The Scourge of America with Integrity (On Topic Only Please)

[Integrity]

So what is the amount of annual income you would take 91% of?

Maybe 4 mil Married filing jointly, 2 mil single. Just maybe though.

 

[vantexan]

And if you go back and read his opening statement, he was also concerned with the absurd amount of power. And in his scenario he would only be guaranteeing, and even more absurd amount of power given to the government. Which they would use to decide what the absurd amount of money is, which would eventually filter down to just about everybody.

Exactly, always works out that way. This is just spit balling, doesn't mean anything, except he feels he has INTEGRITY and can thus look down on the wealthy who worked hard all their life.

 

[Thebrownblob]

Maybe 4 mil Married filing jointly, 2 mil single. Just maybe though.

Sweet, that’s not me, now I’m on board with your plan. Let’s get those filthy rich bastards!!

 

[Integrity]

My household makes more than that. So, where is absurd?

I don’t believe that level of income contributes much to the problem I outlined in the OP.

 

[Integrity]

I’m sorry, but that’s exactly what you’re saying you want to take their money because they have an absurd amount in your opinion. And distribute it to those who don’t have what you feel is an absurd amount.

It’s not even deniable that’s what you’re saying. You can at least own that if you feel that way.

Please reread the OP what I stated is not that complicated. I made no statement as to the distribution of any thing.

 

[Integrity]

@Integrity

The flat tax concept was made for the flat taxer proponents, it was a concession on my part from my original idea.

 

[Integrity]

Oh no no no, you want to take from the rich because their wealth and the resulting influence that gives them is the scourge of America. So have the courage of your convictions and set an amount. Otherwise this is the usual Integrity dodgeball. To which you'll now tell us you don't see it that way.

Ok

 

[vantexan]

Maybe 4 mil Married filing jointly, 2 mil single. Just maybe though.

And you think that taking away $1,820,000 from a guy who grosses $2 million is fair?

Have you considered the economic ramifications if you greatly reduce the spending and investment of the wealthy? The job losses? Businesses closing? Think the government will create a thriving economy?

 

[Integrity]

Exactly, always works out that way. This is just spit balling, doesn't mean anything, except he feels he has INTEGRITY and can thus look down on the wealthy who worked hard all their life.

I look down on no one.

 

[vantexan]

The flat tax concept was made for the flat taxer proponents, it was a concession on my part from my original idea.

I don't see a flat tax on your part.

 

[vantexan]

I look down on no one.

You think they're the scourge of America. Rather judgemental.

 

[Integrity]

And you think that taking away $1,820,000 from a guy who grosses $2 million is fair?

Have you considered the economic ramifications if you greatly reduce the spending and investment of the wealthy? The job losses? Businesses closing? Think the government will create a thriving economy?

I would bump those numbers up a bit.

No those variables are not consider nor do I view them as part of the topic of this discussion.

 

[Integrity]

You think they're the scourge of America. Rather judgemental.

I didn’t reference there , I referenced what.

 

[Thebrownblob]

How a 91% rate sparked the golden age of tax avoidance in 1950s Hollywood

After Rep.

www.latimes.com

Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate

In The Wall Street Journal, Peter Schiff writes that a liberal article of faith that confiscatory taxes fed the postwar boom turns out to be an Edsel of an economic idea.

online.wsj.com

The Limits of Taxing the Rich

Budget deficits have risen to nearly 6% of GDP and are projected to rise to 10% of GDP over three decades. If Congress continues to enact additional tax cuts and spending expansions, these deficits will grow even larger. To close these baseline deficits and finance additional expansions, most...

manhattan.institute

“In other words, tax-the-rich advocates cannot afford to ignore economic considerations. Raising every upper-income-tax rate to its revenue-maximizing level—the point at which the economic damage cancels out any additional revenues—is a recipe for economic stagnation, job losses, and declining incomes. Tax-raising lawmakers should tread carefully and ensure that they do not strangle the corporate and individual incomes whose taxes they wish to depend on.”

 

[Integrity]

You think they're the scourge of America. Rather judgemental.

No. I do not.

 

[Integrity]

Good night friends. I’m out.

 

[vantexan]

I would bump those numbers up a bit.

No those variables are not consider nor do I view them as part of the topic of this discussion.

It's the end result of your policies. You would take away most of the income of the wealthy so that they don't have undue influence.

Guy comes up with a great idea. After a lot of trial and error he brings it to market. It's a hit and sells like hotcakes. He makes 4 million for himself and his family that year. You'd take 91% of it away from him. And where would that money go? To those who are dependent on government. It's his patriotic duty to give it all away.

 

[vantexan]

No. I do not.

You said making absurd amounts of income and the influence that gives the wealthy is the scourge of America.

 

[vantexan]

Good night friends. I’m out.

And I'm Batman.

 

[Thebrownblob]

Good night friends. I’m out.

Sweet dreams