Ocasio is right...the rich don’t pay their fair share....they pay more than their fair share
Printable View
Ocasio is right...the rich don’t pay their fair share....they pay more than their fair share
This is how my typical argument goes with a "raise taxes on the rich" leftist:
Leftist: We need to raise taxes on the rich! They aren't paying their fair share!
Me: Actually, they are already paying the highest tax rate AND they would be paying the most even on a flat tax rate, since their income is highest. How can you say they aren't paying enough?
Leftist: But there's so many loopholes! They're getting away with paying so little. We need to raise their tax rates in order to make up for the loopholes!
Me: Isn't that just punishing the rich people who DON'T use the loopholes? How about just eliminating the loopholes and going to a flat tax?
Leftist: A flat tax?? That's regressive and screws the poor!
Me: Okay, then how about a flat tax where the first 50k of income is tax free?
They usually don't have a response at that point.
Well, here is the response you should be hearing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
"How can you say they aren't paying enough?" Because the benefits of government go mostly to the rich. Their income & wealth is protected from crime by the police, foreign invasion by the army, contracts enforced by the courts (they have more to protect than the poor, working class, middle class, even upper middle). And quite often, the business interest of the rich are protected from economic competition by laws, regulation and tariffs.
As an example of this last point, consider something we all are here are quite familiar with, internet poker Sheldon Adelson and his kind---you really think he didn't influence/benefit from the federal law in 2006 and the fed govt Black Friday 2010 crackdown? (talk to Bryan Micon about that btw)
And then you mention flat tax? Well, because of the loopholes, the tax rates have always been much more flat than it appears. Indeed, even when we had top marginal tax rates of 90% (pre-Regan), the effective tax rate was much flatter. Rich folks with income from investment in municipal bonds (tax free interest), or dividend paying stocks (capital gains taxed as 15% flat), or oil (depletion allowances based on production, not investment) or real estate (year of accelerated depreciation) all escaped the higher tax rates. The Regan Tax Cut and Trump Cut lowered tax rates but also cut out many deductions---netting the effect of some of the rate cuts back toward revenue neutral.
so my claim is we've actually had a much flatter tax system than it appears, and the benefits of government are disproportionately skewed towards the high income/wealthy: that is unfair and the reason for increased rates on higher incomes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
quick reminder that this thread is now about the argument that druff constantly has with "raise taxes on the rich" leftists.
black people be like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3YeIPi3sYQ
I feel like we have more of a spending problem rather than a need to tax more.
Hongkonger really needs to come back and comment even though I disagree with him most of the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Yea, I looked at that video again, her face seems to have had some work already, or maybe it's just me staring to hard.
In politics, looks are graded on a yuge curve, shes the equivalent of poker hot.
I looked at recent pictures of her.....sheesh....and she has no kids, I guess all that yoga and vegetarian diet is no match for bad genetics and horrible stress on the campaign trail...I'd still hit it tho...
I was wary/disagree with this broad already, but her bullshit politico stunt about not being able to afford rent in DC made up my mind for me that she is officially cuntarded.
You dumbass! She was pointing out how easily new members of Congress who aren’t financially well-off can end up owning favors to corporate lobbyists who supply them with cheap housing in D.C.Quote:
Originally Posted by gut
Your answer doesn't make much sense if you stop and really think about what you wrote.Quote:
Originally Posted by GrenadaRogerWell, here is the response you should be hearing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
"How can you say they aren't paying enough?" Because the benefits of government go mostly to the rich. Their income & wealth is protected from crime by the police, foreign invasion by the army, contracts enforced by the courts (they have more to protect than the poor, working class, middle class, even upper middle). And quite often, the business interest of the rich are protected from economic competition by laws, regulation and tariffs.
As an example of this last point, consider something we all are here are quite familiar with, internet poker Sheldon Adelson and his kind---you really think he didn't influence/benefit from the federal law in 2006 and the fed govt Black Friday 2010 crackdown? (talk to Bryan Micon about that btw)
And then you mention flat tax? Well, because of the loopholes, the tax rates have always been much more flat than it appears. Indeed, even when we had top marginal tax rates of 90% (pre-Regan), the effective tax rate was much flatter. Rich folks with income from investment in municipal bonds (tax free interest), or dividend paying stocks (capital gains taxed as 15% flat), or oil (depletion allowances based on production, not investment) or real estate (year of accelerated depreciation) all escaped the higher tax rates. The Regan Tax Cut and Trump Cut lowered tax rates but also cut out many deductions---netting the effect of some of the rate cuts back toward revenue neutral.
so my claim is we've actually had a much flatter tax system than it appears, and the benefits of government are disproportionately skewed towards the high income/wealthy: that is unfair and the reason for increased rates on higher incomes.
There will never be complete equality in utilization of government services. They are open to everyone, but certain services are only needed by certain segments of the population, large and small. Frequent drivers are benefited most by the roads. Frequent fliers are most benefited by airports. Business owners utilize the court system the most (though not always to their benefit!) Lower income people use social services and public transportation far more. I disagree with your claim about the military and law enforcement. Those organizations benefit everyone. In fact, law enforcement has a tougher and more important job in the lower class neighborhoods, due to higher crime. Most people in lily-white, upper-class neighborhoods rarely need the police. It is absurd to say that government services "mostly benefit the rich", so therefore they should pay more.
But they are paying more, anyway! The top 20% of income earners are shouldering the vast majority of income tax revenue. Isn't that enough? I'm not arguing that the rich should pay the same amount as the poor. I'm arguing that they should pay the same percentage.
You're correct that Reagan and Trump's tax cuts also came with some loophole eliminations. Funny enough, Clinton's tax hikes actually came with the return of some Reagan-eliminated loopholes (I'm guessing due to special interest influence). But what's your point? It looks like you're trying to claim that the Reagan/Trump changes resulted in a flatter tax, but that doesn't mean the rich aren't paying their fair share. Again, raising marginal tax rates just punishes those who don't have legal ways to dodge taxes.
The left wants to raise taxes on the rich simply because they have always loved taxing the rich, and the "rich people are dodging taxes so we need to tax them more" line of reasoning is just an excuse to soak the rich for more money. They aren't really interested in eliminating the loopholes and making the overall tax rate more fair. Most of them would be thrilled to see the super-rich taxed at 90% again. It's insane and unfair.
She easily could have afforded rent, given her upcoming $200k-ish salary which is guaranteed.Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadlyYou dumbass! She was pointing out how easily new members of Congress who aren’t financially well-off can end up owning favors to corporate lobbyists who supply them with cheap housing in D.C.Quote:
Originally Posted by gut
Even if she lacked the funds prior to taking office, she easily could have taken a loan against her upcoming salary.
This is a non-problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
you are on an absolute roll.
I am not a fan of AOC or leftism in general. That being said, she is very correct the very wealthy (including corporations) receive the most "govt assistance/welfare" in our current system. Everything is completely rigged for them so they proportionately get the most benefits for putting proportionately the least in. In fact, that is pretty much how pure capitalism is designed to work.
That being said, given how fluid borders are in our globalist economy and how easy it would be for wealthy persons/corporations to just relocate, I don't see how legislating them to pay more into the system would be implemented effectively.
Am I wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
you are on an absolute roll.
Do you think it's possible that an elected member of Congress would be broke and unable to afford housing in DC?
Are there even any documented cases in recent decades of a Congressperson doing favors for lobbyists who simply gave them cheap housing? I don't believe it.
I just explained in other posts why that's not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaard
There's indeed a lot of corruption where big corporations influence politicians to do favors for them, but to state that the entire government is a servant to the wealthy is a huge reach.
There's also the issue that large corporations create a lot of jobs, especially in the local areas where they reside, so the government does actually have a legitimate reason to provide them some accommodations.
Often people overlook the fact that, for every wildly successful corporation, there are many which attempted to get there and failed, leaving investors with nothing to show for it. There needs to be a substantial reward for taking a risk and succeeding, or otherwise everyone is going to be afraid to take the risks involved with starting a business or investing in an up-and-coming corporation.
The real answer to a lot of this involves a crackdown on a lot of the lobbying and closing a lot of the tax loopholes.
Sadly, neither party really wants to do this, and the few politicians that do have too many other crazy ideas, to where everything they say basically gets dismissed as nonsense.
Before you ascribe a sophisticated message and intent to AOC, remember that she's the one who said that unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs, and that people dying earlier is expensive because we have to pay for their funerals.Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadlyYou dumbass! She was pointing out how easily new members of Congress who aren’t financially well-off can end up owning favors to corporate lobbyists who supply them with cheap housing in D.C.Quote:
Originally Posted by gut
How can anyone take this chick seriously after statements like that?
honestly tho the real treasure in this thread is watching PFA's 'fiscal conservatives' shitpost about how outrageous the AOC marginal tax rate proposition is, because by all appearances none of them know what a marginal tax rate actually is.
I assume this is aimed at me?Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Please, tell me where I erred in my reasoning, instead of making generalized snarky statements.
uhhhhh respectfully generalized snarky statements are like my brand?