What do liberals want the US to be?

[RKMBrown]

What about the half in this country that don't pay a dime in income taxes? When are they going to pay their fair share of income taxes? Hate to break it to you but zero isn't a fair share.

Why do you choose to go after the 40% of Americans that only have 2 TENTHS of a percent of our total wealth when you look for additional revenue?

Guess which slice of the pie I would look to for additional tax revenue?

The distribution of wealth is not the distribution of capital gains, or personal income. This is the part that you democrats can't seem to get through your stubborn skulls.

The reason everyone should pay the same tax rates is so that everyone has some skin in the game.

In days gone by taxes were a percentage of wealth, for example a percentage of property, or cows, etc. Not sure why democrats don't understand the difference. Sales taxes and property taxes are ways to tax the evil rich. Capital gains and personal income taxes are ways to stop people from becoming rich.

Who said it was?

It shows where the money is....and it ain't with the bottom 40%

I'll ask again, cause it just does not seem to be able to penetrate democrat skulls.

Why do you think higher personal income and higher capital gains taxes is going to change the distribution of wealth?

Good question

Less wealth is being left at the upper levels. Less to "trickle down" (in other words, less for them to pocket)

Now, what do we do with that wealth?
Should we just hand it to the poor and working Americans?

Nooooooooo....
We use it to reduce the burden of healthcare, we use it to fund education and post secondary education, we use it to improve infrastructure and create ....JOBS

By doing that we end up with less wealth in the 1% and more wealth in the 40%

No. You are not paying attention. Even at 100%, payroll taxes and for the most part capital gains taxes would not improve the chart you showed. Quite the opposite higher payroll taxes and higher capital gains taxes increases the percentage of wealth owned by the mega rich who have NO personal income to speak of and NO capital gains income to speak of. The only thing you will have accomplished is complete destruction of the middle class. See Cuba for an example of what you are asking for.

Not sure why you can't fully comprehend that the rich don't have income, they have assets. Your chart is about assets, not income.

 

[rightwinger]

Why do you choose to go after the 40% of Americans that only have 2 TENTHS of a percent of our total wealth when you look for additional revenue?

Guess which slice of the pie I would look to for additional tax revenue?

The distribution of wealth is not the distribution of capital gains, or personal income. This is the part that you democrats can't seem to get through your stubborn skulls.

The reason everyone should pay the same tax rates is so that everyone has some skin in the game.

In days gone by taxes were a percentage of wealth, for example a percentage of property, or cows, etc. Not sure why democrats don't understand the difference. Sales taxes and property taxes are ways to tax the evil rich. Capital gains and personal income taxes are ways to stop people from becoming rich.

Who said it was?

It shows where the money is....and it ain't with the bottom 40%

I'll ask again, cause it just does not seem to be able to penetrate democrat skulls.

Why do you think higher personal income and higher capital gains taxes is going to change the distribution of wealth?

Good question

Less wealth is being left at the upper levels. Less to "trickle down" (in other words, less for them to pocket)

Now, what do we do with that wealth?
Should we just hand it to the poor and working Americans?

Nooooooooo....
We use it to reduce the burden of healthcare, we use it to fund education and post secondary education, we use it to improve infrastructure and create ....JOBS

By doing that we end up with less wealth in the 1% and more wealth in the 40%

No. You are not paying attention. Even at 100%, payroll taxes and for the most part capital gains taxes would not improve the chart you showed. Quite the opposite higher payroll taxes and higher capital gains taxes increases the percentage of wealth owned by the mega rich who have NO personal income to speak of and NO capital gains income to speak of. The only thing you will have accomplished is complete destruction of the middle class. See Cuba for an example of what you are asking for.

Not sure why you can't fully comprehend that the rich don't have income, they have assets. Your chart is about assets, not income.

Of course the rich are not stupid enough to take more than minimal income. That is why we need to look at the sweetheart deal they get with capital gains and protected income

We do not have to take money away from the rich. But we need to examine our current supply side policies and ask why we continue an economic policy than only serves to generate wealth at the top and protect it once it is there

Working americans have been expected to bear more and more of the economic burden in the last 30 years as they have seen their wages and benefits evaporate.

Time to reverse the trend

 

[Mathbud1]

How about narrowing the wage gap? Higher wages would make it just a little easier for the vast majority of Americans to obtain a better standard of living, a higher education, a more secure neighborhood, a brighter future.

The pie has been divided so that the lion's share go to those who do not 'earn' a living. Rather they have made a killing in the market (a rigged game). What is more noble: the rich open factories and pay a fair wage or; the rich protect their wealth with tax breaks and off shore accounts where their wealth does not circulate through our economy?

I realize that putting these two choices in the realm of nobility is a tough choice for anyone who merely thinks of their own good first and the wider American society as an after thought. But there it is. Should we strengthen the American economy by bolstering the buying power of the many, or do we advance our economy by sequestering wealth among the very few?

How do you narrow the wage gap? Mandate higher wages? As long as we are mandating wages why not pick a wage that won't need to be raised again any time soon. Let's say $30/hr.

Cue the "nobody is suggesting that idiot. We just want a 'little' increase."

Sure. Let's just ignore the question: If raising the minimum wage a little will have nothing but a positive impact on the economy, why not raise it more than a little? Answer that question honestly, and we might actually be able to have a discussion.

 

[RKMBrown]

The distribution of wealth is not the distribution of capital gains, or personal income. This is the part that you democrats can't seem to get through your stubborn skulls.

The reason everyone should pay the same tax rates is so that everyone has some skin in the game.

In days gone by taxes were a percentage of wealth, for example a percentage of property, or cows, etc. Not sure why democrats don't understand the difference. Sales taxes and property taxes are ways to tax the evil rich. Capital gains and personal income taxes are ways to stop people from becoming rich.

Who said it was?

It shows where the money is....and it ain't with the bottom 40%

I'll ask again, cause it just does not seem to be able to penetrate democrat skulls.

Why do you think higher personal income and higher capital gains taxes is going to change the distribution of wealth?

Good question

Less wealth is being left at the upper levels. Less to "trickle down" (in other words, less for them to pocket)

Now, what do we do with that wealth?
Should we just hand it to the poor and working Americans?

Nooooooooo....
We use it to reduce the burden of healthcare, we use it to fund education and post secondary education, we use it to improve infrastructure and create ....JOBS

By doing that we end up with less wealth in the 1% and more wealth in the 40%

No. You are not paying attention. Even at 100%, payroll taxes and for the most part capital gains taxes would not improve the chart you showed. Quite the opposite higher payroll taxes and higher capital gains taxes increases the percentage of wealth owned by the mega rich who have NO personal income to speak of and NO capital gains income to speak of. The only thing you will have accomplished is complete destruction of the middle class. See Cuba for an example of what you are asking for.

Not sure why you can't fully comprehend that the rich don't have income, they have assets. Your chart is about assets, not income.

Of course the rich are not stupid enough to take more than minimal income. That is why we need to look at the sweetheart deal they get with capital gains and protected income

We do not have to take money away from the rich. But we need to examine our current supply side policies and ask why we continue an economic policy than only serves to generate wealth at the top and protect it once it is there

Working americans have been expected to bear more and more of the economic burden in the last 30 years as they have seen their wages and benefits evaporate.

Time to reverse the trend

You still don't get it. I can buy a corporation with assets. I can buy another company with assets. I can sell one of the two corporations at a loss thus creating a monopoly with the first. Then when that company is worth hundreds of billions and I own all of it, I have still not collected ONE DIME IN INCOME, NOT ONE DIME IN CAPITAL GAINS. However, I can sell just enough of my capital from the first corporation to offset the losses on the second, and still have ZERO INCOME.

Thus the mega rich own all the assets but don't have any income. Unless of course you lower the tax rates.

I'll make this specific. The only way you are going to change the ratio, is by making it easier for people to climb that ladder. Taxes targeted to people climbing that ladder makes it harder to climb the ladder not easier. If you want to make it easier to climb the ladder shorten it by taxing people at the top who have no income, IOW tax property not income.

 

[Nosmo King]

How about narrowing the wage gap? Higher wages would make it just a little easier for the vast majority of Americans to obtain a better standard of living, a higher education, a more secure neighborhood, a brighter future.

The pie has been divided so that the lion's share go to those who do not 'earn' a living. Rather they have made a killing in the market (a rigged game). What is more noble: the rich open factories and pay a fair wage or; the rich protect their wealth with tax breaks and off shore accounts where their wealth does not circulate through our economy?

I realize that putting these two choices in the realm of nobility is a tough choice for anyone who merely thinks of their own good first and the wider American society as an after thought. But there it is. Should we strengthen the American economy by bolstering the buying power of the many, or do we advance our economy by sequestering wealth among the very few?

How do you narrow the wage gap? Mandate higher wages? As long as we are mandating wages why not pick a wage that won't need to be raised again any time soon. Let's say $30/hr.

Cue the "nobody is suggesting that idiot. We just want a 'little' increase."

Sure. Let's just ignore the question: If raising the minimum wage a little will have nothing but a positive impact on the economy, why not raise it more than a little? Answer that question honestly, and we might actually be able to have a discussion.

Raising the minimum wage will help fuel the economy. Making it just a little easier for the working poor to make ends meet means the working poor will have disposable income to spend at your shop. Once that increase happens at your shop, you and your employees could afford a higher wage. That means even more capital coursing through our economy. Consumer spending drives better than 70% of our economy. The greater the spending power of the vast majority of consumers means every economic outlet may get an influx of customers. More customers means greater production. More production means more jobs.

Choking off capital by sequestering among the very few essentially kills the golden goose of American capitalism, namely the buying power of the consumer.

 

[RKMBrown]

How about narrowing the wage gap? Higher wages would make it just a little easier for the vast majority of Americans to obtain a better standard of living, a higher education, a more secure neighborhood, a brighter future.

The pie has been divided so that the lion's share go to those who do not 'earn' a living. Rather they have made a killing in the market (a rigged game). What is more noble: the rich open factories and pay a fair wage or; the rich protect their wealth with tax breaks and off shore accounts where their wealth does not circulate through our economy?

I realize that putting these two choices in the realm of nobility is a tough choice for anyone who merely thinks of their own good first and the wider American society as an after thought. But there it is. Should we strengthen the American economy by bolstering the buying power of the many, or do we advance our economy by sequestering wealth among the very few?

How do you narrow the wage gap? Mandate higher wages? As long as we are mandating wages why not pick a wage that won't need to be raised again any time soon. Let's say $30/hr.

Cue the "nobody is suggesting that idiot. We just want a 'little' increase."

Sure. Let's just ignore the question: If raising the minimum wage a little will have nothing but a positive impact on the economy, why not raise it more than a little? Answer that question honestly, and we might actually be able to have a discussion.

Raising the minimum wage will help fuel the economy. Making it just a little easier for the working poor to make ends meet means the working poor will have disposable income to spend at your shop. Once that increase happens at your shop, you and your employees could afford a higher wage. That means even more capital coursing through our economy. Consumer spending drives better than 70% of our economy. The greater the spending power of the vast majority of consumers means every economic outlet may get an influx of customers. More customers means greater production. More production means more jobs.

Choking off capital by sequestering among the very few essentially kills the golden goose of American capitalism, namely the buying power of the consumer.

^ Nomination for dumbest post of the year!

 

[Nosmo King]

How about narrowing the wage gap? Higher wages would make it just a little easier for the vast majority of Americans to obtain a better standard of living, a higher education, a more secure neighborhood, a brighter future.

The pie has been divided so that the lion's share go to those who do not 'earn' a living. Rather they have made a killing in the market (a rigged game). What is more noble: the rich open factories and pay a fair wage or; the rich protect their wealth with tax breaks and off shore accounts where their wealth does not circulate through our economy?

I realize that putting these two choices in the realm of nobility is a tough choice for anyone who merely thinks of their own good first and the wider American society as an after thought. But there it is. Should we strengthen the American economy by bolstering the buying power of the many, or do we advance our economy by sequestering wealth among the very few?

How do you narrow the wage gap? Mandate higher wages? As long as we are mandating wages why not pick a wage that won't need to be raised again any time soon. Let's say $30/hr.

Cue the "nobody is suggesting that idiot. We just want a 'little' increase."

Sure. Let's just ignore the question: If raising the minimum wage a little will have nothing but a positive impact on the economy, why not raise it more than a little? Answer that question honestly, and we might actually be able to have a discussion.

Raising the minimum wage will help fuel the economy. Making it just a little easier for the working poor to make ends meet means the working poor will have disposable income to spend at your shop. Once that increase happens at your shop, you and your employees could afford a higher wage. That means even more capital coursing through our economy. Consumer spending drives better than 70% of our economy. The greater the spending power of the vast majority of consumers means every economic outlet may get an influx of customers. More customers means greater production. More production means more jobs.

Choking off capital by sequestering among the very few essentially kills the golden goose of American capitalism, namely the buying power of the consumer.

^ Nomination for dumbest post of the year!

How so? Did I lie? Or is it because you cannot understand Capitalism?

 

[BluesLegend]

How about narrowing the wage gap? Higher wages would make it just a little easier for the vast majority of Americans to obtain a better standard of living, a higher education, a more secure neighborhood, a brighter future.

The pie has been divided so that the lion's share go to those who do not 'earn' a living. Rather they have made a killing in the market (a rigged game). What is more noble: the rich open factories and pay a fair wage or; the rich protect their wealth with tax breaks and off shore accounts where their wealth does not circulate through our economy?

I realize that putting these two choices in the realm of nobility is a tough choice for anyone who merely thinks of their own good first and the wider American society as an after thought. But there it is. Should we strengthen the American economy by bolstering the buying power of the many, or do we advance our economy by sequestering wealth among the very few?

How do you narrow the wage gap? Mandate higher wages? As long as we are mandating wages why not pick a wage that won't need to be raised again any time soon. Let's say $30/hr.

Cue the "nobody is suggesting that idiot. We just want a 'little' increase."

Sure. Let's just ignore the question: If raising the minimum wage a little will have nothing but a positive impact on the economy, why not raise it more than a little? Answer that question honestly, and we might actually be able to have a discussion.

Raising the minimum wage will help fuel the economy. Making it just a little easier for the working poor to make ends meet means the working poor will have disposable income to spend at your shop. Once that increase happens at your shop, you and your employees could afford a higher wage. That means even more capital coursing through our economy. Consumer spending drives better than 70% of our economy. The greater the spending power of the vast majority of consumers means every economic outlet may get an influx of customers. More customers means greater production. More production means more jobs.

Choking off capital by sequestering among the very few essentially kills the golden goose of American capitalism, namely the buying power of the consumer.

^ Nomination for dumbest post of the year!

That's liberal logic for you, labor cost increases have no effect on anything. /sarcasm

 

[sealybobo]

They need to match the rates paid on earned income

Money earned from sweat should be taxed at the same rate as money earned from investment

You mean rich people should pay the same for both, right? You don't want poor people to pay the same tax rates as everyone else do you?

The rich currently pay 23.8% on capital gains... the poor and middle class pay 0.0% on capital gains. But to you that's not fair for the poor people right? The rich are getting such a huge tax break right?

The rich pay 23.8% on capital gains while someone working for the money pays 38%

Guess how the wealthy choose to be compensated?

Hello, McFly!!!! A family has to be earning IN EXCESS OF FOUR HUNDRED and SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR IN INCOME BEFORE THEY GET TO THE 39.6% TAX BRACKET.

Choose to be compensated? WTF does that mean? How do you choose to be compensated in capital gains vs. income? Don't you have to invest in capital first? Yes or No?

It does not work the way you think it works.

The rich avoid income because the tax rate is too high. When capital gains are to high they will also avoid capital investments.

The way they avoid taxes is by avoiding that which carries unreasonable rates of tax. You make both income and gains unreasonably taxed... hell yes they will be avoided.

We should just tax them and put that money into infrastructure and education. Trust me, it is an investment. These rich people make a fortune in America. They need to pay their fair share.

Look at it this way. The tax system was what it was when these people were not yet rich but becoming rich. They became rich under that system. Clearly that tax system worked. But then they got rich and paid off the politicians to change the tax laws so that basically the game is now rigged in their favor.

It's like climbing the corporate ladder but then pulling up the ladder so that no one after you can climb up.

What about the half in this country that don't pay a dime in income taxes? When are they going to pay their fair share of income taxes? Hate to break it to you but zero isn't a fair share.

Listen schmuck. That poor person is paying a lot in taxes every time they go to the gas pump or go buy shit at the store. I can't believe I have to explain this to anyone. What a dope you must be.

Put it this way. I'd rather make $2 million and be taxed $1 million than to be someone who makes $10 hr and pays no taxes. Boo ******* hoo for the millionaire.

 

[RKMBrown]

How about narrowing the wage gap? Higher wages would make it just a little easier for the vast majority of Americans to obtain a better standard of living, a higher education, a more secure neighborhood, a brighter future.

The pie has been divided so that the lion's share go to those who do not 'earn' a living. Rather they have made a killing in the market (a rigged game). What is more noble: the rich open factories and pay a fair wage or; the rich protect their wealth with tax breaks and off shore accounts where their wealth does not circulate through our economy?

I realize that putting these two choices in the realm of nobility is a tough choice for anyone who merely thinks of their own good first and the wider American society as an after thought. But there it is. Should we strengthen the American economy by bolstering the buying power of the many, or do we advance our economy by sequestering wealth among the very few?

How do you narrow the wage gap? Mandate higher wages? As long as we are mandating wages why not pick a wage that won't need to be raised again any time soon. Let's say $30/hr.

Cue the "nobody is suggesting that idiot. We just want a 'little' increase."

Sure. Let's just ignore the question: If raising the minimum wage a little will have nothing but a positive impact on the economy, why not raise it more than a little? Answer that question honestly, and we might actually be able to have a discussion.

Raising the minimum wage will help fuel the economy. Making it just a little easier for the working poor to make ends meet means the working poor will have disposable income to spend at your shop. Once that increase happens at your shop, you and your employees could afford a higher wage. That means even more capital coursing through our economy. Consumer spending drives better than 70% of our economy. The greater the spending power of the vast majority of consumers means every economic outlet may get an influx of customers. More customers means greater production. More production means more jobs.

Choking off capital by sequestering among the very few essentially kills the golden goose of American capitalism, namely the buying power of the consumer.

^ Nomination for dumbest post of the year!

That's liberal logic for you, labor cost increases have no effect on anything. /sarcasm

Reminds me of:

 

[RKMBrown]

How about narrowing the wage gap? Higher wages would make it just a little easier for the vast majority of Americans to obtain a better standard of living, a higher education, a more secure neighborhood, a brighter future.

The pie has been divided so that the lion's share go to those who do not 'earn' a living. Rather they have made a killing in the market (a rigged game). What is more noble: the rich open factories and pay a fair wage or; the rich protect their wealth with tax breaks and off shore accounts where their wealth does not circulate through our economy?

I realize that putting these two choices in the realm of nobility is a tough choice for anyone who merely thinks of their own good first and the wider American society as an after thought. But there it is. Should we strengthen the American economy by bolstering the buying power of the many, or do we advance our economy by sequestering wealth among the very few?

How do you narrow the wage gap? Mandate higher wages? As long as we are mandating wages why not pick a wage that won't need to be raised again any time soon. Let's say $30/hr.

Cue the "nobody is suggesting that idiot. We just want a 'little' increase."

Sure. Let's just ignore the question: If raising the minimum wage a little will have nothing but a positive impact on the economy, why not raise it more than a little? Answer that question honestly, and we might actually be able to have a discussion.

Raising the minimum wage will help fuel the economy. Making it just a little easier for the working poor to make ends meet means the working poor will have disposable income to spend at your shop. Once that increase happens at your shop, you and your employees could afford a higher wage. That means even more capital coursing through our economy. Consumer spending drives better than 70% of our economy. The greater the spending power of the vast majority of consumers means every economic outlet may get an influx of customers. More customers means greater production. More production means more jobs.

Choking off capital by sequestering among the very few essentially kills the golden goose of American capitalism, namely the buying power of the consumer.

^ Nomination for dumbest post of the year!

How so? Did I lie? Or is it because you cannot understand Capitalism?

Sigh... no offense intended. Sorry... It's just an overly simplistic view of the world, that if you increase minimum wages, magic happens and the economy roars along because of it.

 

[sealybobo]

Is success not currently attainable by anyone? Is anyone legally banned from being successful?

For all intent and purposes, some may as well be. Here is a graphic you'll ignore immediately of course but here it is anyway:

It shows the percentage of blacks who get LIPNP vs. whites charged with comparative crimes. I'm not debating whether they are guilty or what put them there...just the sentencing. The upshot of this is that for every green and blue pixel, someone is growing up without a father or mother; aunt or uncle perhaps.

Maybe, just maybe, had there been a clearer path to success for these individuals, they would have taken it. Shame on them for not taking it.

To tell if the numbers in the chart mean anything I would have to have more information. Information about the crimes committed, information about the past history of the individuals involved, information about the mental state and attitude of the individuals involved, etc. Without that information it isn't really anything but a pretty graphic. That said, if there is really an imbalance it should be addressed. I fully believe in punishing equally for equal crimes, with equal history and equal mental state.

What would you do to create a "clearer path to success?"

Invest heavily in a federal vocational program to where every district in the nation could have a vocational education center that would teach kids the trades like carpentry, plumbing, welding, etc.
Kids can walk right off the graduation platform and into a job.

Expand the JROTC programs.

Expand intramural but eliminate inter-murals that extend past the normal school day. This would free up funding to expand the number of teachers, reduce class size, etc....

As for out of school programs; create a program by which the first 2 years of college are paid for by uncle sam. I've described this before.

Tying this together with regular income people being able to keep more of their income would help in the areas of fairness.

I would guess that the groups you mention disagree with the positions of "the party that represents 'conservative values'" or at least what they think those positions are. Personally I think it is a mistake to lump people into groups and assume you know what is motivating all of their actions or even that the members of the "groups" are all motivated by the same things.

Are there women who vote Republican?
Are there blacks who vote Republican?
Are there Hispanics who vote Republican?
Are there non-Christians who vote Republican?
Are there lower income voters who vote Republican?

Which is why I put it in terms of "as a group".

Are you or are you not proposing that the 1st dollar you earn, no matter how you earn it, be taxed the same as the 10,000,000,000,000th dollar you earn, no matter how you earn it?

If not, what specifically are you proposing?

That is what I'm proposing.

The "flat tax" often means ridding ourselves of deductions. I don't mean for that. Just income being taxed the same regardless of where they come from.

So your contention is that police should pay more attention to race rather than less? As in I have already pulled over one drunk-driving white guy, so now I need to let the next few drunk-driving white guys go by until I can pull over a drunk-driving black guy? Then I need to let any drunk-driving white or black guys go by until I can get me a drunk-driving Hispanic?

What do I do on nights where I only ever see one race driving drunk? "It's your lucky night guys, I couldn't find any drunk black guys to pull over, so you white and Hispanic guys get a free pass tonight."

No but if you pull over a white dude for drunk driving, you do a warrant sweep if that is police procedure. Just don't do it for black folks. If you're going to let 1 in 3 whites go with a warning, let 1 in 2.85 blacks go. I'm sure most of the time there is no way of knowing the race of a driver but once it's determined, it shouldn't matter.

As for what I think? Let's deal with what I know.

This guy shot a US Congress woman:

View attachment 35100

This guy shot a cop:

This guy punched a cop

This guy...I'm not even sure what he did:
View attachment 35101

Minorites who performed much less violent acts seem to e getting killed by the authorities than whites who commit much more violent acts.

I'm not denying this. Remember the people who went armed to Clive Bundy's ranch? If those were all black people who stood off against the US government, would the government have stood down or mowed those black people down? I admit they would have treated black people differently. Not fair.

Sorry but you are the minority in a white run/owned/controlled country. Knowing that, you should teach your children to be respectful of the police and do what they are told when the cop says freeze or hands behind your back. And vote. If more of you voted then you'd matter more.

Any one doubt that if this were a black run country black cops would be much worse towards white people? Try walking through a ghetto as a white man and see how blacks would be if the roles were reversed. Simple fact is while blacks cry about being picked on, they can walk safely through white neighborhoods and we can not walk through a lot of black neighborhoods simply because we are white.

 

[Mathbud1]

How about narrowing the wage gap? Higher wages would make it just a little easier for the vast majority of Americans to obtain a better standard of living, a higher education, a more secure neighborhood, a brighter future.

The pie has been divided so that the lion's share go to those who do not 'earn' a living. Rather they have made a killing in the market (a rigged game). What is more noble: the rich open factories and pay a fair wage or; the rich protect their wealth with tax breaks and off shore accounts where their wealth does not circulate through our economy?

I realize that putting these two choices in the realm of nobility is a tough choice for anyone who merely thinks of their own good first and the wider American society as an after thought. But there it is. Should we strengthen the American economy by bolstering the buying power of the many, or do we advance our economy by sequestering wealth among the very few?

How do you narrow the wage gap? Mandate higher wages? As long as we are mandating wages why not pick a wage that won't need to be raised again any time soon. Let's say $30/hr.

Cue the "nobody is suggesting that idiot. We just want a 'little' increase."

Sure. Let's just ignore the question: If raising the minimum wage a little will have nothing but a positive impact on the economy, why not raise it more than a little? Answer that question honestly, and we might actually be able to have a discussion.

Raising the minimum wage will help fuel the economy. Making it just a little easier for the working poor to make ends meet means the working poor will have disposable income to spend at your shop. Once that increase happens at your shop, you and your employees could afford a higher wage. That means even more capital coursing through our economy. Consumer spending drives better than 70% of our economy. The greater the spending power of the vast majority of consumers means every economic outlet may get an influx of customers. More customers means greater production. More production means more jobs.

Choking off capital by sequestering among the very few essentially kills the golden goose of American capitalism, namely the buying power of the consumer.

Care to take a stab at answering the question?

If raising the minimum wage a little will have nothing but a positive impact on the economy, why not raise it more than a little?

 

[Uncensored2008]

They need to match the rates paid on earned income

Money earned from sweat should be taxed at the same rate as money earned from investment

How many times should the same dollar be taxed, Comrade shitflinger? Is there any limit? Tax it when I earn it, tax it when I invest it, tax it again in corporate earnings, then tax it again should I gain a return.

Sounds like greed to me, on the part of you Communists.

 

[rightwinger]

They need to match the rates paid on earned income

Money earned from sweat should be taxed at the same rate as money earned from investment

How many times should the same dollar be taxed, Comrade shitflinger? Is there any limit? Tax it when I earn it, tax it when I invest it, tax it again in corporate earnings, then tax it again should I gain a return.

Sounds like greed to me, on the part of you Communists.

Do you understand what Capital GAIN is?

The GAIN has not been taxed, only the principle

 

[sealybobo]

How about narrowing the wage gap? Higher wages would make it just a little easier for the vast majority of Americans to obtain a better standard of living, a higher education, a more secure neighborhood, a brighter future.

The pie has been divided so that the lion's share go to those who do not 'earn' a living. Rather they have made a killing in the market (a rigged game). What is more noble: the rich open factories and pay a fair wage or; the rich protect their wealth with tax breaks and off shore accounts where their wealth does not circulate through our economy?

I realize that putting these two choices in the realm of nobility is a tough choice for anyone who merely thinks of their own good first and the wider American society as an after thought. But there it is. Should we strengthen the American economy by bolstering the buying power of the many, or do we advance our economy by sequestering wealth among the very few?

How do you narrow the wage gap? Mandate higher wages? As long as we are mandating wages why not pick a wage that won't need to be raised again any time soon. Let's say $30/hr.

Cue the "nobody is suggesting that idiot. We just want a 'little' increase."

Sure. Let's just ignore the question: If raising the minimum wage a little will have nothing but a positive impact on the economy, why not raise it more than a little? Answer that question honestly, and we might actually be able to have a discussion.

Raising the minimum wage will help fuel the economy. Making it just a little easier for the working poor to make ends meet means the working poor will have disposable income to spend at your shop. Once that increase happens at your shop, you and your employees could afford a higher wage. That means even more capital coursing through our economy. Consumer spending drives better than 70% of our economy. The greater the spending power of the vast majority of consumers means every economic outlet may get an influx of customers. More customers means greater production. More production means more jobs.

Choking off capital by sequestering among the very few essentially kills the golden goose of American capitalism, namely the buying power of the consumer.

Care to take a stab at answering the question?

If raising the minimum wage a little will have nothing but a positive impact on the economy, why not raise it more than a little?

Same reason Bush should have only given his rich buddies a little tax break and not the one he gave that helped put us in a Great Recession. Moderation.

 

[sealybobo]

How about narrowing the wage gap? Higher wages would make it just a little easier for the vast majority of Americans to obtain a better standard of living, a higher education, a more secure neighborhood, a brighter future.

The pie has been divided so that the lion's share go to those who do not 'earn' a living. Rather they have made a killing in the market (a rigged game). What is more noble: the rich open factories and pay a fair wage or; the rich protect their wealth with tax breaks and off shore accounts where their wealth does not circulate through our economy?

I realize that putting these two choices in the realm of nobility is a tough choice for anyone who merely thinks of their own good first and the wider American society as an after thought. But there it is. Should we strengthen the American economy by bolstering the buying power of the many, or do we advance our economy by sequestering wealth among the very few?

How do you narrow the wage gap? Mandate higher wages? As long as we are mandating wages why not pick a wage that won't need to be raised again any time soon. Let's say $30/hr.

Cue the "nobody is suggesting that idiot. We just want a 'little' increase."

Sure. Let's just ignore the question: If raising the minimum wage a little will have nothing but a positive impact on the economy, why not raise it more than a little? Answer that question honestly, and we might actually be able to have a discussion.

Raising the minimum wage will help fuel the economy. Making it just a little easier for the working poor to make ends meet means the working poor will have disposable income to spend at your shop. Once that increase happens at your shop, you and your employees could afford a higher wage. That means even more capital coursing through our economy. Consumer spending drives better than 70% of our economy. The greater the spending power of the vast majority of consumers means every economic outlet may get an influx of customers. More customers means greater production. More production means more jobs.

Choking off capital by sequestering among the very few essentially kills the golden goose of American capitalism, namely the buying power of the consumer.

Care to take a stab at answering the question?

If raising the minimum wage a little will have nothing but a positive impact on the economy, why not raise it more than a little?

Same reason Bush should have only given his rich buddies a little tax break and not the one he gave that helped put us in a Great Recession. Moderation.

 

[RKMBrown]

They need to match the rates paid on earned income

Money earned from sweat should be taxed at the same rate as money earned from investment

How many times should the same dollar be taxed, Comrade shitflinger? Is there any limit? Tax it when I earn it, tax it when I invest it, tax it again in corporate earnings, then tax it again should I gain a return.

Sounds like greed to me, on the part of you Communists.

Do you understand what Capital GAIN is?

The GAIN has not been taxed, only the principle

And the gain is only taxed when the property is sold. If the property is not sold it shows up in your assets chart above as the rich having an ever growing portion of said assets. If you want to be honest about income and gain distribution why not show a chart that includes income and gain distribution vs. this asset chart?

 

[Mathbud1]

Same reason Bush should have only given his rich buddies a little tax break and not the one he gave that helped put us in a Great Recession. Moderation.

So there is a negative impact potential when you mandate wage changes?

 

[RKMBrown]