The myth that the "1%" own everything

[slimreaper]

I never commented on legislature or raising taxes. Whatever your political ties are not my concern. The only thing I can tell you is that the top 1% of owners wouldn't be affected or hurt. They make more than what their taxable income reveals. That's why it's foolish to only focus on that. They have more options that most Americans don't to convert their income to tax-exempt income, which saves them from having to pay a lot of money in taxes.

There are some that thinks this is unfair, as technically it means there is money made that isn't taxed, only because of how it's converted. That's why the percentage of income tax paid per person is typically lower with people who have more wealth, with the "rich" paying usually around 14% year to year as opposed to say a person working a 9-5 and paying roughly 35% of their income in taxes.

Again, I'm not saying which I think is fair or not. Most of the taxed income the IRS comes from the wealthy, but they are leaving a lot on the table as well by providing so many exemptions for them that most Americans aren't able to claim. My only concern was this idea you were putting out income=ownership.

Then you missed my whole point. They idea is to get you to vote left by suggesting that the evil "1%" of income earners are making butt loads every year and that they can do something about it.

It's all propaganda to get votes

 

[Troyg39]

Then you missed my whole point. They idea is to get you to vote left by suggesting that the evil "1%" of income earners are making butt loads every year and that they can do something about it.

It's all propaganda to get votes

*Sigh*

No my friend, I did not miss the point. In your head, you are thinking that because taxes are based on income, and income fluctuates, raising taxes will hurt a lot of Americans. Simple train of thought that this video provided for you and you believe it. Cool.

The bold part of your comment is your flaw. I get that you aren't a fan of the "lefties" or whatever you want to call them. Again, your political ties are your prerogative, but that isn't even the basis of the opposing argument.

The 1% you are referring to is not the same as the 1% they complain about. You are talking about income earners, the "lefties" are talking about 1% of owners and wealthiest Americans. For the last time, it is foolish to base wealth and ownership on taxable income.

The issue is what is defined as taxable income. To the simple minded, taxes are based on income. To everyone else, taxes are based on what is defined as taxable income. The amount of money a person brings in year to year isn't reflected in taxed income, because there is a such thing as tax-exempt income that isn't accounted for, because tax-exempt income isn't reported, because tax-exempt income isn't taxed. And the amount of money made that isn't taxed is greater among Americans with higher net worth, because they have more options to convert their money into tax-exempt income.

This is what the "lefties" mean when they refer to tax loopholes. These "loopholes" aren't as accessible to most Americans, which is why the tax-exempt income is typically only 14% of money earned for the year when you consider their tax-exempt income, while you lose about 35% or more your bi-weekly paycheck in taxes.

The "lefties" don't want to "raise taxes". They want to eliminate those loopholes that allow only the wealthiest of Americans to pay a smaller percentage and protect most of their yearly income from being taxed. Yes, that would "raise taxes" in the sense that the dollar amount they have to give to the IRS would be increased, but if the right loopholes were taken away, everyone would be paying roughly the same percentage of money they bring in taxes because, again, only a very small percentage of Americans are able to claim these exemptions in the first place, so it would only affect them.

I want you to THINK. The very fact that yearly income can fluctuate so much yet net worth doesn't, means that OWNERSHIP IS CONTROLLED BY A SELECT FEW. Again, I don't care which you think is fair. But if you don't understand the argument, please don't confuse people who truly don't know. This video didn't come close to explaining how taxation works if it left you with the impression that it comes down to simply selling a few stocks and homes

 

[slimreaper]

*Sigh*

No my friend, I did not miss the point. In your head, you are thinking that because taxes are based on income, and income fluctuates, raising taxes will hurt a lot of Americans. Simple train of thought that this video provided for you and you believe it. Cool.

The bold part of your comment is your flaw. I get that you aren't a fan of the "lefties" or whatever you want to call them. Again, your political ties are your prerogative, but that isn't even the basis of the opposing argument.

The 1% you are referring to is not the same as the 1% they complain about. You are talking about income earners, the "lefties" are talking about 1% of owners and wealthiest Americans. For the last time, it is foolish to base wealth and ownership on taxable income.

The issue is what is defined as taxable income. To the simple minded, taxes are based on income. To everyone else, taxes are based on what is defined as taxable income. The amount of money a person brings in year to year isn't reflected in taxed income, because there is a such thing as tax-exempt income that isn't accounted for, because tax-exempt income isn't reported, because tax-exempt income isn't taxed. And the amount of money made that isn't taxed is greater among Americans with higher net worth, because they have more options to convert their money into tax-exempt income.

This is what the "lefties" mean when they refer to tax loopholes. These "loopholes" aren't as accessible to most Americans, which is why the tax-exempt income is typically only 14% of money earned for the year when you consider their tax-exempt income, while you lose about 35% or more your bi-weekly paycheck in taxes.

The "lefties" don't want to "raise taxes". They want to eliminate those loopholes that allow only the wealthiest of Americans to pay a smaller percentage and protect most of their yearly income from being taxed. Yes, that would "raise taxes" in the sense that the dollar amount they have to give to the IRS would be increased, but if the right loopholes were taken away, everyone would be paying roughly the same percentage of money they bring in taxes because, again, only a very small percentage of Americans are able to claim these exemptions in the first place, so it would only affect them.

I want you to THINK. The very fact that yearly income can fluctuate so much yet net worth doesn't, means that OWNERSHIP IS CONTROLLED BY A SELECT FEW. Again, I don't care which you think is fair. But if you don't understand the argument, please don't confuse people who truly don't know. This video didn't come close to explaining how taxation works if it left you with the impression that it comes down to simply selling a few stocks and homes

I'm done dude. If you wanna sit here and say that the people who want a gigantic central gov't don't want to raise taxes then you are dumb as ****. Who is gonna pay for Obamacare?

i'll admit the title is misleading to my argument, but that being said.

as for "paying roughly the same percentage" that kinda undermines the capitalist system... What's the point of trying to be successful if they're just gonna punish you for it.

And BTW you never hear about legislatures actually affecting these loopholes, merely increasing taxes on the richest "1%"

 

[paratise]

Just sell your houses you low-middle class mother****ers. Sell your 2008 Honda and grandma's jewelery too while at that. No worries about the future. You gotta get to that 1% at some point in your life, just sell the stuff you have.

 

[Troyg39]

I'm done dude. If you wanna sit here and say that the people who want a gigantic central gov't don't want to raise taxes then you are dumb as ****. Who is gonna pay for Obamacare?

i'll admit the title is misleading to my argument, but that being said.

as for "paying roughly the same percentage" that kinda undermines the capitalist system... What's the point of trying to be successful if they're just gonna punish you for it.

And BTW you never hear about legislatures actually affecting these loopholes, merely increasing taxes on the richest "1%"

Your inability to stay on topic disturbs me. Obamacare and the cost of implementing it has nothing to do with the elimination of tax-exemptions that benefit only the wealthiest of Americans. Again, I do not care about your political affinity.

It was more than your title. You're interpretation of your own video was misleading from the point you were trying to make because you failed to understand the very nature of what you were arguing against in the first place.

I also don't care what you consider to be "fair" or your definition of capitalism. The fact is that the wealthiest Americans give less of their income to taxes because they are rich. If eliminating those exemptions that only benefit them is "punishing" them, then allowing them to keep them is rewarding them, especially if you aren't going to allow exemptions that would lower the percentage of taxes paid by poorer Americans to a comparable 14% of their overall income. By your political logic, this is the equivalent of "punishing" the poor for being poor.

And I just explained to you that the same legislation that "raises taxes" on the richest 1% does so by eliminating those loopholes that allows them to give up less of their income in the first place. That is how "raising taxes" on the rich would be achieved.

If you want to start political discussions that is great. But don't get your political bias confused with economical and legislative reality. Learn to form cohesive thoughts on the topics you are actually trying to address. Then you wouldn't have to worry about saying one thing and meaning another. If your goal was to say the lefties "want to raise taxes on everyone" this was not the way to do so.

 

[slimreaper]

Your inability to stay on topic disturbs me. Obamacare and the cost of implementing it has nothing to do with the elimination of tax-exemptions that benefit only the wealthiest of Americans. Again, I do not care about your political affinity.

It was more than your title. You're interpretation of your own video was misleading from the point you were trying to make because you failed to understand the very nature of what you were arguing against in the first place.

I also don't care what you consider to be "fair" or your definition of capitalism. The fact is that the wealthiest Americans give less of their income to taxes because they are rich. If eliminating those exemptions that only benefit them is "punishing" them, then allowing them to keep them is rewarding them, especially if you aren't going to allow exemptions that would lower the percentage of taxes paid by poorer Americans to a comparable 14% of their overall income. By your political logic, this is the equivalent of "punishing" the poor for being poor.

And I just explained to you that the same legislation that "raises taxes" on the richest 1% does so by eliminating those loopholes that allows them to give up less of their income in the first place. That is how "raising taxes" on the rich would be achieved.

If you want to start political discussions that is great. But don't get your political bias confused with economical and legislative reality. Learn to form cohesive thoughts on the topics you are actually trying to address. Then you wouldn't have to worry about saying one thing and meaning another. If your goal was to say the lefties "want to raise taxes on everyone" this was not the way to do so.

I'm done dude you fail to see how all of this ties in together so you assume i'm getting off topic.

Find me some legislation that supports getting rid of these loopholes. The politicians are that 1% so they'll never do that. You are full of shit


The top 1% pay 22.7% of taxes.
The top 10% pay 50% of taxes.
The top 20% pay 65.3% of taxes.
The top 40% pay 84.3% of taxes

The bottom 20% pay 1.1% of taxes.
The bottom 40% pay 6.1% of taxes


Yet you want more?

 

[Multiply]

Slim you're acting like a sheep. It's not only about how much they earn, it's about how much power in the economy and government they have.

 

[slimreaper]

Slim you're acting like a sheep. It's not only about how much they earn, it's about how much power in the economy and government they have.

Then why do we attack people publicly based on what they earn?

 

[chopstickchakra]

I'm done dude you fail to see how all of this ties in together so you assume i'm getting off topic.

Find me some legislation that supports getting rid of these loopholes. The politicians are that 1% so they'll never do that. You are full of shit


The top 1% pay 22.7% of taxes.
The top 10% pay 50% of taxes.
The top 20% pay 65.3% of taxes.
The top 40% pay 84.3% of taxes

The bottom 20% pay 1.1% of taxes.
The bottom 40% pay 6.1% of taxes


Yet you want more?

The top 40% of the pop. may pay 84.3% of the taxes but by your own numbers more than half of that is being paid by the top 20% of the pop.'s wealthy. Don't worry about percentages, worry about actual currency, Someone with a net worth of millions of dollars can afford to pay 30,000 in taxes even if it is 10-20 % of his income, the guy who only earns 35-40k annually can't cover that. If it was a flat percentage rate then things wouldn't be able to be paid in full and what money was gathered would leave the have-nots with less and struggling while the have's are unaffected. The biggest problem I see here is that people actually believe a capitalist society promotes growth, capitalism is slavery where you are given enough to ignore/forget it. The system is built so the laborers are too busy and strapped for money to focus on moving past labor for the most part.

 

[slimreaper]

The top 40% of the pop. may pay 84.3% of the taxes but by your own numbers more than half of that is being paid by the top 20% of the pop.'s wealthy. Don't worry about percentages, worry about actual currency, Someone with a net worth of millions of dollars can afford to pay 30,000 in taxes even if it is 10-20 % of his income, the guy who only earns 35-40k annually can't cover that. If it was a flat percentage rate then things wouldn't be able to be paid in full and what money was gathered would leave the have-nots with less and struggling while the have's are unaffected. The biggest problem I see here is that people actually believe a capitalist society promotes growth, capitalism is slavery where you are given enough to ignore/forget it. The system is built so the laborers are too busy and strapped for money to focus on moving past labor for the most part.

competition in capitalism does foster wealth.


The reason people are against minimum wage laws is because it makes the poor and un-skilled easier to employ. When those people gain some skills, you either have to pay them more money for their services or someone else will. That is the beauty of capitalism.


Socialism and Communism have the same amount of poverty but the difference is it kills creativity because they know the government will just take their idea for "the community".

 

[Multiply]

Then why do we attack people publicly based on what they earn?

Such as?

 

[chopstickchakra]

competition in capitalism does foster wealth.


The reason people are against minimum wage laws is because it makes the poor and un-skilled easier to employ. When those people gain some skills, you either have to pay them more money for their services or someone else will. That is the beauty of capitalism.


Socialism and Communism have the same amount of poverty but the difference is it kills creativity because they know the government will just take their idea for "the community".

True Communism has never really existed in a major state. All those countries we are taught are communists are not true to the definition of Communism. Tribal societies were the most accurate depictions of communist societies and despite not having the same advanced technology we have they had just as strong if not stronger internal systems for wealth and work and none of their creativity was killed.

Competition would be wonderful if it actually adhered to the principles set in capitalism but as we see and know it doesn't. Capitalist competition has left us with reduced actual choices for the most part i.e. Before we had just one car so we had to pay that price then real competition happened and others made cars and sold them for varying prices in order to steal customers. That's the good competition can bring. The bad is what happened after, the strongest few car manufacturers bought all the other competition so what was multiple individual companies we could shop from who competed with each other became 3-4 companies who owned all the other cars as well coming to a gentlemen's agreement not to deliberately under cut their costs, which is why now most all cars within the same class are close enough to the same price that we use style and features as the deciding factor on which item to buy rather than price point. Coca-Cola and Pepsi are a similar story, did you know if you drink Vitamin Water you support Coca Cola Company since they bought the product. Beer companies as well. Capitalism, much like Communism is better in theory than practice because of the old saying "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" The greed and the opportunity have bastardized capitalism from a good idea to an enslavement machine. But we'll see in due time when 60-70% of people are working for the other 30% and only so they can give them the money back for all the items they're buying are owned by the company they work for.

 

[slimreaper]

True Communism has never really existed in a major state. All those countries we are taught are communists are not true to the definition of Communism. Tribal societies were the most accurate depictions of communist societies and despite not having the same advanced technology we have they had just as strong if not stronger internal systems for wealth and work and none of their creativity was killed.

Competition would be wonderful if it actually adhered to the principles set in capitalism but as we see and know it doesn't. Capitalist competition has left us with reduced actual choices for the most part i.e. Before we had just one car so we had to pay that price then real competition happened and others made cars and sold them for varying prices in order to steal customers. That's the good competition can bring. The bad is what happened after, the strongest few car manufacturers bought all the other competition so what was multiple individual companies we could shop from who competed with each other became 3-4 companies who owned all the other cars as well coming to a gentlemen's agreement not to deliberately under cut their costs, which is why now most all cars within the same class are close enough to the same price that we use style and features as the deciding factor on which item to buy rather than price point. Coca-Cola and Pepsi are a similar story, did you know if you drink Vitamin Water you support Coca Cola Company since they bought the product. Beer companies as well. Capitalism, much like Communism is better in theory than practice because of the old saying "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" The greed and the opportunity have bastardized capitalism from a good idea to an enslavement machine. But we'll see in due time when 60-70% of people are working for the other 30% and only so they can give them the money back for all the items they're buying are owned by the company they work for.

That should be the government's only real source of power... to break trusts.

 

[Multiply]

That should be the government's only real source of power... to break trusts.

People would get screwed left and right.

 

[slimreaper]

People would get screwed left and right.

Are people already not getting screwed by the government? We pay 40% in taxes, they keep telling us their welfare systems are helping the poor but i'd hate to have to show thomas sowell owing people on welfare again... they keep pushing for higher minimum wage, which actually hurts young men and women in finding a job and acquiring skills. They keep pushing for equal pay for women even though men an women have been proven time and again to make roughly the same wage for the same time served etc...

 

[Multiply]

Are people already not getting screwed by the government? We pay 40% in taxes, they keep telling us their welfare systems are helping the poor but i'd hate to have to show thomas sowell owing people on welfare again... they keep pushing for higher minimum wage, which actually hurts young men and women in finding a job and acquiring skills. They keep pushing for equal pay for women even though men an women have been proven time and again to make roughly the same wage for the same time served etc...

And I don't disagree with you, but how would we fix this. We need minimum wage to protect us from corporations. If you think there's a better alternative, kindly provide it. Saying corporations won't screw us is just ridiculous. Corporations are willing to go overseas and pay Vietnamese and Chinese 25 cents a day to work in their factories instead of staying in the US and pay minimum wage(which on average is $7.25).

If we're not going to try to supplement the poor, what are we going to do about it? If we get rid of welfare, the wage gap(Rich and middle class) will get bigger. We need an alternative.

 

[slimreaper]

And I don't disagree with you, but how would we fix this. We need minimum wage to protect us from corporations. If you think there's a better alternative, kindly provide it. Saying corporations won't screw us is just ridiculous. Corporations are willing to go overseas and pay Vietnamese and Chinese 25 cents a day to work in their factories instead of staying in the US and pay minimum wage(which on average is $7.25).

If we're not going to try to supplement the poor, what are we going to do about it? If we get rid of welfare, the wage gap(Rich and middle class) will get bigger. We need an alternative.

The problem with the first argument is a direct result of minimum wage. Why would you pay american's more to do a job you can pay the Asians to do? The Asian gov't can afford to pay them more money than the Americans so they don't even try.

Here is the alternative

[video=youtube;3ZDcMjz2hVk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZDcMjz2hVk[/video]

No matter how low you want to pay somebody
1. inflation would decrease
2. we would be able to make better products with the money as the owner has more
3. The skills gained by the employees would create competition for their services in-turn increasing their value.


The welfare argument is this... if you pay people to fail how will they ever succeed? Make them gain skills and contribute to society(those who are physically capable to work that is)


"give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime."

 

[Multiply]

The problem with the first argument is a direct result of minimum wage. Why would you pay american's more to do a job you can pay the Asians to do? The Asian gov't can afford to pay them either more money than the Americans so they don't even try.

Here is the alternative

[video=youtube;3ZDcMjz2hVk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZDcMjz2hVk[/video]

No matter how low you want to pay somebody
1. inflation would decrease
2. we would be able to make better products with the money as the owner has more
3. The skills gained by the employees would create competition for their services in-turn increasing their value.


The welfare argument is this... if you pay people to fail how will they ever succeed? Make them gain skills and contribute to society(those who are physically capable to work that is)


"give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime."

He didn't offer any alternative. He said get rid of those things but what about the people that will lose pretty much everything from the loss of those programs? She asked him and he had no answer for it. He went back to the people that would 'gain' which wouldn't be many at all.

I'm asking you for alternatives.

 

[slimreaper]

He didn't offer any alternative. He said get rid of those things but what about the people that will lose pretty much everything from the loss of those programs? She asked him and he had no answer for it. He went back to the people that would 'gain' which wouldn't be many at all.

I'm asking you for alternatives.

You must be registered for see images

 

[Multiply]

You must be registered for see images

You've posted that before and I've countered it before. Just because a policy is wrong that doesn't mean getting rid of it fixes the problem. Especially when we're talking about something that supplements the economy.

Yes, getting rid of welfare will get rid of the blood suckers who want to sit at home all day and collect a check. However, what about the people that depended on that money to pay for their childs food? The people that haven't eaten in 2 days because they cared more about their child than themselves? The people that submit 50 job applications a week but never get any calls back? I assure you, there's way more of the latter group of the people, than the former.

When getting rid of something causes more harm than good, you have to provide a replacement. Not to mention the poor people will get more poor. The middle class will start to diminish even more, and the rich will get even more rich.