Elizabeth Warren proposes 'wealth tax' on Americans with more than $50 million in assets
Comments
-
Kind of ironic isn’t it that during the era that MAGA guys have the most nostalgia for - i.e., 1950s to 60s - the top rate never dropped below 70GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re the honest thiefHHusky said:
I think the bigger problem with the 70% marginal tax rate is that it wouldn't raise that much money. I've already said I'd stop fetishizing investment income. Much simpler than taxing you rich guys 70% on your declared income exceeding $10 million.RaceBannon said:HHusky said:
You driving a tank these days, Race?RaceBannon said:Ike sold the interstate freeway system as national defense
Like a wall
Shit the government is supposed to do
Do we need a 70% tax rate to run interstate roads
Damn right, Bob. I’m for a constutional amendment to ban Medicare paying for hip replacements, scooters, prescription meds, etc.SFGbob said:
I'm not a Con-law scholar but I've read the damn thing.MariotaTheGawd said:
I love the self-styled constitutional scholars on this boardSFGbob said:
You guys are like the Kunt who immediately start talking about Firemen and the Police the moment anyone starts talking about cutting state spending.HHusky said:
You missed the liberation of the concentration camps? Ever driven an interstate highway? Do you own any shares of public companies? Will you lose your savings if your bank goes tits up?SFGbob said:
Why would anyone look to the government to make their life better?allpurpleallgold said:
Start voting for people that will make people’s lives better. I always see this shit about “the government”. The government is made up of people. Elect better people and you’ll get better results.Fenderbender123 said:I love how creative politicians have to be when they're trying to take more money from people. If they would actually spend tax dollars on shit we wanted, or on shit that's actually necessary to maintain a healthy, civilized society, there wouldn't even be a need for taxes. People would just donate. Instead, they spend our money in the shittiest, most inefficient way possible, so they have to get creative and try to trick people into supporting tax increases by making us think "Yeah, fuck wealthy people. Those fuckers don't need all that wealth...it's just, like, sitting there totally unused, man. Those greedy, arrogant, unskilled, lazy, fat, racist good-for-nothing rich people only got rich by making me poor anyway. So let's tax the fuck out of them. Sure, that won't improve my standard of living because the government sure as fuck isn't going to make my life any better with that money. But that's not important. What's important is that I can sit here and feel good about all those wealthy people getting fucked over. Fuck yeah!"
The republicans deserve a lot of credit for electing Trump. He’s not the guy but they took their shot to get away from scumbag politicians. More than I can say for a shit load of democrats that won’t even take a shot.
Asking for a friend.
Providing for a national defense is right there in the Constitution. Paying for grandma's hip replacement, I can't find that shit in the Constitution.
Feel free to quote from the grandam's hip replacement clause. -
Shall we pay for government with air?Sledog said:Again someone answer the question of how you think you have the right to another persons property?
-
And yet even with that top rate of 70% the evil rich paid a smaller percentage of the income tax than they do today. As has been discussed ad nauseam, while the top rate may have been 70% few if any actually paid that rate.YellowSnow said:
Kind of ironic isn’t it that during the era that MAGA guys have the most nostalgia for - i.e., 1950s to 60s - the top rate never dropped below 70GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re the honest thiefHHusky said:
I think the bigger problem with the 70% marginal tax rate is that it wouldn't raise that much money. I've already said I'd stop fetishizing investment income. Much simpler than taxing you rich guys 70% on your declared income exceeding $10 million.RaceBannon said:HHusky said:
You driving a tank these days, Race?RaceBannon said:Ike sold the interstate freeway system as national defense
Like a wall
Shit the government is supposed to do
Do we need a 70% tax rate to run interstate roads
Damn right, Bob. I’m for a constutional amendment to ban Medicare paying for hip replacements, scooters, prescription meds, etc.SFGbob said:
I'm not a Con-law scholar but I've read the damn thing.MariotaTheGawd said:
I love the self-styled constitutional scholars on this boardSFGbob said:
You guys are like the Kunt who immediately start talking about Firemen and the Police the moment anyone starts talking about cutting state spending.HHusky said:
You missed the liberation of the concentration camps? Ever driven an interstate highway? Do you own any shares of public companies? Will you lose your savings if your bank goes tits up?SFGbob said:
Why would anyone look to the government to make their life better?allpurpleallgold said:
Start voting for people that will make people’s lives better. I always see this shit about “the government”. The government is made up of people. Elect better people and you’ll get better results.Fenderbender123 said:I love how creative politicians have to be when they're trying to take more money from people. If they would actually spend tax dollars on shit we wanted, or on shit that's actually necessary to maintain a healthy, civilized society, there wouldn't even be a need for taxes. People would just donate. Instead, they spend our money in the shittiest, most inefficient way possible, so they have to get creative and try to trick people into supporting tax increases by making us think "Yeah, fuck wealthy people. Those fuckers don't need all that wealth...it's just, like, sitting there totally unused, man. Those greedy, arrogant, unskilled, lazy, fat, racist good-for-nothing rich people only got rich by making me poor anyway. So let's tax the fuck out of them. Sure, that won't improve my standard of living because the government sure as fuck isn't going to make my life any better with that money. But that's not important. What's important is that I can sit here and feel good about all those wealthy people getting fucked over. Fuck yeah!"
The republicans deserve a lot of credit for electing Trump. He’s not the guy but they took their shot to get away from scumbag politicians. More than I can say for a shit load of democrats that won’t even take a shot.
Asking for a friend.
Providing for a national defense is right there in the Constitution. Paying for grandma's hip replacement, I can't find that shit in the Constitution.
Feel free to quote from the grandam's hip replacement clause.
How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.[4]
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/
-
Because they are Rats and they've always believed that they had an entitlement to the labor of others.Sledog said:Again someone answer the question of how you think you have the right to another persons property?
-
I do laugh at you blasting someone for this being argued ad nauseum and you clearly got absolutely nothing out of that discussion. Look below, now the top tax payers only pay 34% of their income for all taxes. Yet you say above they paid 42%. That's a drastic number. I'm guessing you don't understand what "marginal tax rate" means. Which makes sense cause you were arguing that you still get Personal exemptions.SFGbob said:
And yet even with that top rate of 70% the evil rich paid a smaller percentage of the income tax than they do today. As has been discussed ad nauseam, while the top rate may have been 70% few if any actually paid that rate.YellowSnow said:
Kind of ironic isn’t it that during the era that MAGA guys have the most nostalgia for - i.e., 1950s to 60s - the top rate never dropped below 70GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re the honest thiefHHusky said:
I think the bigger problem with the 70% marginal tax rate is that it wouldn't raise that much money. I've already said I'd stop fetishizing investment income. Much simpler than taxing you rich guys 70% on your declared income exceeding $10 million.RaceBannon said:HHusky said:
You driving a tank these days, Race?RaceBannon said:Ike sold the interstate freeway system as national defense
Like a wall
Shit the government is supposed to do
Do we need a 70% tax rate to run interstate roads
Damn right, Bob. I’m for a constutional amendment to ban Medicare paying for hip replacements, scooters, prescription meds, etc.SFGbob said:
I'm not a Con-law scholar but I've read the damn thing.MariotaTheGawd said:
I love the self-styled constitutional scholars on this boardSFGbob said:
You guys are like the Kunt who immediately start talking about Firemen and the Police the moment anyone starts talking about cutting state spending.HHusky said:
You missed the liberation of the concentration camps? Ever driven an interstate highway? Do you own any shares of public companies? Will you lose your savings if your bank goes tits up?SFGbob said:
Why would anyone look to the government to make their life better?allpurpleallgold said:
Start voting for people that will make people’s lives better. I always see this shit about “the government”. The government is made up of people. Elect better people and you’ll get better results.Fenderbender123 said:I love how creative politicians have to be when they're trying to take more money from people. If they would actually spend tax dollars on shit we wanted, or on shit that's actually necessary to maintain a healthy, civilized society, there wouldn't even be a need for taxes. People would just donate. Instead, they spend our money in the shittiest, most inefficient way possible, so they have to get creative and try to trick people into supporting tax increases by making us think "Yeah, fuck wealthy people. Those fuckers don't need all that wealth...it's just, like, sitting there totally unused, man. Those greedy, arrogant, unskilled, lazy, fat, racist good-for-nothing rich people only got rich by making me poor anyway. So let's tax the fuck out of them. Sure, that won't improve my standard of living because the government sure as fuck isn't going to make my life any better with that money. But that's not important. What's important is that I can sit here and feel good about all those wealthy people getting fucked over. Fuck yeah!"
The republicans deserve a lot of credit for electing Trump. He’s not the guy but they took their shot to get away from scumbag politicians. More than I can say for a shit load of democrats that won’t even take a shot.
Asking for a friend.
Providing for a national defense is right there in the Constitution. Paying for grandma's hip replacement, I can't find that shit in the Constitution.
Feel free to quote from the grandam's hip replacement clause.
How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.[4]
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/
And for those that missed the discussion. As you can see, even tho we have a progressive federal income tax system. When all taxes are taken into account, each tax bracket pays pretty close to their same share of income they make.
-
I do laugh that you're such a dishonest Kunt that you never address what I've actually said. The rich today pay a greater % of all the income taxes paid then they did when the rates were over 70%.
-
No. They. Don't. And yes I discussed that.... Back Then they paid 42% per your fucking quote. And now they pay 34%.SFGbob said:I do laugh that you're such a dishonest Kunt that you never address what I've actually said. The rich today pay a greater % of all the income taxes paid then they did when the rates were over 70%.
And if you are going for percentage of all taxes, as you technically State here. Your quote doesn't have that.
I'm beginning to think you are just fucking stupid and not autistic. -
Uhh...no. It wouldn't move the tax burden to the poor and middle class.2001400ex said:
That's what switching to a VAT would do. Or do you not even know the consequences of the policies you want?MikeDamone said:
No I don’t. Lying asswipe.2001400ex said:
Damoan wants a tax increase on the poor and middle class to give the wealthy a huge tax cut. The rich have suffered enough.MikeDamone said:
It’s the only tax I find somewhat tolerable. A tax on income (productivity) is fucking stupid.PurpleThrobber said:
You pay the VAT tax when you buy the goods. Collection is super easy.HHusky said:
I'm not saying it couldn't work, but it seems like evasion would be an ongoing problem. Much more so than with treating investment income as ordinary income.PurpleThrobber said:
Would be better off with a VAT approach plus a flat tax on earned income (say, somewhere between 17 and 34%, rather easily). High end consumers would pay through the nose. Poor people wouldn't.HHusky said:
I think the bigger problem with the 70% marginal tax rate is that it wouldn't raise that much money. I've already said I'd stop fetishizing investment income. Much simpler than taxing you rich guys 70% on your declared income exceeding $10 million.RaceBannon said:HHusky said:
You driving a tank these days, Race?RaceBannon said:Ike sold the interstate freeway system as national defense
Like a wall
Shit the government is supposed to do
Do we need a 70% tax rate to run interstate roads
Problem solved.
Next.
It puts a much greater burden on the rich in consumption of higher priced goods and services.
Things like groceries are exempt.
-
I do laugh when the lying Kunt who's favorite game is to hide behind how the other person just can't comprehend what he is saying due to poor reading comprehension ends up talking out his ass due to his own poor reading comprehension.2001400ex said:
No. They. Don't. And yes I discussed that.... Back Then they paid 42% per your fucking quote. And now they pay 34%.SFGbob said:I do laugh that you're such a dishonest Kunt that you never address what I've actually said. The rich today pay a greater % of all the income taxes paid then they did when the rates were over 70%.
And if you are going for percentage of all taxes, as you technically State here. Your quote doesn't have that.
I'm beginning to think you are just fucking stupid and not autistic.
Hey dumbfuck, that 42% includes a hell of lot more than just income taxes.
The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes.
And I'm not just beginning to believe because it's been obvious since my first couple days here that you're a lying moron Hondo. -
Yep. The income tax has been such a needlessly complex mess full of all manner of distortions to the maket. We’d be better off reducing them dramatically and going mostly VAT.SFGbob said:
And yet even with that top rate of 70% the evil rich paid a smaller percentage of the income tax than they do today. As has been discussed ad nauseam, while the top rate may have been 70% few if any actually paid that rate.YellowSnow said:
Kind of ironic isn’t it that during the era that MAGA guys have the most nostalgia for - i.e., 1950s to 60s - the top rate never dropped below 70GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re the honest thiefHHusky said:
I think the bigger problem with the 70% marginal tax rate is that it wouldn't raise that much money. I've already said I'd stop fetishizing investment income. Much simpler than taxing you rich guys 70% on your declared income exceeding $10 million.RaceBannon said:HHusky said:
You driving a tank these days, Race?RaceBannon said:Ike sold the interstate freeway system as national defense
Like a wall
Shit the government is supposed to do
Do we need a 70% tax rate to run interstate roads
Damn right, Bob. I’m for a constutional amendment to ban Medicare paying for hip replacements, scooters, prescription meds, etc.SFGbob said:
I'm not a Con-law scholar but I've read the damn thing.MariotaTheGawd said:
I love the self-styled constitutional scholars on this boardSFGbob said:
You guys are like the Kunt who immediately start talking about Firemen and the Police the moment anyone starts talking about cutting state spending.HHusky said:
You missed the liberation of the concentration camps? Ever driven an interstate highway? Do you own any shares of public companies? Will you lose your savings if your bank goes tits up?SFGbob said:
Why would anyone look to the government to make their life better?allpurpleallgold said:
Start voting for people that will make people’s lives better. I always see this shit about “the government”. The government is made up of people. Elect better people and you’ll get better results.Fenderbender123 said:I love how creative politicians have to be when they're trying to take more money from people. If they would actually spend tax dollars on shit we wanted, or on shit that's actually necessary to maintain a healthy, civilized society, there wouldn't even be a need for taxes. People would just donate. Instead, they spend our money in the shittiest, most inefficient way possible, so they have to get creative and try to trick people into supporting tax increases by making us think "Yeah, fuck wealthy people. Those fuckers don't need all that wealth...it's just, like, sitting there totally unused, man. Those greedy, arrogant, unskilled, lazy, fat, racist good-for-nothing rich people only got rich by making me poor anyway. So let's tax the fuck out of them. Sure, that won't improve my standard of living because the government sure as fuck isn't going to make my life any better with that money. But that's not important. What's important is that I can sit here and feel good about all those wealthy people getting fucked over. Fuck yeah!"
The republicans deserve a lot of credit for electing Trump. He’s not the guy but they took their shot to get away from scumbag politicians. More than I can say for a shit load of democrats that won’t even take a shot.
Asking for a friend.
Providing for a national defense is right there in the Constitution. Paying for grandma's hip replacement, I can't find that shit in the Constitution.
Feel free to quote from the grandam's hip replacement clause.
How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.[4]
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/ -
Yeah but there'd be no earned income credit and they'd pay federal taxes no matter what. Where right now, if you make under $50k with kids you don't pay any and if you make like $70k and are married with kids you don't pay income tax. (Those numbers are rough but you get the point).PurpleThrobber said:
Uhh...no. It wouldn't move the tax burden to the poor and middle class.2001400ex said:
That's what switching to a VAT would do. Or do you not even know the consequences of the policies you want?MikeDamone said:
No I don’t. Lying asswipe.2001400ex said:
Damoan wants a tax increase on the poor and middle class to give the wealthy a huge tax cut. The rich have suffered enough.MikeDamone said:
It’s the only tax I find somewhat tolerable. A tax on income (productivity) is fucking stupid.PurpleThrobber said:
You pay the VAT tax when you buy the goods. Collection is super easy.HHusky said:
I'm not saying it couldn't work, but it seems like evasion would be an ongoing problem. Much more so than with treating investment income as ordinary income.PurpleThrobber said:
Would be better off with a VAT approach plus a flat tax on earned income (say, somewhere between 17 and 34%, rather easily). High end consumers would pay through the nose. Poor people wouldn't.HHusky said:
I think the bigger problem with the 70% marginal tax rate is that it wouldn't raise that much money. I've already said I'd stop fetishizing investment income. Much simpler than taxing you rich guys 70% on your declared income exceeding $10 million.RaceBannon said:HHusky said:
You driving a tank these days, Race?RaceBannon said:Ike sold the interstate freeway system as national defense
Like a wall
Shit the government is supposed to do
Do we need a 70% tax rate to run interstate roads
Problem solved.
Next.
It puts a much greater burden on the rich in consumption of higher priced goods and services.
Things like groceries are exempt.
Imagine buying a $10k vehicle with a VAT plus State taxes if you made $50k a year. That purchase alone would be much greater than the federal income tax that person pays now. -
I agree with that but only if you eliminate the income tax before enacting the VAT. You'd have to have some fail safe measure that would require and extremely high bar to ever bring back an income tax. Because if you didn't you'd then be getting the worst of both worlds. High income taxes and a national sales tax.YellowSnow said:
Yep. The income tax has been such a needlessly complex mess full of all manner of distortions to the maket. We’d be better off reducing them dramatically and going mostly VAT.SFGbob said:
And yet even with that top rate of 70% the evil rich paid a smaller percentage of the income tax than they do today. As has been discussed ad nauseam, while the top rate may have been 70% few if any actually paid that rate.YellowSnow said:
Kind of ironic isn’t it that during the era that MAGA guys have the most nostalgia for - i.e., 1950s to 60s - the top rate never dropped below 70GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re the honest thiefHHusky said:
I think the bigger problem with the 70% marginal tax rate is that it wouldn't raise that much money. I've already said I'd stop fetishizing investment income. Much simpler than taxing you rich guys 70% on your declared income exceeding $10 million.RaceBannon said:HHusky said:
You driving a tank these days, Race?RaceBannon said:Ike sold the interstate freeway system as national defense
Like a wall
Shit the government is supposed to do
Do we need a 70% tax rate to run interstate roads
Damn right, Bob. I’m for a constutional amendment to ban Medicare paying for hip replacements, scooters, prescription meds, etc.SFGbob said:
I'm not a Con-law scholar but I've read the damn thing.MariotaTheGawd said:
I love the self-styled constitutional scholars on this boardSFGbob said:
You guys are like the Kunt who immediately start talking about Firemen and the Police the moment anyone starts talking about cutting state spending.HHusky said:
You missed the liberation of the concentration camps? Ever driven an interstate highway? Do you own any shares of public companies? Will you lose your savings if your bank goes tits up?SFGbob said:
Why would anyone look to the government to make their life better?allpurpleallgold said:
Start voting for people that will make people’s lives better. I always see this shit about “the government”. The government is made up of people. Elect better people and you’ll get better results.Fenderbender123 said:I love how creative politicians have to be when they're trying to take more money from people. If they would actually spend tax dollars on shit we wanted, or on shit that's actually necessary to maintain a healthy, civilized society, there wouldn't even be a need for taxes. People would just donate. Instead, they spend our money in the shittiest, most inefficient way possible, so they have to get creative and try to trick people into supporting tax increases by making us think "Yeah, fuck wealthy people. Those fuckers don't need all that wealth...it's just, like, sitting there totally unused, man. Those greedy, arrogant, unskilled, lazy, fat, racist good-for-nothing rich people only got rich by making me poor anyway. So let's tax the fuck out of them. Sure, that won't improve my standard of living because the government sure as fuck isn't going to make my life any better with that money. But that's not important. What's important is that I can sit here and feel good about all those wealthy people getting fucked over. Fuck yeah!"
The republicans deserve a lot of credit for electing Trump. He’s not the guy but they took their shot to get away from scumbag politicians. More than I can say for a shit load of democrats that won’t even take a shot.
Asking for a friend.
Providing for a national defense is right there in the Constitution. Paying for grandma's hip replacement, I can't find that shit in the Constitution.
Feel free to quote from the grandam's hip replacement clause.
How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.[4]
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/
-
I can’t be the only person here who is advocating things that would increase his own taxes. How do you propose we fund government, blob?SFGbob said:
Because they are Rats and they've always believed that they had an entitlement to the labor of others.Sledog said:Again someone answer the question of how you think you have the right to another persons property?
-
There’s a reason my wife and I deliberately make some purchases in Oregon. Why wouldn’t people making large purchases choose to make them outside of the US?YellowSnow said:
Yep. The income tax has been such a needlessly complex mess full of all manner of distortions to the maket. We’d be better off reducing them dramatically and going mostly VAT.SFGbob said:
And yet even with that top rate of 70% the evil rich paid a smaller percentage of the income tax than they do today. As has been discussed ad nauseam, while the top rate may have been 70% few if any actually paid that rate.YellowSnow said:
Kind of ironic isn’t it that during the era that MAGA guys have the most nostalgia for - i.e., 1950s to 60s - the top rate never dropped below 70GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re the honest thiefHHusky said:
I think the bigger problem with the 70% marginal tax rate is that it wouldn't raise that much money. I've already said I'd stop fetishizing investment income. Much simpler than taxing you rich guys 70% on your declared income exceeding $10 million.RaceBannon said:HHusky said:
You driving a tank these days, Race?RaceBannon said:Ike sold the interstate freeway system as national defense
Like a wall
Shit the government is supposed to do
Do we need a 70% tax rate to run interstate roads
Damn right, Bob. I’m for a constutional amendment to ban Medicare paying for hip replacements, scooters, prescription meds, etc.SFGbob said:
I'm not a Con-law scholar but I've read the damn thing.MariotaTheGawd said:
I love the self-styled constitutional scholars on this boardSFGbob said:
You guys are like the Kunt who immediately start talking about Firemen and the Police the moment anyone starts talking about cutting state spending.HHusky said:
You missed the liberation of the concentration camps? Ever driven an interstate highway? Do you own any shares of public companies? Will you lose your savings if your bank goes tits up?SFGbob said:
Why would anyone look to the government to make their life better?allpurpleallgold said:
Start voting for people that will make people’s lives better. I always see this shit about “the government”. The government is made up of people. Elect better people and you’ll get better results.Fenderbender123 said:I love how creative politicians have to be when they're trying to take more money from people. If they would actually spend tax dollars on shit we wanted, or on shit that's actually necessary to maintain a healthy, civilized society, there wouldn't even be a need for taxes. People would just donate. Instead, they spend our money in the shittiest, most inefficient way possible, so they have to get creative and try to trick people into supporting tax increases by making us think "Yeah, fuck wealthy people. Those fuckers don't need all that wealth...it's just, like, sitting there totally unused, man. Those greedy, arrogant, unskilled, lazy, fat, racist good-for-nothing rich people only got rich by making me poor anyway. So let's tax the fuck out of them. Sure, that won't improve my standard of living because the government sure as fuck isn't going to make my life any better with that money. But that's not important. What's important is that I can sit here and feel good about all those wealthy people getting fucked over. Fuck yeah!"
The republicans deserve a lot of credit for electing Trump. He’s not the guy but they took their shot to get away from scumbag politicians. More than I can say for a shit load of democrats that won’t even take a shot.
Asking for a friend.
Providing for a national defense is right there in the Constitution. Paying for grandma's hip replacement, I can't find that shit in the Constitution.
Feel free to quote from the grandam's hip replacement clause.
How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.[4]
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/ -
If you buy a car in Oregon and then register in WA do you have to pay sales tax in WA? Axing for a fren...HHusky said:
There’s a reason my wife and I deliberately make some purchases in Oregon. Why wouldn’t people making large purchases choose to make them outside of the US?YellowSnow said:
Yep. The income tax has been such a needlessly complex mess full of all manner of distortions to the maket. We’d be better off reducing them dramatically and going mostly VAT.SFGbob said:
And yet even with that top rate of 70% the evil rich paid a smaller percentage of the income tax than they do today. As has been discussed ad nauseam, while the top rate may have been 70% few if any actually paid that rate.YellowSnow said:
Kind of ironic isn’t it that during the era that MAGA guys have the most nostalgia for - i.e., 1950s to 60s - the top rate never dropped below 70GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re the honest thiefHHusky said:
I think the bigger problem with the 70% marginal tax rate is that it wouldn't raise that much money. I've already said I'd stop fetishizing investment income. Much simpler than taxing you rich guys 70% on your declared income exceeding $10 million.RaceBannon said:HHusky said:
You driving a tank these days, Race?RaceBannon said:Ike sold the interstate freeway system as national defense
Like a wall
Shit the government is supposed to do
Do we need a 70% tax rate to run interstate roads
Damn right, Bob. I’m for a constutional amendment to ban Medicare paying for hip replacements, scooters, prescription meds, etc.SFGbob said:
I'm not a Con-law scholar but I've read the damn thing.MariotaTheGawd said:
I love the self-styled constitutional scholars on this boardSFGbob said:
You guys are like the Kunt who immediately start talking about Firemen and the Police the moment anyone starts talking about cutting state spending.HHusky said:
You missed the liberation of the concentration camps? Ever driven an interstate highway? Do you own any shares of public companies? Will you lose your savings if your bank goes tits up?SFGbob said:
Why would anyone look to the government to make their life better?allpurpleallgold said:
Start voting for people that will make people’s lives better. I always see this shit about “the government”. The government is made up of people. Elect better people and you’ll get better results.Fenderbender123 said:I love how creative politicians have to be when they're trying to take more money from people. If they would actually spend tax dollars on shit we wanted, or on shit that's actually necessary to maintain a healthy, civilized society, there wouldn't even be a need for taxes. People would just donate. Instead, they spend our money in the shittiest, most inefficient way possible, so they have to get creative and try to trick people into supporting tax increases by making us think "Yeah, fuck wealthy people. Those fuckers don't need all that wealth...it's just, like, sitting there totally unused, man. Those greedy, arrogant, unskilled, lazy, fat, racist good-for-nothing rich people only got rich by making me poor anyway. So let's tax the fuck out of them. Sure, that won't improve my standard of living because the government sure as fuck isn't going to make my life any better with that money. But that's not important. What's important is that I can sit here and feel good about all those wealthy people getting fucked over. Fuck yeah!"
The republicans deserve a lot of credit for electing Trump. He’s not the guy but they took their shot to get away from scumbag politicians. More than I can say for a shit load of democrats that won’t even take a shot.
Asking for a friend.
Providing for a national defense is right there in the Constitution. Paying for grandma's hip replacement, I can't find that shit in the Constitution.
Feel free to quote from the grandam's hip replacement clause.
How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.[4]
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/ -
First of all I would shrink the size of government so that it only does the thing you Kunts cite to whenever you extol the virtues of paying taxes. Road, bridges, military, courts. A 15% top income tax rate, or a VAT or flat-tax no deductions.HHusky said:
I can’t be the only person here who is advocating things that would increase his own taxes. How do you propose we fund government, blob?SFGbob said:
Because they are Rats and they've always believed that they had an entitlement to the labor of others.Sledog said:Again someone answer the question of how you think you have the right to another persons property?
Grandma pays for her own fucking hip replacement and her retirement. -
Yep. But that’s not true of multiple other items. The sales tax on a $1,500 - 2,000 shopping trip is not insignificant. Think laptops and furniture and countless other things.YellowSnow said:
If you buy a car in Oregon and then register in WA do you have to pay sale tax in WA? Axing for a fren...HHusky said:
There’s a reason my wife and I deliberately make some purchases in Oregon. Why wouldn’t people making large purchases choose to make them outside of the US?YellowSnow said:
Yep. The income tax has been such a needlessly complex mess full of all manner of distortions to the maket. We’d be better off reducing them dramatically and going mostly VAT.SFGbob said:
And yet even with that top rate of 70% the evil rich paid a smaller percentage of the income tax than they do today. As has been discussed ad nauseam, while the top rate may have been 70% few if any actually paid that rate.YellowSnow said:
Kind of ironic isn’t it that during the era that MAGA guys have the most nostalgia for - i.e., 1950s to 60s - the top rate never dropped below 70GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re the honest thiefHHusky said:
I think the bigger problem with the 70% marginal tax rate is that it wouldn't raise that much money. I've already said I'd stop fetishizing investment income. Much simpler than taxing you rich guys 70% on your declared income exceeding $10 million.RaceBannon said:HHusky said:
You driving a tank these days, Race?RaceBannon said:Ike sold the interstate freeway system as national defense
Like a wall
Shit the government is supposed to do
Do we need a 70% tax rate to run interstate roads
Damn right, Bob. I’m for a constutional amendment to ban Medicare paying for hip replacements, scooters, prescription meds, etc.SFGbob said:
I'm not a Con-law scholar but I've read the damn thing.MariotaTheGawd said:
I love the self-styled constitutional scholars on this boardSFGbob said:
You guys are like the Kunt who immediately start talking about Firemen and the Police the moment anyone starts talking about cutting state spending.HHusky said:
You missed the liberation of the concentration camps? Ever driven an interstate highway? Do you own any shares of public companies? Will you lose your savings if your bank goes tits up?SFGbob said:
Why would anyone look to the government to make their life better?allpurpleallgold said:
Start voting for people that will make people’s lives better. I always see this shit about “the government”. The government is made up of people. Elect better people and you’ll get better results.Fenderbender123 said:I love how creative politicians have to be when they're trying to take more money from people. If they would actually spend tax dollars on shit we wanted, or on shit that's actually necessary to maintain a healthy, civilized society, there wouldn't even be a need for taxes. People would just donate. Instead, they spend our money in the shittiest, most inefficient way possible, so they have to get creative and try to trick people into supporting tax increases by making us think "Yeah, fuck wealthy people. Those fuckers don't need all that wealth...it's just, like, sitting there totally unused, man. Those greedy, arrogant, unskilled, lazy, fat, racist good-for-nothing rich people only got rich by making me poor anyway. So let's tax the fuck out of them. Sure, that won't improve my standard of living because the government sure as fuck isn't going to make my life any better with that money. But that's not important. What's important is that I can sit here and feel good about all those wealthy people getting fucked over. Fuck yeah!"
The republicans deserve a lot of credit for electing Trump. He’s not the guy but they took their shot to get away from scumbag politicians. More than I can say for a shit load of democrats that won’t even take a shot.
Asking for a friend.
Providing for a national defense is right there in the Constitution. Paying for grandma's hip replacement, I can't find that shit in the Constitution.
Feel free to quote from the grandam's hip replacement clause.
How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.[4]
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/ -
If you did that in California you would have to pay the sales tax on it when you registered it here.HHusky said:
Yep. But that’s not true of multiple other items. The sales tax on a $1,500 - 2,000 shopping trip is not insignificant.YellowSnow said:
If you buy a car in Oregon and then register in WA do you have to pay sale tax in WA? Axing for a fren...HHusky said:
There’s a reason my wife and I deliberately make some purchases in Oregon. Why wouldn’t people making large purchases choose to make them outside of the US?YellowSnow said:
Yep. The income tax has been such a needlessly complex mess full of all manner of distortions to the maket. We’d be better off reducing them dramatically and going mostly VAT.SFGbob said:
And yet even with that top rate of 70% the evil rich paid a smaller percentage of the income tax than they do today. As has been discussed ad nauseam, while the top rate may have been 70% few if any actually paid that rate.YellowSnow said:
Kind of ironic isn’t it that during the era that MAGA guys have the most nostalgia for - i.e., 1950s to 60s - the top rate never dropped below 70GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re the honest thiefHHusky said:
I think the bigger problem with the 70% marginal tax rate is that it wouldn't raise that much money. I've already said I'd stop fetishizing investment income. Much simpler than taxing you rich guys 70% on your declared income exceeding $10 million.RaceBannon said:HHusky said:
You driving a tank these days, Race?RaceBannon said:Ike sold the interstate freeway system as national defense
Like a wall
Shit the government is supposed to do
Do we need a 70% tax rate to run interstate roads
Damn right, Bob. I’m for a constutional amendment to ban Medicare paying for hip replacements, scooters, prescription meds, etc.SFGbob said:
I'm not a Con-law scholar but I've read the damn thing.MariotaTheGawd said:
I love the self-styled constitutional scholars on this boardSFGbob said:
You guys are like the Kunt who immediately start talking about Firemen and the Police the moment anyone starts talking about cutting state spending.HHusky said:
You missed the liberation of the concentration camps? Ever driven an interstate highway? Do you own any shares of public companies? Will you lose your savings if your bank goes tits up?SFGbob said:
Why would anyone look to the government to make their life better?allpurpleallgold said:
Start voting for people that will make people’s lives better. I always see this shit about “the government”. The government is made up of people. Elect better people and you’ll get better results.Fenderbender123 said:I love how creative politicians have to be when they're trying to take more money from people. If they would actually spend tax dollars on shit we wanted, or on shit that's actually necessary to maintain a healthy, civilized society, there wouldn't even be a need for taxes. People would just donate. Instead, they spend our money in the shittiest, most inefficient way possible, so they have to get creative and try to trick people into supporting tax increases by making us think "Yeah, fuck wealthy people. Those fuckers don't need all that wealth...it's just, like, sitting there totally unused, man. Those greedy, arrogant, unskilled, lazy, fat, racist good-for-nothing rich people only got rich by making me poor anyway. So let's tax the fuck out of them. Sure, that won't improve my standard of living because the government sure as fuck isn't going to make my life any better with that money. But that's not important. What's important is that I can sit here and feel good about all those wealthy people getting fucked over. Fuck yeah!"
The republicans deserve a lot of credit for electing Trump. He’s not the guy but they took their shot to get away from scumbag politicians. More than I can say for a shit load of democrats that won’t even take a shot.
Asking for a friend.
Providing for a national defense is right there in the Constitution. Paying for grandma's hip replacement, I can't find that shit in the Constitution.
Feel free to quote from the grandam's hip replacement clause.
How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.[4]
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/
I'm sure that Washington does the same, don't know for certain but I can't image only California does that. -
Agree, but how are people going to bring back $1500 to $2000 worth of stuff from abroad tax free? Is everyone going to become a smuggler?HHusky said:
Yep. But that’s not true of multiple other items. The sales tax on a $1,500 - 2,000 shopping trip is not insignificant. Think laptops and furniture and countless other things.YellowSnow said:
If you buy a car in Oregon and then register in WA do you have to pay sale tax in WA? Axing for a fren...HHusky said:
There’s a reason my wife and I deliberately make some purchases in Oregon. Why wouldn’t people making large purchases choose to make them outside of the US?YellowSnow said:
Yep. The income tax has been such a needlessly complex mess full of all manner of distortions to the maket. We’d be better off reducing them dramatically and going mostly VAT.SFGbob said:
And yet even with that top rate of 70% the evil rich paid a smaller percentage of the income tax than they do today. As has been discussed ad nauseam, while the top rate may have been 70% few if any actually paid that rate.YellowSnow said:
Kind of ironic isn’t it that during the era that MAGA guys have the most nostalgia for - i.e., 1950s to 60s - the top rate never dropped below 70GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re the honest thiefHHusky said:
I think the bigger problem with the 70% marginal tax rate is that it wouldn't raise that much money. I've already said I'd stop fetishizing investment income. Much simpler than taxing you rich guys 70% on your declared income exceeding $10 million.RaceBannon said:HHusky said:
You driving a tank these days, Race?RaceBannon said:Ike sold the interstate freeway system as national defense
Like a wall
Shit the government is supposed to do
Do we need a 70% tax rate to run interstate roads
Damn right, Bob. I’m for a constutional amendment to ban Medicare paying for hip replacements, scooters, prescription meds, etc.SFGbob said:
I'm not a Con-law scholar but I've read the damn thing.MariotaTheGawd said:
I love the self-styled constitutional scholars on this boardSFGbob said:
You guys are like the Kunt who immediately start talking about Firemen and the Police the moment anyone starts talking about cutting state spending.HHusky said:
You missed the liberation of the concentration camps? Ever driven an interstate highway? Do you own any shares of public companies? Will you lose your savings if your bank goes tits up?SFGbob said:
Why would anyone look to the government to make their life better?allpurpleallgold said:
Start voting for people that will make people’s lives better. I always see this shit about “the government”. The government is made up of people. Elect better people and you’ll get better results.Fenderbender123 said:I love how creative politicians have to be when they're trying to take more money from people. If they would actually spend tax dollars on shit we wanted, or on shit that's actually necessary to maintain a healthy, civilized society, there wouldn't even be a need for taxes. People would just donate. Instead, they spend our money in the shittiest, most inefficient way possible, so they have to get creative and try to trick people into supporting tax increases by making us think "Yeah, fuck wealthy people. Those fuckers don't need all that wealth...it's just, like, sitting there totally unused, man. Those greedy, arrogant, unskilled, lazy, fat, racist good-for-nothing rich people only got rich by making me poor anyway. So let's tax the fuck out of them. Sure, that won't improve my standard of living because the government sure as fuck isn't going to make my life any better with that money. But that's not important. What's important is that I can sit here and feel good about all those wealthy people getting fucked over. Fuck yeah!"
The republicans deserve a lot of credit for electing Trump. He’s not the guy but they took their shot to get away from scumbag politicians. More than I can say for a shit load of democrats that won’t even take a shot.
Asking for a friend.
Providing for a national defense is right there in the Constitution. Paying for grandma's hip replacement, I can't find that shit in the Constitution.
Feel free to quote from the grandam's hip replacement clause.
How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.[4]
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/ -
SFGbob said:
First of all I would shrink the size of government so that it only does the thing you Kunts cite to whenever you extol the virtues of paying taxes. Road, bridges, military, courts. A 15% top income tax rate, or a VAT or flat-tax no deductions.HHusky said:
I can’t be the only person here who is advocating things that would increase his own taxes. How do you propose we fund government, blob?SFGbob said:
Because they are Rats and they've always believed that they had an entitlement to the labor of others.Sledog said:Again someone answer the question of how you think you have the right to another persons property?
Grandma pays for her own fucking hip replacement and her retirement.
So really your question was just rhetorical blather. You too think taxes must be levied and the question is how high they should be.SFGbob said:
First of all I would shrink the size of government so that it only does the thing you Kunts cite to whenever you extol the virtues of paying taxes. Road, bridges, military, courts. A 15% top income tax rate, or a VAT or flat-tax no deductions.HHusky said:
I can’t be the only person here who is advocating things that would increase his own taxes. How do you propose we fund government, blob?SFGbob said:
Because they are Rats and they've always believed that they had an entitlement to the labor of others.Sledog said:Again someone answer the question of how you think you have the right to another persons property?
Grandma pays for her own fucking hip replacement and her retirement. -
WA works the same way.SFGbob said:
If you did that in California you would have to pay the sales tax on it when you registered it here.HHusky said:
Yep. But that’s not true of multiple other items. The sales tax on a $1,500 - 2,000 shopping trip is not insignificant.YellowSnow said:
If you buy a car in Oregon and then register in WA do you have to pay sale tax in WA? Axing for a fren...HHusky said:
There’s a reason my wife and I deliberately make some purchases in Oregon. Why wouldn’t people making large purchases choose to make them outside of the US?YellowSnow said:
Yep. The income tax has been such a needlessly complex mess full of all manner of distortions to the maket. We’d be better off reducing them dramatically and going mostly VAT.SFGbob said:
And yet even with that top rate of 70% the evil rich paid a smaller percentage of the income tax than they do today. As has been discussed ad nauseam, while the top rate may have been 70% few if any actually paid that rate.YellowSnow said:
Kind of ironic isn’t it that during the era that MAGA guys have the most nostalgia for - i.e., 1950s to 60s - the top rate never dropped below 70GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re the honest thiefHHusky said:
I think the bigger problem with the 70% marginal tax rate is that it wouldn't raise that much money. I've already said I'd stop fetishizing investment income. Much simpler than taxing you rich guys 70% on your declared income exceeding $10 million.RaceBannon said:HHusky said:
You driving a tank these days, Race?RaceBannon said:Ike sold the interstate freeway system as national defense
Like a wall
Shit the government is supposed to do
Do we need a 70% tax rate to run interstate roads
Damn right, Bob. I’m for a constutional amendment to ban Medicare paying for hip replacements, scooters, prescription meds, etc.SFGbob said:
I'm not a Con-law scholar but I've read the damn thing.MariotaTheGawd said:
I love the self-styled constitutional scholars on this boardSFGbob said:
You guys are like the Kunt who immediately start talking about Firemen and the Police the moment anyone starts talking about cutting state spending.HHusky said:
You missed the liberation of the concentration camps? Ever driven an interstate highway? Do you own any shares of public companies? Will you lose your savings if your bank goes tits up?SFGbob said:
Why would anyone look to the government to make their life better?allpurpleallgold said:
Start voting for people that will make people’s lives better. I always see this shit about “the government”. The government is made up of people. Elect better people and you’ll get better results.Fenderbender123 said:I love how creative politicians have to be when they're trying to take more money from people. If they would actually spend tax dollars on shit we wanted, or on shit that's actually necessary to maintain a healthy, civilized society, there wouldn't even be a need for taxes. People would just donate. Instead, they spend our money in the shittiest, most inefficient way possible, so they have to get creative and try to trick people into supporting tax increases by making us think "Yeah, fuck wealthy people. Those fuckers don't need all that wealth...it's just, like, sitting there totally unused, man. Those greedy, arrogant, unskilled, lazy, fat, racist good-for-nothing rich people only got rich by making me poor anyway. So let's tax the fuck out of them. Sure, that won't improve my standard of living because the government sure as fuck isn't going to make my life any better with that money. But that's not important. What's important is that I can sit here and feel good about all those wealthy people getting fucked over. Fuck yeah!"
The republicans deserve a lot of credit for electing Trump. He’s not the guy but they took their shot to get away from scumbag politicians. More than I can say for a shit load of democrats that won’t even take a shot.
Asking for a friend.
Providing for a national defense is right there in the Constitution. Paying for grandma's hip replacement, I can't find that shit in the Constitution.
Feel free to quote from the grandam's hip replacement clause.
How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.[4]
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/
I'm sure that Washington does the same, don't know for certain but I can't image only California does that. -
Register in Montana through an LLC. Keep for a year, then register in WA. All my quads, SxS, fifth wheel and trailers are still registered in Montana. Street legal too.YellowSnow said:
If you buy a car in Oregon and then register in WA do you have to pay sales tax in WA? Axing for a fren...HHusky said:
There’s a reason my wife and I deliberately make some purchases in Oregon. Why wouldn’t people making large purchases choose to make them outside of the US?YellowSnow said:
Yep. The income tax has been such a needlessly complex mess full of all manner of distortions to the maket. We’d be better off reducing them dramatically and going mostly VAT.SFGbob said:
And yet even with that top rate of 70% the evil rich paid a smaller percentage of the income tax than they do today. As has been discussed ad nauseam, while the top rate may have been 70% few if any actually paid that rate.YellowSnow said:
Kind of ironic isn’t it that during the era that MAGA guys have the most nostalgia for - i.e., 1950s to 60s - the top rate never dropped below 70GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re the honest thiefHHusky said:
I think the bigger problem with the 70% marginal tax rate is that it wouldn't raise that much money. I've already said I'd stop fetishizing investment income. Much simpler than taxing you rich guys 70% on your declared income exceeding $10 million.RaceBannon said:HHusky said:
You driving a tank these days, Race?RaceBannon said:Ike sold the interstate freeway system as national defense
Like a wall
Shit the government is supposed to do
Do we need a 70% tax rate to run interstate roads
Damn right, Bob. I’m for a constutional amendment to ban Medicare paying for hip replacements, scooters, prescription meds, etc.SFGbob said:
I'm not a Con-law scholar but I've read the damn thing.MariotaTheGawd said:
I love the self-styled constitutional scholars on this boardSFGbob said:
You guys are like the Kunt who immediately start talking about Firemen and the Police the moment anyone starts talking about cutting state spending.HHusky said:
You missed the liberation of the concentration camps? Ever driven an interstate highway? Do you own any shares of public companies? Will you lose your savings if your bank goes tits up?SFGbob said:
Why would anyone look to the government to make their life better?allpurpleallgold said:
Start voting for people that will make people’s lives better. I always see this shit about “the government”. The government is made up of people. Elect better people and you’ll get better results.Fenderbender123 said:I love how creative politicians have to be when they're trying to take more money from people. If they would actually spend tax dollars on shit we wanted, or on shit that's actually necessary to maintain a healthy, civilized society, there wouldn't even be a need for taxes. People would just donate. Instead, they spend our money in the shittiest, most inefficient way possible, so they have to get creative and try to trick people into supporting tax increases by making us think "Yeah, fuck wealthy people. Those fuckers don't need all that wealth...it's just, like, sitting there totally unused, man. Those greedy, arrogant, unskilled, lazy, fat, racist good-for-nothing rich people only got rich by making me poor anyway. So let's tax the fuck out of them. Sure, that won't improve my standard of living because the government sure as fuck isn't going to make my life any better with that money. But that's not important. What's important is that I can sit here and feel good about all those wealthy people getting fucked over. Fuck yeah!"
The republicans deserve a lot of credit for electing Trump. He’s not the guy but they took their shot to get away from scumbag politicians. More than I can say for a shit load of democrats that won’t even take a shot.
Asking for a friend.
Providing for a national defense is right there in the Constitution. Paying for grandma's hip replacement, I can't find that shit in the Constitution.
Feel free to quote from the grandam's hip replacement clause.
How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.[4]
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/ -
You’re the one who was so sure of the policies I want and you even know the consequences of the policies you say I want. Lay them out.2001400ex said:
Well if you think the tax on productivity is stupid and a VAT is the only one that is tolerable..... You tell me what that means.MikeDamone said:
You’re a fucking simple mind. And a dumbfuck. Explain to me the “policies” I want. In detail.2001400ex said:
That's what switching to a VAT would do. Or do you not even know the consequences of the policies you want?MikeDamone said:
No I don’t. Lying asswipe.2001400ex said:
Damoan wants a tax increase on the poor and middle class to give the wealthy a huge tax cut. The rich have suffered enough.MikeDamone said:
It’s the only tax I find somewhat tolerable. A tax on income (productivity) is fucking stupid.PurpleThrobber said:
You pay the VAT tax when you buy the goods. Collection is super easy.HHusky said:
I'm not saying it couldn't work, but it seems like evasion would be an ongoing problem. Much more so than with treating investment income as ordinary income.PurpleThrobber said:
Would be better off with a VAT approach plus a flat tax on earned income (say, somewhere between 17 and 34%, rather easily). High end consumers would pay through the nose. Poor people wouldn't.HHusky said:
I think the bigger problem with the 70% marginal tax rate is that it wouldn't raise that much money. I've already said I'd stop fetishizing investment income. Much simpler than taxing you rich guys 70% on your declared income exceeding $10 million.RaceBannon said:HHusky said:
You driving a tank these days, Race?RaceBannon said:Ike sold the interstate freeway system as national defense
Like a wall
Shit the government is supposed to do
Do we need a 70% tax rate to run interstate roads
Problem solved.
Next.
Is an tax on income a tax on a preson’s productivity? Only a dumbass would think otherwise. -
Figures the shill for higher taxes would avoid taxes like a cheat2001400ex said:
Register in Montana through an LLC. Keep for a year, then register in WA. All my quads, SxS, fifth wheel and trailers are still registered in Montana. Street legal too.YellowSnow said:
If you buy a car in Oregon and then register in WA do you have to pay sales tax in WA? Axing for a fren...HHusky said:
There’s a reason my wife and I deliberately make some purchases in Oregon. Why wouldn’t people making large purchases choose to make them outside of the US?YellowSnow said:
Yep. The income tax has been such a needlessly complex mess full of all manner of distortions to the maket. We’d be better off reducing them dramatically and going mostly VAT.SFGbob said:
And yet even with that top rate of 70% the evil rich paid a smaller percentage of the income tax than they do today. As has been discussed ad nauseam, while the top rate may have been 70% few if any actually paid that rate.YellowSnow said:
Kind of ironic isn’t it that during the era that MAGA guys have the most nostalgia for - i.e., 1950s to 60s - the top rate never dropped below 70GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re the honest thiefHHusky said:
I think the bigger problem with the 70% marginal tax rate is that it wouldn't raise that much money. I've already said I'd stop fetishizing investment income. Much simpler than taxing you rich guys 70% on your declared income exceeding $10 million.RaceBannon said:HHusky said:
You driving a tank these days, Race?RaceBannon said:Ike sold the interstate freeway system as national defense
Like a wall
Shit the government is supposed to do
Do we need a 70% tax rate to run interstate roads
Damn right, Bob. I’m for a constutional amendment to ban Medicare paying for hip replacements, scooters, prescription meds, etc.SFGbob said:
I'm not a Con-law scholar but I've read the damn thing.MariotaTheGawd said:
I love the self-styled constitutional scholars on this boardSFGbob said:
You guys are like the Kunt who immediately start talking about Firemen and the Police the moment anyone starts talking about cutting state spending.HHusky said:
You missed the liberation of the concentration camps? Ever driven an interstate highway? Do you own any shares of public companies? Will you lose your savings if your bank goes tits up?SFGbob said:
Why would anyone look to the government to make their life better?allpurpleallgold said:
Start voting for people that will make people’s lives better. I always see this shit about “the government”. The government is made up of people. Elect better people and you’ll get better results.Fenderbender123 said:I love how creative politicians have to be when they're trying to take more money from people. If they would actually spend tax dollars on shit we wanted, or on shit that's actually necessary to maintain a healthy, civilized society, there wouldn't even be a need for taxes. People would just donate. Instead, they spend our money in the shittiest, most inefficient way possible, so they have to get creative and try to trick people into supporting tax increases by making us think "Yeah, fuck wealthy people. Those fuckers don't need all that wealth...it's just, like, sitting there totally unused, man. Those greedy, arrogant, unskilled, lazy, fat, racist good-for-nothing rich people only got rich by making me poor anyway. So let's tax the fuck out of them. Sure, that won't improve my standard of living because the government sure as fuck isn't going to make my life any better with that money. But that's not important. What's important is that I can sit here and feel good about all those wealthy people getting fucked over. Fuck yeah!"
The republicans deserve a lot of credit for electing Trump. He’s not the guy but they took their shot to get away from scumbag politicians. More than I can say for a shit load of democrats that won’t even take a shot.
Asking for a friend.
Providing for a national defense is right there in the Constitution. Paying for grandma's hip replacement, I can't find that shit in the Constitution.
Feel free to quote from the grandam's hip replacement clause.
How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.[4]
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/
-
You do realize that is illegal and is considered tax evasion by the state of Washington, right?HHusky said:
There’s a reason my wife and I deliberately make some purchases in Oregon. Why wouldn’t people making large purchases choose to make them outside of the US?YellowSnow said:
Yep. The income tax has been such a needlessly complex mess full of all manner of distortions to the maket. We’d be better off reducing them dramatically and going mostly VAT.SFGbob said:
And yet even with that top rate of 70% the evil rich paid a smaller percentage of the income tax than they do today. As has been discussed ad nauseam, while the top rate may have been 70% few if any actually paid that rate.YellowSnow said:
Kind of ironic isn’t it that during the era that MAGA guys have the most nostalgia for - i.e., 1950s to 60s - the top rate never dropped below 70GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re the honest thiefHHusky said:
I think the bigger problem with the 70% marginal tax rate is that it wouldn't raise that much money. I've already said I'd stop fetishizing investment income. Much simpler than taxing you rich guys 70% on your declared income exceeding $10 million.RaceBannon said:HHusky said:
You driving a tank these days, Race?RaceBannon said:Ike sold the interstate freeway system as national defense
Like a wall
Shit the government is supposed to do
Do we need a 70% tax rate to run interstate roads
Damn right, Bob. I’m for a constutional amendment to ban Medicare paying for hip replacements, scooters, prescription meds, etc.SFGbob said:
I'm not a Con-law scholar but I've read the damn thing.MariotaTheGawd said:
I love the self-styled constitutional scholars on this boardSFGbob said:
You guys are like the Kunt who immediately start talking about Firemen and the Police the moment anyone starts talking about cutting state spending.HHusky said:
You missed the liberation of the concentration camps? Ever driven an interstate highway? Do you own any shares of public companies? Will you lose your savings if your bank goes tits up?SFGbob said:
Why would anyone look to the government to make their life better?allpurpleallgold said:
Start voting for people that will make people’s lives better. I always see this shit about “the government”. The government is made up of people. Elect better people and you’ll get better results.Fenderbender123 said:I love how creative politicians have to be when they're trying to take more money from people. If they would actually spend tax dollars on shit we wanted, or on shit that's actually necessary to maintain a healthy, civilized society, there wouldn't even be a need for taxes. People would just donate. Instead, they spend our money in the shittiest, most inefficient way possible, so they have to get creative and try to trick people into supporting tax increases by making us think "Yeah, fuck wealthy people. Those fuckers don't need all that wealth...it's just, like, sitting there totally unused, man. Those greedy, arrogant, unskilled, lazy, fat, racist good-for-nothing rich people only got rich by making me poor anyway. So let's tax the fuck out of them. Sure, that won't improve my standard of living because the government sure as fuck isn't going to make my life any better with that money. But that's not important. What's important is that I can sit here and feel good about all those wealthy people getting fucked over. Fuck yeah!"
The republicans deserve a lot of credit for electing Trump. He’s not the guy but they took their shot to get away from scumbag politicians. More than I can say for a shit load of democrats that won’t even take a shot.
Asking for a friend.
Providing for a national defense is right there in the Constitution. Paying for grandma's hip replacement, I can't find that shit in the Constitution.
Feel free to quote from the grandam's hip replacement clause.
How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.[4]
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/ -
So you don’t pay your fair share. Got it!2001400ex said:
Register in Montana through an LLC. Keep for a year, then register in WA. All my quads, SxS, fifth wheel and trailers are still registered in Montana. Street legal too.YellowSnow said:
If you buy a car in Oregon and then register in WA do you have to pay sales tax in WA? Axing for a fren...HHusky said:
There’s a reason my wife and I deliberately make some purchases in Oregon. Why wouldn’t people making large purchases choose to make them outside of the US?YellowSnow said:
Yep. The income tax has been such a needlessly complex mess full of all manner of distortions to the maket. We’d be better off reducing them dramatically and going mostly VAT.SFGbob said:
And yet even with that top rate of 70% the evil rich paid a smaller percentage of the income tax than they do today. As has been discussed ad nauseam, while the top rate may have been 70% few if any actually paid that rate.YellowSnow said:
Kind of ironic isn’t it that during the era that MAGA guys have the most nostalgia for - i.e., 1950s to 60s - the top rate never dropped below 70GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re the honest thiefHHusky said:
I think the bigger problem with the 70% marginal tax rate is that it wouldn't raise that much money. I've already said I'd stop fetishizing investment income. Much simpler than taxing you rich guys 70% on your declared income exceeding $10 million.RaceBannon said:HHusky said:
You driving a tank these days, Race?RaceBannon said:Ike sold the interstate freeway system as national defense
Like a wall
Shit the government is supposed to do
Do we need a 70% tax rate to run interstate roads
Damn right, Bob. I’m for a constutional amendment to ban Medicare paying for hip replacements, scooters, prescription meds, etc.SFGbob said:
I'm not a Con-law scholar but I've read the damn thing.MariotaTheGawd said:
I love the self-styled constitutional scholars on this boardSFGbob said:
You guys are like the Kunt who immediately start talking about Firemen and the Police the moment anyone starts talking about cutting state spending.HHusky said:
You missed the liberation of the concentration camps? Ever driven an interstate highway? Do you own any shares of public companies? Will you lose your savings if your bank goes tits up?SFGbob said:
Why would anyone look to the government to make their life better?allpurpleallgold said:
Start voting for people that will make people’s lives better. I always see this shit about “the government”. The government is made up of people. Elect better people and you’ll get better results.Fenderbender123 said:I love how creative politicians have to be when they're trying to take more money from people. If they would actually spend tax dollars on shit we wanted, or on shit that's actually necessary to maintain a healthy, civilized society, there wouldn't even be a need for taxes. People would just donate. Instead, they spend our money in the shittiest, most inefficient way possible, so they have to get creative and try to trick people into supporting tax increases by making us think "Yeah, fuck wealthy people. Those fuckers don't need all that wealth...it's just, like, sitting there totally unused, man. Those greedy, arrogant, unskilled, lazy, fat, racist good-for-nothing rich people only got rich by making me poor anyway. So let's tax the fuck out of them. Sure, that won't improve my standard of living because the government sure as fuck isn't going to make my life any better with that money. But that's not important. What's important is that I can sit here and feel good about all those wealthy people getting fucked over. Fuck yeah!"
The republicans deserve a lot of credit for electing Trump. He’s not the guy but they took their shot to get away from scumbag politicians. More than I can say for a shit load of democrats that won’t even take a shot.
Asking for a friend.
Providing for a national defense is right there in the Constitution. Paying for grandma's hip replacement, I can't find that shit in the Constitution.
Feel free to quote from the grandam's hip replacement clause.
How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.[4]
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/ -
Hondo and HDoog are now on record admitting to tax fraud. Why am I not suprised.
-
I have a residence and a business in Montana. How is that tax fraud? Axing for a fren.MikeDamone said:Hondo and HDoog are now on record admitting to tax fraud. Why am I not suprised.
-
So you want no income tax and a VAT instead. Welcome to the last page of this thread. And I've outlined the consequences of that twice, to which you disagree.MikeDamone said:
You’re the one who was so sure of the policies I want and you even know the consequences of the policies you say I want. Lay them out.2001400ex said:
Well if you think the tax on productivity is stupid and a VAT is the only one that is tolerable..... You tell me what that means.MikeDamone said:
You’re a fucking simple mind. And a dumbfuck. Explain to me the “policies” I want. In detail.2001400ex said:
That's what switching to a VAT would do. Or do you not even know the consequences of the policies you want?MikeDamone said:
No I don’t. Lying asswipe.2001400ex said:
Damoan wants a tax increase on the poor and middle class to give the wealthy a huge tax cut. The rich have suffered enough.MikeDamone said:
It’s the only tax I find somewhat tolerable. A tax on income (productivity) is fucking stupid.PurpleThrobber said:
You pay the VAT tax when you buy the goods. Collection is super easy.HHusky said:
I'm not saying it couldn't work, but it seems like evasion would be an ongoing problem. Much more so than with treating investment income as ordinary income.PurpleThrobber said:
Would be better off with a VAT approach plus a flat tax on earned income (say, somewhere between 17 and 34%, rather easily). High end consumers would pay through the nose. Poor people wouldn't.HHusky said:
I think the bigger problem with the 70% marginal tax rate is that it wouldn't raise that much money. I've already said I'd stop fetishizing investment income. Much simpler than taxing you rich guys 70% on your declared income exceeding $10 million.RaceBannon said:HHusky said:
You driving a tank these days, Race?RaceBannon said:Ike sold the interstate freeway system as national defense
Like a wall
Shit the government is supposed to do
Do we need a 70% tax rate to run interstate roads
Problem solved.
Next.
Is an tax on income a tax on a preson’s productivity? Only a dumbass would think otherwise. -
So what are the policies I am advocating? What policies do a advocate with consumption tax? You seem to know since you know the consequences. So let everyone know the policies I advocate for. You’ve “outlined” nothing.2001400ex said:
So you want no income tax and a VAT instead. Welcome to the last page of this thread. And I've outlined the consequences of that twice, to which you disagree.MikeDamone said:
You’re the one who was so sure of the policies I want and you even know the consequences of the policies you say I want. Lay them out.2001400ex said:
Well if you think the tax on productivity is stupid and a VAT is the only one that is tolerable..... You tell me what that means.MikeDamone said:
You’re a fucking simple mind. And a dumbfuck. Explain to me the “policies” I want. In detail.2001400ex said:
That's what switching to a VAT would do. Or do you not even know the consequences of the policies you want?MikeDamone said:
No I don’t. Lying asswipe.2001400ex said:
Damoan wants a tax increase on the poor and middle class to give the wealthy a huge tax cut. The rich have suffered enough.MikeDamone said:
It’s the only tax I find somewhat tolerable. A tax on income (productivity) is fucking stupid.PurpleThrobber said:
You pay the VAT tax when you buy the goods. Collection is super easy.HHusky said:
I'm not saying it couldn't work, but it seems like evasion would be an ongoing problem. Much more so than with treating investment income as ordinary income.PurpleThrobber said:
Would be better off with a VAT approach plus a flat tax on earned income (say, somewhere between 17 and 34%, rather easily). High end consumers would pay through the nose. Poor people wouldn't.HHusky said:
I think the bigger problem with the 70% marginal tax rate is that it wouldn't raise that much money. I've already said I'd stop fetishizing investment income. Much simpler than taxing you rich guys 70% on your declared income exceeding $10 million.RaceBannon said:HHusky said:
You driving a tank these days, Race?RaceBannon said:Ike sold the interstate freeway system as national defense
Like a wall
Shit the government is supposed to do
Do we need a 70% tax rate to run interstate roads
Problem solved.
Next.
Is an tax on income a tax on a preson’s productivity? Only a dumbass would think otherwise.
