[Vacuum7]

jlisenbe: You said that WEALTH isn't taxed, income is, and that they aren't the same....but wealth is taxed in terms of "property", right? So the Wealthy do pay quite a bit more from both ends.

[jlisenbe]

Vac, I said wealth is not taxed by the feds, which is basically true unless you want to get into the death tax. The feds basically work off of income tax. But you are certainly correct that the wealthy get hit hard on prop taxes.

[Vacuum7]

jlisenbe: Got you! Thanks!

[talaniman]

Dudes you cannot have wealth without INCOME (Inheritance doesn't count), and our tax code is but a structure as the real control of who has income and how much, in the first place are rich guys that assign their value to you. The tax code GIVES them that power over everybody, and that's been my point. Just examine the FACTS as how come teachers and first responders are not worth more than a slick day trader? How come the conversation is cutting taxes on those people who hide half their wealth and INCOME, and think that's even fair while we have half the country below the median national income, and we are FORCED (JL's word not mine) to have OUR money given to them?

Fact is the fat cat incomes have risen over the last decade much faster than the median income and that just ain't fair, and it doesn't matter how much taxes they pay! Only a fool makes the case that the poor pays no taxes at all, WELL DUH, he ain't got enough income to pay nuthin' let alone taxes. Even the working poor pay taxes before they get that check no matter how many checks he has to get to survive and waits a year for a refund, not his idea, and he can't stop them either from doing it. That's tax policy! Who makes the tax policy, government, who elects the government? The people. Who tells the government what to do? RICH GUYS!

You think rich guys who pay the big chunk JL touts to the treasury and doesn't get something for it? Do I have to call dirty names to get people to wake the freak up who runs this place? Absurd to think it's fair. Not even close.

[jlisenbe]

Dudes you cannot have wealth without INCOME (Inheritance doesn't count), and our tax code is but a structure as the real control of who has income and how much, in the first place are rich guys that assign their value to you. The tax code GIVES them that power over everybody, and that's been my point. Just examine the FACTS as how come teachers and first responders are not worth more than a slick day trader? How come the conversation is cutting taxes on those people who hide half their wealth and INCOME, and think that's even fair while we have half the country below the median national income, and we are FORCED (JL's word not mine) to have OUR money given to them?

1. I'm glad you've finally seen the light on median income stats.
2. I don't think you can make much of an argument about rich people making the tax code advantageous to them when rich people are paying 85% of the income taxes and pay a much higher average percentage of their income into taxes.
3. Anyone who wants to make the money that a day trader makes should become a day trader. That's the glory of living in a free country. I was a teacher/principal most of my adult life and have no complaints about what I made.
4. You can have wealth without income. That is the case with some people who inherit wealth and then basically manage that wealth and live off the interest income. But I'll grant you that that is not normally the case.

As to the rest of your comments, rich guys get one vote apiece just like the rest of us. This illusion you have of them wielding great power is a false narrative. Your comments are so typical of the liberal mindset. It's always about someone else doing something wrong and never about what the individual can do differently to make his/her life better. I will tell anyone that if you're jealous of the money that CEO's make, then become one, but be prepared to work your arse off and be willing to take the enormous pressure that comes from being in that position. But then it's a lot easier just to sit back and whine about it.

[talaniman]

Naw, I would rather speak out against unfairness and those that approve of that unfairness, in an effort to make things more fair. My idea of making this country great again is to make things fair for everybody, so am not sure where your position comes from either ignorance of reality (BS), or just something mentally health related (Or just BLINDNESS?), but given that all the corporations send thousands of lobbyist to your elected officials to write favorable legislation to feed their bottom line I would say my position and cause has more merit backed by actual facts than your does.

Speaking up against unfairness and inequality is whining? You prove me correct that you don't have a clue with every post. I don't know why you express feelings that go against the FACTS and evidence.

EDITED for civility.

[jlisenbe]

Naw, I would rather speak out against unfairness and those that approve of that unfairness, in an effort to make things more fair.

What we have is the result of that misguided effort. You would be better served to tell young people the three keys to staying out of poverty, but that would require discipline and common sense, two qualities currently in short supply.

but given that all the corporations send thousands of lobbyist to your elected officials to write favorable legislation to feed their bottom line I would say my position and cause has more merit backed by actual facts than your does.

I do agree that the business of lobbying in not a good thing.

Only a zip darn fool takes speaking up against unfairness and inequality as whining in my book bud! You prove me correct with every post.

So says "Mr. Non-Judgemental". It's OK to point out LEGITIMATE areas of unfairness and inequality, but your stunning silence on areas of individual responsibility is regrettable.

[Vacuum7]

Talaniman: I have to agree with you about the rate of climb in salaries of high end earners Vs low end earners....my pay raises don't even keep up with Cost Of Living rises and while I am not on the low end by any means, I certainly am not on the high end, either....I get that point.

But, I don't wage control is a good idea and too steep of a slope on a sliding scale makes those innovative, job creating upper end people lose interest in being overly eager to stay innovative...its a motivation kill!

I believe the ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS (RCA, remember those damn things when something screwed up in the plant, Talaniman?) for this whole controversy is this:

1) Who set up the TAX LAWS the way they are set up?
2) Why did they set up the TAX LAWS the way they are set up?
3) When did these changes in TAX LAWS occur?
4) Who was IN CHARGE when the TAX LAWS were changed to benefit the wealthy, as you claim Talaniman?
5) Why is there any catalyst, whatsoever, for those writing the TAX LAWS to write them so that they preferentially benefit the wealth?

Once you answer Question #5 you will have revealed the root of the problem: If the wealthy UNDULY INFLUENCE LAWMAKERS, THAT'S THE REAL PROBLEM! THE TAX LAW ITSELF IS NOT THE PROBLEM, IT IS A FRUIT OF THE REAL PROBLEM! It all gets down to HOW can we remove BIG $$$s from overly/disproportionally influencing THE PEOPLE WE HIRE (LAWMAKERS)from making decisions that favor the wealthy. DID I OVERSIMPLY THE PROBLEM? I don't think I did.

[jlisenbe]

5) Why is there any catalyst, whatsoever, for those writing the TAX LAWS to write them so that they preferentially benefit the wealth?

Vac, I'll ask you the same answer I've asked Tal. How can you say that the tax laws have been written to benefit the wealthy when the wealthy pay more than 85% of the income taxes and pay a higher percentage of their income into taxes? In what way does that "preferentially benefit the wealthy?"

[talaniman]

What we have is the result of that misguided effort. You would be better served to tell young people the three keys to staying out of poverty, but that would require discipline and common sense, two qualities currently in short supply.

Anyone can have things happen beyond their control and fall to poverty, for short or long term, and for whatever reason be lacking discipline, or common sense sufficient to deal with their own circumstance, and baffled how to get the right help.

I do agree that the business of lobbying in not a good thing.

Ya THINK! That my friend is as grand an understatement that has ever been uttered and is further EVIDENCE you don't have a clue what your talking about.

So says "Mr. Non-Judgemental". It's OK to point out LEGITIMATE areas of unfairness and inequality, but your stunning silence on areas of individual responsibility is regrettable.

I edited my post, but the subject is about monetary policy and not individual responsibility. Start a thread, I'm sure to respond on that too. No excuse though for your own intransigence's on the current topic or any other you post. I'm not judging you my friend, but make no mistake I will oppose those views I just don't agree with, it's not just you either.

[talaniman]

Talaniman: I have to agree with you about the rate of climb in salaries of high end earners Vs low end earners....my pay raises don't even keep up with Cost Of Living rises and while I am not on the low end by any means, I certainly am not on the high end, either....I get that point.

But, I don't wage control is a good idea and too steep of a slope on a sliding scale makes those innovative, job creating upper end people lose interest in being overly eager to stay innovative...its a motivation kill!

I believe the ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS (RCA, remember those damn things when something screwed up in the plant, Talaniman?) for this whole controversy is this:

1) Who set up the TAX LAWS the way they are set up?
2) Why did they set up the TAX LAWS the way they are set up?
3) When did these changes in TAX LAWS occur?
4) Who was IN CHARGE when the TAX LAWS were changed to benefit the wealthy, as you claim Talaniman?
5) Why is there any catalyst, whatsoever, for those writing the TAX LAWS to write them so that they preferentially benefit the wealth?

Once you answer Question #5 you will have revealed the root of the problem: If the wealthy UNDULY INFLUENCE LAWMAKERS, THAT'S THE REAL PROBLEM! THE TAX LAW ITSELF IS NOT THE PROBLEM, IT IS A FRUIT OF THE REAL PROBLEM! It all gets down to HOW can we remove BIG $$$s from overly/disproportionally influencing THE PEOPLE WE HIRE (LAWMAKERS)from making decisions that favor the wealthy. DID I OVERSIMPLY THE PROBLEM? I don't think I did.

You laid that out so well nothing to add except maybe you can explain that to your southern brother in a way he can understand. I fail miserably.

[talaniman]

Vac, I'll ask you the same answer I've asked Tal. How can you say that the tax laws have been written to benefit the wealthy when the wealthy pay more than 85% of the income taxes and pay a higher percentage of their income into taxes? In what way does that "preferentially benefit the wealthy?"

I guess that 85% of the tax contribution is not a true representation of the total income or wealth. Just a fraction of it. The real question should be why you think that paying taxes on half you income AFTER HUGE deductions is fair. Yeah it's a lot of money still but a drop in the bucket that good old common sense tells you it benefits them to pay because guys like you come along and says wow, look at all the money they pay that the rest of us don't or can't.

Sure they pay more, but they also keep more. A lot more legally, because that is the way they wrote the code. FACTOID; Amazon has 100 lobbyists in Washington alone. They paid NO TAXES until this year going back a few years!

[jlisenbe]

I guess that 85% of the tax contribution is not a true representation of the total income or wealth. Just a fraction of it. The real question should be why you think that paying taxes on half you income AFTER HUGE deductions is fair.

The key phrase there is "I guess". As to your "half you income" assertion, I'd like to see documentation on that. I don't think it is even close to being accurate. Your guesswork is not compelling,

Sure they pay more, but they also keep more. A lot more legally, because that is the way they wrote the code. FACTOID; Amazon has 100 lobbyists in Washington alone. They paid NO TAXES until this year going back a few years!

Again, you are guessing about how much they keep, the tax code, and so forth, but if Amazon, owned by Jeff Bezos (who is a democrat and a major one) is not paying taxes, then I would agree with you that it's an outrage. I'd love to see the explanation for that.

[talaniman]

I obviously know things you don't, but I much rather you find that easily and readily available data for yourself without any influence, or undue guidance from me. There is just so much stuff on this subject it will boggle your mind.

How the rich hide there money. A very simple exercise in copy/paste/Google, or whatever search engine you use! I sincerely want to know what you think.

Not about party at all.

[jlisenbe]

I obviously know things you don't, but I much rather you find that easily and readily available data for yourself without any influence, or undue guidance from me. There is just so much stuff on this subject it will boggle your mind.

How the rich hide there money. A very simple exercise in copy/paste/Google, or whatever search engine you use! I sincerely want to know what you think.

It's like I've told you before, I'll document my statements, but I've followed too many of your "links to nowhere" to spend time with yours. That's your job. You say it, then you doc it. Even you said it yourself. "I'm guessing."

Bear in mind that the point of disagreement is your statement that they only pay taxes on half of their income. Everyone takes tax deductions. That's old news, but they only pay taxes on half of what they make? That's what I'm questioning.

[talaniman]

Such an arrogant word salad as an excuse not to give YOUR opinion on what the FACTS are of your own findings? The very reason I didn't provide my links. Now that's just plain LAZY!

Ain't no in other words involved except the ones you make up! I have done the research and the math, stated FACT, but you must have missed it, ignored it, or too ashamed to acknowledge and dicuss it! If you rather just keep throwing rocks and baseless aspersions that's fine with me.

[jlisenbe]

Such an arrogant word salad as an excuse not to give YOUR opinion on what the FACTS are of your own findings?

You didn't ask for my opinion and you know it. What's wrong with you today? I asked for documentation for your wild allegation and you suggested I look it up. That's becoming a habit with you.

Ain't no in other words involved except the ones you make up! I have done the research and the math, stated FACT, but you must have missed it, ignored it, or too ashamed to acknowledge and dicuss it!

That's a flat out lie. You haven't posted jack squat to document your contention that the wealthy only pay taxes on half of their income. If you have, then it should be easy enough to quote here, shouldn't it???

[Athos]

How can you say that the tax laws have been written to benefit the wealthy when the wealthy pay more than 85% of the income taxes and pay a higher percentage of their income into taxes?

You have conveniently omitted the factor that makes all the difference - the dollars involved.

The wealthy who pay 85% of income tax revenue and a higher percentage of their income are left with enormous sums of money relative to any typical non-wealthy citizen. 50 million dollars of after tax income is light years more than the typical earner is left with after taxes. So is $5 million or $500,000.

To complain about the rich paying a higher percentage is nonsense. As is the 85%. In addition to whatever talent they may have (excluding those who inherit, of course), the wider society is the source of their wealth. Jeff Bezos doesn't get a nickel until somebody buys his product. Trust me, the rich are rarely concerned about their tax burden, they know they have far more than enough. Buffett is a great example - "I pay a lower tax rate than my secretary".

Studies of tax payers - rich and poor - commonly conclude that tax payers are primarily concerned that taxes are used effectively. Even in super-high taxation in Scandanavia, the consensus is about effectiveness, not rates.

[jlisenbe]

To complain about the rich paying a higher percentage is nonsense.

As I have told you before, I am complaining about nothing. That stat is my reply to anyone who makes the ludicrous claim that the wealthy have formulated a tax policy that favors them. If they are paying 85% of the income tax receipts, then that doesn't sound like an idea they came up with.

Jeff Bezos doesn't get a nickel until somebody buys his product. Trust me, the rich are rarely concerned about their tax burden,

What possible reason would there be to trust you? I certainly have no confidence that you know what the wealthy as a large group think.

[Athos]

That stat is my reply to anyone who makes the ludicrous claim that the wealthy have formulated a tax policy that favors them. If they are paying 85% of the income tax receipts, then that doesn't sound like an idea they came up with.

The wealthy have not "formulated" tax policy, but they certainly influence tax policy makers. Their 85% contribution is a drop in the bucket for them.