Raising Taxes On The Rich Would Reduce Income Inequality

Truth Detector said:
It doesn’t occur to you that the reason they do this is to promote boat construction in the State which creates good paying jobs and actually creates MORE State revenue does it?

Of course it doesn't; because you base your views on emotioin rather than common sense, truth and reality.
Click to expand...


Of course it occurs to me... it doesn't change the fact that it is a tax benefit that is aimed at the wealthy.... that tax benefit may spur more wealthy people to buy more and more expensive yachts and that may indeed spur economic activity, but the activity doesn't begin without a tax break to rich folks that regular folks can only dream of getting.
 
maineman said:
all that gum flapping and you STILL didn't explain why you said one thing and then contradicted yourself.

why am I not surprised?

LIAR.
Click to expand...

I cannot say I am surprised by this response; thus proving what I stated at the beginning of all that "gum flapping"; let's remove any doubt how dishonest a moron you really are.

Carry on shit-for-brains; you're a painful and constant reminder why one cannot argue with an idiot.
 
Truth Detector said:
And this is a bad thing because?
Click to expand...

who said it was bad? Nova seems to think that step up only helps people who inherit estates less than $5M.... and I said it helps EVERYONE who inherits long held assets that have greatly appreciated. Like that grocery store stocker who had a steamer trunk with IBM stock certificates hiding in the attic. Those guys are everywhere, aren't they?
 
maineman said:
Of course it occurs to me... it doesn't change the fact that it is a tax benefit that is aimed at the wealthy.... that tax benefit may spur more wealthy people to buy more and more expensive yachts and that may indeed spur economic activity, but the activity doesn't begin without a tax break to rich folks that regular folks can only dream of getting.
Click to expand...

And this is a problem because?
 
maineman said:
and the step up basis adjustment rule certainly helps people who inherit more than $5M.... it significantly reduces the size of their taxable inheritance.
Click to expand...

I just pointed that out...and not only those that inherit more than 5M....but everyone that inherits even a house or stock worth much less, the middle class and lower.

By the same token, that 5M+ estate, being over the threshold, will be hit with a 40-45% federal estate tax, making that 'inheritance' that much less in the end.


There is a reason why 10% pay 70% of the tax, and it ain't because of tax breaks.
 
maineman said:
who said it was bad? Nova seems to think that step up only helps people who inherit estates less than $5M.... and I said it helps EVERYONE who inherits long held assets that have greatly appreciated. Like that grocery store stocker who had a steamer trunk with IBM stock certificates hiding in the attic. Those guys are everywhere, aren't they?
Click to expand...

So is there a point here? Or are you just typing for the hell of it?
 
Truth Detector said:
I cannot say I am surprised by this response; thus proving what I stated at the beginning of all that "gum flapping"; let's remove any doubt how dishonest a moron you really are.

Carry on shit-for-brains; you're a painful and constant reminder why one cannot argue with an idiot.
Click to expand...

you stated that LiHEAP wasn't a benefit... then you turned around and said that you never stated that LiHEAP wasn't a benefit. Tap dance all you like... You're a fucking LIAR.
 
NOVA said:
I just pointed that out...and not only those that inherit more than 5M....

By the same token, that 5M+ estate, being over the threshold, will be hit with a 40-45% federal estate tax, making that 'inheritance' that much less in the end.
Click to expand...

The dunce is pulling you into an off topic circle of stupidity there is no extraction from. Don't feed the dishonest troll.
 
Truth Detector said:
So is there a point here?
Click to expand...

besides the one on top of your head?

yeah... there is... and it is that there are lots of tax laws that are written to benefit very wealthy people. And if you eliminated some of those tax breaks and applied the tax revenues from those eliminations to providing social services for the poor that they would otherwise have to spend their own income on, you, in effect, reduce the income inequality between rich and poor. See how that works?
 
NOVA said:
I just pointed that out...and not only those that inherit more than 5M....but everyone that inherits even a house or stock worth much less, the middle class and lower.

By the same token, that 5M+ estate, being over the threshold, will be hit with a 40-45% federal estate tax, making that 'inheritance' that much less in the end.
Click to expand...

and it would be even less without the step up basis adjustment..... WHICH IS A TAX BENEFIT THAT OVERWHELMINGLY BENEFITS THE WEALTHY.
 
maineman said:
besides the one on top of your head?
Click to expand...

LMAO.

maineman said:
yeah... there is... and it is that there are lots of tax laws that are written to benefit very wealthy people.
Click to expand...

Tax laws are written by dishonest politicians to benefit themselves by getting dunces to vote for them. Do you support the Fair Tax or Flat Tax which would eliminate this issue?

maineman said:
And if you eliminated some of those tax breaks and applied the tax revenues from those eliminations to providing social services for the poor that they would otherwise have to spend their own income on, you, in effect, reduce the income inequality between rich and poor. See how that works?
Click to expand...

That is a stupid claim; you would not change a thing as it relates to income. The rich would still be earning MORE and the poor earning LESS.

But I am still struggling to see how this will make things better for the poor. We have spent over $20 trillion on such programs and since that began, we have an additional 111,000 plus poor. How have all these Government programs worked if we have MORE poor now than we had when we began?
 
You're right. I can't help myself from wanting to keep rubbing your lies in your ugly face over and over and over again until you admit what a fucking pathetic LIAR you are.
 
NOVA said:
Seems to me you don't understand what the hell the step up basis means....everyone and anyone that inherits a stock uses it...
Click to expand...

maineman said:
who said it was bad? Nova seems to think that step up only helps people who inherit estates less than $5M.... and I said it helps EVERYONE who inherits long held assets that have greatly appreciated. Like that grocery store stocker who had a steamer trunk with IBM stock certificates hiding in the attic. Those guys are everywhere, aren't they?
Click to expand...


And 74 posts later we have mm trying to pull a fast one.....
 
Truth Detector said:
But I am still struggling to see how this will make things better for the poor. We have spent over $20 trillion on such programs and since that began, we have an additional 111,000 plus poor. How have all these Government programs worked if we have MORE poor now than we had when we began?
Click to expand...

if you could somehow prove that we would have even fewer poor folks than we do today if we had NOT spent money on those programs, that would be impressive. You can't, of course.
 
again... lots of heat, very little light.

you should try, just for a silly little experiment, to go one entire day without gratuitous insults and just measure the quality and quantity of responses you get to that sort of approach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top