Of all major Democrat candidates only Warren & Booker gave more to charity

[QUOTE=Stephonit;13942189]Yes and the owner is profiting. Also the individual buyers are in many cases paying an extra something called a sales tax.[/QUOTE]

Yes - and he gets a profit because individuals are voluntarily buying that product. He gets a profit for enriching their lives. That's how it works. Jesus christ you're a tool.

I'm sure the owner pays his fair share of sales taxes on materials to make the product. And on the additional items he buys with the profit from the product.

[QUOTE=Draz;13942054]Comments like these are exactly why you're on the bottom of the tadpole. The 1% doesn't give a flying fck about you or anyone below them. In fact, they don't even respect millionaires.

Backing them up like you're on their payroll does no good for you or anyone else.

They've earned their money through loopholes and squeezing people who work for them as much as possible until they're on to the next thing.

Walmart can always find another teenager or HS dropout crackhead to work for them without benefits and not a livable wage, or, a person down on their feet with a family to take care of.

It's insane how many people back the top 1% when shit hits the fan here (Corona virus, any disaster) given the opportunity they're going to other places together to avoid the plagues while you fend for yourself.

Sooner or later there's going to be a revolution against them and the numbers in people vs the numbers in money can't do anything but buy time.[/QUOTE]

Lmao ok Lenin :oldlol:

You do realize that millionaires are the 1% right?

[QUOTE=CelticBaller;13942307]Lmao ok Lenin :oldlol:

You do realize that millionaires are the 1% right?[/QUOTE] Bernie is part of the 1% therefore:

- Bernie doesn't give a flying f[I]u[/I]ck about anyone below him
- Bernie made his money through loopholes
- Bernie will abandon the Bernie Bros when shit hits the fan

Yet this moron is backing Bernie and will join the revolution against him. :oldlol:

[QUOTE=Phong;13942218]You think the increase in production resulted from workers working more or was it due to more efficient manufacturing processes and increased automation?

As for middle class income it followed inflation and they have the same purchasing power as they had in the past. What are you expecting? That somehow you should be able to buy more stuff for doing the same work?

[I]"In fact, despite some ups and downs over the past several decades, today’s real average wage (that is, the wage after accounting for inflation) has about [B]the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago[/B]."[/I]

[url]https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/[/url][/quote]

Sure, efficient manufacturing processes and increased automation is crucial, but whatever happened to trickle down economics that conservatives have been trying to push down our throats since the 70s? If employers do great then wealth will trickle down to the employees, right?

[IMG]https://backend.joinusworld.org/static/image_in_article/p_6741_2016_02_15_08_42_00_1.png[/IMG]

Same purchasing power... wonderful except for the fact that most new wealth has gone into the pockets of those at the top and expenses that have gone up much quicker than income growths. One would think that purchasing power (after accounting for inflation) would have gone up for workers in a booming economy for 50yrs, but you are just pleased being stagnant?

[IMG]https://content.fortune.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/price_increases-1-e1545251274730.png[/IMG]
(image is 1990 to 2018 but we know it would look much worse if we include numbers going back to the 1970s)

[quote]Reasonable according to which standards? American standards or theirs? Developing countries welcome those jobs as they provide a way for them to escape extreme poverty.

Btw, Apple pays their Chinese factory workers $3.15/hr; not $2 a day like you claimed.

Apple can make all the money they want. They provide a product and people buy it. Where in the middle of that transaction do you think you have the right to take money for yourself?[/quote]

Sure, it is better than nothing, but it's still sh!tty pay.. Especially considering how much those companies sell those items for in the end.

How much of an assho|e company do you have to be to pay pennies for assembly of shoes or iphones in trash unsafe conditions when you end up pocketing crazy profit margins? $1,000 phones probably cost a few dollars to assemble in China or India. Imagine assembling a $300 phone for $10 and selling for $1,000. You telling me they can't afford to up that $10 assembly to $30?? God forbid you had to profit $20 less per phone.. And you defend that behavior..


You are a conservative tool who is perfectly fine being bent over the table. I don't have time for a tool like you. Get lost.

I'm being bent yet you -the one who knows how the system works- are broke as fvck. I'd rather get bent than paying taxes to provide for a whiny loser like yourself. :oldlol:

[IMG]https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-no-mercy-for-these-enemies-of-the-people-the-enemies-of-socialism-the-enemies-of-the-vladimir-lenin-106-79-53.jpg[/IMG]

Comrade Draz :applause:

[QUOTE=bladefd;13942560]$1,000 phones probably cost a few dollars to assemble in China or India. Imagine assembling a $300 phone for $10 and selling for $1,000. You telling me they can't afford to up that $10 assembly to $30?? God forbid you had to profit $20 less per phone.. And you defend that behavior..[/QUOTE] No wonder you're broke. You suck with money.

[I]"which delivers a [B]total production cost of $490.50[/B]. That’s less than half of Apple’s [B]$1099 retail price[/B] for the iPhone 11 Pro Max. Of course, [B]this breakdown doesn’t include research, development or marketing[/B] which would significantly increase the overall cost to Apple.."[/I]

[URL="https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/how-much-apple-iphone-cost-to-make/"]https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/how-much-apple-iphone-cost-to-make/[/URL]

[QUOTE=Phong;13942077]Bottom of the tadpole? I'm not the one moaning and whining to get scraps from the 1%. It's quite pathetic that you guys have no ambitions beyond dreaming about taking other people's money.

Are you gonna be ok until the revolution?[/QUOTE]

I don't need scraps buddy, I'm only 27 sitting on 6 figures. I've worked for mine.

[QUOTE=Draz;13942584]I don't need scraps buddy, I'm only 27 sitting on 6 figures. I've worked for mine.[/QUOTE] Awesome. If you feel generous, give some money to bladefd. He's in grave need of help.

[QUOTE=Phong;13942573]No wonder you're broke. You suck with money.

[I]"which delivers a [B]total production cost of $490.50[/B]. That’s less than half of Apple’s [B]$1099 retail price[/B] for the iPhone 11 Pro Max. Of course, [B]this breakdown doesn’t include research, development or marketing[/B] which would significantly increase the overall cost to Apple.."[/I]

[URL="https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/how-much-apple-iphone-cost-to-make/"]https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/how-much-apple-iphone-cost-to-make/[/URL][/QUOTE]

You telling me they can't afford to spend $20 extra per phone assembled to worker? That would be next to nothing to Apple but would be the world to the workers.

Oh god forbid Apple profiting a little bit less on the stock market. You are pretty much a conservative Establishment cuck who does not care about the working-class people. You only care about those at the top to keep playing everyone in the middle and the bottom. They got you.

[QUOTE=Hawker;13942301]Yes - and he gets a profit because individuals are voluntarily buying that product. He gets a profit for enriching their lives. That's how it works. Jesus christ you're a tool.

I'm sure the owner pays his fair share of sales taxes on materials to make the product. And on the additional items he buys with the profit from the product.[/QUOTE]

As a buyer he pays a tax, as a seller he does not. The system is therefore favorable to sellers. That may in general be good but to simply say "that's how it works" is presumptuous. It does not need to be. Everything is negotiable. The setup of the system can be adjusted. You are trying to avoid confronting that reality.

Indeed your argument fixates one what billionaires do for common individuals but ignores what government does for the billionaires. If you believe billionaires can jack up prices for the goods and services they provide why don't you agree that government can choose to do the same?


[QUOTE=Phong;13941796]The 1% already pay 38% of all income tax, the bottom 50% pays nothing.

How much more should the 1% pay? Do you think they can cover the cost of all the free stuff that you want?[/QUOTE]

Using semantics to avoid the truth. That 50% figure is rubbish. Payroll tax is an income tax. I guess that 38% is also inflated once you factor that in. But thank you for showing how this topic is often talked about with garbage talking points and how people are misled and brainwashed with smoke and mirrors.

The 1% are the 1% because they own 99% of the wealth. Maybe we should be asking why they aren't paying 99% of all tax receipts?

[QUOTE=Stephonit;13942847]The 1% are the 1% because they own 99% of the wealth. Maybe we should be asking why they aren't paying 99% of all tax receipts?[/QUOTE]Wow. What a dumb statement. :facepalm

The 1% holds close to 40% of all the wealth in the US. So according to your logic, they should pay around the same percentage.. which they do. :confusedshrug:

[Url="https://equitablegrowth.org/the-distribution-of-wealth-in-the-united-states-and-implications-for-a-net-worth-tax/"]https://equitablegrowth.org/the-distribution-of-wealth-in-the-united-states-and-implications-for-a-net-worth-tax/[/url]

[QUOTE=Phong;13942958]Wow. What a dumb statement. :facepalm

The 1% holds close to 40% of all the wealth in the US. So according to your logic, they should pay around the same percentage.. which they do. :confusedshrug:

[Url="https://equitablegrowth.org/the-distribution-of-wealth-in-the-united-states-and-implications-for-a-net-worth-tax/"]https://equitablegrowth.org/the-distribution-of-wealth-in-the-united-states-and-implications-for-a-net-worth-tax/[/url][/QUOTE]

Individual income taxes account for 1.7 trillion. Payroll taxes account for about 1.2 trillion. So no they don't pay 40%. But yes your argument shows the mendacity and obfuscation at play in these discussions.

[QUOTE=Stephonit;13942967]Individual income taxes account for 1.7 trillion. Payroll taxes account for about 1.2 trillion. So no they don't pay 40%. But yes your argument shows the mendacity and obfuscation at play in these discussions.[/QUOTE] Half of the payroll tax is paid by the employers. You also don't mention income taxes on corporations.

So what happened to the 1% having to pay 99%, huh?

[QUOTE=Phong;13942971]Half of the payroll tax is paid by the employers. You also don't mention income taxes on corporations.

So what happened to the 1% having to pay 99%, huh?[/QUOTE]


Equating a corporation with billionaires is technically not correct because a corporation is made of a number of stakeholders. That is yet another way billionaires co-opt more than their fair share but let's humor you anyway.

[url]https://taxfoundation.org/what-are-payroll-taxes-and-who-pays-them[/url]

[i]"Who Really Pays Payroll Taxes?

Perhaps one of the best-kept secrets of payroll taxes is that employees effectively pay almost the entire payroll tax, instead of splitting the burden with their employers."[/i]

[QUOTE][url]https://taxfoundation.org/what-are-payroll-taxes-and-who-pays-them[/url]

[i]"Who Really Pays Payroll Taxes?

This means that, rather than workers and employers each paying 7.65 percent in payroll taxes, [b]employers send their portion of the tax to the government and then decrease workers’ wages by almost 7.65 percent[/B]. Next, workers pay their 7.65 percent share on those wages.[/i][/QUOTE]That's a big assumption that the author of the article didn't support with any evidence.

Once again, what happened to your claim that the 1% owns 99% of the wealth and should pay 99% of the taxes? Are you gonna dodge this again?

To go back on topic, why is Bernie hoarding all that wealth?

[QUOTE=Phong;13943006]That's a big assumption that the author of the article didn't support with any evidence.

Once again, what happened to your claim that the 1% owns 99% of the wealth and should pay 99% of the taxes? Are you gonna dodge this again?[/QUOTE]

Steph and the taxfoundation are actually correct on this. That's why less taxes are always better. The payroll tax is just another regulation passed by the government with good intentions and negative unintended consequences.

[QUOTE=Stephonit;13942847]As a buyer he pays a tax, as a seller he does not. The system is therefore favorable to sellers. That may in general be good but to simply say "that's how it works" is presumptuous. It does not need to be. Everything is negotiable. The setup of the system can be adjusted. You are trying to avoid confronting that reality.

Indeed your argument fixates one what billionaires do for common individuals but ignores what government does for the billionaires. If you believe billionaires can jack up prices for the goods and services they provide why don't you agree that government can choose to do the same?
[/QUOTE]

Corporations pay taxes on profits so I don't see how you have come to that conclusion they don't pay a tax on the product as that's where the profit is coming from. The countries that have all the programs Bernie wants have national VATs/GSTs to pay for their programs.

Sure - I want change as well. I want less taxes and everything doesn't need to be the same as it was before. You have a misunderstanding of how markets work though and how goods are paid for by the sellers.

What exactly does the government do in dollar form? There's a massive difference between billionaires jacking up prices and the government doing it - one is voluntary and one is coercive.

[QUOTE=Phong;13942958]Wow. What a dumb statement. :facepalm

The 1% holds close to 40% of all the wealth in the US. So according to your logic, they should pay around the same percentage.. which they do. :confusedshrug:

[Url="https://equitablegrowth.org/the-distribution-of-wealth-in-the-united-states-and-implications-for-a-net-worth-tax/"]https://equitablegrowth.org/the-distribution-of-wealth-in-the-united-states-and-implications-for-a-net-worth-tax/[/url][/QUOTE]

I am all in favor of 1% paying 40% taxes. Let's do it. Let's have corporations also pay 40% - currently most of them pay very little in taxes or some like Apple/Amazon pay nothing. 40% you say?? Let's do it but with no loopholes.

[QUOTE=Hawker;13943153]Corporations pay taxes on profits so I don't see how you have come to that conclusion they don't pay a tax on the product as that's where the profit is coming from. The countries that have all the programs Bernie wants have national VATs/GSTs to pay for their programs.

Sure - I want change as well. I want less taxes and everything doesn't need to be the same as it was before. You have a misunderstanding of how markets work though and how goods are paid for by the sellers.

What exactly does the government do in dollar form? There's a massive difference between billionaires jacking up prices and the government doing it - one is voluntary and one is coercive.[/QUOTE]

What does the government do? A government might be able to claim that is has provided a company a skilled workforce, efficient infrastructure, a transparent justice system, and an orderly and prosperous society. Why shouldn't it be able to demand taxes that reflect that?

Corporations aren't necessarily the same as billionaires as I've already pointed out. But even then corporate taxes are basically an income tax. Workers pay an income tax and a sales tax. Corporations do not have an equivalent of the latter; sales taxes paid on corporate inputs can be expensed and deducted.

The difference you see between billionaires jacking up prices and government taxing more does not hold. What's the difference between a private company raising the price of a drug like insulin beyond the reach of a diabetic and the government imposing a wealth tax? The former is potentially fatal; the latter isn't.

[QUOTE=bladefd;13943197]Let's have corporations also pay 40% - currently most of them pay very little in taxes or some like Apple/Amazon pay nothing. 40% you say?? Let's do it but with no loopholes.[/QUOTE]

Which developed country pays 40%?

That is insane

[QUOTE=bladefd;13943197]I am all in favor of 1% paying 40% taxes. Let's do it. Let's have corporations also pay 40% - currently most of them pay very little in taxes or some like Apple/Amazon pay nothing. 40% you say?? Let's do it but with no loopholes.[/QUOTE]

Which country that has universal healthcare also has a 40% tax rate?

[QUOTE=CelticBaller;13943240]Which developed country pays 40%?

That is insane[/QUOTE]

I was being sarcastic and seems I failed to get my point across. Phong said 1% pays 40% of total taxes and seems outraged that they are paying so much. 1% has 40% of total wealth in this country so how is them paying 40% of total taxes on new income unfair? Those fools already have amassed 40% of wealth.. Bottom 50% of the country has no wealth or even money in the bank so why the hell are you crying about people with no money not being able to pay income taxes?

You want people with no money/paycheck to paycheck to pay flat tax rate to be fair. Where are they getting that money from?

[QUOTE=Stephonit;13943206]What does the government do? A government might be able to claim that is has provided a company a skilled workforce, efficient infrastructure, a transparent justice system, and an orderly and prosperous society. Why shouldn't it be able to demand taxes that reflect that?

Corporations aren't necessarily the same as billionaires as I've already pointed out. But even then corporate taxes are basically an income tax. Workers pay an income tax and a sales tax. Corporations do not have an equivalent of the latter; sales taxes paid on corporate inputs can be expensed and deducted.

The difference you see between billionaires jacking up prices and government taxing more does not hold. What's the difference between a private company raising the price of a drug like insulin beyond the reach of a diabetic and the government imposing a wealth tax? The former is potentially fatal; the latter isn't.[/QUOTE]

The thing is you not actually claiming any hard numbers - you're being vague which allows you to choose whatever tax rate you want without the dollars to back it up. Sure the government "might" be able to claim that but it doesn't mean it can't be provided privately. Sure the government is subsidizing training for corporations via degrees. I'd make an argument that college shouldn't be funded by the government. Most of these universities are state and locally funded anyway and not federal.

If corporations were required to pay a sales tax, the price of the goods would simply go up, harming the individual buying it. You just don't see the value of a good being provided to an individual. All the countries that fund the programs you want do it by implementing a GST/sales tax. The wealth tax you're proposing has been tried in multiple countries and fail. It put a barrier to economic growth. It won't raise nearly the money you think because for some reason, you naively think that human behavior would remain the same if a wealth tax was passed. That humans don't react and act differently when a law is passed.

The latter could potentially be proven to be fatal because it slows economic growth and that's how individuals accumulate wealth - not through being unemployed.