A lower tax "rate" doesn't mean they paid less. The rich are paying more than their fair share, the poor are paying nothing
Wrong, again. My guess is you think federal income tax is the only tax. https://itep.org/whopays/The nationwide average effective state and local tax rate is 11.4 percent for the lowest-income 20 percent of individuals and families.
No, I think he means that a millionaire that pays X percent in tax pays a lot more in actual dollars then someone with, say, a 40 000 dollar a year income does if he pays the same percentage. Yeah he's trying to pull numbers in absolute unadjusted USD which should be a capital offense on this forum. |
|
|
|
Really? lower 50% now own more land/resources than ever before? Cause this is a bitcoin forum and surely you wouldn't try to deceive by measuring "wealth" of lower 50% in absolute 2021 US dollars now would you? Well, then why have brackets for everything else and leave 20% cap gain static for ultra wealthy, what makes it such a perfectly balanced number? Why was it fine at 35% in the 70s but now only a dirty commie would suggest bumping it to 21%? Following your logic on how filthy rich are more efficient than poor, then it'll be logical to raise taxes on poor and middle class (there's 0 chance they'll get us to Mars) and lower it for ultra rich? Then just hope really really hard that out of hundreds of billionaires that spend their money on hookers and blow and writing their names to be seen from space (as their rightfully should, it's their damn money  , new idea for Bob?) the next one hopefully turns out like Musk and decides to find cure for cancer? This is just the US but the whole world is on a similar trajectory as long as we don't ruin it by some shortsighted socialist policies. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBLB50107Well, then why have brackets for everything else and leave 20% cap gain static for ultra wealthy, what makes it such a perfectly balanced number? Because investment money is what allows businesses to be created, expanded, and to create jobs. Jobs aren't magical things that appear on their own. More taxes on investment money means less investment. You're not going to fix any of the wealth gap by increasing taxes anyway. They will not pay the taxes. They will just reduce investment or move to a more tax friendly country. Even when the rates were high in the past, they did not collect more taxes as a percentage of income. The wealthy will just change their behavior to avoid the taxes. It's game theory. If you want to change the wealth gap for real and not as part of a socialist agenda, stop shopping at Amazon and using products or services from huge companies. We can go back to mom and pop shops and the wealth will be more evenly distributed. Again, taxation will never change "wealth inequality" short of full on socialism/communism where the companies are taken away from the owners. The US tax system is already one of the most progressive in the world so stop complaining and enjoy what your ancestors built for you. There are a surprising number of progressives / socialists here on what is a primarily a speculation forum. Its possibly what makes it a lively place for discussion. There is one good example to compare both systems. In 1953 Korea was divided. Two countries starting off at same level after the utter destruction from war. Today DPRK has GDP PPP of $1.700 whilst ROK has GDP PPP $47.000 So in the North you'd pay 30 years salary for 1BTC In the South just 1 years salary for 1BTC. Right, right, i see, so in the '70 where wealth was more evenly distributed, kids with a college degree were pretty much guaranteed a good paying job, 10yrs since NASA got us to the moon, and overall there was less civil unrest, in reality it was a North Korea because cap gain tax was at 35%? And anyone suggesting we go back to that is a dirty red commie, because ultra wealthy top 0.3% need more of our support just in case another one decides to cure cancer or something like that?  |
|
|
|
I'm an omnivore that can enjoy a nice filet mignon, beef carppacio, and a steak tartare once in a while, but calling my food pets, giving them names, then having a ceremonial funeral with a picture on the 55" while you consume their flesh sounds like some messed up sacrificial woodoo ritual. Hey why not start them early as kids get old enough to hold a knife force them to slaughter their favorite pet they bonded to the most, that way the lack of their nutrient deficiencies would be the last of your worries
Whoa. I'm not the one who raised the meat. Nor did I name it nor slaughter it. I doubt the kid who raised it ate any of it. Yes, I honored Murray while I ate him, but I'm sure I also saluted the accompanying vegetables for giving up their lives. Remember, plants have feelings too. ... Well, yeah, if you name your veggies, let your kids bond to them and call them pets, then put them on a 55" and toast them, as you devour them, you might have some unresolved issues. |
|
|
|
Another city boy who knows sweet FA about producing beef.
Not all of us city boys are clueless about our food.  The Angus steer on the right is Murray, being held by the lad who lovingly raised him like a pet, knowing full well that he was destined for slaughter. He was reserve grand champion at the prestigious Royal Winter Fair a few years back. The guy with the glasses, second from right, is my local neighborhood butcher in downtown Toronto. He sources his meat from small, humane producers like the happy family in the rest of the picture. Happy meat is good meat. Of course it's free of artificial hormones and unnecessary antibiotics. Murray was raised on forage and silage and finished with barley. Needless to say he was harvested humanely, locally. I was lucky to get a couple of steaks from the front part of his rib section (with large spinalis dorsi muscles), plus a couple of flat irons (infraspinatus muscles). While we were enjoying him we had his picture up on the 55" display and toasted him, thanked him, and complimented him on his fine flavor and texture. He was delicious. ____ Don't hate on vegans. They're just victims of a neurosis-based eating disorder. I'm an omnivore that can enjoy a nice filet mignon, beef carppacio, and a steak tartare once in a while, but calling my food pets, giving them names, then having a ceremonial funeral with a picture on the 55" while you consume their flesh sounds like some messed up sacrificial woodoo ritual. Hey why not start them early as kids get old enough to hold a knife force them to slaughter their favorite pet they bonded to the most, that way the lack of their nutrient deficiencies would be the last of your worries |
|
|
|
Skipping around a bit, to establish some context: Next, you’ll be telling me that rising sea levels will make Earth uninhabitable by the year 2000. You are obviously not old enough to remember that, and most people anyway forget each week what they read the last week; but I have a long memory...
Yep cant remember the year 2000, I wasn ’t even born for a few years after that .I could tell that you were young, but I didn’t realize that you were that young. Perhaps I was confused by the amount of money that you have sometimes claimed to be throwing around. Most teenagers are financially unsophisticated, and also broke. Now, a critical thinking question: To remember predictions made about a future Year 2000, how old would you need to be? ... Not getting into the Carni/herbi/omni/vores argument, but can't help but draw parallels between your year 2000 argument and people McAfee saying that BTC will hit $1MM by 2020, so since it didn't happen in 2020 following your logic BTC must be fake too?? |
|
|
|
Protip: Range-grazed meat tastes better. All of the freedom and happiness that the meat enjoyed whilst alive makes it juicier and more delicious.
the most unsustainable type of meat Just need to make sure that it suffers at the end, the tears will help it tenderize |
|
|
|
10 friends go out every day for dinner. The bill would be SEK 1,000. The bill was divided in the same way that taxes are paid. The first four - (the poorest) pay nothing; - the 5th pays SEK 10 - the 6th pays SEK 30 - the 7th SEK 70 - the 8th SEK 120 - the 9th SEK 180 - The 10th person (the richest) pays SEK 590.
The ten friends ate dinner at the restaurant every day, happy with the deal. Until one day, when the owner of the restaurant gave them a discount. “You are such good customers. I give you SEK 200 off your dinners. ” Dinner for 10 people now costs SEK 800.
They still wanted to pay for the dinner the way taxes are paid in Sweden. The first four people were not affected. They were allowed to continue eating for free. But what would the other 6 do - those who paid? How would they divide the discount of SEK 200 so that everyone would get their share? They realized that SEK 200 divided by 6 would be SEK 33.33. But if they deducted it from each person's share, the 5th and 6th person would be paid to eat. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person's bill proportionately. He calculated the amounts each person would pay:
The result was that the 5th person also got to eat for free - the 6th had to pay SEK 20 - the 7th paid SEK 50 - the 8th SEK 90 - the 9th SEK 120 - the 10th person paid SEK 520 instead of the previous SEK 590. Everyone got a lower price than before and now the first five could eat for free. Outside the restaurant, they began to compare what they had saved. "I only earned a tenth of the discount!", The 6th person began. He pointed to the 10th person, "… but he earned 70 kroner !!!" - "Exactly, I also only saved ten", said the 5th person. "It's unfair that he got seven times as much as I did!"
"It's true!" Shouted the 7th person. “Why should he get SEK 70 back when I only got SEK 20? The rich always gets the most! ”-“ Wait a minute ”, shouted the first four,“ We got nothing! This system exploits us poor! ”
The nine people scolded the 10th and called him a cold-hearted egoist, a capitalist pig, a bloodsucker who kicks those who lie down. The next night, the 10th person didn't come to dinner. The other nine said " how nice", sat down and ate. When the bill came, they discovered something. They couldn't pay it. SEK 520 was missing.
10th friend owns all 9 houses his friend live in and collects rent from them. He has more total wealth than his other 9 friends combined. On top of that every year 10th friend amasses more and more % of over all wealth, as the other nine own less and less. So the other 9 friends get together and say remember how things were more even with the tax rate 30yrs ago? Yeah lets make sure not come back to that as current trend is totally sustainable, instead let's just blame the friend who's poorer then you. 10th friend doesn't do anything and just buys more land Plot twist, back in high school, 9 friends screwed around smoking weed all day and gave the 10th friend wedgies for always doing his homework on time. Now they are all grown up and they want to go back to how things were 30 years ago when they weren't such losers. They want to fuck around and make their hard working friend pay for it. Taking stuff away from successful people to give it to less successful people is called socialism. Just because you can beat someone up and take their money doesn't mean it's a good way to run a society. It's immoral and has never worked in any country that has tried it. It doesn't help the poor people, it just hurts the rich people. Poor people will always be poor because they don't know how to be rich or are just unmotivated. You seem to be missing my argument so let me spell it out. I'm saying that, we have a runaway unsustainable indicator, wealth distribution is flashing red, we're at historical levels we've never been before, and trend continues in the wrong direction. 1st level resposes- It's not an issue, despite the fact that overall population is more educated then ever before, poor people are just lazy druggies, lets push the pedal to the metal. Anyone proposing solution to freeze distribution disparity at current levels or god forbid attempt to bring it back in line with what it was in the 70s is a dirty red commie bastard, and better be dead than red. <-- this is the group you seem to fall into 2nd level-yes it's an issue but we still have some wiggle room and the situation is not as dire as you make it out to be. We believe in solution X and are willing to keep the current trend hostage, keep the trend going until 1% owns Y% of total wealth or our solution is adopted ...or maybe those are very narrow and short sighted categorizations that very few people fit into. The issue is more complicated. I think you know that and are just playing dumb to justify the socialist talking points. The bottom 50% of humans currently have more wealth that any other time in history. The ones with a socialist agenda are using "wealth inequality" as a rallying cry to push their agenda which will tear down what the world has achieved. They use other rallying cries such as racism, sexism, hatred, etc. The goal is the same. Tear down our current system and build a new system (socialism) where everyone is "equal in outcome" despite their individual talents or efforts. This is not a new thing. Societies have tried socialism over and over throughout history because it seems like the "fair" thing to do and it has always failed miserably. It's pure evil and you should be ashamed to be a part of it. A wildly successful economy will have some wildly successful people and that should be celebrated rather than attacked. Nobody is building citadels. Most of that wealth sits in the companies everyone works for and benefits from. The agenda you're pushing will not achieve what you think it will. The more likely outcome is collapse of the system that everyone is benefiting from. It's not your fault you think like you do. I'm sure some well intentioned people thought they were doing you a favor by teaching you what they did, but it's a deeply flawed ideology. At some point you have to start thinking for yourself instead of just regurgitating the socialist talking points without any other analysis or insight.
Ah so instead of addressing the main issue, explaining how wealth inequality trend is sustainable and won't become an issue until 0.1% of ultra wealthy will own 99.X% of overall wealth, you once again childishly try to belittle and pivot the argument into a deadlock by character association? You add no value, ignored. Have a nice day  Your argument is a straw man argument, First, the 1% is constantly changing, it's not the same few people sitting and getting increasingly richer. Most of the top percent is old folks selling all they own and moving in to a retirement home, they stay in the top for a very short time and are then replaced by new people. Secondly, it's not a problem. The fact that a few people are very wealthy doesn't mean that everybody else is poor. "The bottom 50% of humans currently have more wealth that any other time in history". Some people getting richer than others is not a problem, in fact it's the opposite, if Elon M weren't allowed to get filthy rich, there would not be any SpaceX and no coming bases on the moon and mars for example. Really? lower 50% now own more land/resources than ever before? Cause this is a bitcoin forum and surely you wouldn't try to deceive by measuring "wealth" of lower 50% in absolute 2021 US dollars now would you? Well, then why have brackets for everything else and leave 20% cap gain static for ultra wealthy, what makes it such a perfectly balanced number? Why was it fine at 35% in the 70s but now only a dirty commie would suggest bumping it to 21%? Following your logic on how filthy rich are more efficient than poor, then it'll be logical to raise taxes on poor and middle class (there's 0 chance they'll get us to Mars) and lower it for ultra rich? Then just hope really really hard that out of hundreds of billionaires that spend their money on hookers and blow and writing their names to be seen from space (as their rightfully should, it's their damn money , new idea for Bob?) the next one hopefully turns out like Musk and decides to find cure for cancer?  |
|
|
|
10 friends go out every day for dinner. The bill would be SEK 1,000. The bill was divided in the same way that taxes are paid. The first four - (the poorest) pay nothing; - the 5th pays SEK 10 - the 6th pays SEK 30 - the 7th SEK 70 - the 8th SEK 120 - the 9th SEK 180 - The 10th person (the richest) pays SEK 590.
The ten friends ate dinner at the restaurant every day, happy with the deal. Until one day, when the owner of the restaurant gave them a discount. “You are such good customers. I give you SEK 200 off your dinners. ” Dinner for 10 people now costs SEK 800.
They still wanted to pay for the dinner the way taxes are paid in Sweden. The first four people were not affected. They were allowed to continue eating for free. But what would the other 6 do - those who paid? How would they divide the discount of SEK 200 so that everyone would get their share? They realized that SEK 200 divided by 6 would be SEK 33.33. But if they deducted it from each person's share, the 5th and 6th person would be paid to eat. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person's bill proportionately. He calculated the amounts each person would pay:
The result was that the 5th person also got to eat for free - the 6th had to pay SEK 20 - the 7th paid SEK 50 - the 8th SEK 90 - the 9th SEK 120 - the 10th person paid SEK 520 instead of the previous SEK 590. Everyone got a lower price than before and now the first five could eat for free. Outside the restaurant, they began to compare what they had saved. "I only earned a tenth of the discount!", The 6th person began. He pointed to the 10th person, "… but he earned 70 kroner !!!" - "Exactly, I also only saved ten", said the 5th person. "It's unfair that he got seven times as much as I did!"
"It's true!" Shouted the 7th person. “Why should he get SEK 70 back when I only got SEK 20? The rich always gets the most! ”-“ Wait a minute ”, shouted the first four,“ We got nothing! This system exploits us poor! ”
The nine people scolded the 10th and called him a cold-hearted egoist, a capitalist pig, a bloodsucker who kicks those who lie down. The next night, the 10th person didn't come to dinner. The other nine said " how nice", sat down and ate. When the bill came, they discovered something. They couldn't pay it. SEK 520 was missing.
10th friend owns all 9 houses his friend live in and collects rent from them. He has more total wealth than his other 9 friends combined. On top of that every year 10th friend amasses more and more % of over all wealth, as the other nine own less and less. So the other 9 friends get together and say remember how things were more even with the tax rate 30yrs ago? Yeah lets make sure not come back to that as current trend is totally sustainable, instead let's just blame the friend who's poorer then you. 10th friend doesn't do anything and just buys more land Plot twist, back in high school, 9 friends screwed around smoking weed all day and gave the 10th friend wedgies for always doing his homework on time. Now they are all grown up and they want to go back to how things were 30 years ago when they weren't such losers. They want to fuck around and make their hard working friend pay for it. Taking stuff away from successful people to give it to less successful people is called socialism. Just because you can beat someone up and take their money doesn't mean it's a good way to run a society. It's immoral and has never worked in any country that has tried it. It doesn't help the poor people, it just hurts the rich people. Poor people will always be poor because they don't know how to be rich or are just unmotivated. You seem to be missing my argument so let me spell it out. I'm saying that, we have a runaway unsustainable indicator, wealth distribution is flashing red, we're at historical levels we've never been before, and trend continues in the wrong direction. 1st level resposes- It's not an issue, despite the fact that overall population is more educated then ever before, poor people are just lazy druggies, lets push the pedal to the metal. Anyone proposing solution to freeze distribution disparity at current levels or god forbid attempt to bring it back in line with what it was in the 70s is a dirty red commie bastard, and better be dead than red. <-- this is the group you seem to fall into 2nd level-yes it's an issue but we still have some wiggle room and the situation is not as dire as you make it out to be. We believe in solution X and are willing to keep the current trend hostage, keep the trend going until 1% owns Y% of total wealth or our solution is adopted ...or maybe those are very narrow and short sighted categorizations that very few people fit into. The issue is more complicated. I think you know that and are just playing dumb to justify the socialist talking points. The bottom 50% of humans currently have more wealth that any other time in history. The ones with a socialist agenda are using "wealth inequality" as a rallying cry to push their agenda which will tear down what the world has achieved. They use other rallying cries such as racism, sexism, hatred, etc. The goal is the same. Tear down our current system and build a new system (socialism) where everyone is "equal in outcome" despite their individual talents or efforts. This is not a new thing. Societies have tried socialism over and over throughout history because it seems like the "fair" thing to do and it has always failed miserably. It's pure evil and you should be ashamed to be a part of it. A wildly successful economy will have some wildly successful people and that should be celebrated rather than attacked. Nobody is building citadels. Most of that wealth sits in the companies everyone works for and benefits from. The agenda you're pushing will not achieve what you think it will. The more likely outcome is collapse of the system that everyone is benefiting from. It's not your fault you think like you do. I'm sure some well intentioned people thought they were doing you a favor by teaching you what they did, but it's a deeply flawed ideology. At some point you have to start thinking for yourself instead of just regurgitating the socialist talking points without any other analysis or insight.
Ah so instead of addressing the main issue, explaining how wealth inequality trend is sustainable and won't become an issue until 0.1% of ultra wealthy will own 99.X% of overall wealth, you once again childishly try to belittle and pivot the argument into a deadlock by character association? You add no value, ignored. Have a nice day |
|
|
|
The British courts will fuck him up . Bring it on cobra...  If you want to contribute to http://bitcoin.org's legal defence against's CSW's copyright claims over the whitepaper and alleged ownership of the domain. We have a donation address: 3E8ociqZa9mZUSwGdSmAEMAoAxBK3FNDcd. We can't let this continue. Fuck Craig. Not sure where Cobra stands financially? And would like to see OpenCryptoAlliance pitch in or combine it into one major case (class action?) against Faketoshi |
|
|
|
10 friends go out every day for dinner. The bill would be SEK 1,000. The bill was divided in the same way that taxes are paid. The first four - (the poorest) pay nothing; - the 5th pays SEK 10 - the 6th pays SEK 30 - the 7th SEK 70 - the 8th SEK 120 - the 9th SEK 180 - The 10th person (the richest) pays SEK 590.
The ten friends ate dinner at the restaurant every day, happy with the deal. Until one day, when the owner of the restaurant gave them a discount. “You are such good customers. I give you SEK 200 off your dinners. ” Dinner for 10 people now costs SEK 800.
They still wanted to pay for the dinner the way taxes are paid in Sweden. The first four people were not affected. They were allowed to continue eating for free. But what would the other 6 do - those who paid? How would they divide the discount of SEK 200 so that everyone would get their share? They realized that SEK 200 divided by 6 would be SEK 33.33. But if they deducted it from each person's share, the 5th and 6th person would be paid to eat. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person's bill proportionately. He calculated the amounts each person would pay:
The result was that the 5th person also got to eat for free - the 6th had to pay SEK 20 - the 7th paid SEK 50 - the 8th SEK 90 - the 9th SEK 120 - the 10th person paid SEK 520 instead of the previous SEK 590. Everyone got a lower price than before and now the first five could eat for free. Outside the restaurant, they began to compare what they had saved. "I only earned a tenth of the discount!", The 6th person began. He pointed to the 10th person, "… but he earned 70 kroner !!!" - "Exactly, I also only saved ten", said the 5th person. "It's unfair that he got seven times as much as I did!"
"It's true!" Shouted the 7th person. “Why should he get SEK 70 back when I only got SEK 20? The rich always gets the most! ”-“ Wait a minute ”, shouted the first four,“ We got nothing! This system exploits us poor! ”
The nine people scolded the 10th and called him a cold-hearted egoist, a capitalist pig, a bloodsucker who kicks those who lie down. The next night, the 10th person didn't come to dinner. The other nine said " how nice", sat down and ate. When the bill came, they discovered something. They couldn't pay it. SEK 520 was missing.
10th friend owns all 9 houses his friend live in and collects rent from them. He has more total wealth than his other 9 friends combined. On top of that every year 10th friend amasses more and more % of over all wealth, as the other nine own less and less. So the other 9 friends get together and say remember how things were more even with the tax rate 30yrs ago? Yeah lets make sure not come back to that as current trend is totally sustainable, instead let's just blame the friend who's poorer then you. 10th friend doesn't do anything and just buys more land Plot twist, back in high school, 9 friends screwed around smoking weed all day and gave the 10th friend wedgies for always doing his homework on time. Now they are all grown up and they want to go back to how things were 30 years ago when they weren't such losers. They want to fuck around and make their hard working friend pay for it. Taking stuff away from successful people to give it to less successful people is called socialism. Just because you can beat someone up and take their money doesn't mean it's a good way to run a society. It's immoral and has never worked in any country that has tried it. It doesn't help the poor people, it just hurts the rich people. Poor people will always be poor because they don't know how to be rich or are just unmotivated. You seem to be missing my argument so let me spell it out. I'm saying that, we have a runaway unsustainable indicator, wealth distribution is flashing red, we're at historical levels we've never been before, and trend continues in the wrong direction. 1st level resposes- It's not an issue, despite the fact that overall population is more educated then ever before, poor people are just lazy druggies, lets push the pedal to the metal. Anyone proposing solution to freeze distribution disparity at current levels or god forbid attempt to bring it back in line with what it was in the 70s is a dirty red commie bastard, and better be dead than red. <-- this is the group you seem to fall into 2nd level-yes it's an issue but we still have some wiggle room and the situation is not as dire as you make it out to be. We believe in solution X and are willing to keep the current trend hostage, keep the trend going until 1% owns Y% of total wealth or our solution is adopted |
|
|
|
Anyone advocating for more taxes has been watching too much MSNBC. It's not about feeling sympathy for people who have billions, it's about people thinking the government is their daddy.
Do you think billionaires are swimming around in a pool of gold coins or pallets of $100s? Nearly all of the wealth that people are complaining about is on paper. Jeff Bezos owns a bunch of Amazon shares. If you raise the capital gains tax, he'll just never sell those shares. If the capital gains tax was lowered however, he might sell those shares and invest that money in some other endeavor which could create millions of new jobs. I'm betting the guy who created Amazon is a lot smarter than anyone in the government.
Nearly all the wealth in the world is invested in companies and profits are reinvested in other companies to create more and more jobs. Taxes stifle growth. All taxes are a deterrent to economic activity.
The Government is not your baby daddy and the more money the government takes, the less economic activity, jobs etc.
That is not correct. Remove all bridges and roads in all countries. Let me know which is harder on economy no roads no bridges no canals. Or taxes that build roads bridges and canals such as the panama and the suez. The correct statement is many taxes are ill conceived and they can hurt the economy. The bridge/underwater car and train tunnel between Malmö and Copenhagen cost absolutely nothing for the taxpayers, it's all funded by loans that's paid of by a bridge toll, and that even includes a brand new artificial island. https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96resundsf%C3%B6rbindelsen#Finansiering_och_%C3%A4garskapNo English text unfortunately, there's a German site though for the speakers of said language. But a nice picture I provide can.  And a train drivers view, starting with arriving at Malmö C and going underground Malmö with stop at two stations and then surfacing before entering the bridge and going on to Denmark. I sometimes like to watch train driver view films just as a relaxation and this is one of them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE_BlE4DxcAYou don't need taxes to build infrastructure. Ahh the 108€ ($130) round trip toll bridge. Minimum wage worker in USA ($7.25/hr) would have to work over 2 days full time (17.9hrs) just for the privilege to drive across it. But if they buy online they can save 8€! https://www.oresundsbron.com/en/pricesShould get one going to my house so those poor plebs don't come visiting! 'murika! That's for one trip, if you go more frequently it gets cheaper. Or you could just take the train, 12 euro/ 14 bucks That's just two hours of work, you can probably manage. And it's not like it was free before the bridge was built. The ferry wasn't exactly cheap for cars. The bridge have increased the traffic fivefold and cut the traveltime not to mention the goods that can now go by train between the countries with all the benefits to the economy that brings. And lastly, it's in my book just fair that the people who uses the bridge pay for the bridge. Why should the taxpayer collective in Denmark and Sweden pay for that? Edited. So if i take a chopper to work, have a private doctor, my gated community has private security and my kids have private tutors/fly to private schools then i shouldn't have to pay taxes that go for public roads, schools, healthcare? So you're telling me that way I can concentrate all my energy on accumulating more wealth while poorer folks have to fight for remaining resources? Wait are you sure they'd support that, no way, they'd actually vote for me to have lower tax rate than them? Ok how much do you think i'll be able to push it? What percentage of the overall wealth do you think i can accumulate before the system collapses? More importantly will the system show cracks before collapsing and how will those crack materialize? My security can probably hold back 100 pitchforks but i'd need private army if 1000s show up  |
|
|
|
10 friends go out every day for dinner. The bill would be SEK 1,000. The bill was divided in the same way that taxes are paid. The first four - (the poorest) pay nothing; - the 5th pays SEK 10 - the 6th pays SEK 30 - the 7th SEK 70 - the 8th SEK 120 - the 9th SEK 180 - The 10th person (the richest) pays SEK 590.
The ten friends ate dinner at the restaurant every day, happy with the deal. Until one day, when the owner of the restaurant gave them a discount. “You are such good customers. I give you SEK 200 off your dinners. ” Dinner for 10 people now costs SEK 800.
They still wanted to pay for the dinner the way taxes are paid in Sweden. The first four people were not affected. They were allowed to continue eating for free. But what would the other 6 do - those who paid? How would they divide the discount of SEK 200 so that everyone would get their share? They realized that SEK 200 divided by 6 would be SEK 33.33. But if they deducted it from each person's share, the 5th and 6th person would be paid to eat. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person's bill proportionately. He calculated the amounts each person would pay:
The result was that the 5th person also got to eat for free - the 6th had to pay SEK 20 - the 7th paid SEK 50 - the 8th SEK 90 - the 9th SEK 120 - the 10th person paid SEK 520 instead of the previous SEK 590. Everyone got a lower price than before and now the first five could eat for free. Outside the restaurant, they began to compare what they had saved. "I only earned a tenth of the discount!", The 6th person began. He pointed to the 10th person, "… but he earned 70 kroner !!!" - "Exactly, I also only saved ten", said the 5th person. "It's unfair that he got seven times as much as I did!"
"It's true!" Shouted the 7th person. “Why should he get SEK 70 back when I only got SEK 20? The rich always gets the most! ”-“ Wait a minute ”, shouted the first four,“ We got nothing! This system exploits us poor! ”
The nine people scolded the 10th and called him a cold-hearted egoist, a capitalist pig, a bloodsucker who kicks those who lie down. The next night, the 10th person didn't come to dinner. The other nine said " how nice", sat down and ate. When the bill came, they discovered something. They couldn't pay it. SEK 520 was missing.
10th friend owns all 9 houses his friend live in and collects rent from them. He has more total wealth than his other 9 friends combined. On top of that every year 10th friend amasses more and more % of over all wealth, as the other nine own less and less. So the other 9 friends get together and say remember how things were more even with the tax rate 30yrs ago? Yeah lets make sure not come back to that as current trend is totally sustainable, instead let's just blame the friend who's poorer then you. 10th friend doesn't do anything and just buys more land |
|
|
|
Anyone advocating for more taxes has been watching too much MSNBC. It's not about feeling sympathy for people who have billions, it's about people thinking the government is their daddy.
Do you think billionaires are swimming around in a pool of gold coins or pallets of $100s? Nearly all of the wealth that people are complaining about is on paper. Jeff Bezos owns a bunch of Amazon shares. If you raise the capital gains tax, he'll just never sell those shares. If the capital gains tax was lowered however, he might sell those shares and invest that money in some other endeavor which could create millions of new jobs. I'm betting the guy who created Amazon is a lot smarter than anyone in the government.
Nearly all the wealth in the world is invested in companies and profits are reinvested in other companies to create more and more jobs. Taxes stifle growth. All taxes are a deterrent to economic activity.
The Government is not your baby daddy and the more money the government takes, the less economic activity, jobs etc.
That is not correct. Remove all bridges and roads in all countries. Let me know which is harder on economy no roads no bridges no canals. Or taxes that build roads bridges and canals such as the panama and the suez. The correct statement is many taxes are ill conceived and they can hurt the economy. The bridge/underwater car and train tunnel between Malmö and Copenhagen cost absolutely nothing for the taxpayers, it's all funded by loans that's paid of by a bridge toll, and that even includes a brand new artificial island. https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96resundsf%C3%B6rbindelsen#Finansiering_och_%C3%A4garskapNo English text unfortunately, there's a German site though for the speakers of said language. But a nice picture I provide can. And a train drivers view, starting with arriving at Malmö C and going underground Malmö with stop at two stations and then surfacing before entering the bridge and going on to Denmark. I sometimes like to watch train driver view films just as a relaxation and this is one of them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE_BlE4DxcAYou don't need taxes to build infrastructure. Ahh the 108€ ($130) round trip toll bridge. Minimum wage worker in USA ($7.25/hr) would have to work over 2 days full time (17.9hrs) just for the privilege to drive across it. But if they buy online they can save 8€! https://www.oresundsbron.com/en/pricesShould get one going to my house so those poor plebs don't come visiting! 'murika! |
|
|
|
To those who thinks that $1mil is a lot: it sounds like lot, but...
This is the crux of my issue. As someone sitting on a pile of coin, and retired, why the fuck would I have any incentive to sell corn under those absolutely retarded proposed tax rates? TBH, and I don't want to sound like a total dick-bag or anything, but every time I sell, $1M is the bare minimum I dump at any time, and cruise on it until I need more. I'm fucking stupid that way. Sue me. I hope you can appreciate why this proposed increase twists my panties up a little bit. I mean, if this means I just need to sell <$1M USD per year, then so be it, but it's just ridiculous, in that it promotes hodling by us hardcore folk. Having said that, I'm sure the time will come in the next 5 years, where I decide to buy up the parcel of 100 acres next to us, and erect a proper Citadel, complete with a goddamn lava-filled moat, fed via drilling into the recesses of our mantle, in a rather impressive engineering feat for Bumfuck, TX. Hopefully Biden is out of office by then, and whatever retarded tax "reforms" he may ram-jam through get repealed. Argument is about $1mil/yr in cap gainz. Not $1mil in total net worth. As stated above only 0.3% of income taxes have AGI above $1mil so yes objectively it is a lot Bob's argument "why da fuck should i pay taxes if i want to build a lava moat, the government will just do something stupid with that money" is the most valid one! Looks like they can make it retroactive, but it's uncommon and very unpopular. |
|
|
|
The level of ignorance on this board is really astonishing. Frankly i was expecting more objective opinions. Argument that ultrarich in US are dispropotionally benefiting from current tax system and every year accumulate higher % of overall wealth, quickly gets shifted into taxation is bad so unless we get rid of it, i'm gonna block any changes. The result? Conveniently keeping current status quo and ultrarich continue to be taxed at lower bracket than teachers. I know a lot of you in here probably got a bunch of newfound wealth in recent months, even though 1BTC = 1BTC no matter what, but damn.. Never thought I'd see so many people oppose an increased tax to people who declare over $1m CAP GAINS a year. Happy friday WO.
Increasing taxes never benefits anyone, To make a country prosperous, low tax, low spend is the formula. Singapore one of the richest countries in the world was once one of the poorest. It was helped to its current status by low taxation. Top personal tax rate 22% Corporation Tax 17% Capital gains Tax 0% Death Tax 0% No double taxation on interest and dividends. Biden and his well meaning but deluded socialist and Marxist backers will leave their tenure in 4 years time with the country in much worse shape. Time to finish breakfast and off to work. This reminds me of people showing charts with randomly picked time frames to justify their assumption. Many richer countries have higher taxes, look up taxation in Luxembourg. Anyone advocating for more taxes has been watching too much MSNBC. It's not about feeling sympathy for people who have billions, it's about people thinking the government is their daddy.
Do you think billionaires are swimming around in a pool of gold coins or pallets of $100s? Nearly all of the wealth that people are complaining about is on paper. Jeff Bezos owns a bunch of Amazon shares. If you raise the capital gains tax, he'll just never sell those shares. If the capital gains tax was lowered however, he might sell those shares and invest that money in some other endeavor which could create millions of new jobs. I'm betting the guy who created Amazon is a lot smarter than anyone in the government.
Nearly all the wealth in the world is invested in companies and profits are reinvested in other companies to create more and more jobs. Taxes stifle growth. All taxes are a deterrent to economic activity.
The Government is not your baby daddy and the more money the government takes, the less economic activity, jobs etc.
Ignoring retarded friend/foe FOX vs MSNBC attempt at division from the start, true, but if he wished right now he could easily convert it all at a 20% tax hit. Meaning right now Bezos can get $141billion worth of gold which is around 2.5million tons (if my maths are right) probably enough to fill some pool with coins. Care to guess how much his paper net worth jumped in just last year? (Hint it's over 20%) Net effect of transferring funds from company A to company B is 0 (actually it's a loss after tax hit). Value and jobs only come in if company B is more efficient and more profitable than company A. Do you think billionaires are swimming around in a pool of gold coins or pallets of $100s? Nearly all of the wealth that people are complaining about is on paper. Jeff Bezos owns a bunch of Amazon shares. If you raise the capital gains tax, he'll just never sell those shares. If the capital gains tax was lowered however, he might sell those shares and invest that money in some other endeavor which could create millions of new jobs. I'm betting the guy who created Amazon is a lot smarter than anyone in the government.
Also it would be trivial to game the new cap gain tax law. Do you know how many wealthy U.S. millionaires/billionaires would be running around claiming exactly $999,999 in income on their taxes every year? All of them. Hell, most of the C-Level of the biggest U.S. companies don't even get paid an income, they take stock options as compensation. Bingo, ever wondered why ultra rich are willing to take $0 of their compensation in wages (taxed at same rate as teachers) and all of it in stock options taxed at 20%? (just don't try to to do it yourself if you try to classify all of your small business income in US as distributions you'll go to jail). It'd be very hard nah impossible for billionaires to survive on $999,999/yr ask Bob  ... Also, a wealth taxes is outright confiscation and is against everything free democratic societies stand for. I don't know where you live but I'm guessing there are not a lot of rich people there.
Switzerland has wealth tax ...
The only way any of that is possible is because The Netherlands is one of the biggest tax havens in the world for mega corporations. Your country skims a little off the top of the taxes that would otherwise be due in every other country in the world. If The Netherlands had to stand on it's own with your tax policies, it would look like soviet era eastern Europe.
US has been the biggest tax heaven in the world for a while now. Educate yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_as_a_tax_havenhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/toddganos/2019/09/19/worlds-best-tax-haven-the-united-states/ |
|
|
|
Well full title is "Biden to propose capital gains tax of 39.6% to fund education and child care, reports say". So your question is how Biden lovers here can love him when he proposes to raise taxes on top 0.3% of millionaires to fund education and child care?
... mmm, why can't you just think of the children!!!???... the original income tax Act that was bought in at same time as the Federal Reserve Act was specifically for only the very highest income earners and politicians swore black and blue it would only ever be a tax for the very richest .... today everybody pays income taxes. ... this thing has got legs because the actual power behind Biden is not the wealthy elite but the powerful statists inside government that had him installed in a fraudulent election they signed off on. Police States do weird and wonderful things, the roller coaster has reached the top of the climb, it gets freaky from here on out as we freewheel into full governmental insanity. So the argument against the tax that'd benefit lower 99.7% by making top 0.3% of population (which constantly sees its wealth increase disproportionally to the rest) pay higher tax is that it's a gateway drug tax? First them then everyone else? In 1978, the top 0.1% owned about 7% of the nation’s wealth. In 2019, the latest year of data available, they own nearly 20%. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/29/rich-poor-gap-wealth-inequality-bernie-sandersGuessing currently it's probably around 25% after this stellar year of ATH markets during the pandemic. I pick my battles and i got better things to do than standing up for the top 0.3% If you don't see the issue with current distribution of wealth, is there a point at which you believe it would become an issue? Would you be fine with top 0.1% owning 30% of all of the wealth? 50%? But i'm glad to know that when i'm ready to withdraw millions in cap gains/yr that there'll always be a lot of poor (to me) people helping me protect my gains against their own best interests. Just hope that by then i won't have to drive in armored vehicle with armed guards between my gated community and my yacht club. ... no you dense muppet, everyone can see the issue with the vast disparity of wealth distribution but there is zero evidence that more and more taxes and wasteful government spending does anything to alleviate it. in fact, the stats you posted show that things have gotten worse since 1970, a time of increasing taxes and spending ... misdiagnosing the issue and prescribing the same dumb things that haven't worked in the past will in all probabilities make things worse ... but I mean you can't even see what the stats that you posted imply, you seem to be so blinded by the tax and spend ideology...we should all know on this forum of all places that the wealth distribution problems are due to inflationary, elastic money supply, and have nothing, or very little, to do with taxing rates and wasteful government spending ... you are just falling for the statist FUD and obfuscation if you think all the economic disparities and problems in society are somehow divorced from a radically mismanaged monetary regime ... the rich are getting richer because the monetary supply is expanding, it's as simple as that. ... more taxes can never fix what command and control money supply has broken Pretty sure there's a ton of evidence, you're just too dense to see it, look at Europe Scandinavia in particular. Of course overall excessive tax causes other issues (look at France), but claiming that taxation can't regulate disparity is a pretty dumb argument. Don't believe i said anything about wasteful government spending, sounds like i struck a nerve there? Perhaps that's what making you defend lower taxes for ultra rich? in fact, the stats you posted show that things have gotten worse since 1970, a time of increasing taxes huh? well this is just a blatant lie, highest tax brackets only been reduced since the 70s and surprisingly ultra high net worth individuals only gotten disproportionally richer since then. Who could've imagined that people who's sole job is to make more money were good at making money. Put a hedge fund manager who only has one goal in life in a 20% bracket and a college professor in a 30% and then act surprised when there's huge disparity???  |
|
|
|
Well full title is "Biden to propose capital gains tax of 39.6% to fund education and child care, reports say". So your question is how Biden lovers here can love him when he proposes to raise taxes on top 0.3% of millionaires to fund education and child care?
... mmm, why can't you just think of the children!!!???... the original income tax Act that was bought in at same time as the Federal Reserve Act was specifically for only the very highest income earners and politicians swore black and blue it would only ever be a tax for the very richest .... today everybody pays income taxes. ... this thing has got legs because the actual power behind Biden is not the wealthy elite but the powerful statists inside government that had him installed in a fraudulent election they signed off on. Police States do weird and wonderful things, the roller coaster has reached the top of the climb, it gets freaky from here on out as we freewheel into full governmental insanity. So the argument against the tax that'd benefit lower 99.7% by making top 0.3% of population (which constantly sees its wealth increase disproportionally to the rest) pay higher tax is that it's a gateway drug tax? First them then everyone else? In 1978, the top 0.1% owned about 7% of the nation’s wealth. In 2019, the latest year of data available, they own nearly 20%. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/29/rich-poor-gap-wealth-inequality-bernie-sandersGuessing currently it's probably around 25% after this stellar year of ATH markets during the pandemic. I pick my battles and i got better things to do than standing up for the top 0.3% If you don't see the issue with current distribution of wealth, is there a point at which you believe it would become an issue? Would you be fine with top 0.1% owning 30% of all of the wealth? 50%? But i'm glad to know that when i'm ready to withdraw millions in cap gains/yr that there'll always be a lot of poor (to me) people helping me protect my gains against their own best interests. Just hope that by then i won't have to drive in armored vehicle with armed guards between my gated community and my yacht club. cause you know, those poor plebs can do desperate things |
|
|
|
Oh, great, thanks for posting it, I could never have done that by myself. I read that article half an hour ago, and I just wanted to kill myself. There is a German word for the feeling for the embarrassment for what another person did: fremdschämenLooks like they're watching us, in any case they made it a bit better now. GBTC has added to AUM by doing absolutely nothing, tomorrows news, GBTC lost X millions from AUM by once again letting it's underlying asset trade freely on the market... Correction, April 22, 2021: This article originally stated that Grayscale had added $283.3 million in bitcoin to the Grayscale Bitcoin Investment Trust. It has been corrected to reflect that Grayscale added $283.3 million in assets under management. |
|
|
|
I like how you conveniently left out "...for those Americans earning more than $1 million" part, is that what they call fake news?? Let's see, looks like there were 154,094,555 Individual income tax filed, out of those 541,410 is the Number of returns with AGI $1M or more (TY 2018). If my maths are right that's only 0.3% of tax returns. https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-tax-stats-at-a-glanceNow i'm sure that there are a lot of issues with taxation etc, but tell me again how the fuck shit that's only effecting top 0,3% is what we're supposed to worry about? What if it was only effecting those hedge fund owners making over $10MM/yr, would you still feel the need to protect them? 154,094,555 Individual income taxes, collected $1,942,182MM, that's an average of $12603/return. Worst case, single filer with no dependents and standard deductions would need to earn over $89k/yr to be a net contributor. I feel for Bob and his ranch, but perhaps he can limiting his cap gains to $999k/yr for few years and the point is moot What do you mean I left that out, I'm not a "reporter" (whatever that actually means these days). Is $1 million mentioned in every headline? Nope. I doubt they'd get away with 43% even on that level. But even 28% above or below would make me think a bit more about selling whatever asset I would have. Moreover even at $1 million it could set a precedent that they may come after smaller values later. If you believe the details will keep you safe you have nothing to fear. Many headlines are designed for FUD or clickbait, I agree with that. There are plenty hodlers with at least multiple coins eyeing a $1 million level per coin and it would obviously concern them IF they sell. Well full title is "Biden to propose capital gains tax of 39.6% to fund education and child care, reports say". So your question is how Biden lovers here can love him when he proposes to raise taxes on top 0.3% of millionaires to fund education and child care? As much as i think tax system is screwed up i'm really having a hard time finding sympathy for top 0.3%, somehow i think they'll manage Edit: The top 1% now own more wealth than the bottom 92%, and the 50 wealthiest Americans own more wealth than the bottom half of American society – 165 million people. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/29/rich-poor-gap-wealth-inequality-bernie-sanders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_StatesCan you tell how much top 0.3% own that we're supposed to feel bad about, and protect them from rising taxes? |
|
|
|
I like how you conveniently left out "...for those Americans earning more than $1 million" part, is that what they call fake news?? Let's see, looks like there were 154,094,555 Individual income tax filed, out of those 541,410 is the Number of returns with AGI $1M or more (TY 2018). If my maths are right that's only 0.3% of tax returns. https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-tax-stats-at-a-glanceNow i'm sure that there are a lot of issues with taxation etc, but tell me again how the fuck shit that's only effecting top 0,3% is what we're supposed to worry about? What if it was only effecting those hedge fund owners making over $10MM/yr, would you still feel the need to protect them? 154,094,555 Individual income taxes, collected $1,942,182MM, that's an average of $12603/return. Worst case, single filer with no dependents and standard deductions would need to earn over $89k/yr to be a net contributor. I feel for Bob and his ranch, but perhaps he can limiting his cap gains to $999k/yr for few years and the point is moot |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
