Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkeye15

haha, I literally just responded to your other post with the exact same thought.

---

lol, great minds and all that

In terms of taxation, why so much devotion to defending the wealthy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crovash

In terms of taxation, why so much devotion to defending the wealthy?

---

Because they dream of being wealthy one day?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://twitter.com/aoc/status/1098776458011525120?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashBolt

Not paying their share? Uhm, nearly half of American tax filers do not pay income taxes. The top 1% earned 20.58% of all AGI in 2014 and paid nearly 40% of all federal income taxes in America. The top 1% paid more than the bottom 90% of taxpayers. Top 10% paid 70% of all Federal Income taxes.

1) Minimum wages are jobs that aren't designed to be a liveable family wage. It's for the college kid who wants extra money to buy books, eat out, etc., Not to raise a damn family.

2) Wage gaps? Lol. There is no wage gap in fields that are in demand.

You're not understanding the situation at all. Economics don't lie. If you are in demand, your wage will go up. If you are not in demand, your wage will stay the same or decline. That's the fact. There doesn't need to be any addressing. Technology shifted who should be in demand. People need to adapt. We're moving away from a manufacturing to a services industry. Actually, we've already moved away from it. Instead of looking at wage gap and all this other stuff, you need to be specific. What job are they working? Which field? How qualified are they? Stop trying to make it seem as if their "unfair" wages are the product of corruption. No one is corrupting them. You're getting paid too little? Print out your resume and start finding an employer willing to pay you more.

---

This is one of the favorite conservative beating drums. As if income taxes are the only tax that exist in America. When in fact it's one of the few progressive taxes we have.

From CNBC:

"The study, from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, found that “virtually every state’s tax system is fundamentally unfair, taking a much greater share of income from low- and middle-income families than from wealthy families.” It added that state and local tax systems are “indirectly contributing to growing income inequality by taxing low- and middle-income households at significantly higher rates than wealthy taxpayers.”

In other words, it said the tax systems are “upside down,” with the poor paying more and the rich paying less. Overall, the poorest 20 percent of Americans paid an average of 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes and the middle 20 percent of Americans paid 9.4 percent. The top 1 percent, meanwhile, pay only 5.4 percent of their income to state and local taxes."

Our tax structure consistently burdens those who are least equipped to deal with it. So instead of pretending that we only have an income tax in America, wanna take another shot at the woe is the rich argument?

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/01/15/do-t...dle-class.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeW-Star

This is one of the favorite conservative beating drums. As if income taxes are the only tax that exist in America. When in fact it's one of the few progressive taxes we have.

From CNBC:

"The study, from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, found that “virtually every state’s tax system is fundamentally unfair, taking a much greater share of income from low- and middle-income families than from wealthy families.” It added that state and local tax systems are “indirectly contributing to growing income inequality by taxing low- and middle-income households at significantly higher rates than wealthy taxpayers.”

In other words, it said the tax systems are “upside down,” with the poor paying more and the rich paying less. Overall, the poorest 20 percent of Americans paid an average of 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes and the middle 20 percent of Americans paid 9.4 percent. The top 1 percent, meanwhile, pay only 5.4 percent of their income to state and local taxes."

Our tax structure consistently burdens those who are least equipped to deal with it. So instead of pretending that we only have an income tax in America, wanna take another shot at the woe is the rich argument?

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/01/15/do-t...dle-class.html

---

Do you not realize why this is the case? Rich people prefer to stay away from state income taxes if they can. If you make the state taxes much higher than it should be for the rich, you drive away their incentive to be in that state. It's also hilarious you say it's a conservative beating drum. Coming from the guy who thinks there should be "universal income." Interesting. AKA, you want socialism/communism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashBolt

Do you not realize why this is the case? Rich people prefer to stay away from state income taxes if they can. If you make the state taxes much higher than it should be for the rich, you drive away their incentive to be in that state. It's also hilarious you say it's a conservative beating drum. Coming from the guy who thinks there should be "universal income." Interesting. AKA, you want socialism/communism.

---

You’re the one who brought up the good ole income tax comment, not me. As if it’s the only tax that exists. It’s one of the most disingenuous comments conservatives lean back on when it comes to paying taxes.

And it didn’t take long for you to lean back on the other favorite trope of conservatives. The good ole socialism/communism boogeyman.

That’s what we call an ad hominem attack. Also an incorrect one on many fronts.

A UBI is not a flat out universal income, nor is it socialism, and it certainly isn’t communism. It’s a socialist program. No different than many of the socialist programs we enjoy today in this country.

You need to go back to YouTube and get some more certificates, your lack of education is bleeding through your keyboards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashBolt

Do you not realize why this is the case? Rich people prefer to stay away from state income taxes if they can. If you make the state taxes much higher than it should be for the rich, you drive away their incentive to be in that state. It's also hilarious you say it's a conservative beating drum. Coming from the guy who thinks there should be "universal income." Interesting. AKA, you want socialism/communism.

---

Round and round the mulberry bush...

You have insightful things to say from time to time, but when you say things like this, I’m afraid you lose some credibilty.

The argument here cannot be reduced to simplistic labeling.

Rather, it is about to what extent we as a country of opportunity should be providing for the common good and how to manage that so-called mission.

For my part, I have no problem whatsoever with demanding more of the wealthy — raising taxes/eliminating preferential loopholes — possibly because I have a different view of their wealth (in the larger scheme of things, most of it coming by virtue of luck).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashBolt

Do you not realize why this is the case? Rich people prefer to stay away from state income taxes if they can. If you make the state taxes much higher than it should be for the rich, you drive away their incentive to be in that state. It's also hilarious you say it's a conservative beating drum. Coming from the guy who thinks there should be "universal income." Interesting. AKA, you want socialism/communism.

---

Hilarious


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So this is from Politifact.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...70-percent-ta/

Quote:

---

Using the $10-million income as a cut-off, Mazur said that taxing the $244 billion in income above the threshold at her 70 percent rate would bring in an added $72 billion a year, or $720 billion over 10 years.

Of course, the actual amount would likely be lower, depending on how successfully that excess income is shielded from taxation, Mazur said. Setting the 70 percent tax bracket lower than $10 million would change the calculations.

---

That's not enough to even pay for Medicare for all. This doesn't even cover 1/30th of the cost of Medicare for All over 10 years, let alone all the infrastructure and people getting paid NOT to work and social justice stuff she wants to pay for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashBolt

Do you not realize why this is the case? Rich people prefer to stay away from state income taxes if they can. If you make the state taxes much higher than it should be for the rich, you drive away their incentive to be in that state. It's also hilarious you say it's a conservative beating drum. Coming from the guy who thinks there should be "universal income." Interesting. AKA, you want socialism/communism.

---

you have to be kidding. I mean, I know you're not, but cmon. Rich people pick just a few states to live in according to you then?

No, the wealthy are smart, yes. They know exactly how to dodge taxes, corporations even more so. But to act like the wealthy pay a higher tax rate than the poor and middle class is false. Income tax? Yes. Not so much elsewhere.

Wealth gap increases by the year. The cost of living has gone up, wages haven't followed. That is a fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Why do people still persist with this "minimum wage isn't for people to have livable jobs?" fiction? That was very clearly what it was for, President Roosevelt's speech said literally that:

https://www.thebillfold.com/2015/07/...a-living-wage/

In his 1933 address following the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act, President Franklin D. Roosevelt noted that “no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.”

“By ‘business’ I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of decent living,” he stated.


The minimum wage was very clearly to ensure everyone had a livable wage. If not, then what is the point of the minimum wage in the first place?

---

I have a question. what is an appropriate living wage now in 2019? why does it have to $15 dollars an hour. is there something to show that is this the fair/appropriate living wage. maybe there is, I'm asking.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sick Of It All

https://twitter.com/aoc/status/1098776458011525120?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

why is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez now posting an old video?

---

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.011e7498f349

Quote:

---

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is an economic illiterate — and that’s a danger to America

---

Quote:

---

The left complains that conservatives are “obsessing” over Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Well, there is a reason for that: Ocasio-Cortez is driving the agenda of today’s Democratic Party — and her economic illiteracy is dangerous.

Case in point: Last week, Ocasio-Cortez celebrated the tanking of a deal negotiated by her fellow Democrats in which Amazon promised to build a new headquarters in Long Island City, New York, right next to her congressional district. Amazon’s departure cost the city between 25,000 and 40,000 new jobs. Forget the tech workers whom Amazon would have employed. Gone are all the unionized construction jobs to build the headquarters, as well as thousands of jobs created by all the small businesses — restaurants, bodegas, dry cleaners and food carts — that were preparing to open or expand to serve Amazon employees. They are devastated by Amazon’s withdrawal. (Amazon’s founder and chief executive, Jeffrey P. Bezos, also owns The Post.)

Ocasio-Cortez was not disturbed at all. “We were subsidizing those jobs,” she said. “Frankly, if we were willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion in our district, ourselves, if we wanted to. We could hire out more teachers. We can fix our subways. We can put a lot of people to work for that amount of money if we wanted to.”

No, you can’t. Ocasio-Cortez does not seem to realize that New York does not have $3 billion in cash sitting around waiting to be spent on her socialist dreams. The subsidies to Amazon were tax incentives, not cash payouts. It is Amazon’s money, which New York agreed to make tax-exempt, so the company would invest it in building its new headquarters, hiring new workers and generating tens of billions in new tax revenue.

As New York Mayor Bill de Blasio explained, the Amazon deal would have produced “$27 billion in new tax revenue to fuel priorities from transit to affordable housing — a nine-fold return on the taxes the city and state were prepared to forgo to win the headquarters.” Unlike Ocasio-Cortez’s imaginary $3 billion slush fund, that is real money that actually could have been used to hire teachers, fix subways and put people to work. With Amazon leaving New York, that $27 billion leaves with it. Genius.

Ocasio-Cortez does not seem to understand that by helping to drive Amazon away, she did not save New York $3 billion; she cost New York $27 billion. There is a difference between having bad ideas and not grasping basic facts. Reasonable people can disagree about whether New York should have offered Amazon $3 billion in tax incentives — or anything at all — to build its headquarters in the city. But that is different from not understanding that New York is not writing a $3 billion check to Amazon.

Sadly, Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t learn from her mistakes. She made the same kind of error in December when she tweeted, “$21 TRILLION of Pentagon financial transactions ‘could not be traced, documented, or explained.’ $21T in Pentagon accounting errors. Medicare for All costs ~$32T. That means 66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon.” But, as Pentagon spokesman Christopher Sherwood told The Post, “DoD hasn’t received $21 trillion in (nominal) appropriated funding across the entirety of American history.” Once again, Ocasio-Cortez did not grasp that the Pentagon did not have a magic pile of $21 trillion in cash sitting in a vault somewhere.

Her economic illiteracy matters because she is the principal author of the Green New Deal, which has been endorsed by most of the leading Democratic candidates for president. From this unschooled mind has sprung the most ambitious plan for government intervention in the economy since Vladimir Ilyich Lenin’s train pulled into Petrograd’s Finland Station.

If Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t understand how tax subsidies work, how can she be trusted to plan the federal takeover of the health-care, energy and transportation sectors of our economy? Think she and her allies have any idea how to, as her now infamous talking points put it, upgrade or replace “every building in America” . . . or replace “every combustible-engine vehicle” . . . or connect every corner of America with high-speed rail . . . or replace all fossil-fuel energy with alternative energy sources — all in 10 years’ time? Apparently, they think we just have to find all the magic pots of cash the government is hiding.

When this kind of ignorance is driving policymaking in Washington, America is in profound danger. Amazon left New York because Ocasio-Cortez and her fellow democratic socialists created a hostile environment in the city. And if Ocasio-Cortez has her way, Democrats are going to do to the rest of America what they just did to New York.

---

You can parse these these concepts from many different angles to "prove" your point.

Here's another perspective…

A lot of the wealthy and the middle classes pay state and local taxes and receive little in benefits.

Many do not use public schools. They send their kids to private schools.
Few live in pubic housing.
Most don't use public transportation.
Trash pick up…wealthier neighborhoods are much cleaner.
Parks, playgrounds, beaches…not so much usage from the upper classes.
Court systems…they pay for their own lawyers.
Police and fire…the better neighborhoods have fas less activity in this area. In 30 years I have never seen a police car on my street or a fire truck in my neighborhood. Also far less crime.

So the upper classes are paying for services they use far less of. Granted this is by choice but the point remains.

There are other inequities pertaining to taxation the biggest being dependent deductions.
Husband and wife with four kids as opposed to a husband and wife with no kids (or grown kids) Who uses more resources? Who pays higher taxes?

And on and on and on.

So make the numbers say whatever you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

You can parse these these concepts from many different angles to "prove" your point.

Here's another perspective…

A lot of the wealthy and the middle classes pay state and local taxes and receive little in benefits.

Many do not use public schools. They send their kids to private schools.
Few live in pubic housing.
Most don't use public transportation.
Trash pick up…wealthier neighborhoods are much cleaner.
Parks, playgrounds, beaches…not so much usage from the upper classes.
Court systems…they pay for their own lawyers.
Police and fire…the better neighborhoods have fas less activity in this area. In 30 years I have never seen a police car on my street or a fire truck in my neighborhood. Also far less crime.

So the upper classes are paying for services they use far less of. Granted this is by choice but the point remains.

There are other inequities pertaining to taxation the biggest being dependent deductions.
Husband and wife with four kids as opposed to a husband and wife with no kids (or grown kids) Who uses more resources? Who pays higher taxes?

And on and on and on.

So make the numbers say whatever you want.

---

Of course it's by choice, because they can buy much nicer things than what's available to them in the public sphere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkeye15

you have to be kidding. I mean, I know you're not, but cmon. Rich people pick just a few states to live in according to you then?

No, the wealthy are smart, yes. They know exactly how to dodge taxes, corporations even more so. But to act like the wealthy pay a higher tax rate than the poor and middle class is false. Income tax? Yes. Not so much elsewhere.

Wealth gap increases by the year. The cost of living has gone up, wages haven't followed. That is a fact.

---

Again, another pathetic comment from a mod who continues quoting me after I told him not to. Why are you still a mod if you aren't doing what's best for the community? I don't want to waste time "debating" someone who doesn't know what he's talking about and then continues thinking he's on some next level way of thinking because he just recently had a child. Wages haven't followed.. wait for it.. FOR JOBS THAT AREN'T ON DEMAND. That is the fact. Go find me jobs that are in demand that haven't increased. Rich people wouldn't be living in NY as much if they had to pay higher state taxes. That's a fact. You just talked about how rich people try to avoid taxes but then you ignore that concept on state taxes. Please stop replying to me. I'm tired of reading nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

You can parse these these concepts from many different angles to "prove" your point.

Here's another perspective…

A lot of the wealthy and the middle classes pay state and local taxes and receive little in benefits.

Many do not use public schools. They send their kids to private schools.
Few live in pubic housing.
Most don't use public transportation.
Trash pick up…wealthier neighborhoods are much cleaner.
Parks, playgrounds, beaches…not so much usage from the upper classes.
Court systems…they pay for their own lawyers.
Police and fire…the better neighborhoods have fas less activity in this area. In 30 years I have never seen a police car on my street or a fire truck in my neighborhood. Also far less crime.

So the upper classes are paying for services they use far less of. Granted this is by choice but the point remains.

There are other inequities pertaining to taxation the biggest being dependent deductions.
Husband and wife with four kids as opposed to a husband and wife with no kids (or grown kids) Who uses more resources? Who pays higher taxes?

And on and on and on.

So make the numbers say whatever you want.

---

those poor rich people....

Dude I come from a family that I am speaking against. I enjoyed luxuries most never did. And while it was great, I am more than willing to give up some of that for others to not have to scrape by.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashBolt

Again, another pathetic comment from a mod who continues quoting me after I told him not to. Why are you still a mod if you aren't doing what's best for the community? I don't want to waste time "debating" someone who doesn't know what he's talking about and then continues thinking he's on some next level way of thinking because he just recently had a child. Wages haven't followed.. wait for it.. FOR JOBS THAT AREN'T ON DEMAND. That is the fact. Go find me jobs that are in demand that haven't increased. Rich people wouldn't be living in NY as much if they had to pay higher state taxes. That's a fact. You just talked about how rich people try to avoid taxes but then you ignore that concept on state taxes. Please stop replying to me. I'm tired of reading nonsense.

---

Last I checked this was a discussion board. He can respond to you if he wants, mod or not.

Maybe seek some anger management counseling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkeye15

those poor rich people....

Dude I come from a family that I am speaking against. I enjoyed luxuries most never did. And while it was great, I am more than willing to give up some of that for others to not have to scrape by.

---

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the points. I am saying that those points are valid.

The people that require the most…pay the least.

The people that pay the most…receive the least in return.

That seems pretty clear to me. Whether it is right, fair, equitable…I'm not really sure.

I would happily be willing to drop income tax and get rid of all the deductions and loopholes and institute a national sales tax…

on everything…food, medicine, healthcare, mortgage payments, education…everything - no deductions.

on everyone…rich poor, churches, charities etc. - no exceptions.

The rich would pay more since they spend more. People could pay whatever taxes they want by controlling their spending.

But the first whine you would hear is that it affects the poor more when in actuality it affects everyone the same.

It is endless. To many, the fairest system is I pay less (or none) while you pay more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the points. I am saying that those points are valid.

The people that require the most…pay the least.

The people that pay the most…receive the least in return.

That seems pretty clear to me. Whether it is right, fair, equitable…I'm not really sure.

I would happily be willing to drop income tax and get rid of all the deductions and loopholes and institute a national sales tax…

on everything…food, medicine, healthcare, mortgage payments, education…everything - no deductions.

on everyone…rich poor, churches, charities etc. - no exceptions.

The rich would pay more since they spend more. People could pay whatever taxes they want by controlling their spending.

But the first whine you would hear is that it affects the poor more when in actuality it affects everyone the same.

It is endless. To many, the fairest system is I pay less (or none) while you pay more.

---

No the rich benefit exponentially more because they benefit off of the capital having those benefits.

They benefit more off of roads because that allows a person to get into work in order to work for them. Trash pickup, fire services, police services and all those other services help the poor stay healthy and able bodied in able to put in their time and work so that the capital owners can benefit.

That’s the beauty of never having to lift a finger so that others can do your work for you.

Sales taxes are amazing taxes for the rich. They are regressive taxes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeW-Star

No the rich benefit exponentially more because they benefit off of the capital having those benefits.

They benefit more off of roads because that allows a person to get into work in order to work for them. Trash pickup, fire services, police services and all those other services help the poor stay healthy and able bodied in able to put in their time and work so that the capital owners can benefit.

That’s the beauty of never having to lift a finger so that others can do your work for you.

Sales taxes are amazing taxes for the rich. They are regressive taxes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

If this post doesn't prove that you can stretch and parse a point to make it say whatever you want, I don't know what does.

Trash pickup, fire services, police services and all those other services help the poor stay healthy and able bodied in able to put in their time and work so that the capital owners can benefit.


I can't top that one.

Well maybe I can………

Doesn't all this abortion stuff prevent the lower classes from procreating and producing more low end labor thereby making it harder for the rich to get their evil claws on all the drones they need to make then richer and richer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the points. I am saying that those points are valid.

The people that require the most…pay the least.

The people that pay the most…receive the least in return.

That seems pretty clear to me. Whether it is right, fair, equitable…I'm not really sure.

I would happily be willing to drop income tax and get rid of all the deductions and loopholes and institute a national sales tax…

on everything…food, medicine, healthcare, mortgage payments, education…everything - no deductions.

on everyone…rich poor, churches, charities etc. - no exceptions.

The rich would pay more since they spend more. People could pay whatever taxes they want by controlling their spending.

But the first whine you would hear is that it affects the poor more when in actuality it affects everyone the same.

It is endless. To many, the fairest system is I pay less (or none) while you pay more.

---

you are right, in there is no taxation system that will make everyone happy.

However, under our current system, the portion getting the shaft are the poor and middle class. At the end of the day, that just isn't going to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

If this post doesn't prove that you can stretch and parse a point to make it say whatever you want, I don't know what does.

Trash pickup, fire services, police services and all those other services help the poor stay healthy and able bodied in able to put in their time and work so that the capital owners can benefit.


I can't top that one.

Well maybe I can………

Doesn't all this abortion stuff prevent the lower classes from procreating and producing more low end labor thereby making it harder for the rich to get their evil claws on all the drones they need to make then richer and richer.

---

No, because they can either offshore for cheap labor. Or they can import it on visas if it needs to be done here or if they just want to create more competition to keep wages in check.

And the abortion topic is much more beneficial a lever to be pressed so they can maintain their power in order to make sure the laws that would affect their money stay swung in their favor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkeye15

you are right, in there is no taxation system that will make everyone happy.

However, under our current system, the portion getting the shaft are the poor and middle class. At the end of the day, that just isn't going to work.

---

Yep, taxation isn’t a zero sum game, but it’s pretty darn close to it. That’s why it’s always one of the most contested fights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

You can parse these these concepts from many different angles to "prove" your point.

Here's another perspective…

A lot of the wealthy and the middle classes pay state and local taxes and receive little in benefits.

Many do not use public schools. They send their kids to private schools.
Few live in pubic housing.
Most don't use public transportation.
Trash pick up…wealthier neighborhoods are much cleaner.
Parks, playgrounds, beaches…not so much usage from the upper classes.
Court systems…they pay for their own lawyers.
Police and fire…the better neighborhoods have fas less activity in this area. In 30 years I have never seen a police car on my street or a fire truck in my neighborhood. Also far less crime.

So the upper classes are paying for services they use far less of. Granted this is by choice but the point remains.

There are other inequities pertaining to taxation the biggest being dependent deductions.
Husband and wife with four kids as opposed to a husband and wife with no kids (or grown kids) Who uses more resources? Who pays higher taxes?

And on and on and on.

So make the numbers say whatever you want.

---

This is of course not true. You are confusing direct benefit with benefits.

While they send their kids to private school, the workers at their businesses have the basic skills necessary to perform the jobs required due to public schools
While they live in their own lavish houses, the government allows their workers and maids and butlers to live in housing so they can pay them a lower wage, keeping more of their money
While they don't use public transportation, the workers at their business do which allows them to go to work


Suppose the US just got rid of public schools because hey, everybody who never went to one or never had kids didn't want to pay. Those same rich folks who are complaining about paying for other kids' education would soon be paying to educate their employees. The idea that the wealthy don't get any benefit from all the things they pay for is hilarious.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DzOqFEPX4AMloT-.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

This is of course not true. You are confusing direct benefit with benefits.

While they send their kids to private school, the workers at their businesses have the basic skills necessary to perform the jobs required due to public schools
While they live in their own lavish houses, the government allows their workers and maids and butlers to live in housing so they can pay them a lower wage, keeping more of their money
While they don't use public transportation, the workers at their business do which allows them to go to work


Suppose the US just got rid of public schools because hey, everybody who never went to one or never had kids didn't want to pay. Those same rich folks who are complaining about paying for other kids' education would soon be paying to educate their employees. The idea that the wealthy don't get any benefit from all the things they pay for is hilarious.

---

He's clearly wrong but the government is incredibly wasteful. Not just in terms of fraud and corruption but just the beauracracy of everything you have to go through. my brother works for Con-Edison. The amount of nonsense they have to go through just to get something rolling is ridiculous and unncessary. Their ability to "manage" just puts these politicians in more power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

This is of course not true. You are confusing direct benefit with benefits.

While they send their kids to private school, the workers at their businesses have the basic skills necessary to perform the jobs required due to public schools
While they live in their own lavish houses, the government allows their workers and maids and butlers to live in housing so they can pay them a lower wage, keeping more of their money
While they don't use public transportation, the workers at their business do which allows them to go to work


Suppose the US just got rid of public schools because hey, everybody who never went to one or never had kids didn't want to pay. Those same rich folks who are complaining about paying for other kids' education would soon be paying to educate their employees. The idea that the wealthy don't get any benefit from all the things they pay for is hilarious.

---

Well, to follow this absurd logic……

The rich deserve to pay less taxes since they and their companies are their companies provide the jobs that the lower classes use to survive on.

And round and round we go.

National sales tax…everyone pays as they go for what they use. No Exceptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

Well, to follow this absurd logic……

The rich deserve to pay less taxes since they and their companies are their companies provide the jobs that the lower classes use to survive on.

And round and round we go.

National sales tax…everyone pays as they go for what they use. No Exceptions.

---

Your worst idea yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter_White

Your worst idea yet.

---

Right…pay for what you use.

What a terrible idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

Well, to follow this absurd logic……

The rich deserve to pay less taxes since they and their companies are their companies provide the jobs that the lower classes use to survive on.

And round and round we go.

National sales tax…everyone pays as they go for what they use. No Exceptions.

---

A National sales tax is a terrible idea. Perhaps the worst structure of a tax system ever devised. No surprise you think it's a good idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

Right…pay for what you use.

What a terrible idea.

---

Well I haven't had to use the police so I don't think I should have to pay for them. Fire either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashBolt

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DzOqFEPX4AMloT-.jpg

---

:laugh2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Well I haven't had to use the police so I don't think I should have to pay for them. Fire either.

---

I guess you don't get it. The national sales tax replaces federal income tax and is added to local and state taxes which pay for the police that you don't use.

So go to the store. You buy your Cheetos. You pay your sales tax to the local community and state. An additional tax is then added for the federal government that replaces the income tax. Now everyone pays thew same rate of tax to the feds. Local taxation complaints can be taken up with the locals.

So you buy your Cheetos and an extra .03¢ goes to the fed. The rich guy, hatefully, buys a super big bag of Cheetos and smirks in your direction as he sends .08¢ to the fed…but he got more Cheetos.

Can't you see it…the sixth generation of Air Force/Navy fighter jet can be called the F25 Cheeto. It sings

I used to be for a flat sales tax, but I am really only interested in framework for it now if there are exemptions. Meaning, if you don't report a certain amount of income, you pay no taxes. It gets progressive depending on the item as well. A boat that costs $100k, for instance, would carry a hefty tax. A Mercedes carriers a higher tax than a Honda.

At some point, our rich need to contribute more, period. I understand worth, value, and none of that explains why a tiny portion need to live in the hills in a gated community while so many starve and repeat the cycle of poverty. It doesn't mean set things equal, it means define excess, and only the filthy rich will then go attain it. Or, the cost of what we deem luxurious today, will drop and actually become attainable for a higher percentage of the population as it becomes less desireable for the upper middle class, and lower tier of wealthy people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

Right…pay for what you use.

What a terrible idea.

---

That’s not how taxes work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkeye15

I used to be for a flat sales tax, but I am really only interested in framework for it now if there are exemptions. Meaning, if you don't report a certain amount of income, you pay no taxes. It gets progressive depending on the item as well. A boat that costs $100k, for instance, would carry a hefty tax. A Mercedes carriers a higher tax than a Honda.

At some point, our rich need to contribute more, period. I understand worth, value, and none of that explains why a tiny portion need to live in the hills in a gated community while so many starve and repeat the cycle of poverty. It doesn't mean set things equal, it means define excess, and only the filthy rich will then go attain it. Or, the cost of what we deem luxurious today, will drop and actually become attainable for a higher percentage of the population as it becomes less desireable for the upper middle class, and lower tier of wealthy people.

---

Has there ever been a time in history that did not have a poor class or did not have "income inequality?" The haves and the have nots.

Seems like it is just an unavoidable fact of life.

I like hockey. It's gotten to be too expensive so I don't go. Haven't been to a game in years. Have a friend who puts $5 grand on his credit card for season tickets and probably another $30+ on game day expenses. He also has his kids on some free lunch program in school.

There are more people like this than you think. It gets tough to sympathize with this stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

Has there ever been a time in history that did not have a poor class or did not have "income inequality?" The haves and the have nots.

Seems like it is just an unavoidable fact of life.

I like hockey. It's gotten to be too expensive so I don't go. Haven't been to a game in years. Have a friend who puts $5 grand on his credit card for season tickets and probably another $30+ on game day expenses. He also has his kids on some free lunch program in school.

There are more people like this than you think. It gets tough to sympathize with this stuff.

---

I for one am much more inclined to sympathize with some lucky rich dolt who can’t decide which jet he wants to use to get to one of his offshore villas in the Cayman Islands.

There are a lot more people like this than you think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crovash

I for one am much more inclined to sympathize with some lucky rich dolt who can’t decide which jet he wants to use to get to one of his offshore villas in the Cayman Islands.

There are a lot more people like this than you think.

---

As long as there are not a lot more like you, I'm OK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

Has there ever been a time in history that did not have a poor class or did not have "income inequality?" The haves and the have nots.

Seems like it is just an unavoidable fact of life.

I like hockey. It's gotten to be too expensive so I don't go. Haven't been to a game in years. Have a friend who puts $5 grand on his credit card for season tickets and probably another $30+ on game day expenses. He also has his kids on some free lunch program in school.

There are more people like this than you think. It gets tough to sympathize with this stuff.

---

There is no structure possible to stop a society from having rich and poor (unless you can find a way to turn off greed, and stupidity). But, we need to strive to cut those numbers from where they are, and have a much greater number truly in the middle.

I mean, if you can find happiness in long hours at the office, and not enjoying entertainment, that is great. Seriously. But we only have 1 life, so expecting others to be as militant as you is asking too much. I think anyways.

However, the mere fact that ANYONE would stick up for the truly rich (I sometimes think people confuse rich with higher income earners, which are 2 different things), is mind boggling. If any portion of our population needs literally zero sympathy, it's the rich.