That said, can we shift more of the burden to the wealthy? Yes. [/quote]
More of the burden? Shit the vast majority of it rests on them (financially) as it is.
But, again, how does this do anything to address the proposed income inequality problem?
What does increasing the tax rate on high wage earners do to change the wealth distribution?
[quote]The top 1% can only push their agenda against the other 99% for so long.
[/quote]
lol what? I work with quite a few people that are in “the 1%”. And I can promise you there are no special meetings where they get together and plot on how to “destroy the little guy.”
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
I would rather see voluntary distribution of that wealth, and not in the “take from the rich and give to the poor sense.” Why hold on to all of that? To what end? Why not start more non-profits. Hell, start a non-profit construction company that goes around and repairs roads and towns and cities.
Invest in R&D towards things that will better society. Invest in more small businesses. Just anything. Don’t just sit on all of that wealth and swim around in it Scrooge McDuck style.
I personally have no problems with people taking care of themselves and their family. I aim to do the same, but if I was worth a Billion dollars, I’d do a lot more with it than buy an apartment on park avenue
[/quote]
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Hell, start a non-profit construction company that goes around and repairs roads and towns and cities. [/quote]
And then watch the local economy utterly tank.
Roads and bridges go out to bid. Private firms bid the job. They take their costs, mark them up for a profit percentage & contingency, and they employ any number of local workers to work on the street.
This non-profit comes in. Similar costs, no markup for profit, and has bids 10-20% lower than anyone else. They win all the contracts… The other local contractors have to fire everyone and close their doors…
Already happening. Look into Venture Capital and AIV’s in general. I literally just finished foreign reporting info for one right now.
That said, can we shift more of the burden to the wealthy? Yes. [/quote]
More of the burden? Shit the vast majority of it rests on them (financially) as it is.
But, again, how does this do anything to address the proposed income inequality problem?
What does increasing the tax rate on high wage earners do to change the wealth distribution?
[quote]The top 1% can only push their agenda against the other 99% for so long.
[/quote]
lol what? I work with quite a few people that are in “the 1%”. And I can promise you there are no special meetings where they get together and plot on how to “destroy the little guy.”
What “agenda” are you referring to?
Is this an Alex Jones thing?
[/quote]
You are misunderstanding me and it’s partially my fault. I disagree with every single thing above I am saying the progressive left will push all of those changes rather than deal with the real problem, which is spending and entitlement. I am saying even more of the burden will fall on the top 1% (no I don’t thing they meet in the Legion of Doom HQ and plot against the rest of us). I should not of used the term agenda, what I mean is, no matter how hard the 1% fights it the 99% will get what they want eventually, which imo means even more of the tax burden will fall on them. Until they’re gone that is.
And again, it’s not a solution, it’s what I think is going to happen though.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
I would rather see voluntary distribution of that wealth, and not in the “take from the rich and give to the poor sense.” Why hold on to all of that? To what end? Why not start more non-profits. Hell, start a non-profit construction company that goes around and repairs roads and towns and cities.
Invest in R&D towards things that will better society. Invest in more small businesses. Just anything. Don’t just sit on all of that wealth and swim around in it Scrooge McDuck style.
I personally have no problems with people taking care of themselves and their family. I aim to do the same, but if I was worth a Billion dollars, I’d do a lot more with it than buy an apartment on park avenue
[/quote]
Unfortunately, that’s not everyone’s mentality. [/quote]
If it was, there would be no need for Government.
So I guess it all boils down to is, is what we have the best we’re going to get? I’d sadly have to side with yes.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Hell, start a non-profit construction company that goes around and repairs roads and towns and cities. [/quote]
And then watch the local economy utterly tank.
Roads and bridges go out to bid. Private firms bid the job. They take their costs, mark them up for a profit percentage & contingency, and they employ any number of local workers to work on the street.
This non-profit comes in. Similar costs, no markup for profit, and has bids 10-20% lower than anyone else. They win all the contracts… The other local contractors have to fire everyone and close their doors…
Already happening. Look into Venture Capital and AIV’s in general. I literally just finished foreign reporting info for one right now.
[/quote]
There are is a ton of infrastructure work not being completed right now. Hell, I-75 and I-96 in Michigan is ALWAYS under construction. Every year of my 30 years of life there is construction on it. More money being thrown at infrastructure would hurt no one.
EDIT: I guess my writing did not represent my intent. What I should have said is give that wealth towards projects that better the world rather than just sit on it. I just used non-profits as an example.
But I guess once you do that, then you would lose all the government employees who’s job it is to take that money and then distribute it to another government agency who then takes that money and distributes it to another government agency who then finally gives it to who is supposed to go to.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
I would rather see voluntary distribution of that wealth, and not in the “take from the rich and give to the poor sense.” Why hold on to all of that? To what end? Why not start more non-profits. Hell, start a non-profit construction company that goes around and repairs roads and towns and cities.
Invest in R&D towards things that will better society. Invest in more small businesses. Just anything. Don’t just sit on all of that wealth and swim around in it Scrooge McDuck style.
I personally have no problems with people taking care of themselves and their family. I aim to do the same, but if I was worth a Billion dollars, I’d do a lot more with it than buy an apartment on park avenue
[/quote]
Unfortunately, that’s not everyone’s mentality. [/quote]
If it was, there would be no need for Government.
So I guess it all boils down to is, is what we have the best we’re going to get? I’d sadly have to side with yes.
[/quote]
I think if there is one thing America has been good at in her short life, it’s the ability to change. Things can be better and maybe they will be, who knows. I think we’ll adapt. I gues we’ll see.
[quote]Pushers wrote:
Literally in many cases knocking down doors with guns in hand. Thieves - much!
[/quote]
Does it happen? Sure. “literally in many cases”? No.
The vast, vast majority of taxation issues are resolved through mailings and phone calls.
Then there are audits… Still no guns or kicked down doors.
Then, if there is fraud typically, comes court. [/quote]
Maybe so… but taxation is still theft. At the end of the day you the individual cannot opt out, you cannot say “no”, so in essence it stealing - just by “the authorities” rather than some individual lowlife. No matter if it is “the government” who does it or some thug on the street the act itself is the same - they are taking your money agreement or no.
[/quote]
Sure you can, just move to Somalia. Enjoy.[/quote]
Sorry… sure I can what? And what has Somalia got to do with anything?
[/quote]
[quote]Pushers wrote:
Literally in many cases knocking down doors with guns in hand. Thieves - much!
[/quote]
Does it happen? Sure. “literally in many cases”? No.
The vast, vast majority of taxation issues are resolved through mailings and phone calls.
Then there are audits… Still no guns or kicked down doors.
Then, if there is fraud typically, comes court. [/quote]
Maybe so… but taxation is still theft. At the end of the day you the individual cannot opt out, you cannot say “no”, so in essence it stealing - just by “the authorities” rather than some individual lowlife. No matter if it is “the government” who does it or some thug on the street the act itself is the same - they are taking your money agreement or no.
[/quote]
Sure you can, just move to Somalia. Enjoy.[/quote]
Sorry… sure I can what? And what has Somalia got to do with anything?
[/quote]
No taxes bro!!
Free will!!
Nobody is “robbing you”.
[/quote]
Lol, exactly. You want complete freedom from theft (taxation), Somalia has it. What is stoping you from moving there?
This non-profit comes in. Similar costs, no markup for profit, and has bids 10-20% lower than anyone else. They win all the contracts… The other local contractors have to fire everyone and close their doors…
[/quote]
Non-Profits hire people just like for-profit companies. And a misconception is that Non-Profits do not have a markup. Non-profits just have to give away the profit as they see fit. Whether bonuses to employees, or give away to the poor. Cost IMO will still be the same. All the socialists on here who what a higher minimum wage should like the non-profit idea. This way the non-profit’s profit would be given out as a bonus or higher wages to the employees.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
What I should have said is give that wealth towards projects that better the world rather than just sit on it. I just used non-profits as an example. [/quote]
Okay.
How many people have a 401k or otherwise are in the market/have retirement money in a general fund?
I’d say a whole bunch.
So when a wealthy person puts their money in that pot, does the price not increase? Is that not helping out the world?
Why does a wealthy person have to “give” the money away? Why doesn’t investing accomplish the same thing?
Non-Profits hire people just like for-profit companies.[/quote]
This fictional company will employ all those who are lost due to a monopoly on government contracts?
In this instance, all profit would be UBTI, and therefore taxable to the company. In fact it is unlikely the company would get a favorable determination for their status given the activity. Therefore they would have to reign in revenue or expand costs in order to break even on their own.
Why would they not just trim the profit out of their bid in order to ensure they are the lowest bidder?
Kinda-sorta true…
To the construction company, sure.
[quote] This way the non-profit’s profit would be given out as a bonus or higher wages to the employees.
[/quote]
Unlikely as stated above. The whole point is moot if they dont’ win bids.
Non-Profits hire people just like for-profit companies.[/quote]
This fictional company will employ all those who are lost due to a monopoly on government contracts?
In this instance, all profit would be UBTI, and therefore taxable to the company. In fact it is unlikely the company would get a favorable determination for their status given the activity. Therefore they would have to reign in revenue or expand costs in order to break even on their own.
Why would they not just trim the profit out of their bid in order to ensure they are the lowest bidder?
Kinda-sorta true…
To the construction company, sure.
[quote] This way the non-profit’s profit would be given out as a bonus or higher wages to the employees.
[/quote]
Unlikely as stated above. The whole point is moot if they dont’ win bids.
[/quote]
But would they undercut 10-20%? I do not think so. If they kept winning bids they would need a workforce so they would hire the people that left or were laid off from the other companies.
CB I see your point, but government is not the only way to build infrastructure.
CB I see your point, but government is not the only way to build infrastructure.
[/quote]
Nope, certainly not.
It is however a fuckton more convenient to have the government be the GC than 35-60 different private firms handling sections of interstate highway…
Look, out of all the bullshit our government does, lets fix the important shit before we get to the “who will build the roads” argument. For now, it is something I don’t have a problem with the government handling, mainly because facilitation is easier. Not a efficient likely, but much more convenient to those of us paying for them.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
What I should have said is give that wealth towards projects that better the world rather than just sit on it. I just used non-profits as an example. [/quote]
Okay.
How many people have a 401k or otherwise are in the market/have retirement money in a general fund?
I’d say a whole bunch.
So when a wealthy person puts their money in that pot, does the price not increase? Is that not helping out the world?
Why does a wealthy person have to “give” the money away? Why doesn’t investing accomplish the same thing?[/quote]
And they can just as easily single handily destroy all that wealthy by taking their money out.
CB I see your point, but government is not the only way to build infrastructure.
[/quote]
Nope, certainly not.
It is however a fuckton more convenient to have the government be the GC than 35-60 different private firms handling sections of interstate highway…
Look, out of all the bullshit our government does, lets fix the important shit before we get to the “who will build the roads” argument. For now, it is something I don’t have a problem with the government handling, mainly because facilitation is easier. Not a efficient likely, but much more convenient to those of us paying for them.
[/quote]
I agree with this 100%. IMO right now the government is more efficient at facilitating road construction and repair. I wish in Houston they would start fixing them.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
What I should have said is give that wealth towards projects that better the world rather than just sit on it. I just used non-profits as an example. [/quote]
Okay.
How many people have a 401k or otherwise are in the market/have retirement money in a general fund?
I’d say a whole bunch.
So when a wealthy person puts their money in that pot, does the price not increase? Is that not helping out the world?
Why does a wealthy person have to “give” the money away? Why doesn’t investing accomplish the same thing?[/quote]
And they can just as easily single handily destroy all that wealthy by taking their money out. [/quote]
Not really. If you invest the money in say Real Estate your depreciation might take care of all the penalties and fees in a couple of years, and all the cash flow you have going forward is almost 100% tax free. I am about to take all my money out of my IRAs to purchase an Apartment Complex. I will be ahead in about 4 years.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
What I should have said is give that wealth towards projects that better the world rather than just sit on it. I just used non-profits as an example. [/quote]
Okay.
How many people have a 401k or otherwise are in the market/have retirement money in a general fund?
I’d say a whole bunch.
So when a wealthy person puts their money in that pot, does the price not increase? Is that not helping out the world?
Why does a wealthy person have to “give” the money away? Why doesn’t investing accomplish the same thing?[/quote]
And they can just as easily single handily destroy all that wealth by taking their money out. [/quote]
What’s the truth about Somalia? I have no idea. From where would I expect to hear more truth regarding gun rights: mises.org and lewrockwell.com, or mainstream news, the UN, and the federal government?
