zappasguitar
Well-known member
He can't...OBVIOUSLY!
If he could, he wouldn't be hiding behind a non-stop fountain of invective.
Raising Taxes On The Rich Would Reduce Income Inequality
- Thread starter Yoda
- Start date
He can't...OBVIOUSLY!
If he could, he wouldn't be hiding behind a non-stop fountain of invective.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
maineman
Banned
taking money from the rich will not, in and of itself, prevent other people from sliding into poverty. taking money from rich people will not stop people from being laid off from their jobs, or getting ill without health insurance, or from being born without the innate ability to deal with the levels of technology all but the most rudimentary of jobs now require. What taking money from rich people CAN do - if government choses to take the necessary steps - is to provide more tax revenues to provide more funding for programs such as medicaid and LiHEAP - to name just two - which help poor people defray some of the costs of living that they would have to cover themselves were those programs not available and not fully funded.
ANd I never ever suggested that rich people CAUSE the poverty of poor people... they certainly aid and abet it, however.
ANd I never ever suggested that rich people CAUSE the poverty of poor people... they certainly aid and abet it, however.
maineman
Banned
This was the statement that caused me to post the simplistic math example:
and... as I showed, it most certainly DOES change income differential.
For Person B's life to be materially improved, however, as I have said, government needs to use some of the tax revenue from Person A to fund programs that provide assistance to Person B so that he can spend his income on other pressing issues in his life. If he gets LiHEAP assistance, for example, he might be able to pay for medicine instead of using limited resources on heating oil.
Now... I can understand how many on the right really don't give a shit about Person B's problems and don't agree with spending tax revenues to subsidize his heating oil bills, but that is a political problem, not a mathematic one.
and... as I showed, it most certainly DOES change income differential.
For Person B's life to be materially improved, however, as I have said, government needs to use some of the tax revenue from Person A to fund programs that provide assistance to Person B so that he can spend his income on other pressing issues in his life. If he gets LiHEAP assistance, for example, he might be able to pay for medicine instead of using limited resources on heating oil.
Now... I can understand how many on the right really don't give a shit about Person B's problems and don't agree with spending tax revenues to subsidize his heating oil bills, but that is a political problem, not a mathematic one.
Yeah...Bush went to his home....big big expense, huh...
How did FOX NEWS get into this ?.....Oh wait....FOX is like BUSH....they get the blame for everything....or its they did it too fallback.
numbers don't lie....liars lie.
So...if the gov. takes more of your money, some poor guy will benefit....?....Hmmmm, let me think........don't think so mm....
Originally Posted by Celticguy
Raising taxes will do nothing to change income differential. This is not rocket science.
More or less taxes will not change my income one penny....rich or poor.
maineman
Banned
does raising the marginal income tax rate reduce the income differential between those in the top bracket and those in the bottom bracket?
yes or no?
How does one refute stupid you dunce?
LMAO; you're truly the most repugnant moron on the forum. You have no peers.
LMAO; a dishonest moron thinking he could recognize a fact if it slapped him on his empty lying skull. You truly are a repugnant asshat of extraordinary proportions.
No it does not; please prove how it does. Do you even comprehend what marginal tax rates mean?
But a better question is this; how does raising the marginal tax rate on the rich improve the poverty of those at the bottom?
maineman
Banned
all you got is insults.
This was the statement that caused me to post the simplistic math example:
can you or can you not refute the math?
I don't need any of your insulting bluster... a simple yes or no will suffice.
This was the statement that caused me to post the simplistic math example:
and... as I showed, it most certainly DOES change income differential.
can you or can you not refute the math?
I don't need any of your insulting bluster... a simple yes or no will suffice.
maineman
Banned
see post #144
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?
Again; it does NOTHING to reduce the differential. Your math is indeed simplistic in that it presumes that everything is equal and stays relative. But that is incorrect. And even if such a moronic claim were true; how does this benefit those with less?
maineman
Banned
raising the marginal tax rate reduces the differential between incomes. plain and simple.
and your second question was asked earlier by you and answered by me and then I told you again where to go read the answer. I won't do that again... go read the fucking post.
Taft2016
Verified User
If I may, where you are going wrong is presuming liberals wish to lift up the poor.
They can not, and they know they can not.
To them, the next best thing is to bring the wealthy down.
They can not, and they know they can not.
So they settle for punishing those with incomes over a certain level. Which is typically the middle and upper middle classes.
For Person B's life to be materially improved, however, as I have said, government needs to use some of the tax revenue from Person A to fund programs that provide assistance to Person B so that he can spend his income on other pressing issues in his life. If he gets LiHEAP assistance, for example, he might be able to pay for medicine instead of using limited resources on heating oil.
Now... I can understand how many on the right really don't give a shit about Person B's problems and don't agree with spending tax revenues to subsidize his heating oil bills, but that is a political problem, not a mathematic one.
If this were true, Government would have eradicated the need for assistance and programs $20 trillion dollars ago. Yet all the taxes in the world never seem to have any impact on the many who suffer from poverty; why do you think that is?
I know you wish to pander to ignorance and the laughably stupid premise that only Government can be the arbiter of what is fair and good, and the equally false premise that raising tax rates will directly correlate to the poor being better off; yet they will not. Even to this day with the $3.4 trillion the Government spends, most of which is on social welfare, Liberals still rant about the unfairness of the 1%.
If you raised taxes on the rich to 90% of their income; you would still have poverty and inequality.
But alas, you do not care what the cause of poverty really is, or why people are poor; you want to play the dishonest semantics game of ignoring the facts, the truth and reality, and engage in the ignorant partisan drivel that is such a BIG part of your life.
You see, Liberals don't want to solve the problem of poverty; that would make them irrelevant. You see, Democrats and Liberals need people who are "victims" in order to promote their dishonest agenda that arrogantly "presumes" that only Liberal politicians "care" enough and know what is good for everyone else.
That is the truth that you and morons like Zappas try to avoid. It is a feckless dishonest agenda that ensures that there will be continued poverty, vast wage inequality and dependency.
The cause of poverty which you have been desperately avoiding is NOT that the wealthy have too much, it is due to ignorance and a lack of quality education and single parent families that are not dedicated to ensuring a safe nurturing environment to learn and grow. It really is THAT basic. And until we, the sheeple, honestly deal with those FACTS and stop the partisan bullshit, there will always be a dependent class of losers who dishonest Liberal politicians are willing to prey on and pander to in order to stay in political power.