 |
You still don't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
A rich man earns $1,000,000 and pays $200,000 in taxes. Another man earns $50,000 and pays $10,000 in taxes. The rich man is left with $800,000 and the other man is left with $40,000. You can live quite a bit more comfortably on $800,000 than you can on $40,000. that's Tal's "bookoo bucks left".
they both pay 20% that doesn't seem fair. Your point is well made the rich man has little to complain of, he has been dealt with fairly, the other is left in difficulty. What Jl fails to realise is there are many rich people who make up his statistic but he complains as if there are only a few billionaires contributing when the opposite is true, take Trump as an example
To suggest they both pay 20% is ridiculous. It's not true and he knows it. There is no scenario where the person with 50K will be able to live a lifestyle similar to a millionaire. It's the very reason people so frequently want to become rich.
It would be so nice if you would stop assuming you know what I think and just go on what I have said. I have said no part of your silly conjecture above. The top 20% of income earners start at something like a quarter million in income.Quote:
What Jl fails to realise is there are many rich people who make up his statistic but he complains as if there are only a few billionaires contributing when the opposite is true, take Trump as an example
Can't argue with that logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
No just pointing out the example is flawed and I don't have time to assess the income of both. Again with the spirious argument no one with a $50K income expects to live like a millionaire.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I can only take your arguments at face value as a reflection of your thoughts but you seem to get upset whenever you are called on your attitudes. I'm glad you recognise that the top 20% have exceptional incomes whereas the bottom 80% can't expect to live like millionaires. So Jl, why do you defend the top earners so vigourously, why don't you focus on lifting the 80% so they can contribute more?
I don't agree the example is flawed. I could have used a lower tax rate for the poorer man which would have made the disparity even greater. But I used a flat tax to show the disparity. Either method makes the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
examples, are used for argument this is true, equally true is the disparity without the tax. I agree with you that continually pointing out that the rich pay more tax is flogging a dead horse, if you lower the tax rate it will still be true since it is a perfect example of the pareto principle but perhaps JL has not been introduced to this principle
I wish you would. Making it up as you go along is not working well.Quote:
I can only take your arguments at face value
You don't say?Quote:
I'm glad you recognise that the top 20% have exceptional incomes whereas the bottom 80% can't expect to live like millionaires.
I am engaged in doing that very thing every week and did so for most of my adult life. How about you?Quote:
why don't you focus on lifting the 80% so they can contribute more?
For the listening/understanding impaired here, I will say again that I am defending no one. The argument was put forward many posts ago that tax laws are designed for the benefit of the wealthy. I have shown that when the top 20% of income earners pay 85% of fed income tax, then saying the wealthy created the tax laws becomes an exercise in silliness. Perhaps you have now grasped that very, very, very simple truth. It is in no way a defense of the wealthy.Quote:
So Jl, why do you defend the top earners so vigourously, why don't you focus on lifting the 80% so they can contribute more?
Athos, using a flat tax in your scenario seems a strange thing to do when we plainly don't have a flat tax. It is more likely the man making 50K would pay very little in taxes. If the man making 50K pays in only 4K in income tax, thus making the wealthy man pay in 50X more, then that would make your argument seem far less compelling. Is that why you did it?
another spirious argument
Your contention is about as sound as your spelling and predictably lacking in anything specific.
I can understand your position concerning rich guys, since your tax free church is mostly dependent on those donors giving you tax deductible charitable contributions.
First of all, I don't have a church. Secondly, the Christ-based, addiction recovery center I work at is funded by a number of churches, and certainly not a little gang of wealthy individuals. Thirdly, I receive no salary, so I have no personal interest in it. Fourthly, you might try and develop a little higher regard for the truth. Your entire statement is incorrect other than the fact, known to everyone who is awake, that charitable donations, such as to PP or PBS, are indeed tax deductible. Personally, I would like to see all of that stopped and let's just institute a flat tax. And fifthly, I have presented no position concerning rich guys. I have presented evidence. It is something I wish you would try, and no that is not intended to be mean spirited. I really do wish you would stick to the truth unlike your statement above which is largely false.
My bad I thought you did. I stand corrected.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I've volunteered in many such programs, as well as private/public recovery programs. Very familiar with the network.Quote:
Secondly, the Christ-based, addiction recovery center I work at is funded by a number of churches, and certainly not a little gang of wealthy individuals.
The experience was enriching enough without a salary but you still have to pay the light bills.Quote:
Thirdly, I receive no salary, so I have no personal interest in it.
Of which you do not have an exclusive domain.Quote:
Fourthly, you might try and develop a little higher regard for the truth.
Rich guys create huge foundations for such philanthropy.Quote:
Your entire statement is incorrect other than the fact, known to everyone who is awake, that charitable donations, such as to PP or PBS, are indeed tax deductible.
No comment on such exclusionary and unequal monetary policy that would blow the budget completely out of the water. Can't pay bills, provide services with less money, or fight a economy destroying pandemic (Or forest fire for that matter).Quote:
Personally, I would like to see all of that stopped and let's just institute a flat tax.
You have selectively taken one fact and made it a total truth when it's not the whole truth. Just a small window into tax policy. Citing it repeatedly doesn't make it any more true.Quote:
And fifthly, I have presented no position concerning rich guys. I have presented evidence. It is something I wish you would try, and no that is not intended to be mean spirited. I really do wish you would stick to the truth unlike your statement above which is largely false.
You mean the budget is in the water now? The budget has been in a place of insanity for nearly all of the 21st century.Quote:
No comment on such exclusionary and unequal monetary policy that would blow the budget completely out of the water. Can't pay bills, provide services with less money, or fight a economy destroying pandemic (Or forest fire for that matter).
I would institute a tax policy that would be completely dependent on the fed budget. They want to spend 4 tril, then they have to raise 4 tril in taxes. You know, like honest, competent people would do. That would do away with the current crop of deceitful, lying dems and repubs who have found that we have become so stupid as a nation that we are blindly accepting this wildly accumulating federal debt like little mute sheep. If we had to do the responsible, grown-up thing and actually start paying for what we want, you would see fed spending go down in a hurry as it well should. The only exception would be cases of genuine national emergency, and even that needs to have strict limits.
You do mean after you get this economy destroying budget busting virus under control don't you? I mean it qualifies as a huge emergency doesn't it?
Yeah, but not to the tune of just spending money on anything and everything, such as sending checks to people who absolutely do not need it like you and me.
Besides, the national debt has been riding an avalanche for the past twenty years. Bush...Obama...Trump, they have all contributed as well as dem and repub congresses. 2020 by itself has not been the problem. All this will continue as long as we are dumb enough to allow it to continue.
What's JL's solution to the virus besides assuming who doesn't need any money?
I think what we are doing now is about right. Get the vaccine asap. Be a little tough. The sky is not falling. Our obese pres, at 74 years old, weathered the storm in a few days and is doing well now. We just have to ride this out in an intelligent way.
There is no "assuming" to the money. You got about the same income now you had before the virus. You don't need it. I don't need it. My wife doesn't need it, and yet we all got a check, and now they want to send another one. We are a stupid people to let our government get away with this. There are signs up all over our town of businesses looking for people to work. It's ridiculous.
Did he?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Is he?Quote:
and is doing well now.
If showing no symptoms and checking out of the hospital can be characterized as having weathered the storm and doing well, then I'd say yes and yes.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:27 PM. |