Current Topics
The Debate: Is America’s future capitalist or socialist?
by chunkstyle
1 second ago
ventilators
by pondering_it_all
14 minutes 26 seconds ago
Coronavirus: The Plague of The 21st Century?
by NW Ponderer
19 minutes 59 seconds ago
First Bernie Sanders Thread 2020
by perotista
20 minutes 9 seconds ago
Is it too soon to be talking 2020?
by pondering_it_all
Today at 08:05 PM
Trump really doesn't
by pondering_it_all
Today at 07:52 PM
RoundTable - SPRING 2020
by pondering_it_all
Today at 07:12 PM
What is the value of a human life?
by pondering_it_all
Today at 06:46 PM
Green New Deal
by logtroll
Today at 01:34 AM
small nuclear reactors (SMR)
by jgw
03/27/20 06:49 PM
DOJ seeks new emergency powers amid coronavirus pandemic
by Hamish Howl
03/25/20 07:22 PM
The coming crash
by chunkstyle
03/25/20 03:53 AM
Underclass
by Jeffery J. Haas
03/23/20 09:46 PM
ReaderRant RoundTable for Winter 2020
by Jeffery J. Haas
03/23/20 08:20 PM
voting
by jgw
03/23/20 06:55 PM
The Departed - 2020
by Jeffery J. Haas
03/21/20 03:38 PM
in case somebody doesn't think social distance isn't important
by jgw
03/19/20 07:06 PM
If anybody has kids out of school you might like this one
by jgw
03/18/20 06:48 PM
probable causes for costs of university education
by CPWILL
03/18/20 03:10 AM
Longtime member of SCOTUS Bar resigns in protest
by logtroll
03/17/20 02:38 PM
Forum Stats
6290 Members
60 Forums
16853 Topics
297504 Posts

Max Online: 294 @ 12/06/17 12:57 AM
Google Adsense
Page 5 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >
Topic Options
#321737 - 02/20/20 10:17 PM Re: Bloomberg [Re: Greger]
jgw Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 3038
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
Bloomberg has said that he released his tax reports every year he was mayor. There is no reason not to believe he will release the current reports. He said it will be done in a week or two. Therefore........

An interesting aside about the wealthy and taxes. Right now, and historically, the wealthy pay approximately 80% of ALL taxes in the United States. This is one of their constant whines.

I have often wondered why we have so many different tax amounts and have often wondered what would happen if ALL income, regardless of source, etc. would be taxed at the same rate. This would mean that ALL income is taxed at the same rate. This could be on a sliding curve but the percentages are the same. If you make profit on a stock sale then its INCOME (nothing more nothing less), same goes for all the rest. If your income is taxed at, say, 35% then you pay 35% for ALL income.

I think our tax code is currently something like 75,000 pages long! That is, I think, worth thinking about and wondering, ie WTF!

Top
#321743 - 02/21/20 01:24 AM Re: Bloomberg [Re: Greger]
chunkstyle Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 10/02/07
Posts: 2352
“Since the Bloomberg promoters are again floating the notion of a 2012 presidential run, they might consider how the often-bilious billionaire’s Ugland House deposits are going to play in a national election.”

Mike Bloomberg’s Foundation Growing — in Cayman Islands

The village voice had done some great investigative reporting on Trump back in the day, too.

Barrett did good stuff here.

Top
#321745 - 02/21/20 02:49 AM Re: Bloomberg [Re: Greger]
pdx rick Offline
Member
CHB-OG

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 42483
Loc: Puget Sound, WA
Quote:
Bloomberg

You mean the man who paid $340M to look foolish on a debate stage? coffee

_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#321755 - 02/21/20 02:59 PM Re: Bloomberg [Re: jgw]
Hamish Howl Offline
newbie

Registered: 11/21/19
Posts: 482
Loc: Tucson, AZ
Originally Posted By: jgw
Bloomberg has said that he released his tax reports every year he was mayor. There is no reason not to believe he will release the current reports. He said it will be done in a week or two. Therefore........

An interesting aside about the wealthy and taxes. Right now, and historically, the wealthy pay approximately 80% of ALL taxes in the United States. This is one of their constant whines.

I have often wondered why we have so many different tax amounts and have often wondered what would happen if ALL income, regardless of source, etc. would be taxed at the same rate. This would mean that ALL income is taxed at the same rate. This could be on a sliding curve but the percentages are the same. If you make profit on a stock sale then its INCOME (nothing more nothing less), same goes for all the rest. If your income is taxed at, say, 35% then you pay 35% for ALL income.

I think our tax code is currently something like 75,000 pages long! That is, I think, worth thinking about and wondering, ie WTF!


If you work through the math, a flat tax shoves the middle class into the working class and the working class under a bridge somewhere.
_________________________
What can we do to help you stop screaming?

Top
#321761 - 02/21/20 07:19 PM Re: Bloomberg [Re: Greger]
jgw Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 3038
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
I did mention that I was not exactly for a flat tax, ie. "this could be on a sliding curve". Anyway, I am basically talking about the the income tax code we have right now. If one is rich they get to pay something between 15% and 35% depending on where the income comes from. That makes no sense. The tax code is full of this kind of stuff. I think the trick is to so complicate taxes that NOBODY has a real clue (and they have done that pretty good).

If anybody ever does decide to deal with our tax code they should also make it virtually impossible to change this and that to 'help'. That's what got us where we are right now. We, as a nation, are pretty bad at 'helping'. We have helped our taxes to 75,000 pages, we helped Iraq and only killed sometime like 200,000. I have no idea how many we killed over 18 years in Afghanistan but its a lot. We all know this. If the man comes to your door and tells you that he is there to help the first urge is to run like hell. We have helped our public schools, in many cases, into failure, healthcare into one of the better machines for bankruptcy.

Yep, we are REALLY bad at helping! One of the amazing things, I think, is that when we come to help we seem to be welcomed more often than not. One can only wonder if we have helped much of the world into mental incompetence.

Top
#321767 - 02/21/20 08:10 PM Re: Bloomberg [Re: jgw]
CPWILL Offline
newbie

Registered: 12/26/19
Posts: 197
Originally Posted By: jgw
I have often wondered why we have so many different tax amounts and have often wondered what would happen if ALL income, regardless of source, etc. would be taxed at the same rate. This would mean that ALL income is taxed at the same rate. This could be on a sliding curve but the percentages are the same. If you make profit on a stock sale then its INCOME (nothing more nothing less), same goes for all the rest. If your income is taxed at, say, 35% then you pay 35% for ALL income.

I think our tax code is currently something like 75,000 pages long! That is, I think, worth thinking about and wondering, ie WTF!


You are right to wonder - tax code complexity is a massive burden on our economy. Estimates vary, but it's not unlikely that it costs us about half a trillion dollars or more per annum which, of course, when we consider the compounding opportunity-cost, pretty soon adds up to real money.

It's also worth noting that benefit complexity acts as a tax on our lower-income populace, just as tax-code complexity acts as an extra tax on our upper-income populace. Federal benefits are a poorly constructed hodgepodge of programs slammed together in an uncoordinated and ad hoc manner that often harm those they intend to help (for example, we often inadvertently punish poor people if they get married, or if they increase their income... and then we are surprised when they get married less, and maintain lower income).

One thing worth noting about your proposal, however, is how it's impact is going to dramatically increase the taxes paid by our lower and middle income earners. Our federal income tax is currently, I believe, the most progressive in the modern world, and we don't tax our lower and middle income folks very much.


I have previously argued (elsewhere) that we can address both complexity issues while avoiding the full weight of that blow by shifting to a balance point of 200% of the Federal Poverty Line:

1. A flat tax of 25% on all income earned over 200% of the Federal Poverty Line. This would make the effective tax rate perfectly progressive (every dollar above 200% of the FPL that you earn slightly increases your effective tax rate, because it increases the portion of your income that is subject to tax), while maintaining the simplicity-driven benefits of a flat tax structure.

2. Consolidate federal aid programs to a negative income tax of -50% on all monies not earned by able-bodied adults who work (which can include volunteer and student labor) below 200% of the Federal Poverty Line. Every man, woman, and child can be lifted out of poverty, and without providing perverse incentives that trap them in the lower-income strata.



Edited by CPWILL (02/21/20 08:11 PM)
_________________________
Winter Is Coming

Top
#321824 - 02/22/20 07:10 PM Re: Bloomberg [Re: Greger]
jgw Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 3038
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
First, Andrew Yang was right. We have, right now, the beginnings of a permanent under class (the homeless). Its obvious that very few have been able to deal with it and it just continues to grown. This being the case I am for giving to those who have less than XX income. Yang's solution, of 1000.00 a month for everybody should be 1000.00 a month for those with an income less that XX.

There are also going to have to be low cost housing for those same people, coupled with some serious regulation to deal with the predators, and mental health for those who need it as well as help for those addicted. The problem with the housing is that we tried that a long time ago, now, it was called "the projects". Those when south when gov neglected any kind of security for the occupants. In other words we have history on this one and it will be interesting if it continues to be ignored.

Remember, Portugal fixed their problem with drugs. One of the mainstays of that program was the universal availability of mental and addiction help. They were able to literally de-criminalize all drugs as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQJ7n-JpcCk

Anyway, I guess my point is that there are a LOT of things that go into taxes. I firmly believe that taxes are there so we can pay our bills. No more, no less. I do not believe in "good works" in the tax code. Good works are fine but they should stand on their own, not mixed in with taxes. Those with get taxed, if they got more they get taxed more. Them without get help so they can pay taxes. I know, probably too simple............

Top
#321827 - 02/22/20 07:36 PM Re: Bloomberg [Re: jgw]
Greger Offline


Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 16459
Loc: Florida
Policy-wise you disagree completely with Bloomberg yet are right in line with Bernie.
_________________________
Good coffee, good weed, and time on my hands...

Top
#321878 - 02/23/20 07:00 PM Re: Bloomberg [Re: Greger]
jgw Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 3038
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
Bernie seems to be leading the charge for just about EVERYTHING! Every wet dream of the left is covered. Every little giveaway ever thought of. I have said this before. Its just not gonna happen! Bernie failed in the senate because there are not the votes. It is unlikely, with Bernie at the top of the ticket that we can even take the Senate or keep the house. I know, all the lefties support Bernie. The problem is that they are a decided minority for the Democrats. I also know about the polls which, as far as I can tell have not always been that attached to reality. I am not a big fan of Bernie and have made no bones about that. I do not want him to be the one running against Trump because I think he will lose. The Republicans haven't even begun to goto work on him, but you will if he wins the nomination and its not gonna be pretty. By then, of course, it will be too late so we can all attend the funeral rights together.

I REALLY hope I am dead wrong!

Top
#321879 - 02/23/20 07:55 PM Re: Bloomberg [Re: jgw]
Greger Offline


Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 16459
Loc: Florida
Quote:
It is unlikely, with Bernie at the top of the ticket that we can even take the Senate or keep the house. I know, all the lefties support Bernie. The problem is that they are a decided minority for the Democrats.


So which candidate do you believe can beat Trump? One of the women? The queer? The billionaire? The former VP? The voters seem to think Bernie's the guy.

Are decisions like this too important to trust the voters? Should the nominee be chosen by the DNC instead, surely THEY know what's best for the party...

Or should billionaires simply be able to buy the nomination? Billionaires after all must know what's best for the rest of us because they are successful. They know what's best for the "fat broads" and the "horse faced lesbians" who work for him and they know what's best for you and me.

You categorically disagree with everything Bloomberg stands for in your post above, you even go a step beyond Bernie into the far far left when you endorse Yang's guaranteed minimum income.

"From each, according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

So much can be learned from those words, and so much read into them that isn't there. One of my favorite social scientists said that.
_________________________
Good coffee, good weed, and time on my hands...

Top
Page 5 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Who's Online
0 registered (), 41 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
danarhea, RoughDraft274, CPWILL, Kevin Kohler, Keridan
6290 Registered Users
A2