Bernie Supporters and Bad Memes

[Yojimbo]

In Bernie news: funny satire article from The New Yorker.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/sanders-shamelessly-pandering-to-voters-who-want-to-hear-truth

[fredtoast]

(08-13-2015, 08:38 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: How do you take wealth away from someone?  There are a lot of wealthy people who have ZERO income, so income taxes could be 99% and it wouldn't have any effect on the uber-wealthy.  

As long as their wealth is taxed when they acquire it then I don't care if they never have any more income.

But actually most wealthy people have investments that are generating income.

[fredtoast]

(08-13-2015, 08:38 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: When government starts going after wealth instead of income, wake me up.  

Property taxes.

Ad valorem vehicle registration fees.

Estate taxes.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-13-2015, 09:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: As long as their wealth is taxed when they acquire it then I don't care if they never have any more income.

But actually most wealthy people have investments that are generating income.

You do understand the difference between income tax and capital gains tax, don't you?

I don't think Bill Gates cares what the income tax rate is.  At all.  Even if he were receiving a weekly paycheck.  He wouldn't pay it.  We would.

You think there's some magic wand somewhere that someone can wave and redistribute everything equally.  There isn't, well...unless you consider full-blown communism.  I'd like to think you're not that stupid. 

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-13-2015, 09:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Property taxes.

Ad valorem vehicle registration fees.

Estate taxes.

Oh yeah, those things are really going to cripple Gates' fortune. 

[fredtoast]

(08-13-2015, 09:38 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: You do understand the difference between income tax and capital gains tax, don't you?

I don't think Bill Gates cares what the income tax rate is.  At all.  Even if he were receiving a weekly paycheck.  He wouldn't pay it.  We would.

You think there's some magic wand somewhere that someone can wave and redistribute everything equally.  There isn't, well...unless you consider full-blown communism.  I'd like to think you're not that stupid. 

I don't care if everything is distributed equally, and it doesn't require any sort of magic.  All I want is a tax structure and/or a minimum wage that makes sure that the lower and middle classes in our society are not living in abject poverty while all economic gains go to the people are the very top.  That is where we are headed.  

Why are you satisfied to see the wages of the middle class remain stagnate over the last 30 years while the people at the top have had massive gains in income?  Don't you realize what that will mean in another 50 years?  

And of course I understand the difference between income tax and capital gains.  Do you?  Do you know that capital gains are taxable?  Do you understand that dividends and many other forms of investment income are not capital gains?

At some point Bill Gates received every dollar he has ever spent.  If it is taxed when he acquires it then it is covered.  Then the rest could be covered by estate taxes when he dies, or by wealth transfer taxes when he gives it to other people.  The portion he donates to charity will not be taxed, but I am fine with that.

[fredtoast]

(08-13-2015, 09:39 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Oh yeah, those things are really going to cripple Gates' fortune. 

Why would anyone want to cripple Bill Gates fortune?

I don't want the rich to be poor.  I just want them to pay more of a fair share.

It is amazing how the wealthy elite have convinced so many people in the middle class to worship them at the same time that they are making sure that the middle class does not share in the economic gains.

[Rotobeast]

(08-14-2015, 09:07 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Why would anyone want to cripple Bill Gates fortune?

I don't want the rich to be poor.  I just want them to pay more of a fair share.

It is amazing how the wealthy elite have convinced so many people in the middle class to worship them at the same time that they are making sure that the middle class does not share in the economic gains.

What are your thoughts on The Fair Tax ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-14-2015, 09:07 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Why would anyone want to cripple Bill Gates fortune?

I don't want the rich to be poor.  I just want them to pay more of a fair share.

It is amazing how the wealthy elite have convinced so many people in the middle class to worship them at the same time that they are making sure that the middle class does not share in the economic gains.

I'd say that it's equally amazing that liberals have convinced the lower and middle classes that they are on their side, and yet it is both of those classes that continue to pay the price for your dreamworld socialistic utopia. 

Again, show me how much poverty 29 trillion dollars has ended since The Great Society started.  I'll anxiously await your statistical analysis to show me exactly how many less people live in poverty today than in 1964. 

The funny thing is that you lay all of the blame on "the rich" and place zero blame on the people themselves, and yet you've also gone on record stating that there will always be poor and there will always be rich.  DUH.  No kidding.  It's amazing to me that you're able to figure that out, but somehow can't make the connection that the rich have not ever nor will ever pay for a tax increase, until such a time that the government starts confiscating wealth rather than taxing income. 

[Bengalzona]

[fredtoast]

(08-14-2015, 02:42 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I'd say that it's equally amazing that liberals have convinced the lower and middle classes that they are on their side, and yet it is both of those classes that continue to pay the price for your dreamworld socialistic utopia. 

Again, show me how much poverty 29 trillion dollars has ended since The Great Society started.  I'll anxiously await your statistical analysis to show me exactly how many less people live in poverty today than in 1964. 

The funny thing is that you lay all of the blame on "the rich" and place zero blame on the people themselves, and yet you've also gone on record stating that there will always be poor and there will always be rich.  DUH.  No kidding.  It's amazing to me that you're able to figure that out, but somehow can't make the connection that the rich have not ever nor will ever pay for a tax increase, until such a time that the government starts confiscating wealth rather than taxing income. 

Show me how much cancer rates have dropped withe all the money that has been spent on research and medication?  Your logic fails.  The fact is that there would be many MORE people in poverty if not for government programs.

And I don't blame the rich for anything.  I blame the government and the middle class rubes who worship the rich and continue to support laws that allow them to acquire all of the increase in wealth and income while the middle and lower classes have seen stagnate wages over the last 30 years.

And you have no clue how the tax system works if you think the wealthy don't pay any taxes.  in fact the wealthy pay more income taxes than any other group. So stop spewing that gibberish until you have something to back it up.  Do you believe that the wealthy have no income?  

[fredtoast]

(08-14-2015, 01:36 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: What are your thoughts on The Fair Tax ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

It is about as "unfair" as you can get.

It doesn't include most of the things that rich people do with their money like buying big houses or investing to make more money.  Poor people who have to spend every dollar they earn would be paying a 30% tax rate (plus local sales tax) while rich people who devote most of their income to mortgage payments and investments would pay a much smaller rate.

It would destroy the new car industry because the 30% tax would not apply to used cars.

It would be hard to enforce.  The income tax has a built in "self reporting system" in that every dollar claimed as income by one person is claimed as a tax deduction by another person.  That makes it harder to defraud the system.  However since under the "fair tax" no one would be claiming sales as tax deductions there would be no motive not to lie about sales price.

The rebates would help the poor, but the middle class would be stuck with a bigger bill.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-14-2015, 04:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote:

Quote:Show me how much cancer rates have dropped withe all the money that has been spent on research and medication?  Your logic fails.  The fact is that there would be many MORE people in poverty if not for government programs.

lolwut?  I didn't ask for opinion.  I suppose there's stats out there somewhere to prove this, is there not?  I'm not asking for an assumption of the success.  We've spent 29 trillion in 50 years.  Where are the proven, statistical results to prove that there are less people in poverty than there was in 1964.  

Quote:And I don't blame the rich for anything.  I blame the government and the middle class rubes who worship the rich and continue to support laws that allow them to acquire all of the increase in wealth and income while the middle and lower classes have seen stagnate wages over the last 30 years.

Exactly what kind of laws allow them to acquire all of the increase in wealth and income?  What laws would you propose that we pass to prevent this from happening?

Quote:And you have no clue how the tax system works if you think the wealthy don't pay any taxes.  in fact the wealthy pay more income taxes than any other group. So stop spewing that gibberish until you have something to back it up.  Do you believe that the wealthy have no income?  

The point obviously went over your head.  Taxes are obviously passed off to the largest class, the middle class.  Yes, a fairly high-income earner (say the CEO of a fortune 500 company) may pay quite a lot in income taxes.  39.6% was the highest for 2014, for example.  A lot of really wealthy people do not have income.  They may have investments, in which they are paying capital gains tax in lieu of federal income tax.  That tax rate is much lower (20% was the highest in 2014).  Meaning that a wealthy person (think a guy like Gates) who most assuredly doesn't receive a paycheck but also has investment income is only paying a 20% tax on whatever gains he has.  

[fredtoast]

(08-14-2015, 02:42 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote:  We've spent 29 trillion in 50 years.  Where are the proven, statistical results to prove that there are less people in poverty than there was in 1964.  

Where are your stats to show that there would not be a lot more people living in poverty if we had not spent that money?

Like I said before.  I don't see anyone saying doctors are a failure because people are still getting sick after all these years of having doctors around.

Your logic fails.

[fredtoast]

(08-14-2015, 02:42 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: The point obviously went over your head.  Taxes are obviously passed off to the largest class, the middle class.  Yes, a fairly high-income earner (say the CEO of a fortune 500 company) may pay quite a lot in income taxes.  39.6% was the highest for 2014, for example.  A lot of really wealthy people do not have income.  They may have investments, in which they are paying capital gains tax in lieu of federal income tax.  That tax rate is much lower (20% was the highest in 2014).  Meaning that a wealthy person (think a guy like Gates) who most assuredly doesn't receive a paycheck but also has investment income is only paying a 20% tax on whatever gains he has.  

Educate yourself


http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal-income-taxes.html


The top-earning 1 percent of Americans will pay nearly half of the federal income taxes for 2014, the largest share in at least three years, according to a study.

According to a projection from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent of Americans will pay 45.7 percent of the individual income taxes in 2014—up from 43 percent in 2013 and 40 percent in 2012 (the oldest period available).

[fredtoast]

(08-13-2015, 09:38 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Exactly what kind of laws allow them to acquire all of the increase in wealth and income?  What laws would you propose that we pass to prevent this from happening?

Raise minimum wage.

Remove certain deductions allowed for corporate taxes.

Increase tax rate on top bracket, or create a new higher tax bracket.

Raise the tax rate on capital gains.

Create a government run health care program for all citizens.

Use the additional tax revenue to help the lower classes through support programs instead of direct cash payments (education, health care, transportation, child care, etc)

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-14-2015, 05:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Where are your stats to show that there would not be a lot more people living in poverty if we had not spent that money?

Like I said before.  I don't see anyone saying doctors are a failure because people are still getting sick after all these years of having doctors around.

Your logic fails.

How could there be any stats available to show how not spending money would lead to more poverty? 

Surely there are stats to prove that the 29 trillion dollars has led to some sort of success, right?  I'll anxiously await you to post it here.  

[fredtoast]

(08-14-2015, 06:08 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: How could there be any stats available to show how not spending money would lead to more poverty? 

Exactly.

It is impossible for you to dispute the claim that there would be more people living in poverty if we had not spent that money.   

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-14-2015, 06:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Exactly.

It is impossible for you to dispute the claim that there would be more people living in poverty if we had not spent that money.   

However, it is not impossible for you to show statistics of how many less people are living in poverty now.

Surely there's some statistical analysis to show that 29 trillion dollars of taxpayer money has led somewhere, right?  There has to be some concrete data available.

If not, are you seriously suggesting that the only support for these programs to continue and get larger is that we have to imagine how many more people would be living in poverty without them???

There really was one born every minute. 

[fredtoast]

(08-14-2015, 06:50 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: However, it is not impossible for you to show statistics of how many less people are living in poverty now.

Surely there's some statistical analysis to show that 29 trillion dollars of taxpayer money has led somewhere, right?  There has to be some concrete data available.

If not, are you seriously suggesting that the only support for these programs to continue and get larger is that we have to imagine how many more people would be living in poverty without them???

There really was one born every minute. 

Okay then.  If we eliminate all of these benefits then where are the people who are struggling to stay above poverty with them going to find the extra funds to make up the difference?

Are there really millions of jobs out there for them to fill?

Where is the money going to come from to keep them out of poverty?