Tax Plan For Aristocracy

[Okeefenokee]

I would say this could be a problem for the Republicans. If the Democrats smarten up and step away from the identity bullshit they have been peddling. And from some of the articles I've been reading, I think many of them are.

And what hash was saying is that you need to stifle Aristocracy if you want to stop it, inheritance tax is a method of doing so. If all the wealth is centered around a few families that is how it forms. And some could argue that is bad for both a society at large and the individuals inside of it.

One could also point at Victorian UK and say it is a good things as well... however seeing that most of us are considered common rabble or "elevated" common rabble, it's probably not in our best interest. Every once in awhile some entrepreneur will become an MP in HM's government, but it's meaningless in the grand scheme. Also isn't Britain pretty Socialist and going further... didn't hash say something about that?

Much like Monopolies are broken up for the common interest, aristocracies must be broken up as well for the common good. It is not always "fair" to the afflicted but they will certainly be ok. Even the ones who get fucked in the Walton dynasty will have children that lead lives you couls never imagine.

[Okeefenokee]

You're the one spouting horseshit, an aristocracy doesn't exist in the US, that's some funny shit. There is no country on earth in which an aristocracy does not exist, America did not avoid aristocracy, that's a myth you like to tell yourselves, it has no basis in reality. An inheritance tax won't prevent an aristocracy from forming, they'll just find another tax loophole with their lawyers. Progressive taxation is fine, inheritance taxes are dumb, they will not prevent a revolution, nor will they prevent the formation of an aristocracy, nor will they eliminate the aristocracy. Hash just refuses to listen to reason on them, he thinks he can engineer society to have no aristocracy, all he needs is to tax the rich and have government spend their money, via higher inheritance taxes and viola, no more Aristocracy.

Silly Hash, naive utopian thinking, right thur. There is no tax that will end aristocracy, if that is the goal of your taxation plan, you'll fail every single time.

Aristocracy requires hereditary titles and class privileges for those in the aristocracy as a product of their birth.

America doesn't have that. Trying to stretch rich people with influence into a social system that died over a century ago, and never existed in America, is like saying America is communist because we have public roads.

"especially those holding hereditary titles or offices", last I checked "especially" didn't mean "only" or "requires". You cannot eliminate the highest class in society, even if everyone was equally poor and everyone was in the same class, there would still be a highest class, and that class would be the aristocracy.

America has always had an aristocracy, and it always will, no matter how many myths you believe.
/shrugs

What you are talking about is an oligarchy. Aristocracies are associated with class systems defined by title that is conveyed upon birth.

Muddying the waters the way you're doing is like calling Mexicans white. It's clearly horseshit.

[StCapps]

Take a look at that and tell me what also changed about the lowest tax bracket.

Would still be better if from $0 - $19,050 people paid 10% instead of 12%, otherwise those proposed changes result in net lowering of taxes for the middle and lower classes, especially for those making $77,400 - $90,000. I also like like the corporate tax cut and the inheritance tax cut.

[Okeefenokee]

Take a look at that and tell me what also changed about the lowest tax bracket.

Would still be better if from $0 - $19,999 people paid 10% instead of 12%, otherwise those proposed changes result in net lowering of taxes for the middle and lower classes, especially for those making $77,401 - $89,999. Guess that's what Trump means by "big beautiful tax cut".

Rebates and credits. People making 20k and less aren't paying 12% or even 10% Hell, 20k a year means you're working off the books anyway.

[StCapps]

Rebates and credits. People making 20k and less aren't paying 12% or even 10% Hell, 20k a year means you're working off the books anyway.

As long as the plan compensates adequately, then sounds good to me.

[Okeefenokee]

Rebates and credits. People making 20k and less aren't paying 12% or even 10% Hell, 20k a year means you're working off the books anyway.

As long as the plan compensates adequately, then sounds good to me.

$20k/52 weeks/40 hours = $9.62/hr

Construction workers make more than that.

$77k/52 weeks/40 hours = $37.02/hr

$77k/year is getting into the starting salaries for engineers.

Between 2015 and 2016, US median household income rose 3.2% from $57,230 to $59,039, according to a new report released by the U.S. Census Bureau on Tuesday.

me·di·an
ˈmēdēən/Submit
adjective
1.
denoting or relating to a value or quantity lying at the midpoint of a frequency distribution of observed values or quantities, such that there is an equal probability of falling above or below it.

On average, those in the bottom 40% of the income spectrum end up getting money from the government. Meanwhile, the richest 20% of Americans, by far, pay the most in income taxes, forking over nearly 87% of all the income tax collected by Uncle Sam.

Horseshit peddling shills. Taxes on the lowest bracket haven't gone up because the bottom 40% weren't paying any taxes to begin with. Fuck off with that noise. What really happened is people making 57k-59k are looking at a lower tax rate, and that's the fucking median. Meaning Americans who fall in the largest tax bracket, and actually pay taxes, are getting a tax cut.

Seriously, fuck off.

[Martin Hash]

Stop reading my stuff. I’ll do you the same favor.

[Okeefenokee]

Stop reading my stuff. I’ll do you the same favor.

You mean where you disingenuously cry about the lowest tax bracket, that doesn't pay taxes anyway, being increased from 12 to 15 percent, but neglect to mention that the bracket itself was fundamentally changed in a way that resulted in those at the US median seeing a lower tax rate?

Funny how I had that nagging thought that all your talk about the tax rate changing didn't mention if the tax bracket itself had also changed, and lo and fucking behold, one quick google search discovered that was just the case.



There it is folks. Tax rate changes, AND tax bracket changes. I wonder why someone would comment on the former, but not the latter.

Surely it wouldn't be because they wanted to paint a false image of what was really happening.

People at the median, meaning most of the nation, are looking at a tax break. People in the former lowest bracket didn't pay taxes, and still won't.

I can't fathom why someone would misrepresent a tax policy that left the lowest earners tax free and lowered the taxes on the median as a prelude to aristocracy. Not for the life of me. Not a single idea why someone would do that.

[LVH2]

Rich people need to pay more taxes.

Yes, they do, and you need to think in numbers, not in emotion. First, look at the $250,000 number - using that as a cutoff for 'the rich' is ludicrous. You can't compare someone with over a million to someone making $250,000. Second, look at the percentage of wealth that the wealthy hold in comparison to everyone else. When the wealthy have that much, of course they're going to pay more in taxes. Real income hasn't gone up for that 45.3% in a very long time, but wealth has increased dramatically for the rich. In real terms, they won't feel the tax increase. They will, however, feel very good about leaving even more to their heirs, which will leave the country even closer to the parts of the third world where the very rich own everyone and everything else.

If you want that lower half to pay some taxes, they have to earn as much in real income as they did years ago when they actually did pay federal taxes. To share the income tax burden, the income itself has to be shared a bit. Not redistribution, but not the insane levels of disparity we have now either.

BTW, the people this will hit hardest in dollar amounts - the way you're thinking - is the upper middle class. The lawyers, middle managers, the pharmacists, the R.N.s - they will pay through the nose, mostly in the loss of deductions and credits. The states paying for everyone else - paying for the people who don't pay income taxes - are going to hemorrhage the educated class. I believe that is the point of this tax plan.

If you read 2.7% of filers are paying 51.6% of federal income taxes, and think those fuckers need to pay more, you'll never be satisfied.

Your reasoning didn't even address those numbers. You simply went straight to emotion.

Rich people have more than poor people! Rich people need to pay more until there are no more rich people!

Fuck it if we've already taxed the hell out of them. Seize their bank accounts before their kids can get it. They don't deserve it. I do.

Move to Venezuela where life is swell because everyone's equally broke.

On Coconut Island, the Kang family own 20,000 coconut trees.

The other 20 families each own one tree.

Each year, the Kang family must pay 100 coconuts in tribute to the gods, while the other families contribute only one.

The Kang family must pay 5 times more than every other family combined!

This is a very unfair setup for the Kang family. I feel terrible for them.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I'm glad you guys recognize my special place in society.

Noblesse Oblige. Hence why the MHF became the new hangout after the DCF was vaporized, danke.

Three cheers for the Laird!