You do understand that a basic flaw of capitalism is if left unchecked it can encourage wealth disparity and there are limits to how much of it can be tolerated without a financial collapse. When so much of the total income goes unspent it slows growth too. That was the reason for the punitive tax rates of the postwar period. They were meant to discourage hoarding of wealth. When they were eliminated the hoarding began again. It is unsustainable. The middle class thrived like no other time when the punitive rates were still in effect so your claim that high top rates hurt the middle class is dead wrong. The opposite is what happened.
Really? So Amazon's effective tax rate of negative 1% despite over $10 billion in profits had nothing to do with write-offs? Interesting theory."Write-offs" and "tax breaks" are loony left urban legends.
Democrats talk about the Fair Share that the wealthy should pay. Since the politicians seem never to define the "Fair Share" amount, how much should the fair share be"
_ 90%
_80%
_70%
_60%
_50%
_40%
_30%
_less than 30%
The discussion was about PERSONAL INCOME TAX.Really? So Amazon's effective tax rate of negative 1% despite over $10 billion in profits had nothing to do with write-offs? Interesting theory.
Democrats talk about the Fair Share that the wealthy should pay. Since the politicians seem never to define the "Fair Share" amount, how much should the fair share be"
_ 90%
_80%
_70%
_60%
_50%
_40%
_30%
_less than 30%
So we have things like minimum wage and reinvestment incentives. The trick is finding a workable number for the wealthy who control the job creation and the workers who need a living wage. If you force the wealthy to give too much and sacrifice working capital they just cut back on jobs and benefits, raises and so on.
Why are you limiting the conversation about "fair share" to personal income taxes? When people say "fair share" they aren't just talking about personal income taxes in isolation. Many wealthy Americans build their wealth through corporations, so corporate taxes are completely relevant to the question of this thread.The discussion was about PERSONAL INCOME TAX.
Why are you limiting the conversation about "fair share" to personal income taxes? When people say "fair share" they aren't just talking about personal income taxes in isolation. Many wealthy Americans build their wealth through corporations, so corporate taxes are completely relevant to the question of this thread. Do you think the government paying Amazon money (for a negative effective tax rate) is Amazon's "fair share" when Amazon is worth nearly $1 trillion and made over $10 billion in profits?
There's a separate thread for discussing Amazon's tax situation. Go there if you want to spew on that topic.Why are you limiting the conversation about "fair share" to personal income taxes? When people say "fair share" they aren't just talking about personal income taxes in isolation. Many wealthy Americans build their wealth through corporations, so corporate taxes are completely relevant to the question of this thread. Do you think the government paying Amazon money (for a negative effective tax rate) is Amazon's "fair share" when Amazon is worth nearly $1 trillion and made over $10 billion in profits?
I do not believe corporations should be allowed to vote in Congressional elections (and besides, they have plenty representation with the influence of money). Nor do I believe the right to vote depends on owing money to the IRS. Do you believe in those things?so you believe in taxation without representation as well as representation without taxation?
The fair share argument comes up with corporations too. And considering INDIVIDUALS own and run corporations at the end of the day, and build wealth through corporate accumulation of resources, corporate taxes are very relevant to individuals.There's a separate thread for discussing Amazon's tax situation. Go there if you want to spew on that topic.
We're discussing personal income taxes because the "fair share" blather usually is applied to rich INDIVIDUALS.
I do not believe corporations should be allowed to vote in Congressional elections (and besides, they have plenty representation with the influence of money). Nor do I believe the right to vote depends on owing money to the IRS. Do you believe in those things?
As to my question, do you believe that Amazon paying -1% in taxes is Amazon's fair share?
The fair share argument comes up with corporations too.]/quote]Fine, as I said there's a thread to discuss that.
LOL, but corporations pay takes as corporations, and the owners pay as individuals.Lakyte said:And considering INDIVIDUALS own and run corporations at the end of the day, and build wealth through corporate accumulation of resources, corporate taxes are very relevant to individuals.
Answer my question. Do you believe Amazon paying -1% in taxes on over $10 billion in profits is Amazon's "fair share"?are employees of Amazon paying income taxes on their salaries
are customers of Amazon paying taxes on their purchases
Answer my question. Do you believe Amazon paying -1% in taxes on over $10 billion in profits is Amazon's "fair share"?
That is true but completely irrelevant to my point that the corporate tax rate effects individual wealth accumulation.LOL, but corporations pay takes as corporations, and the owners pay as individuals.
Which is completely irrelevant to the conversation you barged into. Corporate tax rate MAY effect stock dividend or share price which would possible effect individual wealth and would be taxed as such.That is true but completely irrelevant to my point that the corporate tax rate effects individual wealth accumulation.
Yeah, whatever. :roll:Lakryte said:And you don't get to control what this thread is about. The thread is asking what "fair share" means. I'm responding that Amazon getting subsidized by the federal government is patently not its fair share of taxes. Unless you think a mom and pop shop on the corner should have a higher effective tax rate than Amazon.
Yes minimum wage is another way to limit hoarding but even that has not kept up with inflation. The workable number is where it is high enough to discourage hoarding of capital and encourage sharing profits with employees. Like reinvesting, salaries are a deductible expense. It's a matter if we value greed or prosperity for all more.
Republicans want to make America great again, so let's return to 1960 when the top marginal tax rate was 91%.
Unless, that is, there's something entirely different about that time period Republicans want to return to.
You do understand that a basic flaw of capitalism is if left unchecked it can encourage wealth disparity and there are limits to how much of it can be tolerated without a financial collapse.
When so much of the total income goes unspent it slows growth too.
That was the reason for the punitive tax rates of the postwar period. They were meant to discourage hoarding of wealth.
When they were eliminated the hoarding began again.
It is unsustainable. The middle class thrived like no other time when the punitive rates were still in effect so your claim that high top rates hurt the middle class is dead wrong. The opposite is what happened.
Nope. I have never seen a credible causal argument for this. It appears to be a matter of faith among many other the left, but not one they have spent much time testing.
Good point. Investment is dumb, and for nerds. When has it ever helped an economy? [emoji14]
That would be interesting to see. Would you mind citing that justification from Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, etc?
You keep misspelling "creating".
OTC, the middle class lives far better (in material terms) now than we did in the 50s and 60s. Our houses are bigger, we own more and better cars, books, electronics, you name it.
And yes. Confiscation of wealth on a large scale will harm everyone across the economy. Punishing investment means you lose it; making yourself a bad place to do business means fewer people will.
No one paid 91%. The 76,000 pages of the tax code gave every possible exception to the super rich and that is when such as the "depreciation allowance" racket began allowing people to deduct money they didn't spend or lost claiming lost value. For this, they played musical chairs with commercial property and equipment - selling it back and forth between each other - each on claiming the "depreciation" until that clocked out - then sold it to someone they were buying property from - both again claiming the same depreciation on the same property. The 91% claim was so people in lower brackets didn't complain as much.
The super rich don't pay taxes and NO ONE in either political parties ever proposes any legislation to close the special tax loopholes for the super rich. Any time the Democrats start ranting "tax the rich" they don't really mean the rich. They mean successful mom and pop businesses they built up over a lifetime of working 80 hours a week and probably going broke a couple times along the way. The super rich don't pay taxes. The government pays them.
Yeah, democrats are known for going after small mom and pop businesses.
Nope. I have never seen a credible causal argument for this. It appears to be a matter of faith among many other the left, but not one they have spent much time testing.
Good point. Investment is dumb, and for nerds. When has it ever helped an economy? [emoji14]
That would be interesting to see. Would you mind citing that justification from Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, etc?
You keep misspelling "creating".
OTC, the middle class lives far better (in material terms) now than we did in the 50s and 60s. Our houses are bigger, we own more and better cars, books, electronics, you name it.
And yes. Confiscation of wealth on a large scale will harm everyone across the economy. Punishing investment means you lose it; making yourself a bad place to do business means fewer people will.
[The wealthiest 1 percent of the world's population now owns more than half of the world's wealth, according to a new report.
The total wealth in the world grew by 6 percent over the past 12 months to $280 trillion, marking the fastest wealth creation since 2012, according to the Credit Suisse report. More than half of the $16.7 trillion in new wealth was in the U.S., which grew $8.5 trillion richer.
But that wealth around the world is increasingly concentrated among those at the top. The top 1 percent now owns 50.1 percent of the world's wealth, up from 45.5 percent in 2001.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?