Why we have to redistribute income through taxes

Anyone notice that when someone says that the wealthy need to "pay their fair share" of taxes, it is usually being said by someone who does not pay any income taxes?

Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


The answer to your question in "no". Neither have you. You've absolutely concocted everything you have to say.

High icome people pay a disproportionate share of taxes. The lower middle class is undertaxed. This is not even in dispute.

Which has absolutely nothing with what you claimed. The only relationship is both use the word " tax".

And it is a total duh that people who earn more money pay more income taxes. It does not follow that they pay disproportionally more taxes. Someone making minimum wage should be paying less in taxes, even none at all.

But, everyone pay the same sales tax. Property taxes are worked into rent, so propery taxes don't support your claim. Capital gains taxes are lower than income taxes so that doesn't support your hypothesis. On inspection, nothing appearsmto support your fabricated position.

And, I can guarantee that you are not basing your concept on actual research and math.

So, yes, your statement entirely disputed, entirely fabricated, and completely false on its face.
 
My father was black, my mother is white.

Now quit stonewalling

You are massively retarded.

Our economy was substantially free until 1913.

In 1913, the progressives enacted FASCISTIC legislation consisting of the Federal Reserve Board and the "income' tax.

Our economy has been CENTRALLY CONTROLLED ever since.

So , shut the **** up.

Oh, I see. You don't know what 'central control' means and how the US economy, especially the banking system, functions.

Oh, by the way, LARGE FONT AND ALL CAPS DOESN'T MAKE YOU ANY LESS WRONG.

Problem is that you say so little that even comes close to the appearance of intellegence that there really isn't anything to respond to.

Here we go dingle berry, for your edification , from their own website:


What is the purpose of the Federal Reserve System?

The Federal Reserve System
, often referred to as the Federal Reserve or simply "the Fed," is the central bank of the United States. It was created by the Congress to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. The Federal Reserve was created on December 23, 1913, when President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law. Today, the Federal Reserve's responsibilities fall into four general areas.

Conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing money and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of full employment and stable prices.

Yeah, so what's your point because none of the description of the Fed supports anything you said.

The only thing that the two have in common is the word 'central'. And in usage, they don't even carry the same meaning.
 
The Highest-Paid CEOs Are The Worst Performers, New Study Says

Across the board, the more CEOs get paid, the worse their companies do over the next three years, according to extensive new research. This is true whether they’re CEOs at the highest end of the pay spectrum or the lowest. “The more CEOs are paid, the worse the firm does over the next three years, as far as stock performance and even accounting performance,” says one of the authors of the study, Michael Cooper of the University of Utah’s David Eccles School of Business.


The Highest-Paid CEOs Are The Worst Performers, New Study Says - Forbes

Thanks. And that is generally in line with labor economics. Contrary to popular belief, beyond a certain level, incentive to work decreases with increases wage. Taxing higj income earners creates an incentive to work more, not less.

Why are the two of you deflecting from the question? If CEO salaries are a problem then why anre't Oprah's?
And what difference does it make whether CEOs perform well or badly? You're not paying them.

Well, again you are entirely wrong. I've been reading and responding from most recent to older. And, nowhere is there the question that you just stated. I can't be deflecting from something that I have no knowledge of.

You can't be right about anything.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I see. You don't know what 'central control' means and how the US economy, especially the banking system, functions.

Oh, by the way, LARGE FONT AND ALL CAPS DOESN'T MAKE YOU ANY LESS WRONG.

Problem is that you say so little that even comes close to the appearance of intellegence that there really isn't anything to respond to.

Here we go dingle berry, for your edification , from their own website:


What is the purpose of the Federal Reserve System?

The Federal Reserve System
, often referred to as the Federal Reserve or simply "the Fed," is the central bank of the United States. It was created by the Congress to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. The Federal Reserve was created on December 23, 1913, when President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law. Today, the Federal Reserve's responsibilities fall into four general areas.

Conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing money and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of full employment and stable prices.

Yeah, so what's your point because none of the description of the Fed supports anything you said.

The only thing that the two have in common is the word 'central'. And in usage, they don't even carry the same meaning.

So the fact that they are a CENTRAL BANK which conducts the NATIONS MONETARY POLICY is irrelevant?

Whty the **** don't you admit that so long as you get your full food stamp allowance you don't give a shit how the money was created?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.
 
The answer to your question in "no". Neither have you. You've absolutely concocted everything you have to say.



High icome people pay a disproportionate share of taxes. The lower middle class is undertaxed. This is not even in dispute.



Which has absolutely nothing with what you claimed. The only relationship is both use the word " tax".



And it is a total duh that people who earn more money pay more income taxes. It does not follow that they pay disproportionally more taxes. Someone making minimum wage should be paying less in taxes, even none at all.



But, everyone pay the same sales tax. Property taxes are worked into rent, so propery taxes don't support your claim. Capital gains taxes are lower than income taxes so that doesn't support your hypothesis. On inspection, nothing appearsmto support your fabricated position.



And, I can guarantee that you are not basing your concept on actual research and math.



So, yes, your statement entirely disputed, entirely fabricated, and completely false on its face.


Total horse shit. Marginal rates dictate that higher earners pay a disproportionately higher amount in incomes taxes, not just more in terms of dollar amount. Further, sales taxes and ad valorem taxes are state and local taxes, not federal taxes. Moreover, these taxes are assessed at a rate much lower than federal income taxes (assuming you pay them at all).

You are too ignorant to even be embarrassed by your statements.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
 
Anyone notice that when someone says that the wealthy need to "pay their fair share" of taxes, it is usually being said by someone who does not pay any income taxes?



Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com





The answer to your question in "no". Neither have you. You've absolutely concocted everything you have to say.


What did you blow your tax refund on this year? Personally, being self- employed I do not receive refunds. I pay quarterly, and then usually again at the end of the year. This means that people like you can blow their tax refunds on bullshit while people like me have to pick up the slack. Thus, whatever it is that you are into in your personal life (video games, weed, jacking off to internet porn, etc...,) people like me are subsidizing your activities because when you do not pay income taxes the burden falls heavier on me.

So, have fun jacking it tonight! You are welcome.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
 
Redistribute income?

You take away the food from my family's table and I will **** you up but good.
Specifically -- how do you suppose a redistribution program would "take away the food" from your family?
 
A chart that says that, is the reason why GOVERNMENT must step in, in violation of the Constitution?

In this example, "government stepping in" means increased taxation for the One Percent, which is not unConstitutional. It would serve as an expedient adjustment to the Nation's troubled economy. And increasing the tax rate of the rich won't hurt them. It will simply make them a little less rich.

It is important to understand that any such adjustment will have absolutely no negative effect on 99.9% of those who are protesting against it.

Increased taxes on the 1% will bring in relatively little additional revenue, and cause more problems than you are able to comprehend. There is no free lunch, and no one is going to buy you a sandwich. Use your intelligence to help yourself, and quit trying to get it from someone else. The concept that taxing anyone will help the economy is ignorant to the point of stupidity.
Really?

Then you must have a better idea. So why not share your wisdom? You might want to start with your assessment of why FDR's 91% progressive tax rate was a bad idea that did the depressed economy no good.
 
Ok. I am going outside of the box here, throw aside my own personal politics, and help you guys out. I am going to do you a solid. I am talking about guys like Dad2Three and itfitzme and all of the other leftists here that feel there is an unfair and unjust disparity in wealth and that the appropriate remedy is to have the state forcibly confiscate what they perceive as excess wealth earned at their expense. Yes, I know. This is obvious horse shit. But for the purpose of soothing those poor dumb bastards that spout this nonsense I am going to just assume they are correct.

First, these people exhibit anger. Why are they so angry? What is the source of their anger? Are they angry because others have more than they have? I definitely believe that this is a large part of it. It is pure and simple envy. Perhaps more striking is the narccisistic tendencies exhibited by these types. A narcissist believes that the world revolves around them and they possess an undeserved sense of importance. Thus, if someone so important and intelligent as them perceive themselves to have been short-changed in life, the jump to the conclusion that it must be someone else's fault. To them, they are obviously not to blame for anything. Therefore, it was someone else's fault. But, it does not end there. No, as such an important person, they are being screwed over by some grand design, such as evil corporate overlords who are usurping resources and opportunity that belongs to someone else in order to placate their greed and line their pockets with someone else's money. There is an endless array of bad guys for the narccisistic personality to blame: bankers, Wall Street, Republicans, multinational corporations, dirty politicians, even the system itself. Yes, for a narcissist even the system is corrupt. Capitalism, democracy, the electoral process, our two party system - they are all skewed against them. They go out of their way to concoct causation and correlations between unconnected matters in a feeble attempt to cobble together a corrupt conspiracy that explains why they are being held back in life. They read Chomsky, Marx, and a slew of obscure authors who get tweaked and blather on about socialism, collectivism, and anarchism. The narccisistic condition is so strong that they lack the objectivity to realize these sources of enlightenment are nothing more than populist tripe thrown together by intellectually bankrupt and maladjusted fringe dwellers.

Narcissism is a primary problem. Maybe these people have not met their expectations because of bad decisions. Maybe it is because they are lazy. Maybe they just aren't worth a shit. But no, a narccisistic person will not accept that. No, it must be someone else's fault. Next, their expectations are way out of whack due to their condition. For example, college kids today routinely incur student loan debt in excess of $100,000.00 to study this and that, then obtain a major in something completely worthless and sometimes idiotic. However, they then think that they can graduate and, with no real skills, simply waltz into a job earning six figures. Where did they get this crazy idea? I never expected such a thing. I thought that my degrees were merely a prerequisite to get my foot in the door somewhere where I would learn my skills that I would need to succeed. Everyone in my generation knew this is how it works. Oh, but a narccisist? No way. They feel entitled to that great, high paying job.

Narccisist personality disorder is rampant among young people today. I will not go into why right now. But it is an epidemic among people under the age of 35. The solution? Therapy may help. But for most of them what they need to do us to grow the **** up and start taking responsibility for their lives. Times change. But, hell, people in my generation were expected to be a man before they turned 18. One of the biggest complaints of employers today is that college applicants and new hires have shitty skills, or no skills, and they are disturbingly immature. This is the result of the narccisistic personality. Grow up, or go see a shrink. Whatever it takes, you better straighten your asses up before you end up a middle aged fry cook hanging from a noose of depression and despair. Pathetic.

Next, these people have quite a bit of time on their hands to ***** and moan about income disparity. What is going on here? There are plenty of low end jobs available. Why not take one or two of these until you can get a foothold somewhere you want to be? No, instead you move back home and apply for unemployment benefits, disability and other benefits. Pull yourselves up by the bootstraps and find a job. Don't be an asshole. You are going to have to work for what you want. At least you live in a country of opportunity. But if you are going to be lazy, then you will never get anywhere.

So many of these disgruntled people have the time to ***** and moan because they are unemployed. What else affords them so much time? Now we are going to get weird. Most of these ******* bums just got nothing going on in their lives. They go downstairs and eat their parents' food, then go back to their rooms and go online. They go to sites like this to *****. They read bogus literature about income inequality. Then they jack off to internet porn. It is really quite appropriate if you consider it. On one hand they are physically jacking off to porn, on the other they are mentally jacking off to their leftist ideological porn that strokes their ego and reassures them that their shattered expectations are the result of something someone else did.

The answer here is simple: quit being a jack off. Go get a ******* job. Also, get a woman and ****. Then you will not have all of this time on your hands (as well as all of that other shit on your hands). Your keyboards probably look like they are covered in spider webs. ******* pathetic.

One final piece of advice is in order. I know your type. I have been around and talked to many like you. Therefore, I know a little something about your habits. Stop smoking weed. Also, quit drinking. This shit will not solve your problems.

Look at yourselves. You are narccisistic, lazy, pot smoking jack offs who think you are entitled to anything you want. You are immature and it is way past time you grow the **** up. The only person holding you down is the bearded asshole staring at you in the mirror. If you were my kid I would drop-kick your sorry asses to the curb and let you figure it out. That is how we had to do it. Your parents have done you a grave disservice. If you want to be mad at somebody, then be mad at them. Adopting leftist ideologies so you can sleep at night is a dead end. The United States is not going to trash our free market economy in order to pacify a few spoiled brats. The very notion is absurd.



Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
 
The answer to your question in "no". Neither have you. You've absolutely concocted everything you have to say.

High icome people pay a disproportionate share of taxes. The lower middle class is undertaxed. This is not even in dispute.

Which has absolutely nothing with what you claimed. The only relationship is both use the word " tax".

And it is a total duh that people who earn more money pay more income taxes. It does not follow that they pay disproportionally more taxes. Someone making minimum wage should be paying less in taxes, even none at all.

But, everyone pay the same sales tax. Property taxes are worked into rent, so propery taxes don't support your claim. Capital gains taxes are lower than income taxes so that doesn't support your hypothesis. On inspection, nothing appearsmto support your fabricated position.

And, I can guarantee that you are not basing your concept on actual research and math.

So, yes, your statement entirely disputed, entirely fabricated, and completely false on its face.

You're right it does not follow.
What does follow is that the top 20% of earners pay over 90% of income taxes. That is disproportionate in any sense of the term. ANd it is higher than it ever was, even when the top tax rate was 90%
Sales taxes are irrelevant here. It is a red herring argument.
I can guarantee you know nothing about this and are deflecting and your next post will contain a logical fallacy.
 
Thanks. And that is generally in line with labor economics. Contrary to popular belief, beyond a certain level, incentive to work decreases with increases wage. Taxing higj income earners creates an incentive to work more, not less.

Why are the two of you deflecting from the question? If CEO salaries are a problem then why anre't Oprah's?
And what difference does it make whether CEOs perform well or badly? You're not paying them.

Well, again you are entirely wrong. I've been reading and responding from most recent to older. And, nowhere is there the question that you just stated. I can't be deflecting from something that I have no knowledge of.

You can't be right about anything.

It was Redfish's post #270.
So either you're not paying attention or you're a liar. Probably both.
 
gobbledegook.

answer my question: what should be done about the obscene wealth of Oprah and Beyonce?

should it be taken from them, should they be jailed? Should the govt move 100 homeless people into their mansions?

what do you want done to these evil rich people?
Does Oprah not pay her employees well enough to not be on the gvt assistance programs that we have to pay for? Does Beyonce?

Jailed? what are you rambling about????? Taxing someone at a higher rate is now jailing someone? NOTE! I am reading this thread from the end going backwards so maybe I will understand what your saying when I continue to read....???

Why are you deflecting from answering his question?
If huge incomes are obscene for CEOs then why not for Oprah and Beyonce, who are of course also CEOs?

It can be argued that Huge salaries for the CEO takes AWAY higher wages for the worker bees, who perform the actual work, for the same corporation....

it also takes away from the actual owners, the stock holder's, earnings/value.

But I have no problem with Beyonce or Oprah being taxed at a higher rate, they don't seem to be against it either....

And for the record, I'd rather see corporations and CEO's CHOOSE not to take 200-400 times the average worker's salary, and give this money in raises to their loyal and performing, worker bee employees....than some kind of tax redistribution....
 
Redistribute income?

You take away the food from my family's table and I will **** you up but good.
Specifically -- how do you suppose a redistribution program would "take away the food" from your family?

Money buys food. Take money, take food. Carter did it, Obama wants to do it. Naomi Jakobsson wants to do it. Screw Liberals, Progressives, and Socialists.
 
Redistribute income?

You take away the food from my family's table and I will **** you up but good.
Specifically -- how do you suppose a redistribution program would "take away the food" from your family?

Out here in reality, we have to buy food. With money. That you want to take away from us.
 
But I have no problem with Beyonce or Oprah being taxed at a higher rate, they don't seem to be against it either....

There is nothing preventing them from sending extra money to the Treasury voluntarily.

Rich liberals always talk about wanting to get taxed more...but simply can't grasp that they don't have to wait for the government to take it away from them.

Or they understand, but refuse to do it. Hey, makes for some good sound bites, don't it?
 
15th post
Does Oprah not pay her employees well enough to not be on the gvt assistance programs that we have to pay for? Does Beyonce?

Jailed? what are you rambling about????? Taxing someone at a higher rate is now jailing someone? NOTE! I am reading this thread from the end going backwards so maybe I will understand what your saying when I continue to read....???

Why are you deflecting from answering his question?
If huge incomes are obscene for CEOs then why not for Oprah and Beyonce, who are of course also CEOs?

It can be argued that Huge salaries for the CEO takes AWAY higher wages for the worker bees, who perform the actual work, for the same corporation....

it also takes away from the actual owners, the stock holder's, earnings/value.

But I have no problem with Beyonce or Oprah being taxed at a higher rate, they don't seem to be against it either....

And for the record, I'd rather see corporations and CEO's CHOOSE not to take 200-400 times the average worker's salary, and give this money in raises to their loyal and performing, worker bee employees....than some kind of tax redistribution....

First off you prove my point that people who fixate on CEO salaries have no clue what CEOs do. They think they sit at a desk and drink coffee all day. C EOs are salaried employees, just like anyone else working there.
Second, it could also be argued that the CEO's salary contributes to the workers' paychecks and benefits. In fact that is far more often the case than otherwise.

Ohyeah, and here's 9 CEOs who earn one dollar a year. Yes, one dollar a year. Please show me the Hollywood actors, singers and celebrities who work for that.
http://money.cnn.com/gallery/news/companies/2013/08/06/one-dollar-salaries/3.html
 
Redistribute income?

You take away the food from my family's table and I will **** you up but good.
Specifically -- how do you suppose a redistribution program would "take away the food" from your family?

Money buys food. Take money, take food. Carter did it, Obama wants to do it. Naomi Jakobsson wants to do it. Screw Liberals, Progressives, and Socialists.
Who has convinced you that a redistribution program would take food off the tables of ordinary working class taxpayers? Let me assure you it wouldn't. In fact, if you are an ordinary citizen a redistribution will ultimately benefit you.

Read this: Tax Dodging Companies Hoarding Nearly One Trillion Overseas | Common Dreams

That will be just one target of a redistribution program. If corporate tax levels are substantially increased they will be more inclined to increase wage levels as a "write-off." And when the revenue is applied to a federal make-work program the combined effect will be increased consumption of goods, which will increase demand, which will increase production -- which is the way the Great American Middle Class was created during the 40s to the 80s. It's called Demand Side economics. Ronald Reagan's Supply Side, "trickle down" economics, which in fact is "siphon up" economics, is what caused the problems we are seeing today.

So don't believe what Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck tells you about redistribution. They are multi-millionaire propagandists in service to the corporatocracy. Unless you are rich redistribution will serve your interests.

We need Bernie Sanders in the White House. Please keep that name in mind.
 
The Highest-Paid CEOs Are The Worst Performers, New Study Says

Across the board, the more CEOs get paid, the worse their companies do over the next three years, according to extensive new research. This is true whether they’re CEOs at the highest end of the pay spectrum or the lowest. “The more CEOs are paid, the worse the firm does over the next three years, as far as stock performance and even accounting performance,” says one of the authors of the study, Michael Cooper of the University of Utah’s David Eccles School of Business.


The Highest-Paid CEOs Are The Worst Performers, New Study Says - Forbes

Thanks. And that is generally in line with labor economics. Contrary to popular belief, beyond a certain level, incentive to work decreases with increases wage. Taxing higj income earners creates an incentive to work more, not less.

Why are the two of you deflecting from the question? If CEO salaries are a problem then why anre't Oprah's?
And what difference does it make whether CEOs perform well or badly? You're not paying them.



Harpo Productions, Inc.

Type Private
Industry Media
Founded 1986 (Chicago, Illinois)
Founder(s) Oprah Winfrey


Harpo Productions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


WOW your lack of critical thinking is scary!
 
My father was black, my mother is white.

Now quit stonewalling

You are massively retarded.

Our economy was substantially free until 1913.

In 1913, the progressives enacted FASCISTIC legislation consisting of the Federal Reserve Board and the "income' tax.

Our economy has been CENTRALLY CONTROLLED ever since.

So , shut the **** up.

Oh, I see. You don't know what 'central control' means and how the US economy, especially the banking system, functions.

Oh, by the way, LARGE FONT AND ALL CAPS DOESN'T MAKE YOU ANY LESS WRONG.

Problem is that you say so little that even comes close to the appearance of intellegence that there really isn't anything to respond to.

Here we go dingle berry, for your edification , from their own website:


What is the purpose of the Federal Reserve System?

The Federal Reserve System
, often referred to as the Federal Reserve or simply "the Fed," is the central bank of the United States. It was created by the Congress to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. The Federal Reserve was created on December 23, 1913, when President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law. Today, the Federal Reserve's responsibilities fall into four general areas.

Conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing money and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of full employment and stable prices.

Got it, so you don't know the history of the US financial crashes, recessions and depression pre fed reserve


The Founding of the Fed

...Second Bank of the United States expired in 1836, it was not renewed.

For the next quarter century, America's central banking was carried on by a myriad of state-chartered banks with no federal regulation. The difficulties brought about by this lack of a central banking authority hurt the stability of the American economy. There were often violent fluctuations in the volume of bank notes issued by banks and in the amount of demand deposits that the banks held. Bank notes, issued by the individual banks, varied widely in reliability.



...Ultimately, the national banking legislation of the 1860s proved inadequate due to the absence of a central banking structure. The inability of the banking system to expand or contract currency in circulation or provide a mechanism to move reserves throughout the system led to wild gyrations in the economy from boom to bust cycles.


As America's industrial economy grew and became more complex toward the end of the 19th century, the weaknesses in the banking system became critical. The boom and bust cycles created by an inelastic currency and immobile reserves led to frequent financial panics, which triggered economic depressions. The most severe depression at that point in U.S. history came in 1893 and left a legacy of economic uncertainty.



The Founding of the Fed - Federal Reserve Bank of New York
 
Back
Top Bottom