Do The Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

[PaintMyHouse]

Nothing but barely coherent tripe; how very Left of you.

Still mad about having to pay taxes eh, even though they are far too low for the rich. So be it.

Mad? Yeah I suppose How would you like to pay 10 times as much for a gallon of milk because you earn more money?

Welcome to Progressive Taxation, which is fair because a man can eat only so many apples. Since the rich and the poor guy pay the same for the milk, I have no issues with the rich guy paying more for the roads. Unlike the other guy, he has money to spare. On this, Adam Smith and I agree.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'd like to stay and play, but I need to head in to my business to take care of a computer issue.

A man with priorities, I approve.

 

[Ernie S.]

You definitely have your cause....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So your proof of his claim is..........?

here is your clue and your Cause: What is the income level for the wealthy and for workers in your scenario? we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Labor with labor usually on a capital gains versus earned income basis. that should work in any given scenario.

here is your clue and your Cause: What is the income level for the wealthy and for workers in your scenario?

Did you answer my question somewhere?
I don't see any numbers in your posts.
Try again?

don't understand anything but your party, propaganda and rhetoric, Person on the Right?

we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Laborists with labor usually on a capital gains versus earned income basis. that should work in any given scenario.

we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Laborists with labor

Distinguish all you want. Let me know when you can prove his claim.
Here it is.

But thanks to Republicans, the wealthy pay less percentage of total income than workers.

You may have noticed, he doesn't define the income level of the workers or the income level of the wealthy. Without that info, his claim is unfalsifiable.

Help him out, he needs it.

let's assume capitalists for the wealthiest and laborists for labor; thus, thanks to Republicans, the wealthiest capitalists pay less as a percentage of earned income than less wealthy laborists providing labor, as compared and contrasted to non-earned income such as capital gains.

let's assume capitalists for the wealthiest and laborists for labor

Capitalists never have wages?
Laborists (LOL!) never have capital gains? LOL!

the wealthiest capitalists pay less as a percentage of earned income than less wealthy laborists providing labor

You're still going to have to provide income levels for those "laborists", before we can test your theory.

 

[danielpalos]

here is your clue and your Cause: What is the income level for the wealthy and for workers in your scenario? we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Labor with labor usually on a capital gains versus earned income basis. that should work in any given scenario.

here is your clue and your Cause: What is the income level for the wealthy and for workers in your scenario?

Did you answer my question somewhere?
I don't see any numbers in your posts.
Try again?

don't understand anything but your party, propaganda and rhetoric, Person on the Right?

we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Laborists with labor usually on a capital gains versus earned income basis. that should work in any given scenario.

we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Laborists with labor

Distinguish all you want. Let me know when you can prove his claim.
Here it is.

But thanks to Republicans, the wealthy pay less percentage of total income than workers.

You may have noticed, he doesn't define the income level of the workers or the income level of the wealthy. Without that info, his claim is unfalsifiable.

Help him out, he needs it.

let's assume capitalists for the wealthiest and laborists for labor; thus, thanks to Republicans, the wealthiest capitalists pay less as a percentage of earned income than less wealthy laborists providing labor, as compared and contrasted to non-earned income such as capital gains.

let's assume capitalists for the wealthiest and laborists for labor

Capitalists never have wages?
Laborists (LOL!) never have capital gains? LOL!

the wealthiest capitalists pay less as a percentage of earned income than less wealthy laborists providing labor

You're still going to have to provide income levels for those "laborists", before we can test your theory.

in general, for the sake of argument, capitalists may live off the sweat of their Capital while laborists may still live off the sweat of their Labor

any other silly diversions, Persons on the Right who Only allege to have a "gospel Truth" Cause?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

here is your clue and your Cause: What is the income level for the wealthy and for workers in your scenario?

Did you answer my question somewhere?
I don't see any numbers in your posts.
Try again?

don't understand anything but your party, propaganda and rhetoric, Person on the Right?

we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Laborists with labor usually on a capital gains versus earned income basis. that should work in any given scenario.

we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Laborists with labor

Distinguish all you want. Let me know when you can prove his claim.
Here it is.

But thanks to Republicans, the wealthy pay less percentage of total income than workers.

You may have noticed, he doesn't define the income level of the workers or the income level of the wealthy. Without that info, his claim is unfalsifiable.

Help him out, he needs it.

let's assume capitalists for the wealthiest and laborists for labor; thus, thanks to Republicans, the wealthiest capitalists pay less as a percentage of earned income than less wealthy laborists providing labor, as compared and contrasted to non-earned income such as capital gains.

let's assume capitalists for the wealthiest and laborists for labor

Capitalists never have wages?
Laborists (LOL!) never have capital gains? LOL!

the wealthiest capitalists pay less as a percentage of earned income than less wealthy laborists providing labor

You're still going to have to provide income levels for those "laborists", before we can test your theory.

in general, for the sake of argument, capitalists may live off the sweat of their Capital while laborists may still live off the sweat of their Labor

any other silly diversions, Persons on the Right who Only allege to have a "gospel Truth" Cause?

in general, for the sake of argument, capitalists may live off the sweat of their Capital while laborists may still live off the sweat of their Labor

That's awful, Ivan.
Let me know when your PMS ends and you're able to discuss the actual numbers.

 

[Kosh]

Editorial by Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA

Here's a question you're likely to hear whenever the subject of taxes comes up: Do the rich pay their fair share?

There are two parts to this question:

Who is rich?

And, what is fair?

Let's start with who is rich:

Nearly everyone assumes that a person who is among the top ten percent of all income earners qualifies as rich.

But according to 2011 data, a top ten percent household makes around $150,000 or above in gross annual income -- that's income before deductions and taxes. Now, $150,000 is a nice living, but it certainly doesn't make you rich.

OK, then. What about the top 5%?

You get into this percentile if your household makes around $190,000 or above. That's a nice bump. But it hardly puts you in the rich category.

How about the top 1%? That's $500,000 or above. A great income, but remember, most people only get to that level after many years of hard work and, quite possibly, the accumulation of serious debt to fund their education or build their business.

Of course, there are people who make more than $500,000. And there are some who make many millions, even billions. But the number who do is very small.

Now, let's talk about fair.

Fair would seem be that the group of taxpayers who earn 10% of the country's income would pay 10% of the country's taxes; the group who earned 20% would pay 20% of the taxes and so on.

But what If I told you that, according to IRS data, the top 10% of all earners -- the people making $150,000 and above -- pay 71% of all federal income tax while earning only 43% of all income.

If anything, the top ten percent pay more than their fair share.

So, as it happens, do the much reviled top 1%. They earn 17 percent of all income, but pay 37% of all federal income taxes.

And what about those at the other end of the income scale, the lower earners? Are we squeezing them? Hardly. Those who make $45,000 or less, 47% of all earners, pay little and often no income taxes.

Ah, but what about payroll taxes -- the money we pay to fund Social Security and Medicare? That takes a bigger bite of the paycheck of lower earners than higher earners. Isn't that unfair?

Consider two points:

First, it's misleading to call the Payroll Tax a tax. It's really an insurance payment that guarantees we receive social security and Medicare after we turn 65.

Second, the benefits we receive from Social Security are capped, no matter how much we have paid in. This means that the payroll taxes of high earners actually help subsidize the social security and Medicare benefits that low earners receive at retirement.

How do all these numbers stack up against other countries?

The US income tax system is substantially more progressive - meaning that income tax rates rise as income rises -- than other advanced countries, including Germany and Sweden.

So, if you think that our tax system is unfair because it coddles high earners, then you must conclude that tax systems in these other countries are even more unfair.

So how high are tax rates on Americans today? Well, throw in federal tax increases mandated in 2013 and state taxes, and top earners face a tax rate of more than 50 per cent in California and New York. Other states like Maryland and Connecticut are not far behind. Do you think a tax rate of greater than 50% is fair? If so, is there any rate that wouldn't be?

Nobody is calling for bake sales for anyone in the top ten percent of earners. And no one wants to minimize the struggles of those at the lower income strata. But to say the "rich," however you might define them, don't pay their fair share is simply wrong.

Finally, numerous academic studies, including ones that I have done, show that when tax rates are too high, investment, risk taking by entrepreneurs, and therefore job creation all decline. And when that happens it's the poor who suffer, not the rich. The rich do fine.

It may feel good to take even more money from the top ten percent, but it doesn't do good. And it sure isn't fair.

- Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA

The Obama's only paid 20% in taxes, did they pay their fair share?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nothing but barely coherent tripe; how very Left of you.

all you need is a clue and a Cause to understand it.

Editorial by Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA

Here's a question you're likely to hear whenever the subject of taxes comes up: Do the rich pay their fair share?

There are two parts to this question:

Who is rich?

And, what is fair?

Let's start with who is rich:

Nearly everyone assumes that a person who is among the top ten percent of all income earners qualifies as rich.

But according to 2011 data, a top ten percent household makes around $150,000 or above in gross annual income -- that's income before deductions and taxes. Now, $150,000 is a nice living, but it certainly doesn't make you rich.

OK, then. What about the top 5%?

You get into this percentile if your household makes around $190,000 or above. That's a nice bump. But it hardly puts you in the rich category.

How about the top 1%? That's $500,000 or above. A great income, but remember, most people only get to that level after many years of hard work and, quite possibly, the accumulation of serious debt to fund their education or build their business.

Of course, there are people who make more than $500,000. And there are some who make many millions, even billions. But the number who do is very small.

Now, let's talk about fair.

Fair would seem be that the group of taxpayers who earn 10% of the country's income would pay 10% of the country's taxes; the group who earned 20% would pay 20% of the taxes and so on.

But what If I told you that, according to IRS data, the top 10% of all earners -- the people making $150,000 and above -- pay 71% of all federal income tax while earning only 43% of all income.

If anything, the top ten percent pay more than their fair share.

So, as it happens, do the much reviled top 1%. They earn 17 percent of all income, but pay 37% of all federal income taxes.

And what about those at the other end of the income scale, the lower earners? Are we squeezing them? Hardly. Those who make $45,000 or less, 47% of all earners, pay little and often no income taxes.

Ah, but what about payroll taxes -- the money we pay to fund Social Security and Medicare? That takes a bigger bite of the paycheck of lower earners than higher earners. Isn't that unfair?

Consider two points:

First, it's misleading to call the Payroll Tax a tax. It's really an insurance payment that guarantees we receive social security and Medicare after we turn 65.

Second, the benefits we receive from Social Security are capped, no matter how much we have paid in. This means that the payroll taxes of high earners actually help subsidize the social security and Medicare benefits that low earners receive at retirement.

How do all these numbers stack up against other countries?

The US income tax system is substantially more progressive - meaning that income tax rates rise as income rises -- than other advanced countries, including Germany and Sweden.

So, if you think that our tax system is unfair because it coddles high earners, then you must conclude that tax systems in these other countries are even more unfair.

So how high are tax rates on Americans today? Well, throw in federal tax increases mandated in 2013 and state taxes, and top earners face a tax rate of more than 50 per cent in California and New York. Other states like Maryland and Connecticut are not far behind. Do you think a tax rate of greater than 50% is fair? If so, is there any rate that wouldn't be?

Nobody is calling for bake sales for anyone in the top ten percent of earners. And no one wants to minimize the struggles of those at the lower income strata. But to say the "rich," however you might define them, don't pay their fair share is simply wrong.

Finally, numerous academic studies, including ones that I have done, show that when tax rates are too high, investment, risk taking by entrepreneurs, and therefore job creation all decline. And when that happens it's the poor who suffer, not the rich. The rich do fine.

It may feel good to take even more money from the top ten percent, but it doesn't do good. And it sure isn't fair.

- Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA

The Obama's only paid 20% in taxes, did they pay their fair share?

Rich people don't pay their fair share. Is this news to you?

 

[danielpalos]

don't understand anything but your party, propaganda and rhetoric, Person on the Right?

we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Laborists with labor usually on a capital gains versus earned income basis. that should work in any given scenario.

we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Laborists with labor

Distinguish all you want. Let me know when you can prove his claim.
Here it is.

But thanks to Republicans, the wealthy pay less percentage of total income than workers.

You may have noticed, he doesn't define the income level of the workers or the income level of the wealthy. Without that info, his claim is unfalsifiable.

Help him out, he needs it.

let's assume capitalists for the wealthiest and laborists for labor; thus, thanks to Republicans, the wealthiest capitalists pay less as a percentage of earned income than less wealthy laborists providing labor, as compared and contrasted to non-earned income such as capital gains.

let's assume capitalists for the wealthiest and laborists for labor

Capitalists never have wages?
Laborists (LOL!) never have capital gains? LOL!

the wealthiest capitalists pay less as a percentage of earned income than less wealthy laborists providing labor

You're still going to have to provide income levels for those "laborists", before we can test your theory.

in general, for the sake of argument, capitalists may live off the sweat of their Capital while laborists may still live off the sweat of their Labor

any other silly diversions, Persons on the Right who Only allege to have a "gospel Truth" Cause?

in general, for the sake of argument, capitalists may live off the sweat of their Capital while laborists may still live off the sweat of their Labor

That's awful, Ivan.
Let me know when your PMS ends and you're able to discuss the actual numbers.

does it matter since you don't have a clue or a Cause as to the actual concepts?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Laborists with labor

Distinguish all you want. Let me know when you can prove his claim.
Here it is.

But thanks to Republicans, the wealthy pay less percentage of total income than workers.

You may have noticed, he doesn't define the income level of the workers or the income level of the wealthy. Without that info, his claim is unfalsifiable.

Help him out, he needs it.

let's assume capitalists for the wealthiest and laborists for labor; thus, thanks to Republicans, the wealthiest capitalists pay less as a percentage of earned income than less wealthy laborists providing labor, as compared and contrasted to non-earned income such as capital gains.

let's assume capitalists for the wealthiest and laborists for labor

Capitalists never have wages?
Laborists (LOL!) never have capital gains? LOL!

the wealthiest capitalists pay less as a percentage of earned income than less wealthy laborists providing labor

You're still going to have to provide income levels for those "laborists", before we can test your theory.

in general, for the sake of argument, capitalists may live off the sweat of their Capital while laborists may still live off the sweat of their Labor

any other silly diversions, Persons on the Right who Only allege to have a "gospel Truth" Cause?

in general, for the sake of argument, capitalists may live off the sweat of their Capital while laborists may still live off the sweat of their Labor

That's awful, Ivan.
Let me know when your PMS ends and you're able to discuss the actual numbers.

does it matter since you don't have a clue or a Cause as to the actual concepts?

No, I don't care if you ever get the real numbers to discuss this further.
Liberals are, after all, really bad at math.

 

[danielpalos]

let's assume capitalists for the wealthiest and laborists for labor; thus, thanks to Republicans, the wealthiest capitalists pay less as a percentage of earned income than less wealthy laborists providing labor, as compared and contrasted to non-earned income such as capital gains.

let's assume capitalists for the wealthiest and laborists for labor

Capitalists never have wages?
Laborists (LOL!) never have capital gains? LOL!

the wealthiest capitalists pay less as a percentage of earned income than less wealthy laborists providing labor

You're still going to have to provide income levels for those "laborists", before we can test your theory.

in general, for the sake of argument, capitalists may live off the sweat of their Capital while laborists may still live off the sweat of their Labor

any other silly diversions, Persons on the Right who Only allege to have a "gospel Truth" Cause?

in general, for the sake of argument, capitalists may live off the sweat of their Capital while laborists may still live off the sweat of their Labor

That's awful, Ivan.
Let me know when your PMS ends and you're able to discuss the actual numbers.

does it matter since you don't have a clue or a Cause as to the actual concepts?

No, I don't care if you ever get the real numbers to discuss this further.
Liberals are, after all, really bad at math.

we are not to the math portion, yet, if you don't understand the simple concepts involved.

 

[Kosh]

let's assume capitalists for the wealthiest and laborists for labor

Capitalists never have wages?
Laborists (LOL!) never have capital gains? LOL!

the wealthiest capitalists pay less as a percentage of earned income than less wealthy laborists providing labor

You're still going to have to provide income levels for those "laborists", before we can test your theory.

in general, for the sake of argument, capitalists may live off the sweat of their Capital while laborists may still live off the sweat of their Labor

any other silly diversions, Persons on the Right who Only allege to have a "gospel Truth" Cause?

in general, for the sake of argument, capitalists may live off the sweat of their Capital while laborists may still live off the sweat of their Labor

That's awful, Ivan.
Let me know when your PMS ends and you're able to discuss the actual numbers.

does it matter since you don't have a clue or a Cause as to the actual concepts?

No, I don't care if you ever get the real numbers to discuss this further.
Liberals are, after all, really bad at math.

we are not to the math portion, yet, if you don't understand the simple concepts involved.

And proof that the far left will only accept far left math, which has no connection to reality or any real mathematics used on the planet.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

let's assume capitalists for the wealthiest and laborists for labor

Capitalists never have wages?
Laborists (LOL!) never have capital gains? LOL!

the wealthiest capitalists pay less as a percentage of earned income than less wealthy laborists providing labor

You're still going to have to provide income levels for those "laborists", before we can test your theory.

in general, for the sake of argument, capitalists may live off the sweat of their Capital while laborists may still live off the sweat of their Labor

any other silly diversions, Persons on the Right who Only allege to have a "gospel Truth" Cause?

in general, for the sake of argument, capitalists may live off the sweat of their Capital while laborists may still live off the sweat of their Labor

That's awful, Ivan.
Let me know when your PMS ends and you're able to discuss the actual numbers.

does it matter since you don't have a clue or a Cause as to the actual concepts?

No, I don't care if you ever get the real numbers to discuss this further.
Liberals are, after all, really bad at math.

we are not to the math portion, yet, if you don't understand the simple concepts involved.

Liberals never get to the math portion. Because they failed math.
And it still hurts their feelings.

 

[danielpalos]

in general, for the sake of argument, capitalists may live off the sweat of their Capital while laborists may still live off the sweat of their Labor

any other silly diversions, Persons on the Right who Only allege to have a "gospel Truth" Cause?

in general, for the sake of argument, capitalists may live off the sweat of their Capital while laborists may still live off the sweat of their Labor

That's awful, Ivan.
Let me know when your PMS ends and you're able to discuss the actual numbers.

does it matter since you don't have a clue or a Cause as to the actual concepts?

No, I don't care if you ever get the real numbers to discuss this further.
Liberals are, after all, really bad at math.

we are not to the math portion, yet, if you don't understand the simple concepts involved.

And proof that the far left will only accept far left math, which has no connection to reality or any real mathematics used on the planet.

only the right claims that through diversion since they never understand the concepts, to begin with.

 

[danielpalos]

in general, for the sake of argument, capitalists may live off the sweat of their Capital while laborists may still live off the sweat of their Labor

any other silly diversions, Persons on the Right who Only allege to have a "gospel Truth" Cause?

in general, for the sake of argument, capitalists may live off the sweat of their Capital while laborists may still live off the sweat of their Labor

That's awful, Ivan.
Let me know when your PMS ends and you're able to discuss the actual numbers.

does it matter since you don't have a clue or a Cause as to the actual concepts?

No, I don't care if you ever get the real numbers to discuss this further.
Liberals are, after all, really bad at math.

we are not to the math portion, yet, if you don't understand the simple concepts involved.

Liberals never get to the math portion. Because they failed math.
And it still hurts their feelings.

we would have gotten to the math portion, but y'all on the Right are too incompetent to understand simple concepts.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The math is pretty simple boys, .1% up to 500K, after which the number is always the same, on all forms of income, 50%.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Editorial by Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA

Here's a question you're likely to hear whenever the subject of taxes comes up: Do the rich pay their fair share?

There are two parts to this question:

Who is rich?

And, what is fair?

Let's start with who is rich:

Nearly everyone assumes that a person who is among the top ten percent of all income earners qualifies as rich.

But according to 2011 data, a top ten percent household makes around $150,000 or above in gross annual income -- that's income before deductions and taxes. Now, $150,000 is a nice living, but it certainly doesn't make you rich.

OK, then. What about the top 5%?

You get into this percentile if your household makes around $190,000 or above. That's a nice bump. But it hardly puts you in the rich category.

How about the top 1%? That's $500,000 or above. A great income, but remember, most people only get to that level after many years of hard work and, quite possibly, the accumulation of serious debt to fund their education or build their business.

Of course, there are people who make more than $500,000. And there are some who make many millions, even billions. But the number who do is very small.

Now, let's talk about fair.

Fair would seem be that the group of taxpayers who earn 10% of the country's income would pay 10% of the country's taxes; the group who earned 20% would pay 20% of the taxes and so on.

But what If I told you that, according to IRS data, the top 10% of all earners -- the people making $150,000 and above -- pay 71% of all federal income tax while earning only 43% of all income.

If anything, the top ten percent pay more than their fair share.

So, as it happens, do the much reviled top 1%. They earn 17 percent of all income, but pay 37% of all federal income taxes.

And what about those at the other end of the income scale, the lower earners? Are we squeezing them? Hardly. Those who make $45,000 or less, 47% of all earners, pay little and often no income taxes.

Ah, but what about payroll taxes -- the money we pay to fund Social Security and Medicare? That takes a bigger bite of the paycheck of lower earners than higher earners. Isn't that unfair?

Consider two points:

First, it's misleading to call the Payroll Tax a tax. It's really an insurance payment that guarantees we receive social security and Medicare after we turn 65.

Second, the benefits we receive from Social Security are capped, no matter how much we have paid in. This means that the payroll taxes of high earners actually help subsidize the social security and Medicare benefits that low earners receive at retirement.

How do all these numbers stack up against other countries?

The US income tax system is substantially more progressive - meaning that income tax rates rise as income rises -- than other advanced countries, including Germany and Sweden.

So, if you think that our tax system is unfair because it coddles high earners, then you must conclude that tax systems in these other countries are even more unfair.

So how high are tax rates on Americans today? Well, throw in federal tax increases mandated in 2013 and state taxes, and top earners face a tax rate of more than 50 per cent in California and New York. Other states like Maryland and Connecticut are not far behind. Do you think a tax rate of greater than 50% is fair? If so, is there any rate that wouldn't be?

Nobody is calling for bake sales for anyone in the top ten percent of earners. And no one wants to minimize the struggles of those at the lower income strata. But to say the "rich," however you might define them, don't pay their fair share is simply wrong.

Finally, numerous academic studies, including ones that I have done, show that when tax rates are too high, investment, risk taking by entrepreneurs, and therefore job creation all decline. And when that happens it's the poor who suffer, not the rich. The rich do fine.

It may feel good to take even more money from the top ten percent, but it doesn't do good. And it sure isn't fair.

- Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA

How does that work with the Right's version of supply side economics where the wealthiest are bailed out and then it trickles down?

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. The top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. From 1922 to 2010, the share of the top 1% varied from 19.7% to 44.2%, the big drop being associated with the drop in the stock market in the late 1970s. Ignoring the period where the stock market was depressed (1976-1980) and the period when the stock market was overvalued (1929), the share of wealth of the richest 1% remained extremely stable, at about a third of the total wealth.[20] Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[21] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[19][20][21] During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.--Source: Distribution of wealth - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Who told you that supply-side economics involves bailouts? That's leftist thinking, not the right. And yes, I know Republicans have been known to buy into the bailout nonsense, but Republican ain't necessarily conservative, so don't waste time trying to conflate the two.

 

[BluesLegend]

in general, for the sake of argument, capitalists may live off the sweat of their Capital while laborists may still live off the sweat of their Labor

any other silly diversions, Persons on the Right who Only allege to have a "gospel Truth" Cause?

in general, for the sake of argument, capitalists may live off the sweat of their Capital while laborists may still live off the sweat of their Labor

That's awful, Ivan.
Let me know when your PMS ends and you're able to discuss the actual numbers.

does it matter since you don't have a clue or a Cause as to the actual concepts?

No, I don't care if you ever get the real numbers to discuss this further.
Liberals are, after all, really bad at math.

we are not to the math portion, yet, if you don't understand the simple concepts involved.

Liberals never get to the math portion. Because they failed math.
And it still hurts their feelings.

To liberals math is unfair, racist, and favors the rich.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

To liberals math is unfair, racist, and favors the rich.

No, math is math, that would be the modern GOP.

 

[danielpalos]

The math is pretty simple boys, .1% up to 500K, after which the number is always the same, on all forms of income, 50%.

We can work with any realistic scenario, y'all want; but we need to agree to be on the same page or same chapter, regarding definitions.

we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Laborists with labor usually on a capital gains versus earned income basis. that should work in any given scenario.