Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 580 of 687 FirstFirst ... 80480530570578579580581582590630680 ... LastLast
Results 8,686 to 8,700 of 10295
  1. #8686
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    7,161
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    This is essentially a progressive tax. But I see no reason to change the current system in place of that. But yes obviously I want to close the loopholes. However, that never seems to happen.
    We are in agreement on this. It would be nice if loopholes were closed. I believe I said why it never will happen, though. Democrats don't want to hurt their wealthy donors.

  2. #8687
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,002
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    Why? You can include luxury taxes on "big-ticket" items and an income floor below which the taxes are not collected.
    Wealthy people consume items just like middle and lower classes do.
    Because Jeff Bezosí $500 million dollar yacht cost .0025% of his net worth whereas a new car is roughly 25% of their net worth.

    Let me ask you, if we did a consumption tax, do you think the wealthy will use as high a % of their income and money to buy things compared to the middle class and poor?

  3. #8688
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,002
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    We are in agreement on this. It would be nice if loopholes were closed. I believe I said why it never will happen, though. Democrats don't want to hurt their wealthy donors.
    You think itís the Democrats who are trying to stop the wealthy from paying more in taxes? Really?

  4. #8689
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Flock of Sheep No.97 near BAAA BAA lane
    Posts
    16,136
    I bet AOC is backing the democrats' charge to save the wealthy.
    There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.

    Will Rogers

  5. #8690
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    7,161
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    You think itís the Democrats who are trying to stop the wealthy from paying more in taxes? Really?
    Yes. They won't close the loopholes that their wealthy donors use to avoid paying taxes (legally).

  6. #8691
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    7,161
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Because Jeff Bezosí $500 million dollar yacht cost .0025% of his net worth whereas a new car is roughly 25% of their net worth.

    Let me ask you, if we did a consumption tax, do you think the wealthy will use as high a % of their income and money to buy things compared to the middle class and poor?
    The wealthy do not spend as much of their net income on essentials, which is why I suggest the "luxury" tax on expensive items.

  7. #8692
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,002
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    The wealthy do not spend as much of their net income on essentials, which is why I suggest the "luxury" tax on expensive items.
    So this luxury tax would be so high that it would equate them being taxed as much of their income as a % as the middle class? What if they just donít buy those luxury items then? The reason billionaires spend $100 million on a yacht is because itís still relatively inexpensive to them. If a yacht cost them as much as a car cost the average person, they wouldnít buy one.

  8. #8693
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    7,161
    I am not wealthy, therefore I cannot answer that question. I have a hunch that they will continue buying airplanes, boats, vacation homes, limos, etc.
    They are used to living in luxury. Why would a surtax on luxury items change that?

  9. #8694
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,002
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    I am not wealthy, therefore I cannot answer that question. I have a hunch that they will continue buying airplanes, boats, vacation homes, limos, etc.
    They are used to living in luxury. Why would a surtax on luxury items change that?
    For the same reason that Iím used to driving a car but if the cost of cars suddenly quintupled Iíd start biking lol.

    (I agree, some would still buy them, but I think less would which would ultimately undermine the purpose).

  10. #8695
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    7,161
    If biking is appropriate for you to commute to work, why are you not doing so now? You are the environmentalist here. Are you just being another hypocrite?

  11. #8696
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    101,408
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    I am not wealthy, therefore I cannot answer that question. I have a hunch that they will continue buying airplanes, boats, vacation homes, limos, etc.
    They are used to living in luxury. Why would a surtax on luxury items change that?
    Who decides what is a luxury and isn't? Because I don't trust the people who apply taxes to tampons to determine what a luxury is and isn't.
    Let's get embedded tweets working again!

    https://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sh...5#post33780085

  12. #8697
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    7,161
    That is why I said that the Democrats need to close the loopholes that are being used by the wealthy to avoid paying taxes (legally). Those loopholes could be closed tomorrow. You know Biden would sign a bill removing them.

  13. #8698
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    101,408
    It's about time we shut down CBP.

    https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/ne...er/8411152002/
    Let's get embedded tweets working again!

    https://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sh...5#post33780085

  14. #8699
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,002
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    If biking is appropriate for you to commute to work, why are you not doing so now? You are the environmentalist here. Are you just being another hypocrite?
    I live 22 miles away and biking there would take me 3 hours via approved routes. No it is not appropriate.

    And no Iím not a hypocrite, I literally gave up my SUV and purchased a hybrid. I talk to the talk and walk the walk (in many cases literally).

  15. #8700
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    101,408
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I live 22 miles away and biking there would take me 3 hours via approved routes. No it is not appropriate.

    And no Iím not a hypocrite, I literally gave up my SUV and purchased a hybrid. I talk to the talk and walk the walk (in many cases literally).
    I've got the Ford Ecosport. It's a fantastic combination. It's absolutely on the small end of the SUV line. But I get between 30-40 mpg.
    Let's get embedded tweets working again!

    https://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sh...5#post33780085

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •