Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Elizabeth Warren proposes 'wealth tax' on Americans with more than $50 million in assets
Comments
-
2001400ex said:
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.
Hondo lying again. Said he had a business in Montana for a year and then transferred it to wa. Now his business in Montana. -
I never said I transferred a business to WA. I live in Spokane. Have a job here. Part owner of a business in Montana and have another residence there. Reading hard for you?MikeDamone said:2001400ex said:
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.
Hondo lying again. Said he had a business in Montana for a year and then transferred it to wa. Now his business in Montana. -
Then stop being a bitch and explain it.MikeDamone said:
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. -
Was that where you lied about the amount paid by the rich in income taxes now compared to the 1950s Hondo?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.
-
STFU Bob. Because you can't comprehend it, doesn't make it a lie.SFGbob said:
Was that where you lied about the amount paid by the rich in income taxes now compared to the 1950s Hondo?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. -
Oh I comprehend just fine Hondo. Your both a liar and moron.2001400ex said:
STFU Bob. Because you can't comprehend it, doesn't make it a lie.SFGbob said:
Was that where you lied about the amount paid by the rich in income taxes now compared to the 1950s Hondo?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.
When I stated accurately the rich today pay a greater percentage of all the income taxes paid. You responded:
Only one tiny problem there dumbfuck. The "quote" I provided didn't say they paid 42% of all income taxes.
No. They. Don't. And yes I discussed that.... Back Then they paid 42% per your fucking quote. And now they pay 34%.
It said:
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.
So are you a liar or a dumbfuck or both Hondo? -
Do traveling burger flippers get paid well?2001400ex said:
I never said I transferred a business to WA. I live in Spokane. Have a job here. Part owner of a business in Montana and have another residence there. Reading hard for you?MikeDamone said:2001400ex said:
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.
Hondo lying again. Said he had a business in Montana for a year and then transferred it to wa. Now his business in Montana. -
Only one tiny problem there dumbfuck. The "quote" I provided didn't say they paid 42% of all income taxes.SFGbob said:
Oh I comprehend just fine Hondo. Your both a liar and moron.2001400ex said:
STFU Bob. Because you can't comprehend it, doesn't make it a lie.SFGbob said:
Was that where you lied about the amount paid by the rich in income taxes now compared to the 1950s Hondo?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.
When I stated accurately the rich today pay a greater percentage of all the income taxes paid. You responded:
No. They. Don't. And yes I discussed that.... Back Then they paid 42% per your fucking quote. And now they pay 34%.
It said:
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.
So are you a liar or a dumbfuck or both Hondo?
What the fuck do you think this means? From your quote. Which is the same comparable to the 34% paid in 2017. Fuck man, embarrassing.
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. -
Hondo goes with the gibberish defense.
The rich pay a greater percentage of all income taxes today then they did back in the 1950s when the top marginal rate was over 70%. The only liar here is you Hondo. -
Hondo can't comprehend the difference between an income tax and a overall tax rate.
-
Fuck off. Dumbfuck. You seem to know. If you know the consequences, you must know the policies. Tell me then. Dumbass.2001400ex said:
Then stop being a bitch and explain it.MikeDamone said:
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. -
2001400ex said:
I never said I transferred a business to WA. I live in Spokane. Have a job here. Part owner of a business in Montana and have another residence there. Reading hard for you?MikeDamone said:2001400ex said:
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.
Hondo lying again. Said he had a business in Montana for a year and then transferred it to wa. Now his business in Montana.
Have a business for a year Montana , then register in Washington. Somehow you thought that info was pertinent to share regarding how you cheat Washington out of taxes. You even forget your own lies. There are so many. -
Wrong. It’s against the law to buy anything in Oregon tax free and bring it into the state of Washington for your use and not remit the use tax to Washington. You can pay it quarterly. Again, I’m not surprised you are a tax cheat. Typical of people like you.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/
You’re right. The sales tax is not insignificant. That’s why the stare requires you to pay it. -
So Hondo wants people to pay their “fair share” so they can pay for his too. It is all starting to make a little more sense.
-
No. I said you can create an LLC in Montana. Register the vehicle there then transfer the vehicle to Washington. Read my quote. You read as well as Bob.MikeDamone said:2001400ex said:
I never said I transferred a business to WA. I live in Spokane. Have a job here. Part owner of a business in Montana and have another residence there. Reading hard for you?MikeDamone said:2001400ex said:
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.
Hondo lying again. Said he had a business in Montana for a year and then transferred it to wa. Now his business in Montana.
Have a business for a year Montana , then register in Washington. Somehow you thought that info was pertinent to share regarding how you cheat Washington out of taxes. You even forget your own lies. There are so many.
I don't have a fake LLC. I have an actual business there. HTH -
I fully support Hondo’s efforts to minimize his tax exposure. I condemn his general attitude that others should have greater exposure.
-
@HHusky in sum: Tax for thee but not for me.MikeDamone said:
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/ -
Except you didn’t say that.2001400ex said:
No. I said you can create an LLC in Montana. Register the vehicle there then transfer the vehicle to Washington. Read my quote. You read as well as Bob.MikeDamone said:2001400ex said:
I never said I transferred a business to WA. I live in Spokane. Have a job here. Part owner of a business in Montana and have another residence there. Reading hard for you?MikeDamone said:2001400ex said:
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.
Hondo lying again. Said he had a business in Montana for a year and then transferred it to wa. Now his business in Montana.
Have a business for a year Montana , then register in Washington. Somehow you thought that info was pertinent to share regarding how you cheat Washington out of taxes. You even forget your own lies. There are so many.
I don't have a fake LLC. I have an actual business there. HTH
So you’re still cheating Washington out of tax money. Got It! My original assessment stands after cutting through your gibberish. -
Hypocrites are the lowest. And Hondo and HHusky are hypocritesGrundleStiltzkin said:I fully support Hondo’s efforts to minimize his tax exposure. I condemn his general attitude that others should have greater exposure.
-
El oh El.MikeDamone said:
Hypocrites are the lowest. And Hondo and HHusky are hypocritesGrundleStiltzkin said:I fully support Hondo’s efforts to minimize his tax exposure. I condemn his general attitude that others should have greater exposure.
-
My dad used to have the RV, boat, jetskis, and 3 cars registered in Montana.
Then his ex girlfriend went to jail for tax fraud. -
-
So he moved to Florida and is working from Florida. How is that a tax Dodge? Why would his income be taxed in Connecticut if he's living and working in Florida?RaceBannon said:
As a side note, the tax cuts encourages people to do this. The state and local tax deduction is now limited to $10k. -
You need to learn to read for comprehension2001400ex said:
So he moved to Florida and is working from Florida. How is that a tax Dodge? Why would his income be taxed in Connecticut if he's living and working in Florida?RaceBannon said:
As a side note, the tax cuts encourages people to do this. The state and local tax deduction is now limited to $10k.
Its a legal dodge by another hypocrite like yourself who thinks others need to pay more taxes while you dodge yours -
You do realize we are discussing whether wealthy need to pay more federal income tax, right? And your link is him saving State taxes. Right? Which does what? It actually increases his federal tax liability. He is paying his fair share Race.RaceBannon said:
You need to learn to read for comprehension2001400ex said:
So he moved to Florida and is working from Florida. How is that a tax Dodge? Why would his income be taxed in Connecticut if he's living and working in Florida?RaceBannon said:
As a side note, the tax cuts encourages people to do this. The state and local tax deduction is now limited to $10k.
Its a legal dodge by another hypocrite like yourself who thinks others need to pay more taxes while you dodge yours
HTH -
Bullshit
Hypocrite
-
MIKEY
“Wrong. It’s against the law to buy anything in Oregon tax free and bring it into the state of Washington for your use and not remit the use tax to Washington. You can pay it quarterly. Again, I’m not surprised you are a tax cheat. Typical of people like you.
You’re right. The sales tax is not insignificant. That’s why the stare requires you to pay it.”
You’re assuming facts not in evidence. Who says I brought any of it into Washington and/or that it was for my use in Washington?My point is that I’ve made numerous purchases in Oregon simply because making those purchases in Washington would have involved hundreds in sales tax.
When my middle child went to school in California it was a non issue and we mostly made our purchases in Seattle. But when my oldest was headed to college in Montreal, we made a point of buying in New Hampshire. And with my youngest going to school in Oregon, well, I think you can figure out where we shopped. -
The idle rich didn't work hard for it.DuckHHunterisafag said:
Taking other people's hard earned money will never make your pissant life any better.MariotaTheGawd said:It's always entertaining to see a bunch of thousandaire boot lickers preparing for the day when they too will be rich
-
MIKEYHHusky said:“Wrong. It’s against the law to buy anything in Oregon tax free and bring it into the state of Washington for your use and not remit the use tax to Washington. You can pay it quarterly. Again, I’m not surprised you are a tax cheat. Typical of people like you.
You’re right. The sales tax is not insignificant. That’s why the stare requires you to pay it.”
You’re assuming facts not in evidence. Who says I brought any of it into Washington and/or that it was for my use in Washington?My point is that I’ve made numerous purchases in Oregon simply because making those purchases in Washington would have involved hundreds in sales tax.
When my middle child went to school in California it was a non issue and we mostly made our purchases in Seattle. But when my oldest was headed to college in Montreal, we made a point of buying in New Hampshire. And with my youngest going to school in Oregon, well, I think you can figure out where we shopped.
You hens feel better, I hope.GrundleStiltzkin said:
@HHusky in sum: Tax for thee but not for me.MikeDamone said:
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/ -
MIKEYHHusky said:“Wrong. It’s against the law to buy anything in Oregon tax free and bring it into the state of Washington for your use and not remit the use tax to Washington. You can pay it quarterly. Again, I’m not surprised you are a tax cheat. Typical of people like you.
You’re right. The sales tax is not insignificant. That’s why the stare requires you to pay it.”
You’re assuming facts not in evidence. Who says I brought any of it into Washington and/or that it was for my use in Washington?My point is that I’ve made numerous purchases in Oregon simply because making those purchases in Washington would have involved hundreds in sales tax.
When my middle child went to school in California it was a non issue and we mostly made our purchases in Seattle. But when my oldest was headed to college in Montreal, we made a point of buying in New Hampshire. And with my youngest going to school in Oregon, well, I think you can figure out where we shopped.
Liar. And tax evader. You bought in Oregon and didn’t pay the tax you are required to pay by law to in Washington. You admitted it and are now backtracking like a bitch. You didn’t even know the the law before today. Hypocrite.
