Jump to content

One principle that stands above all others: personal accountability


Recommended Posts

On 3/28/2024 at 4:21 PM, mspart said:

Not really.   The Ds won before that but it is easier for the Ds to all of the sudden find ballots that they didn't know about.   That has happened just about every election since.  

Personally I like going to the precinct to vote.   But ont he other hand, we have a state and county sponsored voters guide that presents all the candidates and isues being voted on.   I used to just get the guide and had to figure how which applied to me.   Now I have a ballot and can cut that time in 1/3.   So that is good.   But I think voting in person is much better and safer and more secure.   We do have to sign and those are checked.   Unlike in PA. 

mspart

Our old state started mail in during Covid, sent us an extra two applications for two of our kids who were registered in other states and hadn't lived there for 4+ years, would've been easy to fill out.  

Our new state mailed our first ballots direct to our house (no extras).  Given first time i looked it over but voted in person, no line.  Wife mailed in.  But what if spouse unexpected travel and said ok to fill out and mail in?  What if 18 year old's first time would it be ok to help fill out mail in and give advice on who to vote for?  What if you have 5 roommates who don't care about elections and are ok if you fill em all out and mail in?  

 

 

  • Bob 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/28/2024 at 2:20 PM, Bigbrog said:

First bold: How would someone take RV's post as other then for some reason they dislike rich people when all they do is regurgitate the negative troupes about them.

Second bold:  Because they run the company and take on all the risk.  If you want to make more money as a worker, work harder for a better position, change careers if needed, get more education, do something for yourself.  Some act as if every single CEO/Executive do absolutely nothing or have done nothing to get to where they are.  Even if someone was just "given" an executive position they would still have to know how to do it otherwise they would get booted by the board.  Are there bad apples and terrible CEO's/Executives....of course!  But to just blanketly bash these people because they make a lot of money is ridiculous.  And this crazy believe that they "hoard their money" and don't give enough away to help others is asinine.  What are they supposed to do spend/give as much of their money away that they have to live month to month?

I would respect people like you and RV if you just blatantly said what you truly feel, ie., 100% distribution of wealth no matter what someone brings to the table.

First bold retort: That's not a good enough reason. It never was. Your painting a target around a randomly shot arrow and calling it a bullseye. It isn't. Try again. But since you didn't the first time I would hardly expect you to this time. 

Second: What risk does a CEO take on running a company these days? So we're clear, not a start up. An established company with products and market share. That's been around for decades. Seems like your example is much like other's data or anecdotes. Cherry picked to fit your opinion. Many get paid huge sums to keep profits humming, stock price rising, cost and tax liability low. The only risk is a golden parachute if they can't accomplish those things to enough of an extent the board would like. Explain to me the risk? Again, not a start up. 

Also, can you give me an example of someone trying to start a legitimate company, it fail and they wind up homeless as a direct result? 

Final comment on your final comment. Again, you have an opinion of my opinion that you have no justification for. You won't let it go because you've convinced yourself of it and need it to be true for some reason. Have you thought about that? Why do you need me or us to say a thing? So you can pat yourself on the back for knowing in your heart of hearts the truth that no one else saw? If you're wrong, and you are, what will you do? Admit it? Change your approach to issues or conversations? I hope so. I doubt your reading this anymore, so, Frankenstein, but I hope you understand how toxic your approach is, for you, and those that read your words. You give permission for others to act and believe in similar ways. To come to an unjustified conclusion in order to feel good about something rather than seek a complete understanding of the situation that might be uncomfortable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/28/2024 at 2:41 PM, JimmyBT said:

Try reading. The amounts in my comment. Need fewer words and more pictures or what?

So you answered the one question that you could and ignored the ones you couldn't or didn't want to answer. 

That's telling. 

Can you back up any of your examples, that includes the amount? 

Oh, and $80b+ is stolen, annually, from tithed money to churches around the world. Does this count in your total. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

First bold retort: That's not a good enough reason. It never was. Your painting a target around a randomly shot arrow and calling it a bullseye. It isn't. Try again. But since you didn't the first time I would hardly expect you to this time. 

Second: What risk does a CEO take on running a company these days? So we're clear, not a start up. An established company with products and market share. That's been around for decades. Seems like your example is much like other's data or anecdotes. Cherry picked to fit your opinion. Many get paid huge sums to keep profits humming, stock price rising, cost and tax liability low. The only risk is a golden parachute if they can't accomplish those things to enough of an extent the board would like. Explain to me the risk? Again, not a start up. 

Also, can you give me an example of someone trying to start a legitimate company, it fail and they wind up homeless as a direct result? 

Final comment on your final comment. Again, you have an opinion of my opinion that you have no justification for. You won't let it go because you've convinced yourself of it and need it to be true for some reason. Have you thought about that? Why do you need me or us to say a thing? So you can pat yourself on the back for knowing in your heart of hearts the truth that no one else saw? If you're wrong, and you are, what will you do? Admit it? Change your approach to issues or conversations? I hope so. I doubt your reading this anymore, so, Frankenstein, but I hope you understand how toxic your approach is, for you, and those that read your words. You give permission for others to act and believe in similar ways. To come to an unjustified conclusion in order to feel good about something rather than seek a complete understanding of the situation that might be uncomfortable.  

Wow do you like to babble and never address anything other than semantics...you are attacking the idea that CEO's have risk versus the overall topic that was being discussed....so again, why do you hate big corporations and their CEO's and executives??  Why do you think they hoard their money? What do you have against big profits and a successful company that employs thousands and thousands of people??  Do you not want people to have jobs?  Do you want everyone to be paid exactly the same no matter what they contribute? 

Maybe there could be a back and forth and exchange of ideas and opinions if you just for once actually address the topic at hand versus the semantics/psycho babble you spew and blame others for doing the very thing you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/28/2024 at 11:21 AM, Bigbrog said:

Despite surprisingly not disagreeing with the majority, not all, of what you suggest, I am curious @ThreePointTakedown why do you think the estate tax should increase?

Because I believe the people that say, as current tax policy, it will do better for the growing wealth gap if the estate tax increased. If other loop holes and policies change, then my opinion will likely change on the estate tax. Hording wealth for the sake of hording it, is unethical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/28/2024 at 3:22 PM, JimmyBT said:

Return to 1944-63 income tax rates. 
What are those rates?

Close tax loopholes. 
Which Loopholes are you talking about?

Fully fund the IRS
How much will that cost and what would the ROI be?

Break up monopolies.
Monoplies are illegal  which ones are you talking about?

Get money out of politics. 
What money in politics are you talking about?

Glass-Steagall. Make Banking Boring Again! 
what does making banking boring again even mean?

Increase estate tax. 
What is the estate tax now?  Raise it how much?  Why? 

Some of the richest people in the world pay little to no taxes on their wealth. That should change. 
who are the ones you refer to as some? What is little tax in your mind? Which ones pay no tax? Why should it change? 

A lot of these ideas comes from the fact that we cannot trust that they are holding themselves accountable. So someone has to. 
Who can’t we trust? Define accountable?  Who has to? 

Systematically decrease defense spending. 
How much? Why systematically? 

Increase education spending. Pre-K. Free school breakfast/lunch programs.

who should make it free?  The feds?  The state?  Arent there states that already do this?  

Details would be good huh? 

44-63 tax rate was 90% for the top tier. 

Loopholes: carried interest, all tax incentives for fossil fuels, increase social security tax ceiling to $(infinity symbol) of earned income, Medicare tax loophole for LLCs, capital gains tax, Stepped-Up loophole, Pass through business deduction, for starters

Lets start with the $80b, ' That is, a $1 increase in spending on the IRS’s enforcement activities results in $5 to $9 of increased revenues.' That's a great ROI. 

Apple, Amazon, and Google regularly pay fines based on anti-competitive practices. They engage in monopolizing practices, get caught, pay a fine, then begin working on other ways to deter competition, cycle continues. 

All of it. Make elections publicly funded. And rank-choice voting, while we're at it. 

Google the Glass-Steagall and report back. 

Google estate tax. 

Rich paying taxes, https://finance.yahoo.com/news/billionaires-jeff-bezos-elon-musk-164830206.html or https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax from IRS documents. And of course it should change because they get the roads and bridges for free and should help to pay the cost. 

Accountability: we can't trust people with power, influence, and/or authority. Transparency helps to keep people accountable. Businesses that put up firewalls to keep their dirty deeds from coming out, need to be better policed. Prevention rather then reaction. Who has to? Government. 

Defense spending: Because its the most palatable and offers glide path to industries that rely on the spigot of defense money to diversify. Its compassionate to an industry that thrives on having little to none of it to begin with. 

Education: Yes. Yes. And yes. But all should be free. 

I look forward to your response.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Wow do you like to babble and never address anything other than semantics...you are attacking the idea that CEO's have risk versus the overall topic that was being discussed....so again, why do you hate big corporations and their CEO's and executives??  Why do you think they hoard their money? What do you have against big profits and a successful company that employs thousands and thousands of people??  Do you not want people to have jobs?  Do you want everyone to be paid exactly the same no matter what they contribute? 

Maybe there could be a back and forth and exchange of ideas and opinions if you just for once actually address the topic at hand versus the semantics/psycho babble you spew and blame others for doing the very thing you do.

Did you even try to understand why I think your reasoning is flawed? Can you remedy that issue or no? 

If you can't, there isn't much reason to address your loaded questions. Because it seems as if you're only going to accept one answer and you've given no evidence to support it. 

I'm sorry if you feel attacked and feel the need to lash out. But your reasoning skills are flawed and you have not proven your point with evidence or facts. 

Edited by ThreePointTakedown
more to add
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Because I believe the people that say, as current tax policy, it will do better for the growing wealth gap if the estate tax increased. If other loop holes and policies change, then my opinion will likely change on the estate tax. Hording wealth for the sake of hording it, is unethical. 

After a certain threshold, the death tax should be considerably higher.  Under a certain (still high) threshold, zero tax should be taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

So you answered the one question that you could and ignored the ones you couldn't or didn't want to answer. 

That's telling. 

Can you back up any of your examples, that includes the amount? 

Oh, and $80b+ is stolen, annually, from tithed money to churches around the world. Does this count in your total. 

No. I had ALREADY answered a question that you said I didnt. 

  • Bob 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

44-63 tax rate was 90% for the top tier. 
That’s only one tax bracket where’s the rest of them??

Loopholes: carried interest, all tax incentives for fossil fuels, increase social security tax ceiling to $(infinity symbol) of earned income, Medicare tax loophole for LLCs, capital gains tax, Stepped-Up loophole, Pass through business deduction, for starters
How much is this worth?

Lets start with the $80b, ' That is, a $1 increase in spending on the IRS’s enforcement activities results in $5 to $9 of increased revenues.' That's a great ROI. 
Define Great ROI  by whose standards?  Yours?

Apple, Amazon, and Google regularly pay fines based on anti-competitive practices. They engage in monopolizing practices, get caught, pay a fine, then begin working on other ways to deter competition, cycle continues. 
So they’re NOT actual monopolies?  They just engage in monopolizing activities   Nothing to break up huh?

All of it. Make elections publicly funded. And rank-choice voting, while we're at it. 
What money is all of it?  How much is it?  Who’s spending it?  

Google the Glass-Steagall and report back. 
Why don’t you show me in Glass-Steagal where is says anything about boring banking   As you tell people on here the onus is on you  

Google estate tax. 
this didn’t answer my questions.  Again the onus is on you.

Rich paying taxes, https://finance.yahoo.com/news/billionaires-jeff-bezos-elon-musk-164830206.html or https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax from IRS documents. And of course it should change because they get the roads and bridges for free and should help to pay the cost. 
Again you avoided answering my questions   

Accountability: we can't trust people with power, influence, and/or authority. Transparency helps to keep people accountable. Businesses that put up firewalls to keep their dirty deeds from coming out, need to be better policed. Prevention rather then reaction. Who has to? Government. 
Who are those people with the power and influence?   Name them.   What businesses are you referring to with fire walls? Better policed by whom?  Prevention of what? 

Defense spending: Because its the most palatable and offers glide path to industries that rely on the spigot of defense money to diversify. Its compassionate to an industry that thrives on having little to none of it to begin with. 
you didn’t answer why systematically.  Diversify what? What industry and who’s not compassionate?

Education: Yes. Yes. And yes. But all should be free. 
But it’s NOT free.  Somebody is paying for it.   Nobody is forcing anyone to go to college so why should it be paid for by those that don’t go?   

I look forward to your response.  
 

I look forward to your response  hopefully this time you’ll answer all the questions  

 

  • Bob 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

So you answered the one question that you could and ignored the ones you couldn't or didn't want to answer. 

That's telling. 

Can you back up any of your examples, that includes the amount? 

Oh, and $80b+ is stolen, annually, from tithed money to churches around the world. Does this count in your total. 

Can you show any back up to prove that’s what’s happening in churches around the world.  Btw i wasn’t talking about the world.  Just the good ole USA 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2024 at 7:13 PM, JimmyBT said:

Can you show any back up to prove that’s what’s happening in churches around the world.  Btw i wasn’t talking about the world.  Just the good ole USA 

Since you didn't answer the question twice do you really think you have any leg to stand on asking me to answer a question? 

Because I know just reading that gets you all hot and bothered I'll answer your question. https://www.brotherhoodmutual.com/resources/safety-library/risk-management-articles/administrative-staff-and-finance/finances/fraudsters-target-churches/#:~:text=Church crime continues to grow,are not included in statistics.

Is my source. Considering churches are not required to show anyone how much they take in or spend or have stolen from them. There really is no way of knowing if the number is accurate. But...

https://www.augustachronicle.com/story/news/crime/2023/01/10/doj-church-committed-22-million-fraud-scheme-targeting-military/69794832007/ $22M is a lot. And probably not the only one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2024 at 6:01 PM, JimmyBT said:

44-63 tax rate was 90% for the top tier. 
That’s only one tax bracket where’s the rest of them??

Loopholes: carried interest, all tax incentives for fossil fuels, increase social security tax ceiling to $(infinity symbol) of earned income, Medicare tax loophole for LLCs, capital gains tax, Stepped-Up loophole, Pass through business deduction, for starters
How much is this worth?

Lets start with the $80b, ' That is, a $1 increase in spending on the IRS’s enforcement activities results in $5 to $9 of increased revenues.' That's a great ROI. 
Define Great ROI  by whose standards?  Yours?

Apple, Amazon, and Google regularly pay fines based on anti-competitive practices. They engage in monopolizing practices, get caught, pay a fine, then begin working on other ways to deter competition, cycle continues. 
So they’re NOT actual monopolies?  They just engage in monopolizing activities   Nothing to break up huh?

All of it. Make elections publicly funded. And rank-choice voting, while we're at it. 
What money is all of it?  How much is it?  Who’s spending it?  

Google the Glass-Steagall and report back. 
Why don’t you show me in Glass-Steagal where is says anything about boring banking   As you tell people on here the onus is on you  

Google estate tax. 
this didn’t answer my questions.  Again the onus is on you.

Rich paying taxes, https://finance.yahoo.com/news/billionaires-jeff-bezos-elon-musk-164830206.html or https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax from IRS documents. And of course it should change because they get the roads and bridges for free and should help to pay the cost. 
Again you avoided answering my questions   

Accountability: we can't trust people with power, influence, and/or authority. Transparency helps to keep people accountable. Businesses that put up firewalls to keep their dirty deeds from coming out, need to be better policed. Prevention rather then reaction. Who has to? Government. 
Who are those people with the power and influence?   Name them.   What businesses are you referring to with fire walls? Better policed by whom?  Prevention of what? 

Defense spending: Because its the most palatable and offers glide path to industries that rely on the spigot of defense money to diversify. Its compassionate to an industry that thrives on having little to none of it to begin with. 
you didn’t answer why systematically.  Diversify what? What industry and who’s not compassionate?

Education: Yes. Yes. And yes. But all should be free. 
But it’s NOT free.  Somebody is paying for it.   Nobody is forcing anyone to go to college so why should it be paid for by those that don’t go?   

I look forward to your response.  
 

I look forward to your response  hopefully this time you’ll answer all the questions  

44-63 tax rate was 90% for the top tier. 
That’s only one tax bracket where’s the rest of them??
Regular, 3%, that’s it. Would you be satisfied with this tax system?

Loopholes: carried interest, all tax incentives for fossil fuels, increase social security tax ceiling to $(infinity symbol) of earned income$1T, Medicare tax loophole for LLCs$200b, capital gains tax$123b, Stepped-Up loophole$1T, Pass through business deduction, for starters
How much is this worth?

Lets start with the $80b, ' That is, a $1 increase in spending on the IRS’s enforcement activities results in $5 to $9 of increased revenues.' That's a great ROI. 
Define Great ROI  by whose standards?  Yours? Would you say a 5:1 return on an investment is not good? My opinion is that it is. If you disagree please include your reasons?

Apple, Amazon, and Google regularly pay fines based on anti-competitive practices. They engage in monopolizing practices, get caught, pay a fine, then begin working on other ways to deter competition, cycle continues. 
So they’re NOT actual monopolies?  They just engage in monopolizing activities   Nothing to break up huh?
Checkmate

All of it. Make elections publicly funded. And rank-choice voting, while we're at it. 
What money is all of it?  How much is it?  Who’s spending it?
All donations. All PACs and Super PACs. Lobbying would get a boon but we can deal with that later. Thank you for the follow up questions. The investigating really taught me a lot.  

Google the Glass-Steagall and report back. 
Why don’t you show me in Glass-Steagal where is says anything about boring banking   As you tell people on here the onus is on you  
Do you really need to see those words in a bill to believe it? That tracks. I’m sorry you feel attacked by having to provide evidence for things. Your lashing out like a toddler is really telling of your temperament when someone disagrees with you. And you don’t have to keep repeating the ‘onus’ as if it’s a term you just learned. That’s what questions are for. Seeing as you are great/not that great at avoiding them. ‘Boring’ in my statement meant, less volatile to the vast majority of consumers that don’t or didn’t have enough money to participate in an investment bank. What the act did was separate commercial banks from investment banks. Again, watch the Newsroom. Olivia Munn gives a great breakdown, if you don’t like reading much.

Google estate tax. 
this didn’t answer my questions.  Again the onus is on you.
You have no interest in learning anything that isn’t spoon fed to you? Fair, fair. Since I know you’ll believe me if I do the work for you, here we go. Why: It will raise more money in tax to pay for programs that could benefit more than just rich people. You might ask about those programs. Since, it hasn’t happened yet. There isn’t much use in talking about them. If you want to have that conversation, please start another thread and I’ll be happy to give you my suggestions. The rate could stay the same. But its up to each state to determine the floor. There should be a federal floor that is lower than it currently is at $13.92m. I hope this helps.

Rich paying taxes, https://finance.yahoo.com/news/billionaires-jeff-bezos-elon-musk-164830206.html or https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax from IRS documents. And of course it should change because they get the roads and bridges for free and should help to pay the cost. 
Again you avoided answering my questions   
Your questions: who are the ones you refer to as someAnswered? What is little tax in your mindAnswered? Which ones pay no taxAnswered? Why should it change? Seems like that is pretty obvious but I’ll break it down. Those that make huge sums of money by utilizing roads, bridges, and other infrastructure pay little to nothing to maintain or expand those resources for others, is tantamount to stealing. And we don’t like stealing in this country. Should they be allowed to ‘steal’ when they have such huge sums of money/assets with which to help with the bills? I understand your need to foist your frustration on to someone you might see as the cause of it. But I assure you, your own lazy thinking is the cause of my questions and thus your frustration. I hope this helps you to improve your process. Because that is what we are all trying to do. Well, maybe not you considering your years. But we can try.

Accountability: we can't trust people with power, influence, and/or authority. Transparency helps to keep people accountable. Businesses that put up firewalls to keep their dirty deeds from coming out, need to be better policed. Prevention rather then reaction. Who has to? Government. 
Who are those people with the power and influence?   Name them.
Do you require the names and addresses of all the people for you to be satisfied?   What businesses are you referring to with fire walls? Same follow up question? Better policed by whom? Government. Federal/state/local all have incentive to keep crime rates down, don’t you agree?  Prevention of what? Prevention of harm. Harm to the environment, the economy(micro/macro), future business prospects.

Defense spending: Because its the most palatable and offers glide path to industries that rely on the spigot of defense money to diversify. Its compassionate to an industry that thrives on having little to none of it to begin with. 
you didn’t answer why systematically.  
Answer.Because its the most palatable and offers glide path to industries that rely on the spigot of defense money to diversify. Its compassionate to an industry that thrives on having little to none of it to begin with. 
Diversify what?
Their business. What they make or do to create profit. What industry defense contractors and who’s not compassionate? Lots of people and companies, but they don’t necessarily need to be because they don’t need to be. But I would hope that since the government has been responsible for the growth of the sector, it would be irresponsible if we just cut them off and let them twist. Even thought it might be satisfying to punish a group that I don’t happen to like. Its not in the greater good to do that to people. Maybe a lesson for the kids.

Education: Yes. Yes. And yes. But all should be free. 
But it’s NOT free.  Somebody is paying for it.   Nobody is forcing anyone to go to college so why should it be paid for by those that don’t go?   
I don’t grant the premise that non-college goers pay for it. But they do get benefits from those around them being more educated. Such as, less economic volatility. More people to pay for the products/services of small businesses that may have been started by non-college goers.

I look forward to your response.  
 

I look forward to your response  hopefully this time you’ll answer all the questions(do you hold yourself accountable to this statement?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Since you didn't answer the question twice do you really think you have any leg to stand on asking me to answer a question? 

Because I know just reading that gets you all hot and bothered I'll answer your question. https://www.brotherhoodmutual.com/resources/safety-library/risk-management-articles/administrative-staff-and-finance/finances/fraudsters-target-churches/#:~:text=Church crime continues to grow,are not included in statistics.

Is my source. Considering churches are not required to show anyone how much they take in or spend or have stolen from them. There really is no way of knowing if the number is accurate. But...

https://www.augustachronicle.com/story/news/crime/2023/01/10/doj-church-committed-22-million-fraud-scheme-targeting-military/69794832007/ $22M is a lot. And probably not the only one. 

So it’s like when you tell me I can’t use the argument that there is playing time and positions being taken away from girls/women by biological boys/men, that are trans.  There’s really no way to know the number buts it’s happening.  Got it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only tax system should be a flat tax system.  Fair for everyone as the more you make the more you pay.   If you’re income goes down so does the amount you’re taxed. 

Edited by JimmyBT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

Only tax system should be a flat tax system.  Fair for everyone as the more you make the more you’re taxed.  The less you make it goes down.  

Wrong. 100%. The poor have almost zero disposable income. 

It's not about how much u make. It should be about how much u have left after paying your basic expenses. That's why the poor shouldn't pay ANY taxes and the rich need to start paying their fair share. 

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, red viking said:

Wrong. 100%. The poor have almost zero disposable income. 

It's not about how much u make. It should be about how much u have left after paying your basic expenses. That's why the poor shouldn't pay ANY taxes and the rich need to start paying their fair share. 

 

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/

image.png.ec177288dcb6bad49841bb788f872812.png

https://www.bankrate.com/investing/income-wealth-top-1-percent/

The key figures here are not only the average wealth per household but also the share held by each, especially at the top. For example, the top 1 percent of households hold 30.6 percent of the total wealth, according to the Federal Reserve.

Ok, now that we have these details figured out, the top 1% have 30.6% of the wealth yet pay 45.8% of the income taxes collected.   What about that isn't paying their fair share?  I think you will find here that the top earners do pay their fair share and the bottom earners essentially pay nothing.   Just like you said RV.    Your wish has been granted. 

mspart

  • Bob 2
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, red viking said:

Wrong. 100%. The poor have almost zero disposable income. 

It's not about how much u make. It should be about how much u have left after paying your basic expenses. That's why the poor shouldn't pay ANY taxes and the rich need to start paying their fair share. 

Some would argue they pay more than their fair share already. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

Some would argue they pay more than their fair share already. 

As a hypothetical, if you were worth $100billion and paid less than 1% to taxes. Please defend that to someone making less than $11,000 and paying 10% income tax?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

As a hypothetical, if you were worth $100billion and paid less than 1% to taxes. Please defend that to someone making less than $11,000 and paying 10% income tax?

Ummmmmm genius. I said a flat tax is the way to go.  There’s nothing to defend as they’d both be paying the same rate.  Life is hard for you isn’t it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

Ummmmmm genius. I said a flat tax is the way to go.  There’s nothing to defend as they’d both be paying the same rate.  Life is hard for you isn’t it? 

Your comment doesn't factor in a flat tax but is a comment on the current tax system. My opinion is that they don't pay their fair share. If you think they do, currently. Please defend that position? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Your comment doesn't factor in a flat tax but is a comment on the current tax system. My opinion is that they don't pay their fair share. If you think they do, currently. Please defend that position? 

 

Not my fault you can’t or didn’t read my comment a bit above that one. Again, with a flat tax, which I strongly support your hypothetical doesn’t exist.  

Edited by JimmyBT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Latest Rankings

  • College Commitments

    Nick Sahakian

    St. John Bosco, California
    Class of 2025
    Committed to Michigan
    Projected Weight: 285

    Anthony Rinehart

    Crown Point, Indiana
    Class of 2025
    Committed to California Baptist
    Projected Weight: 165

    Luke Satriano

    Valley Central, New York
    Class of 2025
    Committed to West Virginia
    Projected Weight: 125, 133

    Evan Boblits

    St. Mary's Ryken, Maryland
    Class of 2025
    Committed to Navy
    Projected Weight: 149

    Gavin Jendreas

    Crown Point, Indiana
    Class of 2025
    Committed to Indiana
    Projected Weight: 125, 133
×
×
  • Create New...