Raising Taxes On The Rich Would Reduce Income Inequality

and how can an increased top end marginal tax rate NOT reduce the post tax income differential between the richest in that tax bracket and those not in it?
 
maineman said:
and I don't think that you can prove that the constriction of the job market is caused solely by wealth redistribution....
Click to expand...

Another dimwitted strawman argument no one has made; you just can't help yourself can you shit-for-brains?

maineman said:
and I certainly DID provide other objectives - the adequate funding of social programs being one.
Click to expand...

Once again you dishonest dunce; this is not a debate about adequately funding social programs which is another stupid claim, it is about raising taxes on the wealthy on the false and idiotic assertion that it would reduce income inequality.

No one can be this stupid; but alas, you continue removing any doubt that you are beyond mere stupid.
 
maineman said:
and I don't think that you can prove that the constriction of the job market is caused solely by wealth redistribution.... and I certainly DID provide other objectives - the adequate funding of social programs being one.
Click to expand...

Social programs being another factor that constricts the job market and contributes to income inequality.

Taking money out of the free marketplace to give to the government is always a constriction on the job market, which is why government should operate within very limited parameters.
 
Truth Detector said:
Another dimwitted strawman argument no one has made; you just can't help yourself can you shit-for-brains?
Click to expand...

did you bother to READ post #377????



Once again you dishonest dunce; this is not a debate about adequately funding social programs which is another stupid claim, it is about raising taxes on the wealthy on the false and idiotic assertion that it would reduce income inequality.
Click to expand...

again... if you increase the marginal tax rate at the top of the income scale, how can that not cause a reduction in the differential between pre versus post tax incomes of those subject to that top rate when compared to those not subject to it?
 
maineman said:
again... how can you say that someone who has government pick up his heating oil bill has not "benefitted" from that transaction?
Click to expand...
Depends on how long that someone is being benefitted. Does the recipient need very temporary help while he attempts to get back on his feet, or does he surrender to the government's desire to have everybody dependent on the table scraps they want to provide? See, if the government were proactive, they would invest in a plan to get welfare recipients ready to get back into a robust private sector. unfortunately, that's not how today's government wants it. Today's public sector hates the private sector, and wants it destroyed. The best way to do that is to teach people that they are only worth the shit that the government provides. Everyone's contained, including bleeding heart masochists who believe in this kind of bullshit.
 
Taft2016 said:
Social programs being another factor that constricts the job market and contributes to income inequality.

Taking money out of the free marketplace to give to the government is always a constriction on the job market, which is why government should operate within very limited parameters.
Click to expand...

our political philosophies are worlds apart... we'll just have to agree to disagree.
 
Granule said:
Depends on how long that someone is being benefitted. Does the recipient need very temporary help while he attempts to get back on his feet, or does he surrender to the government's desire to have everybody dependent on the table scraps they want to provide? See, if the government were proactive, they would invest in a plan to get welfare recipients ready to get back into a robust private sector. unfortunately, that's not how today's government wants it. Today's public sector hates the private sector, and wants it destroyed. The best way to do that is to teach people that they are only worth the shit that the government provides. Everyone's contained, including bleeding heart masochists who believe in this kind of bullshit.
Click to expand...

irrelevant. The statement was made that recipients of LiHEAP did not "benefit" from the program.
 
maineman said:
and how can an increased top end marginal tax rate NOT reduce the post tax income differential between the richest in that tax bracket and those not in it?
Click to expand...

Once again shit-for-brains; the thread topic is not about reducing post tax income differentials you repugnant dishonest moron, it is the stupid claim that taxation will reduce income inequality.

Unfortunately for the forum, youre too painfully stupid to comprehend anything beyond your dishonest stupidity in that regard.

But being the inept unintelligent retard that you are, you will continue asking the same stupid question over and over and over again. You're a leftist parrot stuck permanently on stupid.
 
Truth Detector said:
Once again shit-for-brains; the thread topic is not about reducing post tax income differentials you repugnant dishonest moron, it is the stupid claim that taxation will reduce income inequality.
Click to expand...

if the income inequality is measured BEFORE taxes and again AFTER the application of progressive tax rates, then that income inequality is diminished. How can it not?
 
maineman said:
irrelevant. The statement was made that recipients of LiHEAP did not "benefit" from the program.
Click to expand...

Really shit-for-brains? Who made that claim? You really are a dishonest lying dunce who fabricates off topic false strawman claims to promote that special brand of stupid we have come to expect from you.

Dismissed Comrade; your dishonest brand of stupid gets way more attention than it deserves.
 
maineman said:
again... if you increase the marginal tax rate at the top of the income scale, how can that not cause a reduction in the differential between pre versus post tax incomes of those subject to that top rate when compared to those not subject to it?
Click to expand...

again... by causing those at the top of the income scale to cut back on their workforce to compensate for the losses caused by the additional taxes.
 
maineman said:
if the income inequality is measured BEFORE taxes and again AFTER the application of progressive tax rates, then that income inequality is diminished. How can it not?
Click to expand...

Income inequality arguments are the pabulum for idiots. The reason is obvious for anyone who has a brain; because income inequality is a fabricated issue by idiots on the left based on Marxist class envy.

It is equally retarded to suggest that the Government should, or can, rectify such fabricated issues.

It is a dunces premise that requires the belief that the reason for this inequality is because the rich caused the poor to earn less; it is so painfully stupid that only gullible retards like you can fall for it. It is a dunce premise that must argue that the economy is finite and therefore, if the rich get more, the rest get correspondingly less . Again, it is a false argument that only naive gullible retards like you can believe.

But when I comes to retarded arguments and claims, you're the king.
 
Truth Detector said:
Income inequality arguments are the pabulum for idiots. The reason is obvious for anyone who has a brain; because income inequality is a fabricated issue by idiots on the left based on Marxist class envy.

It is equally retarded to suggest that the Government should, or can, rectify such fabricated issues.

It is a dunces premise that requires the belief that the reason for this inequality is because the rich caused the poor to earn less; it is so painfully stupid that only gullible retards like you can fall for it. It is a dunce premise that must argue that the economy is finite and therefore, if the rich get more, the rest get correspondingly less . Again, it is a false argument that only naive gullible retards like you can believe.

But when I comes to retarded arguments and claims, you're the king.
Click to expand...

again... how does increasing the top end marginal tax rate NOT reduce the post-tax income inequality between those in the top end bracket and those not in it?

You just can't seem to answer that very simple question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top