Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I mean golly with one slave master and a thousand slaves , its not fair only one is paying his fair share of taxes. When a slave flees, then it adds to the expenses of the state. Slaves should pay their for their own capture and not burden their tax paying owners with this expense. Otherwise the state as it is maintained is not to the ultimate good of slave holders. We need to find a way to collect more fees and taxes from slaves.
So on this rich paying all the taxes, you likewise don't want to mistake quiet after a peace treaty with it being quiet because they are all dead.
I'll take poorly thought out outlandish attempts at analogies for $500, Alex.
Rich people are rich because they make a lot of private income. This is hardly a good metric from our point of view. A casino certainly makes a lot of money when everyone else looses. Wealth in that case is certainly very good for a private income , but it is of dubious social value. Bank fees and interest are also very productive for its interest, however all their profits are someone else's expense.
If Edison invents the light bulb, the cheaper it is for me to buy the better. Naturally Edison's wealth would improve the more he gets the rest of us to pay. However the richer he gets doesn't contribute to anymore social good than the light bulb. In Edison's case, it is at least possible these funds will be reinvested and he will create more social good. What do Wall Street, banking and casinos have in mind but more innovative fees and gambling losses?
At some point they are getting most of the money and are thus the only ones to pay the taxes... for a government that works for their interests of course. I'd say trillions of emergency liquidity was a great investment. I mean even if a poor person had any money, why would they even want to pay a tax to support a society that is geared for their poverty? Think a million dollars worth of accounting fees buying two million in loop holes is a state designed around them? Did all the poor saps lobby for these laws?
On rising tax burdens from rising incomes:
I mean golly with one slave master and a thousand slaves , its not fair only one is paying his fair share of taxes. When a slave flees, then it adds to the expenses of the state. Slaves should pay their for their own capture and not burden their tax paying owners with this expense. Otherwise the state as it is maintained is not to the ultimate good of slave holders. We need to find a way to collect more fees and taxes from slaves.
So on this rich paying all the taxes, you likewise don't want to mistake quiet after a peace treaty with it being quiet because they are all dead.
The best crooks, the most successful crooks, are the ones that you would never ever suspect are crooks. Politicians are great at this but billionaires are much, much better.
I'll take poorly thought out outlandish attempts at analogies for $500, Alex.
You mean you will take $500 for someone else's analogy? That is a good analogy. Would you mind paying the tax on the money you plan an stealing from me? And poor you for paying the tax on it....
Really impressive work there......
There is no analogy. Its not even a reductio ad absurdum, but by all means accuse me of using historical social constructs of this country. Black slaves didn't pay taxes , only their masters did, proving tax payments are a moronic metric on their own outside of any context. It obviously cannot be used to detect any cost benefit analysis.
For those of you beyond the subsistence level of intelligence:
There are no legitimate taxes until one has discretionary income beyond their own subsistence. Giving Jr an allowance to buy their own food and clothes at the same rate other parents provide their children isn't granting a privilege. People at the fundamental subsistence are not getting tax breaks. They are untaxable. Thus the sentiment is not that they are receiving relief. It is simply pointless since any increase in tax will create dead weight and consume the same amount of social services( and before the young Republicans jump in, welfare is cheaper than crime and riot police).
Of course most of the surplus( which is defined by what is left over from the cost of production) isn't going to the typical worker. Its not going to government either. More and more people are untaxable because the FIRE sector gets first crack at them. After paying rents and mortgages taxes will just result in dead weight losses.
Rich people are rich because they make a lot of private income. This is hardly a good metric from our point of view. A casino certainly makes a lot of money when everyone else looses. Wealth in that case is certainly very good for a private income , but it is of dubious social value. Bank fees and interest are also very productive for its interest, however all their profits are someone else's expense.
If Edison invents the light bulb, the cheaper it is for me to buy the better. Naturally Edison's wealth would improve the more he gets the rest of us to pay. However the richer he gets doesn't contribute to anymore social good than the light bulb. In Edison's case, it is at least possible these funds will be reinvested and he will create more social good. What do Wall Street, banking and casinos have in mind but more innovative fees and gambling losses?
At some point they are getting most of the money and are thus the only ones to pay the taxes... for a government that works for their interests of course. I'd say trillions of emergency liquidity was a great investment. I mean even if a poor person had any money, why would they even want to pay a tax to support a society that is geared for their poverty? Think a million dollars worth of accounting fees buying two million in loop holes is a state designed around them? Did all the poor saps lobby for these laws?
On rising tax burdens from rising incomes:
I mean golly with one slave master and a thousand slaves , its not fair only one is paying his fair share of taxes. When a slave flees, then it adds to the expenses of the state. Slaves should pay their for their own capture and not burden their tax paying owners with this expense. Otherwise the state as it is maintained is not to the ultimate good of slave holders. We need to find a way to collect more fees and taxes from slaves.
So on this rich paying all the taxes, you likewise don't want to mistake quiet after a peace treaty with it being quiet because they are all dead.
I was going to just quote part of it, but it's all too good.
Ideally we want to reward the people who invest in and invent technology that increases productivity. This is the only thing that has improved living standards in the last 200 years. But we only need to reward them enough to do it. And we are lucky, because the people doing this don't care about money that much. No inventor or scientist toils away so they can get rich.
Instead we have billions and trillions getting sucked up by leaches whose only talent and contribution is to turn money into more money. Every $ they make is extracted from the productive economy, and the rest of us eat the loss. The game is rigged this way, by the ones profiting.
Workers, the poor, and seniors pay for all this debt with a slowly eroding standard of living whether it be crummy homes, crummy wages, crummy appliances, crummy food etc and of course ever increasing debt which leaves the 99% in chronic debt and servitude. It is outrageous but people don't know how to stop the theft. No surprise that Rand Paul received the highest real-time poll agreement when he attacked the Fed during the last debate. On this issue there is huge agreement.
Bring back Glass-Steagall and end the Party for the Super-Wealthy. Give our children a fighting chance. Servitude is not a way of life, it is a disgusting institution.
The debate hosts have not been giving Rand Paul much chance to attack the FED though.
The Fed created a few $T of QE money out of thin air and then swapped it for a like amount of debt paper from banks.
The Fed now holds that paper, and that is the marked increase seen with your graph. The Feds keeps 6%, and the rest of the interest gets swept to our Treasury. That amount lowers our National Debt, on the order of $80-100B/yr. It is as if $3T or so of National Debt does not exist.
So they gave the Banks that much money from QE?
How has the National Debt been wiped by swapping it to the Treasury?
And so the to wipe the debt we have to give the banks more money?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was going to just quote part of it, but it's all too good. 
