Ovid_and_Flem said:In reply to Robbie :
Only 9% of the federal tax revenue comes from capital gains.
Whelp, bad assumption, robbie!
It would be simple enough to find a flat income tax rate to be revenue neutral though, and pick a point high enough (idk if 50k is right or not) that it doesn't increase taxes on someone who makes very little.
In reply to Robbie :
2017 stats on federal revenue...
47% personal income tax
34% payroll tax
9% corporate income tax
9% capital gains, excise taxes, estate taxes
See a pattern?
Duke said:Adrian_Thompson said:In reply to Duke :
Sorry I disagree. If by one specific network you mean Fox, what about Info Wars, Blaze, Conservative tribune, the Federalist, Drudge report, American Conservative, Weekly Standard, the National review, hosts of right wing talk radio etc. And the whole bunch of networks you allude to on the other side all still report on that same condemnation of those programs by both the Right wing politicians, special interest groups, lobbyists and the opposing press.
For that laundry list, there is an equally lengthy (if not longer) laundry list of leftist organizations, many of equally dubious quality. How about The Daily Show, Colbert, NPR, The Guardian, Occupy Wall Street, HuffPo, WaPo, NYT, Slate, MSNBC, CNN, Samantha Bee, Rachel Maddow, Young Turks, Mother Jones, The Economist, Real News, Now This, etc etc etc. The list goes on and on.
And of course leftist media report on what the right is doing. They're not going to pretend it doesn't exist. Reporting on the very existence of a particular viewpoint does not imply support. I really don't understand what you're getting at with your last sentence. The right wing media reports on the left's enthusiasm for poor-supporting programs, too... but somehow that doesn't count to you?
I’m sorry but you picked one network and misplaced it.
first will you agree that the Koch bros are not traditionally thought of as left wing?
They are major contributors to NPR and our own MPR.
if you wish I’ll get the whole list of major contributors or heck you can access it yourself.
Another source of impartial news is the BBC They don’t have any bias since they are from England!!!!!!
Ovid_and_Flem said:In reply to frenchyd :
I've actually reviewed some scholastic articles for a national sales tax to replace income tax and most pundits suggest it would have to be between 22% up to 45% to be revenue neutral. So your 2% appears to be Farrrrr too low.
Every one I’ve seen does not include every purchase. Especially purchases of stocks and bonds. Just how many shares worth how much are traded per yearOne other nice benefit would be the elimination of extra rapid trading artificially changing stock prices.
In addition those I’ve seen assume some sort of adherence to a tax code. ie no wholesale income.
Adrian,
The thought of not allowing bankruptcy to discharge student debt is based on the fact that when most people graduate from school they have no real assets. Very easy for them to commit bankruptcy and erase their entire student debt without even attempting to pay it back at all.
I agree with that, I went into debt to go through school, I made the necessary sacrifices and paid it back in its entirety. It'd be complete BS to allow the debt to be discharged, they knowingly went into debt, now pay it back. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be payment programs that aren't draconian, or ways to discharge the debt by doing community service, or Americorps or whatever.
So where does our tax revenue come from? Googlymoogly finds these two interesting graphs. if you add up payroll and income tax, which it can be argued are two side of the same thing you get 81% of Federal tax revenue. I quickly checked the UK tax revenue and found the equivalent (income tax and National Insurance (equiv of payroll)) totals 44%. Obviously a massive difference in how tax revenue is generated. I don't have the knowledge or education to try and get into a debate on which method is 'better' so let's not even go down that rabbit hole.
docwyte said:Adrian,
The thought of not allowing bankruptcy to discharge student debt is based on the fact that when most people graduate from school they have no real assets. Very easy for them to commit bankruptcy and erase their entire student debt without even attempting to pay it back at all.
I agree with that, I went into debt to go through school, I made the necessary sacrifices and paid it back in its entirety. It'd be complete BS to allow the debt to be discharged, they knowingly went into debt, now pay it back. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be payment programs that aren't draconian, or ways to discharge the debt by doing community service, or Americorps or whatever.
Agreed that you shouldn't be able to graduate, declare bankruptcy and dodge it. But I'd argue that there is a lot of predatory lending and that young people without the education needed to understand what they are getting themselves into are being targeted. I find it scary the number of adults who simply don't understand the concept of compound interest, let alone 18-19-20 year olds who don't even have a fully developed pre frontal cortex to be able to fully comprehend the impact. IT's easy to say 'well they're stupid, it's their own fault' But we've proved through science that in a very real way the people being targeted and physiologically incapable of understanding the long term consequences. That pretty much sounds like the definition of predatory to me. This is worse for people from low income families who may be the first generation to go to college and probably by definition don't have parents who can understand it, or think that collage = rich so they mistakenly think they will be able to afford it. Also by the time you are 30 or 40 why should one type of debt be treated different from any other? If you want to argue nothing should be dischargeable in bankruptcy that's another conversation altogether, but one rule for student debt and one for all other debt in nuts. But then I'm one of those who believe higher education should be free for all. Look at the payback the country got from the GI bill post war. I"ve seen various figures over the years ranging from $7-10 earned by the government in taxes for every $1 they spent on Education through the GI bill. Even if the cost is higher and the return would be lower today, I think it would be a good investment.
frenchyd said:Another source of impartial news is the BBC They don’t have any bias since they are from England!!!!!!
Wow, I don't see how those two things correlate at all.
But I'm already treading uncomfortably close to flounder territory, so I'll leave it there.
What's the real difference between corporate income and payroll tax? The employer is responsible for both at the end of the day, right?
In reply to Robbie :
Only half of employees share. Self employed obviously pay all of theirs.
Wow, this thing has legs. I lost interest a while ago, but thumbs up to the French guy! Apparently a great thread.
Attempt at levity;
Know what angeres me?
People who fail to use spell check.
In reply to Ovid_and_Flem :
Clean sheet!
Ford buys a roll of steel to stamp out doors. They pay 2%
That hasn’t ever happened before has it? So this is fresh new income.
Ford makes a car and sells it to the dealer. 2%
that hasn’t happened before
the dealer sell the car 2%.
That hasnt happened before.
You buy a $100 lawn mower from your neighbor. 2%.
That hasnt happened before.
And so on and so on.
People will pay 2 cents on the dollar because it’s trivial and the punishment for not paying it is severe
it’s easy to track since so much is electronic.
Even the cash society will pay 2% because it’s trivial and the risk of punishment remains the same.
By the way I didn’t start at the beginning.
Maybe I should have talked about taconite or the cost of the diesel fuel. Everything purchased at wholesale in the past collects 2%.
This thread should have turned into a Pinto filled with oily rags and old newspapers. But it hasn't. There are people from all spectrums, and we are discussing and listening. If the rest of the country could be so civil...imagine what we could do. Bravo, everyone.
Adrian_Thompson said:So where does our tax revenue come from? Googlymoogly finds these two interesting graphs. if you add up payroll and income tax, which it can be argued are two side of the same thing you get 81% of Federal tax revenue. I quickly checked the UK tax revenue and found the equivalent (income tax and National Insurance (equiv of payroll)) totals 44%. Obviously a massive difference in how tax revenue is generated. I don't have the knowledge or education to try and get into a debate on which method is 'better' so let's not even go down that rabbit hole.
In theory if we total income and add this years deficit that’s what it costs to run the government.
Now simply take all the sales for one year in every sector wholesale and retail. Stock market, real estate market, private party sales.
Add income take on all those earning over $50,000 a year
Figure out if 2% covers it.
In reply to frenchyd :
Rich is a relative thing, many would look at me and say I’m rich. After all I have a home worth a million + and a relatively modest mortgage. I’m not even in the neighborhood of rich compared to most of my neighbors.
We are talking the movers and shakers of Minnesota. Governor, senator, CEO, CFO of Fortune 500 companies, 3&4th Generation really serious wealth. Cargill’s ( largest privately held company in America. )My House is right under the flight path of a neighbor who commutes in a multimillion dollar helicopter to and from his office tower.
These are people who don’t really think until it’s at least 6 figures. The kind who order 2 $65,000 custom chandeliers, hang them over their dining table, decide they don’t really like them, consign them to hang in their garage and order 2 more.
Put on a $185,000 roof on their new house, decide they’d rather have a slate roof and spend another 1.2 million dollars getting exactly what they want.
The really rich are simply different than you or I.
they donate millions in order to reap billions. So politics is just a game to them. They are smart enough to make a serious donation to both parties.
Wait, what? You said this on the first page...
"Here’s maybe a better example. My Father with nothing more than a high school degree was able by himself to provide an above average middle class life. Nice home new car every two years regular vacations. Had a cabin by the lake, provided for a comfortable retirement, Sent me to college and took care of others.
I with a college degree, With the help of my late wife’s full time efforts, couldn’t approach what he did."
So you live in a $million+ home, in Minnesota, where the average home price is less than 1/4 that. But you are slumming it because you are in a neighborhood populated by the 1%ers of MN, and you are a lowly 10%er? After bemoaning that you don't have the opportunities that your father did? Since you started this thread asking why people are angry, I think it's fair to say you likely make people angry. You anger the rich by propagating class warfare. You anger the poor by pretending to be one of them, because you are not. Unless you're upside down on your million dollar home, in which case you are just doing it wrong.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
OK I didn’t live up to my fathers achievements. Not only that but I’m probably the poorest person on the lake.
But I live where I want to and in a house I built with my own two hands, the way I wanted it.
Rich, poor? I don’t know. I do know that the rich are now no different than the king and nobles we fought for our independence from.
Inherited wealth is why we fought. The Kings riches and power came from his father and his father and his father before him.
I like those who earn their wealth and power, they are American! Good for them! But the 2-3-4 etc generation of inherited wealth? Americans died fighting that.
In reply to frenchyd :
I like those who earn their wealth and power, they are American! Good for them! But the 2-3-4 etc generation of inherited wealth? Americans died fighting that.
No, they died fighting for that. Almost every parent wants their kids to be better off than they are. I sure as hell do. I'm not busting my rear and saving my dollars so that I can party the end of my life away. I'm planning to pass a good chunk of wealth down to my kids and grand kids. Will that make them bad people? Would you prefer a "use it or lose it" system where all your assets go to the state when you are gone? What would happen if we were to enact that? You already stated that the real rich (your neighbors) have more money that they could ever spend. I'm sure at least a coupe of them earned it by contributing to society. Let's say all of the talented and successful people quit as soon as they got rich. As soon as they made enough. Movie stars and musicians quit after their first hit. Pro athletes hung it up after their first contract expired. Innovative business people shut it down after they made enough money. Doctors retired after a couple years. Do you think everyone's lives would be better? Do you think the wealth that they didn't take would automatically just be distributed to everyone else?
In reply to frenchyd :
Well now I'm thoroughly confused...You say this:
frenchyd said:
I do have a problem with inherited wealth as I believe all Americans should.
And, even more strongly worded, this:
frenchyd said:Rich, poor? I don’t know. I do know that the rich are now no different than the king and nobles we fought for our independence from.
Inherited wealth is why we fought. The Kings riches and power came from his father and his father and his father before him.
I like those who earn their wealth and power, they are American! Good for them! But the 2-3-4 etc generation of inherited wealth? Americans died fighting that.
But then do...This?:
frenchyd said:
Plus I started this home not as an ego thing but to provide a multi generational alternative like the Walton family.
I'm super liberal and I have zero issue with inherited wealth. It's one area I've always been out of step with the Democratic party. I think there should be zero inheritance tax at any level. It's never worked as intended. Any family (and/or family business) with even the slightest financial planning ability doesn't need to pay inheritance tax anyway, most have the money / assets set up in trusts such that its passed tax free. to the next generation.
I also don't buy the inheritance is = to the monarchy of the past either. I personally think that if the crown had treated the colonies differently then the American revolution would either not have happened, or more likely happened much later and in a different manor. Let's face it only land owning white males could vote originally, so right from the outset the United States was set up to be ruled (or the rulers chosen) by the wealthy elite.
I am massively concerned about the rapidly increase gap from the top to the bottom, especially when you look at how that has changed. Lot's of studies show that once adjusted for inflation the lower quintile of the population has remained flat or lost out income wise over the last 40 years while the top quintile has increased significantly and the top 1% has grown at hundreds of %. That's not sustainable and one of the reasons I think people are angry.
At this point, this thread is just a vehicle for a rich old guy to complain about the world, which is silly. People with 7 figures in assets shouldn't be complaining very loudly about how the world isn't fair.
In reply to Driven5 :
Do you see a conflict? The space can be used if the need arrives ( which it did) and then shut off or used for a secondary purpose ( which it is).
I’m pretty sure a lot of families have emergencies and the kids move back for a while until they get back on their feet.
My hope is that one of my girls will want to move in as I age beyond the point I can care for myself. So rather than be shoved into a “nursing home” to die alone. I’ll have a loved one around to care for me and my home.
It may not happen ( someone move in, I’m reasonably certain I’m not immortal) but if it does at least they won’t have to sleep on the coach.
In any case if forced out by old age the larger size means I’ll be in a little nicer nursing home.
Adrian_Thompson said:I'm super liberal and I have zero issue with inherited wealth. It's one area I've always been out of step with the Democratic party. I think there should be zero inheritance tax at any level. It's never worked as intended. Any family (and/or family business) with even the slightest financial planning ability doesn't need to pay inheritance tax anyway, most have the money / assets set up in trusts such that its passed tax free. to the next generation.
I also don't buy the inheritance is = to the monarchy of the past either. I personally think that if the crown had treated the colonies differently then the American revolution would either not have happened, or more likely happened much later and in a different manor. Let's face it only land owning white males could vote originally, so right from the outset the United States was set up to be ruled (or the rulers chosen) by the wealthy elite.
I am massively concerned about the rapidly increase gap from the top to the bottom, especially when you look at how that has changed. Lot's of studies show that once adjusted for inflation the lower quintile of the population has remained flat or lost out income wise over the last 40 years while the top quintile has increased significantly and the top 1% has grown at hundreds of %. That's not sustainable and one of the reasons I think people are angry.
You say you don’t worry about inherited wealth and then point out the by product of inherited wealth. The massive spread between the 1% and the rest of us.
Any person who does that in their lifetime earns our respect and admiration. But those who come from a privileged background and yet enjoy the power of wealth are a serious threat to this countries future.
frenchyd said:In reply to Ovid_and_Flem :
Clean sheet!
Ford buys a roll of steel to stamp out doors. They pay 2%
That hasn’t ever happened before has it? So this is fresh new income.
Ford makes a car and sells it to the dealer. 2%
that hasn’t happened before
the dealer sell the car 2%.
That hasnt happened before.
You buy a $100 lawn mower from your neighbor. 2%.
That hasnt happened before.
And so on and so on.
People will pay 2 cents on the dollar because it’s trivial and the punishment for not paying it is severe
it’s easy to track since so much is electronic.
Even the cash society will pay 2% because it’s trivial and the risk of punishment remains the same.
By the way I didn’t start at the beginning.
Maybe I should have talked about taconite or the cost of the diesel fuel. Everything purchased at wholesale in the past collects 2%.
This is called Value Added Tax and it has been around for maybe 100 years. It’s really really super not a good idea. If you’re taxing every transaction that makes up a car at 2%, you just raised the price of that car by at least 100%.
I think people will notice that.
frenchyd said:You say you don’t worry about inherited wealth and then point out the by product of inherited wealth.
Excellent point and no I and my idea of utopia aren't perfect. But please look at my posts from yesterday based on the 8 figure net worth people I know. 1st generation wealthy seem to build it, 2nd generation tend to work on maintaining it and 3rd generation seem to squander it. Also, if you look at the average movers and shakers in the uber wealthy they tend to be those who are making it.
Let;s look at the top 10 wealthiest people in the US:
Bezos - self made
Gates - self made
Buffet - Self made
Zuckerburg - Self made
Larry PAge - Self made
Ellison - Self made
Brin - Self made
Kock Brothers - Started wealthy, but self made Billionaires
Walton - 2nd Generation and continued to build the empire
Also, I'm not worried so worried about these superstars of business and the economy. I see the bigger issue the execs at many corporations that get massive, massive payouts while the company isn't doing that well and or the employees are 'suffering'. I am in no way against success. I am have nothing against wealth people. They are the people force that helps drive the economy. But there needs to be a balance. Henry Ford for all his many, many faults helped build the middle class by paying a fair wage. It was controversial and unpopular at the time with his peers, but look what it did. It put money in the hands of people who could and did use it and in return built the economy and his business even more.
You'll need to log in to post.
