GB Update on mass shooting at Indianapolis FedEx building

[goduke]

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I just need to know what these unfair tax advantages for the wealthy are that you speak of in order to reply.

Tax rate went down to highest earners from 39.6 to 37
Wealthy will create conservation easements to get charitable deductions
Gift and estate deductions up to 11.18 million
Defined benefit plans
Corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent
20 percent pass through deduction for certain pass through business income

These are just a few I could rattle off quickly

[dlowilly]

Tax rate went down to highest earners from 39.6 to 37
Wealthy will create conservation easements to get charitable deductions
Gift and estate deductions up to 11.18 million
Defined benefit plans
Corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent
20 percent pass through deduction for certain pass through business income

These are just a few I could rattle off quickly

These aren't tax advantages, they are tax breaks. There is nothing in any of those examples you gave that have high income as a requirement.

When federal income tax was originally introduced it was 1% on income over a high amount for the time. It has increased over time to the numbers you see now in the high 30%s. Saying that being reduced a few percentage points is a tax advantage while half the country pays no taxes is like saying Lebron has an advantage over us because he pays 48 million in taxes/yr instead of 49 million because he donated 3 million to charity.

I know none of what I say matters to you though, it's just a huge difference of opinion. WHen you see a reduction in what government takes from successful people you see it as unfair to poorer people, even though they aren't forbidden from the same tax rules and less taxes paid by the rich doesn't make them any poorer.

You will never be able to come up with a convincing argument why a progressive income tax is needed for anything other than a wasteful government. You just won't.

[MinnesotaFats]

...and it's wholly unfair at this point.

It's a political football

How can we get 51% to support 49% and obtain power in doing so?

That's all the tax code is

But let me ask this....

If we're just printing money and it's all debt driven to our own Fed, then why do we even have taxes at all anymore? At this point, w the last $8trillion in stimulus and our GDP / Debt at 109% it's all fake. It's all gov spending + stimulus money, so why even have taxes?

[goduke]

These aren't tax advantages, they are tax breaks. There is nothing in any of those examples you gave that have high income as a requirement.

When federal income tax was originally introduced it was 1% on income over a high amount for the time. It has increased over time to the numbers you see now in the high 30%s. Saying that being reduced a few percentage points is a tax advantage while half the country pays no taxes is like saying Lebron has an advantage over us because he pays 48 million in taxes/yr instead of 49 million because he donated 3 million to charity.

I know none of what I say matters to you though, it's just a huge difference of opinion. WHen you see a reduction in what government takes from successful people you see it as unfair to poorer people, even though they aren't forbidden from the same tax rules and less taxes paid by the rich doesn't make them any poorer.

You will never be able to come up with a convincing argument why a progressive income tax is needed for anything other than a wasteful government. You just won't.

I just want the rate to be proportionate to their income. If a middle class person pays let’s say 25% and can’t qualify for tax breaks that are out there because of income limitations but a person who earns more and can’t limit their tax liability down to 10% because the tax breaks are designed for them then that’s the part I feel is unfair.
To me it’s not about the dollar amount in totality it’s about the proportion percentage to their income. If I didn’t explain that clearly earlier my apologies but that was what I was trying to say

[dlowilly]

I just want the rate to be proportionate to their income. If a middle class person pays let’s say 25% and can’t qualify for tax breaks that are out there because of income limitations but a person who earns more and can’t limit their tax liability down to 10% because the tax breaks are designed for them then that’s the part I feel is unfair.
To me it’s not about the dollar amount in totality it’s about the proportion percentage to their income. If I didn’t explain that clearly earlier my apologies but that was what I was trying to say

I'm saying I just don't know an example of that where a high income qualifies you for a tax break. Someone may be more likely to use a tax law because they have a high income but it's not what qualifies them for it.

The only real advantage based on income are the credits and deductions available if your income is under a certain amount (Child tax credit, Earned Income Credit, lower tax rates, lower long term capital gains taxes. etc.)

[hehfest]

...and it's wholly unfair at this point.

It's a political football

How can we get 51% to support 49% and obtain power in doing so?

That's all the tax code is

But let me ask this....

If we're just printing money and it's all debt driven to our own Fed, then why do we even have taxes at all anymore? At this point, w the last $8trillion in stimulus and our GDP / Debt at 109% it's all fake. It's all gov spending + stimulus money, so why even have taxes?

Its as if they are begging you to see its all a ponzi scheme but morons and retards still can't figure it out. Or, they are telling you, hey we run a ponzi scheme on your ass and always have since you were born; and we are going to throw it in your face and laugh at you slaves. Now, go put that mask back on and shut the penetrate up you slaves!

[goduke]

I'm saying I just don't know an example of that where a high income qualifies you for a tax break. Someone may be more likely to use a tax law because they have a high income but it's not what qualifies them for it.

The only real advantage based on income are the credits and deductions available if your income is under a certain amount (Child tax credit, Earned Income Credit, lower tax rates, lower long term capital gains taxes. etc.)

I think we are circling around the point. Let’s ignore the world qualify, break, advantage or whatever word that is tripping you up on my point.
A person with high income has more ways to get around their tax bracket. They can move it around through gifts to other family members, they can create other avenues as well that I listed above.
They have the income to be able to do that and the tax law is configured in a way for them to be able to work around it
Now a middle class person doesn’t have that advantage. They can’t just dump everything they have in a gift to a relative because many live close to paycheck to paycheck.
So my point is they pay what their tax bracket is outside of probably the child tax credit.
What I’m saying is a wealthy person and a middle class person should pay the same rate in proportion to their income.
Imagine if there were more avenues for middle class to work around their tax rate and rich people were stuck paying 37 percent with no avenues outside of children to lower their tax rate?

[thomorino]

You know you are arguing with a chimp, right?

You are a dumb shit