ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amazon.com , Jeff Bezos , tax issues

Reply
Old 15th August 2018, 07:26 AM   #121
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,949
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
Depends upon what you consider to be a fair share.

The top .1% do typically pay the highest rate.
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-la...a-2016-update/
Table 8. 27.67%

Or The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (39.5 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.1 percent).
Is that accounting for capital gains, loopholes, deductions, etc?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2018, 07:37 AM   #122
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,560
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
Depends upon what you consider to be a fair share.

The top .1% do typically pay the highest rate.
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-la...a-2016-update/
Table 8. 27.67%

Or The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (39.5 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.1 percent).
But do the top 1% earn 39% of the money or more than that?
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2018, 07:48 AM   #123
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,170
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Is that accounting for capital gains, loopholes, deductions, etc?
I believe so because it is the actual amount from the total taxes line and the AGI from the return.

Probably does not include tax exempt bonds and some other items. Also doesn't include payroll taxes.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2018, 07:53 AM   #124
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,949
Originally Posted by Disbelief View Post
But do the top 1% earn 39% of the money or more than that?
When you're talking about Jeff in particular:

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/unit...th-bottom-half
Quote:
The three richest people in the US own as much wealth as the bottom half of the nationís population
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2018, 07:54 AM   #125
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,170
Originally Posted by Disbelief View Post
But do the top 1% earn 39% of the money or more than that?
As I said it depends upon what someone considers as fair.
I think they pay a fair share and I am not in the 1% (anymore).

I think table five says they earned 20% of the income.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2018, 08:05 AM   #126
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,949
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
As I said it depends upon what someone considers as fair.
I think they pay a fair share and I am not in the 1% (anymore).

I think table five says they earned 20% of the income.
Yeah, the concept of "fair" is a personal opinion more than an objective fact.

I see this as just... wrong.
https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...americans-hav/
Quote:
The top 0.1 percent was composed of 160,000 families with average wealth of $72.8 million. All told, they owned 22 percent of the nationís wealth.

Meanwhile, the bottom 90 percent -- 144 million families with average wealth of $84,000 -- owned only 22.8 percent of the wealth.

In other words, the top 0.1 percent and the bottom 90 percent of U.S. households own virtually the same share of all the nation's wealth.
The standard of living (including life expectancy!) is falling for the lower brackets. It's not that America can't afford the universal benefits seen in the other developed nations, but we can't without taxing the uber rich more.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2018, 08:19 AM   #127
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 14,588
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
Depends upon what you consider to be a fair share.

The top .1% do typically pay the highest rate.
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-la...a-2016-update/
Table 8. 27.67%

Or The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (39.5 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.1 percent).

The overwhelming majority of the wealth of the 1% is not classed as Income, it's classed as Capital Gains, which is taxed at a lower rate. Further, the 1% have far more access to tax shelters and other loopholes and "incentives" that help them shield their wealth from taxes. The main reason so many contribute to charities is for the tax breaks that result.

In fact, among the top 20 wealthiest individuals and corporations, most not only do not pay any notable amount in net taxes, but a few even received enough rebates and incentives to have negative taxes.

Looking only at income misses most of the picture. Further, it also fails to take into account the disproportionate impact of taxes on the wealth of the lower brackets compared to the upper brackets. In order for the tax rates for the top 1% to have a similar impact on total wealth that the 25% income tax rate has on the median income bracket, they would have to pay double or triple that rate with no recourse to shelters or loopholes.

Originally Posted by Disbelief View Post
But do the top 1% earn 39% of the money or more than that?

The top 1% own a bit more than 40% of the nation's total wealth; but that's a bit misleading without context.

The top 1% own more wealth than the entire bottom 90% combined. Changing the numbers a bit, the top 20% own 90% of all the wealth in the nation. 90%, leaving only 10% for the bottom 80% of us. Further, the share of wealth owned by the top 1% has continued to increase, while the share owned by the bottom 90% has continued to decline, further widening the gap.

Add to that, the bottom 90% also carries 73% of all the debt in the nation, further increasing the inequality.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.d94231809928
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon

Last edited by luchog; 15th August 2018 at 08:35 AM.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2018, 10:06 AM   #128
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,098
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Works for me, but I wasn't really joking about also taking most of his assets/wealth. Money is power, and that is far too much for any one person to have.
What do you think the limit should be?
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2018, 10:17 AM   #129
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,949
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
What do you think the limit should be?
Off the top of my head, I guess really firm taxation should start decreasing wealth accumulation starting around $10 million or so. Not a hard cap, but enough to where it'll take a few more decades of work to double or triple it from there. Something like that.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2018, 10:22 AM   #130
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,949
Or maybe just aim to be like Finland.

http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/...ity-in-eu.html
Quote:
In Finland, the index shows, the income of the highest-earning ten per cent was on an average 5.4 times as high as that of the lowest-earning ten per cent.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2018, 10:25 AM   #131
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,170
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
The overwhelming majority of the wealth of the 1% is not classed as Income, it's classed as Capital Gains, which is taxed at a lower rate.
Quote:
it's classed as Capital Gains, which is taxed at a lower rate.
Not sure what you mean because capital gains are income and are included in the charts I pointed to. Now there is such a thing as unrealized capital gains which is wealth not income and that is not taxed at all until the property is disposed or death.

Quote:
The main reason so many contribute to charities is for the tax breaks that result.
I don't know how you can ascertain the motives of those who donate large sums to charity. Of course they usually do so in the most tax advantageous way.

The charts I showed are taxable income before itemized deductions and charitable contributions are an itemized deduction.

Quote:
In fact, among the top 20 wealthiest individuals and corporations, most not only do not pay any notable amount in net taxes, but a few even received enough rebates and incentives to have negative taxes.
Do you have any links for that as it pertains to individuals?

Quote:
Looking only at income misses most of the picture.
I agree with that.

Quote:
Further, it also fails to take into account the disproportionate impact of taxes on the wealth of the lower brackets compared to the upper brackets. In order for the tax rates for the top 1% to have a similar impact on total wealth that the 25% income tax rate has on the median income bracket, they would have to pay double or triple that rate with no recourse to shelters or loopholes.
Why should it have a similar impact? I don't think it should.

Last edited by eeyore1954; 15th August 2018 at 10:30 AM.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2018, 10:57 AM   #132
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,388
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
When you demonstrate the facts behind your initial claims of his tax situation I'll consider linking to the many on line reports of how his wealth is structured....
Fair enough. Let's start with taxation of stock sales. It's been proposed upthread that one way Bezos generates income is by selling stock. For the sake of argument, let's assume that's true.

Hopefully the premise that stock sales are taxed is not controversial or disputed in any way. But just in case, here's a few articles that demonstrate that paying taxes on stock sales is taken for granted as a normal part of selling stock:

https://www.fool.com/knowledge-cente...ing-stock.aspx
https://www.investopedia.com/taxes/c...les-2013-04-09
https://money.cnn.com/retirement/gui...mag/index2.htm

So I think we can agree that in the normal course of things, when (if) Jeff Bezos sells stock, he pays taxes on it just like everyone else. Which brings us to the conclusion that if you want to claim that Bezos exploits some tax loophole to avoid paying taxes on stock sales, the burden is on you to describe the loophole and demonstrate that Bezos is exploiting it.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2018, 12:52 PM   #133
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 14,588
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
Not sure what you mean because capital gains are income and are included in the charts I pointed to. Now there is such a thing as unrealized capital gains which is wealth not income and that is not taxed at all until the property is disposed or death.

No, that's not the case. Income is defined and taxed differently in the US tax code than Capital Gains are. My comments were a bit oversimplified, as there are two types of Capital Gains, and they are taxed at different rates. For the purposes of this discussion, I was referring to Long Term Capital Gains -- assets held for longer than one year -- which are the bulk of the Capital Gains that comprise the wealth of the 1%.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...-gains-tax.asp
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2018, 01:20 PM   #134
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 14,588
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
Why should it have a similar impact? I don't think it should.

Because otherwise the tax is regressive and effectively penalizes people for being poor. The less you have, the less you should be taxed.

And I think you're ignoring the scale of the problem.

The US median income is a little below 60,000, which is taxed at a rate of roughly 25%, based on the latest 2017 rates. The highest tax bracket is just under 40%, which requires an income of 400,000 to 500,000 depending on filing type.

Let's break that down. At 25%, the person making 60,000 will have a tax burden of 15,000, and therefore a net income of 45,000. One person can manage to survive on this moderately well. A family cannot, and that 15,000 can mean the difference between affording to pay for medication and food in the same month, or being forced to choose between them. Or it can mean being able to afford a new car when the old one dies, or being stuck riding the bus.

By comparison, someone making 400,000 with a tax bracket of 40% has a tax burden of 160,000, and a net income of 240,000. That's over five times the median income individual makes, and that 160,000 is not going to make a significant difference in their lives. At most, they'll have to downgrade the Ferrari to a Corvette, and vacation in Key West instead of the French Riviera.

Likewise that median income is not going to allow the family to buy a house, whereas the upper-income has the ability to own a primary residence and a summer house. The median income is going to find it effectively impossible to save for retirement, whereas the upper-income has investments for retirement, and quite possibly tax shelters as well, further reducing his tax burden and increasing income.

And the moment you get into the millions, the tax burden is going to be easily ignored, it will have no significant impact on the life of the millionaire. at 2,000,000, they will still be netting 1,200,000. Few people can spend that much money, and most of it will be going into investments and tax shelters that will reduce the tax burden even farther.

And by the time you get into the really big money, 10,000,000 or more, you're reaching the bracket where you can start paying politicians to pass legislation that reduced your taxes, even though you can easily afford to pay far more without the slightest noticible impact to your own life and lifestyle.

And, again, this is just Income. In real life, the overwhelming majority of the wealth of income brackets over about 1-200,000 will come from investments, aka Capital Gains, which are only taxed at 20%, cutting their tax burden almost in half, give or take.

The tax burden should absolutely have a similar impact to all people, or you're no longer looking at a society based on equality, you're looking at a society based on privilege. An equal society would greatly reduce the tax burden on lower income brackets, moderately increase it on upper income brackets, close shelters and loopholes, and bring Capital Gains rates in line with Income rates.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2018, 04:18 PM   #135
paulhutch
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Blackstone River Valley, MA
Posts: 2,218
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
The overwhelming majority of the wealth of the 1% is not classed as Income, it's classed as Capital Gains, which is taxed at a lower rate.
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
Not sure what you mean because capital gains are income and are included in the charts I pointed to.
I believe luchog is referring to long term capital gains while you are referring to short term capital gains.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/taxe...ins-tax-rates/
Quote:
In 2018 the capital gains tax rates are either 0%, 15% or 20% for most assets held for more than a year. Capital gains tax rates on most assets held for less than a year correspond to ordinary income tax brackets (10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% or 37%).
paulhutch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2018, 06:33 PM   #136
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,170
Originally Posted by paulhutch View Post
I believe luchog is referring to long term capital gains while you are referring to short term capital gains.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/taxe...ins-tax-rates/
The charts I referenced included income from both long and short term gains. And the average rate is taking into account the different rates.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2018, 11:19 PM   #137
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,219
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You seem to dream primarily of "doing business with" the bourgeoisie. Tell me, what kind of anti-capitalist revolutionary (whether it be Marx, Lenin, Parsons or Bakunin - since you felt the need to bring my sig line into it) gets his panties in a knot over the thought that the bourgeoisie might not "do business with" them? If you think Marxism is a way of doing business with the bourgeoisie then I'd posit you are the one misinterpreting Marx according with your own bias.

Your strawman is pretty absurd. I don't dream of "doing business" with the bourgeoisie, but I do it all the time (also with Jeff Bezos) and so do you (but maybe not with Jeff). The bourgeoisie owns most of the stuff that we need to live, which is why everybody is forced to do business with it. Unless you stole the laptop that you're using to write your posts, you did business with the bourgeoisie! Unless you grow your own food, you do business with the bourgeoisie ...
You and your sig line revel in devastation, destruction and annihilation. Karl Marx didn't. It's as simple as that. And he wouldn't have owned the anti-communist quotation because it's anti-communist. But so are you, apparently.

Quote:
ETA: Since you seem so concerned with anti-communist inventions of fake quotes and brought my sig line into it. Here's a fake quote the Chicago Tribune attributed to Lucy Parsons:

You know what the response of Parsons and the other anarchists was when this fake quote was attributed to her? They owned it, recuperated it and started using it as if true. A bit like how gay people recuperate the term faggot. You know what they didn't do? Get all upset that it would make their position unappealing to the bourgeoisie who might not "do business with them" anymore.

Parsons and "the other anarchists" appear to be anti-communist idiots. Faggot was just a stupid word. Gay people didn't recuperate the accusations that they were all perverted pedophiles.


ETA: Anti-communists refuse to give up the idea that the fake Lenin quotation wasn't actually written by Marx: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7#post12396127
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by dann; Yesterday at 12:19 AM.
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:47 AM   #138
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,949
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post

You know what the response of Parsons and the other anarchists was when this fake quote was attributed to her? They owned it, recuperated it and started using it as if true.
I'm going to have to weigh in and say that historical revisionism is indeed counter-revolutionary. Fake quotes need to be abolished alongside private property.

eta:
Quote:
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or
the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact
and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true
and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell

Last edited by kellyb; Yesterday at 01:01 AM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:28 AM   #139
paulhutch
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Blackstone River Valley, MA
Posts: 2,218
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
The charts I referenced included income from both long and short term gains. And the average rate is taking into account the different rates.
Oops on first reading it appeared you where claiming that all capital gains were taxed at the income tax rate.
paulhutch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:27 AM   #140
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,170
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Because otherwise the tax is regressive and effectively penalizes people for being poor.
The real poor are not penalized for being poor by taxes. They pay little or no net federal income taxes. Other taxes depend upon where they live.
Also is paying taxes a penalty?

Quote:
The less you have, the less you should be taxed.
That is the way it works now.


Quote:
The US median income is a little below 60,000, which is taxed at a rate of roughly 25%, based on the latest 2017 rates. The highest tax bracket is just under 40%, which requires an income of 400,000 to 500,000 depending on filing type.

Let's break that down. At 25%, the person making 60,000 will have a tax burden of 15,000, and therefore a net income of 45,000.
I don't think it really matters to your argument much but you should get your facts straight.
A single person no children making 60,000 had federal taxes of 5,639 in 2017 according to an H and R Block calculator. In 2018 it would go down to about 4,400. They also will have paid in about 4600 to social Security.

A married family with two children and 60,000 in wages had federal taxes of 1,713 in 2017. Around 3%

A family with 400,000 in wages had a tax of 102,773 a little above 25%

A family with about 49,000 in wages pays zero in federal income taxes and starts getting money back from the government.

Quote:
One person can manage to survive on this moderately well. A family cannot,
I know many people with families surviving moderately well on 60,000 a year even where I live in Long Island with a home.

Quote:
And, again, this is just Income. In real life, the overwhelming majority of the wealth of income brackets over about 1-200,000 will come from investments, aka Capital Gains, which are only taxed at 20%, cutting their tax burden almost in half, give or take.
I don't have the statistics in front of me but I believe the majority of income for incomes up to a million is still wages.

Quote:
The tax burden should absolutely have a similar impact to all people,
To do that you would have to take probably everything above 50,000 -100,000 in taxes. Some feel that is the proper answer, not me.

Last edited by eeyore1954; Yesterday at 05:33 AM.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:42 AM   #141
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,949
Quote:
The tax burden should absolutely have a similar impact to all people,
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
To do that you would have to take probably everything above 50,000 -100,000 in taxes. Some feel that is the proper answer, not me.
No, you wouldn't.

To quote a great thinker:

Quote:
I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind...Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:49 AM   #142
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,949
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
I know many people with families surviving moderately well on 60,000 a year even where I live in Long Island with a home.
It might depend on your definition of "moderately well". Do they all have health insurance, retirement savings, can pay their student loans, have money saved for an emergency, can afford to be unemployed for a time because of illness, etc and so on?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:50 AM   #143
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,170
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
No, you wouldn't.
Then "The tax burden should absolutely have a similar impact to all people," would not happen.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:56 AM   #144
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,949
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
Then "The tax burden should absolutely have a similar impact to all people," would not happen.
People below a certain point wouldn't have a tax burden to be perceived, and around the point it started kicking in, the mentioned "geometric progression" would be incremental enough to where no one group would be significantly impacted over another in any meaningful way.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:56 AM   #145
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,828
Originally Posted by dann View Post
Your strawman is pretty absurd. I don't dream of "doing business" with the bourgeoisie, but I do it all the time (also with Jeff Bezos) and so do you (but maybe not with Jeff). The bourgeoisie owns most of the stuff that we need to live, which is why everybody is forced to do business with it. Unless you stole the laptop that you're using to write your posts, you did business with the bourgeoisie! Unless you grow your own food, you do business with the bourgeoisie ...
So your concerns about being appealing to the bourgeoisie aren't based on the pragmatic grounds of being able to do business with them. After all, I am able to buy a laptop and buy food and stuff, so me considering "The last capitalist we behead will be the one who sold us the guillotine" to be a good position doesn't stop me from buying all that. So then why is it that you're so concerned about being appealing to the bourgeoisie?

Quote:
You and your sig line revel in devastation, destruction and annihilation. Karl Marx didn't. It's as simple as that.
Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

Quote:
Parsons and "the other anarchists" appear to be anti-communist idiots.
We're talking here of Parsons of Haymarket Affair fame (her husband was one of the ones executed for it). You might not have noticed, but there's this thing called International Labour Day where every year, all over the world, the labour movement takes a day of struggle in remembrance of the event.

But to you of course they're all just "anti-communist idiots" for the sole crime of not caring about being appealing to the bourgeoisie. You have much, much more in common with anti-communists than they do.

Quote:
Anti-communists refuse to give up the idea that the fake Lenin quotation wasn't actually written by Marx: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7#post12396127
Yeah because dubalb is someone to be taken seriously on the subject
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; Yesterday at 11:04 AM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:21 AM   #146
deadrose
Master Poster
 
deadrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the wet side of the mountains
Posts: 2,887
There are a lot more taxes in daily life than income tax. That is why Washington state is considered to have one of the most regressive tax burdens in the country, in spite of (or because of) not having a state income tax.

We're heavily taxed in every other way. The sales tax here in Seattle is 10.1% and that's on everything but (non-prepared)food. Other states and provinces have tax holidays for back-to-school shopping and things like that. Not here.

Our property taxes are high, which are passed along to renters. We have some of the highest "sin" taxes out there (alcohol, tobacco, etc). Pretty much every tax is high to make up for the lack of income tax, but people won't accept an income tax because 1) they don't trust the government to lower the other taxes) and 2) People like Bezos and Gates are against it (and they might be rich someday and not want an income tax either).

So who do you think is affected more by those sales taxes, gas taxes, business taxes, and so on? The person who thinks nothing of paying up to $10 toll to drive in the (formerly HOV) toll lanes, or the person who's trying to scrape up enough money to buy school clothes and supplies for a growing kid?

Income tax doesn't tell the whole story, but it is one of the reasons we have some of the richest people in the world living here.
deadrose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:11 AM   #147
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,219
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
So your concerns about being appealing to the bourgeoisie aren't based on the pragmatic grounds of being able to do business with them. After all, I am able to buy a laptop and buy food and stuff, so me considering "The last capitalist we behead will be the one who sold us the guillotine" to be a good position doesn't stop me from buying all that. So then why is it that you're so concerned about being appealing to the bourgeoisie?

I don't have any "concerns about being appealing to the bourgeoisie". You are just as creative making up strawman arguments as the anti-communists are making and distributing fake Marx and Lenin quotations. You find the anti-communist fake quotations "to be a good position."
Good to know.

Quote:
Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon ó authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

I have no idea who "these gentlemen" are. It no longer comes as a surprise to me that you revel not only in devastation, destruction and annihilation but also in authoritarian terror.

Quote:
We're talking here of Parsons of Haymarket Affair fame (her husband was one of the ones executed for it). You might not have noticed, but there's this thing called International Labour Day where every year, all over the world, the labour movement takes a day of struggle in remembrance of the event.

So after making the obvious blunder with the alleged Marx quotation, you want to demonstrate that you've read about what you consider to be the glorious past of the labour movement.

Quote:
But to you of course they're all just "anti-communist idiots" for the sole crime of not caring about being appealing to the bourgeoisie. You have much, much more in common with anti-communists than they do.

I never mention "all". I said that Parsons "and the other anarchists" appear to have been anti-commuist idiots if they actually "owned" the anti-communist quotation by recuperating it.

Quote:
Yeah because dubalb is someone to be taken seriously on the subject

I don't take him "seriously on the subject." I notice that he insists that the fake Lenin/Marx quotation isn't fake even after it has been revealed as fake. But I guess the two of you have that thing in common: He insists that it was written by Marx, and even after you've been told that Marx didn't write it, you embrace it as Marxist and insist that he might have written something as stupid as that even though he didn't.
In the future, dudalb can just refer to you as a reference when he wants to claim that this is what ... well, not Marxists, but some, a minority, I guess, anarchists think.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:24 AM   #148
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,219
Originally Posted by deadrose View Post
We're heavily taxed in every other way. The sales tax here in Seattle is 10.1% and that's on everything but (non-prepared)food. Other states and provinces have tax holidays for back-to-school shopping and things like that. Not here.

Our property taxes are high, which are passed along to renters. We have some of the highest "sin" taxes out there (alcohol, tobacco, etc).

Beware of Trish Regan! The next headline will be Venezuela = Seattle!
(Well, I guess as long as Bezos and Gates are exempt, it doesn't really bother her ...)
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:58 AM   #149
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,828
Originally Posted by dann View Post
I don't have any "concerns about being appealing to the bourgeoisie". You are just as creative making up strawman arguments as the anti-communists are making and distributing fake Marx and Lenin quotations. You find the anti-communist fake quotations "to be a good position."
Good to know.
Then what is your problem with it, exactly?

Quote:
I have no idea who "these gentlemen" are. It no longer comes as a surprise to me that you revel not only in devastation, destruction and annihilation but also in authoritarian terror.
And we shall not make excuses for the terror. But maybe you should just google that paragraph (as well as the first sentence of this paragraph)

Quote:
So after making the obvious blunder with the alleged Marx quotation, you want to demonstrate that you've read about what you consider to be the glorious past of the labour movement.
Interesting that you consider the labour movement as only something which can be read about, I suppose it shows your distance from actual class struggle even more than your proclamations of Parsons et al being "anti-communist idiots."
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:32 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.