@averagejoe1 saidI'm beginning to think you're a (not particularly bright) high school student at best completely unaware of how the real world works.
You actually think that is figured in when govt data is created....that the amount of tax deducted is part of the computation.????? Man, this is the king of all misleading posts. I' will write it in my journal right up next to Sonhouse and Vivify quotes. Lucky for you I dont have an entry for Handy Andy.
This is hilarious.
Another subject, perhaps?
@averagejoe1 saidJoe, I know you can figure this out. It's called INCOME tax. As a percentage, how much INCOME did the top 1% haul in?
In 2018, the top 1% of income earners---those who earned over $540K,--paid 40%of all income taxes. The top TEN percent paid 71% of federal income tax. I will look at your link later today. My accountant just told me this. Either you or he are wrong.
They pay the taxes because they're the only ones making any serious money. If more people were paid more money then the share of income tax paid by the top 1% would go down.
I don't believe it is a sign of a healthy economy when a person can work 40 hours a week at a job and still be considered impoverished. This person works all day every day building a life for his family but pays very little in taxes because he makes 1,000x less income than the top 1%. I am in no way disparaging the rich, but you should pay more in income tax if you make more money.
What we should be really worried about are all the ultra-wealthy who don't pay any taxes at all. That seems fundamentally unfair. I could use that extra money for some home renovations, but instead Jeff Bezos just bought another yacht. Peter Thiel keeps $5 BILLION in a tax protected retirement account? Waaaacko.
@no1marauder saidThat may be because I write in simple conversational english, which conflicts with your extremely well presented prose,... you certainly win on that front. I do however know enough about the world. You sure know a lot about Socialism. I dont know much about that, so you win on that front, too.
I'm beginning to think you're a (not particularly bright) high school student at best completely unaware of how the real world works.
@wildgrass saidDont get me wrong, I absolutely believe the tax system is skewed, sorry if I sound arrogant. Like when I say how much more do you want the rich to pay, setting aside the ultra wealthy, who need to be dealt with. Like, if MGHM makes $1M a year, how much of that should he give to the government? No one will answer that question. Again, this is diff subject than the horrible loop holes for the ultra wealthy. And yes, I have defended them as corporate magnates with regard to continuing to crank out products that we all want. I do not want to stifle those people, and I sure as hell am not envious of their wealth. The CEO buys his yacht, but MORE important to me is that I can ask Amazon tonite to send me something tomorrow. I love convenience, and the stuff they make for me and my family. Yall be careful what you wish for.
Joe, I know you can figure this out. It's called INCOME tax. As a percentage, how much INCOME did the top 1% haul in?
They pay the taxes because they're the only ones making any serious money. If more people were paid more money then the share of income tax paid by the top 1% would go down.
I don't believe it is a sign of a healthy economy when a person can work 40 ho ...[text shortened]... bought another yacht. Peter Thiel keeps $5 BILLION in a tax protected retirement account? Waaaacko.
As to the 1%, 40% debate, I'm tuckered out.
@averagejoe1 said"You sure know a lot about Socialism. I dont know much about that"
That may be because I write in simple conversational english, which conflicts with your extremely well presented prose,... you certainly win on that front. I do however know enough about the world. You sure know a lot about Socialism. I dont know much about that, so you win on that front, too.
But you're convinced it's bad 😀 Conviction from ignorance
@zahlanzi saidSCOTUS Justice Potter Stewart, in the 60's, was asked to define hard core pornography. "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it'.
"You sure know a lot about Socialism. I dont know much about that"
But you're convinced it's bad 😀 Conviction from ignorance
Please associate me with my man Potter. I know Socialism when I see it. There are many signs, like someone who gets into someone else's business. I actually think that the govt sending the grassroots door knockers to our homes to talk us into vaccination is a form of socialism.
And, unless I didn't make it clear, there is NO QUESTION that it is 'bad'. I prefer freedom and liberty, myself. Zahlanzi, they can't co-exist. Ask Marauder, he will tell you that they cannot co-exist.
@averagejoe1 saidWith a robust middle class and higher wages for the other 90%of america, the tax contribution of the ultra wealthy would be proportionally lower. That 40% figure is disturbing but not in the "rich pay enough already" kind of way. Its a sign of an unhealthy economy in which only the extremely lucky get rich.
Dont get me wrong, I absolutely believe the tax system is skewed, sorry if I sound arrogant. Like when I say how much more do you want the rich to pay, setting aside the ultra wealthy, who need to be dealt with. Like, if MGHM makes $1M a year, how much of that should he give to the government? No one will answer that question. Again, this is diff subject than the ho ...[text shortened]... me and my family. Yall be careful what you wish for.
As to the 1%, 40% debate, I'm tuckered out.
I can't write this enough: no matter what the job is, full time employees should receive enough in income to keep them out of poverty. It's that simple. I don't want my taxes subsidizing Jeff bezos' warehouse workers salary.
@wildgrass saidThere is some tenet in the world of tort law about Duty of Care. We cons wince at the idea of the liberal mindset, that those guys with all that money need to stop in their tracks and wait for folks to catch up, all the while giving them money. Do you think they have a 'duty' to the rest of society? We want those guys to keep producing, but should we hamstring them? They will always find a way to keep pumping,,, even moving to, say, Romania. What if govt forces such rules on corps, does that smack of socialism? I guess it is OK if you like socialism.
With a robust middle class and higher wages for the other 90%of america, the tax contribution of the ultra wealthy would be proportionally lower. That 40% figure is disturbing but not in the "rich pay enough already" kind of way. Its a sign of an unhealthy economy in which only the extremely lucky get rich.
I can't write this enough: no matter what the job is, full time ...[text shortened]... f poverty. It's that simple. I don't want my taxes subsidizing Jeff bezos' warehouse workers salary.
Since a corp is owned by its stockholders, they are the ones who would have to agree to reduce the value of their investment when the wages are increased. I wonder how many in the Forum, if they have a bunch of Apple stock, would vote to reduce their income, their monthly dividends, paid to them by Apple??
@AverageJoe1
I wonder why I have the feeling that once middle class makes more money, the govt will increase their taxes. Some kind of conundrum, isnt it. They do such things. Biden wants to increase taxes, right now, on energy....at the SAME time energy cost is going up. Smart guy? Stupid guy? Liberal? Govt guy?
@averagejoe1 said"SCOTUS Justice Potter Stewart, in the 60's, was asked to define hard core pornography. "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it'."
SCOTUS Justice Potter Stewart, in the 60's, was asked to define hard core pornography. "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it'.
Please associate me with my man Potter. I know Socialism when I see it. There are many signs, like someone who gets into someone else's business. I actually think that the govt sending the grassroots door knockers to our homes to t ...[text shortened]... , myself. Zahlanzi, they can't co-exist. Ask Marauder, he will tell you that they cannot co-exist.
yes, it's not like a judge has to give valid reasons for something. "Because i feel like" it is perfectly fine when you're in power and nobody can question you. You are not a supreme court judge, people can actually call you on your stupid.
"I know Socialism when I see it."
This was stupid coming out the piehole of that judge then and is stupid coming out of you piehole now.
"There are many signs, like someone who gets into someone else's business. "
What, like men telling women what to do with their bodies? That's socialism? Corporations dumping their waste into everybody's rivers? Socialism? Cops killing minorities?
"I prefer freedom and liberty, myself"
You don't support women's right to choose, you live in a country with probably the largest prison population. Let's recap. Do you support the current rate of US incarceration. Do you support legalizing weed. Do you support an American's right to take a knee during the anthem or to burn the US flag in protest or simply because they feel like it?
No? Then you don't support "freedom and liberty", you hypocrite. That's not even going into how there are plenty of socialist countries with more freedom than the US.
Socialism simply means using taxes to minimize suffering for all members of society. Not buy another tank or aircraft carrier you don't need
But i digress. It happens when there is so much stupid coming out of you and one wants to cover it all.
Back to the topic at hand, you have no idea what Socialism is yet you are convinced you don't like it. Tha way you celebrate your lack of knowledge is amusing and i enjoy mocking you for it.
1 edit
@zahlanzi saidIn Marxism theory, it is a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism. Is that about right?
"SCOTUS Justice Potter Stewart, in the 60's, was asked to define hard core pornography. "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it'."
yes, it's not like a judge has to give valid reasons for something. "Because i feel like" it is perfectly fine when you're in power and nobody can question you. You are not a supreme court judge, people can actually call you on your st ...[text shortened]... n't like it. Tha way you celebrate your lack of knowledge is amusing and i enjoy mocking you for it.
OR, we could say it is a society which advocates the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned by or regulated by the community as a whole. Is that about right.?
I am a business man, I have a company which I own, I produce burlap bags, my son owns a trucking company,to distribute them to a pecan company in Fitzgerald Georgia and one in Alabama. How would my life fare, under socialism, with regard to my business and his, We are both sole owners.
- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 29080
@no1marauder saidIf we check the iso-temporal map, the America that was might still exist in some areas of the interior, somewhat removed from the 21st century.
Actually you right wingers hate the America that is and want an America that was.
- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 29080
@averagejoe1 saidI think the punchline is that we all end up wearing burlap sacks, and the liberals take over the means of production while sipping champagne and wearing fancy clothes.
I am a business man, I have a company which I own, I produce burlap bags, my son owns a trucking company,to distribute them to a pecan company in Fitzgerald Georgia and one in Alabama. How would my life fare, under socialism, with regard to my business and his, We are both sole owners.
There probably are some areas where we could shrink the federal government and hand responsibility back to the states or even turn it over to crowd-funding initiatives, which should be easier to set up in the internet age, although of course crowd-funding would just provide different opportunities for skimmers, scammers, and power-mongers.
- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 29080
@averagejoe1 saidBTW, what happened to your legal and academic careers? Did you get disbarred and suspended? 😉
I am a business man, I have a company which I own, I produce burlap bags, my son owns a trucking company,to distribute them to a pecan company in Fitzgerald Georgia and one in Alabama. How would my life fare, under socialism, with regard to my business and his, We are both sole owners.
Or is this just another of your fictitious examples used as a a rhetorical device?
@averagejoe1 saideverything is a transitional state to about anything.
In Marxism theory, it is a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism. Is that about right?
OR, we could say it is a society which advocates the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned by or regulated by the community as a whole. Is that about right.?
I am a business man, I have a company w ...[text shortened]... ow would my life fare, under socialism, with regard to my business and his, We are both sole owners.
Climbing to the top of the Statue of Liberty can be a transitional state to throwing yourself off of it, plunging to your death. Or a transitional state to staying there and admiring the view then climbing back down.
Reasonable states have found a balance between capitalism and socialism and use both to create a society where it works for all, to the best of their ability.
"OR, we could say it is a society which advocates the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned by or regulated by the community as a whole. Is that about right.?"
No it's not "about right". It's about dumb. There wasn't an instance in the known history where Sanders said the government should start making shoes instead of private entities. Or cars. Or US flag underwear the rednecks love so much. Socialist programs, or socialism as people call it (the ones that can hold more than one idea in their head) isn't mutually exclusive with capitalism. One can have capitalism, a free market and healthy competition. Regulated by socialism. When your religion, capitalism, crashed the world economy, that was unregulated capitalism at it's finest. When people tried to put regulations in place so that speculation on Wall street doesn't shoot the world economy in the face again? That was socialism. When those regulations were rolled back ? that was capitalism.
"I am a business man, I have a company which I own, I produce burlap bags, my son owns a trucking company,to distribute them to a pecan company in Fitzgerald Georgia and one in Alabama. How would my life fare, under socialism, with regard to my business and his, We are both sole owners."
If you're competent and don't pay your workers starvation wages, if you offer safe working conditions for your workers, if you don't dump your waste in rivers, exactly the same. Maybe even better because you wouldn't have to pay into expensive healthcare for your workers (or worse if you bought into the cheapest most worthless healthcare you were legally allowed to).