Kamala Harris for Pres

[fishonjazz]

For clarity's sake, you should also probably point out that it only applies to people whose income exceeds $100 million for 3 straight years or whose assets exceed $1 billion for 3 straight years.

How will they survive though?

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[LogGrad98]

On topic of the thread, this speech fits this web site.


View: https://youtu.be/suMXeH0umvU?si=jyaNlGogXGwBO16q

 

[RandyForRubio]

Yeah it's gonna crash, sure dude.

1. It's not gonna ****ing crash.

2. If the line goes down for a minute, who gives a flying ****. Oh I'll tell you who:

View attachment 17091

I have a sizable 401k but guess what, we need a way to effectively and fairly tax high-wealth individuals. Income tax isn't gonna cut it. what's your solution?

Here, you get taxed on your house, It's called property tax. I think we can tax other assets too.

Easiest way to increase the tax on high wealth individuals is to simplify the tax code and make it a flat tax. Don’t create a billion ways to get out of things.

But creating a tax on a wealth gain that hasn’t physically materialized doesn’t make any sense! Are they going to credit if a stock tanks and they lose money? The logistics of it just don’t make any sense at all.

 

[RandyForRubio]

How will they survive though?

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

See this is part of the problem. You don’t care if it’s stupid. You don’t care if it’s not going to work. You don’t care if you don’t understand it. It will never, ever, affect you, so why bother caring? Screw the rich! What have they ever done for anybody?

 

[fishonjazz]

And in a few years it’ll get dropped down to a lower level of income. We’ve seen it before.

This is kinda like how everyone told me Obama was going to take my guns.
Still got em.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[MTS]

Easiest way to increase the tax on high wealth individuals is to simplify the tax code and make it a flat tax.

A flat tax disproportionately impacts the poor.

A 15% tax on someone earning $20,000 a year leaves them with $17,000, which might barely cover essential expenses like housing, food, and healthcare. In contrast, someone earning $200,000 would be left with $170,000, leaving plenty of disposable income after meeting basic needs.

 

[fishonjazz]

See this is part of the problem. You don’t care if it’s stupid. You don’t care if it’s not going to work. You don’t care if you don’t understand it. It will never, ever, affect you, so why bother caring? Screw the rich! What have they ever done for anybody?

Eh, I just don't get triggered by something that hasn't even happened and also wouldn't affect me if it did happen.
No worries



Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[SoberasHotRod]

Yeah but they brought in record profits and used chunks of that in stock buy-backs, right after a price hike. And coke immediately followed suit. When there are only 2 of you in the sandbox it's not hard to see what the other one is building and build one a little bigger. Still hard to argue that 2 humongous companies controlling any industry are better than many with roughly even shares duking it out. Unless you are looking for what is best for the companies and not the consumers. Free market economics would greatly favor multiple companies, again, for the consumer.

More than two, sure, but I'm not sure it has to be much more than two. I'm not really sure what the right size of companies is, but it probably is category dependent. Ideally the companies are big enough to have optimized costing, but enough to have true competition.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

One other thing to keep in mind for the food industry is that however big of a piece of a market a company has, typically the highest or one of the highest market leader in any category is private label. Private label often sells items at cost, which makes it really difficult for food Companies to maintain high margins.

You would be surprised at how many items you buy at the grocery store that actuality lose a company money when you buy it. It's there to give volume for the higher margin products. For example in the ice cream industry they don't make any money on tubs of ice cream, but need to sell tubs in order to make money off of pints and novelties.

If every food product was sold at a reasonable margin, consumers would really be complaining. It's one of the reasons it's hard for me to get too mad when prices get a little sticky.

 

[RandyForRubio]

A flat tax disproportionately impacts the poor.

A 15% tax on someone earning $20,000 a year leaves them with $17,000, which might barely cover essential expenses like housing, food, and healthcare. In contrast, someone earning $200,000 would be left with $170,000, leaving plenty of disposable income after meeting basic needs.

You could do different percentages for different income levels. And yes, the wealthier people will have more take home and disposable money, that’s to be expected. That’s fair, if we’re being honest.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Eh, I just don't get triggered by something that hasn't even happened and also wouldn't affect me if it did happen.
No worries



Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

So discussing proposed policy that I disagree with is “getting triggered”?

Policy that doesn’t affect you is still important. Ignorance isn’t bliss, my friend.

 

[MTS]

You could do different percentages for different income levels.

Then it wouldn't be a flat tax.

And yes, the wealthier people will have more take home and disposable money, that’s to be expected. That’s fair, if we’re being honest.

The concern is less about how much the wealthier people are taking home and more about how much the poor people are not under a flat-tax scenario.