Give me a good reason why the rich should pay more taxes

That's 500 good reasons!

Now this thread can die. To the abyss!

 

Which was?

Yes it was.

It is good.

Not all of it. At most, I'd break even and I'd have to start from scratch, losing all the money I've deposited in.

Where in the article says that CD's are guaranteed? All you've really done was confused low-risk with no-risk. You quoted an article which was it's one of the safest. And the keywords which were used were 'probably' in reference to getting your initial investment back when it comes to CDs. If a bank fails before it matures the you'll be insured for only the principle, but not the interest accumulated interested. If the CD doesn't mature before the bank failure, you run the risk of losing your all of your interest.

As for my say so, how about the SEC or Ally Bank. You may feel free to create a spin friendly version of admitting you're wrong.

 

No it isn't. If the wealthy are spending more, they're paying more in excise taxes. And last time I checked, there was no tax on food (except in those few states) which the poor spend a good portion of the expenditures on.

Nope. If anything, I try to tell them how to avoid that hurtle altogether. But people with zero money don't really think with their wallets.

 

I didn't say anything about their tax on food.
Try this --> compare the amount of money, as a percentage of income, spent on survival by the poor to the rich. The poor spend more money, as a percentage of their income, surviving than the rich do. Therefore the Rich should pay more in taxes, as a percentage of their income, than the poor do to compensate.

 

That doesn't compensate for really…anything.

 

The Top 20 Quintle households pay more in their survival than the Bottom 20. As well as their total household expenditures for that matter.

This has nothing to do with practicality or morality. It's just another excuse bred from logic which in the end truly helps no one.

 

Not as a percentage of their income. Their one home, food, electric, water, trash pickup, one car, the stuff you need to survive in this country. The poor pay more for it, as a percentage of their income, than the rich do.

Something you keep ignoring I use the phrase "as a percentage of their income". You understand what that means right?

 

[

Really, just the wealthiest? What a crock, why shouldn't all citizens of this Country pay taxes the same percentage of income taxes on their earned/ordinary income? Aren't we all effected and benefiting from any war or cost of participating in a war that is waged to protect our Country? Get a grip, stop being so cheap as to be unwilling to pay the same percentage in taxes on your earned/ordinary income as any other individual or couple. Stop expecting others to pay your share. We are a Democratic Republic not a Socialist, Communistic or Fascist Government. If that is the form of Government you seek, I suggest you move to China or another Country with alternative forms of Government. You don't belong here. IMO

 

Yes I do, and it still doesn't make a difference. Which is why I keep saying it. The only key components where the poor pay more as a percentage is food, which you didn't want to consider. And also Health care by a small margin.

The poor also spends more of the income on things which has nothing to do with their survival, you'd be happy to know. Things like Housekeeping supplies, Apparel, services and education. While the rich are spending more on Transportation and Personal Insurance, Pensions and Entertainment by a small margin. In hindsight, the fact that the poor spend more of their income on certain aspects of their survival doesn't really tell you much. They apparently have money for other things as well. Just saying that the poor spend more as a percentage of their income on their survival doesn't tell you about the absolute conditions of the poor.

 

My guess: your mom's basement.

You do realize that tax incidence describes who is actually paying taxes, correct?

Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: you haven't the slightest clue what tax incidence is, or what determines it.

No, it's definitely economics, as you would know if you knew any economics.

<yawn> I'm not American, and don't live in the USA or pay American taxes.

<yawn> Inevitably, it does not support your claim. I invite readers to verify for themselves that p 21 of the pdf Jonelyn has falsely claimed supports her is the tax burden on CROSS-BORDER INVESTMENT, which OF COURSE is lower in most OECD countries than in the USA because most OECD countries are in the EU, which ensures favored tax status for cross-border investment.

No, you don't, because there's no y-axis label on that graph. It was present on the original graph, and showed that it is the RATE of house price increase, which has been in double digits most of the last two years.

Funny how this graph somehow lost its y-axis label, which shows the rate of INCREASE in HK house prices has been firmly in double-digits for most of the last eight years, especially the last two years, and is still increasing, (not decreasing as you falsely and dishonestly claimed), just at a slower rate.

I'm not going out on a limb at all, and say that you claimed HK house prices were decreasing when YOUR OWN SOURCE showed they were INcreasing.

<yawn> Just answer one simple question: what is the y-axis label on the chart you claim shows HK house prices have been decreasing?

Owned.

Yes: it looks like another of your attempts to claim support from a source that in fact does not support you.

I'll just leave that there to show you repeatedly humiliating yourself by your risible ignorance and conceit.

No. My source showed correct information; and unlike your sources, it actually supported my statement. You have simply changed the basis of comparison to use fiscal years instead of calendar years in order to obscure the fact that the national debt was reduced under Clinton.

<yawn> The "political hack website" got its data from YOUR OWN SOURCE, but used the calendar years instead of the fiscal years -- which is more appropriate, as Clinton was still in office until after the end of the calendar year, more than THREE MONTHS after the end of the fiscal year.

Notice the dates. The data you are quoting are NOT for the end of 1999 and 2000, but for the fiscal year-ends.

The Fed rapidly increased the money supply in the final weeks of 1999. This is historical fact widely attested by many sources.

I have proved you wrong on every substantive point of disagreement.

I never said it did, you are just makin' $#!+ up and attributing it to me because you know you have been refuted and demolished. But YOUR OWN SOURCE counts legal tender notes as part of the national debt.

Wrong again.

He has demolished and humiliated you on every substantive point. Every single one.

I have identified the facts that prove you wrong, and also the chronic intellectual dishonesty that you employ to try to bluff your way when you have been caught making things up -- which is often.

Well, when my weakest argument sufficed to refute and humiliate you, I don't think it would have been sporting to go even harder on you.

I couldn't care less if anyone gives me props or thinks I have a point; but I do get occasional fan mail, and you should check out my posts for "likes."

I have not only refuted but demolished and humiliated you.

<yawn> It's an indisputable historical fact that the Fed issued a large amount of extra money in anticipation of a Y2K financial crisis. This is easily verified by any number of sources on the Net. Unlike you, I am old enough to remember when it happened.

 

No, what I am saying is that you cannot make poor people rich by making rich people poor. The "robin hood" idea sounds good but it never works in real life.

A better goal is to make everyone richer, move everyone up the income scale. But you cannot accomplish that by confiscating the wealth of those who have earned it.

But the real point of this is that obama's "punish the rich" mantra will do nothing to solve our financial mess and is nothing but a continuation of his class warfare tactic to divide this nation.

 

If you can't debate the facts, use personal attacks. 50% of the time, it works very time...

Income determines who actually pays taxes. Tax incidences doesn't describe who actually pay taxes. It's merely an analysis a particular tax has on distribution of the well being of the economic. It other words, Price Elasticity.

Tax Incidence

An economic term for the division of a tax burden between buyers and sellers. Tax incidence is related to the price elasticity of supply and demand. When supply is more elastic than demand, the tax burden falls on the buyers. If demand is more elastic than supply, producers will bear the cost of the tax.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax_incidence.asp#axzz2GLd6hiYl



I don't know why you keep grasping at straws, using terms you don't understand and referencing things in hopes you'll prove a point.

Explains a lot why you don't know much of anything about the American progressive tax system. Shocker...

Really sad when I have to post PDF images on my blog to show how often you distort sources people can't physically see for themselves.

​

So yeah, the US doesn't have higher effective tax rates than most countries? You were saying?

It's not impossible to take an image from another website and post it on a forum. Just copy the URL of the image, paste the URL when you want to insert an image. Not rocket science and it doesn't alter anything about the image. It's the same graph. All I did was take the link of the graph and posted it here. Nothing changed. It didn't show a rapid increase in housing prices. It showed an overall decrease in prices and not a rapid increase. You even forget that the source I have provided shows quarterly data on the bottom of the housing price chart. So clearly, you are either making things up or you are lying.

What the hell are you talking about. The y-axis is right there and it has the latest information on housing prices and the year is still 2012. Unless the chart is doing a baseline projection (which it isn't) it's not going to have any information later than the current year.

It is indeed funny. I initially posted a source which support my claims, and you just claimed that it doesn't. So I posted the physical chart so everyone can see and now you are claiming that it doesn't have complete information. It's just a common case of you trying to move the goal post when they are cornered in their own fallacies.

Really? Now they are increasing at a slower rate. Your earlier post contains you saying that housing prices have been increasing rapidly.

So I guess you initial claims of you saying that Hong Kong is experience a housing bubble is false, as you yourself acknowledge that a bubble constitutes a rapid increase in housing prices. Now you are saying they are increasing, just at a slower point. Didn't even have to try hard to prove you wrong here. You already did the work for me.

Having trouble reading basic graphs and charts again I see. Well, here is the same chart, except with more indicators so you can clearly see where the drop is and that housing prices are not increasing rapidly.

​

The Y-Axis is the vertical axis which indicates the changes in percentages. A simple glance would tell you that much.

The fiscal year is the same thing as the financial year, which is the same thing as the budget year. The fiscal year doesn't require anyone to report in a calendar year.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. You do realize that Federal Budget are proposed for the next fiscal year. Not the current one. Early February is when the President proposes a budget, not in the calendar year or at the beginning of the fiscal year. Everything proposed by Clinton for the 2000 fiscal year was proposed in February of 1999. And guess what, there was still a deficit.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Every country in the world has their own fiscal year and it's always different, but you only go by calendar years if you have no idea what you are talking about. Or if you're a complete moron. Either way, it works well for those economically inept.

Every business, organization and government which calculates their finances does it in the fiscal year. Not calendar year.

Well, you see here that there is a drop in the M1 money supply around that time period...



But sure, keep making up your own reality if you wish.

Well I don't have access to your account and I didn't make you say anything you didn't want to say. Everything you said was from your own ignorance of the subject. You said it here:

Again, no increasing the money supply does not increase the national debt. You should really think before you post something.

Because they are. The US Treasury (which is my source) keeps a balance sheet of all it's assets and debt on it's balance sheet, which includes Legal Tender Notes. If I find a 10 dollar note minted in 1965, I can still exchange that for goods and services, I can still deposit it in the bank and I can still trade it for other currencies. This means it still has monetary value denominated in US Dollars. And any Note with monetary value determinate in US Currency can be used to pay off the national debt.

Mh Hm...

Would that be the one where you claimed my source was wrong and when I posted it publicly you claimed that the data was incomplete? Moving the goal post is one thing, lying is another.

Well, there were tons of idiots floating around the forums when I was actually active here. Good to see things haven't changed much.

 

Most people refute facts with their own facts. Not facts with stories, fabrications or false data. Especially when they are caught using stories, fabrications and false data, they don't try to spin their way out of it like you are consistently

Really now? Anything about the FED increasing the monetary base in anticipation to Y2K

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2000_problem#United_States

If there is, point it out to me. I'd love to see it.

 

Because some citizens need that money to prevent from starving or living in the streets. You would charge taxes to someone only making enough money to cover room and board. Shame on you.

 

You shouldn't tax someone that can't afford to eat, or who lives paycheck to paycheck barely making enough money to pay the rent. One sickness and homelessness do they face. Tax them and they could end up homeless.

 

You're over-thinking this. The only thing that matters is that society has chosen to exercise that power over you and society's might makes right. It's what separates us from chimpanzees and it's the way it always will be. Anything else is pop philosophy.

 

how many of those people have money for cigarettes and beer? how many have money for crack and coke? how many have money for air jordans and I phones?

As to your silly "one sickness and they are homeless" , no one is america is denied medical care. no one is driven to bankruptcy by medical bills---those are nothing but dem/lib lies.

 

This thread > 500 posts. You are welcome to start another.

Shangrila
Site Moderator