It is currently Sun Apr 28, 2024 7:58 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 951 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 ... 32  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 32292
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Kirkwood wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
We're all going to be rich!

Alex Emmons‏Verified account
@AlexEmmons
Nov 14
More Alex Emmons Retweeted The Associated Press
This is an $80 billion increase in US military spending. That's enough to make public college free and still have billions leftover. https://theintercept.com/2017/09/18/the ... lege-free/

military = jobs program


ROTC FTW!

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:43 pm
Posts: 20537
pizza_Place: Joes Pizza
rogers park bryan wrote:
But not everyone agrees with you that this will be best. I dont think Kirkwood is just out to fuck with denis. I think he believes the tax cut will fuck the middle class.


He may be wrong, but I believe his opinion is valid.

I'm not messing with denis. I simply don't see/understand the current Congress' vision. Everything seems so hodge-podge, rushed and ultimately will be abandoned/fail.

Ryan has built his whole career on redoing the tax code. And this half-assed plan is his grand vision? An increase to the standard deduction, elimination of some individual deductions and cuts to tax rates????

The whole process is so shady and rushed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32235
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
rogers park bryan wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
It shouldn’t just be reduced. It should be eliminated.

What shouldnt be reduced?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 6bf924defc

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81627
denisdman wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
But not everyone agrees with you that this will be best. I dont think Kirkwood is just out to fuck with denis. I think he believes the tax cut will fuck the middle class.


He may be wrong, but I believe his opinion is valid.


Of course he's not. We are on incredibly good terms and have met several times.


The individual portion of this tax cut is not doing much. It is something on the order of $300B over $10 years. It is a modest simplification of the current system. In that way, it will have almost zero impact on your direct tax bill. Let's not kid ourselves, the bill is all about corporate tax reform. And in that way, it is a revolutionary change from the current system. It brings about globally competitive rates. But more importantly, it does away with our unique global taxation system.

Now if you equate corporate tax cuts with screwing the middle class, then I can't help you. I know the left has MANY that feel that way. I look at it as making the United States a more competitive place to invest capital and strengthening our companies against their global peers.

And finally, I can't tell you if it will make people happier. :)

Yea, I think we all pretty much agree that cutting corporate taxes will be good for economic growth. It's just a matter of who and how the growth benefits the citizens.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81627
leashyourkids wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
It shouldn’t just be reduced. It should be eliminated.

What shouldnt be reduced?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 6bf924defc

Yea, I just didnt know what you were referring to without quoting what "it" was.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32235
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
rogers park bryan wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
It shouldn’t just be reduced. It should be eliminated.

What shouldnt be reduced?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 6bf924defc

Yea, I just didnt know what you were referring to without quoting what "it" was.


Did you read the article? It's a pretty good argument. If the Dems pulled that card, the wealthy CEO's would have to choose between taking a hit to their pocketbook or arguing against the elimination of the corporate tax. Good idea and good politics.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 32292
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
rogers park bryan wrote:
Yea, I think we all pretty much agree that cutting corporate taxes will be good for economic growth. It's just a matter of who and how the growth benefits the citizens.


In a free market system we can't force companies to take the cut and do XYZ. The income inequality question is one I am troubled by and have no firm solutions. We have long debated raising the minimum wage or increasing social programs to offset this rising gap. But as I have said that is pushing on a string, meaning it doesn't address the underlying problem. The two places where I know we can make a difference:

1) Grow the total pie so there is more to spread around,
2) Improve the entire education system to give more people a shot at good paying jobs. We have people finishing high school that aren't really qualified to do anything but stock Wal Mart shelves or take a drive thru order.

Ok back to underwriting. I am digging in nicely to a diagnostic company.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:22 am
Posts: 15019
pizza_Place: Wha Happen?
leashyourkids wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
It shouldn’t just be reduced. It should be eliminated.

What shouldnt be reduced?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 6bf924defc

Yea, I just didnt know what you were referring to without quoting what "it" was.


Did you read the article? It's a pretty good argument. If the Dems pulled that card, the wealthy CEO's would have to choose between taking a hit to their pocketbook or arguing against the elimination of the corporate tax. Good idea and good politics.

the article says it only takes in 9%.

Well, then eliminate it and tax the rich more. I like it.

_________________
Ба́бушка гада́ла, да на́двое сказа́ла—то ли до́ждик, то ли снег, то ли бу́дет, то ли нет.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 am
Posts: 23917
pizza_Place: Jimmy's Place
City of Fools wrote:
[
Well, then eliminate it and tax the rich more. I like it.


Exactly what I had been saying. People thought I was a Communist.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39753
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
I don't really debate any particular tax plan or particular side of the political aisle but when was it accepted without question that the rich should pay more than others? At some point I assume the idea of a tax was pretty flat. A king or some emperor basically took the same from everyone. Income tax obviously came much later than the founding fathers so I get the timing of our current system. Just made me wonder how this seemingly unchangeable idea was hatched.

_________________
Brick wrote:
Biden is doing a GOOD job.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 32292
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
pittmike wrote:
I don't really debate any particular tax plan or particular side of the political aisle but when was it accepted without question that the rich should pay more than others? At some point I assume the idea of a tax was pretty flat. A king or some emperor basically took the same from everyone. Income tax obviously came much later than the founding fathers so I get the timing of our current system. Just made me wonder how this seemingly unchangeable idea was hatched.


The entire thing makes me sick thinking about it. We have this highly progressive income tax system where any way you cut it, the top slice is paying the majority of taxes. And yet we have ever growing income inequality. So clearly the tax system can't neutralize the reasons for growing income inequality.

As a lower proportion of the population contributes to Federal Income Taxes, the more politicians can spend without being held to account. I mean, if it doesn't cost your pocket book to increase military spending or dump more into Medicare, why do you care? We have half the population not paying in, and the vast majority with effective tax rates of less than 10%.

And now you see why we have run away spending and deficits. High taxes on the rich, and they still get richer. And low to no taxes on the rest.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 am
Posts: 23917
pizza_Place: Jimmy's Place
Income inequality has increased over the past 50 years as income taxes have become less and less progressive. But hey, that must just be a coincidence.

Eveyone should have to pay some taxes though. Just part of being a citizen. Even if it is $100/year. For show.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 am
Posts: 23917
pizza_Place: Jimmy's Place
let's play Guess the country income tax rates!

$0 – $14,000 10.5%
$14,001 – $48,000 17.5%
$48,001 – $70,000 30%
Over $70,000 33%

If you guessed New Zealand.....BIGNO! You win a prize!

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81627
pittmike wrote:
I don't really debate any particular tax plan or particular side of the political aisle but when was it accepted without question that the rich should pay more than others? At some point I assume the idea of a tax was pretty flat. A king or some emperor basically took the same from everyone. Income tax obviously came much later than the founding fathers so I get the timing of our current system. Just made me wonder how this seemingly unchangeable idea was hatched.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81627
denisdman wrote:
We have this highly progressive income tax system where any way you cut it, the top slice is paying the majority of taxes. And yet we have ever growing income inequality. So clearly the tax system can't neutralize the reasons for growing income inequality.



Hatchetman wrote:
Income inequality has increased over the past 50 years as income taxes have become less and less progressive. But hey, that must just be a coincidence.




Seems to be some disagreement here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39753
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
rogers park bryan wrote:
pittmike wrote:
I don't really debate any particular tax plan or particular side of the political aisle but when was it accepted without question that the rich should pay more than others? At some point I assume the idea of a tax was pretty flat. A king or some emperor basically took the same from everyone. Income tax obviously came much later than the founding fathers so I get the timing of our current system. Just made me wonder how this seemingly unchangeable idea was hatched.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution


Taxation without representation isn't the subject of the question. Progressive percentages is.

_________________
Brick wrote:
Biden is doing a GOOD job.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39753
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Hatchetman wrote:
Income inequality has increased over the past 50 years as income taxes have become less and less progressive. But hey, that must just be a coincidence.

Eveyone should have to pay some taxes though. Just part of being a citizen. Even if it is $100/year. For show.



Dennis just made a good point about income inequality. That leads me to a second question though. Why is IE inherently bad anyway? In our present system you can argue poor people don't have enough in general. In a model like our though if there is a good basic bottom what difference does it make at all how much Gates or Buffet make?

_________________
Brick wrote:
Biden is doing a GOOD job.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81627
pittmike wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
pittmike wrote:
I don't really debate any particular tax plan or particular side of the political aisle but when was it accepted without question that the rich should pay more than others? At some point I assume the idea of a tax was pretty flat. A king or some emperor basically took the same from everyone. Income tax obviously came much later than the founding fathers so I get the timing of our current system. Just made me wonder how this seemingly unchangeable idea was hatched.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution


Taxation without representation isn't the subject of the question. Progressive percentages is.

Was pointing out that your reference to what a King may have done is not relevant in current times.


Some people, not saying you, but some definitely would prefer to live in a Monarchy and be ruled by a King.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81627
pittmike wrote:
Hatchetman wrote:
Income inequality has increased over the past 50 years as income taxes have become less and less progressive. But hey, that must just be a coincidence.

Eveyone should have to pay some taxes though. Just part of being a citizen. Even if it is $100/year. For show.



Dennis just made a good point about income inequality. That leads me to a second question though. Why is IE inherently bad anyway? In our present system you can argue poor people don't have enough in general. In a model like our though if there is a good basic bottom what difference does it make at all how much Gates or Buffet make?

Aren't you a Christian?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39753
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
rogers park bryan wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Hatchetman wrote:
Income inequality has increased over the past 50 years as income taxes have become less and less progressive. But hey, that must just be a coincidence.

Eveyone should have to pay some taxes though. Just part of being a citizen. Even if it is $100/year. For show.



Dennis just made a good point about income inequality. That leads me to a second question though. Why is IE inherently bad anyway? In our present system you can argue poor people don't have enough in general. In a model like our though if there is a good basic bottom what difference does it make at all how much Gates or Buffet make?

Aren't you a Christian?


Technically I guess but what does that have to do with anything?

_________________
Brick wrote:
Biden is doing a GOOD job.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 am
Posts: 23917
pizza_Place: Jimmy's Place
pittmike wrote:
Dennis just made a good point about income inequality.


No he did not make a good point about income inequality. He made a misleading if not completely false point about income inequality.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81627
pittmike wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Hatchetman wrote:
Income inequality has increased over the past 50 years as income taxes have become less and less progressive. But hey, that must just be a coincidence.

Eveyone should have to pay some taxes though. Just part of being a citizen. Even if it is $100/year. For show.



Dennis just made a good point about income inequality. That leads me to a second question though. Why is IE inherently bad anyway? In our present system you can argue poor people don't have enough in general. In a model like our though if there is a good basic bottom what difference does it make at all how much Gates or Buffet make?

Aren't you a Christian?


Technically I guess but what does that have to do with anything?

The teachings in general urge you to take care of the meek, the poor.

Support for income inequality would seem to run against that.

Think of an extreme example and work backwards. Would it be ok if 1 American had 99.9% of the money?

If your answer is no, then we are just talking degrees of inequality.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39753
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Hatchetman wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Dennis just made a good point about income inequality.


No he did not make a good point about income inequality. He made a misleading if not completely false point about income inequality.


Disagree. The government is not taking 10% of the top and redistributing it directly to the poor. It portends to but whatever it is doing it is apparently very inefficient and also not working based on the numbers.

Back to my question though. If somehow we had a minimum salary of 50k for every citizen no questions asked everyone would love that probably. So if Gates and Buffet still made billions there would still be an income inequality gap. Billions-50k=big gap. Therefore, why is simply having a gap inherently bad?

_________________
Brick wrote:
Biden is doing a GOOD job.


Last edited by pittmike on Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 am
Posts: 23917
pizza_Place: Jimmy's Place
rogers park bryan wrote:
Would it be ok if 1 American had 99.9% of the money?
.


Of course. He worked hard for it. He deserves it.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39753
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
rogers park bryan wrote:
pittmike wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Hatchetman wrote:
Income inequality has increased over the past 50 years as income taxes have become less and less progressive. But hey, that must just be a coincidence.

Eveyone should have to pay some taxes though. Just part of being a citizen. Even if it is $100/year. For show.



Dennis just made a good point about income inequality. That leads me to a second question though. Why is IE inherently bad anyway? In our present system you can argue poor people don't have enough in general. In a model like our though if there is a good basic bottom what difference does it make at all how much Gates or Buffet make?

Aren't you a Christian?


Technically I guess but what does that have to do with anything?

The teachings in general urge you to take care of the meek, the poor.

Support for income inequality would seem to run against that.

Think of an extreme example and work backwards. Would it be ok if 1 American had 99.9% of the money?

If your answer is no, then we are just talking degrees of inequality.



My reply to the hatchet better explains my query.

_________________
Brick wrote:
Biden is doing a GOOD job.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81627
My take is when you have billionaires and homeless people living in the same city, something seems off about that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 5:02 pm
Posts: 11735
pizza_Place: Angelo's Pizza in Downers Grove
rogers park bryan wrote:
My take is when you have billionaires and homeless people living in the same city, something seems off about that.



Do you think the only difference between them is money?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39753
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
rogers park bryan wrote:
My take is when you have billionaires and homeless people living in the same city, something seems off about that.


I get that. But economic and taxation realities are more what I am after. Without a logical real explanation besides it feels or looks wrong all you have is "I want the rich guys money for poor people".

_________________
Brick wrote:
Biden is doing a GOOD job.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81627
Big Chicagoan wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
My take is when you have billionaires and homeless people living in the same city, something seems off about that.



Do you think the only difference between them is money?

Of course not. Not sure what you're getting at though.

I kind of look at it from a very basic standpoint. If you were in one of these post apocolyptic groups trying to survive with like 10 people, would you be comfortable having 90% of the food, while 2-3 members starve to death.


Call me a bleeding heart, liberal, whatever. I think as humans we should take care of each other to some extent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 32292
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
rogers park bryan wrote:
denisdman wrote:
We have this highly progressive income tax system where any way you cut it, the top slice is paying the majority of taxes. And yet we have ever growing income inequality. So clearly the tax system can't neutralize the reasons for growing income inequality.



Hatchetman wrote:
Income inequality has increased over the past 50 years as income taxes have become less and less progressive. But hey, that must just be a coincidence.




Seems to be some disagreement here.


Marginal rates have come down since the Kennedy administration. If you want to call that less progressive, then fine. Here's the data from the IRS (2015 is latest):

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/15inintaxreturns.pdf

And to summarize in 2015-
150,493,000 returns filed
$1,457,891,000 tax collected from individual returns
6,752,00 returns with $200k and above in AGI or 4.5% of all returns
Those taxpayers paid $787,651,000 in tax or 54% of all income tax.
Add in $100k and above and you get
25,285 in returns or 16.8% of taxpayers
Those tax payers paid $1,104,011,000 in tax or 75.7% of all income tax.

The top 17% are paying 76% of all tax.

This data does not include folks with income too low to file a return, which would make the disparity much worse. People making $50k and under pay 5.4% of all income taxes, and they represent 61.4% of all filers.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 951 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 ... 32  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group