That seemed like a cheesy assed simple minded show. Maybe I didn't give it enough of a chance, but two or three episodes was all the chance I was willing to give.
How we voted in 2018
- Thread starter Watu3
- Start date
I think 27% is about right give or take. My effective tax rate is about 5%. I'm cool with that. I know if I worked my ass off to make a Million per year, I wouldn't want 40% of that to go to the government, IDK why anyone would.
Which is pretty ridiculous considering all the crap Trump has been talking about cutting Medicare and SS, two things that demographic would benefit from.
The shift in the House and, more importantly, the state legislatures and governorships, in a few states will tell us a lot about the shifting nature. Colorado and Nevada were once deep red states. Colorado just elected an openly gay governor who introduced his partner as the "first, first man of Colorado". Nevada, also a reliable red state in the past, elected a Dem governor and shifted a few HoR seats. Of course they elected a red, dead pimp to their state legislature as well. Wisconsin got rid of Scott Walker who was turning that state into a state as red as UWs jerseys. Ohio-same thing. Pennsylvania-same thing. 3 state's Trump won in 2016 who all had GOP governors are now more purple and shifting.
And Florida is not over yet. You could see the Senate race actually end up DEM. And with the passage of the question to reinstitute voting rights to convicted felons except those with murder or sex crime convictions, that should push it further towards the blue side of the aisle.
Its actually based in several different schools of moral philosophy. Some of the humor is basic, but what they're dealing with existentially isn't.
Lots of moral dilemmas that are interesting.
That's not what I asked. How much.... do they earn.... in comparison to the bottom 90%?
I have a hard time keeping track of my zeros when numbers get this big but even if I'm off one space the ratio is correct.
Top 1% $1,006,272,000,000
Bottom 90% $4,689,187,000,000
I don't doubt they address several different schools of moral philosophy. With the subject matter the show's premise it wouldn't be hard to come up against some of those schools of thought accidentally. I just didn't see them addressed in depth or with any sense of wry wit, or with any cogent sensibilities. But like I said, I only gave the show a 2 or 3 episode run before I gave up on it. I might give it another chance on your recommendation. But if I do, and it still fails in my book, i'm coming looking for you in New Me-xi-coco, armed with my vocab of the word soft.
:scream:
My advice would to be watch through the first season. The first couple episodes are more to get the general public hooked. The tail end of the season gets smarter and the first season finale is really good.I don't doubt they address several different schools of moral philosophy. With the subject matter the show's premise it wouldn't be hard to come up against some of those schools of thought accidentally. I just didn't see them addressed in depth or with any sense of wry wit, or with any cogent sensibilities. But like I said, I only gave the show a 2 or 3 episode run before I gave up on it. I might give it another chance on your recommendation. But if I do, and it still fails in my book, i'm coming looking for you in New Me-xi-coco, armed with my vocab of the word soft.
Absolutely....I took the number of total taxpayers then multiplied by 90% to get the bottom 90 numerical figure and did the same with the top 1%. I then took the average income for the bottom 90% and multiplied by the number of taxpayers in that group. Same for the top 1%. It's not exact but it should be close. Couldn't find any exact breakdowns along those lines. Is my method flawed?
Your ignorance on the matter keeps shining through.
Stop with the socialist crap. No one on either side, and not even Bernie Sanders, is promoting a socialist economy at all. We've already had this argument and you clearly do not understand anything about what Sanders or Ocasio or Beto O'Rourke stand for.
This conversation about who can be less selfish with other people’s money has been fascinating.
I have no problem how much people or corps make.
I have a problem with bogus tax deductions, granted by congress.
I have a problem with bogus tax deductions, granted by congress.
Ocasio-cortez...how are you going to pay for it? "We just will because we'll save so much!" As she giggles...and people voted for her.
Without the community the other people wouldn't have money in the first place. They owe the community. No one's going to buy Bill Gates' computers if we don't have all the infrastructure, protection, social safety nets, education, etc... to be able to construct, purchase, or operate them.
No one's going to need a real estate agent in Oklahoma if the Federal Government hadn't bought the land from France and made it safe and secure for people to live on and provided them a means to own and equally divide the land and the community (government). The houses they buy might just blow away in a tornado without some forms of regulation on construction codes. And even if the houses still blow away the people of the community can use the services of emergency rescue groups, or things like FEMA.
I’m pretty sure someone would live in Oklahoma and need a real estate agent, regardless of which colonial power controlled it.
I'm assuming you are not talking about all tax dollars, just the ones going towards social safety nets?
Only because the federal governments of the colonial powers subsidized colonization by giving land away for nothing, protecting their colonists from native populations, and developed an industrial system that allowed the building of towns and houses by funding railroads, powerlines, telephones, etc...
Is your argument here that because someone benefits more (earns more $$$) from the community, they owe the community more because of the items you mention that are made for everybody?
Or are you just giving an example of how taxes are not charity?
And, this isn't directed at you aston, I'm not sure who here the taxes are charity statement was directed toward but I do not have that POV.
The only thing I've agreed with Bernie on is healthcare. It should be a one payer system. It's insane that our health (and moreso our illnesses) is exploited for profit by insurance companies that hold all the power.
The only other socialist thing they proposed was 2 year community college for free. I can see why since the education level and ability to do higher level jobs in our country has fallen behind. You want to limit immigration, start by educating the work force in this country so they can do the jobs that American companies are now hiring international workers for. Some of the lawyers here can tell you how much an immigration lawyer costs and how many times they work for companies in getting educated international employees legal to work in the US. I believe one of the questions is why the company needs to hire an international worker for the position and it always comes back something like lack of qualified domestic applicants.
Plus...she's going to pay for it the same way Trump is going to pay for his wall. It's not going to happen.
I'm saying that income taxation (both state and federal) can not be considered "being selfish with other people's money" because there would be no "other people's money" without the society that income taxation as well as general government subsidies provided.
Look at a company like Anadarko Petroleum. The majority of their acreage holding these days comes from the purchase of the assets of the UP railway which included hundreds of thousands of acres in surface and mineral ownership. They were gifted that ownership in perpetuity for constructing the UP railroad. Not only did UP get to benefit from their railroad monopoly for decades, they also got mineral and surface ownership for centuries which they profit from to this day. Saying the CEO of a company like Anadarko, is having "his money" spent by other people is a bit disingenuous since his company wouldn't exist in the same fashion it does now without the absolutely massive subsidies the federal government allowed it.
That also brings us to the point that some people tend to profit off the activities of government to a much greater degree than others.
I wouldn't be dead set against paying the tuition at a community college for those who want to go (we could even do it on a need basis). Cost would be around $2500 per year. Tuition grant would be in the form of a loan which is would be forgiven upon graduation. If the student fails to graduate withing say a 4 year period then they shall be obligated to repay said loan similar to current student loan programs.
Why do I feel most of us on this board would be better capable of running a government than the idiots we elect?
That's not to say the employees of Anadarko and it's executive staff haven't added value to their company with hard work. They absolutely have and they should be rewarded as such, but requiring a stringent tax policy for them and the corporation itself (as well as other corporations and civilians) is not theft as it's sometimes made out to be. It's paying back into the system so others can benefit in future generations just as they benefited.
In the end, the tax breaks probably don't benefit the workers as much as they do the CEOs and shareholders. How often do we see companies that rake in a record profits for a year pass it on to the workers that made the company excel? They may get a little bonus but I would bet if you asked all of them if they'd rather have a $2000 bonus or better health and dental benefits (that the company paid for with said record revenue) with a better retirement option, they'd almost always choose the latter. we saw this with all the little bonuses companies passed out to workers...some of whom were laid off shortly thereafter as said companies moved operations elsewhere.
I'm not anyone would classify taxes as theft. I do think the left at times forgets that those individuals who start and run the businesses in this country fund those social programs which they hold near and dear to their hearts as well as most other government functions. I have no issues with this setup mind you but an occasional acknowledgement as to where the state and federal government gets their tax revenue is important. Especially when you seek to demonize those individuals....and yes, the people they employ and pay do play an important role.
I think the tax code needs to differentiate between small and large businesses a little bit better. When Republicans say, "We have some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world!", they are not wrong. But it is also rife with loopholes and credits for various industries that take the effective tax rate way down, and you get guys like GE paying zero taxes. The problem is that the small business operator that has a half dozen employees and runs a local bike shop, just as an example, can't hire the high-powered CPAs to figure out if he qualifies for any of those breaks or not, and ends up paying the higher rates. We punish small businesses, and subsidize large ones.
Totally agree. Tax credits, loopholes, etc...should only be in place to encourage investment we find beneficial to the community or nation as a whole (green energy, R&D, etc...) Too many are in place due to lobbyist and money spent. The tax code isn't written with my small business in mind. It's written with Amazon, Wal-Mart, GE, etc... in mind because they have the money to get into the pockets of those who write the code. Small business simply doesn't have a unified voice or the money not to mention the common interest to influence the code like the giant corporations.
So start unifying. Maybe call it the national small business union. Only problem is... some people aren't going to like that name very much.
We do to some extent via the Chamber of Commerce. The problem is that when you have so many diverse businesses there are very few common interests which we can point to which would help even a majority of us. There have been a few successes...When the ACA was enacted there was a provision which required us to report every expenditure over $500 to the IRS. The paperwork and accounting for such reporting on small business was simply overwhelming. A perfect example of Washington not understanding small business. We acted and got that measure removed from the law. Unfortunately we failed on being able to from groups for health insurance like we had prior to the enactment of the law. Large businesses are able to form their own groups by the way due to their size and benefit with group rates. Again...another example of Washington either not understanding or caring about small business. The tax code is the same story.
Ok...rant over.
I think it's funny how business owners are fine with forming groups to more effectively lobby the government for better rights, lower taxes, etc..., but many (not all) treat labor unions so poorly when they're effectively trying to achieve similar goals... keeping more of the profits they help produce.
So... if I’m reading this right, all wealth belongs to / originated with the government?
