[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Are we getting into a review of the "Soylent Green" movie now? Lower the population of the world?

Soylent Green was not to lower the population it was to provide food and to "encourage" undesirables to contribute to food production.

Also, there is NOW a product that is a synthetic food called Soylent Green. I am unsure if that is a good or bad marketing idea - lol!

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Tax rates and tax bracket rate changes for individual tax returns have changed over the years to favor the wealthy and made it harder to balance the budget. Tax changes are another factor in addition to lower union membership and outsourcing to China that has decimated the middle class and pulled the wealth upward toward the upper 90%.

If the wealthy paid their fair share, there would be plenty of federal and state money to relocate and buy housing for those left homeless by hurricane Ian.

Global warming will continue to cause deadly strong hurricanes which will cause continuous dislocations for US people. And crops will fail in South America and drive CLIMATE immigrants illegally northward to further burden the US adding more pollution heating to the planet. Mother earth will become a mother !!!!!!!

The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes, and the top 53% pay 100% of the taxes. So you must agree everyone should pay their "fair share", say a 17% flat tax?

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

"Be fruitful and multiply" is not extinguished, but ought to be modified. As it stands it could be call for free love.
God (the Father) didn't seem too thrilled with reproductive/sexual activities of Sodom and Gomorrah.
And, when Jesus admonished the woman to " go and sin no more", I think He may have been referring to sex out of wedlock. Makes me think he might not be too thrilled about unwed mothers with multiple kids, each with a different baby daddy along with the population explosion.
Lastly, I believe you when you say, "I don't see how the world population" (7 to 8 billion people, with their industries, farms, terra forming, pollution, etc, etc, etc) "has made any changes in Climate Change." But, it has.

Ok, prove it. Prove that man has caused "climate change." Just because someone tells you this, does not make it true without evidence. A candle or forest fire will not make a difference to the changing climate. It might pollute or destroy but it won't slow the rotation of the Earth or cause the Sun to shine less or more. Just prove that man has change the climate other than in a green house.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes, and the top 53% pay 100% of the taxes. So you must agree everyone should pay their "fair share", say a 17% flat tax?

All true.

The top 10% pay a rate of 19% and average 175,000 (three-year-old data, sorry), so they pay around $30K in taxes if they don't have any deductions (they do, like MOST have a home mortgage). Leaving them $145,000 to try to get by on.

Bottom 10% make under $15,000. So, a 17% tax would be $2500, leaving them to try to get by on $12,500.

The point of a progressive tax base is that the burden is more of a burden the lower your income.

At around bottom 15%, income is still only around $25,000, so 17% would be about $4,000, leaving around $21,000.

The poverty level in the US is defined at $21,000 for a family of 3. That means a 17% tax rate would place half of those in the bottom 15% from not in poverty (barely) to in poverty,

I have no problem with everyone paying their fair share, but let's start with raising the corporate tax to where it was under Reagan, 38.5% instead of the 21% they are currently paying. And oh, yea, how about the top 1% of corporations pay something instead of nothing?

I think a company earning $25B paying an actual 12% would be less of a burden than a person earning $15,000. However, as we know, many corporations don't actually pay any taxes.

Personally, I disagree with a flat rate it sounds simple and fair, but I don't think it is.

I think a progressive rate that shares the burden equally with NO deductions is much fairer. Say start at 5% at the bottom end and go to maybe 20% at the top.

During Regan, corporations paid 38%, and everyone cheered because of the huge tax cut from over 50%.

And while at it, let's toss the 34,000 pages of tax code that allow the rich and companies to play games and stop filing tax forms yearly. With a fixed rate and no deductions, the government could just take the taxes out of people's income from the person paying them.

And EVERYTHING counts as income, all those corporate perks, cars, drivers, travel expensive accounts, entertainment expense accounts - you know, ALL those things the poor do not get to enjoy, but anyone making over $100K gets some of, and those making over $1M get a LOT of (private jets?).

Simple and fair.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Ok, prove it. Prove that man has caused "climate change." Just because someone tells you this, does not make it true without evidence. A candle or forest fire will not make a difference to the changing climate. It might pollute or destroy but it won't slow the rotation of the Earth or cause the Sun to shine less or more. Just prove that man has change the climate other than in a green house.

It has been proven to a significant degree of confidence.

You just don't believe the source. You don't believe scientists. If you don't believe the scientists, then there is really nothing to discuss. And I have to wonder which if any scientists you do believe? What scientist doesn't have a monetary motivation to fake" their results?

Heart Surgeons get paid for fixing hearts, but is your heart really broken? They could be lying.

Dentists get paid for fixing your teeth, maybe you really don't need that crown.

Where do you draw the line?

If you do believe in science, then the reports are available. The reports are peer-reviewed. And the majority of scientists are in agreement. Those are facts

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

All true.

The top 10% pay a rate of 19% and average 175,000 (three-year-old data, sorry), so they pay around $30K in taxes if they don't have any deductions (they do, like MOST have a home mortgage). Leaving them $145,000 to try to get by on.

Bottom 10% make under $15,000. So, a 17% tax would be $2500, leaving them to try to get by on $12,500.

The point of a progressive tax base is that the burden is more of a burden the lower your income.

At around bottom 15%, income is still only around $25,000, so 17% would be about $4,000, leaving around $21,000.

The poverty level in the US is defined at $21,000 for a family of 3. That means a 17% tax rate would place half of those in the bottom 15% from not in poverty (barely) to in poverty,

I have no problem with everyone paying their fair share, but let's start with raising the corporate tax to where it was under Reagan, 38.5% instead of the 21% they are currently paying. And oh, yea, how about the top 1% of corporations pay something instead of nothing?

I think a company earning $25B paying an actual 12% would be less of a burden than a person earning $15,000. However, as we know, many corporations don't actually pay any taxes.

Personally, I disagree with a flat rate it sounds simple and fair, but I don't think it is.

I think a progressive rate that shares the burden equally with NO deductions is much fairer. Say start at 5% at the bottom end and go to maybe 20% at the top.

During Regan, corporations paid 38%, and everyone cheered because of the huge tax cut from over 50%.

And while at it, let's toss the 34,000 pages of tax code that allow the rich and companies to play games and stop filing tax forms yearly. With a fixed rate and no deductions, the government could just take the taxes out of people's income from the person paying them.

And EVERYTHING counts as income, all those corporate perks, cars, drivers, travel expensive accounts, entertainment expense accounts - you know, ALL those things the poor do not get to enjoy, but anyone making over $100K gets some of, and those making over $1M get a LOT of (private jets?).

Simple and fair.

As someone else said earlier, what's this got to do with climate change?

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Byte1

As someone else said earlier, what's this got to do with climate change?

I agree with you, but wonder why you chose mine to point out instead of the first of several others. I was just continuing the established theme..

Seques on threads are common, I wish they didn't happen, but they do.

[justjim]

From the what it’s worth department: A Billionaire just contributed three billion to the Climate Change effort. That is “putting money where your mouth is”. Just saying.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by justjim

From the what it’s worth department: A Billionaire just contributed three billion to the Climate Change effort. That is “putting money where your mouth is”. Just saying.

His to throw away, but I could think of many, many more useful ways of using that money. Wonder if he would be interested in buying my ocean front property in Wyoming. I also have a few good investments for his money, such as a formula for changing lead into gold and water into wine.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by justjim

From the what it’s worth department: A Billionaire just contributed three billion to the Climate Change effort. That is “putting money where your mouth is”. Just saying.

Okay. And what is your interpretation of that?

Is he paying to promote a fake story from which he can make more money, or is he trying to help save mankind?

[Moderator]

One climate thread at a time is enough.

Moderator