re: Anyone else see a big difference in tax returns this year?

quote:

---

Yea man. You don't use roads or parks or emergency services and shite.

---

How do section 8'ers, welfare'ers, ebt'ers fit into this? Seems those people get money from someone.

quote:

---

This truly idiotic law would have zero effect other than stifling innovation. 

---

I don't see how that is, name an example.

Would Facebook not have tried to beat out myspace if Zuckercheat was only limited to 30 M per year?

Sure maybe Walmart wouldn't have gotten as big, but you'd likely have more regional/competition from medium sized companies versus 2 super companies (walmart/target) killing the mom and pops.

Instead of "too big to fail" we have "too big to grow more"

quote:

---

Would Facebook not have tried to beat out myspace if Zuckercheat was only limited to 30 M per year?

---

Of course not. And the minute he nears your confiscation threshold he's off to another country with his company.

quote:

---

Instead of "too big to fail" we have "too big to grow more"

---

Yet you just gave an example of Facebook disrupting Myspace's market dominance. People won't be willing to put in the work just to have the government confiscate their earnings they make over some arbitrary amount.

At least they won't be willing in the US. But like I keep saying, there are plenty of other countries and markets to prosper from.

quote:

---

I swear they don't teach history in school anymore. Since it's inception in 1913, the top earners have ALWAYS had a higher tax rate. frickING ALWAYS. So, maybe, just maybe, the progressive tax rate is ineffective in wealth distribution? Maybe a flat tax or zero income tax would help to stratify the Upper, Middle, and Lower classes. After 100 years of penalizing people for making more money than other people, we have the largest wealth gap in history. Only retards would continue to think this is a good idea.

---

For frick's sake, man...I was going to try to stay out of this but this post is just pure idiocy.

It's not about the income tax, dumbass. Yes, the income tax has been around since 1913. You done Googled well, kiddo.

The reason I stated "39 years" is due to the conservative wet dream of Austrian, supply-side economics (aka Trickle Down, aka Voodoo) was actually brought into the mainstream public policy sphere by Ronald Reagan.

Research the differences and historical successes (or lack thereof) of supply-side and Keynesian approaches. Make sure to check out the "Laffer Curve"...a fraudulent graph that serves as a bible of falsehoods that supply-siders use to dupe the public into believing their theft is somehow beneficial to the rest of us.

The most important thing you need to ask yourself is what the chances are you'll ever earn over $10,000,000 PER YEAR? Hell, how about even $1,000,000 per year? If the answer is clearly "no", then why in the frick are you supporting policies that have done nothing but make the people taking home that kind of money able to keep even more of that money? What the frick do you get out of it? Nothing. So why support it?

quote:

---

Yet you just gave an example of Facebook disrupting Myspace's market dominance. People won't be willing to put in the work just to have the government confiscate their earnings they make over some arbitrary amount. 

---

Most NFL players make 400k, a few make 20M+per year, they all mostly put in the same amount of effort regardless, and I don't believe if earnings are capped at asay 10M per year that the NFL would be less competitive. Especially if capping at 10M raised that 400k to 600k.

Sure go to other markets, What's the ripple effect? Less imports, higher percentage of local labor.

The trade imbalance and outsourcing to 3rd world economies just "coincidentally" occurred right around the same time the marginal tax rate dropped from 70 to 28%.

Rich guy@70%: Why should I take an additional $1 when I'll only get 0.30 from it when I can give it to my worker(pension)/benefits and he'll get .80 from it.

Rich guy@28%: Why should I not take an additional $1 and get .72? If u gave it to the worker hell only get .08 more. And now that I think about it, why should I pay my work $11 when I can get someone in China to do it for $1? I can layoff my worked and get an extra 7.20/hour in profits.

quote:

---

Because when they can't get enough from the people that make $1mm they go after the people that make $500k then $250k then $100k etc.

---

Show me the historical precedent you're basing your assertion on? There is none. Hell, the most prosperous time in our nation's history occurred with a 90% top tax rate.

Meanwhile, I can show you how income inequality leads to civil unrest and even war throughout history.

I think you're seriously underestimating just how concentrated wealth is today. Worldwide, the richest 26 people, two baker dozens, own as much wealth as half of the ENTIRE WORLD POPULATION!!! 26 people own the same amount of wealth as 3,800,000,000 people combined.

And it's not just the "poors" that are getting screwed these last 40 years. Solid middle and upper-middle are taking a hurting, too.

quote:

---

Most NFL players make 400k, a few make 20M+per year, they all mostly put in the same amount of effort regardless, and I don't believe if earnings are capped at asay 10M per year that the NFL would be less competitive. Especially if capping at 10M raised that 400k to 600k.

---

You're not understanding how this is not the same thing. What if those NFL players could play in a league in another country that didn't cap their pay? Where do you think those players would go?

quote:

---

Sure go to other markets, What's the ripple effect? Less imports, higher percentage of local labor.

---

All the people capable of creating and running a successful large corporation would leave. Do you not understand what that would do to our economy?

quote:

---

The trade imbalance and outsourcing to 3rd world economies just "coincidentally" occurred right around the same time the marginal tax rate dropped from 70 to 28%.

---

And like many others have already pointed out, that 70% marginal tax rate was gotten around quite easily. No one paid that rate. And you're wanting a 100% rate on some arbitrary amount?

quote:

---

Rich guy@70%: Why should I take an additional $1 when I'll only get 0.30 from it when I can give it to my worker(pension)/benefits and he'll get .80 from it.

---

Rich guy@100%: Why should hand over all of my earnings after some arbitrary rate to the government, when i can just take myself and my business elsewhere and not have m income confiscated?

quote:

---

Hell, the most prosperous time in our nation's history occurred with a 90% top tax rate.

---

And what period of time was this?

quote:

---

Meanwhile, I can show you how income inequality leads to civil unrest and even war throughout history.

---

And in those instances, the poor struggled even having the basics of food and shelter. That's not the case in the US and you damn well know it. There is no such thing as poverty in the United States.

quote:

---

I think you're seriously underestimating just how concentrated wealth is today.

---

Irrelevant. And more to the point, it's not yours.

quote:

---

And it's not just the "poors" that are getting screwed these last 40 years. Solid middle and upper-middle are taking a hurting, too.

---

The "poors" currently pay no taxes and in fact receive EIC on top of the various other social safety net programs they have access to.

The only reason the solid midde and upper-middle are hurting is because of the tax burden to provide said negative tax burden and social welfare programs.

The rich pay far, far more than their "fair share". Your response is nothing but naked envy.

quote:

---

Your response is nothing but naked envy.

---

Envy or realism? I'm 42 years old and make 6 figures, but I know damn well I will never make more than $1M a year. Why the frick would I vote for politicians who look out for the ultra-wealthy but don't give 2 shits about me?

What's the last Republican policy that had no benefit to the ultra-wealthy while being a boon for the middle class?

quote:

---

Suppy side theory has been around for wayyyyyy longer than Reagan.

---

I didn't say supply side was "discovered" in 1980, I said it was it's first introduction into the public political sphere and acted upon as the predominant theory behind taxation.

You can't just point to a few tax cuts throughout American history and say, "Hey, look, it's supply side!". That's not how it works and you know it. Reagan, both Bushes, and now Trump, are ringing up incredible deficits while cutting taxes on the wealthy. That's supply-side policy consistently on display through the course of 6 presidential terms and it's the first time anything like it has happened in our history. We've also reached the highest point of income inequality in this country during the same period. Coincidence?