The Wealthy Do Pay Income Taxes

Nothing says we can't have both...but then that wouldn't promote the accumulation of wealth by the already rich would it...

And that is what the Republican Party stands for

 

Unions are not perfect. There are problems with them in some cases. I call a spade a spade. There is such a thing as too far left, just as there is too far right. In general - the Unions are the least of the problem. Much larger problems need to be fixed first before even looking at unions.

If you let someone divert to talking about unions then you will not be talking about the real problem - the one which they are desperate to deny.

 

The tax system is over-complicated malarkey that benefits the wealthy more than anyone else. I want a flat tax, but with graduated levels for the wealthy also. Someone bringing in millions can and should pay a higher percentage than a wage slave.

 

Fine. If you ARE going to talk about it...don't do it on their terms.

 

Nonsense. Any "fix" would benefit them even more

 

I don't see how. Remove their many exemptions and loopholes.

 

I think most are paying too much income tax and I think property tax is a violation of the right to own private property.

You make a bunch of naked claims - claims for which you give no support. You say "fair share" but do not quantify this.

In the 50s/60s the worker/corp tax split was 50/50. This is fair. roads, infrastructure, police, military and so on benefit both. A corp can not exist without these things. Right now that split is 80/20. Not sure about you but I am not real happy about paying McDonalds share of the tax bill.

If that extra money goes into the pocket of the citizen - that money gets spent in the local economy. Insteat the extre profit that the corp makes goes into the pocket of some nameless faceless shareholder who may not evn live in the country - never mind spend in the local economy.

In this way a little cream is skimmed off the top of the milk. Multiply this by a thousand and this is done in numerous different ways and you end up with skim milk.

The second point (in relation to death tax) is "what is fair" ? It cost's money to protect wealth. Police, Military, maintaining civil society - by ensuring people are fed, and so on. If one has 1000 dollars the benefit from this protection is small. If one has 1 billion dollars the benefit from this protection is large. The amount one should pay to maintain that protection is then greater.

The question of whether the total tax bill is to high is another question. Deceasing this tax bill should be the job of Gov't but, they do the reverse.

It is true that those that do not pay anything perhaps get an increased benefit (depends on whether or not the person works). This is the only group you seem to want to focus on. In the total equation of inequity - this is a rounding error.

 

You talk much but give no support for your claims. You also talk in generalities. It is funny that earlier you mentioned Gate's and Buffet as both agree with me. Buffet in particular has been very outspoken how how companies are able to avoid taxes that they should be paying.

Back in the 50s/60s the worker/Corp tax split was 50/50. Now it is 80/20. Corps would quickly go out of business without infrastructure, roads, police, military and so on. The worker benefits as well.

The extra money that the citizen would have (if not for subsidizing McD) would be spent in the local economy. Instead that money goes into the pocket of some nameless faceless shareholder that may not even live in the country .. never mind spend in the local economy.

In this way the cream is skimmed off the top of the milk. Multiply this effect by a thousand - an this happens in numerous different ways, and we are left with skim milk.

Perhaps you are happy with paying McDonald's share of the tax bill. I am not.

There have been numerous cases of price fixing by the Drug Oligopolies. Merck was estimated to have made Billions of extra profit in one case - the fine was a few million.

You do not understand how Oligopolies work. When you are limited to only a few companies supplying a certain good or service -collusion is almost inevitable and happens via a number of mechanisms. Mergers such as the recent Dow/Dupont should never be allowed a it reduces the number of competitors to below the threshold of pain. When you have the same people controlling the boards of directors in an Oligopoly this is then, effectively, a monopoly. It is like breaking up Standard Oil but then having the owners of Standard Oil controlling all of the break-up companies.

I worked for years in the chemical industry. Years ago there were 9-10 competitors vying for the attention of good salespeople and when you sold something (making the company more money) you got paid well. In the sector in which I worked this was reduced to 2 and they would squeeze every penny out of the salesperson. The finance dept's actually took courses on how to "scrw" the salesperson. If you didn't like it... too bad, you only had one other company to go to and they did the same thing. Wages are then lowered due to the reduction in labor competition.

If that money goes into the pocket of the sales person it is spent in the local economy. Instead the extra profits go to some nameless faceless shareholder who may not even live in the country - never mind spend in the local economy.

Every time a tax law or regulation is being made the Oligopoly is sitting at the table (and perhaps they have a right to be there). The problem is that the person who is supposed to be representing the interest of "we the people" is either in the pocket of, or influence by the Oligopoly.

It is not like the Oligopoly wins every table but, over time, table after table, the rules of the game get skewed in favor of the Oligopoly.

We are told we benefit from "outsourcing" by reduced prices. When is the last time you looked at the price of a pair of NIKE shoes ? (100 Dollars). Are you seriously suggesting that this shoe could not be produced here at a profit for that cost ? Slave labor making the shoe costs a buck, the box costs a buck and shipping another buck. Where is the reduced price to the consumer.

What is worse is that we do not get to tax that 97 profit (minus admin and sales cost). That shoe is sold to an affiliate in the Cayman Islands (for 3 dollars). That affiliate then sells that shoe to "NIKE" USA for 83 Dollars. The cost of storefront an min wage staff eats up the other 17 and tax is reduced to frick all. Perfectly legal. This is the kind of thing that Buffet (the guy you brought up) talks about.

I am just getting started. I can go on and on.

 

I don't. As soon as I get rid of that diversion the playing field is then mine.

 

The same ****ers that buy those Nike shoes want their healthcare covered so they can spend their own money on luxuries

 

Our Healthcare system is riddled with Oligopolies. Legalized extortion. We pay more for healthcare than any other first world nation (all who have universal healthcare) but we don't. These other systems are massively inefficient bloated bureaucracies.

Yet - somehow, our system which has a private element (and should be more efficient) costs more. It is called price fixing and anti-competitive practices combined with bureaucracy. It is a colossal mess that goes way beyond providing universal healthcare.

You are being myopic and spewing arguments fed to you by the same oligopolies who are sodomizing you.

 

We should eliminate laws that prohibit or discourage the provision of medical services or medicines. That would break the back of these oligopolies.

 

Their exemptions and loopholes won't be removed by a capitalist government. The average corporate real federal income tax rate 50 years ago was 50%. Today it is about 14% and not the highest by a long shot. So a bracket reduction from 35% to 15% means ZERO INCOME TAXES for many big corporations. And the right is suckered by the hype.

 

Please explain.

 

Think of any law that would prevent someone from delivering healthcare services, or opening a health care facility, or producing a medicine. Now eliminate that law.

 

That's not an explanation; it's a restatement of the same. But maybe you mean laws like those requiring and regulating the thorough testing of new drugs. Eh?

 

Yes, laws such as those. As well as licensing and permitting laws. Destroy the oligopoly by eliminating legal barriers to entry and permitting competition to drive down prices.

 

With all the ads we see on TV about class action suits against drugs that have done great harm, why in HELL would you want to weaken drug testing further??? You want to be a guinea pig?

 

And how would that destroy an oligopoly? Maybe you don't know what an oligopoly is.

 

People can test drugs all they want. I'm not opposed to testing. I'm just suggesting that we destroy the oligopoly that imposes high prices by allowing free entry into the market.

If you prefer your drugs to be tested, then only buy the drugs that have been tested by the tester you trust. Hell, I'd even say we can transform the FDA into a testing organization. They can test and publish their results, but they shouldn't impose legal barriers to entry into the market. That's the kind of legal prohibition that creates the oligopoly we have now.

 

It would introduce new options to consumers that provide an alternative to the oligopoly.

 

That's nuts.

 

I don't think you know what an oligopoly is.

 

I don't think it's nuts at all. The reason medical costs are so high is that competition is being legally stifled. People are being prevented from providing healthcare products and services that people want. Why do you want to perpetuate the big healthcare oligopoly?

 

Really? You don't?