Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > News & Current Events
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

News & Current Events Discuss Warren’s Plan Is Latest Push by Democrats to Raise Taxes on the Rich at the General Forum; Originally Posted by Manitou Everything, even your children, is deemed as property of Big Brother. No liberal ass hole will ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 02-01-2019, 05:09 PM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,850
Thanks: 9,033
Thanked 12,479 Times in 6,881 Posts
Default Re: Warren’s Plan Is Latest Push by Democrats to Raise Taxes on the Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitou View Post
Everything, even your children, is deemed as property of Big Brother. No liberal ass hole will be satisfied until Big Brother has the power to wipe his butt, feed him, and kiss his booboos from birth until death.
The system you describe here is called "feudalism." In Sweden they call it democratic socialism. It's 800 years later but frankly, it is the exact same thing. Right down to the King and everything.

But we are told it is "better."
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 02-01-2019, 09:38 PM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 17,576
Thanks: 10,920
Thanked 11,508 Times in 6,857 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Warren’s Plan Is Latest Push by Democrats to Raise Taxes on the Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
Perhaps there is a definition issue with the term Communism. There is the Karl mark theory that has never been successfully done. And the practical definition as practiced by the Soviet Union, Cuba or China.

In practice communism never has the purity of the Karl Marx socialist model. Historically, it always devolves to a dictatorship or an Oligarchy. And though such governments are titled as democratic or republics, the concentration of corruptible power is such that those nations are never truly either democratic or republic. And the citizens are never ever free and run their state by definitions as we know them here.

In all three versions, the start of the conversion from other forms involves the seizing of private assets by the government. Hence the proper reference to the term Communism, as done here by GetAClue and Dog Man, when socialists threaten to take assets and wealth from the private sector, is appropriate.
Marx taught that socialism was the transitional phase to communism. Communist dictatorships like the USSR and Cuba carried on for more than 50 years "in transition" claiming to be socialist.
__________________
What is a 30 something year old single man with a rock in one hand and a Honduran flag in the other?

An asylum seeker.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2019, 08:21 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,420
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,302 Times in 1,836 Posts
Default Re: Warren’s Plan Is Latest Push by Democrats to Raise Taxes on the Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by GetAClue View Post
We're not talking about simply taxing income or purchases. This is taxing someone not based on any activity other than being rich. The would be the government coming in saying that you have more than you need and we are going to take some of it. For no other reason than because you exist and have more than some politician thinks you need.
Warren's proposal to tax wealth is unconstitutional so why is it even being discussed? AOC's proposal to increase the tax rate on incomes above $10 million is Constitutional (16th Amendment) to 70% or even 90% and would be worthy of discussion but not in this thread.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2019, 08:58 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,420
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,302 Times in 1,836 Posts
Default Re: Warren’s Plan Is Latest Push by Democrats to Raise Taxes on the Rich

A lot of nonsense going back and forth without much thought addressing the real issue.

What is taxation for? To fund the expenditures of the government.

How do we create fair taxation where no one is being disadvantaged? That's also an easy question to answer based upon the unalienable (natural) rights of mankind.

Quote:
Sec. 140. It is true, governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it.

John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter II "Of the Extent of the Legislative Power"
John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 11

The "estate" is the value of assets minus liabilities of the person determined at the dissolution of the estate. It's not an estimate or an arbitrary amount. If your estate has $10 cash and $9 in financial obligations that require payment then the estate is worth $1. If you have $10 in financial obligations and only $9 to pay them then you don't have an estate. An estate cannot be a minus number because there's no funds left to pay taxes with. The "estate" basically refers to the "profits" of the person.

Taxing of the "estate" by the federal government is unconstitutional and Elizabeth Warren should know that but perhaps she's following the Trump lead by just making up SH*t as she goes along.

We don't tax the estate at the federal level. Our primary source of revenue is to tax income. The "estate" is relatively easy to determine.

Annual income in excess of the "true cost of living" is the annual "estate" of the person based upon income. I refer to the true cost of living because it's about a "decent income" that provides for the "support and comfort" of the household. It's not the "eat dog food to survive "cost of living" that the Congress might arbitrarily create. It covers health care and even income for retirement.

For tax purposes we can't use the spending habits of the person because people can spend on luxuries that are not a basic cost of living. It's also impossible to use 140 different criteria for the "real cost of living" of households. We need a "common denominator" and to some degree that's arbitrary but it must be above the minimum "cost of living" and we can do that. I've used two different known values to provide for a "real cost of living" baseline that starts imposing taxes on income.

Median Income is one and the other is Average Income that's considerably higher than the median income.

Using either the tax imposed above that amount must be 'proportionate" to all income above that amount. Proportionate is the rate of the tax being imposed on the income that's "profit" above the "real cost of living" that's a financial liability that must be paid every year.

The rate must provide the income necessary to fund the authorized expenditures because the purpose for the tax is to fund the authorized expenditures.

Let's try an example. While "average income" provides the actual tax rate and revenue required the "median income" provides surplus income.
Assume the median income is $50,000
Assume that all of the personal income equals $16 trillion for the year.
We're only going to tax the upper half of that income so our tax base is $8 trillion.
Assume the general expenditures (omit Social Security/Medicare that have their own tax base), that are funded by this income tax, are $3 trillion dollars.

$8 trillion tax base to fund $3 trillion expenditure equals a 37.5% tax rate on income above $50,000/yr.

If the household income is $40,000 you owe nothing.
If the household income is $60,000 you own $3,750 in income taxes.
If household income is $100,050,000 then you owe $37,500,000 in income taxes.

Everyone is paying the same tax rate that is proportionate to income above the "real cost of living" and it's fair taxation that fulfills the requirement for taxation that is to fund the authorized expenditures of the government.

This tax must be imposed on all income regardless of source or who receives the income. Income is income regardless of source.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2019, 09:04 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,420
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,302 Times in 1,836 Posts
Default Re: Warren’s Plan Is Latest Push by Democrats to Raise Taxes on the Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Marx taught that socialism was the transitional phase to communism. Communist dictatorships like the USSR and Cuba carried on for more than 50 years "in transition" claiming to be socialist.
Dictators are a corruption of socialism/communism.

We don't have any room to brag because we've corrupted capitalism which is why there's a super-wealthy class in the United States.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2019, 10:14 AM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,213
Thanks: 532
Thanked 6,484 Times in 4,665 Posts
Default Re: Warren’s Plan Is Latest Push by Democrats to Raise Taxes on the Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Dictators are a corruption of socialism/communism.

We don't have any room to brag because we've corrupted capitalism which is why there's a super-wealthy class in the United States.
Would you rather have rich socialist-communist ass holes, or rich, capitalist ass holes in power?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Manitou For This Useful Post:
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2019, 11:45 AM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,850
Thanks: 9,033
Thanked 12,479 Times in 6,881 Posts
Default Re: Warren’s Plan Is Latest Push by Democrats to Raise Taxes on the Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Dictators are a corruption of socialism/communism.

We don't have any room to brag because we've corrupted capitalism which is why there's a super-wealthy class in the United States.
A very nonsensical statement from someone who clearly either never read or understood our founding. Madison claimed there would be, and should be, accumulations of wealth and power under the brave new experiment. That was understood and intended. He was right.

What our new Republic setout to do was eliminate social class division and barriers. It places power in the hands of the individual, not their caste class. Your mistake is to equate class divisions made solely by wealth and assuming equal opportunity non existant.

Capitalism, is the exercise of effort and capital. It will flourish and prosper when unfettered by social class division. Structurally, we do not have them here except where implanted by false narrative. That comes from ignorance as exampled by your statement.

If there is any corruption of the capitalist system here in the USA, it has been done by well meaning progressives who would prefer overreaching government interference including regulation, theft by taxation, and outright confiscation. What Senator Warren proposes.
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE

Last edited by FrancSevin; 02-02-2019 at 12:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2019, 02:00 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 81,016
Thanks: 55,344
Thanked 26,233 Times in 18,768 Posts
Send a message via AIM to saltwn Send a message via MSN to saltwn Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Warren’s Plan Is Latest Push by Democrats to Raise Taxes on the Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by GetAClue View Post
You may want to read it again. She is talking about taxing their assets every year. That is not a tax on income, but a tax on what they own.

As for the rest of your babble, that is not the topic of the thread. If you want to complain about the rich not paying enough taxes, do it in another thread.
yeah I combined her and Ocassio-Cortez' plans but got that part correct
yes every year a valuable asset earns more money that money is taxed. I see no problem with that.
__________________
Trump’s only true skill is the con; his only fundamental belief is that the United States is the birthright of straight, white, Christian men, and his only real, authentic pleasure is in cruelty. It is that cruelty, and the delight it brings them, that binds his most ardent supporters to him, in shared scorn for those they hate and fear: immigrants, black voters, feminists, and treasonous white men who empathize with any of those who would steal their birthright.~Serwer|The Atlantic
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2019, 05:30 PM
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,680
Thanks: 349
Thanked 1,975 Times in 1,188 Posts
Default Re: Warren’s Plan Is Latest Push by Democrats to Raise Taxes on the Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
yeah I combined her and Ocassio-Cortez' plans but got that part correct
yes every year a valuable asset earns more money that money is taxed. I see no problem with that.
It's not taxing the money from the asset. That would be income. It is taxing the asset, yearly.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to loboloco For This Useful Post:
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2019, 08:22 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,420
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,302 Times in 1,836 Posts
Default Re: Warren’s Plan Is Latest Push by Democrats to Raise Taxes on the Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
A very nonsensical statement from someone who clearly either never read or understood our founding. Madison claimed there would be, and should be, accumulations of wealth and power under the brave new experiment. That was understood and intended. He was right.

What our new Republic setout to do was eliminate social class division and barriers. It places power in the hands of the individual, not their caste class. Your mistake is to equate class divisions made solely by wealth and assuming equal opportunity non existant.
A couple of points on just this part of the opinion

The founding of the United States was not based upon the accumulation of massive amounts of wealth by a small minority of individuals (e.g. the top 1/10th of 1% of the population). The foundation embraced by all of the ideological founders of the United States was equality and the unalienable/inalienable (natural) rights of the person. This is covered by both the Declaration of Independence and the "First Principles" that provided the basis for the US Constitution. I suggest people read the following from each of those documents.

Declaration of Independence
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/fourth_jul...ry?id=13976396

America's First Principles
Quote:
The rule of law is a First Principle that mandates that the law governs everyone

The First Principle of unalienable rights recognizes that everyone is naturally endowed by their Creator with certain rights

Equality is a First Principle that recognizes that all persons are created equal


The First Principle of the Social Compact recognizes that governments are instituted by the people and derive their just powers from the consent of the governed

The First Principle of limited government means that the protection of unalienable rights is the legitimate purpose and limit of government requires the government to be strong enough to fulfill its purpose yet limited to that purpose
America’s First Principles

Key to the founding fathers' understanding of the "unalienable" (natural) rights of the person was John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government published in 1690 that is the foremost authoritative source on understanding natural rights. It was Locke's logic that established that natural (unalienable)rights existed. When addressing wealth this relates to Chapter 5 (The Right) Of Property in the Second Treatise of Civil Government.
John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 5

Locke does not argue against the accumulation of wealth but there are caveats related to it that were significantly different from what we had in the 1780's and what we have today.

The right of property is a reference to the "right to possess" property and not to the "ownership" of property. We continued with the British statutory right of property that's not based upon the "right to possess" the property.

Our laws of property were never changed based upon the right to possess and to this day our laws of property are based upon "title of ownership" where the right to possess, based upon the labor of the person, may or may not exist. Under our laws of property people accumulate property without ever establishing a natural right to possess that property. The labor of the person establishes the right to possess and a person can only possess that which they can use in their lifetime. The right of property, like other natural rights, is not transferrable.

The natural right of property does accommodate the accumulation of wealth there's a natural limit to how much wealth a person can accumulate. A person does not have a natural right to accumulate more property than they can use. Locke explains that.

Quote:
Sec. 51. And thus, I think, it is very easy to conceive, without any difficulty, how labour could at first begin a title of property in the common things of nature, and how the spending it upon our uses bounded it. So that there could then be no reason of quarrelling about title, nor any doubt about the largeness of possession it gave. Right and conveniency went together; for as a man had a right to all he could employ his labour upon, so he had no temptation to labour for more than he could make use of. This left no room for controversy about the title, nor for encroachment on the right of others; what portion a man carved to himself, was easily seen; and it was useless, as well as dishonest, to carve himself too much, or take more than he needed.
We have people with hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars that try as they might they could never spend that amount of money on their own "support and comfort" in life. This wealth is useless for them because they can't use it and they acquired it dishonestly because they had to take it from the whole of mankind that could use it.

Our laws of property never changed when the United States was created and they're not based upon the natural right of property.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
Capitalism, is the exercise of effort and capital. It will flourish and prosper when unfettered by social class division. Structurally, we do not have them here except where implanted by false narrative. That comes from ignorance as exampled by your statement.

If there is any corruption of the capitalist system here in the USA, it has been done by well meaning progressives who would prefer overreaching government interference including regulation, theft by taxation, and outright confiscation. What Senator Warren proposes.
There's a tenet of capitalism that's required to prevent it's failure:

The price for goods and services must be greater than the cost to provide those goods and services. A price lower than the cost ultimately leads to bankruptcy and bankruptcy is the failure of capitalism.


The "market price" for labor, a service, is not based upon the costs of the person to provide the labor and is often below that cost. When this occurs it requires an external subsidy (welfare assistance) to prevent the bankruptcy of capitalism. The beneficiaries of the price being less than the cost are the owners of enterprise that profit based upon the underpayment for the labor they use.

The "cost of labor" is the price that must be paid to the worker so the worker can have a decent living. There are no poor people when the right to possess property is based upon natural law and there are no super-rich people that have more than they could ever personally use.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
democrats, latest, plan, push, raise, rich, taxes, the, warren’s

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0