income inequality question

[bave]

No one is talking about taking your wealth away. It about taking the special compensations that you, as a rich man, have obtained because you were able to pay others in Congress to get those "benefits" instituted for you. Click on the link and find out what they are.

Sounds like a super idea, getting rid of things like charitable deductions and retirement funding. Exactly who did I pay for those?

What systematic advantage do I, or my family, have over you?

Well, let' see. I am Black and live in Detroit, Michigan and there are no schools nearby where I can get "higher education". In addition, my parents don't have jobs, or the jobs that they do have don't pay enough to pay the bills, so I have to get out and work as well to help them just to be able to pay rent and food. I was unable to get a good job given that the jobs available in my neighborhood are all low paying jobs so I had to get two jobs and don't have time to be able to even go to the public school in my neighborhood. The same thing happened to my parents and my grandparents. They are hard workers but there are no opportunities for them to get good jobs and we have no money to move out of this neighborhood so we have to keep on doing what we are doing (no possibility of advancement) given that we have to stay alive.

Lots of people come from bad backgrounds and do just fine. Either way, none of that is systematic. If you have worthless parents who can't manage to keep a job and no desire to take the necessary steps to help their children that's a disadvantage, but it isn't systemic. The government didn't do that to you, your parents did, and you have the ability to overcome it.

Aren't you lucky that there are police in your neighborhood. Hey, aren't they paid by the government off of your tax dollars? Aren't they part of the "family" that we all have to support. Imagine if there were no police and the neighbor did block the street, what then?

Lucky to have police? No. I pay my property taxes with the knowledge as to where those dollars are being spent. They aren't family, they are civil servants. If the cops didn't show up, I would move the car myself.

You are talking about a "bad" business. You did. my example was addressing that you would go to another business if the one in your neighborhood did not do what you wanted. Hey, the businesses in Russia fit the bill you need.

Your analogy was that of a grocery store. We have more than one grocery store in the United States. If you have a local business that is terrible, it is a business opportunity, someone will take advantage of that.

"Personal" dependents are not what I was talking about. The country depending on you to be a part of the solution is what is being asked of you. The solution includes all 330m citizens. By being part of the solution, you are helping all 330m is some way shape or form.

Family is, by the very definition, your "personal dependents". You keep making up definitions to words, that's not how the english language works. You don't get to have your own definitions and then act surprised when everyone looks at you like a moron.

No one argues we have a legal responsibility to pay our taxes, the question is one of morality. In a country with the most progressive tax code in the world, we have people like you saying the rich "aren't paying their fair share". These people ignore every basic fact because they want to believe they have the right to appropriate from those they are jealous of, plain and simple.

 

[Destroy Trumpism]

You and I know the answer. Opportunity.

That's the problem with people like Lucky, he said he is a 75 year old retiree in Florida. Which means he spent his years in the hay-day of the 60's when he had no competition for otherwise weak skillsets. He thought life should be easy for people to half-ass and still have a comfortable life. Guess what, life is a race, everywhere, all the time. You are always in competition. No one gets something they don't deserve to a large degree. Whether that is poverty or wealth, it is choices people make. It isn't hard in this country to make 50-60k a year, if you aren't doing that it is because you chose that.

Stupid point of view. Most wealthy people were born wealthy and are talentless hacks. Donald Trump is a perfect example.

 

[Luckyone]

You and I know the answer. Opportunity.

That's the problem with people like Lucky, he said he is a 75 year old retiree in Florida. Which means he spent his years in the hay-day of the 60's when he had no competition for otherwise weak skillsets. He thought life should be easy for people to half-ass and still have a comfortable life. Guess what, life is a race, everywhere, all the time. You are always in competition. No one gets something they don't deserve to a large degree. Whether that is poverty or wealth, it is choices people make. It isn't hard in this country to make 50-60k a year, if you aren't doing that it is because you chose that.

You are making one big mistake but I don't think you will ever comprehend it.

I had one big benefit in life and that was that I got a good education, I had two parents with a lot of brains that passed it on to me, and a difficult childhood tha gave me more push to succeed than most.

Having said that, In my lifetime I have learned that most people do not have the push, the education, or the brains to accomplish what others (like me) accomplished in their lives. We are all born with limitations either of character, physical, or mind-wise. By the same token, I have also founds that everyone plays an important part in life no matter the capabilities.

I do believe that everyone should get the opportunity to reach their potential even if the potenatial is not high. Nonetheless, there are many obstacles in life that prevent each and every person from reaching their potential. For example, brain power is certainly an obstacle to accomplish goals. There is nothing that can be done about that as you are born with it and it is an insurmountable obstacle. For example, even I cannot reach the potential of an Einstein. He has much more brain power than I do.

I do understand there are many people that are lazy, do not have will power, are egoistical and they really have not earned the right to be helped. They do have the ability but have decided not to use it. Nonetheless, everything in life has its positives and negatives and allowing the negatives to rule the decisions against the benefit of those that have earned the right to be helped is wrong.

What I am saying is that we. as a nation, are either going to be among the top or among the bottom of the countries in the world and being at the top helps everyone in many ways and that means that we need keep being at the top. We will not be at the top if we only cater to those with ability, talent, and drive given that everyone from a dumb gardner to a CEO of a major company plays a part in how good the nation is. As such, we need to make sure that every citizen of the nation has the opportunity to reach his.her potential even if that potential is just being a gardner.

This means we all have to contribute to the country and learn to accept that nothing is perfect and we have to accept the imperfections involved.

 

[bave]

Having said that, In my lifetime I have learned that most people do not have the push, the education, or the brains to accomplish what others (like me) accomplished in their lives. We are all born with limitations either of character, physical, or mind-wise. By the same token, I have also founds that everyone plays an important part in life no matter the capabilities.

Everyone does have gifts and drawbacks, either physical, mental, or personal. The difference between my point of view and yours is that you only need to be decent at one of those to build a decent life. The more the better, sure, but with just one you can do well. If you are super smart or super athletic you can do just fine. If you are dumb as a post and built like Hawking, but work hard you will still be able to get by just fine. The problem is the last one is a choice. A person's drive isn't coded into their genes, it is a decision they make, and should you opt to make that decision in the wrong direction I will not be supportive or forgiving.

I do believe that everyone should get the opportunity to reach their potential even if the potenatial is not high. Nonetheless, there are many obstacles in life that prevent each and every person from reaching their potential. For example, brain power is certainly an obstacle to accomplish goals. There is nothing that can be done about that as you are born with it and it is an insurmountable obstacle. For example, even I cannot reach the potential of an Einstein. He has much more brain power than I do.

Man, you got an ego for someone so close to Heaven's Gate. Honestly never seen someone your age with such a superiority complex, that's a change. Again, everyone has different potential, but everyone has the potential to support themselves. I have said it many times before, a hard worker who is going to give their work their best effort and try is easily going to make a middle class income. I see it every day.

I do understand there are many people that are lazy, do not have will power, are egoistical and they really have not earned the right to be helped.

Great, we agree. If you choose to be lazy and make the wrong choices, hunger should help motivate.

What I am saying is that we. as a nation, are either going to be among the top or among the bottom of the countries in the world and being at the top helps everyone in many ways and that means that we need keep being at the top. We will not be at the top if we only cater to those with ability, talent, and drive given that everyone from a dumb gardner to a CEO of a major company plays a part in how good the nation is. As such, we need to make sure that every citizen of the nation has the opportunity to reach his.her potential even if that potential is just being a gardner.

This means we all have to contribute to the country and learn to accept that nothing is perfect and we have to accept the imperfections involved.

Actually, great story here. My *GARDENER*, you genius you, is a former illegal immigrant from southern Mexico. He is one of the hardest working, highest quality guys I have ever met in my life. He does excellent work, conscientious, and never lets an employer down. The guy works by himself and sometimes his one legged wife helps him (osteosarcoma). He charges $30/hr, cash. He can't take more clients he is so busy. He barely speaks english, doesn't strike me as a rocket scientist, but he is a grinder. He is making $60-70k a year easily and I am happy to pay him for the work he does for me.

The problem with your assessment is that we are "catering" to the rich and talented. No. The rich and talented in this country are now vilified as thieves, cheats, and slave drivers. All while paying the most progressive taxes in the world. Meanwhile, every time I hear a democrat talking it is about more benefits for poor people and now middle class people and the rich being told that is our responsibility to pay for it. The real issue is that if you keep doing that the rich and talented start doing things differently to the great detriment of everyone.

 

[Luckyone]

Everyone does have gifts and drawbacks, either physical, mental, or personal. The difference between my point of view and yours is that you only need to be decent at one of those to build a decent life. The more the better, sure, but with just one you can do well. If you are super smart or super athletic you can do just fine. If you are dumb as a post and built like Hawking, but work hard you will still be able to get by just fine. The problem is the last one is a choice. A person's drive isn't coded into their genes, it is a decision they make, and should you opt to make that decision in the wrong direction I will not be supportive or forgiving.



Man, you got an ego for someone so close to Heaven's Gate. Honestly never seen someone your age with such a superiority complex, that's a change. Again, everyone has different potential, but everyone has the potential to support themselves. I have said it many times before, a hard worker who is going to give their work their best effort and try is easily going to make a middle class income. I see it every day.



Great, we agree. If you choose to be lazy and make the wrong choices, hunger should help motivate.



Actually, great story here. My *GARDENER*, you genius you, is a former illegal immigrant from southern Mexico. He is one of the hardest working, highest quality guys I have ever met in my life. He does excellent work, conscientious, and never lets an employer down. The guy works by himself and sometimes his one legged wife helps him (osteosarcoma). He charges $30/hr, cash. He can't take more clients he is so busy. He barely speaks english, doesn't strike me as a rocket scientist, but he is a grinder. He is making $60-70k a year easily and I am happy to pay him for the work he does for me.

The problem with your assessment is that we are "catering" to the rich and talented. No. The rich and talented in this country are now vilified as thieves, cheats, and slave drivers. All while paying the most progressive taxes in the world. Meanwhile, every time I hear a democrat talking it is about more benefits for poor people and now middle class people and the rich being told that is our responsibility to pay for it. The real issue is that if you keep doing that the rich and talented start doing things differently to the great detriment of everyone.

So much ranting from you and not addressing the core issue is making head spin.

In addition, you are so off the mark with so many of your comments that I wonder just who you think you are.

Me, high ego? Totally opposite. I do know what I know but my ego is way below what most everyone else's is and certainly way below what yours is. What I do have is knowledge that I have fought hard all my life to achieve and knowledge is never ego, it is just knowledge. Of course, to others (probably like you), knowledge is ego. I don't think highly of myself, I just know who I am, what I am and what I know. In that assessment, I also know where I fail and where I fail, I keep my mouth shut and ask (not opine like you do).

You story about your gardener proves my point. Every skill is needed in the nation. It is not just the ones that are able to make fortunes. Your gardener, as good as he is and as "in-demand" as he is, will never be a billionaire and never have to worry about his taxes being out of proportion, such as billionaires taxes are out of proportion.

This is way out of proportion. Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

That is just plain wrong. Mind you, Buffet is a hero to me as he is the first one that has stated that the tax code as it is right now, is wrong.

This is what our conversation was all about when we started it, about the rich not paying their fair share. Buffett agrees with me and he is among the uber rich.

 

[bave]

So much ranting from you and not addressing the core issue is making head spin.

You keep avoiding the core fact, the US has the most progressive tax code in the world, which has gotten more progressive over time at that, and you can't accept it.

Me, high ego? Totally opposite. I do know what I know but my ego is way below what most everyone else's is and certainly way below what yours is. What I do have is knowledge that I have fought hard all my life to achieve and knowledge is never ego, it is just knowledge. Of course, to others (probably like you), knowledge is ego. I don't think highly of myself, I just know who I am, what I am and what I know. In that assessment, I also know where I fail and where I fail, I keep my mouth shut and ask (not opine like you do).

No, an ego is when you say things like you are "very smart". That isn't something intelligent people say in my experience.

You story about your gardener proves my point. Every skill is needed in the nation. It is not just the ones that are able to make fortunes. Your gardener, as good as he is and as "in-demand" as he is, will never be a billionaire and never have to worry about his taxes being out of proportion, such as billionaires taxes are out of proportion.

Even if he were declaring all his income, his taxes would be near zero. He has three kids and a spouse who makes no money. Assuming he is making $70M/yr, that puts his FIT tax burden at 2-4%. My point wasn't about skills, it was about character and motivation. Anyone can be a gardener, anyone, yet we have a whole host of people who claim they just can't figure out how to make a living. An illegal immigrant, who doesn't speak the language, and never went to high school figured it out but we can't expect a significant portion of native americans to figure it out?

This is way out of proportion. Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

Only a dope bites this line. First off, his secretary is a Wharton MBA. She isn't just taking his messages and answering his phones, she is a full blown executive in function. Last I heard her compensation puts her in the top 2% in base comp. Second, her boss draws a $100M salary from a $650B corporation which he founded and is CEO of. Third, the company he founded, which he defacto controls from top to bottom, issues no dividends or distributions due to a stated goal as to avoid tax events, despite the fact that the holdings are entirely income producing and sits on an enormous pile of cash. Lastly, he also makes enormous charitable contributions, like enormous.

In effect you have an old guy who has no income because he spent his entire life making sure he has no income, then acts surprised when he pays no tax? Duh.

That is just plain wrong. Mind you, Buffet is a hero to me as he is the first one that has stated that the tax code as it is right now, is wrong.

It's so wrong he spent the last 50 years of his life structuring everything he touched to operate in extremely unusual manners to make sure he never had to pay taxes. The guy is using pro-tax dopes as puppets to make them believe he agrees with you. If he agreed with you, he could change it tomorrow, but he doesn't because he doesn't really agree with you. If Warren truly believed what he was saying, he would distribute $100B in cash tomorrow to BRK holders, he just isn't going to do that since he would pay ~30% on the dividend. It's not an accident.

This is what our conversation was all about when we started it, about the rich not paying their fair share. Buffett agrees with me and he is among the uber rich.

Welcome to the puppet club.

 

[Luckyone]

You keep avoiding the core fact, the US has the most progressive tax code in the world, which has gotten more progressive over time at that, and you can't accept it.



No, an ego is when you say things like you are "very smart". That isn't something intelligent people say in my experience.



Even if he were declaring all his income, his taxes would be near zero. He has three kids and a spouse who makes no money. Assuming he is making $70M/yr, that puts his FIT tax burden at 2-4%. My point wasn't about skills, it was about character and motivation. Anyone can be a gardener, anyone, yet we have a whole host of people who claim they just can't figure out how to make a living. An illegal immigrant, who doesn't speak the language, and never went to high school figured it out but we can't expect a significant portion of native americans to figure it out?



Only a dope bites this line. First off, his secretary is a Wharton MBA. She isn't just taking his messages and answering his phones, she is a full blown executive in function. Last I heard her compensation puts her in the top 2% in base comp. Second, her boss draws a $100M salary from a $650B corporation which he founded and is CEO of. Third, the company he founded, which he defacto controls from top to bottom, issues no dividends or distributions due to a stated goal as to avoid tax events, despite the fact that the holdings are entirely income producing and sits on an enormous pile of cash. Lastly, he also makes enormous charitable contributions, like enormous.

In effect you have an old guy who has no income because he spent his entire life making sure he has no income, then acts surprised when he pays no tax? Duh.



It's so wrong he spent the last 50 years of his life structuring everything he touched to operate in extremely unusual manners to make sure he never had to pay taxes. The guy is using pro-tax dopes as puppets to make them believe he agrees with you. If he agreed with you, he could change it tomorrow, but he doesn't because he doesn't really agree with you. If Warren truly believed what he was saying, he would distribute $100B in cash tomorrow to BRK holders, he just isn't going to do that since he would pay ~30% on the dividend. It's not an accident.



Welcome to the puppet club.

I am starting to believe that you are just a "rabble rouser" that likes to be right all the time and likes to battle everyone that doesn't fully agree with him.

There are many things you have stated that are just not addressing the issue. For example, your reply about Buffett's secretary being what she is. How does that matter in the absolute least? She is not Buffett, she is not Uber rich, and she is his secretary and not vice versa. Yet she pays more taxes than Buffett. That is just plain wrong and it shows how our tax code is wrong. Most progressive tax code in the world? Absolutely "yes" it is and it is what the problem is. This is what needs to change.

All the tax code does is make the rich richer and that is THE PROBLEM. Having 1% make more than the other 99% is not helpful to the country and not helpful to any but the rich. In addition, it goes to prove that the "every day guys starting now" cannot accomplish those goals no matter what they do. Perhaps 50 years ago, the U.S. was the land of opportunity and the "not so fortunate could get rich but now that is getting to be an impossibility" With companies owned by rich people like Amazon's Bezos and Walmart's Walton and them getting all the tax breaks and paying less than what would be a fair share, there is no way to compete with them anymore. If your goals right now is to own a new online retailer like those companies are, there is no way you can do it anymore. Starting with the fact that those people "now have" super benefits with the tax codes that you personally could not accomplish unless you first became rich like they are and that is now an impossiblity.

The problem started many years ago and no one foresaw what could happen and now it is so big and the Uber rich have so much power that fixing the problem is becoming impossible, especially with so many people like you helping them accomplish the take over. The problem as is presently, is going to end up in a catastrophe at some point in the not too distant future. There are absolutely no lasting benefits to a nation where all the money is in the hands of so few. They will call all the shots and the 99% are screwed if they don't just adjust to being the ass kissers and slaves of the rich.

Anyhow, I could go on and explain things to you in more detail and prove how this situation will end up badly but I have lost the interest in continuing this conversation. Debating with blind-by-choice people is useless.

 

[Questerr]

Equality guarantees an equal chance, it doesn't guarantee an equal outcome.

Does the person who grew up in a single parent household in a crime ridden slum in the inner city have an equal chance of being a billionaire as a person born to a billionaire family who then inherits a billion dollars?

 

[Artymoon]

Does the person who grew up in a single parent household in a crime ridden slum in the inner city have an equal chance of being a billionaire as a person born to a billionaire family who then inherits a billion dollars?

Sure. Nothing is stopping the kid in your scenario from a chance at being successful. But the narrow factors you listed certainly play a part and don't guarantee an equal outcome.

 

[Questerr]

Sure. Nothing is stopping the kid in your scenario from a chance at being successful. But the narrow factors you listed certainly play a part and don't guarantee an equal outcome.

So the kid from the crime ridden slum has an equal 100% chance of being a billionaire as the kid born to a billionaire family who inherits a billion dollars?

 

[bave]

Does the person who grew up in a single parent household in a crime ridden slum in the inner city have an equal chance of being a billionaire as a person born to a billionaire family who then inherits a billion dollars?

Of course not, but that isn't systemic. We are talking about the opportunities afforded by the system, not by/to the individual. Does the kid who happens to be born with a 170 IQ have a greater chance than the 70 IQ dullard? How do you correct that? Or the guy who is 6-5 280 and runs a 4.4? What we are really talking about is laws and regulations which make sure each person is provided with the same opportunities as society as a whole. There will always be those with advantages as outliers.

So the kid from the crime ridden slum has an equal 100% chance of being a billionaire as the kid born to a billionaire family who inherits a billion dollars?

I would point out, you should look at the Forbes list. Most of the wealthiest people on that list are self made. The consistent trend is that they come from families that encourage entrepreneur ship, education, hard work, and investing. Those are the things that drive a difference in outcome more than wealth. It just so happens that those things are correlated to wealth.

 

[Questerr]

Of course not, but that isn't systemic. We are talking about the opportunities afforded by the system, not by/to the individual. Does the kid who happens to be born with a 170 IQ have a greater chance than the 70 IQ dullard? How do you correct that? Or the guy who is 6-5 280 and runs a 4.4? What we are really talking about is laws and regulations which make sure each person is provided with the same opportunities as society as a whole. There will always be those with advantages as outliers.



I would point out, you should look at the Forbes list. Most of the wealthiest people on that list are self made. The consistent trend is that they come from families that encourage entrepreneur ship, education, hard work, and investing. Those are the things that drive a difference in outcome more than wealth. It just so happens that those things are correlated to wealth.

“Self-made” like Jeff Bezos with the hundred of thousands of dollars his parents gave him or “self-made” like Elon Musk stealing emeralds mined by slave labor from his dad’s mine in White Supremacist South Africa?

 

[bave]

I am starting to believe that you are just a "rabble rouser" that likes to be right all the time and likes to battle everyone that doesn't fully agree with him.

No, I love a good debate with someone who has intelligent counter points, that's not what this is. This forum has the same people refuses to accept basic statistics and facts they don't agree with. You still parrot the line the rich don't pay their fair share, the statistics say you are lying. I have shown you those statistics many times over, you refuse to accept them. That's not a debate, it's not even a conversation. It is arguing with a six year old.

There are many things you have stated that are just not addressing the issue. For example, your reply about Buffett's secretary being what she is. How does that matter in the absolute least?

Ok, this goes to my above comment. You are stuck on the word "secretary", that's cute, and wholly inaccurate. She is an extraordinarily well educated and successful individual whose occupation is not best described as "secretary". The reason I am illustrating her case is that secretary implies she is a lowly paid regular person. She isn't, far from. She is in the top 2%, probably 1%, or even better. She *is* the rich. So in this context she is rich, but her super rich boss pays a lesser effective tax rate? Ok, I agree that is true, but that isn't the context of your statement. Further, I point out that Buffett is an extreme example who has spent his life crafting this very outcome, suckers like you then believe it was some sort of aberration of the tax code, nope. Moreover, you ignore that a large part of his tax treatment will be based on the fact he is giving away almost all of his wealth. Most rich people have no issue giving away the vast majority of their wealth, they just don't want to give it to a government to flitter away.

She is not Buffett, she is not Uber rich, and she is his secretary and not vice versa. Yet she pays more taxes than Buffett. That is just plain wrong and it shows how our tax code is wrong. Most progressive tax code in the world? Absolutely "yes" it is and it is what the problem is. This is what needs to change.

Again, your misogynistic definition of her being "just a secretary" is why you are misguided. You don't understand she is an executive who is probably far more than just an executive assistant and her compensation reflects that. So it seems you are now suggesting our tax code isn't progressive enough and needs to change? Tell me what you think that should look like and how you will prevent it from resulting in the flight of capital every other nation has seen when attempted.

All the tax code does is make the rich richer and that is THE PROBLEM.

Ahh, the most progressive tax code in the world is making the rich richer? That's an amazing cognitive failure.

Having 1% make more than the other 99% is not helpful to the country and not helpful to any but the rich.

Another blatant lie. The top 1% draw 16% of the national income and paid 40% of the taxes.

 

[Luckyone]

No, I love a good debate with someone who has intelligent counter points, that's not what this is. This forum has the same people refuses to accept basic statistics and facts they don't agree with. You still parrot the line the rich don't pay their fair share, the statistics say you are lying. I have shown you those statistics many times over, you refuse to accept them. That's not a debate, it's not even a conversation. It is arguing with a six year old.



Ok, this goes to my above comment. You are stuck on the word "secretary", that's cute, and wholly inaccurate. She is an extraordinarily well educated and successful individual whose occupation is not best described as "secretary". The reason I am illustrating her case is that secretary implies she is a lowly paid regular person. She isn't, far from. She is in the top 2%, probably 1%, or even better. She *is* the rich. So in this context she is rich, but her super rich boss pays a lesser effective tax rate? Ok, I agree that is true, but that isn't the context of your statement. Further, I point out that Buffett is an extreme example who has spent his life crafting this very outcome, suckers like you then believe it was some sort of aberration of the tax code, nope. Moreover, you ignore that a large part of his tax treatment will be based on the fact he is giving away almost all of his wealth. Most rich people have no issue giving away the vast majority of their wealth, they just don't want to give it to a government to flitter away.



Again, your misogynistic definition of her being "just a secretary" is why you are misguided. You don't understand she is an executive who is probably far more than just an executive assistant and her compensation reflects that. So it seems you are now suggesting our tax code isn't progressive enough and needs to change? Tell me what you think that should look like and how you will prevent it from resulting in the flight of capital every other nation has seen when attempted.



Ahh, the most progressive tax code in the world is making the rich richer? That's an amazing cognitive failure.




Another blatant lie. The top 1% draw 16% of the national income and paid 40% of the taxes.

Whatever you say!

 

[bave]

In addition, it goes to prove that the "every day guys starting now" cannot accomplish those goals no matter what they do. Perhaps 50 years ago, the U.S. was the land of opportunity and the "not so fortunate could get rich but now that is getting to be an impossibility" With companies owned by rich people like Amazon's Bezos and Walmart's Walton and them getting all the tax breaks and paying less than what would be a fair share, there is no way to compete with them anymore.

Another lie. Look at how many young billionaires and multi-multi millionaires have been made in the past decade. More than any other decade in history.

If your goals right now is to own a new online retailer like those companies are, there is no way you can do it anymore.

Really? Reaaaaallllyyyy? I will give you an easy example. Chewy. They became a monster online retailer competing in a niche that Amazon couldn't effectively operate in, pet goods. There's an example of a young billionaire in a space you said can't happen. Off the top of my head.

Read.a.book.

Starting with the fact that those people "now have" super benefits with the tax codes that you personally could not accomplish unless you first became rich like they are and that is now an impossiblity.

What tax benefit does Amazon or Walmart have that any other business doesn't have?

The problem started many years ago and no one foresaw what could happen and now it is so big and the Uber rich have so much power that fixing the problem is becoming impossible, especially with so many people like you helping them accomplish the take over. The problem as is presently, is going to end up in a catastrophe at some point in the not too distant future. There are absolutely no lasting benefits to a nation where all the money is in the hands of so few. They will call all the shots and the 99% are screwed if they don't just adjust to being the ass kissers and slaves of the rich.

Ok, I will assume you think we should have a system that more mimics western european social democracies? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't mean balls-out socialism or just communism. I would then point out that the US has economically outperformed those EU peers over the last 30, 40, 50 years in pretty much every economic statistic, especially for the middle and lower class. Why? Economic growth equals job/wage/discretionary spending growth.

Anyhow, I could go on and explain things to you in more detail and prove how this situation will end up badly but I have lost the interest in continuing this conversation. Debating with blind-by-choice people is useless.

Again, I would happily compare CVs with you to point out the gap in expertise, but it doesn't matter, you still think it is 1975.

 

[bave]

“Self-made” like Jeff Bezos with the hundred of thousands of dollars his parents gave him or “self-made” like Elon Musk stealing emeralds mined by slave labor from his dad’s mine in White Supremacist South Africa?

Bezos' family *invested* in Amazon, at the same time many others did early on. They profited handsomely from that investment. It wasn't a gift, it was an investment pitch that several people took early on. Most companies in early stages raise money from friends and family, it even has special rules it is so common. To my knowledge Musk has denied the whole emerald mine story and no one has shown substantiated proof of it. He has however stated, and is supported, by the fact that he had to borrow money to pay for his own higher education and paid that money back with his own earnings.

Whatever you say!

Exactly, you lie, and lie, and lie and then when confronted with the facts showing your lies you can't rebut.

All that high and mighty religious morality you were throwing around earlier, did Jesus teach you to lie?

 

[Artymoon]

So the kid from the crime ridden slum has an equal 100% chance of being a billionaire as the kid born to a billionaire family who inherits a billion dollars?

He has an equal chance at being successful. Just as the rich kid has an equal chance of losing it all. What if that poor kid becomes a millionaire? It isn't a billion but would you still consider him successful?

As I mentioned earlier in the thread - ability, drive and luck all play a part in the outcome.

 

[Luckyone]

Bezos' family *invested* in Amazon, at the same time many others did early on. They profited handsomely from that investment. It wasn't a gift, it was an investment pitch that several people took early on. Most companies in early stages raise money from friends and family, it even has special rules it is so common. To my knowledge Musk has denied the whole emerald mine story and no one has shown substantiated proof of it. He has however stated, and is supported, by the fact that he had to borrow money to pay for his own higher education and paid that money back with his own earnings.



Exactly, you lie, and lie, and lie and then when confronted with the facts showing your lies you can't rebut.

All that high and mighty religious morality you were throwing around earlier, did Jesus teach you to lie?

Yeah, okay.

 

[bave]

Yeah, okay.

Exactly, caught in a lie and you have nowhere to go.

 

[Destroy Trumpism]

You are correct about the payroll tax being levied against earned income only up to a cap, however, that does not save your previous statement.

Example:

Couple's income: $75,000
FICA: (75,000 * 0.0765) = $5737.50

Standard Deduction: $24,800
Adjusted Income: $50,200
FIT: ($19,750 * 10%) + ($30,450 * 12%) = $5,629

$5,629 + $ 5,737.50 = $9,391.50

$9,391.50 / $75,000 = a combined tax rate of 12.522%

Or, slightly less than half of just the 26.8% solely income tax rate paid by those mean ole top one percenters.

Jeffrey Sachs disagrees with you. He is an economics professor who knows more than both of us put together.

There is no disputing that our tax system is rigged in favor of the ultra rich. You can't win this argument with your jedi mind tricks. --

Between 2014 and 2018, Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, saw his wealth grow $99 billion (to the level of $191 billion today) while paying a pittance in income taxes, according to an investigation published by ProPublica, which revealed several of America's best-known billionaires paid similarly little in taxes. (Bezos' personal and corporate representatives declined to receive detailed questions on the ProPublica story.)

Not only is our tax system not collecting taxes from America's richest individuals -- it's designed not to do so. Suppose that in a given year Bezos' shares rise by $20 billion and, instead of selling those shares, he borrows $1 billion against them to fund his luxurious consumption. He won't owe or pay a penny of income tax.

Opinion: America's tax system is rigged to protect the rich and powerful

Jeffrey Sachs writes the US tax system is designed to protect wealthy individuals and powerful corporations, and it is breaking the country in more ways than one.

www.cnn.com

 

[Destroy Trumpism]

If you can't read the articles and data sources, should you really be in this conversation? It is pretty clear what I meant. The rich in this country pay a disproportionate amount of the taxes regardless of how you slice it. They pay more relative to population, or relative to their income. The top 10% of the country pay 80% of the federal income tax while drawing ~50% of the national income.



That's correct, but that group is also incredibly odd in the way their income is taxed and I believe the majority of that list has *enormous* charitable giving deductions via DATFs. It is also massively skewed by guys like Buffett, Musk, and Bezos who spent their lives constructing very unique situations.



Look, if you can't wrap your head around the data and why the US has the most progressive code in the world, then you ought to go back to the kids table. I'm sorry you don't understand, but rather than get snarky, ask questions to try and learn.



This guy, he gets it.



Try writing without having to add artificial emphasis through bold and italics, it isn't a good way to communicate.

Yes, almost everyone pays 6.2% for SS up to ~$130M/yr. Also another 1.45%. Here's the other half of that story you are missing. The vast bulk of that, SS, also has a capped benefit. So that rich person is only paying on the first $130M but their benefit is based on that as well. Further, the higher you are on the SS benefit scale, the worse a deal you get, because the benefits are progressive as well. So the person who pays in a lower amount gets a proportionally vastly superior benefit than the person with the maxed out benefit. Medicare is an even better deal for a low earner. I have the joy of paying tens of thousands of dollars every year in medicare taxes alone, for the same benefit as someone who pays $500/yr. You don't think that is massively progressive?

Further, your source fails to include refundable credits and the math looks off to me in the first place. I have seen the actual IRS data. It generally shifts effective tax rates for the median household from ~1-2% to 5-7%. The wealthy don't pay as much, as a percentage, in SS taxes because of the capped benefit, but they get hammered on Medicare taxes.

Says you. It's still a more effective communications technique than you posting lame articles and then me blowing holes in your articles, like I did earlier.

Jeffrey Sachs is an economics professor who agrees with me, not you. --

Opinion: America's tax system is rigged to protect the rich and powerful

Jeffrey Sachs writes the US tax system is designed to protect wealthy individuals and powerful corporations, and it is breaking the country in more ways than one.

www.cnn.com

 

[Destroy Trumpism]

Another lie. Look at how many young billionaires and multi-multi millionaires have been made in the past decade. More than any other decade in history.




Really? Reaaaaallllyyyy? I will give you an easy example. Chewy. They became a monster online retailer competing in a niche that Amazon couldn't effectively operate in, pet goods. There's an example of a young billionaire in a space you said can't happen. Off the top of my head.

Read.a.book.



What tax benefit does Amazon or Walmart have that any other business doesn't have?



Ok, I will assume you think we should have a system that more mimics western european social democracies? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't mean balls-out socialism or just communism. I would then point out that the US has economically outperformed those EU peers over the last 30, 40, 50 years in pretty much every economic statistic, especially for the middle and lower class. Why? Economic growth equals job/wage/discretionary spending growth.



Again, I would happily compare CVs with you to point out the gap in expertise, but it doesn't matter, you still think it is 1975.

For every young self-made multi-millionaire, there are a lot more born-wealthy blithering idiots like Donald Trump.

Your arguments are meaningless.

 

[Destroy Trumpism]

I am starting to believe that you are just a "rabble rouser" that likes to be right all the time and likes to battle everyone that doesn't fully agree with him.

There are many things you have stated that are just not addressing the issue. For example, your reply about Buffett's secretary being what she is. How does that matter in the absolute least? She is not Buffett, she is not Uber rich, and she is his secretary and not vice versa. Yet she pays more taxes than Buffett. That is just plain wrong and it shows how our tax code is wrong. Most progressive tax code in the world? Absolutely "yes" it is and it is what the problem is. This is what needs to change.

All the tax code does is make the rich richer and that is THE PROBLEM. Having 1% make more than the other 99% is not helpful to the country and not helpful to any but the rich. In addition, it goes to prove that the "every day guys starting now" cannot accomplish those goals no matter what they do. Perhaps 50 years ago, the U.S. was the land of opportunity and the "not so fortunate could get rich but now that is getting to be an impossibility" With companies owned by rich people like Amazon's Bezos and Walmart's Walton and them getting all the tax breaks and paying less than what would be a fair share, there is no way to compete with them anymore. If your goals right now is to own a new online retailer like those companies are, there is no way you can do it anymore. Starting with the fact that those people "now have" super benefits with the tax codes that you personally could not accomplish unless you first became rich like they are and that is now an impossiblity.

The problem started many years ago and no one foresaw what could happen and now it is so big and the Uber rich have so much power that fixing the problem is becoming impossible, especially with so many people like you helping them accomplish the take over. The problem as is presently, is going to end up in a catastrophe at some point in the not too distant future. There are absolutely no lasting benefits to a nation where all the money is in the hands of so few. They will call all the shots and the 99% are screwed if they don't just adjust to being the ass kissers and slaves of the rich.

Anyhow, I could go on and explain things to you in more detail and prove how this situation will end up badly but I have lost the interest in continuing this conversation. Debating with blind-by-choice people is useless.

Yeah, he enjoys being argumentative for no good reason, while insulting you at the same time.

The more he loses the argument, the more smarmy he gets. Childish.

 

[bave]

Jeffrey Sachs disagrees with you. He is an economics professor who knows more than both of us put together.

There is no disputing that our tax system is rigged in favor of the ultra rich. You can't win this argument with your jedi mind tricks. --

Between 2014 and 2018, Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, saw his wealth grow $99 billion (to the level of $191 billion today) while paying a pittance in income taxes, according to an investigation published by ProPublica, which revealed several of America's best-known billionaires paid similarly little in taxes. (Bezos' personal and corporate representatives declined to receive detailed questions on the ProPublica story.)

Not only is our tax system not collecting taxes from America's richest individuals -- it's designed not to do so. Suppose that in a given year Bezos' shares rise by $20 billion and, instead of selling those shares, he borrows $1 billion against them to fund his luxurious consumption. He won't owe or pay a penny of income tax.

Opinion: America's tax system is rigged to protect the rich and powerful

Jeffrey Sachs writes the US tax system is designed to protect wealthy individuals and powerful corporations, and it is breaking the country in more ways than one.

www.cnn.com

I know Dr. Sachs, I have heard him speak a number of times. My educational background is very similar to his. He is also outright and intentionally misleading in this article. For example:

"By the way, if Bezos actually sells some shares after owning them for more than one year, he would pay a "long-term capital gains tax" of 20%, below the 22% marginal tax rate on wage income paid by an individual earning $41,000!"

This is false, and Dr. Sachs knows it. For one, Bezos would pay 23.8%. For two, he picked a $41M income because that just crosses into the 22% bracket barely, making it seems like it is true. The problem is, someone drawing a $41M salary doesn't have a MAGI of $41M. Depending on the same situation (ie: married, kids etc) their tax drops very quickly. For instance, by just taking the standard single deduction they wipe out ~30% of their taxable income. While still having a variety of other deductions and credits potentially available. If you look at the median household income in the US their federal tax liability is 5-7%, on a much higher income.

All this does is show that Dr. Sachs, whom is very intelligent and well educated, is also equally partisan and bias. It doesn't change the facts, nor the poor framing context of this scenario he presented.

Lastly, you don't write a tax code for 10 taxpayers. Bezos/Buffett have incredibly unique situations which would be exceptionally difficult to do anything about. This is also not unique to the US. The richest person in the world has a very similar situation, in France.

Says you. It's still a more effective communications technique than you posting lame articles and then me blowing holes in your articles, like I did earlier.

Those lame articles that have actual verified data, from federal sources? As opposed to an opinion fluff piece by a leftist academician who is intentionally misleading anyone dumb enough to fail to see the holes in his argument?

For every young self-made multi-millionaire, there are a lot more born-wealthy blithering idiots like Donald Trump.

Your arguments are meaningless.

Do you have a source for this? Or just going to make it up? The vast majority of wealthy individuals I know are self-made, vast.

Yeah, he enjoys being argumentative for no good reason, while insulting you at the same time.

The more he loses the argument, the more smarmy he gets. Childish.

I honestly find it comical, sad, and frustrating all at the same time. People who are so indoctrinated into a belief that they refuse to look at the actual statistics and facts. Stop looking at the opinions and twisting of facts, but the actual data sets. In economics, specifically in regards to tax policy, all the information you need is provided by the census bureau, IRS, and BLS. There is no opinion or commentary needed, it is just data. That is what I provided to you, which you ignored, because it directly contradicts your every position.

 

[NWRatCon]

Wealth/income in America (and, really, everywhere) is mostly a lottery. Nothing determines how well one makes out in the world than where, you were born, how you were born, who you were born to, and what you were born with - all things none of us have any control over. Pretending that taxing the wealthy is "unfair" is unmitigated sophistry. It's bullshit. It's anti-intellectual. It's nonsense. It's stupid. It's dishonest.

Governments get revenue where the revenue is available. It has always worked that way, and always will. The poor don't have resources to support themselves, much less the government. Almost none of them had any choice in their condition. They were born into poverty, given no tools to get out of it, are caged in by circumstances beyond their control (sometimes with the force of law), and are blamed for being so. Pretending otherwise is, again, unmitigated sophistry. It's bullshit. It's anti-intellectual. It's nonsense. It's stupid. It's dishonest.

The OP isunmitigated sophistry. It's bullshit. It's anti-intellectual. It's nonsense. It's stupid. It's dishonest. It doesn't even ask a real question.