Raising Taxes On The Rich Would Reduce Income Inequality
- Thread starter Yoda
- Start date
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
That is true if the rich simply put their money into cash that doesn't draw interest. How many wealthy people do you know that don't want their money to earn interest or cap gains?
Taft2016
Verified User
http://money.howstuffworks.com/how-much-money-is-in-the-world.htm
Now, only a dullard would believe there is only $3800 per person of wealth in the USA, or $10,000 for that matter.
The amount of cash is an immaterial measure of wealth.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Theoretically, yes. Unfortunately, we live on a planet of finite resources, and in an economy of finite resources.
Simple truth.....making the rich poorer will not make the poor richer...differential of their portion of the total wealth at any given moment for each is irrelevant.....
and that graph only shows or proves that the differential has changed.....not that the poor have become any poorer. As a matter of FACT the poor have steadily
made material gains relative to what they had years ago....the relative gain compared to the rich is again not relevant...
The 'poor', generally speaking, now enjoy TV's, cellphones, adequate housing, adequate clothing, medical care, etc....a far cry in comparison to the poor of decades ago...
You do understand what 'generally' means I presume.
The analogy is spot on.
While there is a finite amount of resources which can become wealth, we have no idea what it is. They find new ways to utilize everything all the time. It is just as valid to think of it as infinite since we dont know its limit. Besides the wealthy are not carving out their gains from the po folks or it would not be possible to grow as they do. Its not a zero sum situation. Whether accounts are held off shore or not is moot as nobody who is wealthy leaves their money in the bank. It gets invested in any number of ways and those desisions are about potential and cost. If it costs x amt more to make your gains if Country y than country z you invest in country z ( all else being equal). This country used to be a great mix of potential and cost. No more. Regulation, unskilled labor and such make the cost of goods sold unappealing. Even if your reasons for making investment are lofty, making yourself disproportionatly unattractive is counterproductive.
Balance in all things would be a good goal for the us now. We are badly out of balance right now.
Thing1 confuses currency with wealth.....wealth is a world infinite and has been growing since the beginning of time....wealth is created....currency is printed.
Those that create it are the rich.....you won't get rich by stealing from those that have nothing....
It clearly will NOT reduce income inequality and claims to the contrary are a pile of horse manure and you will be hard pressed to provide anything credible to back that moronic assertion up.
Apparently arithmetic, along with honesty, is not your forte’.
That is an outright lie; the poor have NOT gotten poorer and it has NOTHING to do with the rich getting richer.
LMAO; a leftist history professor proving he is an economics dunce.
Here are the FACTS which you seem to be immune from the CBPP (hardly a Conservative source):
Part IV: Incomes Rose at the Bottom
The average income of the bottom fifth of households, when non-cash and tax-based benefits are included, rose by more than 75 percent between 1964 and 2012, after adjusting for inflation and the significant decline in household size over this period. Both earnings and government assistance contributed substantially to this growth.
The bottom fifth of households generally encompasses poor families and some people modestly above the poverty line.
If we measure from 1973 rather than from 1964, income growth for the bottom fifth has been less dramatic but still notable; the bottom fifth’s average income increased 18 percent between 1973 and 2007, years that are comparable because both were peaks of a business cycle. Incomes fell among the poorest fifth of households during the Great Recession, though increased non-cash benefits and unemployment benefits helped buffer the loss.
The next chart highlights the growing importance of non-cash and tax-based benefits such as SNAP and the EITC. If one counts only households’ cash income (including government cash benefits such as Social Security) but excludes non-cash and tax-based benefits such as SNAP and the EITC, the purchasing power of low-income households was lower in 2012 — when incomes remained depressed because of the recession — than in 1973. But when the non-cash and tax-based benefits are counted, the decline turns into a modest improvement.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=4070
More facts:
The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau as taken from various government reports:
• 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
• 92 percent of poor households have a microwave.
• Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.
• Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.
• Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70 percent have a VCR.
• Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.
• More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
• 43 percent have Internet access.
• One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
• One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo.
For decades, the living conditions of the poor have steadily improved. Consumer items that were luxuries or significant purchases for the middle class a few decades ago have become commonplace in poor households, partially because of the normal downward price trend that follows introduction of a new product.
http://www.heritage.org/research/re...d-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor
Let's look at more if you think it is unique to Bill; what about Steve Jobs, how about Tom Monaghan or Truet Cathy? There are thousands of them. Pick any one of them.
But what you will NOT find is any wealthy individuals who made poor people poorer; what you will find is that they raised ALL boats as they built their wealth. That is the simple reality and FACTS leftist dunces refuse to acknowledge when they engage in their dimwitted and moronic Marxist class envy rants.
So please provide credible proof of wealthy individuals who have made poor people poorer or caused income inequality. I am all eyes to see your credible proof.
The claim is that it will reduce income inequality; your arguments are not even on topic but rather, attempts to wander away from the topic in your typical dishonest fashion without addressing the facts.
How do these programs reduce income inequality? They don't.
LMAO; run along you whiney buffoon.
LMAO; run along you whiney pathetic buffoon. As usual you add NOTHING to the debate.
LMAO; you are comedic.
maineman
Banned
you claim that my math is in error, but have yet to show how, exactly that is the case. I await a simple arithmetic lesson from you, but I won't hold my breath.
I claim that if Person A has a pre-tax income of $1000 and he is taxed at 75%, his after tax income is, simplistically speaking, only $250.
if Person B has a pre tax income of $500 and he is taxed at 50%, his after tax income is $250. The differential in incomes before and after taxes did indeed change. Before taxes, Person A had income that was twice as much as Person B, yet their after tax incomes are identical because of the different tax rates applied to them. And the shrinking differential will always be in place as long as the guy with the higher income is taxed at a higher rate than the guy with the lower income. Every time.
Prove that simple arithmetic wrong, if you can.
I claim that if Person A has a pre-tax income of $1000 and he is taxed at 75%, his after tax income is, simplistically speaking, only $250.
if Person B has a pre tax income of $500 and he is taxed at 50%, his after tax income is $250. The differential in incomes before and after taxes did indeed change. Before taxes, Person A had income that was twice as much as Person B, yet their after tax incomes are identical because of the different tax rates applied to them. And the shrinking differential will always be in place as long as the guy with the higher income is taxed at a higher rate than the guy with the lower income. Every time.
Prove that simple arithmetic wrong, if you can.
maineman
Banned
LMAO
maineman
Banned
and you, sadly, are not. You used to bring a chuckle to me, but now, you just bore me. Mr. Insult with no other content.
::yawn::
Dear dunce; how does your "simple" math reduce income inequality? The rich will still be earning the SAME income; the poor will still be making the SAME income. I know you want to argue the AFTER tax implications and completely disregard the FACT that incomes remain unequal.
At the same time, you fail to coherently explain how RAISING these taxes will make incomes MORE equal. How do the poor EARN more income by having the Government steal from one group and give it to the other group in order to BUY elections?
As was explained to you a thousand times, and still you are too painfully stupid or dishonest to comprehend, we have spent almost $21 trillion on the war on poverty only to find out that MORE people are poor than when the program started; how has this changed the equation? The "simple" answer is that it has not and cannot. It is a Liberal Political gambit used to fool uninformed dunces into believing that Liberals care more than anyone else on the planet while doing absolutely NOTHING to reduce poverty.
Once again I ask you; how has Bill Gates wealth, or anyone for that matter, caused poverty in this nation or the income of those on the bottom rung to decline? The honest answer, which you refuse to acknowledge, is that it hasn't. In FACT, their growth in wealth have created a LOT of wealth and raised ALL economic levels along with our living standards.
Alas, I am trying to reason with a dishonest, hyper partisan economic dunce who desperately avoids the truth and the facts.
Carry on Commander Dimwit.
LMAO; perhaps you need to re-read my signature Mr. Hypocrite dunce?
You are a one trick pony stuck on stupid.
maineman
Banned
what a ridiculous assertion.... income somehow now only applies to earning before income taxes.... so the implications of a progressive income tax have nothing to do with reducing the differential between rich and poor?
So... if their incomes remain the same, as far as you're concerned, why shouldn't we just tax the living shit out of the rich folks? Set the top marginal rate at 99%? Hell... it won't change their income a bit.... right? They keep score in life based upon what their EBIT is, not what their after tax disposable income is... everybody knows that.
you're a fucking moron.
So... if their incomes remain the same, as far as you're concerned, why shouldn't we just tax the living shit out of the rich folks? Set the top marginal rate at 99%? Hell... it won't change their income a bit.... right? They keep score in life based upon what their EBIT is, not what their after tax disposable income is... everybody knows that.
you're a fucking moron.