Only $200 Million!

HiDHo said:

A tax break means you get to keep more of the money YOU earned. It’s that persons money, they get to spend it, invest it or save it. What’s the Problem.

Click to expand...

There is less for the 'social safety net', which in turn leads to more government spending on other things and disparity between have and have nots which was the reason for the article linked in post #56. Did you read it?

That was a good read. It was especially interesting because it is the rare case of justification for improving the standard of living of the lowest earning segment of the population in order to help the highest earning segment. A sort of "Trickle Up" economics.

HiDHo said:

A tax break means you get to keep more of the money YOU earned. It’s that persons money, they get to spend it, invest it or save it. What’s the Problem.

Click to expand...

The problem is that giving tax breaks to the wealthy will hurt our economy, while giving tax breaks to the not so wealthy will help the economy, and in turn, help people at all economic levels. A rising tide lifts all boats. We keep hearing how we just had the greatest economy in the history of the world, but our national debt is the highests it has ever been !?!!? How is that possible ??? If we weren't able to pay down any debt during such robust times, there is no way we can reduce debt during leaner times. Our gov't spends $400 Billion in interest every year.

I assume everyone here is smart enough not to just pay the minimum balance on our credit card statements......and yet we let our government do that with our tax dollars. Republicans are all about tax breaks when the POTUS is republican, and now that there is a democrat in the oval, they will become all fiscally conservative and insist we reduce "entitlement" programs because the deficit is so high. The truth is they like the entitlements when they are for the wealthy, they just don't like them when they are for the poor!

The article had some good points...but not all might be accurate....at least not in the USA. Heck, in Europe....havent uber rich families continued to exist for hundreds of years?



An article I read the other day pointed out how during the industrial revolution there were uber rich that when adjusted to inflation rivaled (maybe not exactly but close) the uber rich of today.


Unions, progress and government moved along without a major revolution in the USA.


Florida passed the $15/hr minimum wage this year, I suspect we will see more states or the feds do the same in the next decade....we will see how that works out, raising people out of poverty or just moving the bar higher as the price of things increase.


No rocket science in the article I see...have heard the same stuff for decades and the pendulum continues to swing.

Believe some European countries actually have legal limits on reimbursement to company officers. There are none on multi nationals or in the US.
I’m living off my investments. Vendors and stores seem to have no trouble taking it. Money is money regardless of source. Have friends who get paid to not do things agriculture, site development etc. Major change occurred when taxes were used to either incentivize or disincentivize behavior rather than raise revenue. This gave rise to a non productive industry of tax accountants, tax and estate lawyers whose only function is to avoid taxes. Then add in the lobbyists. Politicians are mostly 1% ers. Have continuous employment via the revolving door. Benefit from what was initially a well intended shift to an obscene degree. Likelihood of returning to a situation where taxes are aimed at solely serving their original purpose seems a pipe dream.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth


The original documents for each member's disclosure are publicly available on a database website, maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics.[2] For 2018, the median net worth of members of Congress was $511,000

In response to post #60. We boomers are the first American generation were our children are expected to make less money than ourselves and have less wealth.

Greetings,
Mr. H. "...where taxes are aimed at..." I think Louis XVI has been mentioned.


Edit: The Occupy Wall street protests of 2011 were demonstrative of the growing dissent among the population with the economic disparities between "us" and "them". This is just one of the issues that is fueling the increasing polarization of the US.

Hippocampus said:

In response to post #60. We boomers are the first American generation were our children are expected to make less money than ourselves and have less wealth.

Click to expand...

And as I posted....they have the option now to work or not work at all and live off the investments, or take jobs they like and let the investments help with a nice standard of living, debt free, able to pay for college educations for kids, etc...etc....

Exactly my point.....

Hippocampus said:

In response to post #60. We boomers are the first American generation were our children are expected to make less money than ourselves and have less wealth.

Click to expand...

In Canada, life expectancy (82 years old) increases have all but stalled since 2011, and has shrunk in the US (79 years old) ...using pre-Covid numbers.

It's a pity Shad Khan hasn't come in to give his thoughts on this!

I would imagine he’s worried sick that he’s not taxed enough so government can provide more “ social safety net “ to the less fortunate.
Referring to the article in post #56, I printed it, read it and now I’m in the head and it’s behind me !

Benthic2, Flat tax for all, of course that has as much chance as term limits for congress.

Joel Kotkin's book from a few years ago, The New Class Conflict, is scarily accurate.

The new oligarchs ain't like the old oligarchs. And academia and big government are in cahoots with them.

Worth a read.

Unless you like stress free sleeps at night.

HiDHo said:

I would imagine he’s worried sick that he’s not taxed enough so government can provide more “ social safety net “ to the less fortunate.
Referring to the article in post #56, I printed it, read it and now I’m in the head and it’s behind me !...

Click to expand...

Nice. Empathy lives.

How about this...a single mother has subsidized child care so she can go to work, and gets assistance to take a college course which results in a better job. She lives in subsidized low income housing, so doesn't have to worry about living in her car. A small portion of everybodie's wage goes towards a national health care system, so she doesn't have to worry about money earmarked for rent or mortgage going towards hospital fees. Because of these measures, the crime rate is low, and her kids grow up knowing they have a chance at making a life for themselves.

What's wrong with that?

MurrayM said:

Nice. Empathy lives.

How about this...a single mother has subsidized child care so she can go to work, and gets assistance to take a college course which results in a better job. She lives in subsidized low income housing, so doesn't have to worry about living in her car. A small portion of everybodie's wage goes towards a national health care system, so she doesn't have to worry about money earmarked for rent or mortgage going towards hospital fees. Because of these measures, the crime rate is low, and her kids grow up knowing they have a chance at making a life for themselves.

What's wrong with that?

Click to expand...

The people who believe she shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place if she couldn't afford the baby will chime in.

Of course these are the same people who are against planned parenthood!

menzies said:

The people who believe she shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place if she couldn't afford the baby will chime in.

Click to expand...

You're right.

menzies said:

Of course these are the same people who are against planned parenthood!

Click to expand...

As someone who used to foster parent babies and toddlers, those people cheese me off no end!

If they all stepped up and agreed to adopt the next kid on the list (no cherry picking allowed) and cleared the decks of all the kids who need a home right now, then they'd have a moral leg to stand on. Until they do that, they should shut up and keep their opinions to themselves!!!!!

HiDHo said:

...Benthic2, Flat tax for all....

Click to expand...

There's 2 problems with that. #1: In order to raise enough revenue to support the gov't, the tax rate would be so prohibitively high on the low wage earners that they couldn't survive, and #2: What a person pays into society should be proportional to what they take out of society. Someone who earns cash by the truckload should pay more than someone who earns cash by cupful. Aside from musicians and athletes, no one really gets rich in a vacuum. For everyone else, success is dependent on a good public education system to train employees, infrastructure like roads, rails and airports to ship products, police and fire dept protections for their property and employees, etc. For the 1% to pay the same tax rate as a guy who bags groceries for a living and is just barely getting buy is not a reasonable or equitable solution.

How about a little story?

When my dad's dementia got to a point where he couldn't live on his own anymore, his doctor recommended he move into our local assisted living old folks home.

When we met with the director, it was explained to us that the fees would be based on 80% of his after tax income, with minimum and maximum rates set by the Ministry of Health. That meant he would be paying the maximum rate. My response was, "No problem. It's the Canadian way"

Should I have demanded the poor people pay more or get kicked out? Should I have accused them of stealing from my inheritance?

Benthic2 said:

There's 2 problems with that. #1: In order to raise enough revenue to support the gov't, the tax rate would be so prohibitively high on the low wage earners that they couldn't survive, and #2: What a person pays into society should be proportional to what they take out of society. Someone who earns cash by the truckload should pay more than someone who earns cash by cupful. Aside from musicians and athletes, no one really gets rich in a vacuum. For everyone else, success is dependent on a good public education system to train employees, infrastructure like roads, rails and airports to ship products, police and fire dept protections for their property and employees, etc. For the 1% to pay the same tax rate as a guy who bags groceries for a living and is just barely getting buy is not a reasonable or equitable solution.

Click to expand...

The guy bagging groceries and earning 15k will pay $3k at a flat 20%. Less if the tax doesn't kick in immediately. If it kicks in at $10k he pays $1k.

The guy earning $100k will pay $20k.

The guy earning $1million will pay $200k.

The guy earning $200 million will pay $4 million.

That’s the beauty of a flat tax with no deductions. The lowest income folks pay something for government services, public education, etc. It moves them out of dependency and gives them a legitimate vote in how community services are administered. It also can break generational dependence on welfare and instill pride.
1 per centers pay millions that there hard work and ambition makes possible. It breaks the nonsense that they should support less fortunate individuals because of their success.
Those that say it would not provide enough revenue for the federal government idea miss the point that government needs to have restraints, budgets and stop deficit spending.

I think its a gross generalization that people of different income levels use government services at a proportional rate matching income.

menzies said:

The guy bagging groceries and earning 15k will pay $3k at a flat 20%. Less if the tax doesn't kick in immediately. If it kicks in at $10k he pays $1k.

The guy earning $100k will pay $20k.

The guy earning $1million will pay $200k.

The guy earning $200 million will pay $4 million.

Click to expand...

That last one should have been $40 million!

"The income inequality divide can only grow for so long before something has to give. Just ask Louis 16th."

The std of living of anyone but the homeless is far better than Louis 16 could even dream of.

Drinkable water , indoor plumbing , central heat ,even air cond, easy transportation and doctors that do not drain blood for any/every condition,most created for the better off.

Some of these are now common by gov edict , but not until a market (by folks that had coin) had created and enjoyed the advances..

The mobile phone was not created for the Obama Phone folks , neither was the indoor toilet.

More than 50% of live births are to single mothers in the US. Children are disadvantaged from the start. Statistics show less life time earnings, more disease, shorter life expectancy, more mental health difficulties, and more interaction with legal system.

Best if we get back to the boat end of the discussion...or it will become just another useless, locked political thread.

I think that ship sailed a long time ago. And the irony and hypocrisy of conducting an evil rich discussion on a recreational trawler forum is apparently lost. I'll bet none of the posters on this one will be selling their floating toys to become more virtuous trailer park residents, or writing checks for voluntary tax payments.

There isn't really much of a tax break for low-income people because they generally don't pay any taxes! The rich pay most of the taxes, but it's an easy target to say that they need to pay "their fair share".

psneeld said:

Best if we get back to the boat end of the discussion...or it will become just another useless, locked political thread.

Click to expand...

Sage advice, but...

kthoennes said:

I think that ship sailed a long time ago. And the irony and hypocrisy of conducting an evil rich discussion on a recreational trawler forum is apparently lost. I'll bet none of the posters on this one will be selling their floating toys to become more virtuous trailer park residents, or writing checks for voluntary tax payments.

Click to expand...

One of them broke from the herd! N-n-n-nervous? Defensive?

I live in a duplex, recently retired early with a reduced pension, and my after tax & deductions take home pay used to be $36,000.00 Canadian, or $27,730.00 US per year. Does that meet your insufficient means test, which would then (according to your standards) allow me to comment on such things?

kthoennes said:

I think that ship sailed a long time ago. And the irony and hypocrisy of conducting an evil rich discussion on a recreational trawler forum is apparently lost. I'll bet none of the posters on this one will be selling their floating toys to become more virtuous trailer park residents, or writing checks for voluntary tax payments.

Click to expand...

Rich is perspective. Trawlers are (were?) an attribute of the middle class/upper middle class American dream. Work hard, save money, make wise decisions sort of thing.

This a $200M yacht. A recently inconceivable amount to spend on a yacht. And this one is used... That is obscene wealth disparity, much more than the early industrialist, and bordering on monarch, emperor, and czar levels of disproportionality.

It is the middle class that is taking the beating here, not the rich or the poor. We are the scapegoats of the Uber rich to be fed to the poor.

I'm afraid we are dividing up the world into an estates of the realm system again. If you aren't invited to Davos this winter, you are probably in the Third Estate.