The Media Industry

[Crockett]

OMG! Such Liberal talk. they need to pay their fair share?

I'm one of those wackos perfectly fine with grandma getting to keep all $1,200 of her monthly Social Security check and Donald Trump paying 35 percent taxes on a $120 million annual profit.

 

[I35]

So explain to me how someone that is rich causes someone to be poor? What you are advocating is that rich people give their money to the government that loves to waste it. I promise you the millionaire's money gets back to the people much better than it does when it goes to the government. I'm not saying nobody pay taxes because everyone should so that everyone has money in the game. But the government has grown way too big and it's because they get $10 then they go spend $50 that's wasted. The elected officials are the greedy ones.

 

[mchammer]

I think there is a vast difference in how much the system benefits somebody making $150 million a year and somebody making $15,000, not to mention there is an increased capacity to pay more and the fact that wealth in the hands of poor people gets spent and benefits the economy and wealth in the hands of rich people gets accumulated and in some cases moved to offshore accounts.

Sounds like a solid argument for a flat tax and elimination of legal loopholes.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Honestly, I've looked over the Palm Beach story. A twice convicted felon (identified as such in the story) is pretty sure that Donald Trump grabbed her *** 13 years ago. If anybody bases a vote on that....

I haven't read that story and haven't seen that picked up widely. The NYT stories seem to carry more weight. Additionally, there see to be a plethora of Ms ??? beauty pageant winners coming out about his "creepiness" inspecting the dressing room of the participants. Keep in mind, Trump's own words claimed this is how he conducts himself so believing some of these individuals shouldn't be a stretch.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Fair? What is fair? LOL. 80%, 90% top rates for the rich? How do you determine that without getting into the issue of slower growth, etc. that go along with higher tax burdens? How is it fair to send funds from the hard workers to the non-contributors of society. Not every poor person is deserving. Second, I prefer a flat tax, so your question is moot to me. If the purpose of government taxation is to send funds to poor people via food stamps, housing assistance, etc., then the poor ought to pay. In this way, it forces the poor to send money to the government for the services they need instead of wasting it on smart phones and air jordans.

Why jump to the extremes? 80% or 90%? We are at relative historical lows for the top marginal income tax rates but various "loop holes" treat that rate like Swiss cheese. Can we simply "tax the rich" for everything? Absolutely not but there is certainly more room to change the code so people like Trump pay something or that Warren Buffet has a higher effective tax rate than his admin. Food stamps, housing assistance and poor programs are a drop in the bucket compared to the Entitlement and defense programs. Evidently, Trump doesn't need to help fund those either.

 

[mchammer]

Why jump to the extremes? 80% or 90%? We are at relative historical lows for the top marginal income tax rates but various "loop holes" treat that rate like Swiss cheese. Can we simply "tax the rich" for everything? Absolutely not but there is certainly more room to change the code so people like Trump pay something or that Warren Buffet has a higher effective tax rate than his admin. Food stamps, housing assistance and poor programs are a drop in the bucket compared to the Entitlement and defense programs. Evidently, Trump doesn't need to help fund those either.

A flat tax on wages is applied to social security and Medicare. Let's do more this for the budget.

 

[mchammer]

Why jump to the extremes? 80% or 90%? We are at relative historical lows for the top marginal income tax rates but various "loop holes" treat that rate like Swiss cheese. Can we simply "tax the rich" for everything? Absolutely not but there is certainly more room to change the code so people like Trump pay something or that Warren Buffet has a higher effective tax rate than his admin. Food stamps, housing assistance and poor programs are a drop in the bucket compared to the Entitlement and defense programs. Evidently, Trump doesn't need to help fund those either.

A highly paid worker in California pays 50% top tax rate for state and federal income tax. On top of this, Hillary wants a 50% death tax. Thus, someone rich who continues to get paid a high income has an effective tax rate of 75% on future earnings. Why work at that point? At some point you decrease tax revenue (Laffer curve). I understand we are close to being there at the top rates. Only way to increase tax revenue is to target the middle class. Smart people know this, which is why people don't buy your arguments.

 

[Crockett]

Thus, someone rich who continues to get paid a high income has an effective tax rate of 75% on future earnings. Why work at that point?

People who have wealth taxable by the death tax .... movie stars, extremely elite athletes and the like ... aren't exactly looking at a family budget and deciding whether to work a little overtime to pay the bills.

 

[Horn6721]

Husker
Do you think Buffet used the tax system to advantage for his companies and Himself?
How about companies that made a profit AND paid no taxes.
Why should Trump be held to a different standard?

 

[Crockett]

Why should Trump be held to a different standard?

Why hold Trump to any standards at all. Let's just elect the guy with the most dramatic stump speech with no vetting at all. That's the way we hire our CEO's, Senior Pastors and School Superintendents isn't it?

 

[mchammer]

People who have wealth taxable by the death tax .... movie stars, extremely elite athletes and the like ... aren't exactly looking at a family budget and deciding whether to work a little overtime to pay the bills.

So they stop working, thus limiting tax revenue. My point is that higher top tax rates are close to being counter productive, thus the need to increase taxes on the middle class.

 

[Horn6721]

Crochet
No vetting is how we got bored

A large % of Fortune 500 companies pay no tax but still have profits, Apple is at the top but by no means the only company to not pay taxes even while making profits
Since this is pretty common so why are Hillary supporters so "outraged"?

 

[Crockett]

Since this is pretty common so why are Hillary supporters so "outraged"?

Why aren't we all?

 

[mchammer]

Why aren't we all?

Because some think that the government has enough money already.

 

[Horn6721]

What do you want to be outraged about Croc?
Trump following the existing laws as are many many many others?

 

[Seattle Husker]

A flat tax on wages is applied to social security and Medicare. Let's do more this for the budget.

I can agree if the flat tax is a progressive tax. You earn more you pay a higher rate. Get rid of all deductions, carry forwards and other complexity. You make X (income or profit), you pay X%.

 

[Seattle Husker]

So they stop working, thus limiting tax revenue. My point is that higher top tax rates are close to being counter productive, thus the need to increase taxes on the middle class.

Do they stop working? The assumption is that the only motivation is money. No consideration for power, celebrity, legacy or any other motivations for that CEO or Movie star?

 

[Horn6721]

Maybe they move to a country with less onerous tax rates

 

[Seattle Husker]

So they stop working, thus limiting tax revenue. My point is that higher top tax rates are close to being counter productive, thus the need to increase taxes on the middle class.

They are close now? Keep in mind, the top tax rate was 70% or greater up until 1981. Heck, during our industrialization period in which we saw some of our greatest economic gains the rate was 91% for the top bracket. Look, I'm not advocating a return to those tax rates but I think there is a gospel assumption by some is always a net positive. There is one things you can be sure of, lowering the top tax rate from 70% (1980) to 39.5% (1987) drove 2 things:

1. A massive escalation in our national debt.
2. Massively increased the wealth disparity between the poor an the rich.

It's time we find a better happy medium to pay for the government we clearly want.

 

[horninchicago]

It's time we find a better happy medium to pay for the government we clearly want.

I lurk on this forum, but I am going to guess the government you want is not the government I and many others want.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I lurk on this forum, but I am going to guess the government you want is not the government I and many others want.

I suspect in terms of expenditures, we are actually closer than you might imagine. How that money is allocated is where we likely differ. All too often, the "smaller government" crowd focus on everything BUT entitlements and defense which means you're immediately forgetting 69.5% of our overall federal expenditures (mandatory and discretionary).

Food stamps is a bit target right? It's sitting in "Food and Agriculture". Of course, in that % is also the price supports our government gives to farmers. Health is primarily Medicare/Medicaid.

This was our 2015 budget.

If you're going to trim the budget, you need to start with the biggest pieces of the pie or you're simply nibbling at the edges.

 

[nashhorn]

wealth in the hands of poor people gets spent

Ok so I get what you mean but somehow this wording sounds a but odd, "wealth in the hands of the poor"?

 

[mchammer]

They are close now? Keep in mind, the top tax rate was 70% or greater up until 1981. Heck, during our industrialization period in which we saw some of our greatest economic gains the rate was 91% for the top bracket. Look, I'm not advocating a return to those tax rates but I think there is a gospel assumption by some is always a net positive. There is one things you can be sure of, lowering the top tax rate from 70% (1980) to 39.5% (1987) drove 2 things:

1. A massive escalation in our national debt.
2. Massively increased the wealth disparity between the poor an the rich.

It's time we find a better happy medium to pay for the government we clearly want.

It has been shown that there were numerous loopholes to reduce taxes even at 91% tax rate. That was the problem - people spent a lot of time working on their loopholes versus actually working. Incentives matter - something liberal tax folks don't understand

 

[Phil Elliott]

I am estimating from memory, but the top 10% of wage earners already pay about 70% of all taxes. Don't you all think that is already overly-progressive? People, like HRC, who say things like "we need the rich to pay their fair share" are laughable in my book.

Somebody correct my numbers but I believe it is in that neighborhood.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Nah that doesn't matter. Remember right before the election in 2012 when the media claimed Romney was a bully and he and a couple of friends held down a kid and cut his hair off? Mitt just stated he didn't recall ever doing anything like that. They tried to create doubt. Not sure to what level it worked but it's just a small example how they throw things at the last minute then it just all goes away after the election.

Trump has been at celebrity status for over 30 years and not once was there a claim that he was a racist or sexual predator. Then he runs for president and now the media calls him a racist over and over until it sticks. The stuff they claim he said was first repeated wrong and then what he did say was factual that some illegals are criminals and rapist. He specifically said there are good people too, but he was talking about the bad coming in and staying in sanctuary cities for protection. I agree with him on that. Then he stated we need to freeze refugees coming in from hotbed countries for terrorism. What moron would disagree with him on that? This is about our safety for our children and generations to come. Why take the chance on that? I know what the Libs want it. They want to grow their voting base even at the expense of all Americans safety. Even Hillary in the emails stated there is not way to vet them. So after that he now hates muslim accord to the left. I swear some of you that call yourself conservatives sound much more like liberals with there talking point you repeat.

So now he has never ever been accused of any sexual assaults until 3 weeks before the election. Saying words and actually doing them are a HUGE difference. One is just words and the other is actually criminal.

OK, you're sorta rambling here. The point of my post is that when you take away the means to impose negative consequences for something, you tend to get more of that something. In this case, that something is defamation (also known under its common law names of libel and slander). If the media could get sued under the pre-1964 defamation laws, I guarantee you that coverage of Trump would look very different. I'm not saying it would be fair, but media outlets would be much more careful about publishing these hit pieces on him without very carefully verifying their accuracy.

 

[humahuma]

I suspect in terms of expenditures, we are actually closer than you might imagine. How that money is allocated is where we likely differ. All too often, the "smaller government" crowd focus on everything BUT entitlements and defense which means you're immediately forgetting 69.5% of our overall federal expenditures (mandatory and discretionary).

Food stamps is a bit target right? It's sitting in "Food and Agriculture". Of course, in that % is also the price supports our government gives to farmers. Health is primarily Medicare/Medicaid.

This was our 2015 budget.

If you're going to trim the budget, you need to start with the biggest pieces of the pie or you're simply nibbling at the edges.

I would first start with "Remainder", then separate the Home Security % those are two areas we could probably cut some %. I would rather let the American people decide, I pay a certain % in taxes give me a choice of what % go toward each slice of the pie. Or a variation of that maybe 50% toward SS, Health, Defense, then let me chose were to apply the other 50%.

 

[UTChE96]

Do you think Buffet used the tax system to advantage for his companies and Himself?

By his own admission he has. Buffett has often said that he shouldn't pay a lower tax rate than his secretary. Oddly enough, Buffett does not send more to the Federal government than he is legal obligated to. What a heartless bastard!

 

[I35]

OK, you're sorta rambling here. The point of my post is that when you take away the means to impose negative consequences for something, you tend to get more of that something. In this case, that something is defamation (also known under its common law names of libel and slander). If the media could get sued under the pre-1964 defamation laws, I guarantee you that coverage of Trump would look very different. I'm not saying it would be fair, but media outlets would be much more careful about publishing these hit pieces on him without very carefully verifying their accuracy.

Deez, I must've misunderstood what you were saying. I do agree with you on this.

 

[Seattle Husker]

By his own admission he has. Buffett has often said that he shouldn't pay a lower tax rate than his secretary. Oddly enough, Buffett does not send more to the Federal government than he is legal obligated to. What a heartless bastard!

Buffett's aims are pretty simple, a fairer tax code. He's released his tax returns back to 1944. Unlike many of our political leaders (including HRC and Trump), he's pretty transparent in his agenda.

 

[theiioftx]

By his own admission he has. Buffett has often said that he shouldn't pay a lower tax rate than his secretary. Oddly enough, Buffett does not send more to the Federal government than he is legal obligated to. What a heartless bastard!

He should split his annual income evenly across all employees. He doesn't work as hard as his railroad workers.

Also, we need progressive pricing on everything. McDonalds, gasoline, legal fees, teacher salaries, football seats at DKR, etc. why just stop with who pays for an inefficient and ineffective government?