the only remaining argument against capatalism

[Wry Catcher]

Conservatives don't say we need to give the rich money.

No, they just GIVE it to them through tax loopholes.

They aren't working very well, if the top 10% are paying more than 2/3rds of all income taxes paid.

I'd be more than happy to pay $100 million if I were able to keep $900 million. Now, I'd be pissed if I paid $22,000, and only got to keep the rest. And of the rest, much of it was spent in local establishments, restaurants, food markets, at farmer's markets and other small businesses in town.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Conservatives don't say we need to give the rich money.

No, they just GIVE it to them through tax loopholes.

So people you call rich pay far more income taxes than the 47% of people who pay no income taxes yet you think the so called rich are getting money given to them?

Seems to me the people who pay ZERO are the ones getting something given to them

You mean the share of the top 1% who have almost tripled and are paying the lowest sustained tax burden on those incomes are paying to much? Even though the total tax burden has dramatically been lowered on those INCOME SHARE? Yet the bottom HALF of US who've lost almost $5,000 PER family with their 11% pierce of the pie, are moochers??? lol

BTW, Income taxes are 45% of the federal revenue pies!


TOTAL effective tax burden by group

Yet the bottom HALF of US who've lost almost $5,000 PER family

It's true, Obama's policies hurt poor Americans.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Conservatives don't say we need to give the rich money.

No, they just GIVE it to them through tax loopholes.

So people you call rich pay far more income taxes than the 47% of people who pay no income taxes yet you think the so called rich are getting money given to them?

Seems to me the people who pay ZERO are the ones getting something given to them

You mean the share of the top 1% who have almost tripled and are paying the lowest sustained tax burden on those incomes are paying to much? Even though the total tax burden has dramatically been lowered on those INCOME SHARE? Yet the bottom HALF of US who've lost almost $5,000 PER family with their 11% pierce of the pie, are moochers??? lol

BTW, Income taxes are 45% of the federal revenue pies!


TOTAL effective tax burden by group

So now ZERO income tax is too much?

Oh you mean the zero tax bite on income taxes?

Weird

Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

Nearly every U.S. state taxes the poor more than the rich, according to a 2009 report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Overall, the poorest 20 percent of households paid an average 10.9 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes in 2007, while the top 1 percent on average paid just 5.2 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes



Poor Americans Pay Double The State Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

Poor people with lower incomes pay a higher state and local income tax rate? LOL!
Poor people with lower spending pay a higher state and local sales tax rate? LOL!
Poor people with smaller houses a pay higher local property tax rate? LOL!
Liberal lies strike again!

 

[Skull Pilot]

I said the bottom 47% pay zero income taxes.

Yep, that 45% of the pie of federal revenues, and you are using old numbers. It's about 43%, mostly younger workers who will pay income taxes in the future, the elderly who already paid or the disabled. But let me guess, the bottom HAL;F of US who get 11% of the pie aren't paying enough? lol

There is no pie.

You can get as much as you want because no one is stopping you from getting it

except you.

Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot


There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics




The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains (includes dividends) 1/10th of 1% of US

The Top 0.1 Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Forbes


Capital Gains Tax Cuts ‘By Far’ The Biggest Contributor To Growth In Income Inequality, Study Finds


Capital gains and other investment income was taxed as regular wage income from 1986 until 1996, when the capital gains rate was reduced. It was further reduced as part of the Bush tax cuts, and over the last decade, it has reversed the equalizing effects of taxes and allowed for massive income gains for the wealthy that translated directly into increased income inequality:

By far, the largest contributor to this increase was changes in income from capital gains and dividends.

I don't listen to Limbaugh or any other blowhard partisan hack on the radio or the idiot box.

That's how I know that there is no one stopping me from improving my financial situation.

You think everyone else is holding you back when all you have to do to see who the real culprit is is look in the mirror.

So now tell me who is stopping you from making more money?

Like I said, you believe in myths and fairy tales and you can't see as a society how it works. I'm shocked. No really I am

Still won't answer the question, Corky?

Society works for people who work it.

You just don't want to work it do you?

 

[Skull Pilot]

It is not immoral to have more than another.

It is jealousy to covet what is not yours

Is it jealosy to expect a wage you can support your family on?

It depends on the skills you bring to the table.

If all you can do is stuff shit into a bag then yes it is too much

Yet since 1980 the top 1% has been more worthy because they are more educated? Work more? What exactly?



What changed about 1981?

And how has any of that stopped you from making more money?

It's a question none of you sheep ever answer.

It's a stupid question. Simple answers to complex issues are stupid too.

So you can't answer it either?

Tell me if you wanted to could you make more money?

Could you save more for your future?

Or is someone stopping you?

 

[Skull Pilot]

And I'm going to bet that instead of lowering that taxes for "poor" American (for whom I also bet you are not including the value of the transfer payments they receive in addition to actual wages), you'd rather see increased tax rates for pretty much everyone.

For 30+ years conservatives have duped the low informed into gutting federal tax revenues to benefit the top 1/10th of 1% of US. The only time the US had enough revenues was for 4 short years of Clinton (3 after he vetoed the GOP's $792 billion tax cut). Somehow the Americans survived and prospered with THE SHARED RESPONSIBILITY OF TAXES THAT BENEFITED ALL. now for some reason, attempting to actual pay for Gov't we ALL wanted as we voted for it, is somehow wrong?

Nah, who needs taxes to fund Gov't right?

Why should the "job creators" be expected to have a tax burden like they did when the US created the worlds largest economy, built the worlds largest middle class with a SHARED economy!

Exactly why those who pay no income taxes should be paying.

Yet those "paying" have shifted the BURDEN down the rung the past 30+ years AS US debt has ALSO soared

Weird'

Post all the charts you want but you still can't answer the question

WHO IS STOPPING YOU FROM MAKING MORE MONEY?

You mean I must believe in the myths and fairy tales you do Bubba? PLEASE show ONE nation to EVER use your libertarian nonsense ANYWHERE at any time?

We created as UNION of the US which is a society. NO ONE ever did it on their own, no one!

Gov't policy matters Bubba

So you think you need the government's help to increase your income?

THAT is your problem not some rich guy you never met or never will.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Conservatives don't say we need to give the rich money.

Sure they don't Bubba, sure. What do you think 30+ years of trickle down Reaganomics does again???

Well, there you go. (-: One can make good arguments that Reaganomics really did result in more wealth overall, and our houses and tvs are lot bigger, to say nothing of greater consumer choice. But at the same time, you have guys like skull pilot parroting how the top quintile (or whatever) pay 47% of income tax, while conveniently ignoring just not that their income/wealth increased much more than the tax bite, but also that property and local sales tax bites have risen on the working class faster than their incomes rose.

Taxes aren't fair. They never were supposed to be. We want to tax as little as possible, but we also need a society to deliver basic education and healthcare so as to maintain a middle class. And the middle class was largely a creation of the GI bill ....or govt intervention.

I said the bottom 47% pay zero income taxes.

Yep, that 45% of the pie of federal revenues, and you are using old numbers. It's about 43%, mostly younger workers who will pay income taxes in the future, the elderly who already paid or the disabled. But let me guess, the bottom HAL;F of US who get 11% of the pie aren't paying enough? lol

There is no pie.

You can get as much as you want because no one is stopping you from getting it

except you.

That's ^^^ very stupid!

Banks pay 0.01% interest on savings, and today charge fees for what once were free services. Lenders charge fees and points for everything, buy a house and you will soon pay for the ink used in the pen they loan you to sign the docs.

The cost of living, in terms of basics and necessities has skyrocketed, and much of the higher cost is passed on to all consumers, a rise in the price of gas .50 cents a gallon hurts more the less you make, as true for the cost of food, clothing, shelter, public transportation, technology, education - about anything one can think of hurts those who have less than those who have more.

 

[rightwinger]

Yep, that 45% of the pie of federal revenues, and you are using old numbers. It's about 43%, mostly younger workers who will pay income taxes in the future, the elderly who already paid or the disabled. But let me guess, the bottom HAL;F of US who get 11% of the pie aren't paying enough? lol

There is no pie.

You can get as much as you want because no one is stopping you from getting it

except you.

Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot


There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics




The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains (includes dividends) 1/10th of 1% of US

The Top 0.1 Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Forbes


Capital Gains Tax Cuts ‘By Far’ The Biggest Contributor To Growth In Income Inequality, Study Finds


Capital gains and other investment income was taxed as regular wage income from 1986 until 1996, when the capital gains rate was reduced. It was further reduced as part of the Bush tax cuts, and over the last decade, it has reversed the equalizing effects of taxes and allowed for massive income gains for the wealthy that translated directly into increased income inequality:

By far, the largest contributor to this increase was changes in income from capital gains and dividends.

I don't listen to Limbaugh or any other blowhard partisan hack on the radio or the idiot box.

That's how I know that there is no one stopping me from improving my financial situation.

You think everyone else is holding you back when all you have to do to see who the real culprit is is look in the mirror.

So now tell me who is stopping you from making more money?

Like I said, you believe in myths and fairy tales and you can't see as a society how it works. I'm shocked. No really I am

Still won't answer the question, Corky?

Society works for people who work it.

You just don't want to work it do you?

You have failed to address the question

We are not talking about one person being able to work harder and earn more. We are talking about 100 million workers who need to earn more

Show me the economic data showing there are 100 million better paying jobs out there

 

[boedicca]

Sure they don't Bubba, sure. What do you think 30+ years of trickle down Reaganomics does again???

Well, there you go. (-: One can make good arguments that Reaganomics really did result in more wealth overall, and our houses and tvs are lot bigger, to say nothing of greater consumer choice. But at the same time, you have guys like skull pilot parroting how the top quintile (or whatever) pay 47% of income tax, while conveniently ignoring just not that their income/wealth increased much more than the tax bite, but also that property and local sales tax bites have risen on the working class faster than their incomes rose.

Taxes aren't fair. They never were supposed to be. We want to tax as little as possible, but we also need a society to deliver basic education and healthcare so as to maintain a middle class. And the middle class was largely a creation of the GI bill ....or govt intervention.

I said the bottom 47% pay zero income taxes.

Yep, that 45% of the pie of federal revenues, and you are using old numbers. It's about 43%, mostly younger workers who will pay income taxes in the future, the elderly who already paid or the disabled. But let me guess, the bottom HAL;F of US who get 11% of the pie aren't paying enough? lol

There is no pie.

You can get as much as you want because no one is stopping you from getting it

except you.

That's ^^^ very stupid!

Banks pay 0.01% interest on savings, and today charge fees for what once were free services. Lenders charge fees and points for everything, buy a house and you will soon pay for the ink used in the pen they loan you to sign the docs.

The cost of living, in terms of basics and necessities has skyrocketed, and much of the higher cost is passed on to all consumers, a rise in the price of gas .50 cents a gallon hurts more the less you make, as true for the cost of food, clothing, shelter, public transportation, technology, education - about anything one can think of hurts those who have less than those who have more.

It would behoove you to try to grok WHY banks are able to pay such low interest rates on savings.

Here's a little clue: take a look at the Federal Reserve, Big Banks, and Big Government CABAL.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is no pie.

You can get as much as you want because no one is stopping you from getting it

except you.

Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot


There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics




The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains (includes dividends) 1/10th of 1% of US

The Top 0.1 Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Forbes


Capital Gains Tax Cuts ‘By Far’ The Biggest Contributor To Growth In Income Inequality, Study Finds


Capital gains and other investment income was taxed as regular wage income from 1986 until 1996, when the capital gains rate was reduced. It was further reduced as part of the Bush tax cuts, and over the last decade, it has reversed the equalizing effects of taxes and allowed for massive income gains for the wealthy that translated directly into increased income inequality:

By far, the largest contributor to this increase was changes in income from capital gains and dividends.

I don't listen to Limbaugh or any other blowhard partisan hack on the radio or the idiot box.

That's how I know that there is no one stopping me from improving my financial situation.

You think everyone else is holding you back when all you have to do to see who the real culprit is is look in the mirror.

So now tell me who is stopping you from making more money?

Like I said, you believe in myths and fairy tales and you can't see as a society how it works. I'm shocked. No really I am

Still won't answer the question, Corky?

Society works for people who work it.

You just don't want to work it do you?

You have failed to address the question

We are not talking about one person being able to work harder and earn more. We are talking about 100 million workers who need to earn more

Show me the economic data showing there are 100 million better paying jobs out there

Better paying than what?

And why does making more money necessarily mean having someone else provide a job for you?

There are countless ways to make extra money that do not involve working for someone else you know.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sure they don't Bubba, sure. What do you think 30+ years of trickle down Reaganomics does again???

Well, there you go. (-: One can make good arguments that Reaganomics really did result in more wealth overall, and our houses and tvs are lot bigger, to say nothing of greater consumer choice. But at the same time, you have guys like skull pilot parroting how the top quintile (or whatever) pay 47% of income tax, while conveniently ignoring just not that their income/wealth increased much more than the tax bite, but also that property and local sales tax bites have risen on the working class faster than their incomes rose.

Taxes aren't fair. They never were supposed to be. We want to tax as little as possible, but we also need a society to deliver basic education and healthcare so as to maintain a middle class. And the middle class was largely a creation of the GI bill ....or govt intervention.

I said the bottom 47% pay zero income taxes.

Yep, that 45% of the pie of federal revenues, and you are using old numbers. It's about 43%, mostly younger workers who will pay income taxes in the future, the elderly who already paid or the disabled. But let me guess, the bottom HAL;F of US who get 11% of the pie aren't paying enough? lol

There is no pie.

You can get as much as you want because no one is stopping you from getting it

except you.

That's ^^^ very stupid!

Banks pay 0.01% interest on savings, and today charge fees for what once were free services. Lenders charge fees and points for everything, buy a house and you will soon pay for the ink used in the pen they loan you to sign the docs.

The cost of living, in terms of basics and necessities has skyrocketed, and much of the higher cost is passed on to all consumers, a rise in the price of gas .50 cents a gallon hurts more the less you make, as true for the cost of food, clothing, shelter, public transportation, technology, education - about anything one can think of hurts those who have less than those who have more.

Why are you putting your money in a bank?

That's stupid.

 

[rightwinger]

For 30+ years conservatives have duped the low informed into gutting federal tax revenues to benefit the top 1/10th of 1% of US. The only time the US had enough revenues was for 4 short years of Clinton (3 after he vetoed the GOP's $792 billion tax cut). Somehow the Americans survived and prospered with THE SHARED RESPONSIBILITY OF TAXES THAT BENEFITED ALL. now for some reason, attempting to actual pay for Gov't we ALL wanted as we voted for it, is somehow wrong?

Nah, who needs taxes to fund Gov't right?

Why should the "job creators" be expected to have a tax burden like they did when the US created the worlds largest economy, built the worlds largest middle class with a SHARED economy!

Exactly why those who pay no income taxes should be paying.

Yet those "paying" have shifted the BURDEN down the rung the past 30+ years AS US debt has ALSO soared

Weird'

Post all the charts you want but you still can't answer the question

WHO IS STOPPING YOU FROM MAKING MORE MONEY?

You mean I must believe in the myths and fairy tales you do Bubba? PLEASE show ONE nation to EVER use your libertarian nonsense ANYWHERE at any time?

We created as UNION of the US which is a society. NO ONE ever did it on their own, no one!

Gov't policy matters Bubba

So you think you need the government's help to increase your income?

THAT is your problem not some rich guy you never met or never will.

How can the government increase my income?

I paid out over $12,000 in medical expenses last year. You don't see many people in other industrialized countries having to do that

They can provide lower cost educational expenses like other countries do

They can require working Americansto pay lower percentage of their income for government services and return rates for those making over $1 million a year to pay 50%

They can stop billionaires from paying a lower effective tax rate than I do

 

[rightwinger]

Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot


There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics




The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains (includes dividends) 1/10th of 1% of US

The Top 0.1 Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Forbes


Capital Gains Tax Cuts ‘By Far’ The Biggest Contributor To Growth In Income Inequality, Study Finds


Capital gains and other investment income was taxed as regular wage income from 1986 until 1996, when the capital gains rate was reduced. It was further reduced as part of the Bush tax cuts, and over the last decade, it has reversed the equalizing effects of taxes and allowed for massive income gains for the wealthy that translated directly into increased income inequality:

By far, the largest contributor to this increase was changes in income from capital gains and dividends.

I don't listen to Limbaugh or any other blowhard partisan hack on the radio or the idiot box.

That's how I know that there is no one stopping me from improving my financial situation.

You think everyone else is holding you back when all you have to do to see who the real culprit is is look in the mirror.

So now tell me who is stopping you from making more money?

Like I said, you believe in myths and fairy tales and you can't see as a society how it works. I'm shocked. No really I am

Still won't answer the question, Corky?

Society works for people who work it.

You just don't want to work it do you?

You have failed to address the question

We are not talking about one person being able to work harder and earn more. We are talking about 100 million workers who need to earn more

Show me the economic data showing there are 100 million better paying jobs out there

Better paying than what?

And why does making more money necessarily mean having someone else provide a job for you?

There are countless ways to make extra money that do not involve working for someone else you know.

I'll follow with the same response

If you think starting your own business is a solution to economic hardship. Show me where 5 million successful businesses were created last year let alone the 100 million businesses we would need

 

[BlackSand]

This ^^^ is not an argument, it is the current meme used by those who can't make an argument to counter a social policy which benefits the greater good. Now, one can argue if the government has any power by law to establish social policy, but no argument has yet been put before the supreme court repealing the 16th Amendment or social security, SSI, SSD, medicare or medicaid.

And while this is what the New Right wants, I've never read, heard or seen any argument which offered a cost-benefit and cost-deficit analysis of the consequences of their repeal.

Where did I argue about anything concerning Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid?

Of course the government can set social policy ... They can establish Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
None of that will ever go towards fixing what causes the need for it ... Which of course is not my intention in thinking it should be gotten rid of.

Not like I can help the fact you want to argue about something else ... Hell, you cannot even stay within the context of the argument that was given.

.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Sure, you "said it" yet support policy and politicians who support and do the opposite. Weird

I support politicians who want to seal the border.
You support Obama who wants to import more illegals.
Why do you hate poor Americans?

Obama doesn't want to let millions more illegals come here?
Obama didn't sign an executive amnesty? LOL!
Maybe Obamacare can help you with that brain damage?

Like I said, without false premises, distortions and lies, what would right wingers EVER have?

"Obama doesn't want to let millions more illegals come here?"

There is the LIE


"Obama didn't sign an executive amnesty? "

Thee is the distortion

What else do you morons have Bubba?

Obama is doing nothing to prevent millions of illegals from coming here and reducing wages for Americans.
He hates poor Americans and if you support him, you do too.

Oh yes, another meme from the right, and a half-truth at that. Who hires the "millions of illegals"? Obama, the Federal Government? No, not them, it's small businesses, individually owned businesses and some industries. Most likely those who vote for Republicans, since it's all about profit and not ever about, "Country First!".

 

[Wry Catcher]

This ^^^ is not an argument, it is the current meme used by those who can't make an argument to counter a social policy which benefits the greater good. Now, one can argue if the government has any power by law to establish social policy, but no argument has yet been put before the supreme court repealing the 16th Amendment or social security, SSI, SSD, medicare or medicaid.

And while this is what the New Right wants, I've never read, heard or seen any argument which offered a cost-benefit and cost-deficit analysis of the consequences of their repeal.

Where did I argue about anything concerning Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid?

Of course the government can set social policy ... They can establish Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
None of that will ever go towards fixing what causes the need for it ... Which of course is not my intention in thinking it should be gotten rid of.

Not like I can help the fact you want to argue about something else ... Hell, you cannot even stay within the context of the argument that was given.

.

This is what you wrote,

"I said I didn't need you to explain it to me.
"There is nothing equal about taking anything away from a specific portion of society because you don't like the fact they have it.

"If your suggestion is to take what the rich have so they can equally suffer your failures ... Then I don't have a problem telling you to go **** yourself.
"If the government were to take everything the top 1% has ... They aren't going to give it to you ... And it wouldn't even pay off our national debt.

"The basis of your argument boils down to what other people have ... And what you want to take from them ... Nothing else."

I responded to the last sentence, which is the hackneyed meme of conservatives who whine that they must pay payroll taxes (something the 1% pay very little in term of % of their income) which provide the working poor with benefits.

 

[MisterBeale]

He believes in whining that the government needs more money from the rich.
Then he arranges things to give the government none of his money.
Typical whiny liberal hypocrit.

Yet unlike the greedy cons, he doesn't try to use loopholes AND advocates for higher taxes on the "job creators". Weird

He advocates for higher taxes, and does everything he can in order to minimize his own taxes. He wants higher estate taxes but plans to escape estate taxes.
Typical liberal hypocrite.

Yeah, calling for a higher INCOME tax burden is horribly greedy right? No he doesn't plan on "escaping estate taxes", he plans on giving it to charity to better effect the world, not just the US!

Hypocrite? Better check what it means Bubba

These rich mother fuckers don't give to "charities." They give to tax-exempt charitable, "foundations." If you are a political scientist and you research and study the social engineering aspect of these foundations, you would understand that these foundations have a more profound affect on the nation and the world than even the various governments of the earth. Ever hear of the older foundations like the Rockefeller foundation, the Carnegie Foundation or the foundation with close ties to the CIA and the Obama administration, the FORD FOUNDATION? Charity my ass. He's busy throwing in with other global elites. Probably giving to the Gates foundation I imagine. That one is all about eugenics and depopulation. Creepy, evil MOFO that Buffet is.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well, there you go. (-: One can make good arguments that Reaganomics really did result in more wealth overall, and our houses and tvs are lot bigger, to say nothing of greater consumer choice. But at the same time, you have guys like skull pilot parroting how the top quintile (or whatever) pay 47% of income tax, while conveniently ignoring just not that their income/wealth increased much more than the tax bite, but also that property and local sales tax bites have risen on the working class faster than their incomes rose.

Taxes aren't fair. They never were supposed to be. We want to tax as little as possible, but we also need a society to deliver basic education and healthcare so as to maintain a middle class. And the middle class was largely a creation of the GI bill ....or govt intervention.

I said the bottom 47% pay zero income taxes.

Yep, that 45% of the pie of federal revenues, and you are using old numbers. It's about 43%, mostly younger workers who will pay income taxes in the future, the elderly who already paid or the disabled. But let me guess, the bottom HAL;F of US who get 11% of the pie aren't paying enough? lol

There is no pie.

You can get as much as you want because no one is stopping you from getting it

except you.

That's ^^^ very stupid!

Banks pay 0.01% interest on savings, and today charge fees for what once were free services. Lenders charge fees and points for everything, buy a house and you will soon pay for the ink used in the pen they loan you to sign the docs.

The cost of living, in terms of basics and necessities has skyrocketed, and much of the higher cost is passed on to all consumers, a rise in the price of gas .50 cents a gallon hurts more the less you make, as true for the cost of food, clothing, shelter, public transportation, technology, education - about anything one can think of hurts those who have less than those who have more.

Why are you putting your money in a bank?

That's stupid.

I don't put in much, I keep a couple of thousand in a national bank on the off chance I'll need cash when we travel; I keep the rest in our credit union, invested with Fidelity, in T Bills, a Municipal Bond, a rental property and a couple of stocks which I favor.

My point which you ignored is thus: "anything one can think of hurts those who have less than those who have more". My wife and I have more.

 

[Wry Catcher]

ight the bottom half of US, 150 million people who earn 11% of the entire pie (half as much as the top 1% of US) and yet the richest 400 have as much wealth as the bottom HALF of US, MUST be they are lazy *shaking head*

Either lazy, or just too stupid to get up the ladder.

It's easy to find moronic prols to flip a burger, but hard work to find people with the ability to run a massive, multinational business.

That's why the best get paid, and the rest flip their burgers.

Yeah, BECAUSE the US had a more equal society before trickle down, must not have had many "hard workers" 1945-1980 right?


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

Profits Just Hit Another All-Time High, Wages Just Hit Another All-Time Low

1) Corporate profit margins just hit another all-time high. Companies are making more per dollar of sales than they ever have before. (And some people are still saying that companies are suffering from "too much regulation" and "too many taxes." Maybe little companies are, but big ones certainly aren't. What they're suffering from is a myopic obsession with short-term profits at the expense of long-term value creation).





2) Wages as a percent of the economy just hit another all-time low. Why are corporate profits so high? One reason is that companies are paying employees less than they ever have as a share of GDP. And that, in turn, is one reason the economy is so weak: Those "wages" are represent spending power for consumers. And consumer spending is "revenue" for other companies. So the profit obsession is actually starving the rest of the economy of revenue growth.




In short, our current obsessed-with-profits philosophy is creating a country of a few million overlords and 300+ million serfs.
Profits At High Wages At Low - Business Insider

In short, our current obsessed-with-profits philosophy is creating a country of a few million overlords and 300+ million serfs.

Let's import millions of serfs from other countries, to compete with our own.
Easier than sealing the border.

Yeah, it's the borders that's been the problem *shaking head*

Weird how the "job creators" could stop that IF they wanted to right? Didn't the GOP own Congress most of the past 20 years Buba?

Ronald Reagan calls for an open border with Mexico, 1980

Yeah, it's the borders that's been the problem *shaking head*

Letting in millions of low skilled illegals doesn't help low skilled Americans.
Obama wants to let in even more. Weird.

'Obama wants to let in even more" Evidence is missing, I understand more persons are being turned around at border crossings than ever before.

 

[BlackSand]

This ^^^ is not an argument, it is the current meme used by those who can't make an argument to counter a social policy which benefits the greater good. Now, one can argue if the government has any power by law to establish social policy, but no argument has yet been put before the supreme court repealing the 16th Amendment or social security, SSI, SSD, medicare or medicaid.

And while this is what the New Right wants, I've never read, heard or seen any argument which offered a cost-benefit and cost-deficit analysis of the consequences of their repeal.

Where did I argue about anything concerning Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid?

Of course the government can set social policy ... They can establish Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
None of that will ever go towards fixing what causes the need for it ... Which of course is not my intention in thinking it should be gotten rid of.

Not like I can help the fact you want to argue about something else ... Hell, you cannot even stay within the context of the argument that was given.

.

This is what you wrote,

"I said I didn't need you to explain it to me.
"There is nothing equal about taking anything away from a specific portion of society because you don't like the fact they have it.

"If your suggestion is to take what the rich have so they can equally suffer your failures ... Then I don't have a problem telling you to go **** yourself.
"If the government were to take everything the top 1% has ... They aren't going to give it to you ... And it wouldn't even pay off our national debt.

"The basis of your argument boils down to what other people have ... And what you want to take from them ... Nothing else."

I responded to the last sentence, which is the hackneyed meme of conservatives who whine that they must pay payroll taxes (something the 1% pay very little in term of % of their income) which provide the working poor with benefits.

Great ... You can quote what I wrote ... Unfortunately you cannot interpret what I wrote outside of your context.

If you want to reduce the desire and benefits of Social Programs ... To your simple desires to take from those that have money ... Then I won't be foolish enough to argue with you over your reasoning.

But ... My post wasn't in reference to any social programs ... Not at all.
So when you catch up and get on the same page ... Be sure to let me know.

Here is a clue ... The thread is about capitalism not social programs.

.