Would you vote for it and is it fair, to have the Illuminati pay their share?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Greatest I am, Mar 20, 2013.

  1. Greatest I am Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,740
    Would you vote for it and is it fair, to have the Illuminati pay their share?

    IF the Illuminati are real and who is in control is the real question.


    Of late, the Illuminati have been getting fat on the middle taxpayer’s tit.
    Is it time to change the demographic pyramid and send some of that wasted wealth down below where it is needed most?

    Is it not time to give the calf the tit?


    We are wealthy as never before.
    Should the bottom not share in this great wealth?


    The Illuminatus are a generous bunch. This needs be if you are to grow a demography whose goal is to enrich us all.
    That is the goal of a Timocratic man.

    That generosity has paid off. Kudos .Perhaps the Illuminati could be persuaded to have more of us enjoy their good fortune and trim the fat. So to speak.

    Should we ask our political masters to have a chat with the heads of the Illuminati?
    If they are as real as we know the oligarchs to be.

    I think a chat is fair play and in order on redistribution.

    Do you?

    If you agree that a chat and sharing is due, why not -------

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZxHAZChcYU

    Regards
    DL
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,134
    My understanding is the Illuminati means followers of the Light. They host Omniscience, fallen Light.

    I know bad thing what so ever. Ask me not.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    No. Screw the poor.
    You sound as though you are weakening.
    Gird yourself. Be resolved. They deserve nothing.
    Let them sit in darkness with shit pouring on their heads
    while we laugh.

    Ha hah aha hahahahhha!
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Hard to discuss this without knowing who you are talking about.

    The actual Illuminati of 18th century Bavaria? Pretty sure they are all dead.
    One of the many modern organizations that use Illuminati symbology? Generally they are just people who like to belong to clubs. No "secret leaders" there.
    A group doing well with a lot of influence, like Hollywood elites or captains of industry? You'd have to identify which group you want to put the hammer to.

    We already do that. We tax the rich heavily and give their money to the poor in the form of welfare, medicare, WIC etc.

    They already do!

    Wait, now they are oligarchs? Like the Kennedy and Bush families? I guess that would be pretty easy; our "political masters" are often talking to (for example) Jeb Bush.
     
  9. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,134
    Anyone know origins of the Illuminati further back than 1776?
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Don't be silly. The rich pay lighter taxes than the majority of the poor, and get more back in interest on government bonds etc than anyone gets on welfare, WIC, etc. (we have to borrow from the rich to cover what we do not tax from them, to cover the costs of ventures we undertake for their benefit - including the costs they and their corporations levy on us for contracted services. A remarkably obvious scam, no?).

    Although comforting to authoritarians, especially of the religious sort, there is no cabal of inner circle masters running this show. You get to Mitt Romney, the Bush family, the thug heads of the Russian mob, that's as high and inner and masterful as you can go. Frightening though it may be to realize this, wealth and power do not require or bequeath insight, knowledge, even ordinary competence - let alone membership in an organization of wisdom and planetary agenda.
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Someone who makes $500,000 a year pays around $150,000 in federal taxes. Someone who makes $10,000 a year pays zero. There is no math system on the planet where $200,000 is "lighter" than 0. Indeed, just the highest 20% of income earners in the US pay 65% of the total income taxes; that would seem to indicate they do indeed bear the brunt of taxation.

    OTOH, we pay about $250 billion a year to support the poor in the form of WIC, SNAP and medicare. That's money we don't have to spend on the rich.

    Agreed!
     
  12. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    That's some tortured logic. As a percentage of their income, the rich pay far less than the poor or the middle class. And no one pays zero tax. There are sales taxes, gas taxes, property taxes that are reflected in rents, etc...
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    If 200,000 > 0 is "tortured logic" - well OK then.

    No, in general they don't - they pay more of their income than the poor in both percentage AND in total taxes paid. (You can always, of course, find exceptions.)

    That's why I said "federal taxes."
     
  14. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    And your still wrong like most whiny rich people with little understanding of the tax burdens In this country.
     
  15. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I think in general, you are incorrect. If you are paid by the corporation you run in stock dividends, your tax is less than all classes of salary income.
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    If you are comparing net, or "taxable", income, then that is not true - someone with 10,000 in net income (on gross of, say, 19,750 after the standard deduction) would normally be working for hourly wages and filing the EZ - such a person is the contributor of about 3000 in Federal payroll taxes unless Obama brokers another break, and another 1000 or so in income tax, and a variety of Federal gas, telecommunications, etc, taxes. That's over 40% of the net, and it's unavoidable. If he's making 10,000 gross he's only paying a few bucks income tax (not zero, as the standard deduction is less than 10,000) but still providing direct contribution of 750 or so payroll and the source of 1500 going to the Feds that way - plus all those other Fed taxes mentioned. The guy taking a gross of 500k as straight salary needs a new accountant or better advice from someone, but even so he surely has enough sense to deduct mortgage interest, gas taxes, medical stuff, etc, and of course he's paying full payroll on less than half of it, so we aren't getting up to 40% of the net - and if it's the net you're talking about, we are almost certainly dealing with capital gains here and he's in Romney territory now, circa 15% tops: less than half the 40% the sucker making 10k net paid.

    There are rigorous systems of accounting in which 750 of 10k would be a heavier burden than 150k of 500k - sure there are. They are standard models of resource capture and foraging theory, that include the obvious fact that the marginal utility of money is a decreasing function (not monotonically, but definitely tailing long before 500k per year).
    They also accumulate the brunt of the wealth - in fact, since Reagan almost all the added wealth of the US economy. So they should be paying for the entire increase in the Federal budget since about 1980, including the interest charges on the extra borrowing, instead of earning interest by covering Federal borrowing and enjoying ever larger tax breaks on top of that.
     
  17. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Money and power is what controls western cultures. These two are related like a hand in glove. You need money to get elected into power. Once in power, you use power (influence) to raise money for yourself and friends to stay and grow in power.

    We are all used to taxing the money half of the hand and glove, when we tax money and income. But what about the other half? What about the taxing of power? Most of the power within government belongs to the top 1% in Washington. If we use the same formula, this 1% power monopoly should be required to pay a form a taxes like the 1% money. Liberals should called both corrupt.

    We collect taxes to redistribute the wealth and money. We also need to figure out a way to redistribute power so those without power get their fair share.

    If you think of it logically, if there were no taxes on money, we would have a pure capitalists money system. So it follows, if there is no tax on power, then power would also be a purely capitalist power system. Liberals hate capitalism so they should be able to support the redistribution of power back to the people (smaller government). A socialist power model has us all equal in power. A capitalist one will have a few people taking all the power, and then share it to cronies.

    If you look at public union contracts, the tax payer has no place at the negotiating table. The tax money is redistributed by brokers of power to other power brokers. This allows politicians to trade your tax money for campaign contributions. If we tax power, that means we will have taxpayer representatives at the table to make sure power is not stealing money.

    The Constitution made provisions for tax on power, by power to the states; redistribution. The corrupting influence of non-tax power has resulted in a push to centralize this power more and more into a Washington monopoly. There needs to be anti-trust. Power also needs a tax (something similar) structure to avoid waste and mismanagement.

    Senator Kerry who is now Secretary of State Kerry is now worth over $150M using only a Senator's salary, even though he started with much less. How is that possible? It is called trading power for money. This is not limited to just him, but is the way of Washington and tax free power. We can't get this deal since there is no tax and redistribution of power.
     
  18. Greatest I am Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,740
    This O P asks for an answer on the fairness of legislating sharing the excess wealth at the top and if you would vote on it or not.

    No one has touched on that.

    Regards
    DL
     
  19. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Of course it's unfair.
    Boo hoo hoo.
    That's why us Illuminati have all the nice stuff,
    and the bums at the bottom get nothing.
     
  20. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    I would vote on it, I guess.
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    If you want to change the example to someone who makes $19,750 a year, great. They do indeed pay more in taxes than someone who makes $10,000 a year.

    Now back to the guy who makes $10,000 a year. He pays $0 in taxes. If you don't believe me, go to www.irs.gov and plug $10,000 into their tax calculator. Here's the result:

    "Based on the information you previously entered, your anticipated income tax for 2013 is $0."

    Sorry, there is simply no sane way that any sort of bending of logic allows $0 > $150,000.
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    OK. Simple answer - no.
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The ambiguity, in which you fail to specify net vs gross income, is yours - and it makes a serious difference to a percentage tax comparison of such disparate tax brackets.

    There is no way in real life anyone making a gross income of 500k pays 150k in Federal income taxes, for example. He has no capital gains? No mortgage? No investment breaks such as municipal bonds? He's getting his paycheck in a little manila envelope with Medicare already subtracted? Please.

    He pays at least - by anyone's calculation - 7.5% in payroll taxes withheld. I also think - since we are comparing the contributions to the government's revenue - that the employer share should be included, which brings it to 15% immediately.
    I can do better - I can fill out the EZ form according to the instructions, put in 10k for income and 9750 as my standard deduction, and look up my Federal income taxes owed on page 31 of the instructions: $26.

    I probably paid more than that in Federal taxes on my telephone and gasoline and so forth, and certainly the 700+ already withheld from my paychecks for Federal programs dwarfs it, but 26 bucks is not 0.

    Is your approach there typical of how you are estimating the overall share of taxes paid by the rich?

    Its' a dubious argument anyway - one can make a reasonable case that the entire Federal budget should be covered by taxes on those making above median incomes or with above median wealth - they're running the show, and they're getting most of the services and benefits.
     

Share This Page