Trump Wants to Take From the Poor and Give to the Wealthy

[bekkilyn]

How did the “wealthy” take “their wealth”? How do you arrive at the number “90%” of the wealth was taken?



If one were to accept as true your assumption the laborer, who is poor, is owed more than they received from the “rich,” but I’m not so inclined to defer to such an assumption. There’s been no evidentiary showing the laborer, who is poor, was owed more.

And laborers are not the only necessary condition for the rich to have some business make a profit. Regardless, the fact laborers are necessary for a businesses to make a profit doesn’t establish they are entitled to more than they received.

What are you basing the claim of “unfair” upon? Because you said so?



Stunning. In the same post you deride fiction you then resort to fiction.

A considerable number of “everyone else” has a living wage. Your view is an untenable and false zero sum game approach that if the rich have more then there is magically less for you.

I would be remiss if I failed to mention the hyperbole of a middle class in “danger of extinction”

What is actually stunning is people defending the unjust system that the wealthy plutocrats have established to make sure they get everything while at the same time enforcing the propaganda that its actually poor and middle class people robbing *them* if they have to contribute in any way to the well being of the society in which they live. (I suppose if you're one of these plutocrats somehow hanging out on CF, your arguments would be more understandable.)

 

[Halbhh]

Do the ultra rich pay a lower rate of overall taxes than the middle class ?
( "middle class" means those in the middle, not the "poor", of course.)

Here's a fact checking site on that:

Buffett vs. his secretary

We fact-checked Warren Buffett's statements about taxes in the New York Times. Buffett said that his taxes amounted to "only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent." Individual tax filings are private, so there was no way we could compare Buffett's actual tax return with that of his secretary and other co-workers. (We contacted his office when we did the fact-check and didn't hear back.) So instead, we checked Buffett's statement that the "mega-rich" pay about 15 percent in taxes, while the middle class "fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot." We rated the statement True.
Does a secretary pay higher taxes than a millionaire?

------
Are the long term capital gains tax rates still the same as they were when Buffett famously told America what was happening?

Answer: Yes.

2019 Capital Gains Tax Rates — and How to Avoid a Big Bill - NerdWallet

 

[RaymondG]

Exactly what makes you think I view people as poor who really aren't? Poverty is defined as having under a specific amount of money that is determined by the federal government. Nothing is subjective about it. If you have less than this amount, you are in poverty. If you have at least that amount, you are not.

There are some who do not desire the money that the government deems necessary to be considered out of poverty. There are nuns who work and give all their money away. There are people who would look at others in shame who seem to not be content with what they have...but instead desire more.

"I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread."

Again, NOTHING is subjective when the government is involved. You can talk about social opinions on the definitions of poor and rich in the Christians Only political forums, but there is only ONE legal definition of poor for tax and benefits purposes. That is what Trump is ruining and needs to be drastically improved.

The government does not control my Thoughts about riches and poverty. If one has Christ....They are rich, period. EveryThing the Father has is theirs. And they can ask for and receive what they like.
No more need to covet thy neighbors possessions.

I AM what God says I am...not what man says.

 

[Halbhh]

There are some who do not desire the money that the government deems necessary to be considered out of poverty. There are nuns who work and give all their money away. There are people who would look at others in shame who seem to not be content with what they have...but instead desire more.

"I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread."


The government does not control my Thoughts about riches and poverty. If one has Christ....They are rich, period. EveryThing the Father has is theirs. And they can ask for and receive what they like.
No more need to covet thy neighbors possessions.

I AM what God says I am...not what man says.

I agree -- we are entirely subject to what God says, all of us.

So, we then want ardently to learn all He says about wealth, and not only selected pieces, but all. Both how He blesses and also what He requires of us too. We don't want to end up with the fate of the rich man in the account of Lazarus and the Rich Man which Christ instructs us on. Christ said, where your treasure is, there your heart is also.

He said we cannot serve 2 masters, both God and money. We really must choose.

 

[RaymondG]

Most of us know or learn at some point the fact that many of the rich pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than a middle income family. Example: someone like Buffet paying only 16% or 17% (while some of the very and ultra rich pay even far lower effective rates than that!), while his secretary, making vastly less income than Buffet pays a much higher rate than Buffet, such as 20%, or more. (Even though the income tax rates make it seem to most people as if the reverse would be the norm.)

The reality:

Rich: many pay shockingly lower rates, especially the very rich.

Average people: Pay higher rates.

Fact checking the claim: Clinton: Buffett said he pays lower tax rate than secretary

(or instead of a fact check, one could read an economics article discussing this in depth, if they think it's rare, and find out the reality)

We've heard the rationalizations for the special lower rates (I mean I read sympathetically the economic rationalizations/arguments in favor of those, not just some content free opinion pieces). But see, a lot of us don't buy those rationalizations, nor the even worse special breaks some get. We that have learned about some of that can make a reasonable guess at why Trump doesn't want his tax information released. He needs to maintain secrecy about that, one can guesstimate, as his voters might not like the bottom line at all.

When you have worked all your life and saved a decent lump sum to, hopefully last the rest of your life without working...... do you desire to still pay the same taxes as those who work and receive new income weekly?

This is what is happening with some of the wealthy. They have so much wealth that it makes no sense to receive salaries, because it would all go away in taxes anyway. So they pay themselves little to nothing in salary....thereby lowering their taxable "income." I one one billionaire who paid himself $1 a year as CEO......of course he received income from his own money in accounts...which is taxed..... But think about it....would a person making $1 a year be taxed less than someone making 30K a year?

So why be selfish, you say? Pay yourself 25Million a year so that you can have higher taxes to give to the poor? You see there has already be posts frowning on the high salaries of the people on top who seem to do less work....
You arent doing the work, yet you get paid 20x more than the people whose backs break to make you rich? Ok, so let me shut down the business so I make no money and use no one...... but wait.....that means 10s of thousands of lost jobs....Oops.....There is no way to win. No matter what a rich man does, he when have reasons for the poor to shun him.

The poor seem to desire all to be equally poor. I desire all to be equally rich.....in which case no one would be.

 

[RaymondG]

I agree -- we are entirely subject to what God says, all of us.

So, we then want ardently to learn all He says about wealth, and not only selected pieces, but all. Both how He blesses and also what He requires of us too. We don't want to end up with the fate of the rich man in the account of Lazarus and the Rich Man which Christ instructs us on. Christ said, where your treasure is, there your heart is also.

He said we cannot serve 2 masters, both God and money. We really must choose.

This is why I think it best to not desire to take anyone elses money, whether they be rich or poor. I find it unwise to feel that it is just to talk from another using money as a judge. Equally unwise would be the coveting of anothers possessions.

I see a lot in the bible discussing the benefits of giving.....seldom so I see passages discussing benefits of taking from others we deem have more than ourselves...

 

[GodLovesCats]

You make no sense Raymond. I just explained religion has NOTHING to do with the govenrment's uses of money and definitions of rich and poor. Then your response was to continue preaching about what people THINK they are.

There is only ONE truth when the government says you are rich or poor. It is all about the bank accounts. If people don't desire money, they don't ask for it. But the government MUST provide for people in need. The ONLY way the government can give more money to the poor is take money fromthe rich.

 

[Halbhh]

When you have worked all your life and saved a decent lump sum to, hopefully last the rest of your life without working...... do you desire to still pay the same taxes as those who work and receive new income weekly?

This is what is happening with some of the wealthy. They have so much wealth that it makes no sense to receive salaries, because it would all go away in taxes anyway. So they pay themselves little to nothing in salary....thereby lowering their taxable "income." I one one billionaire who paid himself $1 a year as CEO......of course he received income from his own money in accounts...which is taxed..... But think about it....would a person making $1 a year be taxed less than someone making 30K a year?

So why be selfish, you say? Pay yourself 25Million a year so that you can have higher taxes to give to the poor? You see there has already be posts frowning on the high salaries of the people on top who seem to do less work....
You arent doing the work, yet you get paid 20x more than the people whose backs break to make you rich? Ok, so let me shut down the business so I make no money and use no one...... but wait.....that means 10s of thousands of lost jobs....Oops.....There is no way to win. No matter what a rich man does, he when have reasons for the poor to shun him.

The poor seem to desire all to be equally poor. I desire all to be equally rich.....in which case no one would be.

The long term capital gains rate is set already according to taxable income.

Meaning that unless you are ultra rich, you won't be paying even the 20% rate.

You won't I'd guess. You'd likely be among those that pay a much lower rate.

It's not much at all for most well-to-do retirees:
2019 Capital Gains Tax Rates — and How to Avoid a Big Bill - NerdWallet

That part is fine in my opinion.

What concerns me is instead there that rate is for the ultra rich. For instance, people with net wealth above $10 million for instance. (Ok, that maybe shows I grew up poor in the country. Maybe that should be at $20 million. ) But here is a better way --

E. Warren has a plan that simplifies the question of differing rates and such and still encouraging investment. Simply for the ultra rich to pay a fixed small percent wealth tax.

== "A two-cent tax on the great fortunes of more than $50 million"

Since it is not a capital gains tax, it simply avoids those issues.

 

[bekkilyn]

When you have worked all your life and saved a decent lump sum to, hopefully last the rest of your life without working...... do you desire to still pay the same taxes as those who work and receive new income weekly?

This is what is happening with some of the wealthy. They have so much wealth that it makes no sense to receive salaries, because it would all go away in taxes anyway. So they pay themselves little to nothing in salary....thereby lowering their taxable "income." I one one billionaire who paid himself $1 a year as CEO......of course he received income from his own money in accounts...which is taxed..... But think about it....would a person making $1 a year be taxed less than someone making 30K a year?

So why be selfish, you say? Pay yourself 25Million a year so that you can have higher taxes to give to the poor? You see there has already be posts frowning on the high salaries of the people on top who seem to do less work....
You arent doing the work, yet you get paid 20x more than the people whose backs break to make you rich? Ok, so let me shut down the business so I make no money and use no one...... but wait.....that means 10s of thousands of lost jobs....Oops.....There is no way to win. No matter what a rich man does, he when have reasons for the poor to shun him.

The poor seem to desire all to be equally poor. I desire all to be equally rich.....in which case no one would be.

The issue though isn't that some people make more money than other people (regardless of how they make it or how much tax they pay) but that some people are raking in such an extravagant amount of money, far more than any person could ever even use much less need, and then hoarding it, while there are vast numbers of people (and growing every year) who don't have enough for their most basic needs, even though they are working as hard or many times harder than the wealthiest.

It's not so much the fault of the individual rich person, but that the system is set up to favor them and help them to get richer while everyone else gets poorer. Most billionaires aren't going to fight against this system because the status quo benefits them, even as it robs the poor and middle class.

Then we get all the false propaganda that it is the selfish and lazy poor people who are robbing those "persecuted and oppressed billionaires" for the poor and middle class desiring a system that benefits them in some way too.

I don't think everyone needs to be equal when it comes to wealth, but it does need to be more equitable so that everyone at least has their basic needs met regardless of their life situation.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Would you mind paying an additional 20% in federal taxes to help the poor?

If I had good money . Yes. But I'm on the poor side, because I was babysit for a very well off Conservative family member. $600 A month for 3 kids. I've been working a lot less and someone's is starting to babysit for them for cheap. Because my dad has stage 4 cancer, Thanks to insurance taking their time. So I'm having to take care of my mom, that cant walk and my sick dad , that has to go to multiple doctors appointment a week. I'm not receiving welfare or anything. They don't get welfare, food stamps or medical.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Trump Wants to Take From the Poor and Give to the Wealthy

I don't vote for Republican, Because when George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States. Programs for kids started going away. And Republican seem to think this is acceptable.

 

[NotreDame]

What is actually stunning is people defending the unjust system that the wealthy plutocrats have established to make sure they get everything while at the same time enforcing the propaganda that its actually poor and middle class people robbing *them* if they have to contribute in any way to the well being of the society in which they live. (I suppose if you're one of these plutocrats somehow hanging out on CF, your arguments would be more understandable.)

What is actually stunning

What’s “stunning” is the conspicuous absence of any substance supporting your claims.

is people defending the unjust system that the wealthy plutocrats have established to make sure they get everything while at the same time enforcing the propaganda that its actually poor and middle class people robbing *them* if they have to contribute in any way to the well being of the society in which they live.

You are adroit at making claims, like the claim in your overrun sentence above, while not providing any supporting evidence, substance, or rational argument.

And you’ve confused me with someone else. I’ve defended nothing “unjust.” Rather, our engagement in a dialogue has centered around your assertion of claims, some very bad ones, and my reply for support or saying your remark(s) is inaccurate.

(I suppose if you're one of these plutocrats somehow hanging out on CF, your arguments would be more understandable.

You’ve seriously misunderstood how to evaluate claims, beliefs, and arguments. Comprehension of a claim, belief, or argument doesn’t rest upon the identity of the person hearing or reading it. I, as a Christian, do not believe in evolution but I can understand the evidence for it, I know how the evidence is viewed and the logic used to relate that evidence to the claims made by evolutionists.

One not need be a plutocrat to understand my objections to your argument, and neither one must be Oliver Twist to understand your view and more specifically, the present deficiencies of your view.

However, your statement suggests your point of view from that of someone who is not a plutocrat. Apparently, based on what you said, perception is based on the view. A plutocrat view. A destitute view. A middle class view.

But what you’ve failed to realize is your perception may be or is not factual. You’ve certainly not provided any facts or reasoned argument to show why your view is one based in reality. An example of this was your insensible claim the more the rich have, the less for others, in which you treat the relationship as a zero sum game. But that is false, the rich getting richer doesn’t mean there’s none left for you or anyone else to get rich or richer than you are now.

I’m no plutocrat. I work too much to be a plutocrat. Despite that, I can recognize bad arguments, and your arguments are bad.

 

[NotreDame]

The issue though isn't that some people make more money than other people (regardless of how they make it or how much tax they pay) but that some people are raking in such an extravagant amount of money, far more than any person could ever even use much less need, and then hoarding it, while there are vast numbers of people (and growing every year) who don't have enough for their most basic needs, even though they are working as hard or many times harder than the wealthiest.

Most billionaires aren't going to fight against this system because the status quo benefits them, even as it robs the poor and middle class.

Then we get all the false propaganda that it is the selfish and lazy poor people who are robbing those "persecuted and oppressed billionaires" for the poor and middle class desiring a system that benefits them in some way too.

I don't think everyone needs to be equal when it comes to wealth, but it does need to be more equitable so that everyone at least has their basic needs met regardless of their life situation.

It's not so much the fault of the individual rich person, but that the system is set up to favor them and help them to get richer while everyone else gets poorer.

This is the ponderous logic you peddle. “[E]veryone else gets poorer” isn’t reality.

The American middle class is stable in size, but losing ground financially to upper-income families

From the article:

“[F]inancial gains for middle-income Americans during this period were modest compared with those of higher-income households...” Okay, so the middle class made “financial gains” which means they are not “poorer,” and demonstrates not “everyone else gets poorer.”

As it’s been said, “Get your facts straight first, then you can distort them as you please.”

but it does need to be more equitable so that everyone at least has their basic needs met regardless of their life situation

This assumes a lack of equity now. You’ve made no demonstration equity does not presently exist. You’ve not shown what equity would look like and why? What point would be equitable and why? What can we rely upon to know when a situation is inequitable?

 

[NotreDame]

Here's from another site, checking the information:

Buffett vs. his secretary

We fact-checked Warren Buffett's statements about taxes in the New York Times. Buffett said that his taxes amounted to "only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent." Individual tax filings are private, so there was no way we could compare Buffett's actual tax return with that of his secretary and other co-workers. (We contacted his office when we did the fact-check and didn't hear back.) So instead, we checked Buffett's statement that the "mega-rich" pay about 15 percent in taxes, while the middle class "fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot." We rated the statement True.
Does a secretary pay higher taxes than a millionaire?

------
Are the long term capital gains tax rates still the same as they were when Buffett told us what was happening?

Answer: Yes.

2019 Capital Gains Tax Rates — and How to Avoid a Big Bill - NerdWallet

I said the middle class pays higher rates. Not the poor.

So, since you addressed something completely unrelated to what I said....

Are you interested in checking the information that the ultra rich pay a lower rate of overall taxes than the middle class? ( "middle class" means those in the middle, not the "poor", of course. just to be sure you get what I said this time)

But you didn’t read the article. Too bad, because it has information rebutting your “middle class” claims. It pays to read the article. From your post: “while the middle class "fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot”

From my article: “top 1 percent’s total tax burden (federal, state, and local) at around 30 percent of its income in 2016 (the latest year available for comparison in both series), the CBO’s estimate for federal taxes alone is actually higher at 33.3 percent.”

You got that? 30-33% is greater than 15-25 for middle class in your post.

 

[Halbhh]

But you didn’t read the article. Too bad, because it has information rebutting your “middle class” claims. It pays to read the article. From your post: “while the middle class "fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot”

From my article: “top 1 percent’s total tax burden (federal, state, and local) at around 30 percent of its income in 2016 (the latest year available for comparison in both series), the CBO’s estimate for federal taxes alone is actually higher at 33.3 percent.”

You got that? 30-33% is greater than 15-25 for middle class in your post.

Wait a sec. You included (correctly) other taxes for the rich...but not for the middle class there. Notice now? That's ok, we all make mistakes all the time. Of course....if you pay attention to Warren Buffett a few times over the years, you notice though that he tends to get the numbers right (it's his thing), so....you want to at least take what he says seriously. (in a friendly way, I've noticed several errors there, and that's not unusual. It's a lot of pieces) Just so you know, I'm pro capitalist, and for economics mostly just libertarian. Just so you don't assume somehow I have positions I don't.

 

[NotreDame]

Wait a sec. You included (correctly) other taxes for the rich...but not for the middle class there. Notice now? That's ok, we all make mistakes all the time. Of course....if you pay attention to Warren Buffett a few times over the years, you notice though that he tends to get the numbers right (it's his thing), so....you want to at least take what he says seriously. (in a friendly way, I've noticed several errors there, and that's not unusual. It's a lot of pieces) Just so you know, I'm pro capitalist, and for economics mostly just libertarian. Just so you don't assume somehow I have positions I don't.

I made no mistake. Federal taxes “alone” for the 1% is estimated at 33%, that’s greater than your 15-25%.

 

[98cwitr]

It was to the states to provide welfare (see NC Constitution for an example) and the federal government to promote the General Welfare (preamble - US Constitution). Never was there any intention, until marxist theory reached the halls of Congress in the early 20th century, that any federal program should be providing entitlements. This creates government dependencies in which power can and has proven to usurp the very freedoms of those who have grown dependent. This has rather always been (and should still be) the jobs of the churches, charities, and municipalities.

Trump's doing the right thing here. Get the federal government out of welfare; completely and entirely. Let those who know the people in need provide for the people in need.

 

[Halbhh]

I made no mistake. Federal taxes “alone” for the 1% is estimated at 33%, that’s greater than your 15-25%.

So, from the very first moment, when I posted to you, the whole point isn't the nominal rate few or none pay.

But the actual taxes they actually pay, in reality.

For the "ultra rich". Meaning basically those that live on capital gains. If you want more information, go back at least to the first post I wrote to you and start from there. Or read a post about capital gains income and how the ultra rich pay such low actual taxes as a rate.

The question was never about the merely high income CEO or shuch, but always about the ultra rich. For me.

If you wanted to argue with someone about merely high income people you'd need to find someone else. If you say to me that high income people like CEOs pay lot of taxes, you are only preaching to the choir about that! I guess you thought I was saying something entirely different and unlike what I've been saying from the start and the whole time. Understandable. It's easy to guess wrong over the internet.

 

[bekkilyn]

What’s “stunning” is the conspicuous absence of any substance supporting your claims.



You are adroit at making claims, like the claim in your overrun sentence above, while not providing any supporting evidence, substance, or rational argument.

And you’ve confused me with someone else. I’ve defended nothing “unjust.” Rather, our engagement in a dialogue has centered around your assertion of claims, some very bad ones, and my reply for support or saying your remark(s) is inaccurate.



You’ve seriously misunderstood how to evaluate claims, beliefs, and arguments. Comprehension of a claim, belief, or argument doesn’t rest upon the identity of the person hearing or reading it. I, as a Christian, do not believe in evolution but I can understand the evidence for it, I know how the evidence is viewed and the logic used to relate that evidence to the claims made by evolutionists.

One not need be a plutocrat to understand my objections to your argument, and neither one must be Oliver Twist to understand your view and more specifically, the present deficiencies of your view.

However, your statement suggests your point of view from that of someone who is not a plutocrat. Apparently, based on what you said, perception is based on the view. A plutocrat view. A destitute view. A middle class view.

But what you’ve failed to realize is your perception may be or is not factual. You’ve certainly not provided any facts or reasoned argument to show why your view is one based in reality. An example of this was your insensible claim the more the rich have, the less for others, in which you treat the relationship as a zero sum game. But that is false, the rich getting richer doesn’t mean there’s none left for you or anyone else to get rich or richer than you are now.

I’m no plutocrat. I work too much to be a plutocrat. Despite that, I can recognize bad arguments, and your arguments are bad.

Perhaps if you were to take off your blinders, we might actually have a dialogue, but as it is, please let me recommend you read Moby Dick if you really wish to enjoy some overrun sentences. Although my arguments may not be so deficient as you claim, my talent in writing overrun sentences pales in comparison with good ole Melville's extraordinary talent in that regard.

Since you are not a plutocrat, you may be interested in what an actual plutocrat has to say on this topic:

 

[NotreDame]

So, from the very first moment, when I posted to you, the whole point isn't the nominal rate few or none pay.

But the actual taxes they actually pay, in reality.

For the "ultra rich". Meaning basically those that live on capital gains. If you want more information, go back at least to the first post I wrote to you and start from there. Or read a post about capital gains income and how the ultra rich pay such low actual taxes as a rate.

The question was never about the merely high income CEO or shuch, but always about the ultra rich. For me.

If you wanted to argue with someone about merely high income people you'd need to find someone else. If you say to me that high income people like CEOs pay lot of taxes, you are only preaching to the choir about that! I guess you thought I was saying something entirely different and unlike what I've been saying from the start and the whole time. Understandable. It's easy to guess wrong over the internet.

Guess wrong? The 1% are not the “ultra rich” that “live on capital gains”? On what planet? Not earth.