The U.S. Already Soaks the Rich In 2021 the richest 1% paid 45.8% of income taxes, up from..

So if a person, because of their lack of talent or skills, cannot afford life saving medical care, they should just die.

 

charity is abundant in the USA. and perhaps a threshold of care. But those who live off the public tit should not be able to vote themselves the wealth of others

 

More clarification needed do you intend to force people to sell crap so the government can tax it?

 

Why do you think this after it's been shown that it's not true.


Most of the federal budget is subsidies to the not rich in the form of SS, Health Insurance, and Income support. Since that's most of the budget, how do you think that they are giving more than that to the rich?

 

I know a few people who were the heirs of wealthy parents who had diverse assets. One heir inherited a valuable Monet Painting and about 2M-the amount he inherited was designed to pay the estate tax so he could keep the painting-he is an attorney and makes a good living. The wealth parasite movement would want him to pay taxes every year on that now 10 million dollar painting which would force him to sell it. Once you pay estate taxes on the object, the only tax ramification should occur if he were to sell it and then taxes would properly accrue on the gain. but the WPM wants him to pay taxes every year on a non-income producing asset just so he can keep it

 

So on their tax return, you think that people should get an appraisal on everything they own every year and then the IRS would publish an inflation number, by region or maybe by neighborhood, to compare against? You would like people to pay tax on the increase in value of their home every year?

 

I said taxes - not income taxes. Please read carefully before responding.

 

I did, please back up your statement

 

That's what you posted. Taxes and income taxes are not the same.

So, read what you write as well.

 

This is based on taxes filed in 2021, meaning it's actually taxes payed for the year 2020. The figures are also factoring in "pandemic-related tax items from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), such as the non-refundable part of the third round of Recovery Rebates and the expanded child tax credit (CTC)"

The overall burden that the top 1% paid increased from the year prior, not because taxes were increased, but because of a change in adjusted gross income, combined with pandemic relief that the bottom incomes received. The incomes of the top 1% increased significantly in comparison to the bottom incomes, while the bottom incomes were paying a smaller portion than normal due to the pandemic they recieved. This is even noted in the original article that the WSJ article sourced

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/

In short, taxes were not increased for anyone, but the bottom incomes were paying less than normal when factoring in the pandemic relief they received. Also, these numbers represent taxes payed for Trump's final year in office, and do not represent what income taxes were under Biden

 

You made a statement. Where is the data to back up that statement?

 

Garbage. People paid willingly to see him perform, but I am talking about the copyright monopolies that made him a billionaire. They create an artificially high price based on artificial reduction of supply. If there was only one company selling bread by law, and they tripled the price, would you say people who had to pay triple if they wanted any bread "wanted to throw money at them"?

Give your head a shake.

At live performances. He doesn't offer any service to people who want to make copies of songs. All he does is pocket the high price caused by forcible removal of people's liberty to make copies.

"He sold slaves and people gladly paid for them. You are free to do the same."

That about it?

The fact that IP monopolies are available to anyone does not make them rightful.

Everyone wants bread. If I am the only one permitted to sell it, people will throw money at me, too. That doesn't make it right.

You made that up. I didn't say anything about taking anything from him or owning his work. Making a copy of something does not take it away from the owner or stop anyone else from copying it.

Yes. Making a copy of something does not take anything away from anyone else.

More to the point, they shouldn't be privileged to increase the money supply in order to charge the rest of us interest on it.

I never suggested it should, but a minimal safety net does prevent problems in society for the general benefit.

Banks are supposed to BE the safety net. If a bank needs a safety net, it's in the wrong business.

 

He put in the work and creativity to make the music. Bands create music and sell it. Authors create books and sell them. Painters create paintings and sell them. What you are proposing is that they should work for free and never get a dime for creating that art. What you are wanting is free reign to steal their work because you don't value it. That's disgusting to me in the same way that bar owners frequently screw over bands that play in their establishments.

 

Way to miss the point entirely.

My point was that being legally entitled to take something from others is not the same as earning it yourself.

GET IT??

No they aren't. Their natural individual rights to liberty have been forcibly removed by government without just (or any) compensation and made into the private property of the privileged, especially landowners. That is very much the point.

Why do you feel you have to make $#!+ up about what I plainly wrote?

But he is very much not free to exercise his natural individual liberty right to sustain himself and his family using what nature provided for all. It has been stolen from him without just compensation and made into others' private property.

A slave who is "free" to choose which master he works for is still a slave.

GET IT??

"Why, Tom, you are perfectly free to save up some money and buy some slaves of your own. Now get back to work."

Garbage. He has to pay a landowner full market value just for permission to access such opportunities.

 

You are way off. Where did you learn to think that you are so limited in your freedom? I was a low wage worker and I got a better job. Then I got a better job. Then I worked and went to school to get a better job. Then I went to school again and got an even better job. I don't understand why you think people are limited to one job. I don't understand why you think that an employer is taking something away from their employee by paying them what they are worth. Employers don't owe employees nothing but a safe place to work and the wage that the employee agreed to work for. GET IT? Just kidding. I know you don't get it.

 

Try to find a willingness to read what I write and understand it.

<sigh> I already explained to you, in clear, simple, grammatical English, that the base of such a tax is itself not fair, so no percentage could be fair. Why should anyone pay any tax at all on what they produce?

Have you ever heard of the window tax? Centuries ago, some genius figured out that you could very quickly and easily tell roughly how rich people were by how many windows they had in their houses. So they taxed each homeowner based on counting the number of windows, without having to go inside, inspect the furniture, blah, blah, blah. So what happened? People walled up their windows in order to avoid the tax, making their houses dark, damp and unhealthy.

You are asking me to tell you how much tax you should have to pay on each window in your house to be paying a fair amount of taxes. Do you understand now why that is the wrong question?

Have you ever heard of the date palm tax? Pasha Mehmet Ali realized that you could tell roughly how rich someone was by how many date palms he owned, and the trees were easy to count. So he put a tax on date palms. Result? People cut down their date palms, reducing date production to the point of causing skyrocketing prices and a chronic food shortage.

You are asking me how much tax you should have to pay on each date palm you own to be paying a fair amount of taxes. Do you understand now why that is the wrong question?

The method is the only thing that matters. See windows and date palms, above.

You should pay the full economic rent of the privileges you own. If you made $7G without any privileges, you should keep the $7G. If you made $7G using privileges whose rents totaled $14G, you should pay $14G.

 

Huh?? What on earth do you incorrectly imagine you think you might be talking about? I just said they DID.

Or maybe just learn to read clear, simple, grammatical English instead of makin' $#!+ up.

 

Why? Why should people who get no benefit from government spending have to pay taxes to subsidize those who get the most benefit?

Why? Why should the productive have to pay the same rate of tax on assets whose value they have created themselves as the privileged pay on assets whose value is created by government and the community? Why should the tax system force the productive to subsidize the privileged?

 

Homes depreciate, land appreciates. Inflation aside, the increase in unimproved land value -- which you so inaccurately and disingenuously call the increase in value of their "home" -- is created by government and the community, not the owner. You just want rich, greedy, privileged landowners to be legally entitled to pocket that publicly created increase in value as a subsidy paid for by taxes on honest, productive working people, and not repay any of it. Simple.

 

Taxes are the method the rich use to keep others from competing with them. It essentially makes it very improbable that regular folks can accumulate enough wealth to enjoy better lives.

 

BWAHAHAHAAA!!!

Speaking of red herrings, the relevant facts of objective physical reality that prove your beliefs are false and evil do not become "red herrings" just because they prove your beliefs are false and evil, sorry.

 

If they are not using such assets productively enough to pay the tax, it would be better for the community if they yielded them to someone who would. Assets moving into more productive hands is one of the benefits of the free market.

Maybe because they have learned some economics, while getting wealthy doesn't require any knowledge of economics, just animal cunning and lack of conscience? And maybe because what the wealthy claim they "know" about economics appears to consist exclusively of transparent rationalizations to justify the institutional arrangements that enabled them to get wealthy without making any commensurate contribution to production?

I haven't seen any evidence that you know any economics at all. Ringo Starr is a billionaire. So are JK Rowling, Floyd Mayweather, and now Taylor Swift. How much economics do you think they had to know?

Why would a thief complain about how ineffectual the police force is?

 

You mean the privileged, like landowners, banksters, and IP monopolists?

 

It has not been shown not to be true, as I have explained several times in clear, simple, grammatical English.

Those are all subsidies to the rich, via the Henry George Theorem: all public spending on desirable services and infrastructure goes to landowners because the supply of land is fixed, and everyone else has to pay them full market value for permission to access the benefits. No one else benefits at all. That's why trillions in government spending on the poor has not raised them out of poverty, but has made their landlords astronomically wealthy.

 

all these excuses to pretend that those who fail are victims and those who succeed are victimizers. You seem to resent those who have talent.