how Bezo's funds his lifestyle.

You can't reduce inequality as we are not all equal. Never have been. If anything, there is less inequality now than ever before as people are not constrained to classes by their birth. You can go from ashy to classy regardless of your family background if you have a talent, luck, hustle, or smarts. There are not rigid caste systems keeping people stuck in lower classes.

The western world is so rich that even our "poor" are part of the global 1%. The standard of living of the poor in the US exceeds the mega wealthy a generation ago. 80% of US homes have air conditions. 99.9% of homes have refrigeration. 99.9% clean drinking water. Public schools. Clothing. Cars. TVs. Cell Phones. Microwaves.

You won't see kids walking around even in the poorest communities with distended bellies and naked living in a corrugated hut.

You cannot just tax everyone to solve all the world's problems. Billionaires are billionaires because they have created Trillions in wealth. Amazon employs hundreds of thousands of people. We haven't even gotten into all the millions created by Amazon. Grandma's pension is doing well because of Amazon. People's 401ks. The local economies. The companies that have Amazon as a client - lawyers, advertisers, manufacturers, construction, etc. Why do you think so many cities are bending over backward to get their new headquarters?



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Be careful what you wish for. If we cut back too far itn defense I am pretty sure you Australians would be speaking Chinese in pretty short order. If it wasn't the United States who would be able to defend you from the inevitable Chinese invasion?



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: MRinder
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Be careful what you wish for. If we cut back too far itn defense I am pretty sure you Australians would be speaking Chinese in pretty short order. If it wasn't the United States who would be able to defend you from the inevitable Chinese invasion?


That is the part they always leave out... the US has to play the world's referee/police to protect all these other countries with free sh*t since they can't defend themselves. It cost a lot of money to be the global defender. Trump was right, a lot of these countries need to start paying their fair share.



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Edumakated

Personally I would consider the idiots to be people who can't have a discussion about tax policy without resorting to personal insults...

I understand the difference between income and wealth perfectly well. Dividends and interest on cash holdings are also income as well and can be taxed so not sure the point of your example?

It's perfectly possible to set tax policy to pay for greater social provision or reduce inequality. There are large parts of the developed world that do just that. The ones arguing against actual reality are those saying it's not possible.


Your previous post indicates otherwise if you are questioning how Bezo's funds his lifestyle.

You can't reduce inequality as we are not all equal. Never have been. If anything, there is less inequality now than ever before as people are not constrained to classes by their birth. You can go from ashy to classy regardless of your family background if you have a talent, luck, hustle, or smarts. There are not rigid caste systems keeping people stuck in lower classes.

The western world is so rich that even our "poor" are part of the global 1%. The standard of living of the poor in the US exceeds the mega wealthy a generation ago. 80% of US homes have air conditions. 99.9% of homes have refrigeration. 99.9% clean drinking water. Public schools. Clothing. Cars. TVs. Cell Phones. Microwaves.

You won't see kids walking around even in the poorest communities with distended bellies and naked living in a corrugated hut.

You cannot just tax everyone to solve all the world's problems. Billionaires are billionaires because they have created Trillions in wealth. Amazon employs hundreds of thousands of people. We haven't even gotten into all the millions created by Amazon. Grandma's pension is doing well because of Amazon. People's 401ks. The local economies. The companies that have Amazon as a client - lawyers, advertisers, manufacturers, construction, etc. Why do you think so many cities are bending over backward to get their new headquarters?


Because lifestyle is funded by income not wealth. You can have a billion dollars in shares but unless turn some of that into income you have nothing to live on.

Your claim of less inequality is simply untrue as both wealth and income inequality are growing and gave been for years. Of course people are still constrained by the class of their birth. Opportunity in life is massively tilted in favour of those born to wealth.

Neither I nor anyone I have read on here are arguing for complelte economic equality. What is being argued for is a fairer distribution of the wealth created.



edit on 22-9-2018 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 10:23 AM
link   

What is being argued for is a fairer distribution of the wealth created.




Since you didn't create the wealth then the fairest distribution would be that you don't share in any of it.

Also, do you realize you are free to share in the future increases in the wealth/worth of any company/all companies by simply buying their stock?
edit on 22-9-2018 by MRinder because: Add info



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Edumakated

Personally I would consider the idiots to be people who can't have a discussion about tax policy without resorting to personal insults...

I understand the difference between income and wealth perfectly well. Dividends and interest on cash holdings are also income as well and can be taxed so not sure the point of your example?

It's perfectly possible to set tax policy to pay for greater social provision or reduce inequality. There are large parts of the developed world that do just that. The ones arguing against actual reality are those saying it's not possible.


Your previous post indicates otherwise if you are questioning how Bezo's funds his lifestyle.

You can't reduce inequality as we are not all equal. Never have been. If anything, there is less inequality now than ever before as people are not constrained to classes by their birth. You can go from ashy to classy regardless of your family background if you have a talent, luck, hustle, or smarts. There are not rigid caste systems keeping people stuck in lower classes.

The western world is so rich that even our "poor" are part of the global 1%. The standard of living of the poor in the US exceeds the mega wealthy a generation ago. 80% of US homes have air conditions. 99.9% of homes have refrigeration. 99.9% clean drinking water. Public schools. Clothing. Cars. TVs. Cell Phones. Microwaves.

You won't see kids walking around even in the poorest communities with distended bellies and naked living in a corrugated hut.

You cannot just tax everyone to solve all the world's problems. Billionaires are billionaires because they have created Trillions in wealth. Amazon employs hundreds of thousands of people. We haven't even gotten into all the millions created by Amazon. Grandma's pension is doing well because of Amazon. People's 401ks. The local economies. The companies that have Amazon as a client - lawyers, advertisers, manufacturers, construction, etc. Why do you think so many cities are bending over backward to get their new headquarters?


Because lifestyle is funded by income not wealth. You can have a billion dollars in shares but unless turn some of that into income you have nothing to live on.

Your claim of less inequality is simply untrue as both wealth and income inequality are growing and gave been for years. Of course people are still constrained by the class of their birth. Opportunity in life is massively tilted in favour of those born to wealth.

Neither I nor anyone I have read on here are arguing for complelte economic equality. What is being argued for is a fairer distribution of the wealth created.




Lifestyle is NOT funded by income for the truly wealthy. This is why they don't give a sh*t about liberal tax policy. People who are sitting on hundreds of millions and billions do not need "income" to do anything. This is why most of these guys don't even bother to pay themselves as they don't need to.

Again, if you have $100 million that has already been taxed at cap gains sitting in the bank, you can report ZERO income and still live like a king. The money has ALREADY BEEN TAXED. You don't have to work a day in your life even again. This is WEALTH, not income. You simply draw down what you need tax free. Writing a check to yourself.

Income is some schlub who is a surgeon or attorney making say $1 million/yr. Yeah, he is making good bank, but he is getting raped 40-50% of his income every year. He may only have a million or two saved in cash. HE HAS TO WORK. These are the people getting screwed by tax policy. If he loses his job or can't work, he will soon go broke.



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Also people like Bezos, Gates, Buffet could fund their lifestyles through loans using their stock as collateral. Even a 10pct interest rate would be far cheaper than what they would pay in tax. Of course, they wouldn't be charged anything near 10pct.
edit on 22-9-2018 by MRinder because: Spelling



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Edumakated

Personally I would consider the idiots to be people who can't have a discussion about tax policy without resorting to personal insults...

I understand the difference between income and wealth perfectly well. Dividends and interest on cash holdings are also income as well and can be taxed so not sure the point of your example?

It's perfectly possible to set tax policy to pay for greater social provision or reduce inequality. There are large parts of the developed world that do just that. The ones arguing against actual reality are those saying it's not possible.


Your previous post indicates otherwise if you are questioning how Bezo's funds his lifestyle.

You can't reduce inequality as we are not all equal. Never have been. If anything, there is less inequality now than ever before as people are not constrained to classes by their birth. You can go from ashy to classy regardless of your family background if you have a talent, luck, hustle, or smarts. There are not rigid caste systems keeping people stuck in lower classes.

The western world is so rich that even our "poor" are part of the global 1%. The standard of living of the poor in the US exceeds the mega wealthy a generation ago. 80% of US homes have air conditions. 99.9% of homes have refrigeration. 99.9% clean drinking water. Public schools. Clothing. Cars. TVs. Cell Phones. Microwaves.

You won't see kids walking around even in the poorest communities with distended bellies and naked living in a corrugated hut.

You cannot just tax everyone to solve all the world's problems. Billionaires are billionaires because they have created Trillions in wealth. Amazon employs hundreds of thousands of people. We haven't even gotten into all the millions created by Amazon. Grandma's pension is doing well because of Amazon. People's 401ks. The local economies. The companies that have Amazon as a client - lawyers, advertisers, manufacturers, construction, etc. Why do you think so many cities are bending over backward to get their new headquarters?


Because lifestyle is funded by income not wealth. You can have a billion dollars in shares but unless turn some of that into income you have nothing to live on.

Your claim of less inequality is simply untrue as both wealth and income inequality are growing and gave been for years. Of course people are still constrained by the class of their birth. Opportunity in life is massively tilted in favour of those born to wealth.

Neither I nor anyone I have read on here are arguing for complelte economic equality. What is being argued for is a fairer distribution of the wealth created.




Lifestyle is NOT funded by income for the truly wealthy. This is why they don't give a sh*t about liberal tax policy. People who are sitting on hundreds of millions and billions do not need "income" to do anything. This is why most of these guys don't even bother to pay themselves as they don't need to.

Again, if you have $100 million that has already been taxed at cap gains sitting in the bank, you can report ZERO income and still live like a king. The money has ALREADY BEEN TAXED. You don't have to work a day in your life even again. This is WEALTH, not income. You simply draw down what you need tax free. Writing a check to yourself.

Income is some schlub who is a surgeon or attorney making say $1 million/yr. Yeah, he is making good bank, but he is getting raped 40-50% of his income every year. He may only have a million or two saved in cash. HE HAS TO WORK. These are the people getting screwed by tax policy. If he loses his job or can't work, he will soon go broke.


You have to look at taxation as whole. Saying that income tax won't raise enough because much of wealth is generated by capital gains is fairly obviously missing the point.



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: MRinder

All for people owning equities and other financial assets. In fact I want more people to have the opportunity.

However when we have such massive inequality ownership of these assets will continue to gravitate towards the already wealthy.



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: SepticScot

How is it missing the point? How should we look at taxation as a whole? How are we not looking at taxation as a whole?



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: MRinder
a reply to: Edumakated

Also people like Bezos, Gates, Buffet could fund their lifestyles through loans using their stock as collateral. Even a 10pct interest rate would be far cheaper than what they would pay in tax. Of course, they wouldn't be charged anything near 10pct.


Loans just defer tax not avoid it.



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Edumakated

Personally I would consider the idiots to be people who can't have a discussion about tax policy without resorting to personal insults...

I understand the difference between income and wealth perfectly well. Dividends and interest on cash holdings are also income as well and can be taxed so not sure the point of your example?

It's perfectly possible to set tax policy to pay for greater social provision or reduce inequality. There are large parts of the developed world that do just that. The ones arguing against actual reality are those saying it's not possible.


Your previous post indicates otherwise if you are questioning how Bezo's funds his lifestyle.

You can't reduce inequality as we are not all equal. Never have been. If anything, there is less inequality now than ever before as people are not constrained to classes by their birth. You can go from ashy to classy regardless of your family background if you have a talent, luck, hustle, or smarts. There are not rigid caste systems keeping people stuck in lower classes.

The western world is so rich that even our "poor" are part of the global 1%. The standard of living of the poor in the US exceeds the mega wealthy a generation ago. 80% of US homes have air conditions. 99.9% of homes have refrigeration. 99.9% clean drinking water. Public schools. Clothing. Cars. TVs. Cell Phones. Microwaves.

You won't see kids walking around even in the poorest communities with distended bellies and naked living in a corrugated hut.

You cannot just tax everyone to solve all the world's problems. Billionaires are billionaires because they have created Trillions in wealth. Amazon employs hundreds of thousands of people. We haven't even gotten into all the millions created by Amazon. Grandma's pension is doing well because of Amazon. People's 401ks. The local economies. The companies that have Amazon as a client - lawyers, advertisers, manufacturers, construction, etc. Why do you think so many cities are bending over backward to get their new headquarters?


Because lifestyle is funded by income not wealth. You can have a billion dollars in shares but unless turn some of that into income you have nothing to live on.

Your claim of less inequality is simply untrue as both wealth and income inequality are growing and gave been for years. Of course people are still constrained by the class of their birth. Opportunity in life is massively tilted in favour of those born to wealth.

Neither I nor anyone I have read on here are arguing for complelte economic equality. What is being argued for is a fairer distribution of the wealth created.




Lifestyle is NOT funded by income for the truly wealthy. This is why they don't give a sh*t about liberal tax policy. People who are sitting on hundreds of millions and billions do not need "income" to do anything. This is why most of these guys don't even bother to pay themselves as they don't need to.

Again, if you have $100 million that has already been taxed at cap gains sitting in the bank, you can report ZERO income and still live like a king. The money has ALREADY BEEN TAXED. You don't have to work a day in your life even again. This is WEALTH, not income. You simply draw down what you need tax free. Writing a check to yourself.

Income is some schlub who is a surgeon or attorney making say $1 million/yr. Yeah, he is making good bank, but he is getting raped 40-50% of his income every year. He may only have a million or two saved in cash. HE HAS TO WORK. These are the people getting screwed by tax policy. If he loses his job or can't work, he will soon go broke.


You have to look at taxation as whole. Saying that income tax won't raise enough because much of wealth is generated by capital gains is fairly obviously missing the point.



When you look at the income tax as a whole, there simply isn't enough money by taxing the uber rich on income. THIS IS THE POINT YOU KEEP MISSING. You have to tax the middle class and upper classes.

This is why anytime politicians talk about taxing the rich, if you read how they define "rich" it is people making a measly $250k/yr. That is literally like two high school principals in my community. The working upper middle class gets absolutely raped by tax policy, not the truly wealthy.

People advocating for taxing wealth are basically saying confiscate someone's assets.



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: MRinder
a reply to: SepticScot

How is it missing the point? How should we look at taxation as a whole? How are we not looking at taxation as a whole?


Because the argument being made was that income tax doesn't effect the wealthy as most of their actual money comes capital gains. Hence taxation as a whole needs to be considered.



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Edumakated

Personally I would consider the idiots to be people who can't have a discussion about tax policy without resorting to personal insults...

I understand the difference between income and wealth perfectly well. Dividends and interest on cash holdings are also income as well and can be taxed so not sure the point of your example?

It's perfectly possible to set tax policy to pay for greater social provision or reduce inequality. There are large parts of the developed world that do just that. The ones arguing against actual reality are those saying it's not possible.


Your previous post indicates otherwise if you are questioning how Bezo's funds his lifestyle.

You can't reduce inequality as we are not all equal. Never have been. If anything, there is less inequality now than ever before as people are not constrained to classes by their birth. You can go from ashy to classy regardless of your family background if you have a talent, luck, hustle, or smarts. There are not rigid caste systems keeping people stuck in lower classes.

The western world is so rich that even our "poor" are part of the global 1%. The standard of living of the poor in the US exceeds the mega wealthy a generation ago. 80% of US homes have air conditions. 99.9% of homes have refrigeration. 99.9% clean drinking water. Public schools. Clothing. Cars. TVs. Cell Phones. Microwaves.

You won't see kids walking around even in the poorest communities with distended bellies and naked living in a corrugated hut.

You cannot just tax everyone to solve all the world's problems. Billionaires are billionaires because they have created Trillions in wealth. Amazon employs hundreds of thousands of people. We haven't even gotten into all the millions created by Amazon. Grandma's pension is doing well because of Amazon. People's 401ks. The local economies. The companies that have Amazon as a client - lawyers, advertisers, manufacturers, construction, etc. Why do you think so many cities are bending over backward to get their new headquarters?


Because lifestyle is funded by income not wealth. You can have a billion dollars in shares but unless turn some of that into income you have nothing to live on.

Your claim of less inequality is simply untrue as both wealth and income inequality are growing and gave been for years. Of course people are still constrained by the class of their birth. Opportunity in life is massively tilted in favour of those born to wealth.

Neither I nor anyone I have read on here are arguing for complelte economic equality. What is being argued for is a fairer distribution of the wealth created.




Lifestyle is NOT funded by income for the truly wealthy. This is why they don't give a sh*t about liberal tax policy. People who are sitting on hundreds of millions and billions do not need "income" to do anything. This is why most of these guys don't even bother to pay themselves as they don't need to.

Again, if you have $100 million that has already been taxed at cap gains sitting in the bank, you can report ZERO income and still live like a king. The money has ALREADY BEEN TAXED. You don't have to work a day in your life even again. This is WEALTH, not income. You simply draw down what you need tax free. Writing a check to yourself.

Income is some schlub who is a surgeon or attorney making say $1 million/yr. Yeah, he is making good bank, but he is getting raped 40-50% of his income every year. He may only have a million or two saved in cash. HE HAS TO WORK. These are the people getting screwed by tax policy. If he loses his job or can't work, he will soon go broke.


You have to look at taxation as whole. Saying that income tax won't raise enough because much of wealth is generated by capital gains is fairly obviously missing the point.



When you look at the income tax as a whole, there simply isn't enough money by taxing the uber rich on income. THIS IS THE POINT YOU KEEP MISSING. You have to tax the middle class and upper classes.

This is why anytime politicians talk about taxing the rich, if you read how they define "rich" it is people making a measly $250k/yr. That is literally like two high school principals in my community. The working upper middle class gets absolutely raped by tax policy, not the truly wealthy.

People advocating for taxing wealth are basically saying confiscate someone's assets.


Which is why capital gains is important.

I don't agree with taxation on existing wealth as that us effectively moving the goal posts retrospectively.



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MRinder
a reply to: SepticScot

How is it missing the point? How should we look at taxation as a whole? How are we not looking at taxation as a whole?


Because the argument being made was that income tax doesn't effect the wealthy as most of their actual money comes capital gains. Hence taxation as a whole needs to be considered.


In other words, you advocate for wealth confiscation...



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: MRinder

All for people owning equities and other financial assets. In fact I want more people to have the opportunity.

However when we have such massive inequality ownership of these assets will continue to gravitate towards the already wealthy.


Income inequality is a lie sold to fools by politicians to get you to vote for them. Are you not free to start the next Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, or Microsoft? Bezos, Buffett, or Gates were not born billionaires. The only inequality was they were born smarter than you. Should we start making all people equally dumb to the dumbest of us? Should we start making all as ugly as the ugliest of us? She we start making all athletes as slow as the slowest of us? Because that is the only way we are all going to be equal.
edit on 22-9-2018 by MRinder because: Spelling




top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join