Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

petepont OP t1_iuavsmu wrote

Copying my comment from the other place I posted this with a summary:

> Harwich Cranberry farmer Leo Cakounes has become the face of opposition to Question 1, the ballot measure that would raise taxes on the state’s highest earners – up from 5 to 9 percent for any income exceeding a million dollars.

>...

>“Question 1 isn’t just a tax on annual salary,” he says. “So when farmers like me sell our family farms or homes, Question 1 would nearly double our taxes, punishing us for our years of hard work”

You may have seen his face on TV or posters. He's been the main person railing against the proposed tax increase on the rich. But....

>But Cakounes is going to do just fine in retirement, whether or not Question 1 passes. A search of Registry of Deeds records across the state reveals the Republican former local politician, sometime radio and podcast host, tour operator, and farmer is sitting on property worth millions, including rental properties in Harwich and Belchertown. He estimates his home and the land on which it sits are worth $3 million.

Color me not surprised at all. The article is also full of fun quotes like

>“Don’t portray me like I’m a friggin’ crybaby because I don’t want to spend 40 grand on a million dollars,” he said. “I couldn’t give a s**t about 40 grand, but this tax is not good for the Commonwealth.”

and

>“I’m not a goddamned slumlord,” he said, then cautioned me. “Don’t blow that off.”

Seems like a nice guy, and exactly the sort of person this tax is supposed to effect

117

SouthShoreSerenade t1_iuay7ve wrote

>“Don’t portray me like I’m a friggin’ crybaby because I don’t want to spend 40 grand on a million dollars,”

If you don't want to be called a clown, don't wear a rainbow wig, a big red nose, long squeaky shoes, and facepaint.

76

bubalusarnee t1_iuck7ik wrote

if one does not like fleas, one should not lay with dogs.

9

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iub40di wrote

Here we go: it's always necessary to belittle and dehumanize these rich cranberry farmers since it makes it easy to rationalize why they should pay more taxes and not you.

−46

SouthShoreSerenade t1_iub43h9 wrote

Lick that boot! Lick that boot! Lick that boot!

40

modernhomeowner t1_iub66ou wrote

The difference is this cranberry farmer did his own work, made his own opportunity for success. Nothing says boot licker more than someone who has to punch the time clock at a business that was someone else's opportunity.

−51

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iub71sl wrote

Yeah, I'm so sick of these high and mighty [checks notes] cranberry farmers.

−34

Ok_Wealth_7711 t1_iubkr5h wrote

The rich are the rich, regardless of your personal perception of their industry.

Having worked as a farmhand, I can confidently say any "farmer" who is making over a million per year is not a farmer themself.

21

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iub3tw5 wrote

>adding that he always treats his tenants well, and charges them below-market rent because he knows working people need housing.

Yeah, what a monster. He built up a business and owns property earned over years. Clearly he must be punished.

−23

tjrad815 t1_iub8628 wrote

Imagine thinking having to pay your fair share in taxes is a punishment

45

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubdv7w wrote

Everybody in MA pays a flat income tax. How is that not fair to everyone?

−1

tjrad815 t1_iube9ob wrote

A person making $30,000 a year needs to use all of that money just to stay alive. A millionaire also needs to use $30,000 to stay alive, but he has hundreds of thousands of dollars leftover. That excess money should be taxed at a higher rate.

39

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubfbfh wrote

That $30K taxpayer gets a $4.4 exemption and with a 5% rate has a tax liability of $1280.

The millionaire will pay $49780.

You have no right to tell anyone what they can and cannot keep or what they deserve.

−9

tjrad815 t1_iubfpkl wrote

A bulk of that 30k gets taxed a second time (sales tax). The millionaire's hoarded wealth just sits there.

20

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubibq3 wrote

It just sits under a mattress, right?

Most of the time, wealth is invested in corporations that provide jobs to people. Or it sits in banks that provide capital that can be used to provide credit (business and personal loans) to people. Or it's in treasury bonds that fund the government.

But, sure, we need to hit them up just one more time.

7

tjrad815 t1_iubim88 wrote

Ah the old trickle down economics theory that hasn't proven to work out for 40 years.

23

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubjk66 wrote

Yeah, it's funny how we've been beholden to trickle down economics here in Massachusetts until now.

After - who knows how long - with a flat and equal tax on everyone, we're going to reverse this policy.

It worked so well for Maryland: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703976804575114241782001262

4

tjrad815 t1_iubjsri wrote

Great source there... A 12 year old Opinion article.

11

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubkw0q wrote

>Well, the state comptroller's office now has the final tax return data for 2008, the first year that the higher tax rates applied. The number of millionaire tax returns fell sharply to 5,529 from 7,898 in 2007, a 30% tumble. The taxes paid by rich filers fell by 22%, and instead of their payments increasing by $106 million, they fell by some $257 million.

Which of the numbers here have spoiled with age?

6

tjrad815 t1_iubmpuo wrote

Which of these numbers came from a news source instead of an Opinion article?

10

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubnx3n wrote

So I need to track down the actual comptroller office report?

Attacking the source is always the last refuge of these threads.

7

tjrad815 t1_iubpbga wrote

Imagine pretending an Opinion article is a reliable source

7

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubq40v wrote

These numbers from a comptroller report can't be real because they're being reported from an opinion piece is a hell of a take.

An extremely weak and grasping take.

5

tjrad815 t1_iubquml wrote

Ok... Let's pretend that your source is good. What else happened in 2008 that may have also contributed to a sudden change in people's fortunes? (Here's a hint: it was a national recession)

5

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubs7ui wrote

Yup, the WSJ article notes the financial crisis. Then there's this:

"One-in-eight millionaires who filed a Maryland tax return in 2007 filed no return in 2008. Some died, but the others presumably changed their state of residence. (Hint to the class warfare crowd: A lot of rich people have two homes.)
A Bank of America Merrill Lynch analysis of federal tax return data on people who migrated from one state to another found that Maryland lost $1 billion of its net tax base in 2008 by residents moving to other states. That’s income that’s now being taxed and is financing services in Virginia, South Carolina and elsewhere."

https://taxfoundation.org/marylands-millionaires-missing-after-income-tax-hike

3

tjrad815 t1_iubtchk wrote

I read Tax Foundation's about page. They have a clear bias against progressive taxes. I'm done engaging with your nonsense.

6

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubtn52 wrote

Just like every other response: I don't like your totally accurate statistics because it comes from a partisan source.

Believe me, I'm used to it.

3

DBLJ33 t1_iuba7ms wrote

They already pay their fair share. This is asking for more.

−29

The-Shattering-Light t1_iubw4nm wrote

No, they don’t.

Flat taxes aren’t fair and disproportionately hurt low income people.

14

DBLJ33 t1_iud91x9 wrote

Poor people aren’t making over a million so what does this have to do with them.

−4

ManWithTheCats t1_iubdnxq wrote

Voting “Yes” on this question gave me a hard-on.

95

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubhx2j wrote

There's a first time for everything.

−23

ManWithTheCats t1_iubi3x3 wrote

Lol Have a fantastic evening!

17

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubiphu wrote

You too.

−9

[deleted] t1_iucby51 wrote

Why would you act as fodder for wealthy people who have so much money that they don’t know what to do with?

Trickle down factually was a lie and didn’t work

Factually, wages haven’t risen with productivity and the wage gap is comically large at this point especially when compared over the last 4-5 decades

There’s no reasoning for your stance - at all

Get a spine, or, there’s always China

10

socialist_frzn_milk t1_iubgus5 wrote

Then he can shut the fuck up and stop whining about having to pay a few measly dollars more so that the state he lives in can have nice things.

59

traditionalsmoke01 t1_iubl23o wrote

You do realize the state has 18billion to spend on schools and roads and transportation. Yet they still need more…

−23

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubikyr wrote

So very brave of you, asking that other guy to pay more in taxes.

Stunning and brave.

−30

socialist_frzn_milk t1_iubiztj wrote

Why do you people insist on licking the boots of people who would not be caught dead in a room with you? It boggles the mind. Stop simping for rich people.

51

Ok_Wealth_7711 t1_iubk1jm wrote

Why do you care how much a millionaire pays in taxes, when he wouldn't think twice about you?

16

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubl01a wrote

How many jobs are created by poor men?

−15

Ok_Wealth_7711 t1_iubl62p wrote

Weird red herring

26

LollyTotlkyWondrr t1_iubodo8 wrote

and ntm those poor men are the ones carrying those jobs, not the men in suits on their luxury cruises

17

[deleted] t1_iubm1wg wrote

[removed]

−7

Ok_Wealth_7711 t1_iubmewg wrote

Answer my question first.

15

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubn4ur wrote

Sure: I don't sit here and covet the wealth of other men. I don't believe we should punish success by taxing people at a higher rate just because they're successful. I think it's obscene to demand that people pay more just because they have more.

I'm sure that Bill Gates doesn't think twice about me. But Bill Gates created an industry that has employed tens of thousands of people in mostly high-paying jobs, and has created a business that increases productivity across the globe. We should be thanking him but instead the opinion is "he has a lot of money and he should give it to us."

5

Ok_Wealth_7711 t1_iubp7fu wrote

>I don't sit here and covet the wealth of other men.

Weirdly sexist, and red herring

>I don't believe we should punish success by taxing people at a higher rate just because they're successful.

Red herring

>I think it's obscene to demand that people pay more just because they have more.

That is literally what any flat tax does.

>I'm sure that Bill Gates doesn't think twice about me.

Yup

>But Bill Gates created an industry that has employed tens of thousands of people in mostly high-paying jobs

Unrelated to the issue

>and has created a business that increases productivity across the globe.

Is your argument that people would only be motivated to improve society because they could eventually be worth $100B+ and only making a billion wouldn't motivate them? Weird take but ok.

>We should be thanking him but instead the opinion is "he has a lot of money and he should give it to us."

Well, good ole Bill would disagree with you. That's why he started the foundation. Even he thinks he shouldn't have as much as he does.

18

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubpvzw wrote

FFS - OK, now answer my question.

4

Ok_Wealth_7711 t1_iubqpbs wrote

Sure. The answer is quite a few. Most of these millionaires started as small business owners who weren't making much money but they needed to hire people to grow their business. Every single farmer these ads claim to care about was likely not very well off when they hired their initial staff. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to provide examples.

6

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubrl61 wrote

>Most of these millionaires started as small business owners who weren't making much money but they needed to hire people to grow their business.

Yes, they took a risk, sacrificed, and created businesses that gave livelihoods to employees who subsequently provided for their families.

They must be punished.

3

Cerberus73 t1_iubpxfo wrote

He is, like you are, free to give away as much of your own money as you (and he) would like.

−2

third0burns t1_iub17jw wrote

Man I was kinda on the fence about this one but this guy makes me want to vote yes so hard.

55

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iub47lb wrote

Robbing Peter to pay Paul will always have the enthusiastic support of Paul.

−17

third0burns t1_iub9uz4 wrote

Taxation is not theft, obviously.

31

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iube7pn wrote

OK, then why not urge an across-the-board tax rate increase for all MA taxpayers? Why single out one tiny sliver of the taxpayer base?

−4

third0burns t1_iubfpht wrote

Because the ones being singled out are the ones who can afford it.

28

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubhlq4 wrote

Can I swing by your house and tell you what you're allowed to keep and what I can take because you can afford it?

1

jamescobalt t1_iubsljb wrote

He already paid taxes on all that stuff. It’s a social agreement made before you buy or earn stuff. If the farmer millionaire doesn’t want to participate he can take his business elsewhere. Mass would no longer benefit from his money and he would no longer benefit from things Mass taxes pay for like roads that his business uses or the employees educated by the state etc

11

socialist_frzn_milk t1_iubh13s wrote

Because that tiny sliver doesn’t pay its fair share. Stop simping for the one percent. It makes you look like a jackass.

17

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubhq4o wrote

Do you have a job?

−1

socialist_frzn_milk t1_iubj5ri wrote

You’ve obviously already assumed I don’t, so what’s my answer matter? Clearly because I think rich people should pay their fair share in taxes I must be lazy and unemployed, because that’s the only way you can pretend my opinion isn’t valid.

Fuck off.

16

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubjy2w wrote

Question answered.

1

socialist_frzn_milk t1_iubkdv1 wrote

Sigh. This pathetic dismissal would be funny, if I hadn’t seen it a thousand times from libertarian dipshits like yourself. You assume anyone who actually gives a shit about anyone besides themselves must clearly be unemployed, because in your selfish, diseased brain, that’s the only scenario that makes sense.

16

Cerberus73 t1_iubkm0o wrote

Their fair share? You mean more. Doesn't matter what the base is or what the rates are, it's always more.

−18

socialist_frzn_milk t1_iubl0k3 wrote

No, I mean their fair share—which they do not currently pay. Don’t put words in my mouth.

16

Cerberus73 t1_iubl8t0 wrote

They aren't paying the 5% everyone else pays? You know, like the state constitution says when it mandates everyone pay the same rate?

If they aren't paying their 5% there are laws in place for dealing with avoidance.

−20

socialist_frzn_milk t1_iubll19 wrote

Okay, again: 5% to Daddy Warbucks here is couch change. 5% to someone who barely makes minimum wage? That’s a whole different kettle of fish.

They are not paying their fair share. Flat taxes are disproportionally harmful to the poor and middle class, and all the lolbertarian weirdos kissing millionaire ass here know it.

9

Cerberus73 t1_iubmcyn wrote

You don't know shit about anybody's situation but your own. You're awfully free with the idea of forcing your views on other people, using government force to get your way.

Your fiscal policy boils down to "They have money, I want it, fuck them and their families. And who cares about fairness or consequences."

−13

socialist_frzn_milk t1_iucscye wrote

Lmao, how’s millionaire boot taste?

The current situation ISN’T fair. This would make it fair-ER.

6

Ok_Wealth_7711 t1_iubkyiv wrote

I've never seen Peter complain about Paul being well educated, skilled, and able to come to work due to the services that government provides.

15

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iublym9 wrote

If Peter's happy about that, he should willingly pay to support that.

Instead he needs to be compelled.

−2

Ok_Wealth_7711 t1_iubmbx3 wrote

Peter is happy about it. If he wasn't, he'd set his business up somewhere with lower taxes and fewer services, like Alabama. Peter never wants to pay though, because no one ever wants to pay.

Everyone needs to be compelled. Literally everyone. You must have skipped econ 101, where they taught that an economy is a collection of self interested individuals.

17

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubnec8 wrote

Maybe you didn't hear about all the companies moving from California to Texas.

Don't worry, you'll hear about all the businesses moving from Massachusetts to New Hampshire soon enough.

−2

Ok_Wealth_7711 t1_iubo5p5 wrote

You seem to have confused this personal tax increase with a business tax increase. The only businesses that would move because of this tax are ones that are taxed/owned by unincorporated entities. Will some businesses move? Maybe. But there will always be a race to the bottom. None of the corporations that generate the majority of the jobs/income in MA will be moving as this won't even remotely affect them.

It seems you've picked a position and are now trying to find facts that support it instead of the other way around. My condolences.

18

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubp4i7 wrote

Will personal taxpayers earning over a million move over the border into New Hampshire?

Based on history and previous examples from Maryland to France, why wouldn't we believe this? And why wouldn't we believe there would be an actual drop in expected revenues just like those previous examples?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/business/one-top-taxpayer-moved-and-new-jersey-shuddered.html

0

Ok_Wealth_7711 t1_iubpccp wrote

Taxes are paid where they're earned. Anyone who works in MA will still pay MA taxes. You seem unfamiliar with our tax code.

14

Intrepid_Priority154 t1_iuaxwj2 wrote

He will probably retire in FL and not pay any MA tax.

25

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iub4596 wrote

Probably sell his rental property to a hedge fund that will immediately double the rent. But, hey, you gotta break some eggs to make an omelet!

8

Cerberus73 t1_iubkeaj wrote

Then it's awesome that this state wants to force people out with confiscatory tax policies. I'm sure that hedge fund will be a much better landlord.

−9

Intrepid_Priority154 t1_iuho59l wrote

Let’s tax the rich so we can build them electric vehicles charging stations for their teslas.

1

fkenned1 t1_iuczma4 wrote

I’ll be voting HELL YA on 1!

15

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubcgyn wrote

They tried this millionaires tax in Maryland and they said it would raise $106 million. Take a wild guess what happened:

>Well, the state comptroller's office now has the final tax return data for 2008, the first year that the higher tax rates applied. The number of millionaire tax returns fell sharply to 5,529 from 7,898 in 2007, a 30% tumble. The taxes paid by rich filers fell by 22%, and instead of their payments increasing by $106 million, they fell by some $257 million.

Oopsie.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703976804575114241782001262

9

ManWithTheCats t1_iubfbhi wrote

You left three different responses to this post, so I’ll just go with this one. They send jobs elsewhere when taxes go up? Not when the state in question has the people capable of doing the technical work that their businesses depend on. You think the modern sectors (computers, biotech) are going to move their operations to backasswards states populated by people who think that Jesus planted dinosaur bones as a test of their faith? Manual labor may leave, but good riddance. The uneducated mopes who voted for capitalist scammers and religious fundamentalists can have those jobs. Oh, and why are all the decent paying jobs in the liberal states? Because we tax rich fucks to pay for education. Without that (and government subsidy), you don’t have a modern economy. Peace out.

19

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubg38k wrote

OMG, so SO much is wrong in this but I'll leave with one question: why does Massachusetts need a new tax on "rich fucks to pay for education" when we already have the highest education level in the entire country?

Tesla, Oracle, and Hewlett Packard say "hello" from Texas.

8

GreyTweedHat t1_iucltgp wrote

The moved their HQs. To avoid taxes. They didn’t close their facilities in CA, that would be suicide because the majority of their Silicon Valley talent wouldn’t move to Texas even for a decent raise. California has its problems for sure, but if it were it’s own country it’s GDP would be…9th in the world, IIRC? It’ll be just fine because a few rich libertarians moved their HQs. The companies are almost certainly incorporated in Delaware, anyhow. It’s all a stupid game.

If you think education is well funded in MA I invite you to examine the facilities in our towns. In my affluent town, my children went to elementary school in a building older than the one I attended 40 years ago. Their middle school has a room that cannot be used because there is sewage coming up from the floor.

I can’t imagine how bad schools are in these low tax states.

I for one would love to have the millionaires’ problems. And I’m reasonably well off, the majority of these new taxes won’t have a major direct benefit on my family. But it has the potential to help those less fortunate than me, which is good on its own but also helps everyone indirectly.

Also, you know that tax rates have been dropping for decades right? Like in 1955, there was a federal income top marginal tax rate of 90%.

This millionaire tax will come nowhere near balancing the scales for the privileges the rich benefit from. Maybe it’ll lessen the misery of the poorest, though. Worth a shot.

12

socialist_frzn_milk t1_iubjrls wrote

The only thing worse than bitchy millionaires whining about paying pennies more in taxes are the miserable, sniveling simps who lick their boots.

13

asoneth t1_iud8up1 wrote

It is also my concern that the 9% top rate is just too high compared to comparable and neighboring states and could lead to a drop in net revenue.

A Tufts analysis projected that this would likely not be the case:

"Together, cross-border moves and tax avoidance would reduce millionaires tax revenue by roughly 35 percent [to $1.3 billion]. (Absent these responses, the tax would be expected to raise $2.1 billion in 2023.)"

Via: https://cspa.tufts.edu/node/406

However, there is substantial uncertainty here, especially in the long-run, that this end up going the scales for a lot of people, lower net tax revenue, and force cuts to state budgets.

Given that, I'm frankly mystified why the "no on 1" ads went with a "sympathy for multi-millionaires" angle instead of "risk of capital flight" angle.

4

throwawaysscc t1_iubqvlm wrote

It’s surprising to me that John Henry hasn’t put his foot down on this reporting. Billionaire owner hasn’t become Sinclair as yet?

4

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iub60ev wrote

>Cakounes believes the damage from Question 1 lies elsewhere; he worries higher taxes will drive businesses from the Commonwealth, as they relocate to avoid the extra burden; that Beacon Hill cannot be trusted with the extra $2 billion annually advocates say the measure will raise; that the state, which is enjoying a huge surplus right now, does not actually need the money.

If only there were some evidence to support the crazy idea that businesses relocate to low tax states.

1

NightWalk77 t1_iudvmjj wrote

Duh! if you're making over 1,000,000 a marginal tax of 4% on anything over that is not going to affect you much.

1

vikaasa t1_iuezsbb wrote

The point is they may not be making a million every year, it may be a one off sale of their only home (life savings).

−2

NightWalk77 t1_iufmowe wrote

Then they only pay the 4% marginal tax rate once for what ever is over the million. Most homes do NOT sell for over a million. This does NOT tax savings.

2

CosmicQuantum42 t1_iudeg5d wrote

Who cares. Still not a reason to vote for question 1. Vote no.

−4

chadwickipedia t1_iudenzh wrote

Why?

3

CosmicQuantum42 t1_iudg12j wrote

There is no rational reason to vote FOR this amendment.

I assume all supporters of this amendment paid the optional 5.85% tax this year since they believe the state is so starved for revenue.

0

chadwickipedia t1_iudgt89 wrote

The rational reason is to get more money off billionaires who could stand to pay a little more into the system than take that 1 extra flight on their private plane.

3

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iub3gxt wrote

>“Every single one of those pieces of property my wife and I have bought and sold, we got through hard work and sweat. I am not a trust fund baby.”
His real estate records reflect that work, and considerable savvy: His properties have risen greatly in value over the years, and he holds almost all of them in trusts, “for liability reasons,” he said, adding that he always treats his tenants well, and charges them below-market rent because he knows working people need housing.

It sounds like this cranberry farmer has been working and investing his whole life and has achieved success in the process.

Why should he be punished with an additional tax?

−5

MattOLOLOL t1_iub8t3s wrote

He's not being punished, that's just how taxes work.

34

socialist_frzn_milk t1_iubjmdh wrote

Also, the idea that the success he “achieved” was not off the backs of all the people that work for him is certainly a take

21

guesswhatihate t1_iucygl3 wrote

They could have worked for someone else

−10

socialist_frzn_milk t1_iuczyxz wrote

Exactly, so if anything, this jerkoff should be grateful that he can improve the lives of the people who made him successful by paying a pittance more in taxes.

7

guesswhatihate t1_iud0htt wrote

Or his employees should be thankful for the job he let them have, and with all the other taxes already in place, Massachusetts can make do with what it already collects.

−8

socialist_frzn_milk t1_iud0sra wrote

Gonna go ahead and guess you’re a boomer because only boomers and their selfish-ass mindset use phrases like “employees should be grateful”

11

guesswhatihate t1_iud8p38 wrote

Nope thirty five. Worked for everything I have, can't justify additional taxes when the state collects enough as it is.

0

chadwickipedia t1_iudeuf6 wrote

Well since you likely aren’t making over $1Mil a year, it won’t effect you

2

SouthShoreSerenade t1_iud2o4n wrote

>the job he let them have,

Disgusting.

6

guesswhatihate t1_iud8ypw wrote

Reality often is. If you can't work for yourself, you work for someone else. Have an issue? work somewhere else; isn't that what people like you were screaming when others got fired over vaccine mandates?

2

guesswhatihate t1_iucyjla wrote

Yeah, there's already taxes in place. The Additional ones would be considered punitive.

−1

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iube1p0 wrote

Make no sense. An extra tax is being imposed simply for business success.

−3

MattOLOLOL t1_iubi4f8 wrote

No, this would be a tax according to the business success.

17

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubj77c wrote

He would already pay 5% on whatever he makes, just like everybody else in MA.

Question #1 is asking him to pay more just because he's more successful.

4

Mary10123 t1_iudndmd wrote

He does literally pay more it’s a flat tax percentage not a flat tax amount. I’m not decided but just want people to be clear on that.

1

guesswhatihate t1_iucyo2m wrote

This is the point they like to ignore and circle back to "make more tax more, we live in a society, etc"

−2

spenwallce t1_iubej3c wrote

So should we tax the poor people? Poor dude is going to have a little less money than he already does.

10

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubfilj wrote

We have a flat tax. The millionaire is already paying $50K.

What gives you the right to stake a claim on somebody else's money?

1

spenwallce t1_iubg3xt wrote

Stake a claim on someone else’s money? Do you think the taxes go to me?

16

chadwickipedia t1_iudf7hu wrote

Why not? If he makes over $1Mil a year he can afford it. By the sounds of it, he doesn’t, so it wouldn’t effect him anyway.

1