RC K9 Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 OK, Vox like every other media outlet always has an agenda. That being said, taken at face value, I have to say, I believe it's insane that Jimmy sees less of an advantage than Bob would if each donates $100 to charity, but Jimmy makes 3x less than Bob. Can someone more knowledgeable than myself try to give me some "alternative" facts, ha ha. Keep it simple, i'm slow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supplicium Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 Jimmy pays 15% income tax Bob pays 39.6% income tax Bob paid 198k in income tax Jimmy paid 4500 in income tax Jimmy got 15$ for donating 100$ Bob got $39 for donating 100$ I dont see the problem, people just look at the 39$ and think the rich get richer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdk 4219 Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 Bob should pay the same percentage of income tax as jimmy, or jimmy should pay the same as Bob, it then Jimmy would really bitch about the tax man. Either way Jimmy will bitch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coltboostin Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 Although I agree to the top 5% are not nearly taxed enough and there are a TON of easy loopholes, but this video is very skewed. No one wants to hear it, but Ronald Reagan had it right. Every single one of Trump's tax plans will raise the deficit. The ship is sinking and this retard only tweets that its someone else's fault while he looks to drill more holes! LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 It's a face value vs relative value. Face Value Bob gets more. Relative Value, Jimmy gets more. Another way to think of it is: Face value is the economic spending power of the money in the whole economy. Relative Value is the dollar value of improvement in the quality of life for an individual given the circumstances. make sense? No one wants to hear it, but Ronald Reagan had it right. Which part? not this bit about "trickle down" economics which is such a pile of horseshit it's actually called Horse and Sparrow economics (the sparrow picks the berries out of the horse's shit <-- who says economists don't have a sense of humor). also: During Reagan's presidency, the national debt grew from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.[3] This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[4] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Debt_and_government_expenditures Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdk 4219 Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 See, jimmy is bitching already Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 It's a face value vs relative value. Face Value Bob gets more. Relative Value, Jimmy gets more. Another way to think of it is: Face value is the economic spending power of the money in the whole economy. Relative Value is the dollar value of improvement in the quality of life for an individual given the circumstances. make sense? Which part? not this bit about "trickle down" economics which is such a pile of horseshit it's actually called Horse and Sparrow economics (the sparrow picks the berries out of the horse's shit <-- who says economists don't have a sense of humor). also: During Reagan's presidency, the national debt grew from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.[3] This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[4] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Debt_and_government_expenditures It's actually called Supply Side Economics and Galbraith is the source of the "Horse and Sparrow" name, it's what he called the policy from the 1890's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 It's actually called Supply Side Economics and Galbraith is the source of the "Horse and Sparrow" name, it's what he called the policy from the 1890's well if you want to be really pedantic...."Trickle Down" and "Horse and Sparrow" are the same principle with different names under the larger theory of "supply side economics". Tickle down comes from a variety of sources such as William Jennings Bryant and Will Rogers, Although Andrew Laffer claims credit. the Difference between supply side economics is that it advocates lower taxes along all tax brackets where as "Trickle down" only advocates lower taxes for the wealthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 well if you want to be really pedantic...."Trickle Down" and "Horse and Sparrow" are the same principle with different names under the larger theory of "supply side economics". Tickle down comes from a variety of sources such as William Jennings Bryant and Will Rogers, Although Andrew Laffer claims credit. the Difference between supply side economics is that it advocates lower taxes along all tax brackets where as "Trickle down" only advocates lower taxes for the wealthy. They are the names given to the specific policies that are based on supply side economics by pundits or historians Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 They are the names given to the specific policies that are based on supply side economics by pundits or historians yeah...and...? doesn't mean they work (hint: neither Trickle down or Horse and Sparraow do). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trouble Maker Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 well if you want to be really pedantic... Who said Geeto didn't have a sense of humor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 Anyone who wants to continue giving more of their income to the government to waste is welcome to do so. I would much rather keep my money for me to spend and invest as I see fit Sent from my Galaxy Note 8 using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Gump 9 Posted October 18, 2017 Report Share Posted October 18, 2017 Couple things I got out of that video are 1. If you choose to donate, then why even worry about the claim/return. If you do it for the claim/return then you’re doing for the wrong reason. 2. No one makes you donate, if you can’t afford to donate then don’t do it. You can donate your time and effort instead of monetary 3. Hahn said it best “60% of something is still better than 100% of nothing”. You don’t hear people in Cuba or North Korea complain about tax do you? 4. I’m happily pay my share, if I’m paying taxes, that means I’m making money. 5. Just do your part, worry about yourself, and be happy. Life not fair, some of the best things in life doesn’t cost any money, be rich in that!! A hug doesn’t cost you anything. According to my five years old boy I owed him 3.5 billion hugs. Try tax that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10phone2 Posted October 18, 2017 Report Share Posted October 18, 2017 nevermind... ninja edit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted October 18, 2017 Report Share Posted October 18, 2017 OK, Vox like every other media outlet always has an agenda. That being said, taken at face value, I have to say, I believe it's insane that Jimmy sees less of an advantage than Bob would if each donates $100 to charity, but Jimmy makes 3x less than Bob. Can someone more knowledgeable than myself try to give me some "alternative" facts, ha ha. Keep it simple, i'm slow. Read this: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/sep/21/does-secretary-pay-higher-taxes-millionaire/ Most super rich people find ways to shelter their money from being taxed. Investors and people who make most of their money through capital gains, or investing for others, can lower their tax burden to an unbelievably low level by classifying this income as Carried Interest. Some people may try and defend this, but I'm not sure why we have super rich people in this country who hoard money and have a lower tax bracket than the majority of people who make less than them, without needing the use of deductions. Eric Schoenberg and Warren buffet, who both save tremendous amounts of money due to this rule, both believe it shouldn't exist, and their tax rates (and others whose income is classified as Carried Interest) should be much, much higher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BStowers023 Posted October 18, 2017 Report Share Posted October 18, 2017 Anyone who wants to continue giving more of their income to the government to waste is welcome to do so. I would much rather keep my money for me to spend and invest as I see fit Sent from my Galaxy Note 8 using Tapatalk This. I don't fault anyone for finding a way to keep more of their income from the crooks. Only people with a victim mentality blame the rich for their short comings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC K9 Posted October 18, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2017 I don't fault anyone for utilizing legal loopholes either. I do it. I also don't fault the "rich" for potentially paying less. If it's legal, then do it. I guess where my "issue" would come in if I had one, is why investment income taxed at a lower rate. Any issues with taxation I think should be with the government and the law, not the people who use the law to legally pay less taxes (percentage wise I mean). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted October 18, 2017 Report Share Posted October 18, 2017 That video wasn't biased at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supplicium Posted October 18, 2017 Report Share Posted October 18, 2017 I don't fault anyone for utilizing legal loopholes either. I do it. I also don't fault the "rich" for potentially paying less. If it's legal, then do it. I guess where my "issue" would come in if I had one, is why investment income taxed at a lower rate. Any issues with taxation I think should be with the government and the law, not the people who use the law to legally pay less taxes (percentage wise I mean). Its taxed at a lower rate because as the investor you are taking all the risk. No FDIC insurance or guarantee to make money. But as soon as you make a profit uncle sam gets his cut. He doesnt share in the losses so the benefit to the investor is he gets taxed less for taking all the risk. Plus the money you have to invest with has already been taxed through payroll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.