looks like maybe another failed business venture

[tedincarolina]

@tedincarolina and @JayBird , do the Democrats have the equivalent of Project 25 or anything of sorts, so people can see and compare?

Hey @Eli1

Sure they do. It's called a platform. Lately VP Harris has been talking about coming up with a way of taxing unrealized capital gains for the wealthy with net worths north of $100 million. I think one of the democratic platforms is to make abortion accessible by choice. I know at one point she mentioned the GOP contenders claim to make tip income non-taxable. But I honestly think that was just her giving the other guy, what would be a glove slap across the jowl. Here is her official 1776 plan. It's a bit older than the new 2025, but has been tested and worked well for nearly 300 years.

What does Kamala Harris believe? Where the candidate stands on 9 issues | PBS News

 

[Nehemiah6]

Trump Media shares hit new low, slip below $18 for first time (msn.com)

Trump could score $3.5 billion from Truth Social going public. But tapping the money may be tricky. - CBS News

Share values for all stocks rise and fall all the time (some more drastically than others). So what? Trump's wealth is in his real estate holdings with multiple billions. Is that a failed business venture or is it highly successful?

But the Leftist media love to gloat (as you are doing) over Trump's share values falling. Did they praise them when they were high? The bias is sickening. There was no need to start this thread.

 

[Eli1]

Hey @Eli1

Sure they do. It's called a platform. Lately VP Harris has been talking about coming up with a way of taxing unrealized capital gains for the wealthy with net worths north of $100 million. I think one of the democratic platforms is to make abortion accessible by choice. I know at one point she mentioned the GOP contenders claim to make tip income non-taxable. But I honestly think that was just her giving the other guy, what would be a glove slap across the jowl. Here is her official 1776 plan. It's a bit older than the new 2025, but has been tested and worked well for nearly 300 years.

What does Kamala Harris believe? Where the candidate stands on 9 issues | PBS News

Ted, that article from PBS is from 2019. Should we talk about it or no?

 

[tedincarolina]

Trump could score $3.5 billion from Truth Social going public. But tapping the money may be tricky. - CBS News

Share values for all stocks rise and fall all the time (some more drastically than others). So what? Trump's wealth is in his real estate holdings with multiple billions. Is that a failed business venture or is it highly successful?

But the Leftist media love to gloat (as you are doing) over Trump's share values falling. Did they praise them when they were high? The bias is sickening. There was no need to start this thread.

Hey @Nehemiah6

No! Not at all. In fact, if you'll go back and reread my posts about his business success, I'm always sure to give him credit that he has been successful in his real estate holdings and profiting from his name.

 

[Magenta]

That's a rather stupid remark. Comparing a traitor with a patriot. Shame on you.

Your attacks are unbecoming. Shame on you!

Each of us will give an account of himself to God, for every careless word they have spoken, and then He will repay each one
according to what he has done, that each one may receive his due for the things done in the body, whether good or bad.

 

[hornetguy]

to devout Catholics like President Joe Biden and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

I apologize, but that line is simply side-splitting hilarious.... devout Catholics, indeed.

 

[hornetguy]

Lately VP Harris has been talking about coming up with a way of taxing unrealized capital gains for the wealthy with net worths north of $100 million.

And you think that is "fair" ? Taxing someone on what they COULD make, possibly, if they choose to sell? Basically taxing someone for OWNING something that they have likely already paid taxes on? If it increases in value because of a wise investment, you have to pay taxes on it, just because you made a wise investment?
How very Marxist of you....

And, trust me... it would NOT be only on those that are worth over 100 million.... it will be on EVERYBODY.. that's how the democrat socialists work... talk about how they are for the common man, while they have their hands in both of their pockets, taking what they want.

 

[tedincarolina]

And you think that is "fair" ? Taxing someone on what they COULD make, possibly, if they choose to sell? Basically taxing someone for OWNING something that they have likely already paid taxes on? If it increases in value because of a wise investment, you have to pay taxes on it, just because you made a wise investment?
How very Marxist of you....

And, trust me... it would NOT be only on those that are worth over 100 million.... it will be on EVERYBODY.. that's how the democrat socialists work... talk about how they are for the common man, while they have their hands in both of their pockets, taking what they want.

Hi @hornetguy

Well, I won't be able to determine whether the tax would be considered 'fair' until I see the actual bill that creates the tax. Just like with the ACA fight, what was proposed in the beginning of the legislative battle wasn't what actually came out of the end of the legislative battle. So, at this point, this is a proposal and how it will actually be enforced and applied is yet to be determined. But no, I don't have any problem with someone who has a net wealth of over $100 million dollars, paying an additional tax on some of their money.

I honestly rather imagine that when it gets down to a bill on the floor of the legislature, what comes out the end will likely be much different than what is actually being proposed. And it may not get passed at all and so we'll have the same situation that the GOP guy had. Some small desire to make a change in some program or process that just didn't fly. That's why the ACA, as put in place during the Obama administration, is still in force over our healthcare. Just because a presidential candidate says that they want to bring about some change that must be made by the Congress... doesn't mean it's going to get done.

And no, I'm sorry, but I don't trust that your claim that it will end up being a tax on everybody, without limit to their personal wealth, will be the outcome. IF it ever comes to be, I'm confident that there will be some wealth limit of individuals that it will apply to. I mean, just like the tax we have now on SS, it is income based. If one's income is below a certain number, then all of their SS payments are tax free. If someone's income is above a certain base amount, then it begins to become taxable in steps. All based on one's income.

For me, I think the hardest part in creating such a law, would be in 'how' it is determined that someone has $100 million in assets and would, therefore, fall under the additional tax.

We'll see.

 

[hornetguy]

But no, I don't have any problem with someone who has a net wealth of over $100 million dollars, paying an additional tax on some of their money.

I appreciate your thoughtful response.. but we simply disagree on this.
Penalizing someone for "being successful" is a terrible way to encourage investments and growth of an economy...
It would be the same as putting a cap on how much a doctor could earn.... what is the incentive to spend all the time and money necessary to become an excellent doctor, when all you can earn is about what a journeyman electrician makes in a year?
What we end up with is mediocre doctors and mediocre health care, with no incentive to keep up with medical advances.

What would be the incentive to invest in companies, grow their business, fund research, if you give most of it to the government? Why not simply have a 401k and let industry fend for itself? The end result of that is either, no progress in companies, or progress only if the government steps in and invests in it... much the way China does...

 

[tedincarolina]

I appreciate your thoughtful response.. but we simply disagree on this.
Penalizing someone for "being successful" is a terrible way to encourage investments and growth of an economy...
It would be the same as putting a cap on how much a doctor could earn.... what is the incentive to spend all the time and money necessary to become an excellent doctor, when all you can earn is about what a journeyman electrician makes in a year?
What we end up with is mediocre doctors and mediocre health care, with no incentive to keep up with medical advances.

What would be the incentive to invest in companies, grow their business, fund research, if you give most of it to the government? Why not simply have a 401k and let industry fend for itself? The end result of that is either, no progress in companies, or progress only if the government steps in and invests in it... much the way China does...

Hi @hornetguy

Perhaps we could use a bit of Scriptural advice on this. To whom much has been given, much is required. Luke 12:48

But it's ok that we don't agree on this matter. That's what makes America a great nation. We can have differences in how things should be. But ultimately the legislative body gets to make what they believe to be the way that we should handle a matter.

That system has worked fairly well for about 250 years and I don't see any reason why it doesn't still work. One of the problems that we are experiencing with our system of government is that we all want things to be the way that we individually and personally feel they should be, and we aren't willing to accept and submit to the authority that was put in place over us to make such decisions. So nearly every decision that is made in our legislative body today winds up in some court battle. But that is what God's word tells us that man will be like as we approach the last of the last days. They will not submit to authority over themselves.

Just imagine on the day of God's judgment all those who will be seeking legal representation to argue that God's decision for their life isn't right. Of course, those of us who do know God, know that His judgment will not be overturned.

I would also suggest, as regards your comments in the last paragraph, that you have your crystal ball checked. It doesn't seem to be working right. And just how familiar are you with how such things are done in China?

 

[hornetguy]

Perhaps we could use a bit of Scriptural advice on this. To whom much has been given, much is required. Luke 12:48

Moderately out of context... I think that is talking about our abilities and talents.. not necessarily our monetary wealth... although it could be applied to that... But I don't think God is telling us to go make millions of dollars simply to give it all to the government. Give it to the church? Sure... that would be where I would want my money to go.. not to a government that wastes probably 90% of every dollar they take...

 

[cv5]

How very Marxist of you....

You are catching on bro.
Head on a swivel. And wear high topped leather boots dealing with this one.

 

[cv5]

within Christianity, from the Rev. Raphael Warnock (a Democratic U.S. senator via Georgia) to devout Catholics like President Joe Biden and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California).

Oh I doubt it. Very much. I expect much weeping and gnashing of teeth in their infinitely long and dismal future.

 

[Billyd]

Something is rotten here. I invest in real estate. I pay taxes on the value of it every year. If you aren't going to tax the value of all investment's, how about tossing out the taxes on my real estate?

 

[tedincarolina]

Moderately out of context... I think that is talking about our abilities and talents.. not necessarily our monetary wealth... although it could be applied to that... But I don't think God is telling us to go make millions of dollars simply to give it all to the government. Give it to the church? Sure... that would be where I would want my money to go.. not to a government that wastes probably 90% of every dollar they take...

Hi @hornetguy

While I fully agree that in its particular application in the Scriptures, it is meant for one's measure of faith. But yes, God does tell us to be submissive to the authorities that He has placed above us. So, whether or not one thinks that the rich should pay more to help operate the society that has made them rich ... ummm, I don't really have a problem with that, up to a point. I mean, I'm not going to approve of some plan that's going to take a rich man and make him a pauper through some taxation of the government. But that someone sitting with $100 million in wealth piled up behind them, I don't really see a problem in there being some 'extra' taxation that is not usurious in any way.

And as I've said, all of that will have to be worked out when the time comes, if the time comes. Would I rather tax an extremely wealthy person's extra tax rather than give their billion dollar corporations the cheapest tax rate on the books of 15%? Yeah. See, I have a problem with the GOP guy telling us that we're going to become fabulously wealthy... like we've never seen wealth before in this... I tell you the people will be sayin' "Oh please sir. Don't pour anymore wealth upon me. I have too much that I can... wealth, fabulous beautiful wealth.

By giving tax breaks to corporations. And by thinking that you're going to apply tariffs to pay for everything. We won't have any more income tax. We, as a nation, will live off of charging other nations to do business with us. Just like Mexico was going to build that wall in his last administration. The man doesn't have a clue how life works. I think his taxation plans are waaaaaaay more nutty than this idea of taxing some very wealthy individuals.

Is there anyone who really believes that a nation can operate predominantly on revenues paid by other nations? And who can't figure out that if you charge a tariff on a good, then that tariff is included in the cost of the good and is thus paid for by the consumer? Who can't figure that one out, besides him?

 

[hornetguy]

Yeah. See, I have a problem with the GOP guy telling us that we're going to become fabulously wealthy.

I have never heard "the GOP" tell anyone they are going to become fabulously wealthy.
All I've heard them say is that you, me, all the working folks should be able to keep more of the money we earn... from tax cuts.
The reason for charging large corporations a low tax rate, or even in some cases, NO taxes, is to get them to move their company to where they can get the lowest tax rate.
If nobody gave them a break on taxes, they would simply move offshore. Companies are beholden to their shareholders, and they have to do whatever it takes to make maximum profit.
For a town or state to give a corporation tax breaks is simply doing business the way it is done..

Is there anyone who really believes that a nation can operate predominantly on revenues paid by other nations?

Who has said that? We are taxed at around 30% of our income right now. That's not "nothing"... A 30% tax rate on the middle class gives the government MUCH, MUCH more revenue than if they taxed all the "ultra rich" people at 100%..... because there are infinitely more middle class folks than there are ultra rich.

 

[cv5]

I have never heard "the GOP" tell anyone they are going to become fabulously wealthy.
All I've heard them say is that you, me, all the working folks should be able to keep more of the money we earn... from tax cuts.
The reason for charging large corporations a low tax rate, or even in some cases, NO taxes, is to get them to move their company to where they can get the lowest tax rate.
If nobody gave them a break on taxes, they would simply move offshore. Companies are beholden to their shareholders, and they have to do whatever it takes to make maximum profit.
For a town or state to give a corporation tax breaks is simply doing business the way it is done..

Who has said that? We are taxed at around 30% of our income right now. That's not "nothing"... A 30% tax rate on the middle class gives the government MUCH, MUCH more revenue than if they taxed all the "ultra rich" people at 100%..... because there are infinitely more middle class folks than there are ultra rich.

Is this how it should be done? Rhetorical question.

===========================================================================================
Government spending in Singapore has risen since the start of the global financial crisis, from around 15% of GDP in 2008 to 17% in 2012.

The government's total expenditure as a percentage of GDP ranks among the lowest internationally and allows for a competitive tax regime.[134][135]

Singapore is required under its constitution to keep a balanced budget over each term of government.

Singapore government debt is issued for investment purposes, not to fund expenditure.[136][137][138]

Personal income taxes in Singapore range from 0% to 22% for incomes above S$320,000.[139]

There are no capital gains or inheritance taxes in Singapore.[140][141]

Singapore's corporate tax rate is 17% with exemptions and incentives for smaller businesses. Singapore has a single-tier corporate income tax system, which means there is no double-taxation for shareholders.[142]

Singapore introduced Goods and Services Tax (GST) with an initial rate of 3% on 1 April 1994, increasing government's revenue by S$1.6 billion (US$1b, €800m) and establishing government finances.[143]

The GST rate increased to 4% in 2003, 5% in 2004, 7% in 2007, 8% in 2023, and 9% in 2024.[144] [145]

 

[daisyseesthesun]

Is there anyone who really believes that a nation can operate predominantly on revenues paid by other nations? And who can't figure out that if you charge a tariff on a good, then that tariff is included in the cost of the good and is thus paid for by the consumer? Who can't figure that one out, besides him?[/QUOTE]

hornetguy,


thats what happened Boris Johnson did when the uk left the European union (brexit) it was terrible. the food prices jumped. the cost went on the consumer. It was hard to get products from other countries when you dont have a trade deal. Imagine you own a store in the uk and suddenly you have to put in papers to get products from other countries with a huge fee and now and you the store owner has to pay it.

I dont think the American public would stand for it

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

@tedincarolina and @JayBird , do the Democrats have the equivalent of Project 25 or anything of sorts, so people can see and compare?

Psssst, over here, here it is but it's written in invisible ink....

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

So, whether or not one thinks that the rich should pay more to help operate the society that has made them rich ... ummm, I don't really have a problem with that, up to a point. I mean, I'm not going to approve of some plan that's going to take a rich man and make him a pauper through some taxation of the government. But that someone sitting with $100 million in wealth piled up behind them, I don't really see a problem in there being some 'extra' taxation that is not usurious in any way.
And as I've said, all of that will have to be worked out when the time comes, if the time comes. Would I rather tax an extremely wealthy person's extra tax rather than give their billion dollar corporations the cheapest tax rate on the books of 15%?

By giving tax breaks to corporations. And by thinking that you're going to apply tariffs to pay for everything. We won't have any more income tax. We, as a nation, will live off of charging other nations to do business with us. Just like Mexico was going to build that wall in his last administration. The man doesn't have a clue how life works. I think his taxation plans are waaaaaaay more nutty than this idea of taxing some very wealthy individuals.

Wow! Are you sure you aren't a millennial? Because you speak like one and you understand gov't like one.
Maybe take a listen to Mr Cavuto as he explains reality to this hapless young lady.

See, I have a problem with the GOP guy telling us that we're going to become fabulously wealthy... like we've never seen wealth before in this... I tell you the people will be sayin' "Oh please sir. Don't pour anymore wealth upon me. I have too much that I can... wealth, fabulous beautiful wealth.

What's wrong with being wealthy?