NDL Forum

there isn't a winner and a loser... its a mindset.

you believe we should all be equal and that unique talent is replaceable.

i believe in coddling top talent to the highest degree without being corrupt.

i'll take a team full of Lebron James', even if that means i have to coddle and pay a little extra for him and you can take a team full of glue guys like Anthony Parker. in your world your team is just fine and you're better off with out Lebron, in my world your team is going to collapse... but shit, at least the tickets will be cheaper.

DRiccio21 wrote:there isn't a winner and a loser... its a mindset.

you believe we should all be equal and that unique talent is replaceable.

i believe in coddling top talent to the highest degree without being corrupt.

i'll take a team full of Lebron James', even if that means i have to coddle and pay a little extra for him and you can take a team full of glue guys like Anthony Parker. in your world your team is just fine and you're better off with out Lebron, in my world your team is going to collapse... but shit, at least the tickets will be cheaper.

Whereas in your Lebron world a family of 4 has to starve to go to a game. You're third sentence kind of grabbed my attention, you believe in coddling top talent to the highest degree without being corrupt. My problem with the way it is in this country today we have the coddling of the top talent but with an abundance of corruption.

but your solution to getting rid of the corruption is just getting rid of the top talent... how don't you see that?!?

and again, there ya go with the morally bankrupt capitalists again... i want people to starve

i just don't think EVERYONE is entitled to go to a game, to go on vacations, to own a house, to own an ipad. i think you should earn what you have and make responsible decisions based on what you have and don't have.

Shift, that isn't an issue with finances or economics, that's a CORRUPTION issue. What part of this don't you understand?

Your system, what you want to have happen....do you think that there won't be CORRUPTION there either???

There will always be corruption because absolute power corrupts absolutely. The corruption is the problem, NOT the system. The politics are the problem, NOT the system. And people whining is the problem, NOT the system.

You refuse to even acknowledge that facts were posted that refuted your arguments (I've lost track of them all), much less realize they prove you wrong, so this is no longer a debate, it's pretty much become what our government has become--one side telling the other they're wrong and providing facts, and then the other side ignoring those facts and changing the "focus" of the argument to something else.

It would help if you had the fact straight since your premise is based on:

- The top 1% are making millions - not true - families earning $350,000 and up represents the top 1%
- The top 1 are paying a lower tax rate - not true - 20 % > 16%
- The top 1% dont pay their fair share - 16.4% of all tax revenue is payed by top 1%, the bottom 50% pays 2.4% - bottom 40% pay no tax (since when is 0% a share?)
- There is no opportunity to join the top 1% - Zuckerburg, Brin, Page, Bezos, Omidyar are a few that say hi.
- The top 1% dont care about the needy - Midyar, Gates, Allen, Buffet, Zuckerburg have already given away hundreds of billions to charity
- The top 1% need to pay for health care for the needy - O'Bama's entire health care reform is being financed by a 4.9% tax on couples earning $250,000 and up. They are already paying for health care for the needy
- I am not a socialist - I just want to take more money from the rich and give it to the poor

Shift, I think your overall goals are noble. I too want to help he less fortunate and volunteer my time and money to do so. But your economic ideas are dangerous because they lack facts and are based on emotion rather than sound thinking.

Corruption sucks and needs to be removed from the system. It exist in the top 1% and in the bottom 1%. In Chicago, Union bosses where found to be taking out 3 pensions for doing the same job. They where earning pension of $400,000 per year when they collected salaries of $150,000 when they worked. No one is going to argue that we should protect corruption, but how will taxing families making more than $350,000 fix that problem? It wont. It will only mean that those families will have less money to spend on employees and goods. As a result those people who sold or produced the goods will be without a job.

Let me put in another way...

You argument
- Politicians are corrupt
- The rich own the policitians

Your solution = give the corrupt politicians more money.
A better solution = get rid of corruption.

brwnbear wrote:It would help if you had the fact straight since your premise is based on:

- The top 1% are making millions - not true - families earning $350,000 and up represents the top 1%
- The top 1 are paying a lower tax rate - not true - 20 % > 16%
- The top 1% dont pay their fair share - 16.4% of all tax revenue is payed by top 1%, the bottom 50% pays 2.4% - bottom 40% pay no tax (since when is 0% a share?)
- There is no opportunity to join the top 1% - Zuckerburg, Brin, Page, Bezos, Omidyar are a few that say hi.
- The top 1% dont care about the needy - Midyar, Gates, Allen, Buffet, Zuckerburg have already given away hundreds of billions to charity
- The top 1% need to pay for health care for the needy - O'Bama's entire health care reform is being financed by a 4.9% tax on couples earning $250,000 and up. They are already paying for health care for the needy
- I am not a socialist - I just want to take more money from the rich and give it to the poor

Shift, I think your overall goals are noble. I too want to help he less fortunate and volunteer my time and money to do so. But your economic ideas are dangerous because they lack facts and are based on emotion rather than sound thinking.

Corruption sucks and needs to be removed from the system. It exist in the top 1% and in the bottom 1%. In Chicago, Union bosses where found to be taking out 3 pensions for doing the same job. They where earning pension of $400,000 per year when they collected salaries of $150,000 when they worked. No one is going to argue that we should protect corruption, but how will taxing families making more than $350,000 fix that problem? It wont. It will only mean that those families will have less money to spend on employees and goods. As a result those people who sold or produced the goods will be without a job.

Let me put in another way...

You argument
- Politicians are corrupt
- The rich own the policitians

Your solution = give the corrupt politicians more money.
A better solution = get rid of corruption.

Top 1% Wealth NOT Income

so now you believe in double taxation?

what the fuck is going on in here?

Dave, if you could go ahead and pick up the tab on my student loans that'd be great. Thanks bud.

Shiftdnb wrote: Top 1% Wealth NOT Income

Federal income taxes doesnt tax wealth, it taxes income. I can have $100M in real estate, own a $1B company (and not take a salary), own $20 Billion in Google and Apple, have $20M in a non interest bearing savings account and I wont have any taxable income.

Increasing the taxes doesnt necessary accomplish your goals and in the meantime you end up affecting a lot of people who are trying to improve their lives and the lives of their employees.

If it makes you feel any better, when the top 1% wealthy die, the government gets 55% of their possessions from whatever is left that is not bequested to charity.

no one should have 1/3 of their income taken ever

brwnbear wrote:

Shiftdnb wrote: Top 1% Wealth NOT Income

Federal income taxes doesnt tax wealth, it taxes income. I can have $100M in real estate, own a $1B company (and not take a salary), own $20 Billion in Google and Apple, have $20M in a non interest bearing savings account and I wont have any taxable income.

Increasing the taxes doesnt necessary accomplish your goals and in the meantime you end up affecting a lot of people who are trying to improve their lives and the lives of their employees.

If it makes you feel any better, when the top 1% wealthy die, the government gets 55% of their possessions from whatever is left that is not bequested to charity.

Is saying to raise taxes or close loopholes in taxes that the top 1% in wealth are able to take advantage of?

brwnbear wrote:

Shiftdnb wrote: Top 1% Wealth NOT Income

Federal income taxes doesnt tax wealth, it taxes income. I can have $100M in real estate, own a $1B company (and not take a salary), own $20 Billion in Google and Apple, have $20M in a non interest bearing savings account and I wont have any taxable income.

Earlier when I was talking to you about paying more taxes percentagewise this is what I was talking about, you're still taxed but it's taxed considerably lower than what someone with just job income would make so when you take into account all taxes paid.

This thread should be renamed "Occupy the Top Poster Spot". Whenever this thing is done and fades away, we're going to have a new leader in number of posts.

cdub21 wrote:no one should have 1/3 of their income taken ever

Um....then how do you propose we pay for things like roads, schools, military, etc?

33% is LOW for taxation, look around the world. I'd be ok with paying up to 40%, tbh.

Shiftdnb wrote:

brwnbear wrote:

Shiftdnb wrote: Top 1% Wealth NOT Income

Federal income taxes doesnt tax wealth, it taxes income. I can have $100M in real estate, own a $1B company (and not take a salary), own $20 Billion in Google and Apple, have $20M in a non interest bearing savings account and I wont have any taxable income.

Earlier when I was talking to you about paying more taxes percentagewise this is what I was talking about, you're still taxed but it's taxed considerably lower than what someone with just job income would make so when you take into account all taxes paid.

The example i provided does not include any income. There is no income. If I have 1B stuffed in my couch, how can you tax my income? I dont have any. If there is no income, there can be no tax. The only way to extract more from this scenario is if you have a few police officers go into someones home and start taking stuff because they have to much.

I still don't get why the Fair Tax doesn't get a look. 23% implicit sales tax on everything.

brwnbear wrote:

Shiftdnb wrote:

brwnbear wrote:

Shiftdnb wrote: Top 1% Wealth NOT Income

Federal income taxes doesnt tax wealth, it taxes income. I can have $100M in real estate, own a $1B company (and not take a salary), own $20 Billion in Google and Apple, have $20M in a non interest bearing savings account and I wont have any taxable income.

Earlier when I was talking to you about paying more taxes percentagewise this is what I was talking about, you're still taxed but it's taxed considerably lower than what someone with just job income would make so when you take into account all taxes paid.

The example i provided does not include any income. There is no income. If I have 1B stuffed in my couch, how can you tax my income? I dont have any. If there is no income, there can be no tax. The only way to extract more from this scenario is if you have a few police officers go into someones home and start taking stuff because they have to much.

You would have money coming in with your example. Now if you had it in your couch then you wouldn't but your specific example was you owned a company but didn't take income. You're still going to see money from that investment. If you own 20 billion in google and apple you're going to see a return on that investment that will be taxed. As for having 20 Million in a non interest bearing account why the fuck would you do that when the FDIC only insures up to 250,000

Shiftdnb wrote:

brwnbear wrote:

Shiftdnb wrote:

brwnbear wrote:

Shiftdnb wrote: Top 1% Wealth NOT Income

Federal income taxes doesnt tax wealth, it taxes income. I can have $100M in real estate, own a $1B company (and not take a salary), own $20 Billion in Google and Apple, have $20M in a non interest bearing savings account and I wont have any taxable income.

Earlier when I was talking to you about paying more taxes percentagewise this is what I was talking about, you're still taxed but it's taxed considerably lower than what someone with just job income would make so when you take into account all taxes paid.

The example i provided does not include any income. There is no income. If I have 1B stuffed in my couch, how can you tax my income? I dont have any. If there is no income, there can be no tax. The only way to extract more from this scenario is if you have a few police officers go into someones home and start taking stuff because they have to much.

You would have money coming in with your example. Now if you had it in your couch then you wouldn't but your specific example was you owned a company but didn't take income. You're still going to see money from that investment. If you own 20 billion in google and apple you're going to see a return on that investment that will be taxed. As for having 20 Million in a non interest bearing account why the fuck would you do that when the FDIC only insures up to 250,000

There are so many wrong assumption in there that it makes arguing with you hopeless.

Riccio, do you get taxed if you have investments in companies?

Shiftdnb wrote:Riccio, do you get taxed if you have investments in companies?

Only if they :
- pay dividends, alot of companies don't
- only if you make a profit and sell the investment. Holding a stock, like having buying a house, does not result in a tax.