85 richest people own as much as bottom half of population

[Nyvin]

A far left report being put on a far left blog site being believed without question by the far left Obama drones.

It's rather humorous to see you post about "Obama drones" considering almost EVERY SINGLE POST OF YOURS is saying the same generic "far left...radical...obama drones" statement over,
and over
and over
and over
and over
and over
etc.

IMO I know who the real "drone" here is.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Again showing that the US Debt isnt as big of a deal that republicans claim it is.

I happen to disagree with that

 

[Nyvin]

Here's a perplexing question....if income inequality is increasing...that means the wealthiest are "gaining" a larger percentage of the country's wealth.

If they're gaining a larger percentage of the country's wealth, doesn't it make sense to tax them a larger share of the country's tax revenue?

How does it make sense to tax an arbitrarily defined group of people based on the group's composite wealth?

Because if one group has a shrinking share, and one has a growing share, of the country's wealth...then in the long term it becomes unsustainable to tax at the same rates since you'll be getting a smaller and smaller amount of tax revenue.

 

[Nyvin]

Here's a perplexing question....if income inequality is increasing...that means the wealthiest are "gaining" a larger percentage of the country's wealth.

If they're gaining a larger percentage of the country's wealth, doesn't it make sense to tax them a larger share of the country's tax revenue?

They already pay the majority of the taxes.

No, the 1% pays about ~40% of taxes.

 

[SwimExpert]

I asked you a question.

No, I asked you a question. You responded with another question. It's okay, we all know you've got nothing. We won't hold it against you.

 

[martybegan]

Here's a perplexing question....if income inequality is increasing...that means the wealthiest are "gaining" a larger percentage of the country's wealth.

If they're gaining a larger percentage of the country's wealth, doesn't it make sense to tax them a larger share of the country's tax revenue?

They already pay the majority of the taxes.

No, the 1% pays about ~40% of taxes.

That's the 1%. the top 5% pay 59%.

 

[Avorysuds]

Starting from 2006 they would like to thank Obama and Dems! Before that, Bush and Reps! Thanks how. More so Obama though, I mean, they are getting more wealthy under Obama than Bush and all.

 

[SwimExpert]

Because if one group has a shrinking share, and one has a growing share, of the country's wealth...then in the long term it becomes unsustainable to tax at the same rates since you'll be getting a smaller and smaller amount of tax revenue.

Your entire concept is based on arbitrary groupings. There will ALWAYS be some group of people who have a shrinking "share" and another that has an growing "share." It's called an economy. Money moves through it every single day.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I asked you a question.

No, I asked you a question. You responded with another question. It's okay, we all know you've got nothing. We won't hold it against you.

Oh you were waiting to play the new page game. Where you pretend the last page never happened. Let me jog your memory...Here is the quote

What about it?

Typical. Liberals complain about the rich being "too" rich, but that's the end of anything they have to say. They have no plans for the future, no proposals to improve prosperity of Americans or increase opportunity for all Americans to achieve their own prosperity. Just a bunch of complaints.

Why did you just ask what my proposal was then?

America is in debt. Either the debt is no big deal or it is.

If debt is a big deal: Raise taxes on the 1% to prevent the US from going belly up and stopping our OIU's to China

If debt is NOT a big deal: Do nothing.

Which do you prefer?

Here was your response:

Why did you just ask what my proposal was then?

What do you think my first post was asking?

America is in debt. Either the debt is no big deal or it is.

If debt is a big deal: Raise taxes on the 1% to prevent the US from going belly up and stopping our OIU's to China

If debt is NOT a big deal: Do nothing.

Which do you prefer?

And what tax rate would you propose on the 1% that you think will have any meaningful effect on our debt?

Never answered the question. So which do you prefer again?

 

[SwimExpert]

Never answered the question. So which do you prefer again?

*cough*

This is getting silly. You are the one who did not answer the question. You are the one who posted the thread. You are the one complaining about the rich being "too" rich.

You can keep on evading all you want. You won't and can't out run the fact that you don't have a point in posting this thread, other than to whine and complain that people won't give you their money.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The study found the richest 1% had $110 trillion in wealth

You often hear people say if you took all the wealth of the top one percent, there isn't enough to pay off the debt. They are wrong. Very wrong, as this demonstrates.

But that in no way means anyone is justified in taking that wealth from them. That's the part liberals don't get. But deep in their hearts they know it is wrong to confiscate wealth, and so they find ways to vilify the rich so it feels okay to take from them.

Nobody wants to confiscate wealth. We just want policies that promote the responsible use of it. As it is.....shit ain't working.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Never answered the question. So which do you prefer again?

*cough*

This is getting silly. You are the one who did not answer the question. You are the one who posted the thread. You are the one complaining about the rich being "too" rich.

You can keep on evading all you want. You won't and can't out run the fact that you don't have a point in posting this thread, other than to whine and complain that people won't give you their money.

So which do you prefer? Debt big deal or Debt no problem?

 

[Defiant1]

You often hear people say if you took all the wealth of the top one percent, there isn't enough to pay off the debt. They are wrong. Very wrong, as this demonstrates.

But that in no way means anyone is justified in taking that wealth from them. That's the part liberals don't get. But deep in their hearts they know it is wrong to confiscate wealth, and so they find ways to vilify the rich so it feels okay to take from them.

Nobody wants to confiscate wealth. We just want policies that promote the responsible use of it. As it is.....shit ain't working.

I see. You don't want to confiscate the wealth you want laws dictating how they can use the wealth.

Should there be a law prohibiting people from removing their wealth from this county?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

You often hear people say if you took all the wealth of the top one percent, there isn't enough to pay off the debt. They are wrong. Very wrong, as this demonstrates.

But that in no way means anyone is justified in taking that wealth from them. That's the part liberals don't get. But deep in their hearts they know it is wrong to confiscate wealth, and so they find ways to vilify the rich so it feels okay to take from them.

Nobody wants to confiscate wealth. We just want policies that promote the responsible use of it. As it is.....shit ain't working.

Govt sure is working though, 17 trillion in the hole. Yeah, thats real responsible. No, we need to get rid of worthless govt policies.

 

[Seawytch]

The study found the richest 1% had $110 trillion in wealth

You often hear people say if you took all the wealth of the top one percent, there isn't enough to pay off the debt. They are wrong. Very wrong, as this demonstrates.

But that in no way means anyone is justified in taking that wealth from them. That's the part liberals don't get. But deep in their hearts they know it is wrong to confiscate wealth, and so they find ways to vilify the rich so it feels okay to take from them.

Falling taxes for the rich and increased use of tax havens have helped widen income inequality, Oxfam said.

If the tax code lets them concentrate the wealth, adjusting it isn't "taking" from them.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You often hear people say if you took all the wealth of the top one percent, there isn't enough to pay off the debt. They are wrong. Very wrong, as this demonstrates.

But that in no way means anyone is justified in taking that wealth from them. That's the part liberals don't get. But deep in their hearts they know it is wrong to confiscate wealth, and so they find ways to vilify the rich so it feels okay to take from them.

Nobody wants to confiscate wealth. We just want policies that promote the responsible use of it. As it is.....shit ain't working.

I see. You don't want to confiscate the wealth you want laws dictating how they can use the wealth.

Should there be a law prohibiting people from removing their wealth from this county?

Sorry...I am enjoying a snack and cannot accept the words that you wish to put in my mouth. Idiot nutter. Try harder.

 

[SwimExpert]

You often hear people say if you took all the wealth of the top one percent, there isn't enough to pay off the debt. They are wrong. Very wrong, as this demonstrates.

But that in no way means anyone is justified in taking that wealth from them. That's the part liberals don't get. But deep in their hearts they know it is wrong to confiscate wealth, and so they find ways to vilify the rich so it feels okay to take from them.

Falling taxes for the rich and increased use of tax havens have helped widen income inequality, Oxfam said.

If the tax code lets them concentrate the wealth, adjusting it isn't "taking" from them.

If we accept the premise that those who "concentrate" wealth are greedy, then do you really think "adjusting" the tax code will make them change their hearts? Or will they simply endeavor to scheme up new ways to continue to retain the share they currently hold?

 

[MikeK]

A far left report being put on a far left blog site being believed without question by the far left Obama drones.

Is that all you have to say?

I'll go out on a limb and assume you are not among the super rich. And I'll further assume you are incapable of presenting a substantive argument in support of your hollow opinion.

But if you're inclined to try perhaps you can help me to understand why, in spite of the fact that most if not all of the multi-billionaires who have managed to amass vast fortunes by deviously maneuvering our national economy to the point of collapse, are vigorously defended by so many ordinary Americans -- some of whom don't have a pot to piss in.

 

[TooTall]

What about it?

Typical. Liberals complain about the rich being "too" rich, but that's the end of anything they have to say. They have no plans for the future, no proposals to improve prosperity of Americans or increase opportunity for all Americans to achieve their own prosperity. Just a bunch of complaints.

Why did you just ask what my proposal was then?

America is in debt. Either the debt is no big deal or it is.

If debt is a big deal: Raise taxes on the 1% to prevent the US from going belly up and stopping our OIU's to China

If debt is NOT a big deal: Do nothing.

Which do you prefer?

I thought Obama already did raise the taxes on those making over $250,000 a year.

 

[MikeK]

And what tax rate would you propose on the 1% that you think will have any meaningful effect on our debt?

I propose restoring the 91% tax rate that FDR imposed on the super rich, which helped to fuel the engine that fostered the most prosperous, productive decades in our history, the '40s through the '70s, and directly enabled the rise of the Great American Middle Class.

The finishing touch would be IRS confiscating every penny in excess of twenty million dollars in personal assets. And I want to hear some greedy sonofabitch tell me he can't get along on that little money.