Current Events > Economics professor explains how capitalism works and why it is theft

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4
WingsOfGood 02/03/22 6:10:13 PM #152:	Esrac posted... He said they pay 70% of all taxes, not that they pay a tax rate of 70%. That is a non-point then. That is like saying the poor need to pay more taxes because they don't make enough money. 1% of a billion is more than 20% of $20,000 But then you need to understand why tax is a percentage and that they are SUPPOSED to pay more than 1% <cite>WingsOfGood posted [p:962341878] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>Esrac posted... </cite> <quote>He said they pay 70% of all taxes, not that they pay a tax rate of 70%.</quote> That is a non-point then. That is like saying the poor need to pay more taxes because they don't make enough money. 1% of a billion is more than 20% of $20,000 But then you need to understand why tax is a percentage and that they are SUPPOSED to pay more than 1% </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Solid Snake07 02/03/22 6:11:06 PM #153:	full meltdown mode ladies and gentlemen --- "People incapable of guilt usually do have a good time" -Detective Rust Cohle <cite>Solid Snake07 posted [p:962341901] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>full meltdown mode ladies and gentlemen </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
foreverzero212 02/03/22 6:15:11 PM #154:	Squall28 posted... Your definitions are completely based on feeling and not reality. Socialism means the means of production are owned by the "community." What this "community" ends up being is the government due to how many people we have. The pizza parlor is either owned by the government (socialism) or a citizen (capitalism). You're describing communism. It's controlled by big govt under communism. It's worker owned under socialism. It's lazy failson owned under capitalism. --- lions and panthers oh my <cite>foreverzero212 posted [p:962342024] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>Squall28 posted... </cite> <quote>Your definitions are completely based on feeling and not reality. Socialism means the means of production are owned by the "community." What this "community" ends up being is the government due to how many people we have. The pizza parlor is either owned by the government (socialism) or a citizen (capitalism).</quote>You're describing communism. It's controlled by big govt under communism. It's worker owned under socialism. It's lazy failson owned under capitalism. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WingsOfGood 02/03/22 6:18:58 PM #155:	Solid Snake07 posted... full meltdown mode ladies and gentlemen You are melting down? Btw this explains why your link is bad and also explains why all these sources like the whitehouse is saying what they say. There is a thing called the true tax rate and it has got worse since 2019. Now, you know that, will you absorb this information? https://itep.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2019/ For years, Americans have been told that the rich are paying a highly disproportionate share of the nations taxes. Claims to that effect often focus on just one tax, the federal personal income tax, which is indeed progressive overall. But when the nations tax system is viewed in its entirety, it becomes clear that the reality is very different. Despite their enormous incomes and wealth, the nations richest taxpayers are paying a share of overall taxes that slightly exceeds their share of income. Meanwhile, the poorest fifth of Americans will receive only a small fraction of the nations income (2.8 percent) and, as a result, will pay a small fraction of the total federal, state and local taxes (2 percent). Commentators seeking to create the impression that high-income households are paying an outsized share of the nations taxes tend to focus their attention narrowly on the most progressive taxes. It is true that some of our revenue sources are quite progressive, including the federal personal income tax, corporate income tax and estate tax.[1] But Americans pay other federal taxes that are not progressive. For example, everyone who works pays the Social Security payroll tax. This tax does not apply to the investment income that most very wealthy families have, and it only applies to the first $132,900 of earnings a worker receives in 2019. Americans also pay state and local taxes that are particularly regressive, meaning they capture a larger share of income from low- or middle-income families than from wealthy families. State and local income taxes are much less progressive than the federal income tax, and some states have no income tax at all. Property taxes levied at the state and local level affect everyone who owns a home or other real estate and affect renters as well because landlords tend to pass on some of their property taxes as part of the rents they charge to tenants. State and local sales taxes are paid by virtually everyone. These are particularly regressive because poor families have little choice but to spend all their income buying necessities while wealthy families can save most of their income, shielding it from sales taxes. I know reading is chore for you but all in all it says the idea that the richest pay like 90% of all taxes is not reality, it is only if you discount a bunch of different factors and don't take the true tax rate into account. <cite>WingsOfGood posted [p:962342169] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>Solid Snake07 posted... </cite> <quote>full meltdown mode ladies and gentlemen</quote> You are melting down? Btw this explains why your link is bad and also explains why all these sources like the whitehouse is saying what they say. There is a thing called the true tax rate and it has got worse since 2019. Now, you know that, will you absorb this information? https://itep.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2019/ <quote>For years, Americans have been told that the rich are paying a highly disproportionate share of the nations taxes. Claims to that effect often focus on just one tax, the federal personal income tax, which is indeed progressive overall. But when the nations tax system is viewed in its entirety, it becomes clear that the reality is very different. Despite their enormous incomes and wealth, the nations richest taxpayers are paying a share of overall taxes that slightly exceeds their share of income. Meanwhile, the poorest fifth of Americans will receive only a small fraction of the nations income (2.8 percent) and, as a result, will pay a small fraction of the total federal, state and local taxes (2 percent). Commentators seeking to create the impression that high-income households are paying an outsized share of the nations taxes tend to focus their attention narrowly on the most progressive taxes. It is true that some of our revenue sources are quite progressive, including the federal personal income tax, corporate income tax and estate tax.[1] But Americans pay other federal taxes that are not progressive. For example, everyone who works pays the Social Security payroll tax. This tax does not apply to the investment income that most very wealthy families have, and it only applies to the first $132,900 of earnings a worker receives in 2019. Americans also pay state and local taxes that are particularly regressive, meaning they capture a larger share of income from low- or middle-income families than from wealthy families. State and local income taxes are much less progressive than the federal income tax, and some states have no income tax at all. Property taxes levied at the state and local level affect everyone who owns a home or other real estate and affect renters as well because landlords tend to pass on some of their property taxes as part of the rents they charge to tenants. State and local sales taxes are paid by virtually everyone. These are particularly regressive because poor families have little choice but to spend all their income buying necessities while wealthy families can save most of their income, shielding it from sales taxes.</quote> I know reading is chore for you but all in all it says the idea that the richest pay like 90% of all taxes is not reality, it is only if you discount a bunch of different factors and don't take the true tax rate into account. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RchHomieQuanChi 02/03/22 6:19:45 PM #156:	Squall28 posted... The division of labor we have now and the efficiencies that came with it are in large part due to companies being created to capture certain markets. Sure. Most socialists would actually agree with you, considering Marx himself argued that capitalism was a necessary step in humanity's progression. However, where socialists differ is that they believe capitalism will inevitably evolve into its "late stage" form, where the system becomes so unstable that we'll need to adopt a new system if we want to have any chance of survival. It's the reason why we have constant boom and bust cycles every 7 years or so. Workers eventually become unable to buy the goods they help produce and the entire system collapses on itself until government intervention becomes necessary to save it. The problem is society can only handle so much of that until we have a total meltdown. This is pretty much what we're seeing happen to the U.S. Squall28 posted... I'm sure a completely socialist system won't be completely devoid of it, but a huge government just won't churn out these companies as fast as hundreds of thousands of random Joe's being able to start and manage stuff themselves. Socialism isn't just when the government does stuff, dude. It simply means most industries are worker-controlled. It's meant to democratize the economy so the economic power of a few obscenely wealthy people doesn't override that of the majority (the workers). The only purpose the government has under this economic model is to facilitate it. You can still start your own business. The only caveat is that you don't get to make billions of dollars just for owning the business, because a system like that is inherently rigged for the obscenely wealthy. --- I have nothing else to say <cite>RchHomieQuanChi posted [p:962342189] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>Squall28 posted... </cite> <quote>The division of labor we have now and the efficiencies that came with it are in large part due to companies being created to capture certain markets.</quote> Sure. Most socialists would actually agree with you, considering Marx himself argued that capitalism was a necessary step in humanity's progression. However, where socialists differ is that they believe capitalism will inevitably evolve into its "late stage" form, where the system becomes so unstable that we'll need to adopt a new system if we want to have any chance of survival. It's the reason why we have constant boom and bust cycles every 7 years or so. Workers eventually become unable to buy the goods they help produce and the entire system collapses on itself until government intervention becomes necessary to save it. The problem is society can only handle so much of that until we have a total meltdown. This is pretty much what we're seeing happen to the U.S. Squall28 posted... </cite> <quote>I'm sure a completely socialist system won't be completely devoid of it, but a huge government just won't churn out these companies as fast as hundreds of thousands of random Joe's being able to start and manage stuff themselves.</quote> Socialism isn't just when the government does stuff, dude. It simply means most industries are worker-controlled. It's meant to democratize the economy so the economic power of a few obscenely wealthy people doesn't override that of the majority (the workers). The only purpose the government has under this economic model is to facilitate it. You can still start your own business. The only caveat is that you don't get to make billions of dollars just for owning the business, because a system like that is inherently rigged for the obscenely wealthy. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Krojen 02/03/22 6:20:40 PM #157:	I made like 8 figures on Tesla stock and paid 0% in taxes. So this is what having the plebs simp for me is like. --- http://i.imgur.com/hI4hAMb.jpg <cite>Krojen posted [p:962342219] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>I made like 8 figures on Tesla stock and paid 0% in taxes. So this is what having the plebs simp for me is like. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Arcanine2009 02/03/22 6:20:42 PM #158:	I'll watch later --- Less is more. Everything you want, isn't everything you need. <cite>Arcanine2009 posted [p:962342221] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>I'll watch later </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WingsOfGood 02/03/22 6:21:13 PM #159:	https://theintercept.com/2019/04/13/tax-day-taxes-statistics/ Conservatives love these numbers, because the implication is clear: The libs want to soak the rich, but the rich are already soaking wet. And now fringe extremists like like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez want the governments grasping hand to take even more from the heroic job creators who are generously supporting the rest of us! So whats going on here? The answer: This is a classic example of how to lie with statistics. Its shameless but effective propaganda, which is why the people with the most to gain from it pay propagandists to spread it widely. Anyone pushing this is trying to fool you, and you should ignore anything they say on any subject. There are two main aspects to the deception. First, these numbers refer only to federal income taxes. Both the federal and the income part are important. Then theres the fact that its not just the federal government that taxes Americans. What this shows is that, when you take all U.S. taxes into account federal income taxes, federal payroll taxes, federal corporate taxes, the federal estate tax, federal excise taxes, and the plethora of state and local taxes the U.S. tax system is just mildly progressive. If the U.S. tax system were perfectly flat, the share of taxes paid by each group of Americans above would be equal to their share of income. Instead, the top 1 percent with an average income of about $2 million made 20.9 percent of Americas income, but paid 24.1 percent of Americas taxes. Few people will perceive this as a monstrous injustice. Meanwhile, the middle 20 percent of Americans with incomes between $41,000 and $66,000 per year make 10.9 percent of Americas income and pay 9.4 percent of Americas taxes. The bottom 20 percent, making less than $23,000, make just 2.8 percent of Americas income and pay 2 percent of Americas taxes. That is, the lucky duckies of the rights imagination who pay little to nothing in income taxes are still paying a significant portion of their income in taxes overall. The upshot of all of this is straightforward. The right aims its propaganda at the federal income tax because it is one of the few parts of the U.S. tax system that is strongly progressive. You will grow old and gray waiting for conservatives to expound on the unfairness of sales taxes. Their goal is to mislead Americans enough that theyll acquiesce to further cuts in the federal income tax rate. If they succeed, the U.S. tax system will grow ever flatter, or even perhaps become regressive that is, with poorer Americans paying a higher tax rate than the rich. Dont fall for it. <cite>WingsOfGood posted [p:962342248] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>https://theintercept.com/2019/04/13/tax-day-taxes-statistics/ <quote>Conservatives love these numbers, because the implication is clear: The libs want to soak the rich, but the rich are already soaking wet. And now fringe extremists like like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez want the governments grasping hand to take even more from the heroic job creators who are generously supporting the rest of us! So whats going on here? The answer: This is a classic example of how to lie with statistics. Its shameless but effective propaganda, which is why the people with the most to gain from it pay propagandists to spread it widely. Anyone pushing this is trying to fool you, and you should ignore anything they say on any subject. There are two main aspects to the deception. First, these numbers refer only to federal income taxes. Both the federal and the income part are important. Then theres the fact that its not just the federal government that taxes Americans. What this shows is that, when you take all U.S. taxes into account federal income taxes, federal payroll taxes, federal corporate taxes, the federal estate tax, federal excise taxes, and the plethora of state and local taxes the U.S. tax system is just mildly progressive. If the U.S. tax system were perfectly flat, the share of taxes paid by each group of Americans above would be equal to their share of income. Instead, the top 1 percent with an average income of about $2 million made 20.9 percent of Americas income, but paid 24.1 percent of Americas taxes. Few people will perceive this as a monstrous injustice. Meanwhile, the middle 20 percent of Americans with incomes between $41,000 and $66,000 per year make 10.9 percent of Americas income and pay 9.4 percent of Americas taxes. The bottom 20 percent, making less than $23,000, make just 2.8 percent of Americas income and pay 2 percent of Americas taxes. That is, the lucky duckies of the rights imagination who pay little to nothing in income taxes are still paying a significant portion of their income in taxes overall. The upshot of all of this is straightforward. The right aims its propaganda at the federal income tax because it is one of the few parts of the U.S. tax system that is strongly progressive. You will grow old and gray waiting for conservatives to expound on the unfairness of sales taxes. Their goal is to mislead Americans enough that theyll acquiesce to further cuts in the federal income tax rate. If they succeed, the U.S. tax system will grow ever flatter, or even perhaps become regressive that is, with poorer Americans paying a higher tax rate than the rich. Dont fall for it.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Cocytus 02/03/22 6:27:57 PM #160:	Ok, so, what is the guy's alternative, socialism? <cite>Cocytus posted [p:962342455] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>Ok, so, what is the guy's alternative, socialism? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WingsOfGood 02/03/22 6:28:26 PM #161:	https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahhansen/2021/06/08/richest-americans-including- bezos-musk-and-buffett-paid-federal-income-taxes-equaling-just-34-of-401-billion-in-new-wealth-bombshell-report-shows/?sh=1a3a2e287fe1 Richest AmericansIncluding Bezos, Musk And BuffettPaid Federal Income Taxes Equaling Just 3.4% Of $401 Billion In New Wealth, Bombshell Report Shows With issues of wealth inequality and tax avoidance by the ultrarich front and center in Washington, a new analysis from ProPublica of more than 15 years of leaked confidential individual tax data shows how the wealthiest Americans pay very littleor, in some cases, nothingin federal income tax. <cite>WingsOfGood posted [p:962342471] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahhansen/2021/06/08/richest-americans-including- bezos-musk-and-buffett-paid-federal-income-taxes-equaling-just-34-of-401-billion-in-new-wealth-bombshell-report-shows/?sh=1a3a2e287fe1 <quote> Richest AmericansIncluding Bezos, Musk And BuffettPaid Federal Income Taxes Equaling Just 3.4% Of $401 Billion In New Wealth, Bombshell Report Shows With issues of wealth inequality and tax avoidance by the ultrarich front and center in Washington, a new analysis from ProPublica of more than 15 years of leaked confidential individual tax data shows how the wealthiest Americans pay very littleor, in some cases, nothingin federal income tax.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ZMythos 02/03/22 6:28:58 PM #162:	https://youtu.be/gnXUFXc2Yns This is all I can think of when I see this guy lol. But really though he's right that you're not being paid 1:1 for your labor. That's what profit is, it's the difference between the value of your labor and the value of the thing your labor produced. Of course, that's the system we live under. The point of making things is to incur a profit, so you want to pay your labor as little as possible to make things that you try to sell for as much as possible. --- Rainbow Dashing: "it's just star wars" AutumnEspirit: kissu <cite>ZMythos posted [p:962342493] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>https://youtu.be/gnXUFXc2Yns This is all I can think of when I see this guy lol. But really though he's right that you're not being paid 1:1 for your labor. That's what profit is, it's the difference between the value of your labor and the value of the thing your labor produced. Of course, that's the system we live under. The point of making things is to incur a profit, so you want to pay your labor as little as possible to make things that you try to sell for as much as possible. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WingsOfGood 02/03/22 6:33:04 PM #163:	Cocytus posted... Ok, so, what is the guy's alternative, socialism? RchHomieQuanChi posted... Sure. Most socialists would actually agree with you, considering Marx himself argued that capitalism was a necessary step in humanity's progression. However, where socialists differ is that they believe capitalism will inevitably evolve into its "late stage" form, where the system becomes so unstable that we'll need to adopt a new system if we want to have any chance of survival. It's the reason why we have constant boom and bust cycles every 7 years or so. Workers eventually become unable to buy the goods they help produce and the entire system collapses on itself until government intervention becomes necessary to save it. The problem is society can only handle so much of that until we have a total meltdown. This is pretty much what we're seeing happen to the U.S. An alternative I would offer is to fund things like UBI, Universal Healthcare, etc. <cite>WingsOfGood posted [p:962342612] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>Cocytus posted... </cite> <quote>Ok, so, what is the guy's alternative, socialism?</quote> RchHomieQuanChi posted... </cite> <quote>Sure. Most socialists would actually agree with you, considering Marx himself argued that capitalism was a necessary step in humanity's progression. However, where socialists differ is that they believe capitalism will inevitably evolve into its "late stage" form, where the system becomes so unstable that we'll need to adopt a new system if we want to have any chance of survival. It's the reason why we have constant boom and bust cycles every 7 years or so. Workers eventually become unable to buy the goods they help produce and the entire system collapses on itself until government intervention becomes necessary to save it. The problem is society can only handle so much of that until we have a total meltdown. This is pretty much what we're seeing happen to the U.S.</quote> An alternative I would offer is to fund things like UBI, Universal Healthcare, etc. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RchHomieQuanChi 02/03/22 6:35:51 PM #164:	ZMythos posted... https://youtu.be/gnXUFXc2Yns This is all I can think of when I see this guy lol. But really though he's right that you're not being paid 1:1 for your labor. That's what profit is, it's the difference between the value of your labor and the value of the thing your labor produced. Of course, that's the system we live under. The point of making things is to incur a profit, so you want to pay your labor as little as possible to make things that you try to sell for as much as possible. Exactly. It's why there exists so much conflict between workers and capitalists. Their goals are in direct opposition to one another. Workers want to sell as little of their labor and their time for the biggest reward possible. Capitalists want to purchase as much labor as they can for as little as possible. Things that reduce the need for labor should be a good thing, but it's not in capitalist economies. Because reducing the need for labor doesn't actually make things better. It just means more people out of work. That's why automation is used as a threat against workers and it's also how the right manages to convince people to fight against their best interests. Just tell them that getting paid more means they'll be replaced by a robot or cheap labor from India and they'll gladly accept poverty wages for some degree of job security. --- I have nothing else to say <cite>RchHomieQuanChi posted [p:962342692] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>ZMythos posted... </cite> <quote>https://youtu.be/gnXUFXc2Yns This is all I can think of when I see this guy lol. But really though he's right that you're not being paid 1:1 for your labor. That's what profit is, it's the difference between the value of your labor and the value of the thing your labor produced. Of course, that's the system we live under. The point of making things is to incur a profit, so you want to pay your labor as little as possible to make things that you try to sell for as much as possible.</quote> Exactly. It's why there exists so much conflict between workers and capitalists. Their goals are in direct opposition to one another. Workers want to sell as little of their labor and their time for the biggest reward possible. Capitalists want to purchase as much labor as they can for as little as possible. Things that reduce the need for labor should be a good thing, but it's not in capitalist economies. Because reducing the need for labor doesn't actually make things better. It just means more people out of work. That's why automation is used as a threat against workers and it's also how the right manages to convince people to fight against their best interests. Just tell them that getting paid more means they'll be replaced by a robot or cheap labor from India and they'll gladly accept poverty wages for some degree of job security. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WingsOfGood 02/03/22 6:37:18 PM #165:	RchHomieQuanChi posted... Just tell them that getting paid more means they'll be replaced by a robot or cheap labor from India and they'll gladly accept poverty wages for some degree of job security. lol so true or like g980 and the banks tried, telling them being paid more increase inflation lmao <cite>WingsOfGood posted [p:962342723] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>RchHomieQuanChi posted... </cite> <quote>Just tell them that getting paid more means they'll be replaced by a robot or cheap labor from India and they'll gladly accept poverty wages for some degree of job security.</quote> lol so true or like g980 and the banks tried, telling them being paid more increase inflation lmao </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Solid Snake07 02/03/22 6:41:38 PM #166:	WingsOfGood posted... You are melting down? Btw this explains why your link is bad and also explains why all these sources like the whitehouse is saying what they say. There is a thing called the true tax rate and it has got worse since 2019. Now, you know that, will you absorb this information? https://itep.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2019/ I know reading is chore for you but all in all it says the idea that the richest pay like 90% of all taxes is not reality, it is only if you discount a bunch of different factors and don't take the true tax rate into account. Im not the one foaming at the mouth and posting 15 news articles I probably havent even fully read because I just got shut down with cold hard facts. --- "People incapable of guilt usually do have a good time" -Detective Rust Cohle <cite>Solid Snake07 posted [p:962342833] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>WingsOfGood posted... </cite> <quote>You are melting down? Btw this explains why your link is bad and also explains why all these sources like the whitehouse is saying what they say. There is a thing called the true tax rate and it has got worse since 2019. Now, you know that, will you absorb this information? https://itep.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2019/ I know reading is chore for you but all in all it says the idea that the richest pay like 90% of all taxes is not reality, it is only if you discount a bunch of different factors and don't take the true tax rate into account.</quote> Im not the one foaming at the mouth and posting 15 news articles I probably havent even fully read because I just got shut down with cold hard facts. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WingsOfGood 02/03/22 6:42:48 PM #167:	Solid Snake07 posted... Im not the one foaming at the mouth and posting 15 news articles I probably havent even fully read because I just got shut down with cold hard facts. Yea you only posted a link to a koch funded thing. At least you admit 15 articles say you are the one spreading misinformation. <cite>WingsOfGood posted [p:962342860] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>Solid Snake07 posted... </cite> <quote>Im not the one foaming at the mouth and posting 15 news articles I probably havent even fully read because I just got shut down with cold hard facts.</quote> Yea you only posted a link to a koch funded thing. At least you admit 15 articles say you are the one spreading misinformation. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RchHomieQuanChi 02/03/22 6:47:04 PM #168:	WingsOfGood posted... An alternative I would offer is to fund things like UBI, Universal Healthcare, etc. It's a good thing you brought this up because it points to a fundamental contradiction of capitalism. Despite the fact that capitalism largely exists as a way to give people some independence and "freedom" from the government, capitalism requires a strong government to counteract the worst aspects of capitalism. Libertarians, the most overtly pro-capitalist people there are, despise the idea of social democracies like the Scandinavian countries. And yet....they're probably doing capitalism better than anyone else as far as not completely turning their country into a hellhole. --- I have nothing else to say <cite>RchHomieQuanChi posted [p:962342958] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>WingsOfGood posted... </cite> <quote>An alternative I would offer is to fund things like UBI, Universal Healthcare, etc.</quote> It's a good thing you brought this up because it points to a fundamental contradiction of capitalism. Despite the fact that capitalism largely exists as a way to give people some independence and "freedom" from the government, capitalism requires a strong government to counteract the worst aspects of capitalism. Libertarians, the most overtly pro-capitalist people there are, despise the idea of social democracies like the Scandinavian countries. And yet....they're probably doing capitalism better than anyone else as far as not completely turning their country into a hellhole. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WingsOfGood 02/03/22 6:48:58 PM #169:	RchHomieQuanChi posted... It's a good thing you brought this up because it points to a fundamental contradiction of capitalism. Despite the fact that capitalism largely exists as a way to give people some independence and "freedom" from the government, capitalism requires a strong government to counteract the worst aspects of capitalism. Libertarians, the most overtly pro-capitalist people there are, despise the idea of social democracies like the Scandinavian countries. And yet....they're probably doing capitalism better than anyone else. Now that you mention it, Capitalism actually despises such freedom as the idea that people using UBI to sit at home and play games and not join the workforce really makes Capitalists mad. <cite>WingsOfGood posted [p:962343010] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>RchHomieQuanChi posted... </cite> <quote>It's a good thing you brought this up because it points to a fundamental contradiction of capitalism. Despite the fact that capitalism largely exists as a way to give people some independence and "freedom" from the government, capitalism requires a strong government to counteract the worst aspects of capitalism. Libertarians, the most overtly pro-capitalist people there are, despise the idea of social democracies like the Scandinavian countries. And yet....they're probably doing capitalism better than anyone else.</quote> Now that you mention it, Capitalism actually despises such freedom as the idea that people using UBI to sit at home and play games and not join the workforce really makes Capitalists mad. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Solid Snake07 02/03/22 6:49:29 PM #170:	WingsOfGood posted... Yea you only posted a link to a koch funded thing. At least you admit 15 articles say you are the one spreading misinformation. lol, Im not going to argue conspiracy theorist nonsense with you. If youre that desperate to stick your head in the sand have at it. --- "People incapable of guilt usually do have a good time" -Detective Rust Cohle <cite>Solid Snake07 posted [p:962343028] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>WingsOfGood posted... </cite> <quote>Yea you only posted a link to a koch funded thing. At least you admit 15 articles say you are the one spreading misinformation.</quote> lol, Im not going to argue conspiracy theorist nonsense with you. If youre that desperate to stick your head in the sand have at it. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WingsOfGood 02/03/22 6:52:45 PM #171:	Solid Snake07 posted... lol, Im not going to argue conspiracy theorist nonsense with you. If youre that desperate to stick your head in the sand have at it. Conspiracy theorist nonsense? According to you I found 15 articles that proved my point. One such was the whitehouse stating that the tax rate for top 1% was 8%. Higher than the other articles, sure, but still super super lower than the FALSE 20% they pay money to get you to believe is their true tax rate. But, let us dispel this nonsense. A conspiracy cannot be proven. Yet I now prove you gave a source funded by the fucking Koch Brothers.... https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Tax_Foundation Funding The Tax Foundation is funded by private donations from members, corporate donations, and donations from charitable foundation such as the Koch Foundation, Earhart Foundation, etc. Personnel Board of Directors On its website the Tax Foundation lists its board of directors, as of March 2009, as being:[4] Dr. Wayne Gable (Chairman), Koch Charitable Foundations James W. Lintott (Treasurer), Sterling Foundation Management LLC The Honorable Bill Archer, PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP Dr. R. Glenn Hubbard, Columbia Business School David P. Lewis, Eli Lilly and Company Scott A. Hodge (Secretary, Ex-Officio), Tax Foundation Staff Scott A. Hodge, President William Ahern, Director of Communications Former personnel Julie Burden, Director of Development @Solid_Snake07 <cite>WingsOfGood posted [p:962343115] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>Solid Snake07 posted... </cite> <quote>lol, Im not going to argue conspiracy theorist nonsense with you. If youre that desperate to stick your head in the sand have at it.</quote> Conspiracy theorist nonsense? According to you I found 15 articles that proved my point. One such was the whitehouse stating that the tax rate for top 1% was 8%. Higher than the other articles, sure, but still super super lower than the FALSE 20% they pay money to get you to believe is their true tax rate. But, let us dispel this nonsense. A conspiracy cannot be proven. Yet I now prove you gave a source funded by the fucking Koch Brothers.... https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Tax_Foundation <quote> Funding The Tax Foundation is funded by private donations from members, corporate donations, and donations from charitable foundation such as the Koch Foundation, Earhart Foundation, etc. Personnel</quote> <quote>Board of Directors On its website the Tax Foundation lists its board of directors, as of March 2009, as being:[4] Dr. Wayne Gable (Chairman), Koch Charitable Foundations James W. Lintott (Treasurer), Sterling Foundation Management LLC The Honorable Bill Archer, PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP Dr. R. Glenn Hubbard, Columbia Business School David P. Lewis, Eli Lilly and Company Scott A. Hodge (Secretary, Ex-Officio), Tax Foundation Staff Scott A. Hodge, President William Ahern, Director of Communications Former personnel Julie Burden, Director of Development</quote> @Solid_Snake07 </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WingsOfGood 02/03/22 6:57:01 PM #172:	WingsOfGood posted... Now that you mention it, Capitalism actually despises such freedom as the idea that people using UBI to sit at home and play games and not join the workforce really makes Capitalists mad. Now that I think about it, don't streamers kinda make them mad too despite being millionaires themselves? <cite>WingsOfGood posted [p:962343212] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>WingsOfGood posted... </cite> <quote>Now that you mention it, Capitalism actually despises such freedom as the idea that people using UBI to sit at home and play games and not join the workforce really makes Capitalists mad.</quote> Now that I think about it, don't streamers kinda make them mad too despite being millionaires themselves? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Squall28 02/03/22 7:12:23 PM #173:	RchHomieQuanChi posted... Socialism isn't just when the government does stuff, dude. It simply means most industries are worker-controlled. It's meant to democratize the economy so the economic power of a few obscenely wealthy people doesn't override that of the majority (the workers). The only purpose the government has under this economic model is to facilitate it. You can still start your own business. The only caveat is that you don't get to make billions of dollars just for owning the business, because a system like that is inherently rigged for the obscenely wealthy. You know what, I'm just going to drop out here because at least we're on a civil note. It's an agree to disagree. I don't have faith that on things of large scale, you can manage without some central governing body making the decisions, and you guys believe you can. I can see maybe a group of ten workers, but these large companies with thousands of employees doesn't seem feasible to me. --- You can't go back and change the beginning, but you can start where you are and change the ending. -Misattributed to CS Lewis <cite>Squall28 posted [p:962343615] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>RchHomieQuanChi posted... </cite> <quote>Socialism isn't just when the government does stuff, dude. It simply means most industries are worker-controlled. It's meant to democratize the economy so the economic power of a few obscenely wealthy people doesn't override that of the majority (the workers). The only purpose the government has under this economic model is to facilitate it. You can still start your own business. The only caveat is that you don't get to make billions of dollars just for owning the business, because a system like that is inherently rigged for the obscenely wealthy.</quote> You know what, I'm just going to drop out here because at least we're on a civil note. It's an agree to disagree. I don't have faith that on things of large scale, you can manage without some central governing body making the decisions, and you guys believe you can. I can see maybe a group of ten workers, but these large companies with thousands of employees doesn't seem feasible to me. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Solid Snake07 02/03/22 7:23:40 PM #174:	The fact that you think news articles, the first of which you posted opens with the caveat that its based on unconventional metrics, trumps pure reporting of facts and numbers says about all that needs to be said. it was pointed out to you halfway through your temper tantrum by another poster that you didnt even correctly understand the numbers I was telling you. Yet you think youre going to educate me about things in a field Ive spent almost my entire adult life studying and working in, lol, what a fucking joke --- "People incapable of guilt usually do have a good time" -Detective Rust Cohle <cite>Solid Snake07 posted [p:962343920] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>The fact that you think news articles, the first of which you posted opens with the caveat that its based on unconventional metrics, trumps pure reporting of facts and numbers says about all that needs to be said. it was pointed out to you halfway through your temper tantrum by another poster that you didnt even correctly understand the numbers I was telling you. Yet you think youre going to educate me about things in a field Ive spent almost my entire adult life studying and working in, lol, what a fucking joke </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WingsOfGood 02/03/22 7:24:29 PM #175:	Solid Snake07 posted... Yet you think youre going to educate me about things in a field Ive spent almost my entire adult life studying and working in, lol, what a f*ing joke lmao wtf is this <cite>WingsOfGood posted [p:962343941] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>Solid Snake07 posted... </cite> <quote>Yet you think youre going to educate me about things in a field Ive spent almost my entire adult life studying and working in, lol, what a f*ing joke</quote> lmao wtf is this </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
paerarru 02/03/22 7:25:41 PM #176:	Just reading the first couple pages of comments and: Nobody is taking anybody's PS5's We just don't think anybody should have a PS5 AND a yacht AND a lamborghini AND a million dollar mansion AND clothing worth thousands of dollars AND each one of your meals costs hundreds while other people barely have something to eat and a place to drop dead after years of breaking their backs so that you can have all those things. Does that sound... reasonable? Squall28 posted... The wealth is shared. We have much more now than we would have without it. I'm able to live in a nice house, eat good food, and have many things that wouldn't have been possible if it's just my solo labor. Do you think you are able to buy a hamburger for a dollar without it? Just because the wealthy benefits more doesn't mean you don't benefit at all. Nobody here is arguing against division of labor either. There is no argument that society should now go back to solo labor. On the contrary. Division of labor is fundamentally a SOCIALIST development in the history of humanity. Solo labor and tribalism are the opposite of socialism. But along with division of labor there should also be a fair system of distribution. Capitalism is not. Capitalism is like a parasite ideology, it takes all the good of socialism and only works thanks to socialist principles and values, but it doesn't help further the ends of socialism, instead creating the kind of social disasters we have nowadays, where you have a socialist system providing but you have a capitalist, solo, tribal system of distribution. --- Hottest K-Pop Girl Group http://challonge.com/96st4ysk <cite>paerarru posted [p:962343972] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>Just reading the first couple pages of comments and: Nobody is taking anybody's PS5's We just don't think anybody should have a PS5 AND a yacht AND a lamborghini AND a million dollar mansion AND clothing worth thousands of dollars AND each one of your meals costs hundreds while other people barely have something to eat and a place to drop dead after years of breaking their backs so that you can have all those things. Does that sound... reasonable? Squall28 posted... </cite> <quote>The wealth is shared. We have much more now than we would have without it. I'm able to live in a nice house, eat good food, and have many things that wouldn't have been possible if it's just my solo labor. Do you think you are able to buy a hamburger for a dollar without it? Just because the wealthy benefits more doesn't mean you don't benefit at all.</quote> Nobody here is arguing against division of labor either. There is no argument that society should now go back to solo labor. On the contrary. Division of labor is fundamentally a SOCIALIST development in the history of humanity. Solo labor and tribalism are the opposite of socialism. But along with division of labor there should also be a fair system of distribution. Capitalism is not. Capitalism is like a parasite ideology, it takes all the good of socialism and only works thanks to socialist principles and values, but it doesn't help further the ends of socialism, instead creating the kind of social disasters we have nowadays, where you have a socialist system providing but you have a capitalist, solo, tribal system of distribution. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Solid Snake07 02/03/22 7:26:08 PM #177:	WingsOfGood posted... lmao wtf is this me openly mocking and belittling this clown ass gimmick of yours --- "People incapable of guilt usually do have a good time" -Detective Rust Cohle <cite>Solid Snake07 posted [p:962343988] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>WingsOfGood posted... </cite> <quote>lmao wtf is this</quote> me openly mocking and belittling this clown ass gimmick of yours </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WingsOfGood 02/03/22 7:27:05 PM #178:	Solid Snake07 posted... me openly mocking and belittling this clown ass gimmick of yours you claiming to work in tax and know better than all the reporting because your argument went south quickly is quite sad ;iterally like saying daddy works at nintendo <cite>WingsOfGood posted [p:962344013] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>Solid Snake07 posted... </cite> <quote>me openly mocking and belittling this clown ass gimmick of yours</quote> you claiming to work in tax and know better than all the reporting because your argument went south quickly is quite sad ;iterally like saying daddy works at nintendo </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Solid Snake07 02/03/22 7:29:20 PM #179:	WingsOfGood posted... you claiming to work in tax and know better than all the reporting because your argument went south quickly is quite sad my argument never went south. Nothing you quoted out of any of those articles contradicted what I said. something you would know if you had any resemblance of an idea of what youre talking about. --- "People incapable of guilt usually do have a good time" -Detective Rust Cohle <cite>Solid Snake07 posted [p:962344068] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>WingsOfGood posted... </cite> <quote>you claiming to work in tax and know better than all the reporting because your argument went south quickly is quite sad</quote> my argument never went south. Nothing you quoted out of any of those articles contradicted what I said. something you would know if you had any resemblance of an idea of what youre talking about. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WingsOfGood 02/03/22 7:31:20 PM #180:	Solid Snake07 posted... my argument never went south. Nothing you quoted out of any of those articles contradicted what I said. something you would know if you had any resemblance of an idea of what youre talking about. It did. You wouldn't pull out "actually I WORK with taxes so I know them better than anyone!" if you had an actual argument to stand on. Meanwhile, article after article you did not address because you couldn't. Before the breaking point you tried to say that bad website wasn't Koch funded but I proved it was. What else you got? <cite>WingsOfGood posted [p:962344121] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>Solid Snake07 posted... </cite> <quote>my argument never went south. Nothing you quoted out of any of those articles contradicted what I said. something you would know if you had any resemblance of an idea of what youre talking about.</quote> It did. You wouldn't pull out "actually I WORK with taxes so I know them better than anyone!" if you had an actual argument to stand on. Meanwhile, article after article you did not address because you couldn't. Before the breaking point you tried to say that bad website wasn't Koch funded but I proved it was. What else you got? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WingsOfGood 02/03/22 7:32:32 PM #181:	Solid Snake07 posted... Nothing you quoted out of any of those articles contradicted what I said. So you agree then: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/income-tax-wealthy-bezos-buffett/ For instance, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos paid $1.4 billion in personal federal taxes between 2006 to 2018 on $6.5 billion he reported in income, while his wealth increased by $127 billion during that same period. By ProPublica's calculation, that reflects a true tax rate of 1.1%. <cite>WingsOfGood posted [p:962344145] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>Solid Snake07 posted... </cite> <quote>Nothing you quoted out of any of those articles contradicted what I said.</quote> So you agree then: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/income-tax-wealthy-bezos-buffett/ <quote>For instance, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos paid $1.4 billion in personal federal taxes between 2006 to 2018 on $6.5 billion he reported in income, while his wealth increased by $127 billion during that same period. By ProPublica's calculation, that reflects a true tax rate of 1.1%.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Solid Snake07 02/03/22 7:34:47 PM #182:	WingsOfGood posted... It did. You wouldn't pull out "actually I WORK with taxes so I know them better than anyone!" if you had an actual argument to stand on. Meanwhile, article after article you did not address because you couldn't. Before the breaking point you tried to say that bad website wasn't Koch funded but I proved it was. What else you got? by all means, show me your source that shows the lowest income earners pay most of the income taxes in this country. Ill be right here waiting --- "People incapable of guilt usually do have a good time" -Detective Rust Cohle <cite>Solid Snake07 posted [p:962344204] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>WingsOfGood posted... </cite> <quote>It did. You wouldn't pull out "actually I WORK with taxes so I know them better than anyone!" if you had an actual argument to stand on. Meanwhile, article after article you did not address because you couldn't. Before the breaking point you tried to say that bad website wasn't Koch funded but I proved it was. What else you got?</quote> by all means, show me your source that shows the lowest income earners pay most of the income taxes in this country. Ill be right here waiting </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Solid Snake07 02/03/22 7:35:54 PM #183:	WingsOfGood posted... So you agree then: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/income-tax-wealthy-bezos-buffett/ do I seriously need to explain to you what income is? --- "People incapable of guilt usually do have a good time" -Detective Rust Cohle <cite>Solid Snake07 posted [p:962344225] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>WingsOfGood posted... </cite> <quote>So you agree then: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/income-tax-wealthy-bezos-buffett/</quote> do I seriously need to explain to you what income is? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WingsOfGood 02/03/22 7:43:18 PM #184:	Solid Snake07 posted... by all means, show me your source that shows the lowest income earners pay most of the income taxes in this country. Why would I show that? I said billionaires pay a rate so low it has been effectively called nothing which I did give an article supporting. So now you are trying to change the argument? You got buttmad when I said they didn't pay their taxes. I show article after article showing the rate is under 10%, and calculated as low as 1% for some. But hey, I will give you a source showing that everyone but the 1% DOES pay more tax than the 1%. https://itep.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2019/ https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/5/8/AAefUOAAC4m-.jpg https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/6/5/AAefUOAAC4nF.png Top 1% pays 1/3 of taxes. Everyone else pays 2/3 of the taxes. <cite>WingsOfGood posted [p:962344406] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>Solid Snake07 posted... </cite> <quote>by all means, show me your source that shows the lowest income earners pay most of the income taxes in this country.</quote> Why would I show that? I said billionaires pay a rate so low it has been effectively called nothing which I did give an article supporting. So now you are trying to change the argument? You got buttmad when I said they didn't pay their taxes. I show article after article showing the rate is under 10%, and calculated as low as 1% for some. But hey, I will give you a source showing that everyone but the 1% DOES pay more tax than the 1%. https://itep.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2019/ https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/5/8/AAefUOAAC4m-.jpg https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/6/5/AAefUOAAC4nF.png Top 1% pays 1/3 of taxes. Everyone else pays 2/3 of the taxes. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WingsOfGood 02/03/22 7:44:53 PM #185:	But again, that isn't an argument. The people making the most money should pay the most taxes. The PROBLEM is they are avoiding paying said tax which article after article proved. Here you go again since you have issues reading: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2021/09/23/new-omb-cea-report-billionaires-pay-an-average-federal-individual-income-tax-rate-of-just-8-2/ New OMB-CEA Report: Billionaires Pay an Average Federal Individual Income Tax Rate of Just 8.2% Today, were releasing a new analysis that draws on a range of publicly available data to shed light on this question. The analysis from OMB and CEA economists estimates that the wealthiest 400 billionaire families in America paid an average of just 8.2 percent of their incomeincluding income from their wealth that goes largely untaxedin Federal individual income taxes between 2010 and 2018. Thats a lower rate than many ordinary Americans pay. <cite>WingsOfGood posted [p:962344442] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>But again, that isn't an argument. The people making the most money should pay the most taxes. The PROBLEM is they are avoiding paying said tax which article after article proved. Here you go again since you have issues reading: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2021/09/23/new-omb-cea-report-billionaires-pay-an-average-federal-individual-income-tax-rate-of-just-8-2/ <quote>New OMB-CEA Report: Billionaires Pay an Average Federal Individual Income Tax Rate of Just 8.2% Today, were releasing a new analysis that draws on a range of publicly available data to shed light on this question. The analysis from OMB and CEA economists estimates that the wealthiest 400 billionaire families in America paid an average of just 8.2 percent of their incomeincluding income from their wealth that goes largely untaxedin Federal individual income taxes between 2010 and 2018. </quote> <quote>Thats a lower rate than many ordinary Americans pay.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Solid Snake07 02/03/22 7:52:59 PM #186:	WingsOfGood posted... You got buttmad when I said they didn't pay their taxes. Since you've apparently got such a hard on for Jeff Bezos, show me one single realization of stock he's ever sold that he paid a single digit percentage of in taxes. --- "People incapable of guilt usually do have a good time" -Detective Rust Cohle <cite>Solid Snake07 posted [p:962344641] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>WingsOfGood posted... </cite> <quote>You got buttmad when I said they didn't pay their taxes.</quote> Since you've apparently got such a hard on for Jeff Bezos, show me one single realization of stock he's ever sold that he paid a single digit percentage of in taxes. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Solid Snake07 02/03/22 7:56:37 PM #187:	WingsOfGood posted... The PROBLEM is they are avoiding paying said tax which article after article proved. They aren't avoiding paying taxes, they're putting off paying taxes because interest rates on bank loans is way lower than the average stock market return. That doesn't mean they never have to sell stock of take out a salary to pay back those loans. --- "People incapable of guilt usually do have a good time" -Detective Rust Cohle <cite>Solid Snake07 posted [p:962344732] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>WingsOfGood posted... </cite> <quote>The PROBLEM is they are avoiding paying said tax which article after article proved.</quote> They aren't avoiding paying taxes, they're putting off paying taxes because interest rates on bank loans is way lower than the average stock market return. That doesn't mean they never have to sell stock of take out a salary to pay back those loans. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WingsOfGood 02/03/22 7:57:11 PM #188:	Solid Snake07 posted... Since you've apparently got such a hard on for Jeff Bezos, show me one single realization of stock he's ever sold that he paid a single digit percentage of in taxes. Do you believe whitehouse is lying about the 8% tax rate? Fyi, capital gains tax is higher than that. <cite>WingsOfGood posted [p:962344749] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>Solid Snake07 posted... </cite> <quote>Since you've apparently got such a hard on for Jeff Bezos, show me one single realization of stock he's ever sold that he paid a single digit percentage of in taxes.</quote> Do you believe whitehouse is lying about the 8% tax rate? Fyi, capital gains tax is higher than that. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Solid Snake07 02/03/22 7:59:07 PM #189:	WingsOfGood posted... Do you believe whitehouse is lying about the 8% tax rate? Fyi, capital gains tax is higher than that. Answer the question you're trying to dodge and I'll answer yours. --- "People incapable of guilt usually do have a good time" -Detective Rust Cohle <cite>Solid Snake07 posted [p:962344795] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>WingsOfGood posted... </cite> <quote>Do you believe whitehouse is lying about the 8% tax rate? Fyi, capital gains tax is higher than that.</quote> Answer the question you're trying to dodge and I'll answer yours. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WingsOfGood 02/03/22 7:59:39 PM #190:	Now then, since you tried to distort the argument to this, let us examine this question: Why should the rich have to pay more taxes? WHY? https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/05/28/opinion/why-rich-should-pay-more/ Having the very rich pay a higher percentage in income taxes than the poor, working, and middle class isnt exactly a radical concept. Its what happens every year with federal taxes. And many states have graduated rates that rise as income increases. Massachusetts flat income tax which is baked into the state Constitution actually translates into lower-income residents paying more as a proportion of their income than the rich. The states wealth leaves us with one of the widest gaps between the rich and poor in the nation, the latter now coming out of the coronavirus pandemic in far worse shape than going in. Extra revenue could pay for improved public transportation, reduced state college tuition and fees, and extra support for struggling school systems, to name a few. The first millionaires tax effort, called the Fair Share Amendment, was struck from the ballot in 2018 because it stipulated unconstitutionally, as it turned out where the anticipated taxes would be directed. But the process to get it on the ballot in 2022 is in motion. Working families here in the Commonwealth are tapped out, with the high cost of housing, health care, transportation, child care, and other day-to-day expenses, said state Senator Jason Lewis at a virtual event about the Fair Share Amendment held in early May by supporters of the tax. Lewis is a cosponsor of the proposal in the Legislature. Advocates believe that if state lawmakers initiate the fair share constitutional amendment this time, it might circumvent the legal issue that struck down the earlier effort. Related: Closing racial wealth gap could grow the Massachusetts economy by $25b over five years, according to report Critics are already launching their attacks. Were told the extra taxes might scare away the rich. They could go to Florida, for example, which has no state income tax. But other states with similar millionaires taxes are doing just fine. An exodus of millionaires is an oversimplification; in reality, the decision to move involves other factors, such as family and community ties. Its why some millionaires in New Jersey, where the tax was approved recently, are staying put. And California, for one, is sporting a massive budget surplus. And were told we dont need the revenue, given the COVID-19 federal stimulus dollars raining down on us. That is, of course, short-term thinking. The extra $1 billion-plus that the millionaires tax would generate would continue long after the stimulus money has been spent. There is, of course, the long shadow of the Taxachusetts moniker and the idea that raising taxes is an immoral idea that would render the state uncompetitive for businesses. But the facts show that Massachusetts taxes on businesses fall in the middle range. Those who have been blessed with financial success at a level that most of us can only dream of ought to pay more for the common good so that many more people would have more opportunities. Its why a MassINC December poll found overwhelming support 72 percent for the Fair Share Amendment among voters. In a post-pandemic era when disparities between the fortunate and the less fortunate are widening, a surtax on the wealthy makes perfect sense. Also IRS targets the poor https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/how-race-plays-tax-policing/619570/ https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/irs-audits-poor-taxpayers-easier <cite>WingsOfGood posted [p:962344807] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>Now then, since you tried to distort the argument to this, let us examine this question: Why should the rich have to pay more taxes? WHY? https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/05/28/opinion/why-rich-should-pay-more/ <quote> Having the very rich pay a higher percentage in income taxes than the poor, working, and middle class isnt exactly a radical concept. Its what happens every year with federal taxes. And many states have graduated rates that rise as income increases. Massachusetts flat income tax which is baked into the state Constitution actually translates into lower-income residents paying more as a proportion of their income than the rich. The states wealth leaves us with one of the widest gaps between the rich and poor in the nation, the latter now coming out of the coronavirus pandemic in far worse shape than going in. Extra revenue could pay for improved public transportation, reduced state college tuition and fees, and extra support for struggling school systems, to name a few. The first millionaires tax effort, called the Fair Share Amendment, was struck from the ballot in 2018 because it stipulated unconstitutionally, as it turned out where the anticipated taxes would be directed. But the process to get it on the ballot in 2022 is in motion. Working families here in the Commonwealth are tapped out, with the high cost of housing, health care, transportation, child care, and other day-to-day expenses, said state Senator Jason Lewis at a virtual event about the Fair Share Amendment held in early May by supporters of the tax. Lewis is a cosponsor of the proposal in the Legislature. Advocates believe that if state lawmakers initiate the fair share constitutional amendment this time, it might circumvent the legal issue that struck down the earlier effort. Related: Closing racial wealth gap could grow the Massachusetts economy by $25b over five years, according to report Critics are already launching their attacks. Were told the extra taxes might scare away the rich. They could go to Florida, for example, which has no state income tax. But other states with similar millionaires taxes are doing just fine. An exodus of millionaires is an oversimplification; in reality, the decision to move involves other factors, such as family and community ties. Its why some millionaires in New Jersey, where the tax was approved recently, are staying put. And California, for one, is sporting a massive budget surplus. And were told we dont need the revenue, given the COVID-19 federal stimulus dollars raining down on us. That is, of course, short-term thinking. The extra $1 billion-plus that the millionaires tax would generate would continue long after the stimulus money has been spent. There is, of course, the long shadow of the Taxachusetts moniker and the idea that raising taxes is an immoral idea that would render the state uncompetitive for businesses. But the facts show that Massachusetts taxes on businesses fall in the middle range. Those who have been blessed with financial success at a level that most of us can only dream of ought to pay more for the common good so that many more people would have more opportunities. Its why a MassINC December poll found overwhelming support 72 percent for the Fair Share Amendment among voters. In a post-pandemic era when disparities between the fortunate and the less fortunate are widening, a surtax on the wealthy makes perfect sense.</quote> Also IRS targets the poor https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/how-race-plays-tax-policing/619570/ https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/irs-audits-poor-taxpayers-easier </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WingsOfGood 02/03/22 8:01:21 PM #191:	https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-raising-taxes-on-the-rich-isnt-so-crazy-2019-12-09 Why it would be good Imposing higher taxes on the rich would actually help the economy grow faster, Democrats say. Thats contrary to decades of Republican trickle-down orthodoxy that has made the total tax burden in the U.S. lower than just three other developed nations without delivering the economic jolt that was promised time and time again. Its not just Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders who favor taxing the rich, hitting roughly one of every 500 people. Even mocked-as-a-moderate Joe Biden proposes large tax increases on the rich if hes elected president. (Keep in mind that President Obama also wanted to tax the rich more, but he couldnt get Congress to go along, even though taxing the rich polls very well. Other Democrats may get the same result.) Many Americans feel that the system is rigged against them. Prices for necessities such as health care, day care, education and housing are rising faster than incomes. The economy would benefit directly from a more equal distribution of income because middle- and low-income families spend a greater portion of their incomes than the very rich do, so more money would recycle through the economy. The economy would also benefit if everyone could take advantage of the opportunities that are presently hoarded by the rich. How many great leaders, thinkers and inventors never got the chance? Social class, wealth and political power are inherited from our parents and grandparents to a shocking degree. Inequality of wealth creates other problems. The top 1% are socking away a greater share of the nations wealth; so much so that regular Americans are starved for the capital they need to buy homes, invest in schooling and start new businesses. The poorest half of Americans have only 2% of all wealth, half as much as their parents had 25 years ago. Meanwhile, the share owned by the top 1% of families has soared to 32%. The federal government which might invest more to fight climate change, to build infrastructure and to restructure health care, day care and education to make them more affordable is also starved for resources. Whats wrong with wealth taxes? There are many objections to taxes that target the rich. Read this comprehensive debunking by law professors Lily Batchelder and David Kamin. Most fundamentally, some people say, taxes on wealth would destroy capitalism, or at least slow the growth rate. A wealth tax would reduce incentives for entrepreneurs and thus kill innovation and technological progress, they argue. It would punish success. Higher taxes would be unfair, they say. Well always have poor people, so why buck human nature? Furthermore, some critics say imposing a wealth tax would be futile, because the rich have the means to escape any tax, by moving their assets abroad, hiding them, or employing innovative lawyers, accountants and lobbyists to create and take advantage of loopholes. Lets examine each of these issues. Would a wealth tax destroy capitalism? No. Capitalism been quite successful under many tax regimes. Wealth inequality was much lower in the U.S. in the 1950s and 1960s when the rich were taxed heavier, yet capitalism prospered even as workers received a greater share of a growing pie. Extreme wealth seems to flourish when competition breaks down. Rent-seeking behavior leads to an inefficient economy. While the rich are buying art, purchasing fifth and sixth mansions, forcing corporations to hand over more of their profits and keeping the equivalent of the annual federal budget under their mattresses, many needs are unmet. It brings to mind Abraham Lincolns exasperation at his idle general: If General McClellan isnt going to use his army, Id like to borrow it for a time. Perhaps we the people could employ some of that spare cash thats lying around, because the rich certainly wont miss it. Would it destroy innovation and the drive to excel? Money is a great motivator, but not the only one. Most successful people want more than money: They want to be the best, they want to build something, they want to solve a problem, they want to be their own boss, they want to be famous. They want to achieve, and money is only one way of keeping score. A wealth tax wouldnt reduce any of those other motivations; in fact, it might encourage the notoriously slothful offspring of millionaires to attempt to do something with their lives. Would a wealth tax punish success? Youd rather tax failure? Good luck! More seriously, taxes are not punishment, but the cost of living in a civil society. Would they offend the natural order? Theres nothing natural about concentrated wealth. The economic system was made by humans, not by God, nature or an invisible hand. Money and political power shape the structure of the economy, determining which property rights are respected and which are trampled. Are taxes on the rich unfair? The poor are constantly being reminded that life isnt supposed to be fair. Get over it. Would a tax on wealth be double taxation? Once as income and later as wealth? Double taxation is common enough already. Im taxed three times on my income (federal and state income taxes plus FICA for Social Security), and then again on my purchases, and once more on my property, so this argument is a red herring. Furthermore, much of the wealth of the extremely rich is never taxed, not even once. The wealthy delay realizing their capital gains to avoid paying a tax, and then pass on their property to charity or their heirs, all without ever seeing the tax collector. Wouldnt the wealthy be able to lobby Congress to write lots of loopholes into a wealth tax so it would be easy to evade paying? Bingo! Of course they could, which proves the wisdom of taxing large fortunes. Billionaires and multi-millionaires have scads of political power and can often bend the law to their desires, which is hardly democratic. Money begets power, which is a good enough reason to put some limits on how much any one person or family can acquire. As Batchelder and Kamin point out, passing an iron-clad wealth tax might not be any more daunting politically than passing more modest reforms, such as bulking up enforcement efforts and repealing the 2017 tax bill. A wealth tax would be a clean slate, and a simple bill might be more immune to the pleading of special interests. <cite>WingsOfGood posted [p:962344847] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-raising-taxes-on-the-rich-isnt-so-crazy-2019-12-09 <quote>Why it would be good Imposing higher taxes on the rich would actually help the economy grow faster, Democrats say. Thats contrary to decades of Republican trickle-down orthodoxy that has made the total tax burden in the U.S. lower than just three other developed nations without delivering the economic jolt that was promised time and time again. Its not just Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders who favor taxing the rich, hitting roughly one of every 500 people. Even mocked-as-a-moderate Joe Biden proposes large tax increases on the rich if hes elected president. (Keep in mind that President Obama also wanted to tax the rich more, but he couldnt get Congress to go along, even though taxing the rich polls very well. Other Democrats may get the same result.) Many Americans feel that the system is rigged against them. Prices for necessities such as health care, day care, education and housing are rising faster than incomes. The economy would benefit directly from a more equal distribution of income because middle- and low-income families spend a greater portion of their incomes than the very rich do, so more money would recycle through the economy. The economy would also benefit if everyone could take advantage of the opportunities that are presently hoarded by the rich. How many great leaders, thinkers and inventors never got the chance? Social class, wealth and political power are inherited from our parents and grandparents to a shocking degree. Inequality of wealth creates other problems. The top 1% are socking away a greater share of the nations wealth; so much so that regular Americans are starved for the capital they need to buy homes, invest in schooling and start new businesses. The poorest half of Americans have only 2% of all wealth, half as much as their parents had 25 years ago. Meanwhile, the share owned by the top 1% of families has soared to 32%. The federal government which might invest more to fight climate change, to build infrastructure and to restructure health care, day care and education to make them more affordable is also starved for resources. Whats wrong with wealth taxes? There are many objections to taxes that target the rich. Read this comprehensive debunking by law professors Lily Batchelder and David Kamin. Most fundamentally, some people say, taxes on wealth would destroy capitalism, or at least slow the growth rate. A wealth tax would reduce incentives for entrepreneurs and thus kill innovation and technological progress, they argue. It would punish success. Higher taxes would be unfair, they say. Well always have poor people, so why buck human nature? Furthermore, some critics say imposing a wealth tax would be futile, because the rich have the means to escape any tax, by moving their assets abroad, hiding them, or employing innovative lawyers, accountants and lobbyists to create and take advantage of loopholes. Lets examine each of these issues. Would a wealth tax destroy capitalism? No. Capitalism been quite successful under many tax regimes. Wealth inequality was much lower in the U.S. in the 1950s and 1960s when the rich were taxed heavier, yet capitalism prospered even as workers received a greater share of a growing pie. Extreme wealth seems to flourish when competition breaks down. Rent-seeking behavior leads to an inefficient economy. While the rich are buying art, purchasing fifth and sixth mansions, forcing corporations to hand over more of their profits and keeping the equivalent of the annual federal budget under their mattresses, many needs are unmet. It brings to mind Abraham Lincolns exasperation at his idle general: If General McClellan isnt going to use his army, Id like to borrow it for a time. Perhaps we the people could employ some of that spare cash thats lying around, because the rich certainly wont miss it. Would it destroy innovation and the drive to excel? Money is a great motivator, but not the only one. Most successful people want more than money: They want to be the best, they want to build something, they want to solve a problem, they want to be their own boss, they want to be famous. They want to achieve, and money is only one way of keeping score. A wealth tax wouldnt reduce any of those other motivations; in fact, it might encourage the notoriously slothful offspring of millionaires to attempt to do something with their lives. Would a wealth tax punish success? Youd rather tax failure? Good luck! More seriously, taxes are not punishment, but the cost of living in a civil society. Would they offend the natural order? Theres nothing natural about concentrated wealth. The economic system was made by humans, not by God, nature or an invisible hand. Money and political power shape the structure of the economy, determining which property rights are respected and which are trampled. Are taxes on the rich unfair? The poor are constantly being reminded that life isnt supposed to be fair. Get over it. Would a tax on wealth be double taxation? Once as income and later as wealth? Double taxation is common enough already. Im taxed three times on my income (federal and state income taxes plus FICA for Social Security), and then again on my purchases, and once more on my property, so this argument is a red herring. Furthermore, much of the wealth of the extremely rich is never taxed, not even once. The wealthy delay realizing their capital gains to avoid paying a tax, and then pass on their property to charity or their heirs, all without ever seeing the tax collector. Wouldnt the wealthy be able to lobby Congress to write lots of loopholes into a wealth tax so it would be easy to evade paying? Bingo! Of course they could, which proves the wisdom of taxing large fortunes. Billionaires and multi-millionaires have scads of political power and can often bend the law to their desires, which is hardly democratic. Money begets power, which is a good enough reason to put some limits on how much any one person or family can acquire. As Batchelder and Kamin point out, passing an iron-clad wealth tax might not be any more daunting politically than passing more modest reforms, such as bulking up enforcement efforts and repealing the 2017 tax bill. A wealth tax would be a clean slate, and a simple bill might be more immune to the pleading of special interests.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WingsOfGood 02/03/22 8:06:40 PM #192:	Solid Snake07 posted... Answer the question you're trying to dodge and I'll answer yours. I answered it long ago, all you had to do was read, and I am not even talking in this thread, I have given you this information before. You choose to remain, ignorant of this critical information that is out there. https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and now the worlds richest man, did not pay a penny in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again in 2011. In 2018, Taken together, it demolishes the cornerstone myth of the American tax system: that everyone pays their fair share and the richest Americans pay the most. The IRS records show that the wealthiest can perfectly legally pay income taxes that are only a tiny fraction of the hundreds of millions, if not billions, their fortunes grow each year. https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/7/8/AAefUOAAC4nS.jpg In 2011, a year in which his wealth held roughly steady at $18 billion, Bezos filed a tax return reporting he lost money his income that year was more than offset by investment losses. Whats more, because, according to the tax law, he made so little, he even claimed and received a $4,000 tax credit for his children. His tax avoidance is even more striking if you examine 2006 to 2018, a period for which ProPublica has complete data. Bezos wealth increased by $127 billion, according to Forbes, but he reported a total of $6.5 billion in income. The $1.4 billion he paid in personal federal taxes is a massive number yet it amounts to a 1.1% true tax rate on the rise in his fortune. tl;dr even when he sold stock his taxation rate was 1.1% <cite>WingsOfGood posted [p:962344974] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>Solid Snake07 posted... </cite> <quote>Answer the question you're trying to dodge and I'll answer yours.</quote> I answered it long ago, all you had to do was read, and I am not even talking in this thread, I have given you this information before. You choose to remain, ignorant of this critical information that is out there. https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax <quote> In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and now the worlds richest man, did not pay a penny in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again in 2011. In 2018, Taken together, it demolishes the cornerstone myth of the American tax system: that everyone pays their fair share and the richest Americans pay the most. The IRS records show that the wealthiest can perfectly legally pay income taxes that are only a tiny fraction of the hundreds of millions, if not billions, their fortunes grow each year.</quote> https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/7/8/AAefUOAAC4nS.jpg <quote>In 2011, a year in which his wealth held roughly steady at $18 billion, Bezos filed a tax return reporting he lost money his income that year was more than offset by investment losses. Whats more, because, according to the tax law, he made so little, he even claimed and received a $4,000 tax credit for his children. His tax avoidance is even more striking if you examine 2006 to 2018, a period for which ProPublica has complete data. Bezos wealth increased by $127 billion, according to Forbes, but he reported a total of $6.5 billion in income. The $1.4 billion he paid in personal federal taxes is a massive number yet it amounts to a 1.1% true tax rate on the rise in his fortune.</quote> tl;dr even when he sold stock his taxation rate was 1.1% <quote> </quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Solid Snake07 02/03/22 8:20:09 PM #193:	WingsOfGood posted... I answered it long ago, all you had to do was read, and I am not even talking in this thread, I have given you this information before. You choose to remain, ignorant of this critical information that is out there. https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/7/8/AAefUOAAC4nS.jpg tl;dr even when he sold stock his taxation rate was 1.1% the percentage of taxes he paid on one trade to his entire net worth is not tax rate he paid on that trade. I asked you to show me one stock trade hes ever made that he paid a single digit tax rate on that trade. --- "People incapable of guilt usually do have a good time" -Detective Rust Cohle <cite>Solid Snake07 posted [p:962345321] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>WingsOfGood posted... </cite> <quote>I answered it long ago, all you had to do was read, and I am not even talking in this thread, I have given you this information before. You choose to remain, ignorant of this critical information that is out there. https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/7/8/AAefUOAAC4nS.jpg tl;dr even when he sold stock his taxation rate was 1.1%</quote> the percentage of taxes he paid on one trade to his entire net worth is not tax rate he paid on that trade. I asked you to show me one stock trade hes ever made that he paid a single digit tax rate on that trade. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WingsOfGood 02/03/22 8:31:00 PM #194:	Solid Snake07 posted... the percentage of taxes he paid on one trade to his entire net worth is not tax rate he paid on that trade. I asked you to show me one stock trade hes ever made that he paid a single digit tax rate on that trade. him paying the full rate on the stock sale is irrelevant to his increase of wealth that year which is also proved in the articles are not sitting behind stock as you might suggest alternatively, in a 10 year period, he only sold his stock once https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/9/0/AAefUOAAC4ne.jpg This makes his rate 1.1% as the article states while the average american pays around 20% to 30% tax rate though I won't die on those numbers, we know at least they are way more than 1.1% <cite>WingsOfGood posted [p:962345579] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>Solid Snake07 posted... </cite> <quote>the percentage of taxes he paid on one trade to his entire net worth is not tax rate he paid on that trade. I asked you to show me one stock trade hes ever made that he paid a single digit tax rate on that trade.</quote> him paying the full rate on the stock sale is irrelevant to his increase of wealth that year which is also proved in the articles are not sitting behind stock as you might suggest alternatively, in a 10 year period, he only sold his stock once https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/9/0/AAefUOAAC4ne.jpg This makes his rate 1.1% as the article states while the average american pays around 20% to 30% tax rate though I won't die on those numbers, we know at least they are way more than 1.1% </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Solid Snake07 02/03/22 8:33:23 PM #195:	WingsOfGood posted... him paying the full rate on the stock sale is irrelevant to his increase of wealth that year which is also proved in the articles are not sitting behind stock as you might suggest alternatively, in a 10 year period, he only sold his stock once https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/9/0/AAefUOAAC4ne.jpg This makes his rate 1.1% as the article states while the average american pays around 20% to 30% tax rate though I won't die on those numbers, we know at least they are way more than 1.1% no, it doesnt. You cant tax unrealized equity. What youre suggesting would crash the market and spiral the economy into a depression. --- "People incapable of guilt usually do have a good time" -Detective Rust Cohle <cite>Solid Snake07 posted [p:962345638] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>WingsOfGood posted... </cite> <quote>him paying the full rate on the stock sale is irrelevant to his increase of wealth that year which is also proved in the articles are not sitting behind stock as you might suggest alternatively, in a 10 year period, he only sold his stock once https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/9/0/AAefUOAAC4ne.jpg This makes his rate 1.1% as the article states while the average american pays around 20% to 30% tax rate though I won't die on those numbers, we know at least they are way more than 1.1%</quote> no, it doesnt. You cant tax unrealized equity. What youre suggesting would crash the market and spiral the economy into a depression. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WingsOfGood 02/03/22 8:40:45 PM #196:	Solid Snake07 posted... no, it doesnt. You cant tax unrealized equity. What youre suggesting would crash the market and spiral the economy into a depression. The stock market is not the economy. And your idea that they just pull out all their stocks makes 0 sense anyways. You are saying Bezos would rather tank amazon than to keep amazon giving him more wealth every year. Why would he do that? <cite>WingsOfGood posted [p:962345828] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>Solid Snake07 posted... </cite> <quote>no, it doesnt. You cant tax unrealized equity. What youre suggesting would crash the market and spiral the economy into a depression.</quote> The stock market is not the economy. And your idea that they just pull out all their stocks makes 0 sense anyways. You are saying Bezos would rather tank amazon than to keep amazon giving him more wealth every year. Why would he do that? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
foreverzero212 02/03/22 9:49:10 PM #197:	Snake exposing himself as never hearing of property taxes because he still lives with his parents. --- lions and panthers oh my <cite>foreverzero212 posted [p:962347557] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>Snake exposing himself as never hearing of property taxes because he still lives with his parents. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Solid Snake07 02/03/22 9:53:55 PM #198:	foreverzero212 posted... Snake exposing himself as never hearing of property taxes because he still lives with his parents. Thats rich coming from the basement dwelling asset redistribution camp of ideas --- "People incapable of guilt usually do have a good time" -Detective Rust Cohle <cite>Solid Snake07 posted [p:962347676] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>foreverzero212 posted... </cite> <quote>Snake exposing himself as never hearing of property taxes because he still lives with his parents.</quote> Thats rich coming from the basement dwelling asset redistribution camp of ideas </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
foreverzero212 02/03/22 10:07:45 PM #199:	Solid Snake07 posted... Thats rich coming from the basement dwelling asset redistribution camp of ideas You didn't know we already tax unrealized gains because it's on an asset you don't own. Props for not refuting this. You are for asset redistribution based on giving the fruit of millions of worker's labor to like 6 guys who don't work. If you work a real job you'll realize how much a lazy fat cat is leeching off the top and not even paying their fair share of taxes on what you generated for them. And how cucked it is to defend him for it. --- lions and panthers oh my <cite>foreverzero212 posted [p:962348038] in Economics ... [t:79880490]...</cite> <quote>Solid Snake07 posted... </cite> <quote>Thats rich coming from the basement dwelling asset redistribution camp of ideas</quote>You didn't know we already tax unrealized gains because it's on an asset you don't own. Props for not refuting this. You are for asset redistribution based on giving the fruit of millions of worker's labor to like 6 guys who don't work. If you work a real job you'll realize how much a lazy fat cat is leeching off the top and not even paying their fair share of taxes on what you generated for them. And how cucked it is to defend him for it. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4

Current Events > Economics professor explains how capitalism works and why it is theft (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Economics professor explains how capitalism works and why it is theft