27 Jun 21
Fleets of luxury cars, diamond encrusted wrist watches, palatial yachts, private islands, private jets, libraries of first edition manuscripts, luxury estates, European Castles, extensive jewelry collections, wine cellars, private security, estate staff, art collections, shopping trips to Champs-Elysees, Bond Street, Grafton Street, Tiffany's, Bon Genie – Grieder and the list goes on -
Billionaires:
If you can afford the toys, you can afford the tax!
https://www.finance101.com/billionaire-toys/
@mchill saidSo the ones who have achieved success (on the backs of others, as Suzy says) will be punished for their success. Very interesting concept, to have them pay for all that the world needs, and bring liberal-backed power down upon them, to come to heel and do what in the hell you want them to do. And who do you fellers say are all about power???
Fleets of luxury cars, diamond encrusted wrist watches, palatial yachts, private islands, private jets, libraries of first edition manuscripts, luxury estates, European Castles, extensive jewelry collections, wine cellars, private security, estate staff, art collections, shopping trips to Champs-Elysees, Bond Street, Grafton Street, Tiffany's, Bon Genie – Grieder and the list ...[text shortened]... If you can afford the toys, you can afford the tax!
https://www.finance101.com/billionaire-toys/
Your last sentence above brings to mind a Marx quote,,,,"If you can afford the toys, you can, by God, support the structural programs for the good of the People". Marx said that,, it is on page 63 of his book.
27 Jun 21
@averagejoe1 saidAnd Marx was right, too.
So the ones who have achieved success (on the backs of others, as Suzy says) will be punished for their success. Very interesting concept, to have them pay for all that the world needs, and bring liberal-backed power down upon them, to come to heel and do what in the hell you want them to do. And who do you fellers say are all about power???
Your last sentence ab ...[text shortened]... e structural programs for the good of the People". Marx said that,, it is on page 63 of his book.
27 Jun 21
@averagejoe1 saidSo the ones who have achieved success (on the backs of others, as Suzy says) will be punished for their success.
So the ones who have achieved success (on the backs of others, as Suzy says) will be punished for their success. Very interesting concept, to have them pay for all that the world needs, and bring liberal-backed power down upon them, to come to heel and do what in the hell you want them to do. And who do you fellers say are all about power???
Your last sentence ab ...[text shortened]... e structural programs for the good of the People". Marx said that,, it is on page 63 of his book.
That's right average, just keep telling yourself that. Many in the 1% pay no taxes at all. Is that what you call "being punished"?
@mchill saidMethinks you have been reading some mythology. First, there are a few in unusual circumstances paying less than they should, which is problematic, it is not a perfect system. There are individual exceptions, and we should close some loopholes, but we have a very progressive tax code.
So the ones who have achieved success (on the backs of others, as Suzy says) will be punished for their success.
That's right average, just keep telling yourself that. Many in the 1% pay no taxes at all. Is that what you call "being punished"?
But the top earners pay their fair share overall. Ten percent of American Earners ....Ten percent...make about half of all the income earned in America, and pay 70 percent of all of the income taxes. If they weren't there to pay it, you would.
That is apparently not enough for them to pay, is that what you are saying? Seventy Per Cent! And you dont consider the jobs and services and products that they are responsible for. You want them to pay MORE than 70%. Of course you do not hear what I am saying, as you are one of the three known Marxists in the forum, so this is deaf ear city.
I think all is fine with taxation myself, except for the way you libs (and Marxists) want to spend it. How weak....You want to crash down the door of some rich guy, guns drawn, and demand money out of his safe to pay for other peoples' problems. And that is AFTER you got 70%. Something to ponder. Yep, we are gong to take the money from the rich folks. In effect, limit how much they can earn. Sounds like a power play to me, yet you say Repubs seek power.
29 Jun 21
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidI wouldn't mind the ultra-rich paying 70% instead of the 0-10% they pay now. I paid 28% last year. Jeff Bezos paid less than 0%, because he got money back. Even if the ultra-rich did pay 70%, the money they keep is still more than enough to pay for their lavish lifestyle. How about this? Over 2 million, you pay 50%. Over 4 million, you pay 75%. This leaves them with, at a minimum, 1 million dollars free and clear. More, if they make more than 4 million. I think I could get by quite comfortably on 1 million. This has an added benefit of taking away the money they'd otherwise use to buy legislators.
Methinks you have been reading some mythology. First, there are a few in unusual circumstances paying less than they should, which is problematic, it is not a perfect system. There are individual exceptions, and we should close some loopholes, but we have a very progressive tax code.
But the top earners pay their fair share overall. Ten percent of American Earners ....T ...[text shortened]... ffect, limit how much they can earn. Sounds like a power play to me, yet you say Repubs seek power.
Don't insult our intelligence by claiming the top earners pay their fair share.
29 Jun 21
@suzianne saidI think you misunderstood. The accumulated taxes of that groups amounts to 70% of paid taxes. The individual doesn't pay 50%...most less than 20% due to (well earning) people who tell them how to hide profits.
I wouldn't mind the ultra-rich paying 70% instead of the 0-10% they pay now. I paid 28% last year. Jeff Bezos paid less than 0%, because he got money back. Even if the ultra-rich did pay 70%, the money they keep is still more than enough to pay for their lavish lifestyle. How about this? Over 2 million, you pay 50%. Over 4 million, you pay 75%. This leaves them with, ...[text shortened]... illion. This has an added benefit of taking away the money they'd otherwise use to buy legislators.
29 Jun 21
@averagejoe1 saidMethinks you have been reading some mythology.
Methinks you have been reading some mythology. First, there are a few in unusual circumstances paying less than they should, which is problematic, it is not a perfect system. There are individual exceptions, and we should close some loopholes, but we have a very progressive tax code.
But the top earners pay their fair share overall. Ten percent of American Earners ....T ...[text shortened]... ffect, limit how much they can earn. Sounds like a power play to me, yet you say Repubs seek power.
Oh - you're thinking now? How refreshing. Well, if there are not too many big words in this, try reading some (non) mythology.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/taxes/richest-americans-pay-almost-no-income-taxes-report-finds-n1270069
29 Jun 21
@averagejoe1 saidJoe - in our status quo those who achieved success are being rewarded not punished. They don't pay taxes.
So the ones who have achieved success (on the backs of others, as Suzy says) will be punished for their success. Very interesting concept, to have them pay for all that the world needs, and bring liberal-backed power down upon them, to come to heel and do what in the hell you want them to do. And who do you fellers say are all about power???
Your last sentence ab ...[text shortened]... e structural programs for the good of the People". Marx said that,, it is on page 63 of his book.
Peter Thiel has $5 billion in a tax free retirement account. Do you think he's reinvesting that in the economy? No. He's driving his Italian-made Lambo on roads paid for by the unsuccessful small businesses he trampled.
They need to pay up.