Rich Conway
Footballguy
It has everything to do with it. Complaining that the rich pay too much in income taxes ignores the the poor pay most other taxes.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Thread (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter JohnnyU
- Start date
BladeRunner
Footballguy
The poor don't pay any taxes. In fact, not only do they not pay any taxes they actually get money back for taxes that they didn't pay.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nugget
Footballguy
So it's your position that the rich don't pay their "fair share" of some taxes that poor people pay? Because my point wasn't that poor people don't pay taxes, but that the notion that rich people don't pay their "fair share" is ridiculous on it's face. The rich pay EVERY tax poor people do, and some that they don't. There is no objective measure you can offer that will show rich people not paying their "fair share."
Rich Conway
Footballguy
The most recent estimate I saw showed that the top 1% earn approximately 21% of the nation's income and pay approximately 24% of the nation's total tax burden. For a country with a supposedly progressive tax system, that's barely progressive at all.
Here's an interesting graphic for those who think the rich pay far too much in taxes compared to the poor.
https://imgur.com/r/interestingas####/xhYCQh4
The Commish
Footballguy
If you're talking about the line item, that's true. The problem is, of course, the % they pay as a result of tax loopholes that those with a lot of money are afforded and those that don't make a bunch of money aren't. AGI is a huge boondoggle for the rich and even those of us in the middle class. Any time you add "adjusted" anything into the mix, that contributes to uneven playing fields.
Now do someone making 30k a year.......Look, don't get me wrong. We could certainly make adjustments/increases and eliminate loopholes to our system. I think it was Sand who has posted some good posts about this. And I'm fine with that. I just take issue with this constant pushing of the sentiment that the rich aren't paying much in taxes. Even if they're not, which we can debate about but we'd be in a lot more debt if not for whatever they're contributing, they're paying a heck of a lot more both in absolute numbers AND in percentage than the people on the other end of the scale.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
The bolded just isn't true once you account for all taxes. It's even less true if you include government fees (e.g. DMV license renewal).
I'll post this again since you appear to have missed it the first time: https://imgur.com/r/interestingas####/xhYCQh4
Look at the very end, 2018.
Yeah, sorry, I'm not trusting the assertions of the NY Times who are relying on a book written by two extremely liberal economists. At least not without reading the book to see what poor assumptions they're basing their conclusions on. These two guys answer to the problem is a wealth tax. I'll pass.
And quit saying you have to account for "all" taxes as if rich people don't pay other taxes other than income. I'm pretty sure Jay Leno has to pay the DMV to register all those cars in his personal parking garage if he wants to drive them on public roads in CA. Or do you think Jay Leno is cheating the DMV somehow?
Rich Conway
Footballguy
OK, since you don't believe my evidence (apparently, "because sides"), do you have any evidence showing your assertion that "they're paying a heck of a lot more both in absolute numbers AND in percentage than the people on the other end of the scale"?
Re: your example above, that isn't a tax, it's a fee, which I added as an aside. Fees wouldn't be included in the graphic I posted above. In any case, while I have no doubt Jay Leno pays his DMV fees, the point is that his DMV fees are a much smaller, as in orders of magnitude smaller, percentage of his income than the DMV fees of your average middle class or poor person.
The Commish
Footballguy
Scratch everything I said, I don't want the point to get lost in a fictitious example and lose the point. The point I'm trying to make is that our tax code (as it pertains to income) is severely flawed. It is designed to ignore earnings and the more you earn the more opportunity there is to ignore those earnings. That's the problem. A guy making $30K a year is not going to be in a situation where the government is not going to be taxing pretty much all his income. A guy making $100K a year is going to have the government looking the other way on his behalf more and a guy making $1M a year is going to have the government looking the other way even more.
In my view, if you make $100K the tax code should recognize that and tax accordingly. If you make $10, the tax code should recognize that and tax accordingly If you make $5M the tax code should recognize that and tax accordingly.
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
BladeRunner
Footballguy
You actually think the rich don't pay sales tax, property tax and gasoline tax? Wut?
But we're not talking about those taxes that EVERYONE pays, we're talking about income tax.
squistion
Footballguy
Nugget
Footballguy
You said the poor pay no taxes. I listed three taxes they paid, and then you changed the question. At least now you admit that everyone pays taxes.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Oh, this is one of those "I'm going to find a technical "gotcha' so I can 'getcha'" posts. No different than the guy who comes charging in here complaining about spelling errors. Okay. Good work.
Can you get back on topic now? The overall arching topic and ideas we're talking about? TIA.
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
Dude, you got the facts wrong, this was not just a correction of a spelling typo or a grammatical error.
Nugget
Footballguy
BladeRunner
Footballguy
You keep trying to make this about me and you keep flailing. Stay on point, hard charger.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Threads like these would be a lot easier to read, if, in a situation like this, you would say something like, "You're right, I wrote the poor pay no taxes, and I should have specified income taxes." That would them be the end of it. Instead, you accuse others of changing the subject in a misguided attempt to avoid your own post. @IvanKaramazov, who you frequently claim to want to be more like, would have done exactly what I wrote above.You keep trying to make this about me and you keep flailing. Stay on point, hard charger.
That said, if you want to address the topic at hand, do you have any comments on the data showing the absolute wealthiest among us pay a lower percentage of combined taxes than any other group?
FairWarning
Footballguy
I think we can agree that the rich do pay their fair share of taxes. They are also in a better position to take advantage of loopholes.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Threads like these would be easier to read if guys like you and your crew wouldn't derail them with inconsequential nonsense. You purposefully distract and throw up smoke screens to deflect from the issue we are talking about, which is that the rich do not pay their fair share - that's income taxes.
No on is talking about property tax, or goods tax or gasoline tax - the rich pay those too so when someone says "the poor don't pay taxes", it's patently clear that it's income tax we're talking about, especially when it's YOUR member of congress - and the one who this thread is dedicated to - who is screaming "THE RICH DON'T PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE!". You really think she's talking about gasoline taxes? The taxes you pay on a bottle of Downy? Give me a break. EVERYONE pays those taxes.
You and your crew bringing stuff like that up is no different than having a debate with a guy and he starts criticizing your spelling or grammar. It's irrelevant and unnecessary because it's not germane to the discussion at hand. It's the go-to tactic for those who can't argue on the merits.
You and your crew have spent, what? A good 2 pages now focusing on some inconsequential bull#### about gasoline taxes and goods taxes when those were NEVER what we were talking about. Please stop derailing this thread and get back on topic.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nugget
Footballguy
This is where we disagree. I am specifically talking about all taxes. Taxes don’t occur in a vacuum.
Someone making $20K spends a much bigger portion of their income on gasoline than someone making $300K. Groceries and housing make up a much bigger percentage of the lower class budget. They don’t have extra money to put in the tax deferred or tax advantaged accounts.
If you want to talk about income tax, and separately from all of the other taxes, please be specific. I think it makes for a weaker conversation, especially when we tax labor at higher rates than capital gains, but if that is what you want I’d be happy to humor you.
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
Patrick Ewing once said about being wealthy "We might make a lot of money, but we spend a lot of money too!"
Rich Conway
Footballguy
What's the topic? I thought the topic was whether the rich pay their fair share of taxes? Limiting "taxes" to "federal income taxes" is ludicrous. Taxes means taxes. All taxes.
I showed earlier in the thread that the absolute wealthiest among us pay the lowest percentage of their income in taxes. Do you care to discuss that or would you rather just make more baseless assertions about "your side"?
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Good argument for switching to a VAT, but otherwise, not terribly germane.Patrick Ewing once said about being wealthy "We might make a lot of money, but we spend a lot of money too!"
squistion
Footballguy
Dude, you specifically stated that the poor pay NO TAXES. You were called out for that patently false statement and pointing that out is not inconsequential nonsense.
The Commish
Footballguy
The gap is significantly closer between the rich and the poor the more taxes you include. If one speaks ONLY of income taxes, the statement that "the top don't pay their fair share" isn't remotely controversial. Most of the uber wealthy have no income as defined by this country and they continue to make billions every year. Buffet will tell you this in front of a live studio audience. I'm not sure what we're arguing about here.
Sand
Footballguy
As I've noted previously, if you want to tax the wealthy it's all about capital gains taxes (and closing the carried interest loophole). Changing tax rules on portfolio loans is another item to close. I don't see anything wrong with adding some more levels to the cap gains taxes. Need to make it so that investing is still attractive (poor people don't invest at a large scale and we need that risk taking).
BladeRunner
Footballguy
You're the one making baseless assertions. You're digging your hole deeper.
I'm sure AOC is talking about the gasoline tax when she says the rich don't pay their fair share. Absurd.
Last edited by a moderator:
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
That book was debunkedJohn123 said:
Eta: for example they removed the EITC. They started with a conclusion and worked backward.
Last edited by a moderator:
Shula-holic
Footballguy
Exactly. The political talking points of incremental rates only apply to earned income. This doesn't really affect the top end people who make most of their income through capital gains. As a small business owner of a S-Corp, I pay tax on the business earnings personally. The CPA in me just cringes when I hear people who don't understand the tax code spout off political talking points about the rich and incremental rates with no clue about what really causes disparity in taxes per dollar earned.Sand said:
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
zoonation
Footballguy
Lol. Yeah. I live there. And the unrelated deflection is a nice touch to just prove my point. Well done.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
It's just hilarious that they come in these threads and they come up with some nitpicky b******* that derailed the entire thread and then blame the other guys for not wanting a "substantive dialog".
Give me a break. The gas lighting is beyond ludicrous speed here.
The Commish
Footballguy
Right. Ive outlined multiple approaches in the past and CG is always part of it. There is really no meaningful solution without it. The rich are happy with the focus on income alone. Its simply shortsighted and wrong to focus merely on income.Sand said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Carry on. Apparently, you're the only one allowed to determine the topic and what the appropriate responses can be. It's to the point where there's no point in engaging. You refuse to discuss issues and make literally every single post either "your side!!!1!" or "2016-2020!!!" or "you're ruining the thread!1!!" Every. Single. Post. Before you respond, go back and point me to just one of your posts that's substantive. Just one.BladeRunner said:
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Gaslighting: its what you do.
You guys are the one that came in here and started to derail the thread about off-topic inconsequential BS. I know you can't argue on the merits so you and your crew went after me instead.
Again, it's what you do. That's what you're trained to do.
I would appreciate if you don't engage because I want to talk about topics and you want to talk about me.
Maybe you and your pals could start another thread on me and talk about me there instead? You could call it the Blade Runner Derangement Syndrome thread. By having my own thread we can contain you guys there instead of derailing other threads.
TIA!
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway
Footballguy
So, you can't point to a single substantive post you've made? Of course, I already knew that. Just for kicks, here are your last nine posts in this forum.
https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/768581-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-thread/page/219/?tab=comments#comment-23610709 - Complaint about "your side".
https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/800581-an-nyu-professor-says-fewer-men-going-to-college-will-lead-to-a-mating-crisis-with-the-us-producing-too-many-lone-and-broke-men/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-23610708 - Complaint about "your side".
https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/768581-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-thread/page/219/?tab=comments#comment-23610494 - Complaint about "your side".
https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/800581-an-nyu-professor-says-fewer-men-going-to-college-will-lead-to-a-mating-crisis-with-the-us-producing-too-many-lone-and-broke-men/?tab=comments#comment-23610253 - Complaint about "your side".
https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/768581-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-thread/page/219/?tab=comments#comment-23609911 - Complaint about another poster.
https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/800581-an-nyu-professor-says-fewer-men-going-to-college-will-lead-to-a-mating-crisis-with-the-us-producing-too-many-lone-and-broke-men/?tab=comments#comment-23609870 - Complaint about another poster.
https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/790013-official-president-joe-biden-thread/page/134/?tab=comments#comment-23609557 - I don't really know, I'm not following that thread.
https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/798345-january-6-defendants/page/14/?tab=comments#comment-23609554 - Feeble attempt at a joke?
https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/768581-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-thread/page/219/?tab=comments#comment-23609534 - Complaint about "your side".
Impressive. 7 of the 9 posts are complaints about other posters who are trying desperately to get you to stay on topic. I'll put you back on ignore, it'll make everyone's life better.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Yeah but the problem is is you think that they were trying to get me on topic when all they were doing was talking about me and about the deflection that they introduced into the conversation.
I'm asking you once again to stay on topic please. Stop making this about me.
I can't make it any clearer to you. We're not talking about gasoline taxes in here.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
Amazing that the media follows such an ineffective congress person the way they do AOC.
AOC introduced a total of 21 bills which the center defined as “substantive” — but that is where her story ends. Her legislation has received no action in committees, no floor votes, and none ever became law, according to data from Congress.gov.
AOC introduced a total of 21 bills which the center defined as “substantive” — but that is where her story ends. Her legislation has received no action in committees, no floor votes, and none ever became law, according to data from Congress.gov.
Mile High
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
Can't speak to our national news coverage, but it doesn't surprise me at all (if true) that they cover her. Our media is driven by what gets your eyeballs. "News" is the last thing on their minds.
But, this just illustrates the nonsense and hyperventilation over this woman here in the PSF. I've never understood it. It's almost like once Hillary was gone they needed a new focus. Gotta scratch that itch, right?
Nugget
Footballguy
To be fair, most of Congress is ineffective. Over 16,000 bills were introduced last session - 90% weren't voted on. Out of 9,424 this year, 41 have become laws. Around 5% have any action on them.
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
Then you only go here.
Microsoft News feed runs articles all the time as if she is the only person in congress.
Mile High
Footballguy
That's some what true. I pretty much just watch local news. Not many stories about a congress women 1000 miles away.
The Commish
Footballguy
I'm assuming you are talking about msn? The more you hover over, stop on or click stories about her, the more you're going to see. That's how it works in this day and age. Same with yahoo, google news etc.
Similar threads
