|
Post by rmarks1 on Nov 13, 2019 14:45:21 GMT -5
Shouldn't she tax herself first?
Bob
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Nov 13, 2019 19:42:23 GMT -5
Bob,
They've probably got a mint stashed in off shore accounts. And they'd find a way to exempt themselves if it ever came down to it for whatever they've got here.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Nov 17, 2019 9:17:15 GMT -5
There hasn't been a US president who wasn't a millionaire since Eisenhower. I don't expect 2020 to break 60 years of the pattern, regardless of who wins.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Nov 17, 2019 18:26:00 GMT -5
There hasn't been a US president who wasn't a millionaire since Eisenhower. I don't expect 2020 to break 60 years of the pattern, regardless of who wins.
Right Fred.
But isn't it a bit hypocritical of Warren (and Sanders too) to rail against millionaires when they are both millionaires?
Bob
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Nov 19, 2019 9:31:21 GMT -5
My understanding of their position is not that they hate millionaires, but that they think the super-rich should be paying their fair share of taxes. If a middle-class worker is paying 25% of income as taxes while a billionaire, thanks to tax loopholes, is only paying 10%, then he system needs to be changed. Some corporations with multi-billion dollar profits pay little or even no taxes.
In other words, our current tax system favors the rich and super-rich and there's no reason not to change it. What person's life will be altered drastically if they have to pay 40% of their 100 billion dollar income?
Many rich folk publicly say that they too agree that the rich should pay more, not just the politicians. Back post-war the tax rate was something like 90% for the rich and we had a golden age of economic development. Over the decades the tax rate for the rich kept going down. Even when it was a mere 76%, we were still in great shape. Now it's 26% or some such and due to all the loopholes, they don't even pay that.
Anyway, I don't see a conflict between being a millionaire and asking to be taxed more. It would be hypocritical if they asked that they be excluded from tax increases, but they don't.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Nov 19, 2019 16:16:15 GMT -5
My understanding of their position is not that they hate millionaires, but that they think the super-rich should be paying their fair share of taxes. If a middle-class worker is paying 25% of income as taxes while a billionaire, thanks to tax loopholes, is only paying 10%, then he system needs to be changed. Some corporations with multi-billion dollar profits pay little or even no taxes. Yes. And it's ALWAYS been that way. The rich will always use their clout to leave loopholes so that they will pay less taxes. To repeat, the rich have the power. They will always try to leave loopholes in the tax laws. And if they can't, then they will just leave the country. Do you actually think that the rich actually paid those taxes? Do you know how many loopholes there were (and still are). One of my clients back in the early 1980's was an accountant. He said that if all he could do was to lower his clients taxes to the 25% that most workers were paying, that all his clients would leave him. First of all, there is real estate depreciation. The rich invest in a real estate company that buys buildings. The buildings are depreciated over 20 years or more. The depreciation reduces taxes. If you invest in enough buildings, your taxes can actually be ZERO! There are plenty of other loophole too. The problem is not that the rich should pay more. The problem is how much more? The amount considered "fair" always seems to go up and up. Another problem is no matter how much money the government takes, it never seems to be enough. And they are still running at a deficit. Whats the national debt now? Over 21 TRILLION DOLLARS. No matter how much the government gets, it always seems to spend more. Much more. Instead of raising taxes, why don't they just lower the budget? They are going to have to do that anyway after the next major Crash is most likely no more than 10 or 15 years away. Bob
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Nov 20, 2019 9:08:25 GMT -5
>Another problem is no matter how much money the government takes, it never seems to be enough. ---I miss the old Republican Party, the one that insisted on a balanced budget. Of course, even then there was lots of government waste. But, as you say, the massive debt we face now is not sustainable and bad things will come from it. I think the first step in cleaning up this mess is to prohibit organizations and corporations from making political contributions. Individuals only. But that will never happen. Sigh.
---Yeah, when taxes go up, many rich move away. But it's the old frog in boiling water story. We don't have to crank their taxes up to 90% on day one. We slowly remove deductions and loopholes so that, over time, they're paying the same percentage as the middle class folk. That's all that's needed. And cutting back on the pork, of course.
---By the way, I saw a funny bit on Facebook the other day. Someone said that when Warren or Sanders are asked who's going to pay for free college, or whatever, they should reply, "Mexico will pay for it." It worked once, so why not a second time? LOL
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Nov 25, 2019 19:48:17 GMT -5
---Yeah, when taxes go up, many rich move away. But it's the old frog in boiling water story. We don't have to crank their taxes up to 90% on day one. We slowly remove deductions and loopholes so that, over time, they're paying the same percentage as the middle class folk. That's all that's needed. And cutting back on the pork, of course. I'm not sure the frog is a good analogy. A frog can't notice that the water is getting hotter and hotter until it boils. People can easily detect if their taxes are going up year after year. Basically, all they did was making a joke to avoid giving a straight answer. In fact, the Middle Class (which includes you and me) is going to pay for it. Millionaires like Warren and Sanders will hide behind their millionaire tax shelters. Bob
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Nov 26, 2019 8:37:27 GMT -5
But that's the same for everything. We waste trillions of dollars every year on political pork. At least free college would be something of value, as opposed to paying the very profitable fossil fuel industry subsidies and other such nonsense. (Of course, part of the problem is that college, medical care and other things are way overpriced, which is preventing people from access. But that's a different subject.)
Just one example: Rudy Giuliani’s son Andrew gets $95,000 a year as Sports Liaison for the White House. His job is coordinating professional athletes visiting Trump. That $95,000 could easily be paid for something that actually was good for the nation, but it won't be. So I guess what I'm saying is that in a land where such a large amount of tax money is already wasted every day, what do a few more billion matter?
I miss the old Republicans who at least said that they wanted a balanced budget. Now they don't even pretend. 8-<
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Nov 26, 2019 10:04:06 GMT -5
Hi Fred:
I want to interrupt here and say that I disagree with your statement that "free college" is a thing of value.
It depends, I think, on what the course of study is chosen. I see no value in women's studies, ethnic studies, gender studies, and other bullshit along those lines. I don't mind an occasional "fluff" course, but I fail to see how examining the work of Yoko Ono is going to land anyone gainful employment someday.
Finally and most importantly, I would not give "fee college" to anyone under thirty. Unless things have significantly changed over the ensuing decades, I can state from experience that approximately 75% of the kids I went to college with were not serious students. They were simply not mature enough to realize they were supposed to be preparing for a career. They partied and when they weren't doing that, they played cards or engaged in other nonsense. Only those who planned to go to graduate school for a specific career seemed to have it together.
I think things have not changed much. My daughter tells a story about two fellows she knew who flunked out of university because instead of going to class, they sat around playing something called "Puzzle Pirates". I think It's a computer game of some kind. And with the advent of computers, there's even more of a distraction.
Now a parent might be willing to let their child waste a ton of money goofing off in college when they should be learning because presumably they love their offspring. But as a taxpayer, I have no great fondness for strangers that would allow me to overlook such antics.
And if you, or any other proponent of "free college" thinks that it won't happen -- you don't know kids very well.
So no, I am inclined not to give "free college" because people never value what is free. And if I did (in spite of my better judgement) it would only be for people over thirty, who presumably, have realized what an education is supposed to yield.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Nov 29, 2019 8:17:35 GMT -5
>And if you, or any other proponent of "free college" thinks that it won't happen -- you don't know kids very well. ---Yes, there are indeed many who waste their college chances. But free college would flunk them out of the system just as fast as paid college does. There might even be fewer of them in a free system. Students are supposed to be screened before being accepted, but currently colleges have a financial incentive to take just about anyone because they will get money from them. So what if half the freshman class flunks out? We got their money, so what do we care. A free system might actually be more selective. Who knows? Of course, in my day many boys were just going to college to dodge the draft and didn't dare flunk out. So the poor kids were disproportionately sucked up into the military machine. I was poor, but lucked out to find a school that offered a total financing system, a mix of loans, grants, and jobs, so even though I didn't get a single penny from my father, I still got in.
As to wasted degrees, in today's world I don't know what degree might be of value in the future. Automation is replacing workers in ALL fields. Even doctors, nurses, lawyers, social workers, engineers, etc. are being supplemented or replaced by machines. In Japan, they have little R2D2 type robots that go around to rooms in hospitals and hand out medications. Fewer nurses needed. Japan also has robots working in hotels to check in customers. Most grocery stores now have self-service lanes with only one human supervising 4-8 lanes. Some robots are doing online consultations, so fewer doctors needed. Robots are doing surgery. Most legal work is routine, so computers can replace lawyers for most jobs. There are computers that can write software, and it's better than humans can do. And so on. I can't think of a single job that might not be replaced by machines in 20 years or less. So the whole free college thing is probably moot anyway. There will not be many jobs for humans in the future. so what's the point of college?
|
|