info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Class Warfare Accusations and Rational Taxation Policies
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Ilya Shambat
Dec 28, 2011, 4:47:09 AM12/28/11
to
Many in the anti-tax movement believe that taxes on higher incomes is
"class warfare" or "punishing success." In fact, it is simple
rationality. These people are wealthy enough that they can afford to
pay a slightly higher tax. Whereas for people who do not have what
they have, taxes can be a serious burden.
Someone who makes millions of dollars a year is not seriouly impinged
by a 39% instead of a 36% tax. He is still wealthy. He can still
afford a highly prosperous lifestyle and impart the same to his
children. He does not suffer severely from higher taxes; indeed he
does not suffer at all. He can still have his yacht and his spacious
house and his Lamborghini. Meanwhile the budget gains income far
disproportionate to the impact that such a tax rise has upon the
millionaire.
Really, how much did millionaires suffer from slighly higher taxation
levels that existed under Clinton? In 1990s, America's number of
millionaires and billionaires multiplied. To think that someone with
that level of wealth would be "punished," or be "oppressed," or be
made to suffer, by an extra 3% tax is ridiculous. They are rich at a
lower tax level; they remain rich at a slightly higher tax level.
Think about it. If you make $10 million a year, then a 3% rise in
income tax amounts to an extra $300,000 a year in taxes. That sum of
money, for someone who makes this much, would be easy to part with;
and it would pay the salaries of six to ten government employees. The
rationality of raising taxes on highest incomes is superlative. The
taxed suffer the least; the budget gains the most.
It works at the economic level; it also works at the human level.
Significant gains are made for the treasury through a process that
results in no suffering on anybody's part. What is small money for the
millionaires becomes vast money for the treasury. Maximal gain is
achieved with minimal negative results.
The most amusing part of this is that the same conservatives who are
uncompromisingly against the slightly higher taxes on highest incomes
look back to 1950s as a time that they want America to be like. In
1950s, the highest income bracket tax was 92%. That's right, 92%.
Nobody on today's political scene is dreaming of bringing taxes on
anyone up to anywhere near that level. What is being recommended is a
rational move: Add slightly to the taxes on the people who have vast
amounts of money to contribute, and who can easily afford to pay the
difference.
It's not about class welfare, and it is not about punishing anything
or anyone. It is about achieving fiscal sanity through actions that
impact minimally upon the people involved. People who have large
amounts of money will not be made to suffer by paying a bit extra,
whereas the money gained this way for the treasury will be
substantial. So when someone as wealthy as Warren Buffett is
recommending raising taxes on highest incomes, he is speaking reason.
"class warfare" or "punishing success." In fact, it is simple
rationality. These people are wealthy enough that they can afford to
pay a slightly higher tax. Whereas for people who do not have what
they have, taxes can be a serious burden.
Someone who makes millions of dollars a year is not seriouly impinged
by a 39% instead of a 36% tax. He is still wealthy. He can still
afford a highly prosperous lifestyle and impart the same to his
children. He does not suffer severely from higher taxes; indeed he
does not suffer at all. He can still have his yacht and his spacious
house and his Lamborghini. Meanwhile the budget gains income far
disproportionate to the impact that such a tax rise has upon the
millionaire.
Really, how much did millionaires suffer from slighly higher taxation
levels that existed under Clinton? In 1990s, America's number of
millionaires and billionaires multiplied. To think that someone with
that level of wealth would be "punished," or be "oppressed," or be
made to suffer, by an extra 3% tax is ridiculous. They are rich at a
lower tax level; they remain rich at a slightly higher tax level.
Think about it. If you make $10 million a year, then a 3% rise in
income tax amounts to an extra $300,000 a year in taxes. That sum of
money, for someone who makes this much, would be easy to part with;
and it would pay the salaries of six to ten government employees. The
rationality of raising taxes on highest incomes is superlative. The
taxed suffer the least; the budget gains the most.
It works at the economic level; it also works at the human level.
Significant gains are made for the treasury through a process that
results in no suffering on anybody's part. What is small money for the
millionaires becomes vast money for the treasury. Maximal gain is
achieved with minimal negative results.
The most amusing part of this is that the same conservatives who are
uncompromisingly against the slightly higher taxes on highest incomes
look back to 1950s as a time that they want America to be like. In
1950s, the highest income bracket tax was 92%. That's right, 92%.
Nobody on today's political scene is dreaming of bringing taxes on
anyone up to anywhere near that level. What is being recommended is a
rational move: Add slightly to the taxes on the people who have vast
amounts of money to contribute, and who can easily afford to pay the
difference.
It's not about class welfare, and it is not about punishing anything
or anyone. It is about achieving fiscal sanity through actions that
impact minimally upon the people involved. People who have large
amounts of money will not be made to suffer by paying a bit extra,
whereas the money gained this way for the treasury will be
substantial. So when someone as wealthy as Warren Buffett is
recommending raising taxes on highest incomes, he is speaking reason.
Les Cargill
Dec 28, 2011, 8:19:19 AM12/28/11
to
Ilya Shambat wrote:
> Many in the anti-tax movement believe that taxes on higher incomes is
> "class warfare" or "punishing success." In fact, it is simple
> rationality. These people are wealthy enough that they can afford to
> pay a slightly higher tax. Whereas for people who do not have what
> they have, taxes can be a serious burden.
>
Savings rates run about 3% (on average) when they "should" be 15%.
> Many in the anti-tax movement believe that taxes on higher incomes is
> "class warfare" or "punishing success." In fact, it is simple
> rationality. These people are wealthy enough that they can afford to
> pay a slightly higher tax. Whereas for people who do not have what
> they have, taxes can be a serious burden.
>
Something else is going on other than tax rates.
<snip>
--
Les Cargill
ZisntZ
Dec 28, 2011, 8:38:54 AM12/28/11
to
Ilya Shambat wrote:
= Many in the anti-tax movement believe that taxes on higher incomes is
= "class warfare" or "punishing success."
=
"Beginning in force in the mid 90s, U.S. multinationals have been
avoiding corporate income taxes by shifting profits into shell
companies in havens like Bermuda, the Switzerland and the Cayman
Islands. At home, they have exerted tremendous lobbying pressure on
Congress to get a second tax break to bring those profits back home.
Bloomberg has chronicled the methods by which some of the world's
largest corporations have legally used loopholes to avoid large tax
bills."
http://topics.bloomberg.com/the-great-corporate-tax-dodge/
WASHINGTON - Many of this country’s biggest companies paid no federal
taxes - or even made money through credits and refunds from the
government - over the past three years by using an array of loopholes
and tax breaks, according to a report released yesterday.
http://rockthetruth2.blogspot.com/2011/12/corporate-tax-dodge-and-debt.html
"Given Tax Realities" : so many taxes, so many tax laws, so many tax
lawyers, so many tax loopholes.
Tax reality can be divided into two basic spheres. The "paper quale"
and the "pocket quale".
The paper quale makes it (ie tax reality) seem as if a given tax rate
is the amount of tax actually being paid. The pocket quale makes it
seem as if the taxes actually being paid are, in fact, the taxes
actually being paid.
As a brief illustration: A person who is taxed inside of a paper quale
reality, say 35% of income, may actually pay 10% in pocket quale
reality. Yet the same person can claim to have been taxed 35%
particularly if they also claim to speak for or as an entire group.
Refer to "given tax Realities" above to see how this difference might
occur.
So, this is not so much warfare between classes but between different
tax realities.
= Many in the anti-tax movement believe that taxes on higher incomes is
= "class warfare" or "punishing success."
=
"Beginning in force in the mid 90s, U.S. multinationals have been
avoiding corporate income taxes by shifting profits into shell
companies in havens like Bermuda, the Switzerland and the Cayman
Islands. At home, they have exerted tremendous lobbying pressure on
Congress to get a second tax break to bring those profits back home.
Bloomberg has chronicled the methods by which some of the world's
largest corporations have legally used loopholes to avoid large tax
bills."
http://topics.bloomberg.com/the-great-corporate-tax-dodge/
WASHINGTON - Many of this country’s biggest companies paid no federal
taxes - or even made money through credits and refunds from the
government - over the past three years by using an array of loopholes
and tax breaks, according to a report released yesterday.
http://rockthetruth2.blogspot.com/2011/12/corporate-tax-dodge-and-debt.html
"Given Tax Realities" : so many taxes, so many tax laws, so many tax
lawyers, so many tax loopholes.
Tax reality can be divided into two basic spheres. The "paper quale"
and the "pocket quale".
The paper quale makes it (ie tax reality) seem as if a given tax rate
is the amount of tax actually being paid. The pocket quale makes it
seem as if the taxes actually being paid are, in fact, the taxes
actually being paid.
As a brief illustration: A person who is taxed inside of a paper quale
reality, say 35% of income, may actually pay 10% in pocket quale
reality. Yet the same person can claim to have been taxed 35%
particularly if they also claim to speak for or as an entire group.
Refer to "given tax Realities" above to see how this difference might
occur.
So, this is not so much warfare between classes but between different
tax realities.
Eddie Haskell
Dec 28, 2011, 9:52:30 AM12/28/11
to
"Ilya Shambat" <ibsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d71fd78-4acf-40c9...@i3g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> Many in the anti-tax movement believe that taxes on higher incomes is
> "class warfare" or "punishing success." In fact, it is simple
> rationality. These people are wealthy enough that they can afford to
> pay a slightly higher tax.
They already do, you despicable LIAR. "Millionaires and billionaires" means
> "class warfare" or "punishing success." In fact, it is simple
> rationality. These people are wealthy enough that they can afford to
> pay a slightly higher tax.
people and businesses that make over 200K a year and the so-called rich
already pay the lion's share of all income taxes, so when you claim that the
"rich" should pay their fair share you are engaging in Marxist style class
warfare LYING while the bottom 50% pay virtually none of the income tax
burden.
Goddamn, you fuckers are shameless fucking liars.
The whole of the democrat party has dedicated itself to it because
socialists have taken over your party.
Now, get the fuck out of my country.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Dec 28, 2011, 9:59:04 AM12/28/11
to
"Ilya Shambat" <ibsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d71fd78-4acf-40c9...@i3g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> Many in the anti-tax movement believe that taxes on higher incomes is
> "class warfare" or "punishing success."
What the fuck is the "anti-tax movement," you Goebbels liar?
> "class warfare" or "punishing success."
Who said anything about no taxes at all on the rich, you goddamned Goebbels
liar.
If you can't back up your beliefs without lying about your opponents
believes then why do you hold your own, you goddamned liar?
Loot and plunder, folks. That's all these third-world fucks are all about.
Loot and plunder the golden goose and then kick back to a life of poverty
like they bring to every nation the envy-driven brainless dumbfucks take
over, and unfortunately we have so many stupid people in this country now
they are starting to take hold. Beginning with the third-world
Kenyan-n-chief.
-Eddie Haskell
George Plimpton
Dec 28, 2011, 11:14:02 AM12/28/11
to
On 12/28/2011 1:47 AM, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> Many in the anti-tax movement believe that taxes on higher incomes is
> "class warfare" or "punishing success."
No, what people believe is that applying punitively higher marginal tax
> Many in the anti-tax movement believe that taxes on higher incomes is
> "class warfare" or "punishing success."
rates is class warfare. It is.
> In fact, it is simple rationality.
> These people are wealthy enough that they can afford to
> pay a slightly higher tax.
> Whereas for people who do not have what
> they have, taxes can be a serious burden.
paying zero tax be a burden?
> Someone who makes millions of dollars a year is not seriouly impinged
> by a 39% instead of a 36% tax. He is still wealthy. He can still
> afford a highly prosperous lifestyle and impart the same to his
> children. He does not suffer severely from higher taxes; indeed he
> does not suffer at all.
set out to earn money in order to have it taken from them.
If the tax is supposed to be justified by the benefits conferred, then
it actually is rational to have a *decreasing* marginal tax rate. Say
the top marginal rate of 36% applies on all income above $100,000. Now
suppose one millionaire makes $1,100,000 per year, and another makes
$2,100,000 per year. The first man pays $360,000 on the million he
earned above $100,000. The second pays $720,000 on the two million he
earned above $100,000, or twice what the first man paid. In what way
can he be said to "benefit" twice as much from government action? *HE
DIDN'T*. It wasn't anything the government or society did that allowed
him to earn another million dollars over what the first man earned.
The shrill, class-warfare-based demand for steeply progressive marginal
rates has nothing to do with the alleged "benefits" received by high
income earners, because those benefits are negligible. Rather, it's
simply a demand for redistribution: unproductive deadbeats want to live
better than they are willing and capable to do for themselves, and they
elect representative looters to seize value the deadbeats and looters
didn't create and redistribute it to the deadbeats. The cynical
rationale that the rich disproportionately "benefit" from government and
"society" is nothing but cynical bullshit.
Eddie Haskell
Dec 28, 2011, 11:22:28 AM12/28/11
to
"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
news:2O2dnSjfJKLP3WbT...@giganews.com...
> On 12/28/2011 1:47 AM, Ilya Shambat wrote:
>> Many in the anti-tax movement believe that taxes on higher incomes is
>> "class warfare" or "punishing success."
>
> No, what people believe is that applying punitively higher marginal tax
> rates is class warfare. It is.
And he knows it is. It's just that as a socialist, he's a shameless
>> Many in the anti-tax movement believe that taxes on higher incomes is
>> "class warfare" or "punishing success."
>
> No, what people believe is that applying punitively higher marginal tax
> rates is class warfare. It is.
bald-faced liar.
-Eddie Haskell
George Plimpton
Dec 28, 2011, 11:43:27 AM12/28/11
to
socialism as a philosophy, but I could have marginally more respect for
the occasional individual socialist if he would just be honest about the
rationale. Instead of fabricating all this cynical bullshit about
fictitious "benefits" from government and "society" received by rich
people, or even more fantastical bullshit about "diminishing marginal
utility of money", why can't some of them simply say something along the
lines of:
Rich people have to pay a higher and higher percentage of their
income in taxes to be redistributed to poor parasitical deadbeats
because the deadbeats outnumber the rich people and we will form
a mob and take the money by force if necessary.
Because that's all it comes down to. The deadbeats want to live better
than they are able and willing to earn, and they simply intend to seize
earnings to satisfy their wish to consume more. All the bullshit about
greater "benefit" realized by rich people, or an "unjust" system, is
cynical bullshit at the moment they spew it, and they *know* it.
Eddie Haskell
Dec 28, 2011, 12:00:32 PM12/28/11
to
"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
system, wealth is created by the rich to the benefit of everyone. Not taken
from the poor and given to the rich. Destroy the incentive produce and all
will suffer as has been proven the world over time and time again. Socialism
requires ignorance among the citizenry - a reliance on envy as opposed to
intelligence and morals.
-Eddie Haskell
George Plimpton
Dec 28, 2011, 12:20:49 PM12/28/11
to
who create it, but in doing so, they dispense benefits to others. The
standard of living of poor people in the capitalist west was higher than
the standard of living of everyone except the very top in the Eastern
Bloc countries.
> Not taken from the poor and given to the rich.
economic system. That's what makes that fuckwit
Yeaowerghuishitheadghzzz's fantastic claim about the Bush tax cuts being
a "transfer" to the rich so comically wrong. Because the rich /would
have/ paid higher taxes if the tax cuts hadn't been enacted,
Yeaowerghuishitheadghzzz figures the money *already* belonged to the
deadbeats who would have received tax-funded goodies, and so when the
tax cuts caused the money to remain with those who earned it,
Yeaowerghuishitheadghzzz wants to call that a "transfer."
The sheer illogic of socialists is just mind-boggling.
Eddie Haskell
Dec 28, 2011, 12:32:24 PM12/28/11
to
"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
Bill Gates may be worth billions but the wealth he has produced is well in
the trillions. Same with people like Steve Jobs on down. The jobs and
productivity they have produced is incalculable. And that's just a
fractional example. What people like Slapshit want to do is destroy any
possibility of another Microsoft or Apple computer and the like and
impoverish the nation and stupidly, themselves. Again, out of sheer immoral
greed and envy.
-Eddie Haskell
Rod Speed
Dec 28, 2011, 3:46:28 PM12/28/11
to
Les Cargill wrote
> when they "should" be 15%. Something else is going on other than tax rates.
Yes, but that does not mean that tax rates shouldnt be done properly.
The fact that the bottom half pay no net federal income
tax is completely insane with deficits at the level they are.
> Ilya Shambat wrote
>> Many in the anti-tax movement believe that taxes on higher incomes is "class warfare" or "punishing success." In
>> fact, it is simple
>> rationality. These people are wealthy enough that they can afford to
>> pay a slightly higher tax. Whereas for people who do not have what
>> they have, taxes can be a serious burden.
> Savings rates run about 3% (on average)
Only if you dont count the real saving most home owners have in the house they are buying.
>> Many in the anti-tax movement believe that taxes on higher incomes is "class warfare" or "punishing success." In
>> fact, it is simple
>> rationality. These people are wealthy enough that they can afford to
>> pay a slightly higher tax. Whereas for people who do not have what
>> they have, taxes can be a serious burden.
> Savings rates run about 3% (on average)
> when they "should" be 15%. Something else is going on other than tax rates.
The fact that the bottom half pay no net federal income
tax is completely insane with deficits at the level they are.
Eddie Haskell
Dec 28, 2011, 4:49:11 PM12/28/11
to
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9m1dh7...@mid.individual.net...
republican.
-Eddie Haskell
Michael Gordge
Dec 28, 2011, 5:32:31 PM12/28/11
to
On Dec 28, 6:47 pm, Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Many in the anti-tax movement believe that taxes on higher incomes is
> "class warfare" or "punishing success."
Envy ridden leftist fucking bull-shit, taxing income of the rich and
> Many in the anti-tax movement believe that taxes on higher incomes is
> "class warfare" or "punishing success."
the poor is theft, unconstitutional and should be and can be abolished
immediately and can be done without it costing the government a cent.
MG
Michael Gordge
Dec 28, 2011, 5:40:32 PM12/28/11
to
fucking moron would believe that exercises in masochism and sadism,
i.e. tax, which adds to the costs of goods and services, would get rid
of any deficit?
Ewe fucking clueless moron, tax is why ewe have a deficit, ewe fucking
idiot.
MG
Ilya Shambat
Dec 29, 2011, 10:33:07 PM12/29/11
to
On Dec 29, 9:32 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 6:47 pm, Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Many in the anti-tax movement believe that taxes on higher incomes is
> > "class warfare" or "punishing success."
>
> Envy ridden leftist fucking bull-shit
Nothing envious about me pal. I am friends with some very successful
> On Dec 28, 6:47 pm, Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Many in the anti-tax movement believe that taxes on higher incomes is
> > "class warfare" or "punishing success."
>
> Envy ridden leftist fucking bull-shit
people, and they are all much better people than you.
I am looking at ways to maximize benefit while minimizing suffering. A
millionaire does not suffer from slightly higher taxes; whereas the
money gained this way for the treasury will be enough to get rid of
the deficits.
As had happened under Clinton, when the taxes on highest incomes were
slightly higher than they are now and the number of millionaires in
America multiplied.
ala
Jan 15, 2012, 3:22:57 PM1/15/12
to
"Eddie Haskell" <rr...@wqpm.com> wrote in message
news:JWHKq.8300$qY3....@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> Yeah, and what they are too stupid to realize is that under a capitalist
> system, wealth is created by the rich to the benefit of everyone. Not
> taken from the poor and given to the rich. Destroy the incentive produce
> and all will suffer as has been proven the world over time and time again.
> Socialism requires ignorance among the citizenry - a reliance on envy as
> opposed to intelligence and morals.
>
>
http://archive.truthout.org/files/images/cartoon012611t.jpg
> Yeah, and what they are too stupid to realize is that under a capitalist
> system, wealth is created by the rich to the benefit of everyone. Not
> taken from the poor and given to the rich. Destroy the incentive produce
> and all will suffer as has been proven the world over time and time again.
> Socialism requires ignorance among the citizenry - a reliance on envy as
> opposed to intelligence and morals.
>
>
0 new messages