Raising Taxes On The Rich Would Reduce Income Inequality

maineman said:
how is there any differential?

person A has X amount of income before income taxes are assessed

person B has Y amount of income before income taxes are assessed and it is significantly less than the income of person A.

person A has HIS income taxed at a high marginal rate.

person B has his income taxed at a low marginal rate, or even pays no taxes.

what will happen to the difference between those two incomes after those taxes are assessed?

will it remain exactly the same, will it be a larger number or will it be a smaller number?
Click to expand...

Where do you come up with this differential crap anyway? I thought the argument was reducing income inequality? How would that occur using your "simple" math? Would income inequality really be reduced? Wouldn't the rich person still be making the SAME income?

Damn you are one dumb leftist. No wonder you voted for the most inept, inexperienced, arrogant buffoon to inhabit the White House; you epitomize the low information voter.

Dunce.
 
maineman said:
but it IS about the toll that winter takes on the poor and the homeless. absolutely. and it is about the FACT that for many of them LiHEAP is a major BENEFIT in their lives, even if you pompously chose to think it ought not to be.
Click to expand...

Again; this is not about the toll winter takes on the poor and the homeless, it is about the FALSE premise that without Federal assistance, people will freeze and starve.

The topic is the equally false claim that says raising taxes on the rich reduces income inequality.

But again, I am arguing with an uninformed dishonest dunce who is stuck permanently on stupid. Yay you!
 
maineman said:
did you MISS my posting of the quote from Judge Learned Hand?

if you were honest, you would understand that people like me want EVERYONE who is as well off as we are to pay more, not just us.
Click to expand...

Of course you do, you're a pinhead that can't stay out of other peoples affairs.....
So you're under no obligation to pay more in taxes than the law demands....no shit, amigo....did you need the judge to tell you that....its what every taxpayer
does and has been doing since taxes were first levied on us....wtf is your point....

the fact that YOU worry yourself sick about what everyone else pays it what is notable....don't worry about everyone else, its really none of your business....
YOU can pay whatever YOU think is fair for you, whatever the hell your little pea brain tells you....the law sets only the minimum you MUST pay....

the only thing unfair about it is that the some pinheads said that some don't have to pay anything for the goods and services they enjoy while others must pay
for that share along with their own share.....
 
Rune said:
No, you are apparently ignorant of history. The rate has been much higher than 75%.
Click to expand...

It was as high as 92% in 1952. Do you think it lowered income inequality and that the rich actually had to pay 92%?

Did it result in surpluses; or were there deficits as well?
 
NOVA said:
Of course you do, you're a pinhead that can't stay out of other peoples affairs.....
So you're under no obligation to pay more in taxes than the law demands....no shit, amigo....did you need the judge to tell you that....its what every taxpayer
does and has been doing since taxes were first levied on us....wtf is your point....

the fact that YOU worry yourself sick about what everyone else pays it what is notable....don't worry about everyone else, its really none of your business....
YOU can pay whatever YOU think is fair for you, whatever the hell your little pea brain tells you....the law sets only the minimum you MUST pay....

the only thing unfair about it is that the some pinheads said that some don't have to pay anything for the goods and services they enjoy while others must pay
for that share along with their own share.....
Click to expand...

Semen Maineboy thinks he sounds noble. He is an idiot punk
 
your opinion.... most folks I know don't share it, however.

sorry that I've left such a poor impression on you....

no. strike that... I really don't give a flying fuck what sort of impression I leave on cretins like you.
 
Truth Detector said:
In the REAL world, all the redistribution efforts in the world have never improved the condition of the poor; why do you think that is?



You suggest it every time you attempt to blame poverty on the 1%. Perhaps you are too "simple" and stupid to comprehend it?



They do not aid nor abet poverty; that is an incredibly stupid and false claim. Please show provable evidence showing how rich aid and abet poverty; I am all eyes. Let’s start with Bill Gates, Steven Jobs and Tom Monighan.

The war on poverty was started during the Johnson administration on the false premise that Government largess could eradicate it; why has it failed after spending over $20 trillion?
Click to expand...

How do you know that the lot of the poor isn't much improved, that the number in poverty isn't far less than it would be if not for Johnson's Great Society?

Do you have any proof of your claim?
 
I guess we should feel sorry for Semen Maineboy. I mean all he wants to so is give more money to the gobblement and the mean ole republicans just won't let him
 
Taft2016 said:
So basically you want to make the government a majority partner in every American corporation so you can watch YouTube videos of cats playing the piano without being interrupted for buffering?
Click to expand...

I don't spend any of my time watching youtube videos, not even those linked to by idiots on this or any other website, ignoramus. But thanks for making the assumption, I guess that must be what you do. However, I would like to come home from work at least 2 nights every week and not have to wait while Comcast fucks around with my internet access and I can't get on line at all. You have no idea what kind of service they provide nor how often it is not just slow, but completely unavailable. And you certainly don't know shit about what I do or don't do on the internet. That you think you do shows just what a giant asshole you really are!
 
maineman said:
accountants would say that their EBIT's were unchanged, but their net income after taxes would differ.
Click to expand...


Accountants can use whatever terms makes them happy.

Alice the factory worker would say that her income is unchanged, but her taxable income after deductions would be different and her net income after taxes would differ.
Of course her net income after paying the rent and groceries and other bills would affect her net income too....
net income is, after all, the the excess of revenues over outlays in a given period of time

Did you have a point to make ?
 
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Celticguy

The INCOME is not changed. At all. And if you believe for a second that wealthy people would ever pay more (much less 75%) you are ignoring history.
Click to expand...


Rune said:
No, you are apparently ignorant of history. The rate has been much higher than 75%.
Click to expand...

Did CelticGuy say somewhere that its never been higher than 75% ?.....I missed that part.
 
maineman said:
why would you think you knew enough about me to make that claim?
Click to expand...

Sadly, all the righties here think they know enough about all of us to make all kinds of claims including whether or not we watch you tube videos. I have had my best friend make assumptions about me and I don't mind that but when fucking complete strangers start doing it on the internet, it does get a bit irritating.
 
maineman said:
none that you would possibly comprehend.
Click to expand...

Thats true...I'm accustomed to people using the correct terminology to express what they are trying to say....

The fact remains that tax rates do not change the incomes of anyone....it would certainly affect on buying power or
the actual money that one has to spend or invest, but not income.....

The poor would remain poor and the wealthier would become less wealthy...thats the aim of the socialists and communists...

The only ones to gain are those having the power to rule over the taxpayers.
See how easy that was to explain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top