Seattle to vote on implementing income tax on just the wealthy

[Narwal]

I'm against inequality and support measures which will reduce it.

Inequality of results, or inequality of opportunity?

[Elegiac]

Typical Marxist crap, nice made up terms tho! i really applaud you and your comrades. I believe in the next 20 or so years, we will be in a highly mixed Socialist/Capitalist, because the rise of AI basically guarantees that.

But, the insane delusions of you and your comrades always kills me, VERY comical; if you ever think our economy wont be part capitalistic, you're insane.

It's less a criticism of capitalism as in the idea of private investment and more of capitalism in its current format; i.e. one wherein very few players control the vast majority of the market, consumer choice is largely an illusion, and the government exists as an instrument to service the pursuit of profit.

There's an argument, for instance, that there's no such thing as ethical buying since a lot of the 'organic, cruelty-free' brands are owned by the same parent companies as the 'processed, animal abuse' brands as part of a strategy to control 100% of the market share.

[Zoranon]

No, any degree of taxation is not theft. They are distinct concepts both legally and morally.

Only in your opinion.

Morally, I consider someone who wants a 91% as much more repugnant than a some common thief, for reasons I have already laid out.

[Deleted]

What would you consider for real estate market regulations? its supply and demand, its like 10:1 ratio of people looking for a place to buy rent, than whats actually available. You cant simply step in and say "hey markets capped here at this price", no one would invest in that.

Hmm, wonder what would happen if no one was interested in profiting of the renting of property

Just as a more serious note on that, investment into property has gone up massively over the years, and that is partially responsible for the higher rent and purchasing prices. It has also made large changes to the laws and regulations in regards to the responsibility and profitability of the investor, mainly that they get to profit more with less responsibility, something that pushed the prices up marginally so. So it is a bit more than supply and demand, since there is a middle man that supplies at their price, not the consumer price.

[cuafpr]

suddenly a lot of people previously reporting 250k of income are at 249k re-portable income odd....

[Elegiac]

Only in your opinion.

It's a fact. Taxes are based on the implicit consent inherent in the social contract and are -owed- to the state by law. Theft is extralegal seizure of another's property without any form of consent.

Morally, I consider someone who wants a 91% as much more repugnant than a some common thief, for reasons I have already laid out.

Cool story.

- - - Updated - - -

suddenly a lot of people previously reporting 250k of income are at 249k re-portable income odd....

This is already illegal, given it's tax fraud.

[Deleted]

Taxing an income 250'000 or higher?

That's a tax on stupidity.

At that income level you should have a company and bill through that.

[Zoranon]

It's a fact. Taxes are based on the implicit consent inherent in the social contract and are -owed- to the state by law. Theft is extralegal seizure of another's property without any form of consent.

Cool story.

- - - Updated - - -

Cool story.

[Toogoodman]

I don't have an issue with people investing in real estate, for the same reason I don't have an issue investing in finance. The issue is that it is being taken to insane and wasteful lengths wherein property prices are being driven up beyond all reason, and yes many lots sit empty because local and state governments have no intention of freeing up land as it would bring down the prices of existing developments.

What we should be doing is encouraging dense, high rise construction that enables more centralised and better accessed public transportation, with rent controls and subsidised housing throughout to help mix the socioeconomic classes and enable people to at least have somewhere to live even on a basic income. The principle focus of real estate, in essence, needs to shift from moneymaking towards providing residence and space for businesses and services.

How far would you go with subsidizing housing? I don't mind it to an extent, but i have a personal experience with this that really bothered me. When we were looking for an apartment (my gf and I) we went to this nice new development in the city. The rent was absolutely ridiculous, but one of my coworkers lived there and he said its a beautiful, luxury unit with all the bells and whistles. Well, we decided that we really couldn't afford it, and it would be pretty reckless to move there. About 8 months later he said he wouldn't be reupping his lease, i asked him why and hes said that while he was paying $3500 a month for his 2 bedroom, he found out that section 8 units were in the same building, on his floor, with all the same bells and whistles. While, at first i thought "wow hes just being a classist dick head", i found that the section 8 units were costing the residents $500 a month.

What bothered me most about that was, the fact that when this happens, the cost of the non section 8 units increase to help cover the costs. Its not supposed to happen like this because of "government subsidizing", it absolutely does happen. Also, my gf and I, who were considering full price, lost out on a "luxury unit" because of high costs, due to this. While i believe people should absolutely be helped, there needs to be a line drawn. Should people live in shitty places? no, but should they live in high end units for 1/7th the cost? I personally don't think so either.

Another good one is the section 8 housing right up the street from me, when i drive by it in the morning in my badass 2014 ford focus SE, i like to admire the 2016, red, BMW 340 with what appear to be enkei RPF1s on it. They also have a nice fishing boat, and i know this is probably a very isolated incident.

[cuafpr]

It's a fact. Taxes are based on the implicit consent inherent in the social contract and are -owed- to the state by law. Theft is extralegal seizure of another's property without any form of consent.



Cool story.

- - - Updated - - -



This is already illegal, given it's tax fraud.

not if done ya know legally.... heck if you made a flat salary of 250k year and would be hit by this tax it would be silly not to get your salary down to 248 +/- just under the bracket but less than then tax cut.

if you made more maybe they cut you down to 248k and then throw in some other perks that are not taxable (I'd have to look up what those could be based on local / federal laws) Its done to extent now with stock options at very high levels, or "gifts" and company expense accounts etc... These are the loopholes the mega rich already use to pay less than the middle class, and while i think the loopholes need closing i don't blame them for using them.

[Toogoodman]

It's less a criticism of capitalism as in the idea of private investment and more of capitalism in its current format; i.e. one wherein very few players control the vast majority of the market, consumer choice is largely an illusion, and the government exists as an instrument to service the pursuit of profit.

There's an argument, for instance, that there's no such thing as ethical buying since a lot of the 'organic, cruelty-free' brands are owned by the same parent companies as the 'processed, animal abuse' brands as part of a strategy to control 100% of the market share.

This is an Oligarchy, which yes, most of the world has become.

- - - Updated - - -

This is already illegal, given it's tax fraud.

Donations or a new IRA to get that taxable income down. Could also increase the amount you put into your 401(k), a lot of legal ways to do this.

[Mic_128]

So you agree with me, thank you. (read exchanges on previous pages with flatspriest, you'll understand). @Klingers

No I don't. I think you're selfish and short-sighted.

[Sinyc]

I'm against inequality and support measures which will reduce it.

So your plan is to punish those who worked hard and have more money than those who don't? There is usually a reason a person is poor, but let's not get into that in this thread.

[Glorious Leader]

Only in your opinion.

Morally, I consider someone who wants a 91% as much more repugnant than a some common thief, for reasons I have already laid out.

But 90% is okay? 89%88%? 91% is an abritrary number and basing a moral claim on it is stupid. If youre mugged and the mugger takes everytthing but for 5 dollars then thats not.theft cause he left you 9% of what you originally had.

Either its all theft or none of it is. Hint: none of it is with regard to taxation

[zenkai]

So your plan is to punish those who worked hard and have more money than those who don't? There is usually a reason a person is poor, but let's not get into that in this thread.

Some poor people don't care about being fair or math they just want someone to take care of them.

[NineSpine]

Some poor people don't care about being fair or math they just want someone to take care of them.

So do some rich people, who expect all the trappings of a civilized, advanced society, but want to do everything possible to not pay for it or have to respect its laws.

[Zoranon]

But 90% is okay? 89%88%? 91% is an abritrary number and basing a moral claim on it is stupid. If youre mugged and the mugger takes everytthing but for 5 dollars then thats not.theft cause he left you 9% of what you originally had.

Either its all theft or none of it is. Hint: none of it is with regard to taxation

The exact value is a moral judgement, the existence of the concept is not.The mugger steals whatever you had on you at the moment, the government will take part of your entire income.

Hint: Stop proclaiming your opinions as facts.

[NineSpine]

The exact value is a moral judgement, the existence of the concept is not.The mugger steals whatever you had on you at the moment, the government will take part of your entire income.

Hint: Stop proclaiming your opinions as facts.

It's the government's money, not your money.

[Glorious Leader]

The exact value is a moral judgement, the existence of the concept is not.The mugger steals whatever you had on you at the moment, the government will take part of your entire income.

Hint: Stop proclaiming your opinions as facts.

You avoided the question. Why is 91% taxatiom
N theft but.not.89%? The exact value is an incredible poor moral judgement because its not very consistent or well thought out.

The mugger "steals"91% of the money you have just like the government. Ergo he is not thieving.

Of course the governmeny is.not.theft at all as it.matters who is doing the taking and in what context but if you dont care about that basing the difference around some arbitrary numbet is senseless. Why not.75%?

[Toogoodman]

It's the government's money, not your money.

This is an extremely ignorant statement, the money you worked for, which is then removed via an income tax.

tax /taks/: a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.

le·vy /levē/: impose (a tax, fee, or fine).

That money is yours to begin with, you earned it. You have a portion removed due to the social contract we are all apart of whether you like it or not. Dont ever think that something you earn isn't yours, by that statement, you own nothing, and are therefore owned by the government. This is god damn reason we had the American Revolution smh.

- - - Updated - - -

You avoided the question. Why is 91% taxatiom
N theft but.not.89%? The exact value is an incredible poor moral judgement because its not very consistent or well thought out.

The mugger "steals"91% of the money you have just like the government. Ergo he is not thieving.

Of course the governmeny is.not.theft at all as it.matters who is doing the taking and in what context but if you dont care about that basing the difference around some arbitrary numbet is senseless. Why not.75%?

Quit being petty, you know what he meant.