Why we have to redistribute income through taxes

[thereisnospoon]

If you show workers real wages over the past several decades, it still shows the same problem.

Compensation as a percentage of GDP peaked in about 1980. It has declined by about 6 percentage points since then. You can blame government regulations, taxes and social programs for the decline.

So, we're in an era of lower taxes, reduced welfare spending for the poor (compared to back then, adjusting for inflation) and fewer regulations on financial institutions and Wall Street, and less oversight as the GOP has gutted regulatory agencies... Yeah. I can see where you're going with this. Conservative ideology leads to less money for working people.

If anything, the size of the families being smaller would tend to make available more disposable income, if real wages were not falling.

"Make it available" to whom? If you take the same total wages and divide it up among a greater number of families, then you get lower average family wages. The math is so simple that even a liberal could do it.

Don't try to move the goal posts now. You said families were smaller now. That said, if what you were saying was true, then a smaller family with the same income means more disposable income.

Maybe you don't follow your own words. The number of families wasn't what you brought up. And again, we can still show that families are making less now in real wages than they were in 1980 (which even your chart helps to show how much of a failure conservative economics is).

You are moving the goal posts. First this thread was about taxing the wealthy to give to the poor. Now it's about "working people".
Tell me, what is your definition of "working people"?

 

[1776]

Meanwhile liberals are bragging about creating so many "part-time" jobs and downplaying the loss of income as "more freedom" for people.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The better answer is that if the US invested the taxes from the wealthy into infrastructure, people would earn the money who aren't wealthy. Never mind the overall benefits to the economy, like more people working, and more people spending their money to keep the wealthy in wealth, and allowing new wealth to be created.

Government takes most of the money it taxes from the wealthy and flushes it down the welfare sewer. The rich invest their money. That creates jobs. Government hands it out to ticks on the ass of society. That creates dependency and destroys jobs.

bs!

it flushes it down the military industrial complex


there is nothing more important than LABOR, without the worker bees there is nothing to invest in....

HA!..Without investment, there is nothing for the worker bees to do....No investment, no need for labor.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The element of risk is a necessary element in wealth creation.

Certainly. I've lived it when I went into business for myself.

The government cannot create wealth.

It can create opportunities for wealth to be created. Infrastructure is a good history lesson in the creation of wealth for the TeaBaggeds to learn from, if they use their empty little heads. Going back to Roman times, roads making travel quick over land, was known as a way to trade with others. Later on in history, guys like Vanderbilt built huge fortunes based in infrastructure, where land and tax dollars were used build those fortunes. It also built the fortunes of others trying to reach new markets for their goods. Later on again, we've seen the FAA keep the skies relatively safe for air travelers and other cargo that is flown around the world, through the infrastructure and regs the government created.

The Vanderbilts disagree. But if you want to get into the multiplier effects of tax cuts versus help for the unemployed or poor... OK. It's a little old, but you'll get the idea if you have even a modicum of economic understanding.
What?s the most effective way to avert an austerity crisis? More stimulus. - The Washington Post

When it's spent, as the above link has shown, it goes into the economy directly.

But the investment isn't worth shit if people aren't buying goods, or borrowing money, etc.

LOL! You're in total need of a lesson in the most basic economics. Look, dude... No infrastructure, no goods move. No goods moving, no markets to buy it. Think of it like this... Since the wealthy don't create infrastructure, then government has to do it for them. That takes taxes to do. So, the taxes are a form of giving the wealthy opportunities to exploit markets. Not just that, but the raw materials have to get from the ground to the factory, and you need roads and railways, with bridges that aren't going to fall apart for that.

You'll never make it in understanding business with that attitude.

The first sentence of this paragraph blows your own previous argument out of the water. Plus, government has done pretty well at making it all come about by contracting private companies to build all that stuff. But, in the meantime, just because I like to smack down the ignorant and snide, I'll leave you with a thought that I know from first hand experience: government run entities are often run cheaper, with better service, than private ones.

Get a ******* clue. I know you ideas make you feel good about yourself. But the reality is that lacking risk and profit motive you cannot create wealth.

I'm giving you a clue. I'm not too hopeful you'll grasp it. But I can hope for you to be able to understand the very fallacies in your attempts at logic. Since you don't have a background in business, I'll be here to help you out if you get stuck. .

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Heh... DARPA gave you something useful to use.

Youir argument runs out of gas when you imply the notion that 'reduced government spending' equals no spending on infrastructure. This is a tactic of the liberal when pressed for a reason or explanation as to why they agree with wealth redistribution through taxation. it's a non starter and a non sequitur.
Clearly, very few people one may ask would be opposed to capital spending on infrastructure. However, the left has much explaining to do when they insist good need to be moved about the country then on the other hand start screaming about fossil fuels, carbon taxes, cap and trade and "big oil"...
You cannot have it both ways.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What does this chart prove?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Another idiot who cant read charts.
OK, genius. Tell me what you think this chart represents.

It shows flat compensation since 1970.

If you like, I can show the differences between tax brackets, and quintiles and include top income earners and wealth disparity.

See, I can produce information. You can't produce anything except feeble bullshit. But, I'll teach you how to read a chart if I feel like helping you.

It shows nothing of the kind..This is a graph with a bunch of lines on it with no explanation as to what the graph represents. There is no research included. No explanation of the processes used to create the graph.
As my very Bostonian 8 th grade math teacher used to say "I am not interested in answers. I want to see the work you did to produce the answer".

 

[thereisnospoon]

Poor Rabbi... Home schooling left him behind...

.

Poor Shanty. Stupid dumbfuck can't read charts, can't defend what he writes.
Are you still pushing that the original chart posted showed wages? I want to hear you say it. Were those wages?

Point is, by every measure, you're still flailing like a dope clinging to a losing argument.

Now, try real hard, with all your might and come up with something relevant, dimwit. I know you were teased a lot by your teacher in the home school, but I have faith you might come up with something relevant.

It's probably misplaced hope, because you got a lot of dope to overcome.

Ok...Let's go about it this way.
In your opinion, offer a number you deem appropriate for the average wage.
Don't reply with "well it depends" or anything else that is not a number.
You deem the numbers represented on your chart to be inappropriate. So, name the number that you believe IS appropriate

 

[thereisnospoon]

You cannot shame a company for paying millions to its CEO. This is a valid business decision -- the companies have to attract the best and brightest. As long as we have a free-market based economy, which we should, it will create inequality. Sometimes it would create way more than it is necessary for simply giving people right motivations.

When it happens, the government should intervene by redistributing incomes from the rich to the poor.

It's such a wonderfully simple concept, Ilia...yet so naive.

The government shouldn't be in the "redistribution" business...what they should be doing is providing an environment for those who are poor to become part of the middle class.

What you suggest is impossible. We can't all become CEOs. Even if everyone would get a college degree, some of us would have to work at McDonalds.

The income distribution is defined by the level of technological progress. As machines replace workers, inequality increases -- middle class jobs are replaced by a few very high paying ones and much more low income, low skilled jobs. That is why we have to engage in income redistribution if only to maintain the status quo -- more if we want to decrease inequality.

Yeah and? We are humans. There is nothing equal in the equation.
Your premise suggests that income should be equal. Not true. You said so yourself. Not everyone can become a CEO . There is always a need for low or unskilled workers. Please tell me you are not suggesting low skill wages should match that of skilled workers or those with advanced degrees?
Please tell me you oppose advancements in technology which allow us to get the work done more efficiently at the lowest cost possible.

 

[thereisnospoon]

LOL.

Looks like you're unable to read a chart still.

If you want to take average out and go to median, you're argument falls apart worse. ALL TOO EASY... LOL.

Uh, median is average, dumbfuck.
Wow you are waaay out of your depth here.
Again, do you think people who entered the workforce in 1970 are making the same wage, even adjusted for inflation?

Man... You fail and come back with more fail...

What a maroon. I bet you wore that dunce cap with pride.
mean vs. median vs. average : Choose Your Words : Vocabulary.com

An average is all numbers placed into the mix, added up and then divided by the number of subjects.....Median, is finding the middle. For example, the average wage in a given market for let's say managers in a retail setting is $40k per year.
Yet the median can be $50k in that half of all retail managers earn less than $50k while an equal number of those earn more than $50k.

 

[Chris]

 

[The Rabbi]

Another idiot who cant read charts.
OK, genius. Tell me what you think this chart represents.

It shows flat compensation since 1970.

If you like, I can show the differences between tax brackets, and quintiles and include top income earners and wealth disparity.

See, I can produce information. You can't produce anything except feeble bullshit. But, I'll teach you how to read a chart if I feel like helping you.

It shows nothing of the kind..This is a graph with a bunch of lines on it with no explanation as to what the graph represents. There is no research included. No explanation of the processes used to create the graph.
As my very Bostonian 8 th grade math teacher used to say "I am not interested in answers. I want to see the work you did to produce the answer".

Libs are bad at readig charts! As you say, there is no telling what this shows. What do the terms mean? How are they measured? Do they account for changes in the workforce like younger workers entering and older ones leaving? How about technological changes since 1970? We dont know.

 

[Chris]

" We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory some of those loophole were understandable, but in practice, they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing."
~ Ronald Reagan

 

[Contumacious]

Sweden and the Myth of Benevolent Socialism

Frequently referred to as a "benevolent" socialist or social democratic state, to distinguish it from the run-of-the-mill socialist butcher shop, such as Cuba, China, North Korea, the USSR, and most of Africa, Latin and Central America, and Asia, Sweden is the Promised Land of the Left. As usual, the rosy picture painted by the Left could not be farther from the truth.

 

[The Rabbi]

" We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory some of those loophole were understandable, but in practice, they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing."
~ Ronald Reagan

And he did!
Why do the Democrats block tax reform??

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you show workers real wages over the past several decades, it still shows the same problem.

Compensation as a percentage of GDP peaked in about 1980. It has declined by about 6 percentage points since then. You can blame government regulations, taxes and social programs for the decline.

So, we're in an era of lower taxes, reduced welfare spending for the poor (compared to back then, adjusting for inflation) and fewer regulations on financial institutions and Wall Street, and less oversight as the GOP has gutted regulatory agencies... Yeah. I can see where you're going with this. Conservative ideology leads to less money for working people.

If anything, the size of the families being smaller would tend to make available more disposable income, if real wages were not falling.

"Make it available" to whom? If you take the same total wages and divide it up among a greater number of families, then you get lower average family wages. The math is so simple that even a liberal could do it.

Don't try to move the goal posts now. You said families were smaller now. That said, if what you were saying was true, then a smaller family with the same income means more disposable income.

Maybe you don't follow your own words. The number of families wasn't what you brought up. And again, we can still show that families are making less now in real wages than they were in 1980 (which even your chart helps to show how much of a failure conservative economics is).

You said families were smaller now. That said, if what you were saying was true, then a smaller family with the same income means more disposable income.

Dad working, $40k
Mom working $35k
Junior working $3k

Average Household Income $78k

Mom and Dad divorce.

Dad working, $40k

Mom working, $35k
Junior working, $3k

2 smaller households, Average Household Income $39k
Two rent payments, less disposable income.

 

[The Rabbi]

Compensation as a percentage of GDP peaked in about 1980. It has declined by about 6 percentage points since then. You can blame government regulations, taxes and social programs for the decline.

So, we're in an era of lower taxes, reduced welfare spending for the poor (compared to back then, adjusting for inflation) and fewer regulations on financial institutions and Wall Street, and less oversight as the GOP has gutted regulatory agencies... Yeah. I can see where you're going with this. Conservative ideology leads to less money for working people.

"Make it available" to whom? If you take the same total wages and divide it up among a greater number of families, then you get lower average family wages. The math is so simple that even a liberal could do it.

Don't try to move the goal posts now. You said families were smaller now. That said, if what you were saying was true, then a smaller family with the same income means more disposable income.

Maybe you don't follow your own words. The number of families wasn't what you brought up. And again, we can still show that families are making less now in real wages than they were in 1980 (which even your chart helps to show how much of a failure conservative economics is).

You said families were smaller now. That said, if what you were saying was true, then a smaller family with the same income means more disposable income.

Dad working, $40k
Mom working $35k
Junior working $3k

Average Household Income $78k

Mom and Dad divorce.

Dad working, $40k

Mom working, $35k
Junior working, $3k

2 smaller households, Average Household Income $39k
Two rent payments, less disposable income.

Libs are bad at math!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, we're in an era of lower taxes, reduced welfare spending for the poor (compared to back then, adjusting for inflation) and fewer regulations on financial institutions and Wall Street, and less oversight as the GOP has gutted regulatory agencies... Yeah. I can see where you're going with this. Conservative ideology leads to less money for working people.


Don't try to move the goal posts now. You said families were smaller now. That said, if what you were saying was true, then a smaller family with the same income means more disposable income.

Maybe you don't follow your own words. The number of families wasn't what you brought up. And again, we can still show that families are making less now in real wages than they were in 1980 (which even your chart helps to show how much of a failure conservative economics is).

You said families were smaller now. That said, if what you were saying was true, then a smaller family with the same income means more disposable income.

Dad working, $40k
Mom working $35k
Junior working $3k

Average Household Income $78k

Mom and Dad divorce.

Dad working, $40k

Mom working, $35k
Junior working, $3k

2 smaller households, Average Household Income $39k
Two rent payments, less disposable income.

Libs are bad at math!

And economics.

 

[Mathbud1]

It is amazing the wealth envy displayed, as well as the lack of critical thinking,
At what point is wealth "excessive"? DOnt know. They can't answer.
At what point does somene earn "too much"? Dont know. They can't answer.
Why is it a problem what a corporation pays its CEO? Dont know. They can't answer.
Why is Beyonce's $30M salary different from Larry Ellison's salary? Don't know, they can't answer.

But someone somewhere is making big bucks and I want some dammit! That seems to be the only motivation here.

I think the most blatant example of this in this thread was the "**** what's fair" but "you have a responsibility to pay your fair share." post by one of them.

 

[Mathbud1]

The fortunate 400

400 tax returns reporting the highest incomes in 2009.

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.
another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.


The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston | Reuters

The 400 richest Americans used to pay 30% of their income on the average to Uncle Sam(but 55% in 1955).


Yeah, the 'rich' create jobs *shaking head* Ever look around and recognize without demand, jobs aren't created?


The US corporate business model has changed: It used to be based on sharing profits with workers to incentivize them and generate loyalty. Now, the model has shifted to rewarding not workers, but shareholders and upper management.. So, as corporate profits soar, the rich get richer and workers are told they are lucky to even have a job so stop whining about income disparity.



A recent IRS study found that one in every 189 taxpayers earning $200,000 or more in adjusted gross income paid no income tax in 2009, the most recent year for which complete data is available. That's more than 10,000 wealthy households paying no taxes anywhere in the world, and more than 35,000 paying no U.S. income tax.

How Thousands of Wealthy People Pay No Taxes (It's Totally Legal) - DailyFinance

" Ever look around and recognize without demand, jobs aren't created?"

There is always demand for jobs. Demand doesn't create jobs. People with ideas, motivation, and money create jobs.

Got it, willfully ignorant, not demand for jobs dummy, demand for products or services, in your theory, India and China should be a paradise for their citizens right? lol

Oh I get it then, like how there was a huge demand for tablets BEFORE Apple came out with the iPad. Oh wait, there wasn't.

If demand alone drove the market, there would never be any innovation (or at least not nearly as much.)

I will admit I was wrong to make the blanket statement that "demand doesn't create jobs." Demand can be a great motivator for companies to create jobs, but demand alone won't create anything. Someone has to step up with capital and drive to create jobs. Otherwise in YOUR theory China and India would be paradise: no other country has as much demand as them so no other country should be able to create jobs as well. Right?

 

[Dad2three]

" Ever look around and recognize without demand, jobs aren't created?"

There is always demand for jobs. Demand doesn't create jobs. People with ideas, motivation, and money create jobs.

Got it, willfully ignorant, not demand for jobs dummy, demand for products or services, in your theory, India and China should be a paradise for their citizens right? lol

Oh I get it then, like how there was a huge demand for tablets BEFORE Apple came out with the iPad. Oh wait, there wasn't.

If demand alone drove the market, there would never be any innovation (or at least not nearly as much.)

I will admit I was wrong to make the blanket statement that "demand doesn't create jobs." Demand can be a great motivator for companies to create jobs, but demand alone won't create anything. Someone has to step up with capital and drive to create jobs. Otherwise in YOUR theory China and India would be paradise: no other country has as much demand as them so no other country should be able to create jobs as well. Right?

So if Apple came out with the tablets and it DIDN'T have demand, would there be jobs? See Dot Com bust, LOTS of innovation right?

CONSUMER DEMAND CREATES THE JOBS, YOU ARE TRYING TO SELL 'TRICKLE DOWN' AS A TOOL FOR THE 1%ers

My theory on China and India says THOSE nations should have near zero unemployment based on YOUR premise that markets create jobs versus demand from consumers!