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
-
I've outlined the math. It's very simple. But I'll explain it again. Those making under $50k roughly with kids don't pay income taxes now and many get money back. With sales tax, they'll pay. And the wealthy who pay 30% of their income will now pay 10-15% of what they spend.Fenderbender123 said:
Please show me your math.2001400ex said:
You still don't answer the question. The net effect is raising taxes on the poor and middle class and drastically lowering taxes on the wealthy. How do you think that's a good idea for the economy?Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
Also, economics is the study of choice and outcomes. Tell me what the negative outcomes would be. I don't want to hear about GDP and all that bullshit.
Explain how there's a different outcome than that. Or how you'd implement it without they being the result.
You don't want to hear about GDP? GDP measures are bullshit now? El oh fucking El. I hope that's you trolling. -
Fun fact, Ancaps and Ansocs can actually live together in a free and tolerant society.UW_Doog_Bot said:
This is called voluntary socialism. The fact that it doesn't work and you aren't willing to do it tells you everything you need to know about why state socialism is theft and doesn't work.HHusky said:I suppose I could volunteer to pay taxes not due, but I’ve never ever argued anyone should do that.
Or you know, you could just donate to the poor and needy directly if you feel they need help instead of relying on the government to take 40% off the top.
Keep blaming "other people" though I guess.
It's only because of the failure of socialism that socialists have to use the force of government to push their system on the rest of society. -
You look at everything too simply and make too many assumptions.2001400ex said:
I've outlined the math. It's very simple. But I'll explain it again. Those making under $50k roughly with kids don't pay income taxes now and many get money back. With sales tax, they'll pay. And the wealthy who pay 30% of their income will now pay 10-15% of what they spend.Fenderbender123 said:
Please show me your math.2001400ex said:
You still don't answer the question. The net effect is raising taxes on the poor and middle class and drastically lowering taxes on the wealthy. How do you think that's a good idea for the economy?Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
Also, economics is the study of choice and outcomes. Tell me what the negative outcomes would be. I don't want to hear about GDP and all that bullshit.
Explain how there's a different outcome than that. Or how you'd implement it without they being the result.
You don't want to hear about GDP? GDP measures are bullshit now? El oh fucking El. I hope that's you trolling.
There can still be deductions for dependents and shit without affecting the underlying incentives that I initially pointed out.
-
The state just withers away under capitalism, of course. Dyslexic Maxr told me.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Fun fact, Ancaps and Ansocs can actually live together in a free and tolerant society.UW_Doog_Bot said:
This is called voluntary socialism. The fact that it doesn't work and you aren't willing to do it tells you everything you need to know about why state socialism is theft and doesn't work.HHusky said:I suppose I could volunteer to pay taxes not due, but I’ve never ever argued anyone should do that.
Or you know, you could just donate to the poor and needy directly if you feel they need help instead of relying on the government to take 40% off the top.
Keep blaming "other people" though I guess.
It's only because of the failure of socialism that socialists have to use the force of government to push their system on the rest of society. -
I know it's hard for you to understand since you can't imagine a system that isn't based solely on a centralized state, but I hate fascists just the same as I hate communists.HHusky said:
The state just withers away under capitalism, of course. Dyslexic Maxr told me.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Fun fact, Ancaps and Ansocs can actually live together in a free and tolerant society.UW_Doog_Bot said:
This is called voluntary socialism. The fact that it doesn't work and you aren't willing to do it tells you everything you need to know about why state socialism is theft and doesn't work.HHusky said:I suppose I could volunteer to pay taxes not due, but I’ve never ever argued anyone should do that.
Or you know, you could just donate to the poor and needy directly if you feel they need help instead of relying on the government to take 40% off the top.
Keep blaming "other people" though I guess.
It's only because of the failure of socialism that socialists have to use the force of government to push their system on the rest of society. -
"capitalism"HHusky said:
The state just withers away under capitalism, of course. Dyslexic Maxr told me.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Fun fact, Ancaps and Ansocs can actually live together in a free and tolerant society.UW_Doog_Bot said:
This is called voluntary socialism. The fact that it doesn't work and you aren't willing to do it tells you everything you need to know about why state socialism is theft and doesn't work.HHusky said:I suppose I could volunteer to pay taxes not due, but I’ve never ever argued anyone should do that.
Or you know, you could just donate to the poor and needy directly if you feel they need help instead of relying on the government to take 40% off the top.
Keep blaming "other people" though I guess.
It's only because of the failure of socialism that socialists have to use the force of government to push their system on the rest of society.
one of those terms that gets thrown around a lot where everyone has a different idea as to what it means. -
Then this is the start of a beautiful friendship.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I know it's hard for you to understand since you can't imagine a system that isn't based solely on a centralized state, but I hate fascists just the same as I hate communists.HHusky said:
The state just withers away under capitalism, of course. Dyslexic Maxr told me.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Fun fact, Ancaps and Ansocs can actually live together in a free and tolerant society.UW_Doog_Bot said:
This is called voluntary socialism. The fact that it doesn't work and you aren't willing to do it tells you everything you need to know about why state socialism is theft and doesn't work.HHusky said:I suppose I could volunteer to pay taxes not due, but I’ve never ever argued anyone should do that.
Or you know, you could just donate to the poor and needy directly if you feel they need help instead of relying on the government to take 40% off the top.
Keep blaming "other people" though I guess.
It's only because of the failure of socialism that socialists have to use the force of government to push their system on the rest of society. -
Fenderbender123 said:
"capitalism"HHusky said:
The state just withers away under capitalism, of course. Dyslexic Maxr told me.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Fun fact, Ancaps and Ansocs can actually live together in a free and tolerant society.UW_Doog_Bot said:
This is called voluntary socialism. The fact that it doesn't work and you aren't willing to do it tells you everything you need to know about why state socialism is theft and doesn't work.HHusky said:I suppose I could volunteer to pay taxes not due, but I’ve never ever argued anyone should do that.
Or you know, you could just donate to the poor and needy directly if you feel they need help instead of relying on the government to take 40% off the top.
Keep blaming "other people" though I guess.
It's only because of the failure of socialism that socialists have to use the force of government to push their system on the rest of society.
one of those terms that gets thrown around a lot where everyone has a different idea as to what it means.
But some of us have the benefit of education. -
[Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:[2]HHusky said:
The state just withers away under capitalism(TU QUOQUE), of course. Dyslexic Maxr told me.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Fun fact, Ancaps and Ansocs can actually live together in a free and tolerant society.UW_Doog_Bot said:
This is called voluntary socialism. The fact that it doesn't work and you aren't willing to do it tells you everything you need to know about why state socialism is theft and doesn't work.HHusky said:I suppose I could volunteer to pay taxes not due, but I’ve never ever argued anyone should do that.
Or you know, you could just donate to the poor and needy directly if you feel they need help instead of relying on the government to take 40% off the top.
Keep blaming "other people" though I guess.
It's only because of the failure of socialism that socialists have to use the force of government to push their system on the rest of society.- Person A makes claim X.
- Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
- Therefore, X is false.
Peter: "Bill is guilty of defrauding the government out of tax dollars."
Bill: "How can you say that when you yourself have 20 outstanding parking tickets?"
It is a fallacy because the moral character or actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[3] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[4]
Example
In the trial of Nazi criminal Klaus Barbie, the controversial lawyer Jacques Vergès tried to present what was defined as a Tu Quoque Defence—i.e., that during the Algerian War, French officers such as General Jacques Massu had committed war crimes similar to those with which Barbie was being charged, and therefore the French state had no moral right to try Barbie. This defense was rejected by the court, which convicted Barbie.[5]]
In keeping with your theme, this is also a fallacious argument. Be a better poaster. - Person A makes claim X.
-
All states enforce their rules to varying degrees. Sorry this was confusing. Feel free to take a victory lap at my “concession”.UW_Doog_Bot said:
[Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:[2]HHusky said:
The state just withers away under capitalism(TU QUOQUE), of course. Dyslexic Maxr told me.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Fun fact, Ancaps and Ansocs can actually live together in a free and tolerant society.UW_Doog_Bot said:
This is called voluntary socialism. The fact that it doesn't work and you aren't willing to do it tells you everything you need to know about why state socialism is theft and doesn't work.HHusky said:I suppose I could volunteer to pay taxes not due, but I’ve never ever argued anyone should do that.
Or you know, you could just donate to the poor and needy directly if you feel they need help instead of relying on the government to take 40% off the top.
Keep blaming "other people" though I guess.
It's only because of the failure of socialism that socialists have to use the force of government to push their system on the rest of society.- Person A makes claim X.
- Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
- Therefore, X is false.
Peter: "Bill is guilty of defrauding the government out of tax dollars."
Bill: "How can you say that when you yourself have 20 outstanding parking tickets?"
It is a fallacy because the moral character or actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[3] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[4]
Example
In the trial of Nazi criminal Klaus Barbie, the controversial lawyer Jacques Vergès tried to present what was defined as a Tu Quoque Defence—i.e., that during the Algerian War, French officers such as General Jacques Massu had committed war crimes similar to those with which Barbie was being charged, and therefore the French state had no moral right to try Barbie. This defense was rejected by the court, which convicted Barbie.[5]]
In keeping with your theme, this is also a fallacious argument. Be a better poaster. - Person A makes claim X.
-
Bandwagon fallacy. Try again.HHusky said:
All states enforce their rules to varying degrees. Sorry this was confusing. Feel free to take a victory lap at my “concession”.UW_Doog_Bot said:
[Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:[2]HHusky said:
The state just withers away under capitalism(TU QUOQUE), of course. Dyslexic Maxr told me.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Fun fact, Ancaps and Ansocs can actually live together in a free and tolerant society.UW_Doog_Bot said:
This is called voluntary socialism. The fact that it doesn't work and you aren't willing to do it tells you everything you need to know about why state socialism is theft and doesn't work.HHusky said:I suppose I could volunteer to pay taxes not due, but I’ve never ever argued anyone should do that.
Or you know, you could just donate to the poor and needy directly if you feel they need help instead of relying on the government to take 40% off the top.
Keep blaming "other people" though I guess.
It's only because of the failure of socialism that socialists have to use the force of government to push their system on the rest of society.- Person A makes claim X.
- Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
- Therefore, X is false.
Peter: "Bill is guilty of defrauding the government out of tax dollars."
Bill: "How can you say that when you yourself have 20 outstanding parking tickets?"
It is a fallacy because the moral character or actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[3] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[4]
Example
In the trial of Nazi criminal Klaus Barbie, the controversial lawyer Jacques Vergès tried to present what was defined as a Tu Quoque Defence—i.e., that during the Algerian War, French officers such as General Jacques Massu had committed war crimes similar to those with which Barbie was being charged, and therefore the French state had no moral right to try Barbie. This defense was rejected by the court, which convicted Barbie.[5]]
In keeping with your theme, this is also a fallacious argument. Be a better poaster. - Person A makes claim X.
-
I never understood the argument that if we lived in a stateless society that people would just reestablish the state or that some group of people would assume power. If we got serious enough about deconstructing centralized power to where we literally establish a stateless society, why would we be powerless to prevent a new one from forming?
-
-
What?Fenderbender123 said:I never understood the argument that if we lived in a stateless society that people would just reestablish the state or that some group of people would assume power. If we got serious enough about deconstructing centralized power to where we literally establish a stateless society, why would we be powerless to prevent a new one from forming?
-
Uhhhh . . . oh that's right! Pot is legal.Fenderbender123 said:I never understood the argument that if we lived in a stateless society that people would just reestablish the state or that some group of people would assume power. If we got serious enough about deconstructing centralized power to where we literally establish a stateless society, why would we be powerless to prevent a new one from forming?
-
I don't know...What are you guys talking about? I'm just trying to fit in.GrundleStiltzkin said:
What?Fenderbender123 said:I never understood the argument that if we lived in a stateless society that people would just reestablish the state or that some group of people would assume power. If we got serious enough about deconstructing centralized power to where we literally establish a stateless society, why would we be powerless to prevent a new one from forming?
-
Start telling people to fuck off thenFenderbender123 said:
I don't know...What are you guys talking about? I'm just trying to fit in.GrundleStiltzkin said:
What?Fenderbender123 said:I never understood the argument that if we lived in a stateless society that people would just reestablish the state or that some group of people would assume power. If we got serious enough about deconstructing centralized power to where we literally establish a stateless society, why would we be powerless to prevent a new one from forming?
-
He can’t. He’s a simple mind.Fenderbender123 said:
You look at everything too simply and make too many assumptions.2001400ex said:
I've outlined the math. It's very simple. But I'll explain it again. Those making under $50k roughly with kids don't pay income taxes now and many get money back. With sales tax, they'll pay. And the wealthy who pay 30% of their income will now pay 10-15% of what they spend.Fenderbender123 said:
Please show me your math.2001400ex said:
You still don't answer the question. The net effect is raising taxes on the poor and middle class and drastically lowering taxes on the wealthy. How do you think that's a good idea for the economy?Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
Also, economics is the study of choice and outcomes. Tell me what the negative outcomes would be. I don't want to hear about GDP and all that bullshit.
Explain how there's a different outcome than that. Or how you'd implement it without they being the result.
You don't want to hear about GDP? GDP measures are bullshit now? El oh fucking El. I hope that's you trolling.
There can still be deductions for dependents and shit without affecting the underlying incentives that I initially pointed out. -
Back in the day the King had to lead the troops to battle. You'd have your great war kings that ended up poisoned in peace time. OK that's kind of Game of Thrones but it is interesting how the first groups of humans got together and decided on leadership and structure. It was usually violent and ugly but still interesting. Strength or mysticism or religion have been keeping peasants in line for millennia
One constant is the desire to control others. Another is the quest for land and migration
Has there ever been a stateless society that we know of? Even the pagans had to band together to fight the STATE of the day, our Romans -
Ok. Then outline your whole plan and include a sales tax rate you think it would take.Fenderbender123 said:
You look at everything too simply and make too many assumptions.2001400ex said:
I've outlined the math. It's very simple. But I'll explain it again. Those making under $50k roughly with kids don't pay income taxes now and many get money back. With sales tax, they'll pay. And the wealthy who pay 30% of their income will now pay 10-15% of what they spend.Fenderbender123 said:
Please show me your math.2001400ex said:
You still don't answer the question. The net effect is raising taxes on the poor and middle class and drastically lowering taxes on the wealthy. How do you think that's a good idea for the economy?Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
Also, economics is the study of choice and outcomes. Tell me what the negative outcomes would be. I don't want to hear about GDP and all that bullshit.
Explain how there's a different outcome than that. Or how you'd implement it without they being the result.
You don't want to hear about GDP? GDP measures are bullshit now? El oh fucking El. I hope that's you trolling.
There can still be deductions for dependents and shit without affecting the underlying incentives that I initially pointed out. -
It's unfortunate you didn't get that benefitHHusky said:Fenderbender123 said:
"capitalism"HHusky said:
The state just withers away under capitalism, of course. Dyslexic Maxr told me.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Fun fact, Ancaps and Ansocs can actually live together in a free and tolerant society.UW_Doog_Bot said:
This is called voluntary socialism. The fact that it doesn't work and you aren't willing to do it tells you everything you need to know about why state socialism is theft and doesn't work.HHusky said:I suppose I could volunteer to pay taxes not due, but I’ve never ever argued anyone should do that.
Or you know, you could just donate to the poor and needy directly if you feel they need help instead of relying on the government to take 40% off the top.
Keep blaming "other people" though I guess.
It's only because of the failure of socialism that socialists have to use the force of government to push their system on the rest of society.
one of those terms that gets thrown around a lot where everyone has a different idea as to what it means.
But some of us have the benefit of education. -
Not one of you has answered the question of how people are entitled to other peoples money!
-
Fucking christ, who talks like thisUW_Doog_Bot said:
[Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:[2]HHusky said:
The state just withers away under capitalism(TU QUOQUE), of course. Dyslexic Maxr told me.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Fun fact, Ancaps and Ansocs can actually live together in a free and tolerant society.UW_Doog_Bot said:
This is called voluntary socialism. The fact that it doesn't work and you aren't willing to do it tells you everything you need to know about why state socialism is theft and doesn't work.HHusky said:I suppose I could volunteer to pay taxes not due, but I’ve never ever argued anyone should do that.
Or you know, you could just donate to the poor and needy directly if you feel they need help instead of relying on the government to take 40% off the top.
Keep blaming "other people" though I guess.
It's only because of the failure of socialism that socialists have to use the force of government to push their system on the rest of society.- Person A makes claim X.
- Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
- Therefore, X is false.
Peter: "Bill is guilty of defrauding the government out of tax dollars."
Bill: "How can you say that when you yourself have 20 outstanding parking tickets?"
It is a fallacy because the moral character or actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[3] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[4]
Example
In the trial of Nazi criminal Klaus Barbie, the controversial lawyer Jacques Vergès tried to present what was defined as a Tu Quoque Defence—i.e., that during the Algerian War, French officers such as General Jacques Massu had committed war crimes similar to those with which Barbie was being charged, and therefore the French state had no moral right to try Barbie. This defense was rejected by the court, which convicted Barbie.[5]]
In keeping with your theme, this is also a fallacious argument. Be a better poaster. - Person A makes claim X.
-
So no taxes ever, Sled?Sledog said:Not one of you has answered the question of how people are entitled to other peoples money!
-
"Fucking christ, who talks like this"
Sue Doe intellectuals. -
This could be the best advice I've seen given here. Ever.RaceBannon said:
Start telling people to fuck off thenFenderbender123 said:
I don't know...What are you guys talking about? I'm just trying to fit in.GrundleStiltzkin said:
What?Fenderbender123 said:I never understood the argument that if we lived in a stateless society that people would just reestablish the state or that some group of people would assume power. If we got serious enough about deconstructing centralized power to where we literally establish a stateless society, why would we be powerless to prevent a new one from forming?
Race Fucking Bannon, ladies and gentlemen.
-
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT -
Unfortunately, our experience shows you’re incorrect, at least as to those who received significant tax cuts.salemcoog said:
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT -
Wealth inequality will decline when the stock market goes in the tank. More tax reform would help a little as well.
But to confiscate someone's property (assets) is crazy and would have loads of unintended consequences. Bezos would likely give up his American citizenship and move elsewhere instead of give up billions upon billions of his net worth each year. -
Significant by rate or amount paid?HHusky said:
Unfortunately, our experience shows you’re incorrect, at least as to those who received significant tax cuts.salemcoog said:
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT
