The Great American Employment Collapse Has Commenced

[NoDisplayName]

53 minutes ago, TedG said:

Why is inequity bad?

 

Inequality of wealth is only bad if you're a socialist, and specifically one not at the top of the food chain.

[blaze master]

1 hour ago, bubblegum said:

Debt made by who?

 

All previous governments leading up till now. 

[Lacessit]

7 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Inequality of wealth is only bad if you're a socialist, and specifically one not at the top of the food chain.

Inequality of wealth ensures the really wealthy are above the law.

[TedG]

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

Inequality of wealth ensures the really wealthy are above the law.

Several billionaires have been jailed, including Hui Qin, Raj Rajaratnam, Bernard Ebbers, and Prakash Hinduja. 

 

[NoDisplayName]

5 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Inequality of wealth ensures the really wealthy are above the law.

 

You are more than welcome to do your part by donating all your wealth to be split equally at a local homeless shelter.

 

Or are you suggesting we should be liberal/progressive by being extraordinarily generous with OTHER people's money?

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

You are more than welcome to do your part by donating all your wealth to be split equally at a local homeless shelter.

 

Or are you suggesting we should be liberal/progressive by being extraordinarily generous with OTHER people's money?

I am suggesting when a billionaire pays $750 in taxes in 2016 AND 2017, whereas some one on $50,000 per year pays $5900 tax, there is something seriously wrong with the system.

 

An Australian tax accountant once calculated a 1.5% tax on revenue would wipe out government debt in the first year.

 

Wouldn't you like to have had your salary taxed at 1.5%?

[save the frogs]

The AI Job Apocalypse is coming soon.

 

Has nothing to do with Trump, but with tech. 

 

 

[TedG]

5 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I am suggesting when a billionaire pays $750 in taxes in 2016 AND 2017, whereas some one on $50,000 per year pays $5900 tax, there is something seriously wrong with the system.

 

An Australian tax accountant once calculated a 1.5% tax on revenue would wipe out government debt in the first year.

 

Wouldn't you like to have had your salary taxed at 1.5%?

 

Let’s do a little round of fact checking here.  What revenue are you referring too, and how much debt are we talking about?  

[jts-khorat]

48 minutes ago, Mike_Hunt said:

I don't care if you boycott US goods.  You are irrelevant.

 

You already care enough to be bothered to answer. Strange that.

 

It seems, Americans are even more thin-skinned than I thought. How pathetic.

[TedG]

6 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I am suggesting when a billionaire pays $750 in taxes in 2016 AND 2017, whereas some one on $50,000 per year pays $5900 tax, there is something seriously wrong with the system.

 

An Australian tax accountant once calculated a 1.5% tax on revenue would wipe out government debt in the first year.

 

Wouldn't you like to have had your salary taxed at 1.5%?

 

BTW..you show know that a billionaire is a mean wealth, income.  Do you understand the difference? 

[Lacessit]

2 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

The AI Job Apocalypse is coming soon.

 

Has nothing to do with Trump, but with tech. 

 

 

I can remember a time when I worked in a department that had three secretaries, to type reports.

 

Then everyone got laptops, and were told to type themselves.

 

Iron ore trains in the Pilbara are controlled from Perth.

 

It won't be long before there are driverless trucks on the roads, or taxis which only have passengers.

[NoDisplayName]

4 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I am suggesting when a billionaire pays $750 in taxes in 2016 AND 2017, whereas some one on $50,000 per year pays $5900 tax, there is something seriously wrong with the system.

 

An Australian tax accountant once calculated a 1.5% tax on revenue would wipe out government debt in the first year.

 

Wouldn't you like to have had your salary taxed at 1.5%?

 

You're absolutely right.

 

That billionaire that only paid $750 did so by writing off $millions in business or investment losses against income.

 

Wouldn't you like to reimburse his losses? 

[Lacessit]

2 minutes ago, TedG said:

 

BTW..you show know that a billionaire is a mean wealth, income.  Do you understand the difference? 

I don't understand what you have posted, or its relevance to the point I was making.

[NoDisplayName]

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

I don't understand what you have posted, or its relevance to the point I was making.

 

The point is the billionaire didn't make a billion dollars this year.  That is wealth, assets, savings, prior earnings.

 

If he paid $750 in taxes he likely only made $15,000 income after deducting business/investment losses.

[ronnie50]

10 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

The AI Job Apocalypse is coming soon.

 

Has nothing to do with Trump, but with tech. 

 

 

Yup, but they don't want to discuss that. They are fans of Ayn Rand and think the novel Atlas Shrugged is being played out now in real time and the conclusion is being delivered by Trump and his clowns.  

[Lacessit]

2 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

You're absolutely right.

 

That billionaire that only paid $750 did so by writing off $millions in business or investment losses against income.

 

Wouldn't you like to reimburse his losses? 

Why should I? They were probably fake losses anyway.

 

There are a number of ways to reduce profits to low tax levels. Shifting between subsidiaries, creating high interest loans from one arm to another, etc. Why do you think most company structures look like a bowl of spaghetti?

 

The beauty of revenue is it can't be shifted or hidden. It has no BS deductions.

 

If you are content with the current system hollowing out the middle class, I assume you are wealthy yourself.

 

 

[save the frogs]

12 hours ago, ronnie50 said:

Yup, but they don't want to discuss that. They are fans of Ayn Rand and think the novel Atlas Shrugged is being played out now in real time and the conclusion is being delivered by Trump and his clowns.  

Was planning to read that book, but never got to it. 

Can you summarize it in 50 words or less?

Lemme guess. Is it about an authoritarian dystopian future?

I wonder if those people like Rand and Orwell were actually secret service spooks just hired to mess with people. 

 

[save the frogs]

12 hours ago, Lacessit said:

It won't be long before there are driverless trucks on the roads, or taxis which only have passengers.

So is that a good thing or bad thing , in your mind?

You realize that eventually human driving will be banned and ALL cars will be driverless, right? 

[Lacessit]

Just now, save the frogs said:

So is that a good thing or bad thing , in your mind?

You realize that eventually human driving will be banned and ALL cars will be driverless, right? 

It would certainly make Thai roads a lot safer.

 

IMO there is no such thing as good or bad technology. It's the way humans use it.

[NoDisplayName]

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Why should I? They were probably fake losses anyway.

 

But it's only fair.  And you don't need to make up just-so situations of some guy gaming the system to validate your socialist tendencies.

 

Just take a guy that has made a fortune over the past decades running a plumbing supply chain or investing.  Everything legal and according to the rules.

 

If we're gonna strip him of his annual income "for equity", then it's only fair to compensate him for his annual losses "for equity."

 

Work hard, save some bucks, invest and retire.  You, too, can make $60K/year and pay zero tax.

 

Until the commies come along.

 

 

[Harrisfan]

4 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

It would certainly make Thai roads a lot safer.

 

IMO there is no such thing as good or bad technology. It's the way humans use it.

Like excess Trump bashing posts.

[TedG]

18 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I don't understand what you have posted, or its relevance to the point I was making.

 

It's over your head. You need to stop using that cheap, stupid talking point. 

[TedG]

31 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

 

 

An Australian tax accountant once calculated a 1.5% tax on revenue would wipe out government debt in the first year.

 

Wouldn't you like to have had your salary taxed at 1.5%?

 

I call BS on this; show me the math. 

[Lacessit]

8 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Was planning to read that book, but never got to it. 

Can you summarize it in 50 words or less?

Lemme guess. Is it about an authoritarian dystopian future?

I wonder if those people like Rand and Orwell were actually secret service spooks just hired to mess with people. 

 

Correct.

 

Ayn Rand espoused laissez-faire capitalism, Despite her life-long objections to government-run programs, she did avail herself of Social Security and Medicare in her final years.

[save the frogs]

12 hours ago, Harrisfan said:

Like excess Trump bashing posts.

you're like trump's pitbull on AN, man. 

 

[Lacessit]

4 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

But it's only fair.  And you don't need to make up just-so situations of some guy gaming the system to validate your socialist tendencies.

 

Just take a guy that has made a fortune over the past decades running a plumbing supply chain or investing.  Everything legal and according to the rules.

 

If we're gonna strip him of his annual income "for equity", then it's only fair to compensate him for his annual losses "for equity."

 

Work hard, save some bucks, invest and retire.  You, too, can make $60K/year and pay zero tax.

 

Until the commies come along.

 

 

How is taking 1.5% of his annual income stripping him?

[TedG]

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

How is taking 1.5% of his annual income stripping him?

Income is revenue - expenses.   What is the income? 

[NoDisplayName]

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

How is taking 1.5% of his annual income stripping him?

 

Income or profit? 
There is a difference.

 

And do we apply the concept to farmers, as well?

No deductions for fertilizer or diesel fuel.

No write-offs for crop losses?

 

Good luck buying food.

Or,............anything.

 

[TedG]

6 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

How is taking 1.5% of his annual income stripping him?

 

You said that taxing 1.5% of revenue would end all government debt.   This is 100% BS.  

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Income or profit? 
There is a difference.

 

And do we apply the concept to farmers, as well?

No deductions for fertilizer or diesel fuel.

No write-offs for crop losses?

 

Good luck buying food.

Or,............anything.

 

Income, revenue. Companies have revenue, individuals have income or salary.

 

Deductions are against gross profit to calculate net profit. Revenue stands alone.

 

If a farmer doesn't get any revenue because his crop fails, he pays no tax.

 

To repeat, what is wrong with a 1.5% tax on revenue? Or, tell me what is right with the current system, apart from employing armies of lawyers and tax accountants?