The Media Industry
- Thread starter texas_ex2000
- Start date
I35
5,000+ Posts
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.
Sounds like a solid argument for a flat tax and elimination of legal loopholes.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
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
10,000+ Posts
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.
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.
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.
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"?
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"?
Why aren't we all?
Because some think that the government has enough money already.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
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
10,000+ Posts
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?
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
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.
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
10,000+ Posts
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.
Ok so I get what you mean but somehow this wording sounds a but odd, "wealth in the hands of the poor"?
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
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.
Somebody correct my numbers but I believe it is in that neighborhood.
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
1,000+ Posts
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%.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.
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
5,000+ Posts
Deez, I must've misunderstood what you were saying. I do agree with you on this.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
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.
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?
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
Prediction Results Threads
