The Panama Papers

[Kershaw]

Maybe because it's not like that.

How about this picture.

Person A owns a factory that Person B works at. A pays B just barely enough to live. A owns several houses, a dozen cars, and a few boats. Person A could stop working at any time and spend the rest of his life just driving his cars. Person A was given this factory by his father, who started it in the 50s. Back in the 50s, A's father made 35x what his lowest factory floor worker made. Today, A makes about 400x what B does. The road that connects the highway to the factory needs to be repaved and taxes need to be raised to pay for this. Everyone in the town wants the top 10% income tax (essentially Person A and his VPs) raised to pay for this. Person A goes to the mayor and says, "if you raise the top income tax I will shut down my factory and move it somewhere else, you need to find the money elsewhere." So the mayor takes the money from the school budget.

edit: And I'm not planning on retiring in 10 years at 39. That would be crazy. And throwing that in about hating retired folks because their bodies are beat and cant work anymore is silly. I'm not talking about retired people, come on, let's not try to nitpick and obfuscate every single point. Are we having a discussion or are we just trying to throw shit around?

[marshallnoise]

I didn't say poverty. I said poor. And it's not that weird of a way to determine your wealth. It's pretty standard. If you have two classes, the wealthy and the poor, you are part of the poor. But hey, maybe I am assuming too much. Maybe you have $10m in assets and I'm wrong. Or maybe you're not rocking a brand new M5 on 20" Avantis because you're not part of the wealthy. I'm not trying to be mean, but please, be realistic about your situation. I'm right next to you, honestly.

It is not a standard that rational individuals use to determine being poor or not. And poverty and poor mean the exact same thing. There is no difference, practically.

Either way, "poor" folk such as your self still have no right to make claim on money or investments of other people. That's it. That's the filter of liberty, right there.

Sleeve, that's great for you and tbh I think I could manage at least 3 years not working too, but that would deplete everything I've worked for up to this point and my future would then be that much harder. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking straight up, living comfortably off your investments for the rest of your life. If you can do that, you can consider yourself wealthy.

Kershaw, in 10 more years working, you can take that cash and invest it and not work the rest of your life, if you are smart. Not having to work because you are using an asset to earn more revenue is not something to be punished. Yet, you advocate that.

More importantly, you must dislike the retired too because that's all they have to live on: Proceeds of their investments.

[marshallnoise]

I still don't understand how its ok to basically say: "That person over there has more than me, I want it."

That is effectively what all the lefties are saying in here.

[Kershaw]

That is the worst standard to determine poverty or not. Of course I can't. It doesn't make me poor. Wow, what a weird way to think of things.

It's not that weird of a way to determine your wealth. It's pretty standard. If you have two classes, the wealthy and the poor, you are part of the poor. But hey, maybe I am assuming too much. Maybe you have $10m in assets and I'm wrong. Or maybe you're not rocking a brand new M5 on 20" Avantis because you're not part of the wealthy. I'm not trying to be mean, but please, be realistic about your situation. I'm right next to you, honestly.

Sleeve, that's great for you and tbh I think I could manage at least 3 years not working too, but that would deplete everything I've worked for up to this point and my future would then be that much harder. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking straight up, living comfortably off your investments for the rest of your life. If you can do that, you can consider yourself wealthy.

[BraveUlysses]

No, you're flat wrong
The top 1% earned just north of 20% of total income, up for the last 3 years in spite of Obama tax increases
And the top 1% pay just north of 45% of all income taxes collected.
They pay more than their fair share.
The Internet is your friend

The rich are not the problem
Stagnant incomes are the problem, shit economic growth is the problem, liberal progressive tax rates are the problem

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/to...rticle/2567217

Yes, they made so much that a 3% increase to the top income bracket hardly made a dent in their income. A good post, gwb.

[nando]

income was a misstatement. They own more than 40% of all wealth - people at that end of the spectrum don't actually make most of their money from "income".

[gwb72tii]

what reality? the one where half of our population has 10% of the income, while 1% of our population takes 50%? They should only pay their fair share if they're poor, right?

nice ad hominem. can't back it up with reason, so..

No, you're flat wrong
The top 1% earned just north of 20% of total income, up for the last 3 years in spite of Obama tax increases
And the top 1% pay just north of 45% of all income taxes collected.
They pay more than their fair share.
The Internet is your friend

The rich are not the problem
Stagnant incomes are the problem, shit economic growth is the problem, liberal progressive tax rates are the problem

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/top-1-percent-share-of-income-grew-in-2014-despite-new-obama-taxes/article/2567217

[mrsleeve]

No for a long time I was paying taxes as SINGLE with no exemptions....

All though this purple dragon dildo company sounds interesting.... Wonder if I can get them to make green ones if I invest enough ?????

[Wschnitz]

But that money has already been taxed yea? Its not like you "invested" in a company making purple dragon dildos in panama or something right?

Thats different, and admirable. Making tons of money and trying to hide it, or getting tons of money as a politician to favor corporations and hiding it from taxation is the bad idea imo.

[kronus]

YES, I can for about the next 3 or 4 years am I a evil rich SOB........

that depends, do you evade some of your tax obligations by storing money in shady offshore companies?

[mrsleeve]

Can you afford to not work?

YES, I can for about the next 3 or 4 years am I a evil rich SOB........

[marshallnoise]

Uhh, thats literally the hub bub of this leak, the rich ARE NOT paying their taxes, they are "investing" in companies that dont exist, either here or in other countries. To avoid paying taxes.

Which is a massive misstatement because if they weren't, then there would be no tax revenue at all.

Once again, an anecdotal event representing a very small portion of the rich is being used as ammo to drive taxes up higher.

Sent from my Z958 using Tapatalk

[Wschnitz]

If the poor are lawful and paying nothing into the system and the rich are lawfully paying everything into the system (largely), why make a demand that the rich pay more? Aren't they being lawful?

This class warfare shit is so old.

Uhh, thats literally the hub bub of this leak, the rich ARE NOT paying their taxes, they are "investing" in companies that dont exist, either here or in other countries. To avoid paying taxes.

[marshallnoise]

Only taxes on the wealthy are bad nando, come on you know this!

[marshallnoise]

They're paying it according to the law. Which works for you when they're rich, but not when they're poor. Go figure.

If the poor are lawful and paying nothing into the system and the rich are lawfully paying everything into the system (largely), why make a demand that the rich pay more? Aren't they being lawful?

This class warfare shit is so old.