Wealth inequality (1 Viewer)

[Stealthycat]

That article explains how they did it.

This isn’t a good system.

I don’t know the answer but a system that allows this isn’t it:

“No one among the 25 wealthiest avoided as much tax as Buffett. That’s perhaps surprising, given his public stance as an advocate of higher taxes for the rich. According to Forbes, his riches rose $24.3 billion between 2014 and 2018. Over those years, the data shows, Buffett reported paying $23.7 million in taxes.

That works out to a true tax rate of 0.1 percent, or less than 10 cents for every $100 he added to his wealth”

If the rich aren't paying taxes how in the world is the vast majority of taxes paid for by the rich?

The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of all individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3 percent. The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (38.8 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.2 percent).  https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/#:~:text=The top 50 percent of,percent combined (29.2 percent).

In 2019, taxpayers filed 148.3 million tax returns, reported earning nearly $11.9 trillion in adjusted gross income, and paid $1.6 trillion in individual income taxes.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 25.6 percent average individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.5 percent).

The share of reported income earned by the top 1 percent of taxpayers fell to 20.1 percent from 20.9 percent in 2018. The top 1 percent’s share of federal individual income taxes paid fell to 38.8 percent from 40.1 percent.

You're telling me the above is fair ?

Flat tax everyone 15% and lets be done with it - isn't that fair ?

 

[The General]

Yeah but....While I get that, I also applaud those that can utilize this system.   And I think we all should.

Now if you wanna start discussing limiting capital gains exemptions to a certain $$ amount I would be willing to hear the pros and cons but right now the system exists for everyone.   

I’m down with that suggestion along with many others. 

I have no issues with people becoming wildly wealthy. We can also look at figuring out ways to tax this wealth without it being called radical or undermining our system.

How the government spends the money is definitely fair game to be scrutinized. 

 

[supermike80]

I’m down with that suggestion along with many others. 

I have no issues with people becoming wildly wealthy. We can also look at figuring out ways to tax this wealth without it being called radical or undermining our system.

How the government spends the money is definitely fair game to be scrutinized. 

Oh yeah...how the gubbermint spends our tax dollars can be a thread all in it's own.

I just pause with these kinds of things because in some cases, it just seems like jealousy to me. Not saying that's your position, but I have sensed a "Hey he has a lot of $$ and thats' not fair so he should be taxed more" coming from a point of jealousy.  Not from a point of what people think could be accomplished for the common good with that tax income

 

[The General]

Oh yeah...how the gubbermint spends our tax dollars can be a thread all in it's own.

I just pause with these kinds of things because in some cases, it just seems like jealousy to me. Not saying that's your position, but I have sensed a "Hey he has a lot of $$ and thats' not fair so he should be taxed more" coming from a point of jealousy.  Not from a point of what people think could be accomplished for the common good with that tax income

I don’t know if it’s “unfair” but more a bug or exploit the examples given in the article I posted. As I said earlier I don’t think that is a good system and there should be a way to address that.

 

[supermike80]

I don’t know if it’s “unfair” but more a bug or exploit the examples given in the article I posted. As I said earlier I don’t think that is a good system and there should be a way to address that.

But why...Because some people have too much and you don't like that?

 

[The General]

But why...Because some people have too much and you don't like that?

No. Because of the themes laid out in that article. This idea that the wealth accumulated (that can be leveraged to accumulate more) cannot be taxed in some manner is something there should be an answer for. 

And, yes at some point you lose the regular deductions like the child credit Bezos used  in the one year they cited where he paid zero but was worth 18 billion.

Part of what allowed him to build what he did is inherent in our system he is part of and was raised in.

Now we can get back to how this money is spent but we can start with roads and infrastructure, hospitals and schools. Then work up to things like health care. How that money is spent are what elections are for. 

 

[supermike80]

No. Because of the themes laid out in that article. This idea that the wealth accumulated (that can be leveraged to accumulate more) cannot be taxed in some manner is something there should be an answer for. 

And, yes at some point you lose the regular deductions like the child credit Bezos used  in the one year they cited where he paid zero but was worth 18 billion.

Part of what allowed him to build what he did is inherent in our system he is part of and was raised in.

Now we can get back to how this money is spent but we can start with roads and infrastructure, hospitals and schools. Then work up to things like health care. How that money is spent are what elections are for. 

I get the themes.....I bolded what you wrote and I get back to why?  Why should there be an answer for this?  Because they have it and someone else doesn't?  Is that the cruz of the argument?  Again..Not targeting you cause I don't know how you fele about this--it is more a general question.   Why do we need to answer for this?  Just to add more to the government coffers?  Or is it just cause they have more and people don't like that?

Are people using government as a weapon against those filthy rich to take just because?  So instead of saying  "Hey Bezos, you have $200 billion, you need to write checks to those that dont"  we just say "Hey Bezos, you have $200 billion so you have to give it to the government so they can decide how to give it to those that don't"

My sister in law is 100% against billionaires.  And her only reasoning is because they are, and she doesn't like that.   That never added up to me.

 

[The General]

I get the themes.....I bolded what you wrote and I get back to why?  Why should there be an answer for this?  Because they have it and someone else doesn't?  Is that the cruz of the argument?  Again..Not targeting you cause I don't know how you fele about this--it is more a general question.   Why do we need to answer for this?  Just to add more to the government coffers?  Or is it just cause they have more and people don't like that?

Are people using government as a weapon against those filthy rich to take just because?  So instead of saying  "Hey Bezos, you have $200 billion, you need to write checks to those that dont"  we just say "Hey Bezos, you have $200 billion so you have to give it to the government so they can decide how to give it to those that don't"

My sister in law is 100% against billionaires.  And her only reasoning is because they are, and she doesn't like that.   That never added up to me.

Using the Bezos example. He would still be a billionaire many, many, many times over. 

In a country where we have people living in tents on the other side of the lake from Bezos we have issues. To be honest taking money from him may not fix this, this is a complex issue obviously. But, I am certain money into programs to address this isn’t going to hurt.

 

[supermike80]

Using the Bezos example. He would still be a billionaire many, many, many times over. 

In a country where we have people living in tents on the other side of the lake from Bezos we have issues. To be honest taking money from him may not fix this, this is a complex issue obviously. But, I am certain money into programs to address this isn’t going to hurt.

So it's just about taking from people?   For no other reason?

I have a zillion issues with this.  Like, what if those tent people are in tents because of the decisions/actions they have taken in life?  Bezos should prop them up?   Why should he have to be penalized for the actions of others? Why is he the devil because he made himself successful?

Saying he has billions so we should be allowed to take billions, because he will still have billions isn't a compelling argument to me

 

[The General]

So it's just about taking from people?   For no other reason?

I have a zillion issues with this.  Like, what if those tent people are in tents because of the decisions/actions they have taken in life?  Bezos should prop them up?   Why should he have to be penalized for the actions of others? Why is he the devil because he made himself successful?

Saying he has billions so we should be allowed to take billions, because he will still have billions isn't a compelling argument to me

I look at this issue as an investment in our society. It’s not healthy or sustainable to have this in our country.

In terms of homelessness. It’s not important to me to get involved with why people end up homeless. I am sure plenty have made poor decisions and that some are just bad people. This is the part we cannot fix.

There are a number though that can be helped and their lives improved. In turn this improves our society. More investment into this I believe would help greatly. 

The alternate is we can continue to move these people around, patch together assistance, programs to reintroduce them into normal society. 

To your line about Bezos being a devil. I certainly don’t see Bezos in this way. I have benefited greatly from what he has built. My issue is with what I view as an exploit that he has legally taken advantage of. 

 

[The General]

I would definitely be in favor of greatly incentivizing money to be spent in charitable ways by these uber wealthy we have been discussing. Much more so than how they currently are. 

With this if you get caught taking advantage of this you pay out the ###. 

 

[supermike80]

I look at this issue as an investment in our society. It’s not healthy or sustainable to have this in our country.

In terms of homelessness. It’s not important to me to get involved with why people end up homeless. I am sure plenty have made poor decisions and that some are just bad people. This is the part we cannot fix.

There are a number though that can be helped and their lives improved. In turn this improves our society. More investment into this I believe would help greatly. 

The alternate is we can continue to move these people around, patch together assistance, programs to reintroduce them into normal society. 

To your line about Bezos being a devil. I certainly don’t see Bezos in this way. I have benefited greatly from what he has built. My issue is with what I view as an exploit that he has legally taken advantage of. 

And I say why is it not healthy or sustainable?  It's existed throughout the history of the country and we are still here.

As far as the homeless, while it's a nice idea to only help those who are in this position because of things not related to their own screw ups, there is no way to determine that.  So to me that is relevant.  If we just give people a helping hand who continually make bad decisions, aren't we incentifying these behaviors going forward?

 

[supermike80]

I would definitely be in favor of greatly incentivizing money to be spent in charitable ways by these uber wealthy we have been discussing. Much more so than how they currently are. 

With this if you get caught taking advantage of this you pay out the ###. 

Well that's interesting.  I didn't see it but does the article lay out how much $$ Bezos or others actually donated to charity?  Because those are tax deductible gifts in many cases.  And that's a big incentive.  

 

[The General]

And I say why is it not healthy or sustainable?  It's existed throughout the history of the country and we are still here.

As far as the homeless, while it's a nice idea to only help those who are in this position because of things not related to their own screw ups, there is no way to determine that.  So to me that is relevant.  If we just give people a helping hand who continually make bad decisions, aren't we incentifying these behaviors going forward?

We eventually run out of real estate. Then what you start walling off space? Was in Mexico City…you go a few miles away and there are essentially shanty towns. Same in Panama City and Cape Town. We are a ways away from this but not looking for that here. Kind of veering into another topic but this is a good one. The answer I hear for homelessness is…not in my neighborhood. 

Yes there is a percentage of #### ups for lack of a better term you can’t get around that. Perhaps you head them off that path earlier. But yeah some people will take advantage. 

In any case this is about what is the form of taxation we should be shooting for. A system that allows someone to pay a fraction because it is unrealized wealth that they can then leverage is an exploit in my view.

We disagree and that’s all good. 

 

[The General]

Well that's interesting.  I didn't see it but does the article lay out how much $$ Bezos or others actually donated to charity?  Because those are tax deductible gifts in many cases.  And that's a big incentive.  

I know Bezos has recently started crushing on his charity donations.

I’d be for increasing these incentives for this. Particularly in foundation work. These people are highly talented. Make this as easy as possible. 

 

[Stealthycat]

I would definitely be in favor of greatly incentivizing money to be spent in charitable ways by these uber wealthy we have been discussing. Much more so than how they currently are. 

With this if you get caught taking advantage of this you pay out the ###. 

what % of donations to charity every year do you think wealthy account for ? 85% ?  90% ?

I mean its amazing .... I've shown wealthy are paying vastly more than their fair share of income taxes, low income pay zero ..... and now it seems you're attacking charity and wealthy are the ones who support all pillars of that as well

Do you even KNOW how much wealthy people spend every year on taxes (income and otherwise) and charity ?  If wealthy stopped paying both where do you think we'd be ?

 

[supermike80]

We eventually run out of real estate. Then what you start walling off space? Was in Mexico City…you go a few miles away and there are essentially shanty towns. Same in Panama City and Cape Town. We are a ways away from this but not looking for that here. Kind of veering into another topic but this is a good one. The answer I hear for homelessness is…not in my neighborhood. 

Yes there is a percentage of #### ups for lack of a better term you can’t get around that. Perhaps you head them off that path earlier. But yeah some people will take advantage. 

In any case this is about what is the form of taxation we should be shooting for. A system that allows someone to pay a fraction because it is unrealized wealth that they can then leverage is an exploit in my view.

We disagree and that’s all good. 

It's mnot that I disagree exactly.  That reply depends on the reason why someone wants this.  If it's just to take because they have, then yeah, I don't agree with that kind of thinking

 

[The General]

It's mnot that I disagree exactly.  That reply depends on the reason why someone wants this.  If it's just to take because they have, then yeah, I don't agree with that kind of thinking

Fair enough. I am saying take and take progressively. 

 

[supermike80]

I don't wanna do the slippery slope thing here but it's worth a thought.  When does it end?  There are people who live within 10 miles of me who are destitute--for whatever reason.  I make a good living. I'm not a billionaire but am I supposed to be penalized as well for my success?

And what billions do we end this?  What's the floor?  1 billion?  10? 100?   A million?   And who gets to decide it?  Does Mr. Destitute get to decide at what level of income he can demand I pay more to support him?  

 

[supermike80]

Fair enough. I am saying take and take progressively. 

I know youre saying it, but I still don't understand the reason why you want to take it.

 

[The General]

I know youre saying it, but I still don't understand the reason why you want to take it.

It can be a benefit to our society. That there isn’t a way to tax this is my issue.

 

[supermike80]

It can be a benefit to our society. That there isn’t a way to tax this is my issue.

Ok.   Can't be 100% sure that's true, but I hear what you're saying

 

[The Commish]

This has all got to be shtick.  We have $20T+ in debt (and counting) and we are really wondering why taxes should go up?  Both parties have made it crystal clear that they WILL NOT stop spending, so the only other part of the equation is the taxing part.  It's shocking to me that people don't understand the reason more loopholes become exercisable the richer you get is because the rich don't want to pay taxes.  There aren't many billionaires out there that will actively defend the way our tax code works.  Most will suggest it needs to be changed.  That doesn't mean they won't take advantage of the rules until they are changed.

Flat tax doesn't work unless you change about 45% of the tax code.  That's not going to happen.  Consumption based taxes seem to be the way to go...the more you consume, the more you pay.  Seems logical when consumption (not creation) of goods is the #1 feature of the US economy.  

 

[supermike80]

This has all got to be shtick.  We have $20T+ in debt (and counting) and we are really wondering why taxes should go up?  Both parties have made it crystal clear that they WILL NOT stop spending, so the only other part of the equation is the taxing part.  It's shocking to me that people don't understand the reason more loopholes become exercisable the richer you get is because the rich don't want to pay taxes.  There aren't many billionaires out there that will actively defend the way our tax code works.  Most will suggest it needs to be changed.  That doesn't mean they won't take advantage of the rules until they are changed.

Flat tax doesn't work unless you change about 45% of the tax code.  That's not going to happen.  Consumption based taxes seem to be the way to go...the more you consume, the more you pay.  Seems logical when consumption (not creation) of goods is the #1 feature of the US economy.  

Yeah well that's great thinking but also kinda short sighted. If we increase taxes do you think that will fix things?  There's no chance the government will spend MORE?  Heck even the general wants taxes to go up, not to fix the deficit, but to pay for the needy out there. So increasing taxes will have a marginal, if any affect on the deficit.  

 

[supermike80]

This has all got to be shtick.  We have $20T+ in debt (and counting) and we are really wondering why taxes should go up?  Both parties have made it crystal clear that they WILL NOT stop spending, so the only other part of the equation is the taxing part.  It's shocking to me that people don't understand the reason more loopholes become exercisable the richer you get is because the rich don't want to pay taxes.  There aren't many billionaires out there that will actively defend the way our tax code works.  Most will suggest it needs to be changed.  That doesn't mean they won't take advantage of the rules until they are changed.

Flat tax doesn't work unless you change about 45% of the tax code.  That's not going to happen.  Consumption based taxes seem to be the way to go...the more you consume, the more you pay.  Seems logical when consumption (not creation) of goods is the #1 feature of the US economy.  

Aren't consumption taxes kinda similar to sales taxes?  The more you buy, the more you pay. And it's flat.  I know that's a state thing and I don't hate the idea of a national sales tax, but that will go against the whole mindset of helping the little guy and will do the opposite.   A billionaire couldn't care one iota about a 1-2% sales tax on purchases.   He might not love it, but he will pay it.  That same tax will hurt the lower income folks in this country.  So thats a no go.

 

[The General]

Yeah well that's great thinking but also kinda short sighted. If we increase taxes do you think that will fix things?  There's no chance the government will spend MORE?  Heck even the general wants taxes to go up, not to fix the deficit, but to pay for the needy out there. So increasing taxes will have a marginal, if any affect on the deficit.  

If we are talking about lowering the deficit I have a few thoughts  

 

[supermike80]

If we are talking about lowering the deficit I have a few thoughts  

Reminds me of that scene in the West Wing when they were discussing the US spending a ton of money to develop a pen that could write in space.

And someone said know what the Russians do?  They use a pencil

 

[The General]

Reminds me of that scene in the West Wing when they were discussing the US spending a ton of money to develop a pen that could write in space.

And someone said know what the Russians do?  They use a pencil

Favorite show of mine. So great.

The pencil thing is a bit exaggerated though. There’s a bunch of thought that went into why you couldn’t simply use a pencil and the different issues just being able to write something down in space presents or so I have read. 

 

[Shula-holic]

I don't wanna do the slippery slope thing here but it's worth a thought.  When does it end?  There are people who live within 10 miles of me who are destitute--for whatever reason.  I make a good living. I'm not a billionaire but am I supposed to be penalized as well for my success?

And what billions do we end this?  What's the floor?  1 billion?  10? 100?   A million?   And who gets to decide it?  Does Mr. Destitute get to decide at what level of income he can demand I pay more to support him?  

The answer to this would be the same as what constitutes the term “fair share” in tax rates. There’s never an answer you’ll get out of a politician. The reason is because whatever that number is never will fix the problems that many politicians blame on those not paying their fair share. 

 

[Shula-holic]

Reminds me of that scene in the West Wing when they were discussing the US spending a ton of money to develop a pen that could write in space.

And someone said know what the Russians do?  They use a pencil

That show was extremely good. Someone recommended it to my wife and me during Covid as something to watch while at home. 

 

[The Z Machine]

You can make consumption taxes progressive based on income though.  It becomes challenging to execute if consumption taxes are the only way the government gets tax revenue though.

 

[The Commish]

Aren't consumption taxes kinda similar to sales taxes?  The more you buy, the more you pay. And it's flat.  I know that's a state thing and I don't hate the idea of a national sales tax, but that will go against the whole mindset of helping the little guy and will do the opposite.   A billionaire couldn't care one iota about a 1-2% sales tax on purchases.   He might not love it, but he will pay it.  That same tax will hurt the lower income folks in this country.  So thats a no go.

Would you mind explaining why this would be true?  Look at sales tax today as a decent example.  The "little guy" already pays the tax.  There is very little that the "little guy" buys that is ever expensive enough to have a reduced tax on it.  Look at the "rich dude".  He pays the tax, but on really expensive things, that tax is normally lower and sometimes even exempt.  So now, the $90,000 car he's buying is taxed at 10% for a total of $9000 instead of being a special category of good and taxed at 3%.  Yes, this is a very simplistic example, but hopefully it illustrates the point.

Yeah well that's great thinking but also kinda short sighted. If we increase taxes do you think that will fix things?  There's no chance the government will spend MORE?  Heck even the general wants taxes to go up, not to fix the deficit, but to pay for the needy out there. So increasing taxes will have a marginal, if any affect on the deficit.  

This isn't a bad point, but I'm not suggesting that we increase taxes.  I'm suggesting we change the mindset for HOW we tax.  Right now, our tax code is completely inept.  There are literally more loopholes than there are actual regulations (fun fact).  Going to a consumption based tax would get rid of all that nonsense and all the legislation embedded in the tax code that politicians were too lazy to fight for the right way.  When I was in college, (mid-late 90s), getting rid of all the loopholes in our tax code that existed at that time would yield an estimated $75B a year.  

You point about the government spending is a very good one...we have no control over that other than to vote them out.  In my view, consumption tax with no kludgy tax code to hide behind makes it easier to hold them accountable.   

Of course, if we did this, we'd put an entire industry out of business, but we'd also be able to get rid of one of the most inefficient money sucks in our federal government too.  There are always pros/cons to these sorts of things.  

 

[supermike80]

Would you mind explaining why this would be true?  Look at sales tax today as a decent example.  The "little guy" already pays the tax.  There is very little that the "little guy" buys that is ever expensive enough to have a reduced tax on it.  Look at the "rich dude".  He pays the tax, but on really expensive things, that tax is normally lower and sometimes even exempt.  So now, the $90,000 car he's buying is taxed at 10% for a total of $9000 instead of being a special category of good and taxed at 3%.  Yes, this is a very simplistic example, but hopefully it illustrates the point.

Why what would be true?  How adding an across the board tax to everyone punishes the less well off than the rich?   That's what I was referring to

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

You can make consumption taxes progressive based on income though. 

You mean like with a prebate or something?  How would this work?

 

[Nugget]

how did they do that ? tell the entire story if you're going to tell part of it

if you're suggesting revamping tax codes, start hitting then you'll have to also hit the  57% of U.S. households paid no federal income taxes for 2021

make those poor people pay in too  - let be fair right ?

richer people pay the bulk of income taxes - fact

they also pay the bulk of property taxes across this nation - fact

keep pushing the wealthy - they will continue to use IRS tax codes/exemptions etc and get the best out of their money - don't fault them for that. 

Are you a flat tax supporter ? how do you propose being "fair" without targeting successful people ?

Link to bulk of property taxes being paid by the rich? I have never heard this.

57% drops to 42% for 2022. There was a pretty big increase in the standard deduction in a tax code change a couple years ago, as well as increased child tax credits. Do you support these changes?

 

[The Commish]

Why what would be true?  How adding an across the board tax to everyone punishes the less well off than the rich?   That's what I was referring to

It's not an addition....it's a replacement.  It might be a bit higher in %, but it would replace the other taxes they are already paying.

 

[Stealthycat]

Link to bulk of property taxes being paid by the rich? I have never heard this.

57% drops to 42% for 2022. There was a pretty big increase in the standard deduction in a tax code change a couple years ago, as well as increased child tax credits. Do you support these changes?

I'm a flat tax guy Nugget - my 15% is as important to me as your 15% as is Warren Buffett's 15% 

Rich people own the bulk of everything - of course they're the ones paying the bulk of property taxes. They pay the bulk of income taxes too, and they give the bulk of charity money 

Baffles me that Democrats can do the whole "tax the rich" and people fall for it  

 

[supermike80]

It's not an addition....it's a replacement.  It might be a bit higher in %, but it would replace the other taxes they are already paying.

Ok....Then yeah sure.   That could be interesting.  As long as it doesn't put more burden on the less wealthy

 

[Nugget]

I'm a flat tax guy Nugget - my 15% is as important to me as your 15% as is Warren Buffett's 15% 

Rich people own the bulk of everything - of course they're the ones paying the bulk of property taxes. They pay the bulk of income taxes too, and they give the bulk of charity money 

Baffles me that Democrats can do the whole "tax the rich" and people fall for it  

I’m surprised you are a pushing a tax increase on the poor and middle classes.  Are the rich suffering or leaving in droves?  

Property taxes are passed on to tenants by landlords. 

 

[The Commish]

Ok....Then yeah sure.   That could be interesting.  As long as it doesn't put more burden on the less wealthy

It wouldn't be about how wealthy you are anymore.  It'd be based on how much you consumed.  But as I said before, it would kill an entire industry in the process.  It won't ever happen, but it should.

 

[supermike80]

It wouldn't be about how wealthy you are anymore.  It'd be based on how much you consumed.  But as I said before, it would kill an entire industry in the process.  It won't ever happen, but it should.

Im still not sure how that works.  Can you cliffs notes it?

 

[The Commish]

Im still not sure how that works.  Can you cliffs notes it?

How I would do it?

At the highest level the rule would be "You pay X% for the goods/services you buy/consume" doesn't matter what the good/service is...pretty much like a sales tax but none of the limits or reduced % as things rise in price.  Doesn't matter if you pay $5 for your car or $5M for your car, the consumption tax is X%.

 

[supermike80]

How I would do it?

At the highest level the rule would be "You pay X% for the goods/services you buy/consume" doesn't matter what the good/service is...pretty much like a sales tax but none of the limits or reduced % as things rise in price.  Doesn't matter if you pay $5 for your car or $5M for your car, the consumption tax is X%.

But isn't that exactly what a sales tax is?

I'm not aware of sales tax decreasing as things go up in price..Im not rich so maybe that's why? But I thought, like in Michigan 6% was across everything(cept groceries)

 

[KarmaPolice]

Ok....Then yeah sure.   That could be interesting.  As long as it doesn't put more burden on the less wealthy

I have also seen flat tax or consumption proposals that specifically exclude basic goods from being taxed too, with the idea to ease up on the lower income a little more while keeping it consistent in application. 

 

[Rich Conway]

Seems like a good place for this:

https://fairtax.org/

 

[The Commish]

But isn't that exactly what a sales tax is?

I'm not aware of sales tax decreasing as things go up in price..Im not rich so maybe that's why? But I thought, like in Michigan 6% was across everything(cept groceries)

This is 10,000 foot level explained better than I am (clearly):

https://youtu.be/HTOOw7u_lsI

 

[supermike80]

This is 10,000 foot level explained better than I am (clearly):

https://youtu.be/HTOOw7u_lsI

Crap..Cant watch youtube at work.  Stupid censorship!!!

 

[The Commish]

Crap..Cant watch youtube at work.  Stupid censorship!!!

hmmmm....Rich's link is a good one too if you can get to it.  Let me see if I can find it somewhere else.

 

[supermike80]

hmmmm....Rich's link is a good one too if you can get to it.  Let me see if I can find it somewhere else.

I did check that out.  It's interesting.   

 

[The Commish]

I did check that out.  It's interesting.   

Oddly enough, the video is on their page too, but it looks like all roads lead to youtube   Don't see it anywhere else.