8 richest own as much as half of the World's population. Oxfam

[metis]

In some forms it is simply theft when it comes to taxes and social program. Such as Sanders wanting to tax the rich at 90% to cover the costs of his not so freebies.

Which was the actual gross rate under Eisenhower. Rates that are established should not be viewed as "theft".

 

[icehorse]

Which was the actual gross rate under Eisenhower. Rates that are established should not be viewed as "theft".

And as I recall, the economy was positively booming under Ike.

 

[Sunstone]

And as I recall, the economy was positively booming under Ike.

There was also a lot of new business formation, which tends to give the lie to the notion that you must have low taxes to encourage people to go into business.

 

[Sunstone]

Which was the actual gross rate under Eisenhower. Rates that are established should not be viewed as "theft".

"Theft" is just mindless emotional rhetoric substituting for thought anyway. If a 91% tax on the top income bracket is good for society, then it's good for society -- regardless of how one might sputter about it. The Eisenhower years, during which the top bracket was taxed at 91%, were economic boom years (as Icehorse points out) during which the standard of living rose for most people each year, and the tax rates were high enough to make possible such benefits to the public as the interstate highway system, low or nonexistent tuitions at public universities, and other amenities. If I'm not mistaken, those years also saw the creation of the largest middle class in the history of humanity.

 

[icehorse]

I'd "triple like" that last post if I could

 

[Revoltingest]

And as I recall, the economy was positively booming under Ike.

There's a problem looking at mythical good times, & cherry picking aspects of it which one likes.
Big government fans would love to take 90+% of the wealthy set's income.
But desire is not causation....it's simplistic, & even dangerous to believe that 91% marginal
tax rates & boom times are linked without examining other related factors of the day.
- Government provided high earners with generous tax avoidance mechanisms.
The average tax rate collected from them in the 50s was approx 40%....nowhere near 91%
- The US had little overseas competition post WW2.
- The US had a massive manufacturing advantage post WW2.
- Health care was primitive & cheaper.
- People made do with less than today, eg, smaller homes, fewer cars, party line phones.
- Federal regulation was far less than today.

I recall the tail end of generous tax dodges, eg, accelerated 15 year real estate
depreciation. Such things distorted the market in counter-productive ways, eg,
encouraging risky borrowing, causing inflation.
But without those rate reducing tools, a top rate of 91% would indeed be "theft",
& would affect productivity. How hard would you work if gov took $91 of your $100?

Note also that this boom period also included the recessions of 1949, 1953, 1958 & 1960.

Ref....
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/r42729_0917.pdf
Visualizing the Growth of Federal Regulation Since 1950
Krugman’s Twinkie Defense

 

[oldbadger]

Instead of external laws, I see the need for education and personal experience to encourage self-restraint (internal laws).

Most definitely these provide individuals with the qualities to live successfully, contentedly and happily in many adverse situations.
But only a %, a small % of all humans could reach the goals of contentment and fullfillment? I don't see that many today, certainly.

By all means let's try to educate and provide character building experience, but we need to provide a reasonable financial foundation for all as well.

And we need to make it a Social, Public and Personal disgrace to be caught in tax evasion. A BBC tv presenter who made fortune by presenting programmes about retail, business, trade and finance cheats was found to have transmitted her life's funds to an offshore tax haven. That person, when discovered, didn't understand the fuss!

 

[Revoltingest]

Most definitely these provide individuals with the qualities to live successfully, contentedly and happily in many adverse situations.
But only a %, a small % of all humans could reach the goals of contentment and fullfillment? I don't see that many today, certainly.

By all means let's try to educate and provide character building experience, but we need to provide a reasonable financial foundation for all as well.

And we need to make it a Social, Public and Personal disgrace to be caught in tax evasion. A BBC tv presenter who made fortune by presenting programmes about retail, business, trade and finance cheats was found to have transmitted her life's funds to an offshore tax haven. That person, when discovered, didn't understand the fuss!

People used to believe that shame would keep people off the welfare rolls.
But recipients adapted.
And this has already happened for tax avoiders & evaders.
Everyone I know, even Democrats & avowed socialists, take pride in minimizing their tax bill.
You must have a very different culture over there...
....or you must be one really odd duck.
I'll have to ask Mrs Badger.

 

[Shad]

Which was the actual gross rate under Eisenhower. Rates that are established should not be viewed as "theft".

Which applied to people make over 3 million a year at a marginal rate in 1955. If you know what a marginal rate is your get my point and Sander's lies are apparent. More so revenues do not match this rate meaning the government didn't actually collect income tax from such rates, it was a number on the books nothing more. Eisenhower's world was also radically different. WW2 had just ended. Most of Europe was still an economic wasteland. America produced over 60% of the world's manufacturing. China produced nothing as it had just ended it's civil war. Russia produced nothing for the world market as it isolated itself from competition. Which is one of the reasons their economy collapsed in the 80s. This is not 1955 it's 2017. Such a rate will never work today as the world is different. Most of the rich are rich due to capital gains not income. The people that are "rich" from income are small business owners. In today's system people making 400k are in the 1%. Those are the people that will suffer from those tax rates not the rich that use capital. Sanders have fooled people into thinking the rich actually have an income like normal people, they don't. They invest their wealth into capital ventures. Which means when someone is worth 1 billion that is not disposable income in a bank but a collective sum covering a wide range of investments

You can google Sander's townhall meeting when an actual small business owner challenge Sanders. All Sanders could do was waffle about mega corporations as he is merely a slogan man nothing more. He uses slogans to fool people that are clueless and too lazy to fact check anything. Like yourself.

 

[Revoltingest]

Which applied to people make over 3 million a year at a marginal rate in 1955. If you know what a marginal rate is your get my point and Sander's lies are apparent. More so revenues do not match this rate meaning the government didn't actually collect income tax from such rates, it was a number on the books nothing more. Eisenhower's world was also radically different. WW2 had just ended. Most of Europe was still an economic wasteland. America produced over 60% of the world's manufacturing. China produced nothing as it had just ended it's civil war. Russia produced nothing for the world market as it isolated it's from competition. This is not 1955 it's 2017. Such a rate will never work today as the world is different. Most of the rich are rich due to capital gains not income. The people that are "rich" from income are small business owners. In today's system people making 400k are in the 1%.

You can google Sander's townhall meeting when an actual small business owner challenge Sanders. All Sanders could do was waffle about mega corporations as he is merely a slogan man nothing more. He uses slogans to fool people that are clueless and too lazy to fact check anything. Like yourself.

The main problem Sanders had was buying into "vulpine economics".
Foxes see vast wealth in hen houses, & know that their hunger entitles them to that wealth.
So they devour all in sight, with no anticipation of the consequences.
Lo! The wealth now gone, & producing nothing themselves, they must move on.

Still....I'd have voted for Bernie over Trump.
This is because cooler heads wouldn't give him free economic reign.

 

[Shad]

His charts are fake. You can look an employment rates at any government site to see two major drops in 2001 and 2007, which is not represented by his graph at all. His idea that the middle class create jobs is a much as fiction as the point he attacks. It is a mix of both. A middle class demanding a product with no producers nor entrepreneurs produces no jobs nor products. Likewise no consumers, or not enough, makes jobs disappear as the market is not sustainable. Risky products are developed by capital investment not the consumer. The cell phones market is an example. At one time is was a high end consumer produce which only the rich could afford. Capital investment is why the cell phone market has expanded into a normal consumer product. They risked their capital which funded development for efficient technology, a small product, a more affordable produce. The consumer would freak out making such a risk as mostly go bust. The rich can afford such risks as they have the capital to do so. The middle class doesn't. Corporate profits are not at an all time high as there was a collapse in the early 2000s. Unemployment topped 8% in 80s, another bit of information never mentioned as it destroys his narrative, not current times which had been in decline. Meaning the rate was dropping not increasing as he made this false statement.

So go ahead believe someone with fake charts, lacks information to back his points, omits information that refute his points. You are more than welcome to believe in a fictional partisan narrative with no basis in reality.

 

[oldbadger]

People used to believe that shame would keep people off the welfare rolls.
But recipients adapted.
And this has already happened for tax avoiders & evaders.
Everyone I know, even Democrats & avowed socialists, take pride in minimizing their tax bill.
You must have a very different culture over there...
....or you must be one really odd duck.
I'll have to ask Mrs Badger.

Ain't that sad.
There's all those folks, standing in a circle, boasting about how they avoided tax, or clutched an extra buck, or thought up a clever scam, and one bystander explains that they just pay their due, and everybody else points, and bursts out laughing at them.

That's ok, but we'd not looking to such as them for a better world, methinks.

 

[Revoltingest]

1 - Is "socialism" a bad idea in your opinion? Does that include common infrastructure, or common services (e.g. fire departments)? Where do YOU draw the line?

I draw the line at the public owning the roads, but private contractors (the means of production) building them.
This way we avoid socialism, while still having a useful infrastructure.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ain't that sad.
There's all those folks, standing in a circle, boasting about how they avoided tax, or clutched an extra buck, or thought up a clever scam, and one bystander explains that they just pay their due, and everybody else points, and bursts out laughing at them.

That pretty much sums it up.

That's ok, but we'd not looking to such as them for a better world, methinks.

Avoiding excessive taxation is the better world.
Resistance is not futile!

Hey, do you pay more than you're required to?

 

[oldbadger]

Avoiding excessive taxation is the better world.
Resistance is not futile!

Hey, do you pay more than you're required to?

I don't advocate paying more than due.
I advocate paying what is due.

But your former post, the way I read it, suggests that you avoid or evade?

Questions:-
Do you avoid paying your taxes?
Do you evade paying your taxes?
Do you look down (in any way) upon benefits recipients?

It's ok...... you know you don't have to answer.

 

[Shad]

The main problem Sanders had was buying into "vulpine economics".
Foxes see vast wealth in hen houses, & know that their hunger entitles them to that wealth.
So they devour all in sight, with no anticipation of the consequences.
Lo! The wealth now gone, & producing nothing themselves, they must move on.

Still....I'd have voted for Bernie over Trump.
This is because cooler heads wouldn't give him free economic reign.

Likewise Sanders wants to eat the products of the rich to pay for benefits of the poor because the rich must be collectively guilty of something and the poor are collectively innocent. He bribes people with the idea that they deserve benefits for merely existing. No one can be responsible for the poor choices they make. Likewise no one can claim create for good choices they make. All it comes down to are slogans of oppressor and oppressed which is typical Marx as he developed the idea in his own work over a century ago.

Im not Trump supporter but he was better than a socialist fairy tale based on misinformation and omission (Sanders) and a corrupt politician (Hilary). Lets face it the last election cycle was a joke but this is the legacy of Obama. He started making the position one of reality TV by appearing on shows like Kimmel which opened the door to the likes of Trump. He used race in his own election which has been the hallmark of his party for decades. Yet his party controls the worst areas in the nation yet have done nothing to curb crime. The reason for this is that the narrative of race is useful for votes. If you tell people they are victims they love you for it. If you keep them uninformed the better it is for the party. Never point of that your party is responsible for the lack of police in Chicago thus is part of the very problem used to stir emotion. Obama used the race card for Hilary during his Congressional Black Caucus dinner speech. He called it insulting to his legacy if blacks didn't vote for Hillary, race baiting nothing more. He then goes on to call Republican racists. This is typical leftist slogans of using races to stir up emotions then label anyone that disagrees a bigot and racist.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't advocate paying more than due.
I advocate paying what is due.

But your former post, the way I read it, suggests that you avoid or evade?

I avoid.
But you should note that RF rules prohibit advocating something illegal, which evasion is.
There is the issue of evasion as civil disobedience, but this is not the venue to discuss that.

Note:
I have had posts sanctioned for posting about acts (euthanizing animals)
which are of debatable legality. So I'll take the safe route.

Questions:-
Do you avoid paying your taxes?
Do you evade paying your taxes?
Do you look down (in any way) upon benefits recipients?

It's ok...... you know you don't have to answer.

I avoid taxes as much as possible.
I look down upon some benefits, ie, those which create dysfunction.

 

[oldbadger]

I avoid.
But you should note that RF rules prohibit advocating something illegal, which evasion is.
There is the issue of evasion as civil disobedience, but this is not the venue to discuss that.

Note:
I have had posts sanctioned for posting about acts (euthanizing animals)
which are of debatable legality. So I'll take the safe route.

....like I said, 'YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER'. !
I didn't need all that waffle about why you wrote what you did.

I avoid taxes as much as possible.
I look down upon some benefits, ie, those which create dysfunction.

You see?
You live in a 'world', where anybody who doesn't avoid tax, nor passes some judgements upon some poor ........... is an 'odd duck'...?

Click click....... that's what this thread is about. If every person paid their friggin' taxes and supported their society or country as expected, then the millions of folks who are being made redundant through robotics and digital technology could be supported.

I often find that it is not the self-made who avoid and evade, because they have confidence in their ability to make what they need .... to pay their way. And they trend to be more dedicated to provision for the less well off. It's the silver spoon mob who snub the poor whilst hiding their stashes away.

We need to make it fashionable for the words tax-avoidance and tax-evasion to be the dirt of society, methinks.

 

[Shad]

What policies do you believe will lead to a better world?

World? Why do you think America is responsible for correcting all the mistakes of other governments and the people that elected them. Your post is a prime example of the entitlement era. You are demanding change on a global level when there is no global government. You are demanding other nations change their system to cater to you. You think it must be the responsibility of the successful to pay for the mistake of those that are not. If you can not afford your house payments I am not responsible for paying what you can not afford. This is the difference between accepting personal responsibility and that of adults that make demands like children. You do not get something merely because you demand it. Own your choices, it is one of the best ways of figuring out how to make sound choices rather than a series of poor ones.

 

[Revoltingest]

....like I said, 'YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER'. !
I didn't need all that waffle about why you wrote what you did.

Yes, you did need it.
As the more experienced poster (spanked more), I help you newbies understand how to survive here.

You see?
You live in a 'world', where anybody who doesn't avoid tax, nor passes some judgements upon some poor ........... is an 'odd duck'...?

No....you're an odd duck for a plethora of reasons....mostly sartorial.

Click click....... that's what this thread is about. If every person paid their friggin' taxes and supported their society or country as expected, then the millions of folks who are being made redundant through robotics and digital technology could be supported.

That's a rather pollyanna belief.
There's the risk that if government supports everyone who doesn't work, this would encourage the dole.
With technological advancement, it might become possible to make work optional some day.
But we're not there yet.

I often find that it is not the self-made who avoid and evade, because they have confidence in their ability to make what they need .... to pay their way. And they trend to be more dedicated to provision for the less well off. It's the silver spoon mob who snub the poor whilst hiding their stashes away.

Story time....
I have some friends, a couple, who are dedicated Democrats. They both campaigned for Hillary. They both believe in higher taxes, bigger government, the welfare state, & soaking the rich. He (the hubby) is an avowed socialist. But they also use a pretty clever scheme to evade taxes.....converting non-declared barter income into permanently deferred capital gains.
Why would they do this?
Because paying more tax than you have to is for SUCKAS!
Deep in your heart, you know this to be true.

We need to make it fashionable for the words tax-avoidance and tax-evasion to be the dirt of society, methinks.

Won't happen.
The benefits of paying less tax will always make it worth enduring the socialist's stink eye.