Jump to content

Income Tax is for little people


Recommended Posts

Not surprising.  All you need is enough money to get the tax laws changed in your favor.  But the majority of Americans don't have lobbyists hauling suitcases of money into the halls of Congress.  We can't afford to bribe politicians to change the tax laws in our favor like the donor class does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been a broken record on this, but the only "fair" way to go is a either an annual "wealth change" tax. say 1-2%, or some pretty high estate taxes - approaching say 75% - numbers TBD.

 

The Wealth class just completely avoids taxes. I would as well. I don't blame them. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't change the rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I've been a broken record on this, but the only "fair" way to go is a either an annual "wealth change" tax. say 1-2%, or some pretty high estate taxes - approaching say 75% - numbers TBD.

 

The Wealth class just completely avoids taxes. I would as well. I don't blame them. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't change the rules.

Higher than that, but with exemptions for every full time job with living wage paid plus benefits that they create. Wanna avoid taxes? Put that money to work and participate in the economy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:
19 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I've been a broken record on this, but the only "fair" way to go is a either an annual "wealth change" tax. say 1-2%, or some pretty high estate taxes - approaching say 75% - numbers TBD.

 

The Wealth class just completely avoids taxes. I would as well. I don't blame them. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't change the rules.

Higher than that, but with exemptions for every full time job with living wage paid plus benefits that they create. Wanna avoid taxes? Put that money to work and participate in the economy. 

This is a little bit dated now, but I like an older Republican belief: the wealthy create jobs, and torture works.

Any time unemployment is a problem, grab some of the 1%ers and start torturing them. Keep it up until there's no more problem.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Higher than that, but with exemptions for every full time job with living wage paid plus benefits that they create. Wanna avoid taxes? Put that money to work and participate in the economy. 

I have had this discussion repeatedly with my kids.  They bring up 'not fair', and then I ask them if it's fair that a speeding ticket might take 1% of one person's yearly food budget and .0002% of another's.  It's an extremely hard thing to explain the varying impact of fixed penalties when people have such disparate incomes.

I DID get them to agree that crminal penalties should be changed based on a percentage of your yearly income.  Now I just have to get them to understand a progressive scale.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grrr... said:

I have had this discussion repeatedly with my kids.  They bring up 'not fair', and then I ask them if it's fair that a speeding ticket might take 1% of one person's yearly food budget and .0002% of another's.  It's an extremely hard thing to explain the varying impact of fixed penalties when people have such disparate incomes.

I DID get them to agree that crminal penalties should be changed based on a percentage of your yearly income.  Now I just have to get them to understand a progressive scale.

I'm thinking more "sauce for the goose". If we are going to return to 1950s social policy, we should have 1950s tax policy too. The GOP wants us back to Jim Crow for social policy, but insists on cutting edge, modern tax policy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Higher than that, but with exemptions for every full time job with living wage paid plus benefits that they create

 

I don't think we need higher wages and more consumption.  We need cheaper living options.  A jail cell sized apartment option, force developers to start making those.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NeedAClew said:

Want to pay the ordinary income tax rate on the capital gain on your house?  Crumbs for the gosling. 

You wouldn't have to if there was a wealth tax. 1% annual wealth tax would eliminate the structural deficit. I already pay 1 1/8% on my home. Could I pay 2? It would hurt of course, but if we as a people decide to spend $s, we should tax ourselves to pay for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

You wouldn't have to if there was a wealth tax. 1% annual wealth tax would eliminate the structural deficit. I already pay 1 1/8% on my home. Could I pay 2? It would hurt of course, but if we as a people decide to spend $s, we should tax ourselves to pay for it.

What did you pay for your home and what is it worth today?  Saying a 2% tax under Prop 13 would be challenge, what happens when that disappears?  With the way real-estate is moving in CA....  they are bringing in plenty of revenue..  They just have to reign in on the spending. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ventucky Red said:

What did you pay for your home and what is it worth today?  Saying a 2% tax under Prop 13 would be challenge, what happens when that disappears?

Why do you like the feds borrowing so much?  Maybe if we had to pay for it, we wouldn't allow it to be spent?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ventucky Red said:

Please tell me when I said that? 

Well, you don't want to pay taxes...

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Why do you like the feds borrowing so much?  Maybe if we had to pay for it, we wouldn't allow it to be spent?

They sort of have to borrow.  The trade deficit means that something like $500 in cash is exported every year.  Before the gold window was closed in the early 70's they had balance of trade payments.  The federal government would exchange gold with whatever government had dollars and import those dollars back into our economy a couple of times every year.  Rising oil imports put an end to that after we had exported half the nations gold supply.  Now they use paper(government debt) to do that instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

They sort of have to borrow.  The trade deficit means that something like $500 in cash is exported every year.  Before the gold window was closed in the early 70's they had balance of trade payments.  The federal government would exchange gold with whatever government had dollars and import those dollars back into our economy a couple of times every year.  Rising oil imports put an end to that after we had exported half the nations gold supply.  Now they use paper(government debt) to do that instead.

Yes and no, they wouldn't have to actually do it with debt to the open market. The Fed could see M1 dropping and inject dollars into the system, and "borrow" from itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Yes and no, they wouldn't have to actually do it with debt to the open market. The Fed could see M1 dropping and inject dollars into the system, and "borrow" from itself.

Yes, endless money printing that would devalue the cash that the rest of the world uses as a reserve currency.  It's better to just keep it as the national debt.  If we get some real inflation in this country it will devalue it just the same, that's the only way the current system can continue, something republicans have been blocking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

Yes, endless money printing that would devalue the cash that the rest of the world uses as a reserve currency.  It's better to just keep it as the national debt.  If we get some real inflation in this country it will devalue it just the same, that's the only way the current system can continue, something republicans have been blocking.

I think you’re the first person ever who said that balancing the budget will lead to higher inflation. You may want to publish that. I see a nonle Nobel in your future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I think you’re the first person ever who said that balancing the budget will lead to higher inflation. You may want to publish that. I see a nonle Nobel in your future.

I said the opposite.  Increased money printing will cause inflation which will devalue the national debt.  Devaluing the debt is the only way the world economy doesn't crash.  Republicans seem to want a crash these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw on CNN that in 2011 when Bezos was worth a mere $18B he claimed zero income and applied for and got a $4K child tax credit.

SMH.

Warren is partially right. Similar to the deal Yellen pushed got on a Global corporate tax rate we need a global wealth tax.   $50M seems like a fair jumping off point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, NeedAClew said:

Want to pay the ordinary income tax rate on the capital gain on your house?  Crumbs for the gosling. 

In our case, we have a substantial capital LOSS on our home . . 

Could I declare that ?? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

Increased money printing will cause inflation which will devalue the national debt.  Devaluing the debt is the only way the world economy doesn't crash.

You might want to read up on modern monetary theory . . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

Nope.

Not quite right. If you're rich enough then the homes are business assets used for business, and yes, in that case, a capital loss is deductible. (if they haven't depreciated it, that is)

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Not quite right. If you're rich enough then the homes are business assets used for business, and yes, in that case, a capital loss is deductible. (if they haven't depreciated it, that is)

How rich are you @AJ Oliver? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

I said the opposite.  Increased money printing will cause inflation which will devalue the national debt.  Devaluing the debt is the only way the world economy doesn't crash.  Republicans seem to want a crash these days.

Ahh, so you're calling for continued monetary expansion policy, and do not want the current taxholders to pay our way. OK. That is consistent with econ theory. So is eventual runaway inflation.

 

Tell you what, I'll grant you the monetary expansion, but let's crank up that wealth tax, and crank down the income tax. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

In our case, we have a substantial capital LOSS on our home . . 

Could I declare that ?? 

I think you can offset it over several years against any gains. Ask an accountant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Ahh, so you're calling for continued monetary expansion policy, and do not want the current taxholders to pay our way. OK. That is consistent with econ theory. So is eventual runaway inflation.

 

Tell you what, I'll grant you the monetary expansion, but let's crank up that wealth tax, and crank down the income tax. 

I'm not calling for anything, I was just explain how debt works.

We consume (import) more than we earn (export).  That creates debt.  We cannot just pretend that this debt does not exist, which is the republican solution.  A balanced budget with a large trade deficit would cause all the money to drain out of the country and not return.  It's the same problem we see in so many areas, republicans don't understand the problem but want to be in charge of the solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Raz'r said:
16 hours ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

I said the opposite.  Increased money printing will cause inflation which will devalue the national debt.  Devaluing the debt is the only way the world economy doesn't crash.  Republicans seem to want a crash these days.

Ahh, so you're calling for continued monetary expansion policy, and do not want the current taxholders to pay our way. OK. That is consistent with econ theory. So is eventual runaway inflation.

 

Tell you what, I'll grant you the monetary expansion, but let's crank up that wealth tax, and crank down the income tax. 

I think we should restore the curve of the progressive income tax. We should also simplify the definition of income. I'm not against a wealth tax, but it should also be steeply progressive; the wealthiest 400 households in the USA own as much wealth as everybody else combined.

Given these changes, I think the impact of corporate taxes goes away because the people who simply put corporate money in their own pockets are suddenly paying tax on it... I'm sure they will see this as a goddam OUTRAGE! to be fought against with last drop of blood in every Trumpalos' body. However it's a good idea to regularize corporate taxes over the G-20 so as to reduce the tendency of corporations to hop from one to the other.

 

4 minutes ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

I'm not calling for anything, I was just explain how debt works.

We consume (import) more than we earn (export).  That creates debt.  We cannot just pretend that this debt does not exist, which is the republican solution.  A balanced budget with a large trade deficit would cause all the money to drain out of the country and not return.  It's the same problem we see in so many areas, republicans don't understand the problem but want to be in charge of the solution.

That's kind of getting back to mercantilism, nyet? That doesn't mean it's entirely wrong though, consuming more than you earn is certainly a recipe for disaster and the USA has been flirting with just how far we can push it for most of my lifetime.

As for "Republican solutions" they don't want to actually -do- anything except keep raking in the bucks, whatever helps them do so is their new policy. And as Al Capone noted, honesty is a terrible handicap in making a profit

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

I'm not calling for anything, I was just explain how debt works.

If you don't take the small amount of time to learn about MMT, and think it through, 

then no, you do not know "how debt works". 

It's been over 12 years now that the right has been predicting imminent hyper-inflation. 

Where is it ?? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, justsomeguy! said:

How rich are you @AJ Oliver? :)

I've been very fortunate, mostly having had the luck to stick with the best Admiral in the fleet. 

And I was able to internalize the most important lesson of grad school - how to have fun

without spending a lot of money. 

We give away quite a bit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

That's kind of getting back to mercantilism, nyet?

No, money IS debt.  If you have a dollar in your hand the economy owes you a dollars worth of stuff.  We export $500 billion dollars worth of dollars every year, those who hold those dollars are owed something.  You can't just pretend this debt does not exist.  Even if we increase taxes in this country on rich people enough to balance the budget we still cannot have a balanced budget.  We don't borrow money because we spend to much, we spend because we have to borrow that money, bring it back into this country, and spend it back into circulation.

It's like our economy is a big bathtub full of money with a hole in it and money pouring out.  We have to pump the money back up into the tub or the tub will soon be empty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

If you don't take the small amount of time to learn about MMT, and think it through, 

then no, you do not know "how debt works". 

It's been over 12 years now that the right has been predicting imminent hyper-inflation. 

Where is it ?? 

I am not an idiot right winger.  I am not repeating moronic right winger talking point.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

I am not an idiot right winger.  I am not repeating moronic right winger talking point.

That is why I wrote "right" instead of "Reich" - I'm not calling you an idiot right winger. 

But it is indeed a right-wing talking point. 

And it may not be true. 

The first mistake that is often made is to assume that fiat currency government debt is just like household debt. 

It is not. 

I am not saying that MMT is true, only that it should be looked at. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

The first mistake that is often made is to assume that fiat currency government debt is just like household debt. 

 

I said no such thing.  i am not repeating right wing talking points.  Right wingers do not own the concept of inflation.  All this money printing WILL cause inflation, it already is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2021 at 7:03 AM, Sean said:

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
 

The Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax

It is a broken record.

I voted for Obama his first term because he made so many promises.  He could have fundamentally changed America if he really wanted by fixing the tax code, but he is addicted to the corporate $$$$ just like all the resto f the trash in DC. Just look at his new digs and lifestyle now. And he really has done nothing to earn it.

trump could have fixed it too but they are all fucked up aholes. 

On 6/8/2021 at 7:15 AM, Sol Rosenberg said:

The Best Americans cannot be bothered to pay their share. They are America’s true entitlement class. 

Don't you mean the Wealthiest Americans. I would hardly call them the Best.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

All this money printing WILL cause inflation, it already is.

Stimulus plus quantitative easing was a whole lot of money printing in 2009. 

But there was deflation then, not inflation. 

Why ?? 

The most recent deflationary period in U.S. history was during the Great Recession, which officially lasted from December 2007 to June 2009.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Why ?? 

There is a reason why that does not apply to what is happening right now.  The concept of inflation has not vanished because it didn't happen last time around.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The_Real_XYZ said:

 The concept of inflation has not vanished because it didn't happen last time around.

Maybe you should take up your argument with empirical reality. 

Got to go sailing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

Maybe you should take up your argument with empirical reality. 

Got to go sailing. 

I am.  Most of the money created last time around never made it into circulation.  It wasn't intended to make it into circulation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

Maybe you should take up your argument with empirical reality. 

Got to go sailing. 

In any case, my actual argument was that inflation will reduce the relative size of debt/GDP.  Inflation is now 5% while interest paid on the debt is like 2%.  I was never making any claim about the evilness of inflation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

Your personal residence won't be deductible.

I bet the money lost on Mara Loco will be deductible. Cause Trump's personal residence is just allocated as a small part of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I bet the money lost on Mara Loco will be deductible. Cause Trump's personal residence is just allocated as a small part of it.

Trump? Trump who?

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

Trump? Trump who?

The guy in the diapers pushing for more fake recounts, he is probably going to get them and d*mbf*ck rightwingers will believe whatever he tells them to believe about them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

In any case, my actual argument was that inflation will reduce the relative size of debt/GDP.  Inflation is now 5% while interest paid on the debt is like 2%.

At that rate, it looks like you could borrow a heap more and pay off the debt?

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Sidecar said:

At that rate, it looks like you could borrow a heap more and pay off the debt?

Yes.  The Economist just had a piece come out about this today.  they say that we can borrow 260% of GDP and the debt will go away without raising taxes.  Of course, it would be really stupid to max it out, you need to save such things for future emergencies.

The down side is that I have my 401K in a money market account at 0% interest while inflation is 5%.  It is a hidden tax on savers.  But better that than letting everything crash and burn.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The_Real_XYZ said:
58 minutes ago, Sidecar said:

At that rate, it looks like you could borrow a heap more and pay off the debt?

Yes.  The Economist just had a piece come out about this today.  they say that we can borrow 260% of GDP and the debt will go away without raising taxes.  Of course, it would be really stupid to max it out, you need to save such things for future emergencies.

The down side is that I have my 401K in a money market account at 0% interest while inflation is 5%.  It is a hidden tax on savers.  But better that than letting everything crash and burn.

It's better than having 100% + inflation and empty stores.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2021 at 9:03 PM, Sean said:

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
 

The Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax

Yup, funny how that works. :D 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael said:
2 hours ago, justsomeguy! said:

It's crazy their marquee can't spell "billionaires" correctly.

It's SOP for Vermin.

That's because they're the smart ones

Right?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2021 at 12:08 PM, AJ Oliver said:

 

The most recent deflationary period in U.S. history was during the Great Recession, which officially lasted from December 2007 to June 2009.

That is because everything was gone. Because of Wall street and mortgage backed securities which could not be guaranteed. All brought on by the Clinton "Everyone should get a mortgage based on stated income."

Yea, we know how that worked out.

Don't do the crime if you can't afford the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Meat Wad said:

That is because everything was gone. Because of Wall street and mortgage backed securities which could not be guaranteed. All brought on by the Clinton "Everyone should get a mortgage based on stated income."

Yea, we know how that worked out.

Don't do the crime if you can't afford the time.

You meant W's Ownership Society and we do know how that worked out.

We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."

- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002

Zero-down mortgage initiative by Bush is hit

Budget office says plan likely to spur more loan defaults

http://archive.boston.com/business/articles/2004/10/05/zero_down_mortgage_initiative_by_bush_is_hit/

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Meat Wad said:

That is because everything was gone. Because of Wall street and mortgage backed securities which could not be guaranteed. All brought on by the Clinton "Everyone should get a mortgage based on stated income."

Yea, we know how that worked out.

Don't do the crime if you can't afford the time.

It wasn't clintons fault.

The problem was a thing called MERS, mortgage electronic registry system.  You know how county clerks keep track of the property titles?  Well, 60% of the nations mortgages went into this new national system.  The problem was in the database column that was supposed to point to the entity that owned the mortgage was just MERS.  So basically, we had no idea who owned 60% of the nations properties.

So this meant that all those bundled mortgages they were sell as investments, they had no idea if they were good investments or bad investments.  Scams were easy to run in this enviroment and there were a lot of them.

There were some other bad things like this that happened at the same time, sloppy systems were created like with credit default swaps that had the same type of issue that the mortgages had.

There is a paper called "The destruction of Economic Facts" that explains it.  Unfortunately it is behind a bloomberg paywall, though you could probably find a copy if you looked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

It wasn't clintons fault.

The problem was a thing called MERS, mortgage electronic registry system.  You know how county clerks keep track of the property titles?  Well, 60% of the nations mortgages went into this new national system.  The problem was in the database column that was supposed to point to the entity that owned the mortgage was just MERS.  So basically, we had no idea who owned 60% of the nations properties.

So this meant that all those bundled mortgages they were sell as investments, they had no idea if they were good investments or bad investments.  Scams were easy to run in this enviroment and there were a lot of them.

There were some other bad things like this that happened at the same time, sloppy systems were created like with credit default swaps that had the same type of issue that the mortgages had.

There is a paper called "The destruction of Economic Facts" that explains it.  Unfortunately it is behind a bloomberg paywall, though you could probably find a copy if you looked.

Bingo

I've always been leery of big promises and higher-than-market return investments. You often find fast talking sales types that don't really know what it is that they're trying to get you to invest your money into. Other times, what they do know, they lie about.

In the subprime "secured debt" (ie mortgage) investment world, they didn't want to know what was in the sausage they were selling. And it was good for a while but it rotted quickly.

One of my biggest disappointments with Obama was the lack of prosecutions for all the crookedness and fraud that went on.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

So this meant that all those bundled mortgages they were sell as investments, they had no idea if they were good investments or bad investments.

Not hardly at all. Wall St. totally knew that they were selling bad paper. 

It was a criminal scam. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

 

Not hardly at all. Wall St. totally knew that they were selling bad paper. 

It was a criminal scam. 

Yes, but they didn't know which were bad and which were good, once it was no longer possible to determine ownership that became impossible.  The poster I responded to was blaming clinton for not requiring income checks, the reality was that they didn't bother checking, once the mortgages were bundled (putting them in the MERS system) that didn't matter as there was no longer any way to check.  So the people selling houses just sold to people they know would default, and mixed them in with bundles including good mortgage.

I don't understand how anyone could blame clinton, this went on through the entire bush administration, large numbers of people knew what was happening, and no one raised the red flag.  May as well blame abraham lincoln.  Well, fox "News", duh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

I don't understand how anyone could blame clinton,

Well, the Reich says we have to blame Barney Frank too. 

And all those dark skinned folks. 

Yeah, them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's much the same in Australia. The highest-earning individuals often pay less personal tax than a construction worker. The highest-earning corporations, in many cases, pay no tax at all.

And it's all legal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

Yes, but they didn't know which were bad and which were good, once it was no longer possible to determine ownership that became impossible.  The poster I responded to was blaming clinton for not requiring income checks, the reality was that they didn't bother checking, once the mortgages were bundled (putting them in the MERS system) that didn't matter as there was no longer any way to check.  So the people selling houses just sold to people they know would default, and mixed them in with bundles including good mortgage.

I don't understand how anyone could blame clinton, this went on through the entire bush administration, large numbers of people knew what was happening, and no one raised the red flag.  May as well blame abraham lincoln.  Well, fox "News", duh.

It's true the mess was started under Clinton - a cluster fuck started with the best of intentions - but it was obvious what was actually happening during Shrubs first term - hell,knew where it was going and I don't even live there.

It was obvious.

Letting it fall apart was entirely on the Shrub and the R's and Obama subsequently doing nothing to punish the Wall St. criminals was inexcusable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

 - a cluster fuck started with the best of intentions -

It would have all been fine, except they were missing a foreign key on a database table.  The President of the United States doesn't do peer reviews when tech systems are being built.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Happy said:

It's much the same in the rest of the world. The highest-earning individuals often pay less personal tax than a construction worker. The highest-earning corporations, in many cases, pay no tax at all.

And it's all legal.

Fixed.

It was ever thus……

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

Fixed again.

Business Insider says Jeff Bezos paid lower taxes, not just a lower rate, for two years.    

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos didn't pay any income taxes for at least two years between 2006 and 2018, ProPublica reported. ProPublica obtained confidential tax documents filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Bezos' wealth is tied to his stock holdings in Amazon, though he has repeatedly sold shares for cash.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lark said:

Business Insider says Jeff Bezos paid lower taxes, not just a lower rate, for two years. 

That may be true with accounting magic. He still paid a rate of less than 1% over the year(s) Propublica published. $973M

Screenshot_20210611-152647.thumb.png.e4d2aebe3ed326d34d25a75f1bd8442f.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Lark said:

Business Insider says Jeff Bezos paid lower taxes, not just a lower rate, for two years.    

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos didn't pay any income taxes for at least two years between 2006 and 2018, ProPublica reported. ProPublica obtained confidential tax documents filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Bezos' wealth is tied to his stock holdings in Amazon, though he has repeatedly sold shares for cash.

 

 

By the standards of the Faithful, he's qualified to be President.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:
40 minutes ago, Lark said:

Business Insider says Jeff Bezos paid lower taxes, not just a lower rate, for two years.    

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos didn't pay any income taxes for at least two years between 2006 and 2018, ProPublica reported... ...

By the standards of the Faithful, he's qualified to be President.

Nah, he fucked up. He actually turned a profit instead of declaring bankruptcy. Underpaying your employees is different from totally stiffing them. And he hasn't paid any hush money to any porn stars

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

 

Not hardly at all. Wall St. totally knew that they were selling bad paper. 

It was a criminal scam. 

And yet Obama didn't prosecute any of them.... wasn't that a campaign promise?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ventucky Red said:

And yet Obama didn't prosecute any of them.... wasn't that a campaign promise?

It was within the law.

Sucks, huh?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ventucky Red said:

And yet Obama didn't prosecute any of them.... wasn't that a campaign promise?

He lied.

So what, it's the way the game is played.

Merely telling folks what they want to hear is not illegal.

Ethics have zero role in the process.

Get a life. :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Ventucky Red said:

And yet Obama didn't prosecute any of them.... wasn't that a campaign promise?

Difficult when it's easy to buy a couple of Republican Senators who will get on the horn to various Fed underlings and threaten them career consequences. And as noted, hard proof to take to court is difficult to get.

Then again, maybe you're confused. Maybe you're thinking of Obama's promise about Bush & Cheney, that was a promise NOT to prosecute them.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Difficult when it's easy to buy a couple of Republican Senators who will get on the horn to various Fed underlings and threaten them career consequences. And as noted, hard proof to take to court is difficult to get.

Then again, maybe you're confused. Maybe you're thinking of Obama's promise about Bush & Cheney, that was a promise NOT to prosecute them.

- DSK

But, but, but. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

vermin is a proud and unapologetic Shit supporter, vermin can be labeled an asshole...

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Venom said:

 

Ethics have zero role in the process.

 

says you, chuckles. what about when the stakes are high?

Link to post
Share on other sites