Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Trump tax break for the super-rich and big corporations and tax increase for the poor
#13
(11-18-2018, 11:46 PM)nolife Wrote:  @KaBob:
It's not possible to discuss with Ape, he's not able to understand arguments. I've tried before quite a few times. It's without doubt a waste of time.    
Aside that he's far left leaning, close to communism in his believes which makes it quite difficult as worlds clash with anyone who's not trying to "heal the world" by redistributing the income of " rich zionists" and "priviledged white colonialists" :>>>

*beliefs

lol

You literally have to use straw man arguments because you cannot handle the cognitive dissonance.

There are many people like you who simply make up what the other is saying/thinking/feeling because they cannot deal with real life.

Such a sensitive snowflake.

People who simply make shit up and pretend that is the position of their "opponent" in a debate instead of responding to what he/she actually said are retarded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Reply
#14
Trump did great action with decreasing the corporate fees, but it seems that the effect has gone. Too much debts , there should be a solution to stop this helix
Reply
#15
(01-08-2019, 12:53 PM)TheCode Wrote:  Trump did great action with decreasing the corporate fees, but it seems that the effect has gone. Too much debts , there should be a solution to stop this helix

no, he fucked the country even more than it already was

there is a solution, america could sell of large portions of itself to anyone willing to buy them.

offer to sell new york state to the chinese; they'll probably buy it if the price is right
Reply
#16
He is currently doing deficit spending, the rich should pay a fair share imo
Reply
#17
(01-11-2019, 06:49 PM)rivaldo Wrote:  He is currently doing deficit spending, the rich should pay a fair share imo

37% of all tax revenue being paid by only 1% of the taxpayers when they're only making 20% of the income isn't a "fair share?" https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest...18-update/
Reply
#18
(01-11-2019, 11:58 PM)rf6686rf Wrote:  
(01-11-2019, 06:49 PM)rivaldo Wrote:  He is currently doing deficit spending, the rich should pay a fair share imo

37% of all tax revenue being paid by only 1% of the taxpayers when they're only making 20% of the income isn't a "fair share?" https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest...18-update/

Ehm thats not a reliable source dude

its a so-called think tank that exists to promote the interests of big business. You know, propaganda.

it was founded by group of prominent businessmen and "generally critical of tax increases and high taxation". What a surprise. Rich people who don't want to pay taxes.

And the fact that you used the word "only" when talking about the fact that 1% of the people get 20% of the income is a bit bizarre.

does it seem reasonable to you that 1/100th of the people take 1/5th of the income?

Why are you defending them anyway, you are not in the 1% and you never will be.

You are listening to your enemies propaganda and repeating the talking points made up by their spin doctors

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-ta...-burdens-2
Reply
#19
(01-12-2019, 12:03 AM)BoringApe Wrote:  
(01-11-2019, 11:58 PM)rf6686rf Wrote:  
(01-11-2019, 06:49 PM)rivaldo Wrote:  He is currently doing deficit spending, the rich should pay a fair share imo

37% of all tax revenue being paid by only 1% of the taxpayers when they're only making 20% of the income isn't a "fair share?" https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest...18-update/

Ehm thats not a reliable source dude

its a so-called think tank that exists to promote the interests of big business. You know, propaganda.

it was founded by group of prominent businessmen and "generally critical of tax increases and high taxation". What a surprise. Rich people who don't want to pay taxes.

And the fact that you used the word "only" when talking about the fact that 1% of the people get 20% of the income is a bit bizarre.

does it seem reasonable to you that 1/100th of the people take 1/5th of the income?

Why are you defending them anyway, you are not in the 1% and you never will be.

You are listening to your enemies propaganda and repeating the talking points made up by their spin doctors

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-ta...-burdens-2

Those numbers are directly from the IRS and the article you posted disagrees with how they represented data, not that they were inaccurate in what data they did present, so the percentages I quoted are accurate. The CBPP had a problem with them creating a single tax rate percentage rather than using a graduated scale like taxes are calculated at. This scale is what I and many other have a problem with in the first place. When you pay a percentage of your income, having more income automatically makes it so that you have to pay more. By making higher income individuals pay an even higher percentage, the tax rate is not equitable and thus they look for loopholes. They should both set a fixed tax rate and close tax loopholes for a truly equitable tax system.

Honestly, I could care less that 1% of the population has 20% of the income since obviously those people have the business savvy to make that sort of money and they are responsible for holding up the ecomony. The majority of people are bad with money, taking out loans they can't afford and running up credit cards on things they don't need (myself included). I guarantee if you took all the wealth in the US and split it up among the people evenly it'd be right back to where it is now within a few generations. People seriously need to address how they utilize money.

Are there corrupt billionaires out there doing shady shit? Of course, but there's people doing shady shit at all income levels and these people are by far not the majority. People like to come down on Bill Gates, but he's donated more money to charity than probably anyone else in history. The majority of the 1% is keeping America alive, not trying to screw over the rest of us. Are they greedy? Probably, but that greed is good for the country and drives a large amount of innovation.
Reply
#20
(01-12-2019, 12:39 AM)rf6686rf Wrote:  
(01-12-2019, 12:03 AM)BoringApe Wrote:  
(01-11-2019, 11:58 PM)rf6686rf Wrote:  
(01-11-2019, 06:49 PM)rivaldo Wrote:  He is currently doing deficit spending, the rich should pay a fair share imo

37% of all tax revenue being paid by only 1% of the taxpayers when they're only making 20% of the income isn't a "fair share?" https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest...18-update/

Ehm thats not a reliable source dude

its a so-called think tank that exists to promote the interests of big business. You know, propaganda.

it was founded by group of prominent businessmen and "generally critical of tax increases and high taxation". What a surprise. Rich people who don't want to pay taxes.

And the fact that you used the word "only" when talking about the fact that 1% of the people get 20% of the income is a bit bizarre.

does it seem reasonable to you that 1/100th of the people take 1/5th of the income?

Why are you defending them anyway, you are not in the 1% and you never will be.

You are listening to your enemies propaganda and repeating the talking points made up by their spin doctors

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-ta...-burdens-2

Those numbers are directly from the IRS and the article you posted disagrees with how they represented data, not that they were inaccurate in what data they did present, so the percentages I quoted are accurate. The CBPP had a problem with them creating a single tax rate percentage rather than using a graduated scale like taxes are calculated at. This scale is what I and many other have a problem with in the first place. When you pay a percentage of your income, having more income automatically makes it so that you have to pay more. By making higher income individuals pay an even higher percentage, the tax rate is not equitable and thus they look for loopholes. They should both set a fixed tax rate and close tax loopholes for a truly equitable tax system.

Honestly, I could care less that 1% of the population has 20% of the income since obviously those people have the business savvy to make that sort of money and they are responsible for holding up the ecomony. The majority of people are bad with money, taking out loans they can't afford and running up credit cards on things they don't need (myself included). I guarantee if you took all the wealth in the US and split it up among the people evenly it'd be right back to where it is now within a few generations. People seriously need to address how they utilize money.

Are there corrupt billionaires out there doing shady shit? Of course, but there's people doing shady shit at all income levels and these people are by far not the majority. People like to come down on Bill Gates, but he's donated more money to charity than probably anyone else in history. The majority of the 1% is keeping America alive, not trying to screw over the rest of us. Are they greedy? Probably, but that greed is good for the country and drives a large amount of innovation.

well thats a whole lot of confused rambling. 

Its not very complicated.

are you a member of the 1%?

if you answer yes, then I would like to see a photo of your Ferrari with the words "potatoes are god" written on it in goat blood. Thats pretty difficult to photoshop. Bonus points if you put the dying goat behind the steering wheel.

If you answer no, then you are arguing against your own self interest.

I can easily make propaganda based on facts by being very selective in what i tell you about a subject. If you got the full picture then you would make a different decision than you would based on that propaganda.

The idea that the 1% are responsible for all good things (economic growth, jobs etc) is, of course, silly. Many of the 1%ers are not CEO's of big companies, maybe a grandparent was, and they are slackers with expensive cars.

Imagine a hypothetical bloodless revolution in the US where the 1% would lose all its money except 130k per person. Would the economy totally collapse? Nope, according to the propaganda you believe in these people would instantly turn that 130k into a million or two. They get to keep their companies and assets (their moneymaking machine) but the amount of money they have is reduced to 130k usd.

If that money was invested in stuff like education, infrastructure, tech and space exploration you could probably build a moonbase and start colonizing it.
Reply
#21
(01-12-2019, 01:02 AM)BoringApe Wrote:  well thats a whole lot of confused rambling. 

Its not very complicated.

are you a member of the 1%?

if you answer yes, then I would like to see a photo of your Ferrari with the words "potatoes are god" written on it in goat blood. Thats pretty difficult to photoshop.

If you answer no, then you are arguing against your own self interest.

I can easily make propaganda based on facts by being very selective in what i tell you about a subject. If you got the full picture then you would make a different decision than you would based on that propaganda.

The idea that the 1% are responsible for all good things (economic growth, jobs etc) is, of course, silly. Many of the 1%ers are not CEO's of big companies, their grandparents were, and they are slackers with expensive cars.

Imagine a hypothetical bloodless revolution in the US  where the 1% would lose all its money except 30k per person. Would the economy totally collapse? Nope, according to the propaganda you believe in these people would instantly turn that 30k into a million or two.

If that money was invested in stuff like education, infrastructure, tech and space exploration you could probably build a moonbase and start colonizing it.

Arguing against a tiered tax system isn't arguing against oneself unless you're in the lowest tax bracket (but even then, looking at the bigger picture can still outweigh self interest). With a tiered tax system, if I make more money I get penalized even more for doing so and the incentive to be successful is reduced. I've literally had jobs with fluctuating OT where I'd work and extra hour and end up getting paid less because I hit the next bracket. So, no, I'm not arguing against myself. I'm arguing against an illogical system then penalizes success.

I'm sure you're right that some 1%ers are slackers with grandparents who got them rich, but they aren't going to be 1%ers long if they spend all their money on Ferraris and blow instead of making wise investments with it--investments which keep the economy going and drive innovation. Meanwhile others would take their place who were hard working and savvy. It may take longer, but if the richest person in the world fucks off all their money they'll end up on the street just like anyone else who chose to not be a useful member of society.

Capitalism may be cold and rutheless, but it works and keeps people motivated to work hard and try to innovate. Education and infrastructure are important as well which is why I'm not arguing for no taxation. I'm just saying taxation should be equitable regardless of salary and people should also be held accountable for paying their share and their actions in general.
Reply
#22
(01-12-2019, 01:20 AM)rf6686rf Wrote:  
(01-12-2019, 01:02 AM)BoringApe Wrote:  well thats a whole lot of confused rambling. 

Its not very complicated.

are you a member of the 1%?

if you answer yes, then I would like to see a photo of your Ferrari with the words "potatoes are god" written on it in goat blood. Thats pretty difficult to photoshop.

If you answer no, then you are arguing against your own self interest.

I can easily make propaganda based on facts by being very selective in what i tell you about a subject. If you got the full picture then you would make a different decision than you would based on that propaganda.

The idea that the 1% are responsible for all good things (economic growth, jobs etc) is, of course, silly. Many of the 1%ers are not CEO's of big companies, their grandparents were, and they are slackers with expensive cars.

Imagine a hypothetical bloodless revolution in the US  where the 1% would lose all its money except 30k per person. Would the economy totally collapse? Nope, according to the propaganda you believe in these people would instantly turn that 30k into a million or two.

If that money was invested in stuff like education, infrastructure, tech and space exploration you could probably build a moonbase and start colonizing it.

Arguing against a tiered tax system isn't arguing against oneself unless you're in the lowest tax bracket (but even then, looking at the bigger picture can still outweigh self interest). With a tiered tax system, if I make more money I get penalized even more for doing so and the incentive to be successful is reduced. I've literally had jobs with fluctuating OT where I'd work and extra hour and end up getting paid less because I hit the next bracket. So, no, I'm not arguing against myself. I'm arguing against an illogical system then penalizes success.

I'm sure you're right that some 1%ers are slackers with grandparents who got them rich, but they aren't going to be 1%ers long if they spend all their money on Ferraris and blow instead of making wise investments with it--investments which keep the economy going and drive innovation. Meanwhile others would take their place who were hard working and savvy. It may take longer, but if the richest person in the world fucks off all their money they'll end up on the street just like anyone else who chose to not be a useful member of society.

Capitalism may be cold and rutheless, but it works and keeps people motivated to work hard and try to innovate. Education and infrastructure are important as well which is why I'm not arguing for no taxation. I'm just saying taxation should be equitable regardless of salary and people should also be held accountable for paying their share and their actions in general.

No photo of your Ferrari so I can safely assume you are not in the 1% so you are arguing against yourself.

Inequality in Murika is huge, a tiered tax system is a good way to deal with that. It ensures that those who have very little don't have to pay much in taxes, and that those who have a huge amount of money have to pay more. The money can be spent to ensure that the lowerclass have access to (free) education and cheap public transport so that they can climb up to become middle class.

what you are arguing for is a huge lowerclass of broke people who get very little support, a tiny group of middle class people, and a minuscule bunch of 1%ers who got all the wealth and keep it forever. Heck, money makes money so the rich will get richer while the poor will get poorer. That will lead to civil war (and the rich will flee or get decapitated)

Economic mobility is super important for capitalist states, and it is the American dream...

Capitalist states need a decent-sized middle class who have the ability to spend and invest (and potentially become super rich).

Capitalist states need a government that has enough money to provide services to the citizens. If the government has no money then you live in a shitty state. If you do not believe me, go to a place where the government has no money.

Being taxed to a reasonable degree is advantageous for all citizens, even for the superrich, because we all want our government to provide certain services (e.g. having elections is kinda nice, it can be a good idea to have an army, I dont really want to build a water purification plant in my back yard so i am glad the government makes sure i have access to cheap clean water etc etc.)

Imagine if I gave you 75 billion USD then you would have no incentive to go make money, because you'd already have more money than you could ever spend.

But (assuming you had 0 dollars now) I would give you 500.000 USD then you would be incentivized to make more because you can easily spend that in a lifetime (for example on hookers and blow).
Reply
#23
(01-12-2019, 02:33 AM)BoringApe Wrote:  No photo of your Ferrari so I can safely assume you are not in the 1% so you are arguing against yourself.

Inequality in Murika is huge, a tiered tax system is a good way to deal with that. It ensures that those who have very little don't have to pay much in taxes, and that those who have a huge amount of money have to pay more. The money can be spent to ensure that the lowerclass have access to (free) education and cheap public transport so that they can climb up to become middle class.

what you are arguing for is a huge lowerclass of broke people who get very little support, a tiny group of middle class people, and a minuscule bunch of 1%ers who got all the wealth and keep it forever. Heck, money makes money so the rich will get richer while the poor will get poorer. That will lead to civil war (and the rich will flee or get decapitated)

Economic mobility is super important for capitalist states, and it is the American dream...

Capitalist states need a decent-sized middle class who have the ability to spend and invest (and potentially become super rich).

Capitalist states need a government that has enough money to provide services to the citizens. If the government has no money then you live in a shitty state. If you do not believe me, go to a place where the government has no money.

Being taxed to a reasonable degree is advantageous for all citizens, even for the superrich, because we all want our government to provide certain services (e.g. having elections is kinda nice, it can be a good idea to have an army, I dont really want to build a water purification plant in my back yard so i am glad the government makes sure i have access to cheap clean water etc etc.)

Imagine if I gave you 75 billion USD then you would have no incentive to go make money, because you'd already have more money than you could ever spend.

But (assuming you had 0 dollars now) I would give you 500.000 USD then you would be incentivized to make more because you can easily spend that in a lifetime (for example on hookers and blow).

First off, saying that I'm arguing is against my own interests is a complete fallacy unless my only interest is how much money the government collects in taxes. They don't hand me that money and with the exception of welfare the services that money pays for is split among all citizens--including the 1%. With that fallacy dispelled, what's really being argued here is do I see extra tax money from the rich being of added benefit to the country as a whole and, in turn, myself. To this I answer no since I believe that money does more good for the country in the hands of those who have it than the hands of the government. I'd much rather see the rich invest that money in new business ventures that will grow the economy than go towards building a fucking wall.

Inequality is huge, but that doesn't make every rich person responsible nor does taxing them more solve that situation in any way since, as mention before, the tax money isn't just being handed out to people. Outsourcing has left a lot of skilled labor without the jobs they were accustomed to, but economically speaking outsourcing is a good thing since it allows countries to specialize in the goods and services they do best so we're in a transition period where unfortunately a bunch of the middle class needs to find new work and most likely they'll need education they didn't previously pursue to get that. That's just how things go and while it's unfortunate for those experiencing it, the economy as a whole will do just fine. There will be a booming middle class again as the market adjusts from skilled labor to jobs requiring higher education.

The tiered tax system is absurd and unnecessary. The rich pay more taxes regardless because they make more. That's the nature of a percentage. Arbitrarily raising that percentage for people making more money just deincentivizes being successful which in turn reduces innovation and hard work. Austria is a very socialized country as is much of Europe with high taxes and civil services and low retirment ages. A survey was done years ago where children were asked what they wanted to be when they grew up and the number one answer was "retiree" because these kids all saw their grandparents getting paid to do nothing and it killed any desire to pursue something greater. If you want to pay 60% in taxes and retire at 50 feel free to move there, but what makes the US a world leader is the innovation and ambition that is derived from it's highly capitalistic nature.

It is true that basic public services are required, which is why I don't argue for no taxes and complete anarchy. There is, however, a lot of spending of the tax dollars that the government does collect that is wasteful. Many public services are bloated with bureaucracy and wasteful in spending. In these cases I'd rather see them held accountable for what they spend than receive a bunch more money to waste. Education is a perfect example with people being hired to tell teachers how and what to teach like they haven't been doing it on their own all this time. I'd argue that CEOs and the rich are held much more accountable for their actions and spending than the heads of public services. But instead we should tax them more and pump that money into areas that are already wasting what they get? I don't think so.

If you gave me $75 billion I'd take risks starting companies and ideas with it or investing in others' ideas like the majority of the rich do. If all I wanted to do with it was spend it I'd waste it in no time and accomplish nothing and hopefully at least make someone else rich off it that would invest it in new industries or expansion. If you gave me $500 you're correct that I'd be incentivized to make more, but that'd just mean that I'd go get a job that, while important, has little impact on furthering the country and economy in a meaningful way. I assure you that any amount of money is easy to waste if you truly want to and if that's the goal one wouldn't be rich for long but perhaps would make more responsible people rich in the process. Just ask M.C. Hammer next time you see him doing a Cash for Gold commercial with his broke ass. Those who retain money do so by making investments, which are what help grow the economy.
Reply
#24
If the rich people pay a bigger percentage of the total tax income then the poor people pay a smaller percentage. Increasing or decreasing the tax income as a whole is a different discussion.

"I'd much rather see the rich invest that money in new business ventures that will grow the economy than go towards building a fucking wall."

Building a wall is a waste of money. I think we agree on that. Murika should invest in its infrastructure. That is gonna cost a fuckton of money.

Would you rather see the rich waste money on Ferraris and Gucci bags instead of the government investing heavily in America's crumbling infrastructure?

There are many rich people who sit around stroking their own ego all day and only a few who actually invest money in business ventures that grow the economy.

"tax money isn't just being handed out to people" true, thats why i wrote about free education and cheap public transport so that the lower class can become middle class.

"The tiered tax system is absurd" Have you ever travelled? You know that countries like the Netherlands and Sweden and Norway have a tiered tax system right? I couldn't really find a list but i'm pretty sure there are quite a few rich countries that do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_i...Income_tax
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_i...racket_tax
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax...c._(box_1)


"these kids all saw their grandparents getting paid to do nothing and it killed any desire to pursue something greater." Sounds like right wing propaganda, do you have a source for that story. Preferably a reliable source this time, not propaganda.

"If you gave me $75 billion I'd take risks starting companies" Nope, you would buy hookers and blow. If not, then you are the exception, not the rule. A huge amount of money is not an incentive to make even more money, it leads to people wasting their life being dicks.

M.C. Hammer is not poor because he was taxed too much, he is poor because he wasted all his money (like many rich people do) and did not work to get more money.

Maybe we should meet in the middle, tax the tiny minority of rich people who actually invest in businesses and grow the economy at a different rate than the assholes who sit around all day wasting money on Ferrari's.

I think you think all the rich people are like those you see on tv programs like Shark Tank. I've met quite a few rich people and most of them are dicks who waste the money they inherited (and did not earn themselves) on vanity projects and white elephants.

(01-12-2019, 03:36 AM)rf6686rf Wrote:  ...
Reply
 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  thoughts on donald trump as the president looooooo29831 12 608 01-28-2019, 10:08 PM
Last Post: kajkaj123
  Opinion on Trump in this forum - great/horrible/neutral ? nolife 37 1,747 11-24-2018, 09:14 PM
Last Post: BoringApe
  I have a Big combolist but can i sell it? HarryD3v 7 484 09-14-2018, 05:23 PM
Last Post: ronny254
  Trump funda 1 575 02-12-2018, 02:32 AM
Last Post: EPP
  What do you think about USA & Trump? peterd68 30 3,541 02-03-2017, 08:48 AM
Last Post: Phi



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)