Recommended Posts
QuoteI think he is just plain rich and can well afford his tax rate
I wouldn't know because I don't get invited to these 'elitist' parties. I'm just common folk.
kallend 1,653
QuoteQuoteI think he is just plain rich and can well afford his tax rate
I wouldn't know because I don't get invited to these 'elitist' parties. I'm just common folk.
Sucks to be you.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Actually it doesn't! I make 22k/yr and probably are happier than you :)
kallend 1,653
QuoteActually it doesn't! I make 22k/yr and probably are happier than you :)
Quite likely, but then I doubt that your wife died this year.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
[Reply]He has a Falcon 50 12 seater jet
Awesome that he is employing those people who provide the materials for the bird, manufacture the bird, maintain the bird and fly the bird and all those who support them. He could have just purchased art from a dead guy but he is keeping people employed.
[Reply]
rich guy last week. He has a Falcon 50 12 seater jet. a FLEET of 40' racing yachts,
Awesome that he is employing those people who provide the materials for the yachts, manufacture the yachts, maintain the yachts and sail the yachts and all those who support them. He could have just purchased art from a dead guy but he is keeping people employed.
[Reply]2 houses in Key West, 2 houses in Chicago, a house in Aspen and one in San Francisco
Awesome that he is spending money, paying property taxes. Supporting the economy, etc.
[Reply]An Aston Martin that he doesn't like so he doesn't drive it any more.
Okay. You've got me on this one..
[Reply]He has 12 servants.
What? They should be on unemployment!!! What an asshole, taking 12 people off of government rolls. He doesn't need 12 people but he's paying them money that they can use for food, housing, etc? Jeez. I'd really hate him if he paid for their health insurance. What an evil guy!"
[Reply]He invited 600 of Chicago's Beautiful People to his Christmas party
Hmmm. Did he employ caterers, decorators, etc.? How darte he do his part to spread the wealth by employing people!!! I guess private citizens shouldn't be be spending money. Think of what that does to the economy!!!
[Reply]I think he is just plain rich and can well afford his tax rate.
Indeed! In fact, take the wages of his 12 servants and tax him that amount. Add the plane, the yachts and the amount he spent on the party. Such is not allowable. Instead of employing people, the money should go to the government. Rather than employing 12 servants, unemplloying 12 servants is, as a Congressperson recently said, the best thing we can do for our economy.
Jeez, John. Thank you for explaining how wasteful this guy is. How dare he employ people he doesn't need. He can give the money to the government, unemploy them, and the government can use that money to blow up ragheads or get unaccounted for in Iraq.
Edited to add: next thing you know, you'll find out he gave them bonuses and bought Christmas presents. What a wealthy, rich, greedy egalitarian asshole. He should be imprisoned. Paying people? Buying things? How dare he. Who is it? I'll fuck him up!
P.s. - the guy sounds like a Chicago civil servant. With that kind of money and power...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Nonsense. It's pretty easy to come to a consensus on what needs are, and it's already been done.
Needs:
1) a habitable residence. This includes secure doors, unbroken windows, a non leaking roof, heating, potable water, and safe wiring.
2) food of a nutritious manner and of sufficient calories. Check the rules on food stamps, or which grocery items CA chooses to tax and not tax. There is some fuzziness with the snack tax, but it's not make or break decisions.
3) clothing, including viable shoes, and coats suitable for the local winter climate
4) medical care that at a minimum covers threats to life. Many argue for a much higher standard, and our national standard is moving that way with the recent legislation.
5) education for the children.
From a tax standpoint, one might choose not to tax mass transit. It's not an actual need, but urban traffic infrastructure benefits. Likewise, a car is not a need.
TVs are purely recreational. It's absolutely not a need, and no justifiable reason to recluse it from a consumption tax. If you totaled up all working TVs in the country right now, I expect they would outnumber people.
OTOH, you could opt to tax used TVs (and cars) at a lower rate, or a zero rate, if the desire was to discourage consumption. (Though since most used TVs are sold in private transactions, they're unlikely to get taxed no matter what the law is)
That's already the case with sales taxes now, and its already the case with the retail price of the candy bar in the first place. They both pay the same 99 cents for the candy bar, and let's say 22 cents in tax. Every like expenditure the two make will be less dear for the millionaire. That's life.
Currently dividends and capital gains (LT) are taxed at 15%. This is where the majority of the annual "earnings" for the highly rich come from. Switching to a consumption tax at a rate in the 20s may represent a tax increase.
Or may not. Most presentations stick to selling the simplistic nature, when nothing about our method of taxation is remotely simple. And when you look at the large number of 'tax earmarks' on the debated tax bill, you can imagine what a flat tax bill would really look like, even at year 0.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites