Republicans: why do you ignore the wealth inequality issue?

[Cecilie1200]

An inheritance is not income. What I am suggesting is a general policy on high income individuals.

An inheritance IS income. It's just one-time income, similar to winning the lottery, as opposed to steady, repetitive income.

"Similar to winning the lottery"

Only a snob leftist prick would use such an analogy....

What the hell are you babbling about?

In regards to being income, they are similar, because they only happen one time, rather than happening repeatedly, as with wages, investment dividends, etc.

Get a grip.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am very wary of people who talk about legislation to make things "fair".

I'm all for fair play and equal opportunity, but I don't trust the government to tell me what is "fair".

No sireee bob.

I'm very wary of people using the word "fair". Also the word "should". It makes my hair stand on end.

Which hair?

Collective term, not singular.

 

[Mr.Nick]

An inheritance IS income. It's just one-time income, similar to winning the lottery, as opposed to steady, repetitive income.

"Similar to winning the lottery"

Only a snob leftist prick would use such an analogy....

What the hell are you babbling about?

In regards to being income, they are similar, because they only happen one time, rather than happening repeatedly, as with wages, investment dividends, etc.

Get a grip.

No it's not income...

Every accountant on this earth would NEVER call it income...

It's called a ******* inheritance and is (wrongly) taxed as such...

Only a ******* democrat would look forward to having their life savings taxed at 50%...

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Similar to winning the lottery"

Only a snob leftist prick would use such an analogy....

What the hell are you babbling about?

In regards to being income, they are similar, because they only happen one time, rather than happening repeatedly, as with wages, investment dividends, etc.

Get a grip.

No it's not income...

Every accountant on this earth would NEVER call it income...

It's called a ******* inheritance and is (wrongly) taxed as such...

Only a ******* democrat would look forward to having their life savings taxed at 50%...

Could you possibly get hold of your jerking knee and stop projecting for five seconds? Where did I ever say I was "looking forward to people having their life savings taxed" at ANY rate? Figure out who the **** you're talking to before you reflexively shoot your mouth off, dumbass.

Income = money coming in, as opposed to going out. Duuhhh.

 

[francoHFW]

read sig- voodoo suqs...raising the top rate on the bloated rich by 4% is not class warfare...

 

[Mr.Nick]

What the hell are you babbling about?

In regards to being income, they are similar, because they only happen one time, rather than happening repeatedly, as with wages, investment dividends, etc.

Get a grip.

No it's not income...

Every accountant on this earth would NEVER call it income...

It's called a ******* inheritance and is (wrongly) taxed as such...

Only a ******* democrat would look forward to having their life savings taxed at 50%...

Could you possibly get hold of your jerking knee and stop projecting for five seconds? Where did I ever say I was "looking forward to people having their life savings taxed" at ANY rate? Figure out who the **** you're talking to before you reflexively shoot your mouth off, dumbass.

Income = money coming in, as opposed to going out. Duuhhh.

It's not income...

I have news for you - I already possess my parents money - it's a name sake..

My parents possessions are my possessions because I'm their son...

You cannot intake something you already possess...

I have de facto ownership if anything were to happen to my parents...

It's NOT income.....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The facts should anger you.

You say any person deserves to keep every cent they make. That would be fine, except that most of the people in the top 5% are not EARNING all of the money that they are MAKING.

Why ignore the evidence?

Wealth And Inequality In America

Productivity and profits are up, yet wages for the middle class haven't changed over the last few decades unlike the 1%

I don't think that I should make more money simply because of the top 5%. I just the think the wealthy should pay a fair tax that would go to benefit programs for lower level workers. In doing so, their hardwork can be fulfilled.

This seems to be a recurring theme, but is almost always short on specifics. How much tax is "fair"? And how will those additional funds be used to provide "benefit programs for lower level workers"? Despite your assertion that the rich aren't paying enough, the federal government spends every bit as much or more on "benefit programs", and yet according to you, the middle class still can't make it. What specific additional benefit programs would provide the needed push to get these poor and lower level workers to where you would like them to be? And how would those additional dollars do more good in government's hands than being invested in private sector capital?

I'm also curious to know the difference between "earning" and "making". If a doctor spends the entire decade of his 20's working hard in college, medical school and interning, then works 60-70 hour weeks throughout his 30's and 40's, should he then feel guilty that he has some money invested in financial assets and is doing well? Isn't that part of the reason he applied himself in the first place? Should his kids feel badly that he was able to pass some of it to them as well?

It is difficult to consider your post to be a serious call for action when it is long on blame and short on solutions.

I am not an economist, so I do not know what a fair tax would be. However, I do believe the question can answered mathematically given the disparity of wealth. A rate can be determined based upon the gap between the top 1% and everybody else. Also, these "additional funds" would not likely go to benefit the poor if they were invested in private capital.

You seem to think I am against success altogether. That's where this black and white thinkinging comes in. I am not wanting to punish success. I think doctors should be well-paid for what they do. Anyone at the top 1%, however, need to at least pay their fair share if they are going to have this monopoly.

You believe fair is a mathematical concept? Since when? I have studied math for years and never came across the concept anywhere.

 

[Valox]

You believe fair is a mathematical concept? Since when? I have studied math for years and never came across the concept anywhere.

It is called an "equal" sign.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You believe fair is a mathematical concept? Since when? I have studied math for years and never came across the concept anywhere.

It is called an "equal" sign.

You do realize that "fair" and "equal" are not really synonyms, at least not "equal" in the mathematical sense?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No it's not income...

Every accountant on this earth would NEVER call it income...

It's called a ******* inheritance and is (wrongly) taxed as such...

Only a ******* democrat would look forward to having their life savings taxed at 50%...

Could you possibly get hold of your jerking knee and stop projecting for five seconds? Where did I ever say I was "looking forward to people having their life savings taxed" at ANY rate? Figure out who the **** you're talking to before you reflexively shoot your mouth off, dumbass.

Income = money coming in, as opposed to going out. Duuhhh.

It's not income...

I have news for you - I already possess my parents money - it's a name sake..

My parents possessions are my possessions because I'm their son...

You cannot intake something you already possess...

I have de facto ownership if anything were to happen to my parents...

It's NOT income.....

Don't take this personally, but the tax code disagrees with you.

Inherited property not substantially vested. If you inherit property not substantially vested at the time of the decedent's death, any income you receive from the property is considered income in respect of a decedent and is taxed according to the rules for restricted property received for services. For information about income in respect of a decedent, see Publication 559.

Publication 525 (2011), Taxable and Nontaxable Income

 

[Valox]

You believe fair is a mathematical concept? Since when? I have studied math for years and never came across the concept anywhere.

It is called an "equal" sign.

You do realize that "fair" and "equal" are not really synonyms, at least not "equal" in the mathematical sense.

You do realize that my joke went straight over your head.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is called an "equal" sign.

You do realize that "fair" and "equal" are not really synonyms, at least not "equal" in the mathematical sense.

You do realize that my joke went straight over your head.

Jokes are usually noticeable by being funny.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Could you possibly get hold of your jerking knee and stop projecting for five seconds? Where did I ever say I was "looking forward to people having their life savings taxed" at ANY rate? Figure out who the **** you're talking to before you reflexively shoot your mouth off, dumbass.

Income = money coming in, as opposed to going out. Duuhhh.

It's not income...

I have news for you - I already possess my parents money - it's a name sake..

My parents possessions are my possessions because I'm their son...




You cannot intake something you already possess...

I have de facto ownership if anything were to happen to my parents...

It's NOT income.....

Don't take this personally, but the tax code disagrees with you.

Inherited property not substantially vested. If you inherit property not substantially vested at the time of the decedent's death, any income you receive from the property is considered income in respect of a decedent and is taxed according to the rules for restricted property received for services. For information about income in respect of a decedent, see Publication 559.

Publication 525 (2011), Taxable and Nontaxable Income

It depends on the situation....

I wouldn't be taxed if I inherited my mothers or fathers assets, however if my cousin had something coming to him he would.


Spouses and children are not taxed....

 

[Valox]

You do realize that "fair" and "equal" are not really synonyms, at least not "equal" in the mathematical sense.

You do realize that my joke went straight over your head.

Jokes are usually noticeable by being funny.

yawn...perhaps it wasn't the funniest joke, but I don't see how anyone could have taken my facetious remark as serious.

However, the fact that you took seriously makes me

 

[JoeB131]

did the guy who ran GM into the ground and require a government bailout, deserve a 12 million dollar salary??

As a liberal you miss the point completely, if a company pays its employees too much in a capitalist system a competitor can undersell them and drive them into bankruptcy. The Yankees pay Jeter 10 million because they need his talent.

Everyone gets paid according to their worth or talent in a capitalist system so you have the best possible products in a competitive global market.

The second your bleeding heart makes you start paying fake inflated union wages or fake inflated liberal wages you lose your competitive position and your country sinks as ours is doing.

Again, I'm not seeing what Wagoneer did in terms of 'talent' that merited 12 million dollars.

BTW, the union guys at GM did make substantial concessions in order to keep the company afloat before and after the bailout.

If you want to use the NFL as an example, yes, they will often pay someone like Jeter a top salary. But they will also pay a fair union wage to the linebackers and back benchers due to the difficulty of the sport and the fact these guys only have a worker career of a few years. So bad example, really.

 

[JoeB131]

Union Thug/Wealth Envier/God Denier speaks...

Please point out anything I said that was inaccurate.

I'll ask you honestly, did Wagoneer, the guy who ran GM into the ground and require a government bailout, deserve a 12 million dollar salary? The only reason why he was thrown out was because the government insisted he leave as a condition of the bailout, becuase he was kind of worthless.

But you'd begrudge the union thug ACTUALLY ASSEMBLING THE CAR $28.00 an hour.

Can you kind of see where your priorities are kind of skewed here?

Your first word calling the statement that wealth is not a 0 sum game is inaccurate.

NOthing to do with my point. Please get off the Limbaugh cliches. This is not a case of an expanding pie, and hasn't been an expanding pie in some time. The pie is shrinking, and the rich are demanding ever larger slices.

The fact is, if you are dividing the pie, we were far better off as a country when working schlubs got a more even share of the pie, because they turned around and spent on consumber goods, employing other working schlubs.

"If my workers can't afford my products, I don't have a business" - Henry Ford.

 

[JoeB131]

No one is "moving jobs"....Global competition dictates the marketplace. To be frank, there are not that many jobs that are not here that used to be.
Most jobs that have disappeared by attrition or technology.
It simply takes less people to do the same amount of work that it did 30 or even 20 years ago.
As a matter of fact our production output is greater than it ever has been. Hence reason why the handwringers get to post these dopey charts that indicate productivity has outpaced wages. Of course it has. When fewer workers are required to produce a higher volume of product, the cost goes down and thus the amount of wages paid to produce the product. This is not some evil plot to create a large underclass.
Look, if you want perpetual employment where government mandates employees are kept on the payroll even when there is nothing for them to do, move to France. That country has such laws. And 20% unemployment with a generation of youth that cannot find decent work because they have to wait until someone dies or retires in order to get a job.

Actually, France's unemployment rate is about the same as ours..

International Unemployment Rates and Employment Indexes, Seasonally Adjusted, 2007-2011

I will concede "productivity" has reduced the number of workers. And the geniuses pat themselves on the back and pay themselves eight figure salaries and pride themselves on what a great job they've done.

And they've pretty much created millions of Democratic voters. Because the more people you make dependent on Government, the more government they will tend to vote for.

 

[JoeB131]

No one is "moving jobs"....Global competition dictates the marketplace. .

yes, a liberal simply cant understand this point or capitalism in general. He imagines that if corporations just stayed here and made over priced union junk the American people would mysteriously stop going to WalMart to buy lower priced higher quality stuff from China.

In fact the people would continue to shop at WalMart to improve their standard of living and the home bound American corporations would go bankrupt with 100% of the jobs.

Are you some kind of high-grade retard who thinks that stuff coming in from China is "higher quality". Really?

YOu know, the ones where they put lead in the paint of kids toys, or put anti-freeze in the toothpaste sold in dollar stores?

Again, I'm always amazed you begrudge the guy who does the work a fair wage, but think that the executives making the horrible decisions really deserve those 8 figure salaries when their companies go into bankruptcy.

This is the kind of "Capitalism" that Romney represents, and why the man is pretty much the political equivlent of the Ebola Virus.

 

[editec]

It's not income...

I have news for you - I already possess my parents money - it's a name sake..

My parents possessions are my possessions because I'm their son...




You cannot intake something you already possess...

I have de facto ownership if anything were to happen to my parents...

It's NOT income.....

Don't take this personally, but the tax code disagrees with you.

Inherited property not substantially vested. If you inherit property not substantially vested at the time of the decedent's death, any income you receive from the property is considered income in respect of a decedent and is taxed according to the rules for restricted property received for services. For information about income in respect of a decedent, see Publication 559.

Publication 525 (2011), Taxable and Nontaxable Income

It depends on the situation....

I wouldn't be taxed if I inherited my mothers or fathers assets, however if my cousin had something coming to him he would.


Spouses and children are not taxed....

YOu really need to READ the tax code, dude.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Please point out anything I said that was inaccurate.

I'll ask you honestly, did Wagoneer, the guy who ran GM into the ground and require a government bailout, deserve a 12 million dollar salary? The only reason why he was thrown out was because the government insisted he leave as a condition of the bailout, becuase he was kind of worthless.

But you'd begrudge the union thug ACTUALLY ASSEMBLING THE CAR $28.00 an hour.

Can you kind of see where your priorities are kind of skewed here?

Your first word calling the statement that wealth is not a 0 sum game is inaccurate.

NOthing to do with my point. Please get off the Limbaugh cliches. This is not a case of an expanding pie, and hasn't been an expanding pie in some time. The pie is shrinking, and the rich are demanding ever larger slices.

The fact is, if you are dividing the pie, we were far better off as a country when working schlubs got a more even share of the pie, because they turned around and spent on consumber goods, employing other working schlubs.

"If my workers can't afford my products, I don't have a business" - Henry Ford.

There is no "pie"...In other words the theory of a finite amount of available wealth is debunked 6 ways to Sunday.
It does not exist.