The Global Elite: Rigging the Rules That Fuel Inequality

I Love America said:
But, you would be wrong.

Bill Gates is worth $40 billion. If you increase the top marginal rate to 90% does his wealth decrease?
Click to expand...

That's a great question; I can't wait to see the answer. But then, I would also like to know how Gate's wealth, would then transfer onto those who have much less wealth through this progressive taxation.

What say you sage Maineman economics professor?
 
maineman said:
what was the percentage differential in marginal tax rates between the highest and the lowest in 1950?
Click to expand...

Why would you ask someone who obviously is not at the epic level of intelligence that you are? You should be telling him what it was and how that progressive taxation transfers wealth onto others!!
 
Truth Detector said:
I didn't say that you did. But in order for progressive tax rates to have an impact on wealth, isn't that saying the same thing?

But again, you didn't answer my questions, is wealth the same as income? And if taxes impact wealth, how is that wealth transferred to those who are not as wealthy?

Curious minds want to know. I'm feeling smarter just having this conversation with you; thanks!
Click to expand...

are you suggesting that a progressive income tax does not impact the rate at which people amass wealth? Are you saying that if we allow poorer people to keep more of their earned income that they will not have the potential to see their wealth grow in a way they would not see if they were taxed at the same rate as wealthy people? really?
 
maineman said:
are you suggesting that a progressive income tax does not impact the rate at which people amass wealth? Are you saying that if we allow poorer people to keep more of their earned income that they will not have the potential to see their wealth grow in a way they would not see if they were taxed at the same rate as wealthy people? really?
Click to expand...

Do you always engage in dishonest tactics like not answering questions or answering a question with a new question which is the definition of the circle of stupidity?

Why are you asking me about what I am saying when I have been perfectly clear about it? Progressive taxation does not exist to redistribute wealth anymore than income relates to wealth.

You're the dunce making such claims and I am asking you to clarify how they do. But all I keep getting is this dishonest stupidity of deflection and obfuscation.

Let's try this again and see if you can attempt to be honest and answer the question; How do progressive taxes affect wealth? And if they do affect wealth, how does the Government "redistribute" that wealth to others who have less of it?

Is it your opinion that wealth is the same as income? Yes or no? If yes, how?
 
Truth Detector said:
Do you always engage in dishonest tactics like not answering questions or answering a question with a new question which is the definition of the circle of stupidity?

Why are you asking me about what I am saying when I have been perfectly clear about it? Progressive taxation does not exist to redistribute wealth anymore than income relates to wealth.

You're the dunce making such claims and I am asking you to clarify how they do. But all I keep getting is this dishonest stupidity of deflection and obfuscation.

Let's try this again and see if you can attempt to be honest and answer the question; How do progressive taxes affect wealth? And if they do affect wealth, how does the Government "redistribute" that wealth to others who have less of it?

Is it your opinion that wealth is the same as income? Yes or no? If yes, how?
Click to expand...

1. progressive income taxes limit the rate at which the wealthy can increase their wealth.
2. the government redistributes funds by providing social services.
3. wealth is definitely to the same as income. Net income adds to wealth.

And I never said that progressive taxation "exists" to redistribute wealth.

now...answer mine:

are you suggesting that a progressive income tax does not impact the rate at which people amass wealth? Are you saying that if we allow poorer people to keep more of their earned income that they will not have the potential to see their wealth grow in a way they would not see if they were taxed at the same rate as wealthy people? really?
 
maineman said:
what was the percentage differential in marginal tax rates between the highest and the lowest in 1950?
Click to expand...

The highest in 1950 was 90% but it was on income above $1.9 million which is not an apples to apples comparison. However using todays top marginal rate of 39% on income above $450,000 that would have been a top marginal rate of 72% in 1950 which is a difference of 52%.

Are you trying to claim that the differential is proof of the progressiveness of the tax code? Seriously?

Look, I am all for going back to the tax code of 1950 if you want to. Let's raise taxes on those making $19,000 a year. Bring it the fuck on.

Here is the thing sparkles, those European countries you envy so much don't do it by soaking the rich. They do it by soaking the middle class with regressive tax schemes like the VAT. They also don't have to spend money on the military because of the implicit protection of the United States of America. We have been providing military welfare for years.

But, hey why focus on facts when you can nestle yourself comfortably in lies?
 
maineman said:
1. progressive income taxes limit the rate at which the wealthy can increase their wealth.
Click to expand...

They do? So what you are saying is that if a wealthy person owns a high rise building, progressive tax rates limit how much that building will appreciate with time? How so?

If the wealthy person owns stocks worth $1 million, progressive tax rates will lower the rate of return on those investments? How so?

What is apparent is that you have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about or the difference between wealth and income or how wealth is created.

maineman said:
2. the government redistributes funds by providing social services.
Click to expand...

So you think “funds” equates to wealth? Interesting presumption; but NO, funds do not equate to wealth and redistributing those “funds” will not make anyone “wealthier.”

maineman said:
3. wealth is definitely to the same as income. Net income adds to wealth.
Click to expand...

Wrong; perhaps you need to look it up. NO wait, you’re too lazy and dishonest; I will do it for you.

I am amused that you think one needs income to increase wealth; where do you get this dimwitted nonsense?

Tell me how these two are the same:

in•comeˈɪn kʌmShow Spelled [in-kuhm]
noun
1. the monetary payment received for goods or services, or from other sources, as rents or investments.
2. something that comes in as an addition or increase, especially by chance.
3. Archaic. a coming in.

Wealth wɛlθShow Spelled [welth]
noun
1. a great quantity or store of money, valuable possessions, property, or other riches: the wealth of a city.
2. an abundance or profusion of anything; plentiful amount: a wealth of imagery.
3. Economics .
a. all things that have a monetary or exchange value.
b. anything that has utility and is capable of being appropriated or exchanged.
4. rich or valuable contents or produce: the wealth of the soil.
5. the state of being rich; prosperity; affluence: persons of wealth and standing.

Example; if I buy 1000 shares of apple at $10, and then the stock value increases to $20 in a year, I am now wealthier. Income had NOTHING to do with that. Progressive tax rates will not change that no matter how much you try to twist and spin like a top.

maineman said:
And I never said that progressive taxation "exists" to redistribute wealth.
Click to expand...

Here is exactly what you said so that you can be less confused because you have a problem remembering through all your obfuscations and deflections:

Do you know what a progressive income tax DOES? Here's a clue... it adjusts the inequity between the wealthy and the poor by taxing the wealthy a greater percentage of their income than the poor are taxed.

I would argue that your claim that it adjusts the inequity between the wealthy and the poor is basically arguing that some form of exchange occurs to make things more equitable. We call this “redistribution.”

maineman said:
now...answer mine:
are you suggesting that a progressive income tax does not impact the rate at which people amass wealth?
Click to expand...

Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting; a progressive income tax has ZERO impact on the rate people amass wealth because the two are NOT the same and it is painfully stupid to suggest that they do.

See above.

maineman said:
Are you saying that if we allow poorer people to keep more of their earned income that they will not have the potential to see their wealth grow in a way they would not see if they were taxed at the same rate as wealthy people?
Click to expand...

First, let’s be clear; when have I ever advocated that poor people should NOT be allowed to keep more of what they earn? The correct answer would be NEVER. So what is the purpose of this strawman claim? It serves no purpose other than to be dishonest and deflect; nothing more, nothing less because you just can’t help yourself.

Can the poor accumulate wealth by retaining more of their income sheltered from income taxes; that answer is an unequivocal NO, because accumulating income does not equate to wealth.

Are you saying that poor people can become wealthy simply by Government allowing them to keep more of what they earn? That is simply stupid.

maineman said:
really?
Click to expand...

Yes really; you are THAT incredibly dumb and uninformed. No wonder you voted for Obama twice. ;)

And you call me stupid; rather ironic don't you think?

Dunce.
 
I Love America said:
The highest in 1950 was 90% but it was on income above $1.9 million which is not an apples to apples comparison. However using todays top marginal rate of 39% on income above $450,000 that would have been a top marginal rate of 72% in 1950 which is a difference of 52%.

Are you trying to claim that the differential is proof of the progressiveness of the tax code? Seriously?

Look, I am all for going back to the tax code of 1950 if you want to. Let's raise taxes on those making $19,000 a year. Bring it the fuck on.

Here is the thing sparkles, those European countries you envy so much don't do it by soaking the rich. They do it by soaking the middle class with regressive tax schemes like the VAT. They also don't have to spend money on the military because of the implicit protection of the United States of America. We have been providing military welfare for years.

But, hey why focus on facts when you can nestle yourself comfortably in lies?
Click to expand...

BINGO!
 
Truth Detector said:
They do? So what you are saying is that if a wealthy person owns a high rise building, progressive tax rates limit how much that building will appreciate with time? How so?
Click to expand...
that would be a relevant statement if I said that progressive taxes limited ALL their wealth

If the wealthy person owns stocks worth $1 million, progressive tax rates will lower the rate of return on those investments? How so?
Click to expand...

ditto


So you think “funds” equates to wealth? Interesting presumption; but NO, funds do not equate to wealth and redistributing those “funds” will not make anyone “wealthier.”
Click to expand...

if the distribution of those funds through social programs allows individuals receiving benefits from those programs to avoid spending their own money on those services, then, of course, it increases their wealth.



I am amused that you think one needs income to increase wealth; where do you get this dimwitted nonsense?
Click to expand...


I never said that one "needed" income to increase wealth. I said income increases wealth.

tell me how these two are the same:
Click to expand...

I never said they were the "same".


Here is exactly what you said so that you can be less confused because you have a problem remembering through all your obfuscations and deflections:

Do you know what a progressive income tax DOES? Here's a clue... it adjusts the inequity between the wealthy and the poor by taxing the wealthy a greater percentage of their income than the poor are taxed.

I would argue that your claim that it adjusts the inequity between the wealthy and the poor is basically arguing that some form of exchange occurs to make things more equitable. We call this “redistribution.”
Click to expand...

and I would agree. It certainly is a form of redistribution.


Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting; a progressive income tax has ZERO impact on the rate people amass wealth because the two are NOT the same and it is painfully stupid to suggest that they do.
Click to expand...

So... if all of a sudden, the marginal tax rate for very wealthy people went to 100%, you believe that their rate of increase in wealth would remain unchanged? You don't think that wealthy people use income to increase the amount of their wealth?

Can the poor accumulate wealth by retaining more of their income sheltered from income taxes; that answer is an unequivocal NO, because accumulating income does not equate to wealth.

Are you saying that poor people can become wealthy simply by Government allowing them to keep more of what they earn? That is simply stupid.
Click to expand...

I never said that poor people can become "wealthy" simply by that method. Poor people CAN accumulate more wealth if they get to keep more of THEIR money while simultaneously availing themselves of needed services paid for, in part, by the money of wealthy people that is collected in a progressive income tax. Would you disagree with that?
 
maineman said:
that would be a relevant statement if I said that progressive taxes limited ALL their wealthdittoif the distribution of those funds through social programs allows individuals receiving benefits from those programs to avoid spending their own money on those services, then, of course, it increases their wealth.I never said that one "needed" income to increase wealth. I said income increases wealth.I never said they were the "same".and I would agree. It certainly is a form of redistribution.So... if all of a sudden, the marginal tax rate for very wealthy people went to 100%, you believe that their rate of increase in wealth would remain unchanged? You don't think that wealthy people use income to increase the amount of their wealth?I never said that poor people can become "wealthy" simply by that method. Poor people CAN accumulate more wealth if they get to keep more of THEIR money while simultaneously availing themselves of needed services paid for, in part, by the money of wealthy people that is collected in a progressive income tax. Would you disagree with that?
Click to expand...

:facepalm:
 
I Love America said:
Only if you institute the entire tax code not just the top. You agree to 20% for those making less than $19,000?

If so we have a deal.
Click to expand...

as it turns out, neither of us is in a position to make such a deal, but I am glad to see that you are totally on board with a 90% marginal rate for the wealthy. That is really good news.
 
maineman said:
when one is reduced to silly graphics, it's pretty obvious they've been beaten.
Click to expand...

Wrong again dunce; it is an admission that one cannot argue with an idiot. Your stupidity and dishonesty know no bounds. You really are THAT stupid.
 
Last edited:
maineman said:
as it turns out, neither of us is in a position to make such a deal, but I am glad to see that you are totally on board with a 90% marginal rate for the wealthy. That is really good news.
Click to expand...

Only if you are of board with a 20% marginal rate for the poor. Are you? You are trying to be cute maybe you learned it from your homosexual son?
 
I'm still waiting for kennethdunce to tell me who this cabal of global elites are and the methods they use to "rig" the rules and what those "rules" are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top