They Don’t Pay Their Fair Share

#201
#201
Vol8188 said:
You’ve still not defined. How is paying double your share of the income not equitable? And when would it become equitable?
Click to expand...
I think the point it becomes equitable would continually change based on a number of factors.
But remember, everyone is paying the same percent on each range of income.
 
#202
#202
luthervol said:
I think the point it becomes equitable would continually change based on a number of factors.
But remember, everyone is paying the same percent on each range of income.
Click to expand...

So to be sure I’m understanding you:

1. It’s not enough

2. You’re unable to define what should be enough, but you know it’s more.

So let’s see if we get anywhere with this question….how do you know they’re not paying enough?
 
#204
#204
luthervol said:
How about you?
Do you have a number in mind?
What percent of the burden should the top 1% shoulder?
Click to expand...
I do not. Not really.

Some think 40% is outrageous. Others think it’s not near enough.

I believe the top 20% shoulders 80% - is that reasonable? I guess. People will disagree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#205
#205
Vol8188 said:
So to be sure I’m understanding you:

1. It’s not enough

2. You’re unable to define what should be enough, but you know it’s more.

So let’s see if we get anywhere with this question….how do you know they’re not paying enough?
Click to expand...
It would be the same way you know they are paying just enough, or too much.
But I would consider the trajectory of income (wealth) inequality in conjunction with the national debt.
 
#208
#208
luthervol said:
It would be the same way you know they are paying just enough, or too much.
But I would consider the trajectory of income (wealth) inequality in conjunction with the national debt.
Click to expand...

Lol so to be clear you don’t want to tax wealth but you know they’re not paying enough because of wealth? Circles, Luther.

Wealth and the national debt? That’s odd because if you confiscated all the wealth of every billionaire in America, it wouldn’t pay our budget for 1 year.

It’s almost as if you’re just trolling and talking in circles with no real intent of ever getting anywhere
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#214
#214
Vol8188 said:
Lol so to be clear you don’t want to tax wealth but you know they’re not paying enough because of wealth? Circles, Luther.

Wealth and the national debt? That’s odd because if you confiscated all the wealth of every billionaire in America, it wouldn’t pay our budget for 1 year.

It’s almost as if you’re just trolling and talking in circles with no real intent of ever getting anywhere
Click to expand...
lol........
I said on here a while back that I would support across the board spending cuts, with other criteria being met.
Spare me the condescending comments as if you are in search of answers while I am not.
 
#215
#215
Vol8188 said:
So to be sure I’m understanding you:

1. It’s not enough

2. You’re unable to define what should be enough, but you know it’s more.

So let’s see if we get anywhere with this question….how do you know they’re not paying enough?
Click to expand...
Luther won’t answer because his real answer involves the redistribution of that accumulated wealth. He has repeatedly said, where did he say wealth should be taxed? He hasn’t said that. However, notice that he also won’t specifically state that he doesn’t believe wealth shouldn’t be taxed. The problem for liberals is that you can’t tax the realized income of the wealthy at a high enough rate to sufficiently erode their wealth to achieve their Marxist dream of total equality of outcomes. That is because most wealth accumulation for the wealthy is in unrealized income.

Direct yes or no question for Luther: Do you agree that wealth (which includes unrealized income) should not be taxed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ernest T. Vol
#216
#216
luthervol said:
lol........
I said on here a while back that I would support across the board spending cuts, with other criteria being met.
Spare me the condescending comments as if you are in search of answers while I am not.
Click to expand...

I’ve provided my answers. I’ll provide any you wish. But that’s not your intent. You’re going in circles. Just be honest. Why do you want to raise taxes on the wealthy? I think by any standard we’d have to agree they’re paying enough (double their share of income)
 
#217
#217
Vol423 said:
Luther won’t answer because his real answer involves the redistribution of that accumulated wealth. He has repeatedly said, where did he say wealth should be taxed because he hasn’t said that. However, notice that he also won’t specifically state that he doesn’t believe wealth shouldn’t be taxed. The problem for liberals is that you can’t tax the realized income of the wealthy at a high enough rate to sufficiently erode their wealth to achieve their Marxist dream of total equality of outcomes. That is because most wealth accumulation for the wealthy is in unrealized income.

Direct yes or no question for Luther: Do you agree that wealth (which includes unrealized income) should not be taxed?
Click to expand...
No. I believe in property tax.
 
#219
#219
Vol8188 said:
I’ve provided my answers. I’ll provide any you wish. But that’s not your intent. You’re going in circles. Just be honest. Why do you want to raise taxes on the wealthy? I think by any standard we’d have to agree they’re paying enough (double their share of income)
Click to expand...
Not at all.
You believe if they earn 20% of the income they should pay 20% of the taxes.
I disagree.
There is nothing circular about that.
 
#221
#221
Vol8188 said:
So to be sure I’m understanding you:

1. It’s not enough

2. You’re unable to define what should be enough, but you know it’s more.

So let’s see if we get anywhere with this question….how do you know they’re not paying enough?
Click to expand...

This clown has said he would happily pay more just as long as everyone else has to. Idiot dims have “great plans” they just don’t want to act on them unless everyone else is forced to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188
#222
#222
luthervol said:
Not at all.
You believe if they earn 20% of the income they should pay 20% of the taxes.
I disagree.
There is nothing circular about that.
Click to expand...

luthervol said:
Not at all.
You believe if they earn 20% of the income they should pay 20% of the taxes.
I disagree.
There is nothing circular about that.
Click to expand...

Why? Why do you believe they should pay more than double their share of the income….circles….
 
#223
#223
luthervol said:
No. I believe in property tax.
Click to expand...
So your plan is to redefine property to include cash, marketable securities and other non-liquid investments and then confiscate them from the wealthy through obscenely high tax rates.
 
#224
#224
C-south said:
This clown has said he would happily pay more just as long as everyone else has to. Idiot dims have “great plans” they just don’t want to act on them unless everyone else is forced to.
Click to expand...

I loved his epic failure with Sweden earlier. First he presented them while trying to argue our taxes weren’t progressive enough. Then he admitted their taxes weren’t progressive enough. Then he claimed we have worse income inequality than Sweden. Then admitted he was wrong.

It’s amazing really. It’s rare to witness someone be wrong about everything they say
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top