Screw Income Equality

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

If I get 10% of my income taxed out of one hundred dollars I get 90 dollars. If I get 20% taxed and I make 150 dollars only 50 whole dollars more than originally I make 120 dollars. Still 40 whole dollars than I made before. I only multipied what I made by 1.5x what I was making and was able to double how much I was taxed and still made substantually more than I did at the original amount with the smaller tax bracket. In fact, in the second example I still made substantially more than I would have with no taxes.

Bull# is bull# and you're trying to sell bull#. There's plenty of incentive to go for the second option even if more taxed.

You would need to increase that tax percentage all the way to 40% for the second person taxed to have no gain compared to the first, and the second person was only making 1.5x pay before taxes.

Now let's compare to the kind of numbers we're really talking about where people make a thousand times more. How much would we need to tax such a person to actually result in the zero increase that makes it all not worth while you all are pretending will happen.

Let's see that's 100000, it would take a tax of 99.91% tax to have zero gain in comparison to the first example. No one is asking for anything even remotely comparable to that, not even the corropt politicians that want to suck everyone dry.

No one's buying the bull#. There's plenty of incentive for higher pay even with increased taxes so long as the tax rate still allows for significant increase in overall pay compared to previous pay rates. If there's anything to be argued for it's a more gradual tax scale so that there aren't these wierd gaps where if you fall in you're getting a giant advantage over those above and below you creating stange possibilities of getting paid more than the bracket above you or taxed into making less than the bracket below the below you.

We have computers that can do these calculations no need to oversimplify it for some pencil pusher. We don't need gaps in tax rate increases. We can easily figure out a formula that's gradual and fair so that no matter how much you make you're always making a fair amount more than those before you.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Tell me about the 20/1 rule.

You did watch the video right?

1% controls 20%

That other 19% controls 60% by your rule, even 80/20 IS NOT THE CASE.

A reply to Puppylove: Brother, you are the one making the case for UBI. I’m against excessive taxation. Our Founding Fathers fought the Revolutionary War over far less of a tax than we have today. It is a fact that the Progressive income tax is the agenda and creation of communism. Communism is the goal of socialism as stated by both Karl
Marx and Lenin. It is a fact the Democrats want to tax us at 90% for their insane Green New Deal and ubi and whatever else strikes their fancy. There is never an end to what they want from us.

You told us how hard it is making it as an entrepreneur etc. Now you are telling me the opposite, that as you go into higher tax brackets, you are still making more than you did in the lower brackets. Still, the govt is taking a higher percentage of your income every time you go higher. So are you trying to make the case for having the govt take 90% of all our paychecks ? Are you saying that the millionaires and billionaires won’t mind having 90% so that they can pay for all the people who won’t work because the govt is going to give them free money. Brother it is you doling our the nonsense and it’s not free enterprise and it’s not even fair. You are just going to work harder so illegals can pour over the border and cruise. The fool card is on the top of the deck here. No one with a sane mind is buying the slog you are doling our either. If you are so confident that you can work harder get taxed more and be ok then why are you agitating for ubi ??? By the way, I never said there would be zero profit higher than the previous bracket... you just made that up out of your own understanding. 90 # is 90%. Who’s going to want to do that ?

a reply to: Puppylove

Oh yah, and a “whole 40$ more” should you get you that 32,000 car right? Because that is what a good car costs these days. Have you looked at the housing market lately ? As for general economics, you have completely overlooked why it’s hard to get ahead anymore, and that is the hidden tax/ inflation caused by overspending and borrowing by the government. Every time they borrow money from the fed who just prints the money out of thin air, and voila the dollar is worth less than it was the day before. It is you who doesn’t understand economics 101. I’ll help you out a little. G Edward Griffin. m.youtube.com...
m.youtube.com...
books.google.com...
You threw out 10% snd 20%, but the Dems ate talking 90%, and by the way corporations in the US pay higher taxes than in the rest of the world, which is one reason they’ve gone overseas and why Trump is trying to reverse that... and you just want to go and do the opposite and raise taxes and send more companies overseas and destroy the economy even more with all UBI nonsense being spewed by communists who have overrun the Democrat Party. As far back as 2009 at least, there were 70 members of Congress who were also members on Democratic Socialists of America. If anyone wants to complain that conservatives paint Democrats as commies with a wide brushstroke too bad because there are few reasonable people left running the party. I have Facebook friends from High school who talk about things like abolishing the Electoral College and even the senate (ostensibly because the House tends to go Democrat ) and these ideas are all coming out of the communist mindset. It is a fact that CPUSA is working closely with the Democrat Party. So pardon me if I don’t listen to the pandering for UBI... it’s just more communist bs.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

If I get 10% of my income taxed out of one hundred dollars I get 90 dollars. If I get 20% taxed and I make 150 dollars only 50 whole dollars more than originally I make 120 dollars. Still 40 whole dollars than I made before. I only multipied what I made by 1.5x what I was making and was able to double how much I was taxed and still made substantually more than I did at the original amount with the smaller tax bracket. In fact, in the second example I still made substantially more than I would have with no taxes.

You're math is just slightly off.

Person 1 makes 100 before taxes. And pays 10%
Person 2 makes 150 before taxes. And pays 20%

Person 1 ends up with 90.
Person 2 ends up with 120.

We agree up to this point.

However 120-90 = 30. Not 40.

The wealthier person made 50% more, but ultimately took home 33% more.


Now if one of them were a part time worker, working 10 hours a week at 10 bucks per hour, that means they were effectively paid 9 bucks per hour.

If the other was a part time worker working 15 hours a week at 10 bucks per hour, that means they were effectively being paid 8 bucks per hour.

Bull# is bull# and you're trying to sell bull#. There's plenty of incentive to go for the second option even if more taxed.

You would need to increase that tax percentage all the way to 40% for the second person taxed to have no gain compared to the first, and the second person was only making 1.5x pay before taxes.

Now let's compare to the kind of numbers we're really talking about where people make a thousand times more. How much would we need to tax such a person to actually result in the zero increase that makes it all not worth while you all are pretending will happen.

Let's see that's 100000, it would take a tax of 99.91% tax to have zero gain in comparison to the first example. No one is asking for anything even remotely comparable to that, not even the corropt politicians that want to suck everyone dry.

No one's buying the bull#. There's plenty of incentive for higher pay even with increased taxes so long as the tax rate still allows for significant increase in overall pay compared to previous pay rates. If there's anything to be argued for it's a more gradual tax scale so that there aren't these wierd gaps where if you fall in you're getting a giant advantage over those above and below you creating stange possibilities of getting paid more than the bracket above you or taxed into making less than the bracket below the below you.

We have computers that can do these calculations no need to oversimplify it for some pencil pusher. We don't need gaps in tax rate increases. We can easily figure out a formula that's gradual and fair so that no matter how much you make you're always making a fair amount more than those before you.

You don't need to worry about anyone making 1000 times more. That person will put most of their income straight into an investment portfolio.

That part of their income will be tax deductible until they decide to start taking it back out to spend. (Which will be after they retire.)

People who make a million per year usually don't have any trouble surviving on a fraction of their income, and saving the rest. It's not like they're having to go without anything.

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: neo96

Sure fine I can accept that for all things ultimately except health care.

Health care is an entire other OP.
Is healthcare a right or a privileged?

It sounds like you are dealing with some pretty serious medical issues. Just a little advice.
I would go to your primary doctor and tell them about your situation. They might be able to work something out.

Health is more precious than any amount of money.

The trouble with healthcare is that we don't allow any differences in quality of care between rich and poor.

It isn't how we handle police, for example. Everyone gets basic, free, police protection. But if you want exceptional security, you have to hire your own private security.


However, for some reason, a "basic level" of healthcare is found to be unacceptable.

Instead of the poor getting basic care, and the rich getting exceptional care (which they pay for out of pocket), we bankrupt ourselves as a nation by insisting on perfect care for everyone.


This goes so far as to require the latest patented drugs be used for every malady. Penicillin has been around for over half a century. Many formulations of it are no longer patented (which are referred to in political discussions as "generic") Manufacturers don't have to pay anyone a royalty to produce it, so it sells internationally on the free market at a pretty low price.

The older formulations totally work, too. But it's illegal to prescribe them in the USA, no matter how poor someone is, because it is considered "inferior care". (Despite only being just barely, a smidgeon better, and only by very thin arguments.)

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Well said!

I'm all for the older formulations too, and alternative treatments. People should be able to legally choose how they want to treat themselves.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

I think applying that same mentality to health care is sick. I think the rich and poor precisely need the exact same care, and anyone getting better care through backroom deals or the like should be a crime.

The only way to incentivize the rich to make sure everyone gets good health care is to make their health care dependent on it. The second you allow money to buy health is the second the poor can no longer afford it which is why we're at where we are today.

The poor and rich do not get the same care, I assure you.
As to progressive taxes, they don’t tax all income at 90%. Just the income you make over a certain amount. Problem is in our society we prioritize maximum profit and innovation. But we could choose to prioritize other things, like housing and feeding all Americans, and there would be plenty people willing to get by on less than maximized profit. I’m sure bezos would still be working hard if he only made a million dollars every 2 minutes rather than every 11 seconds or whatever it is. This wouldn’t need to apply to restaurants or businesses with small business margins, as they are not high profit.

As to “inflation when the govt prints more money for debt!!!”, well, banks are constantly creating new money. It’s where 90% of mortgages come from. It’s constantly going on, and has been for decades. They managed to dump trillions into the system to bail out the banks too. That didn’t create hyperinflation. Honestly, at this point we’re about to go into deflation, as consumers are going to hit a debt wall soon, and with no money to support our economy shopping will decrease, and demand will force a backtrack on prices. Especially with no middle class jobs returning in our forecast.