Raising Taxes On The Rich Would Reduce Income Inequality

Taft2016 said:
If that's your final answer, very well.

Is there a possibility that all of these alleged "social benefits" the richest sectors are paying for will contract the job market (as is currently underway), and cause these alleged beneficiaries to lose their jobs?

What possible good is home heating assistance going to be when the owner's job is vanished and the house itself lost along with it?
Click to expand...

I am not sure that you can establish a cause and effect relationship between the establishment of social benefits and the contraction of the job market.
 
Truth Detector said:
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.
Click to expand...


And yet, I am still smarter than you.

Who'd a thunk it?

Speaks volumes about how monumentally stupid you must be, to be regularly schooled by ME!
 
NOVA said:
Taxes are used to fight wars, buy ships and aircraft, bullets and guns, pay for parties, fuel AF1, built bridges and thousands of other things, too....
are you totally naive ? or just mostly...
Click to expand...


you really shouldn't get into a battle of wits with me... you always lose.... it's like you bring a knife to a gun fight.

Did I say "taxes are SOLELY used to fund social programs"?

No. I did not.

You're a fucking idiot.

go away. go to school. learn some shit... then come on back.
 
maineman said:
I am not sure that you can establish a cause and effect relationship between the establishment of social benefits and the contraction of the job market.
Click to expand...

Truly?

Then how about home heating assistance for everyone? Why means test it if the program will have no impact on the job market?
 
Taft2016 said:
Truly?

Then how about home heating assistance for everyone? Why means test it if the program will have no impact on the job market?
Click to expand...

does everyone need heating assistance? I don't think so. Social programs, by their very nature, are needs based. To varying degrees, our country and our government has been helping those at the bottom of the economic ladder for a long long time. Sometimes we help more than others, but that is an ongoing political discussion that gets rehashed and re-argued every election cycle.
 
maineman said:
does everyone need heating assistance? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Does everybody who gets it truly need it? Does everybody who truly needs it get it?

I would like it.

I would have also liked the clutch job on my Nissan paid for, which would have served your goal of closing the gap between me and those in the highest income groups.

Meanwhile, if one were to combine all social assistance, it would probably dwarf the cost of home heating assistance for everyone. And yes, of course these costs contract the job market and cost jobs. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
 
maineman said:
again.... taxes are used to fund social programs... like, for example, LiHEAP. If those in the poorest sector get financial assistance to pay their heating bills thus freeing up part of their limited income to buy other goods and services, is their lot not improved in some way?
Click to expand...
No, their lot is unchanged. The lot of whoever you took the money from is changed though. Well, assuming you didnt just print money as we do today. Now if a lot change is what you seek, then look at ways to make their skill sets more valuable. Then they can save fir their golden years and boost the economy in general during their working years. Just start with improving the hs graduation rate. Having that diploma makes a surprizingly large difference in career income. Oh, and by the way, that WOULD narrow this income differential you are concerned about.
just a thought...
 
maineman said:
So... I guess our little experiment in adult discussion has run its course.
Click to expand...

I'd like to know why I'm excluded from your little gap closing programs. Not only excluded from, but socked with the bill for...

You can be an adult and answer.
 
Celticguy said:
No, their lot is unchanged. The lot of whoever you took the money from is changed though. Well, assuming you didnt just print money as we do today. Now if a lot change is what you seek, then look at ways to make their skill sets more valuable. Then they can save fir their golden years and boost the economy in general during their working years. Just start with improving the hs graduation rate. Having that diploma makes a surprizingly large difference in career income. Oh, and by the way, that WOULD narrow this income differential you are concerned about.
just a thought...
Click to expand...
We'll have to agree to disagree concerning your first sentence. So be it.
 
Taft2016 said:
I'd like to know why I'm excluded from your little gap closing programs. Not only excluded from, but socked with the bill for...

You can be an adult and answer.
Click to expand...

you act as if the purpose of social programs is gap closing. It is not... it is needs filling. If everyone had enough to eat, and were gainfully employed, and their employer provided them with a living wage, and good healthcare for their families, then no one would care very much about how much richer the rich got. And I will readily admit that the floor below which we in America don't feel comfortable letting our people live is much higher than the rest of the world, and much higher than it was here a hundred years ago. It is not about bringing the wealthy down to achieve parity with the poor... it is about the very natural human response of wanting to help those who truly need help. No one wants to make the poor wealthy, or the wealthy poor. I know I certainly don't.
 
maineman said:
you act as if the purpose of social programs is gap closing. It is not... it is needs filling. If everyone had enough to eat, and were gainfully employed, and their employer provided them with a living wage, and good healthcare for their families, then no one would care very much about how much richer the rich got. And I will readily admit that the floor below which we in America don't feel comfortable letting our people live is much higher than the rest of the world, and much higher than it was here a hundred years ago. It is not about bringing the wealthy down to achieve parity with the poor... it is about the very natural human response of wanting to help those who truly need help. No one wants to make the poor wealthy, or the wealthy poor. I know I certainly don't.
Click to expand...

A rare acknowledgement that we already have the richest poor people in the world.

That being the case, what is the burning need for this gap closing?

That being the case, why the enhanced class warfare?

Which, incidentally, doesn't close the gap much between welfare recipients and Bill Gates quite as successfully as it closes the gap between me and welfare recipients.
 
Taft2016 said:
A rare acknowledgement that we already have the richest poor people in the world.

That being the case, what is the burning need for this gap closing?

That being the case, why the enhanced class warfare?

Which, incidentally, doesn't close the gap much between welfare recipients and Bill Gates quite as successfully as it closes the gap between me and welfare recipients.
Click to expand...

again... you try to make it seem as if gap closing were the raison d'être of it all. It's not.
 
maineman said:
again... you try to make it seem as if gap closing were the raison d'être of it all. It's not.
Click to expand...

In this eponymous thread it is.

The argument progressed:

Raising taxes closes the income gap.
How?
Through social programs.
So social programs close the income gap?
Not necesssarily

Huh?
 
maineman said:
no one is asking for "income equality". No one on the left is saying that the rich shouldn't be rich, or that there will not always be poor. It is the growing disparity between the very rich and everyone else that is disturbing to me personally. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to run the trend lines out thirty more years and see that, by then, the top one tenth of one percent will own nearly everything, and the rest of us will own what little is left. My signature line is prescient in that regard.
Click to expand...


The rich getting richer doesn't make the poor any poorer...

Lets put it so that even a 6 year old can understand it,

breaking the leg of a fast runner won't make the slow runner run faster......simple logic.

Going to illogical extremes won't make your argument any more valid. Wealth is not finite...
 
NOVA said:
The rich getting richer doesn't make the poor any poorer...

Lets put it so that even a 6 year old can understand it,

breaking the leg of a fast runner won't make the slow runner run faster......simple logic.

Going to illogical extremes won't make your argument any more valid. Wealth is not finite...
Click to expand...

What a ridiculous analogy.

You realize that there IS only a finite amount of currency, correct?

The more the rich accumulate and put in offshore accounts, the less there is in the American economy. There really isn't any dispute on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top