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.
originally posted by: Edumakated
It talks about New Jersey, CT, CA, and how billionaires are leaving for Florida largely because of lower taxes.
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: dfnj2015
Socialism is supposed to make the people equal. If socialism made the state rich but the people are suffering either you are doing it wrong or it doesn't work.
originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: pexx421
If you truly are the owner of investment properties, on which you owe no mortgage, you must be very wealthy yourself?
I've seen the real numbers and yes my landlord is losing money on all his properties. He only gains spendable income when he decides to sell and yes, then he will make money. He has five houses, which is his retirement. You ever hear the term land poor?
This is just federal and not state, but it paints the real picture.
I’ll save my pity for the guy I see on the corner selling apples to people at the red light. I know he ain’t robbing me, and hell, the cops might shoot him tomorrow mistaking his apples for a gun when they go to confront him about not having a license to be poor, right after they shoot his dog.
originally posted by: pexx421
originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: pexx421
If you truly are the owner of investment properties, on which you owe no mortgage, you must be very wealthy yourself?
I've seen the real numbers and yes my landlord is losing money on all his properties. He only gains spendable income when he decides to sell and yes, then he will make money. He has five houses, which is his retirement. You ever hear the term land poor?
This is just federal and not state, but it paints the real picture.
Hey, that’s cool, 50% pay 97% of taxes. I get it. But that 50% owns everything. It actually gets even worse, as in your chart you show the top 1% pays 37% of the total taxes, while making 19% of the “income”. But where it gets even more radical is the wealth distribution. Not income, wealth. Where that top 1% actually holds something like 95% of all the wealth of the nation. Really a fraction of 1%. And that’s where it’s really at, because the majority of their accumulated money each year is not their income (19%) but rather their profit from their wealth, which dwarfs their “income”. And the wealth is where the real disparity between the haves and have nots comes from, and this is the area where legislation is written in board rooms, where execs decide on where we go to war, or what democracies we overthrow. Where oligarchy, price fixing, etc are conceived and enacted. And these are the people you want us to lament for being taxed? Nah. I’ll save my pity for the guy I see on the corner selling apples to people at the red light. I know he ain’t robbing me, and hell, the cops might shoot him tomorrow mistaking his apples for a gun when they go to confront him about not having a license to be poor, right after they shoot his dog.
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: JAGStorm
Socialism is why blue states are the richest states.
originally posted by: M5xaz
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: JAGStorm
Socialism is why blue states are the richest states.
NO !
As if raising taxes makes you richer - can you balance your chequebook ?
Decades of accumulated wealth under capitalism is the reason they are rich.
As Venezuela and other states show, socialism leads to poverty
But keep right on denying reality
They prefer to cite Norway, Sweden, and Denmark as examples of socialist success. There are, however, several key problems with that. First, these countries are not technically socialist. By the YDSA’s definition, socialism entails a centrally planned economy with nationalized means of production. Although these countries have high income taxes and provide generous social programs, they remain prosperous because of their free-market economies.
originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: pexx421
The top 5% pay almost 60% of the taxes and that's not enough for you? What is enough? 75%? 90%?
I’ll save my pity for the guy I see on the corner selling apples to people at the red light. I know he ain’t robbing me, and hell, the cops might shoot him tomorrow mistaking his apples for a gun when they go to confront him about not having a license to be poor, right after they shoot his dog.
Wow, that's some extreme hyperbole.
If that apple vendor works hard, buys an orchard and retires rich, what then? Take it away from him to give it to others?
The only way you could have the money to support a truly progressive agenda is to tax the middle class and tax them hard. It's simple reality that if you taxed the top 5% at a rate of 100% it would not even begin to cover the costs.
Property taxes, gas taxes and the like hit the working poor hard, so why do those who support progressive taxation also support high taxes that impact the poor? Taxes like that are in fact Poor Taxes, put in place to take from the poor and give to the state.
originally posted by: pexx421
originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: pexx421
The top 5% pay almost 60% of the taxes and that's not enough for you? What is enough? 75%? 90%?
I’ll save my pity for the guy I see on the corner selling apples to people at the red light. I know he ain’t robbing me, and hell, the cops might shoot him tomorrow mistaking his apples for a gun when they go to confront him about not having a license to be poor, right after they shoot his dog.
Wow, that's some extreme hyperbole.
If that apple vendor works hard, buys an orchard and retires rich, what then? Take it away from him to give it to others?
The only way you could have the money to support a truly progressive agenda is to tax the middle class and tax them hard. It's simple reality that if you taxed the top 5% at a rate of 100% it would not even begin to cover the costs.
Property taxes, gas taxes and the like hit the working poor hard, so why do those who support progressive taxation also support high taxes that impact the poor? Taxes like that are in fact Poor Taxes, put in place to take from the poor and give to the state.
That’s not hyperbole, fool. It was a semi humorous portrayal of current unrelated social issues people in the us face today. As for “how much is enough?!!” How about this. Stack up all their income, and all their wealth. Do it for all the different class strata. Then make each bracket pay the percentage off the taxes that they have in wealth and income. For those with negative wealth and income, they’ll get money back from the govt (that’s probably the whole lower 60% of Americans who make $15 an hour or less, or are unemployed). I expect the percentage that top 1% pays will go quite a bit higher.
originally posted by: Blaine91555
originally posted by: pexx421
originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: pexx421
The top 5% pay almost 60% of the taxes and that's not enough for you? What is enough? 75%? 90%?
I’ll save my pity for the guy I see on the corner selling apples to people at the red light. I know he ain’t robbing me, and hell, the cops might shoot him tomorrow mistaking his apples for a gun when they go to confront him about not having a license to be poor, right after they shoot his dog.
Wow, that's some extreme hyperbole.
If that apple vendor works hard, buys an orchard and retires rich, what then? Take it away from him to give it to others?
The only way you could have the money to support a truly progressive agenda is to tax the middle class and tax them hard. It's simple reality that if you taxed the top 5% at a rate of 100% it would not even begin to cover the costs.
Property taxes, gas taxes and the like hit the working poor hard, so why do those who support progressive taxation also support high taxes that impact the poor? Taxes like that are in fact Poor Taxes, put in place to take from the poor and give to the state.
That’s not hyperbole, fool. It was a semi humorous portrayal of current unrelated social issues people in the us face today. As for “how much is enough?!!” How about this. Stack up all their income, and all their wealth. Do it for all the different class strata. Then make each bracket pay the percentage off the taxes that they have in wealth and income. For those with negative wealth and income, they’ll get money back from the govt (that’s probably the whole lower 60% of Americans who make $15 an hour or less, or are unemployed). I expect the percentage that top 1% pays will go quite a bit higher.
"Fool" - resorting to name calling does not impress me in the slightest.
What you say is already the case. The bottom 45% I think it is pay in nothing, but get back something. Anytime anyone gets any kind of check or service from the government, most of the money came from the top 5% as it is now.
Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor. Our government takes from the rich to give to the state, which then wastes half of it before it gets to the poor.
I'll give you this, all people who bring the same skills to the table and work should earn the same. We get out of this world what we put in to it.
I think the real problem here is that what you seem to truly want is to take it away from those who can and give it to those who won't. I mean why should they work and learn skills so they can earn more, when they can just have it taken from those who earned it and handed to them by the state.
Again, even if you take 100% from the top 5% it would not pay for what is being promised and you would have to hit the working middle class hard and raise their taxes. You know, the dirty little secret that politicians dance around when asked, how are going to pay for that?
originally posted by: M5xaz
Decades of accumulated wealth under capitalism is the reason they are rich.
originally posted by: DJMSN
a reply to: Gryphon66
Therefore it should resonate that they have the lowest taxes of all the states and provide amazing benefits to all of their citizens....yet...they have enormous taxes, those who reside there struggle to provide the basics to their families, in many cities housing is out of reach for most.
Homelessness is rampant among the most vulnerable populations, trash piles up in every neighborhood because they dont enforce the most basic of environmental laws to protect the tax paying population, human waste in public spaces is such a hazard that municipalities face lawsuits due to workers health suffering due to the untenable working conditions at public buildings.
The subsidized public utilities regulated by the taxes raised by the economic powerhouse is unable to operate and provide basic services because they failed to upgrade equipment which would prevent the devastating fires further endangering the public. Yet, by god...recent state legislations passed include mandatory "lactation" space to be provided by employers.
They have also passed recent Bill's to discourage use of sugary drinks, provide free healthcare to non citizens, nevermind citizens, they be damned without healthcare while contributing to noncitizens, other local non binding resolutions include "population control measures". Exactly what they mean remains an unknown which should frighten everyone.
YES...looks like they are doing just fine, the world's 5th largest economy cant provide housing, cant provide electricity, clean water is only important for any lactating pregnant frogs with Latin names no one ever saw before, they are pretty good at sucking up 3 billion in federal funds for bullets trains that have enough track to go for 2 miles. Seems they can do better...but maybe I just expect too much