The Government can’t give someone something without first taking it from someone else

[WrestlingRasta]

2 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

What does this even mean? 

Do you have any data on what that would or could do if implemented? 

https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/how-set-top-tax-rates-without-deterring-innovation

I'm not proposing anything be implemented, I'm smart enough to realize I'm not smart enough to argue the intricacies of the United States tax code, particularly in an audience so unbelievably astute in this (and next week's hot) topic.  My point being I'm less concerned about what the tax code says a particular income bracket should pay and more concerned that that amount actually.  For example I would be okay if everyone was at a flat 20%, as long as everyone actually paid 20%.  Or, I would be okay if it remained bracketed, and the really smart people figured out a fair and equitable bracket system ( I mean I think if we get to brackets where people are paying at or near half their earned money in income tax, I'm not down with that).......generally speaking I'm okay with that as long as everyone pays their determined equitable share.  

[JimmyBT]

3 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Well, first you don't explain the tax system. You tell a story that paints a picture of poor people being lazy and greedy and rich being entirely benevolent. Which isn't true. I didn't say I would explain the tax system. I'll admit, its pretty complex. I don't feel the need to explain things to a bigot who doesn't have the decency to be honest about things or if they don't know, which you don't, to just be quiet. 

Is the tax system fair? No. 

Will rich people(top 10%) feel a significant sting if their taxes are raised 10-15%, or even 25% on the highest tier of earnings? Not even a little. Prove me wrong! Do you know the tiers of income taxes? Cuz that's a thing. 

Will taxing capital gains higher, hurt anyone that can afford to make those investments? Nope. 

Do any of these situations effect the bottom 50% of people? Nope(or not to enough of extent to really make a difference)

Will the investments made by those tax dollars help the bottom 50%? Very likely. 

Does one party want to help the bottom 50%? Yes. 

Does one party want to give tax cuts to the top 10% and corporations(that have had record profits in the last decade)? Yes. 

Since we're on the subject, does one party want to try to treat immigrants with dignity and respect as much as possible in the hopes of sharing the wealth and the idea of this country? Yes. Do some see that as weakness? Yes. Are those people wrong? Yes. Will immigrants likely vote for those that try to help and against those that see them with fear? Yes. Does that give the fearful group a reason to try to deny them entry for whatever reason? Yes. Does that make them bigots? Yes. 

 

Everyone of your answers is an opinion.  You prove nothing.  

[JimmyBT]

3 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Lets come up with a definition of rich what do you think? Family income 2x that of local average. 

You’re the one that said you’re non rich.  I asked you to define non rich.  I’ll wait. 

[JimmyBT]

2 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

This is why people can't have a civil conversation with you...all of this is nothing but partisan dribble.  And by the way, who is a bigot??

This  

[JimmyBT]

3 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Did you get a response? You said you hadn't. So rather then asking questions to get some info you decided to shut down the conversation. Because we all know what you would've said if they said, "no" "Why not?" because that's how a toddler goes about making a point. Not to educate, inform, or make things better but to win and flex. Congrats. Did you change their mind? No. Are you still wrong? Yes. Did you avoid an opportunity to learn and grow by being a close minded bully? Oh Yeah! Just like you've done at every turn in these conversations? Yes. 

We do pay extra taxes. When we see someone struggling we help. I understand if you don't, would explain a lot. Be that with our time or our own resources. Giving a ride to the airport is that extra. So that is the answer to that question. We do. We all do. Does it all to the IRS? No. Does everyone get what they need? No. Is it possible to give everyone the most basics of what they need? Probably. Why is it so hard for you to believe that this is something we can and more importantly, SHOULD do? 

Do you have any proof that I don’t?  The last three hours while you were here dribbling your partisan liberal views I was actually at the local homeless shelter feeding people.  On my own time. By my own decision. You don’t know shi$ about fu$k there jr. 
 

PS: there are nine pretty regular volunteers at the homeless shelter. 8 of them are conservatives.  All you liberal schmucks do is talk about what should be done while doing nothing.  

Edited January 11 by JimmyBT

[JimmyBT]

3 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

 

Figure I'd just put these together to highlight your lack of question answering. 

You can't just say 'Every unlawful immigrant' and expect anyone to believe you. I know you believe that. That's fine. What is your evidence that this is the case? Do we have illegal immigrants? Yes. Where do they come from? Bet you only know one place(that's a trick to make you research and learn, if you get it wrong I'll know how interested you are in being informed)? 

I know you want to believe everything you say. I'm sure you have plenty invested in keeping your beliefs. Not being called out on an anonymous forum, for one. But what else is keeping you tied to these beliefs. Many of them are untrue or at best half true talking points from one party that is loosing power and influence and desperate to hold on to it. Their policies are getting more and more bigotted and theocratic to better reflect the shrinking members of the party. Their demographic is getting older and more conservative, mostly due to these tactics of stirring up fear in the 'other' be it color, creed, or geographic. They have you committed to being angry and fearful. Which makes it difficult to absorb info that might contradict those beliefs. Just like a religion. FYI, religion also tells their members to not ask questions or to only ask questions to a select few(who have a financial stake in the members continuing to believe the things they say). I wonder why that is? (cough cough, cult)

 

Says the antifa lover. Cough cough. 

[JimmyBT]

2 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Oh do tell!? I'm interested. 

I appreciate you stepping in to maintain the civility of the conversation but go pound sand if you don't have anything to add. 

 

Looks like he angered you with the truth. 

[JimmyBT]

2 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

 

You never asked. And I don't have to go into details of my life. That's none of your business. What you're thinking now, is that I'm lying. I can't change your mind. But ask yourself, why would I lie? What do I have to gain? You have been more than dishonest during these and other conversations to expect more. 

So if you wouldn't mind answering this so we can continue your game. 

Bullshit I never asked. I asked more than once. You chose to ignore it. 

[JimmyBT]

2 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

Dude's name is Billy.  He showed up for work at Jimmy's and tore it up.  Nobody has ever made whatchimacallits and gizmos like that.  Immediate raise for meritocracy.  Three days later Jimmy goes in early to open the shop.  It is burned to the ground and Billy is in cuffs.  Billy is screaming he has to kill the leprechauns.  Turns out the reason Billy is homeless has nothing to do with work ethic or attitude or even substance abuse.   He is schizophrenic.

And Jimmy is young and retired. No shop to worry about. 

[JimmyBT]

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

These are stories that the rich and corporations tell to keep government(and people who don't have the time or the inclination to learn the tax code) from expecting they pay more taxes. Because corporations have no motivation other then profit. The exceptions to the rule are vastly outnumbered by companies that cut corners and put lives and the environment in danger to cut costs and maximize profits. The rich people that are produced through this model work to protect their wealth. Just like you're doing by trying to protect your small piece of the pie. 

Their(some at the very tippy top) slice of the pie is so outrageously huge that they wouldn't miss a few crumbs on the side. They know, however, that if they let one crumb go without a fight that someone might come for the crust(that they still wouldn't really miss) and heaven forbid their pie shrinks to a level below where their 'lifestyle' would have to change(LIKE YOU ASK OF EVERY POOR PERSON ON FOODSTAMPS). 

History of corporate tax rate,above 50% at one point. 

history of income tax above 90% at the same time. 

Isn't this when we were great again? Why don't we want to go back to that? I sure do!

You scared of winning too much. I'm not. Wish we could win like that again. That should be the hat. Raise Income/Corporate Tax Again! That'll shut those people up. TPT'28! 

 More cnn dribble.  It’s all you have. 

[jross]

40 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

How are we defining 'religious right'? The people that call themselves that? Great. Who are they? What are their numbers? What's their contribution to charity/volunteering? How do we measure how much good it does? What's the metric(s)? Just over all hours? I don't think that's a good means, maybe a good start, but not an end all number to arrive at. 

Or the religious part? The church then? Which church/denomination? How much do they take in? Do we even know? NO. WE. DO. NOT! Because they do not have to tell us. Mormon church is sitting on $100b+ (BILLION) in investments. How did they get it? Should a church be allowed to hoard its wealth like that? Why or why not? $100B could do a whole lot of good that could convince people that their religion isn't the obvious con-man-created-cult that it is!

The honest answer is we don't know. Religious, one religion or another or no religion does more. We know that numbers(%) of religiously affiliated people are dropping. Its a lot safer to come out today as athiest, gay, trans, queer not having to fear being isolated or killed(often by religious people). So if you're right today, you might not be in 10 years. Then what? Once religions are not responsible for the most volunteering/charity can we take away their tax exempt status? So they play by the same rules as everyone else. 

There might be a line and we could probably be fine coming no where close to that line. But where we're at isn't it. And any company spokesperson saying that, is trying to keep their job. That should tell you a lot.

Many folks give to churches, and churches are charitable and recognized for their positive impact on communities and society.  Beyond governement taxes, folks give to church and other charities.

I'm not read up on the Mormon church but I am repulsed by the mega churches in my area.  Where the church fails to promote the general welfare beyond its 'sustainment' and 'mission/growth' funds and hoards excess donations, I fully support taxes and regulations.  Perhaps taxed in all situations if it gets too complex.  A church is not a person.

Utah is the top state for giving because of Mormons.  Those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution provide about a third of all charitable dollars given in the U.S. When it comes to bequests; the rich are even more important: the wealthiest, 1.4 percent of Americans are responsible for 86 percent of the charitable donations made at death.  https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/who-gives-most-to-charity/

There is a line for sure on tax impact.  I'm living it under a different influence on the bottom line.  Slowing growth, fear of recession, and higher interest rates contributed to my last two companies laying off more employees than existed in the town (pop. 2200) where I grew up.

[JimmyBT]

https://www.fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers-2023

[Bigbrog]

The attack on big corporations always cracks me up...for some everything they do is BAD!!  How dare they make money?  All they want to do is pollute the environment and work their people to death for pennies.  How dare they make the amount of money they make for....RUNNING A COMPANY!!  I have close relatives that bash big corp and their leadership salaries...I always ask, do you think you could do their job?  And of course their answer is "NO!"  I then ask, how much should they make.  Response, "I don't know, but not THAT much!".

Let's see...I'll say 99% of big corp give a billions and billions of $$ to charities, they give millions and millions of people good paying jobs, they DON'T pollute the environment, CEO's EARN their salary, etc.  As far as tax breaks go, why do states typically give them tax breaks??  Answer, so they come to their state and employ their residents....for....yep....TAX MONEY!!  Yet from a political perspective the narrative for one side is "BIG CORP = BAD!!"  SMH

Also, are there only "rich" people on one side of the political isle??  Why is this a political talking point for the "D's"??  I never understood it.

[JimmyBT]

11 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

The attack on big corporations always cracks me up...for some everything they do is BAD!!  How dare they make money?  All they want to do is pollute the environment and work their people to death for pennies.  How dare they make the amount of money they make for....RUNNING A COMPANY!!  I have close relatives that bash big corp and their leadership salaries...I always ask, do you think you could do their job?  And of course their answer is "NO!"  I then ask, how much should they make.  Response, "I don't know, but not THAT much!".

Let's see...I'll say 99% of big corp give a billions and billions of $$ to charities, they give millions and millions of people good paying jobs, they DON'T pollute the environment, CEO's EARN their salary, etc.  As far as tax breaks go, why do states typically give them tax breaks??  Answer, so they come to their state and employ their residents....for....yep....TAX MONEY!!  Yet from a political perspective the narrative for one side is "BIG CORP = BAD!!"  SMH

Also, are there only "rich" people on one side of the political isle??  Why is this a political talking point for the "D's"??  I never understood it.

Agreed. The decisions CEOs make today are for 10-15 years down the road to ensure viability. If you don’t have a quality person in that role chances a pretty that failure, layoffs, plant closings, bankruptcy are in your future.  The good ones are worth every penny. 

[jross]

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

I mean immigrants. People emigrating from one place and immigrating to another place. Not talking about legality right now. Lets leave that out and tackle one thing at a time. 

I reject the premise of your question. Please rephrase?

There is no conversation without legal distinction.  

The country benefits from taking in the best and brightest immigrants!

Aliens who become criminals by illegally coming into the country are not wanted.  We show dignity by giving them a free ride home rather than only punitive.

To grow the nation's prosperity and meet job needs, America should notably increase the H-1B nonimmigrant visa acceptance and hire nonimmigrant aliens as workers in specialty occupations or as fashion models of distinguished merit and ability.  They are the future immigrants we want here legally.

[jross]

6 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

Agreed. The decisions CEOs make today are for 10-15 years down the road to ensure viability. If you don’t have a quality person in that role chances a pretty that failure, layoffs, plant closings, bankruptcy are in your future.  The good ones are worth every penny. 

Yes.

I did the math on our CEO and his millions... dividing by thousands of employees.

Would I rather have a CEO who makes 100x my salary and brings in record revenues and job security... that may lead to a raise beyond inflation?  Or would I make $700 more annually now for a less-paid CEO who can't deliver the former? 

Easy choice.

[jross]

2 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

TPT'28! 

Good luck to you sir.  If elected, the mob will deliver a progressive end. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, jross said:

What is your definition of sting?

Top 10% of net worth, annual income, or something else?

Which taxes?  Property?  Income?  Payroll?  Sales?  Etc?  and based on annual income, net worth, unrealized investment gains?  

Struggle to makes ends meet in the slightest. The answer is no. And if they do, shouldn't they just be able to augment their lifestyle to spend less and save more, like you're suggesting others could do? Not saying they shouldn't enjoy the fruits of their labor but at some point a teacher, ideally, does a lot more good than their paycheck reflects. Some wealthy people cannot say that versus how much they are worth. Not that we need to have morality police as to how people make money but we should be less comfortable with screwing people over to make a buck, like some of us are(not saying anyone on this site, but it happens and more then it should)

All of those. Anyone that falls in either of those categories have more wealth then they could spend and would not hurt them at all to have a little less. 

Not sure anything but income tax applies. So go with that. Cap gains could be chipped away at too now that I think of it. 

 

[ThreePointTakedown]

43 minutes ago, jross said:

Yes.

I did the math on our CEO and his millions... dividing by thousands of employees.

Would I rather have a CEO who makes 100x my salary and brings in record revenues and job security... that may lead to a raise beyond inflation?  Or would I make $700 more annually now for a less-paid CEO who can't deliver the former? 

Easy choice.

So you act in the best interest of yourself on a shorter time line. Yes. And you will fight to protect it even if it is bad for the whole in the long run. 

We are short sighted people. That is why climate change is such a big issue. No one today will feel the effects of it so we feel no need to change for it. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

49 minutes ago, jross said:

There is no conversation without legal distinction.  

The country benefits from taking in the best and brightest immigrants!

Aliens who become criminals by illegally coming into the country are not wanted.  We show dignity by giving them a free ride home rather than only punitive.

To grow the nation's prosperity and meet job needs, America should notably increase the H-1B nonimmigrant visa acceptance and hire nonimmigrant aliens as workers in specialty occupations or as fashion models of distinguished merit and ability.  They are the future immigrants we want here legally.

I do not disagree about best and brightest. 

You're taking a bias tone when you insist on talking about it in terms of legal vs illegal. Why won't you just talk about an immigrant? 

I have a feeling I know why but I want to see your answer first. Please prove me wrong? ( I will not answer first btw so don't ask)

I will not trust your judgement as to what 'we' 'want' with regards to immigrants. Considering your hesitation to see them as anything but legal or illegal.  

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, JimmyBT said:

Agreed. The decisions CEOs make today are for 10-15 years down the road to ensure viability. If you don’t have a quality person in that role chances a pretty that failure, layoffs, plant closings, bankruptcy are in your future.  The good ones are worth every penny. 

what are your reasons to believe this is true? 

[Paul158]

1 hour ago, Bigbrog said:

The attack on big corporations always cracks me up...for some everything they do is BAD!!  How dare they make money?  All they want to do is pollute the environment and work their people to death for pennies.  How dare they make the amount of money they make for....RUNNING A COMPANY!!  I have close relatives that bash big corp and their leadership salaries...I always ask, do you think you could do their job?  And of course their answer is "NO!"  I then ask, how much should they make.  Response, "I don't know, but not THAT much!".

Let's see...I'll say 99% of big corp give a billions and billions of $$ to charities, they give millions and millions of people good paying jobs, they DON'T pollute the environment, CEO's EARN their salary, etc.  As far as tax breaks go, why do states typically give them tax breaks??  Answer, so they come to their state and employ their residents....for....yep....TAX MONEY!!  Yet from a political perspective the narrative for one side is "BIG CORP = BAD!!"  SMH

Also, are there only "rich" people on one side of the political isle??  Why is this a political talking point for the "D's"??  I never understood it.

The " D's " use tax the rich, pay their fair share because it plays well to their gullible base .  Then all the wealthy democrats, Congressman and Senators, run and find the best tax lawyers and tax accountants that money can buy. They spend a great deal of money trying to avoid paying taxes. So this is a load of bull----.   

[JimmyBT]

9 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

The " D's " use tax the rich, pay their fair share because it plays well to their gullible base .  Then all the wealthy democrats, Congressman and Senators, run and find the best tax lawyers and tax accountants that money can buy. They spend a great deal of money trying to avoid paying taxes. So this is a load of bull----.   

One of their most gullible base is on here

[Paul158]

Agreed.

[mspart]

11 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

I do not disagree about best and brightest. 

You're taking a bias tone when you insist on talking about it in terms of legal vs illegal. Why won't you just talk about an immigrant? 

I have a feeling I know why but I want to see your answer first. Please prove me wrong? ( I will not answer first btw so don't ask)

I will not trust your judgement as to what 'we' 'want' with regards to immigrants. Considering your hesitation to see them as anything but legal or illegal.  

To your point TPT, there are only two types of immigrants.   Legal and illegal.  So talking about them all as immigrants is disingenuous.   Legal immigrants ostensibly is planned for immigration that the country wants.   Illegal immigration ostensibly is not planned and not what the country wants.   Hence one is legal and the other is illegal.  

NY and Chicago, among others, are suffering the effects of unwanted (illegal) immigration and complaining about having to spend money supporting them.  That's another point about immigration - you usually have to show that you will not be sucking on the government's teat while here.   This happens more than not with illegal immigrants and that hurts everyone.    Right now in NY, students were kicked out of their school so the building could house illegal immigrants.  That is not the purpose for why the building was built.   That is not why the community spent the money to have it built.    But those students are now forced to do the on line learning that was such a disaster during covid.   https://news.yahoo.com/nyc-decision-move-migrants-tent-233732293.html

So now the illegal immigrants are more important than the students.   Is that the priority that we want?

Yes, illegal immigration is not good for the country as a whole.  

mspart