You live in a little world that is for the brain dead , it's underneath a mushroom in the land of OZ. I've read 5 of your posts to find out that you have no clue what your talking about,it's simply gibberish that your masters tell you . Your just a slug along side the little mushroom who thinks that what stupid says is logic and what is logic is to confusing to even deal with. Your a waste. And you belong with scum bag as one of the grovelers at his feet drooling on his every word. Even though everyone who has a brain knows that his every word are lies and hate.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The comedy act that they call a tax cut.
- Thread starter jbander
- Start date
Depends on whether you think Congress has made wise choices in how they spend our money. If not, taking more money from the people and giving it to the government is a poor way to distribute our money. Also, there is the element of freedom in how we spend our money and how much government should take. Criticizing "huge tax breaks to the rich" assumes government made a wise choice in taxing them that money to start.
Simple question: is there any amount of concentration of wealth you agree is too high such that society is justified in forcing more equality?
If so, where do you draw the line compared to where we are? Are you trying to put all government spending into the same category of good or bad?
This IDea the a tax cut are golden and a sure way to improve the future , Is so asinine , Guess what Hoover did right before the great depression. Who is the idiot here,
THis guy is getting screwed in the ass by his own party and is groveling at their feet saying thank you, thank you, to a cut that in just a few years 86% will be going to 1% of the population. Where are these hypocrites that say that the deficit is a terrible thing , as this bill adds 1.5 trillion to the deficit. And these groveling pitiful puppets and saying thank you great god and master President Scum Bag, These people sold out their country for a hate message and the idea that something else will happen other then dumping massive amounts of money back into the hands of the big B and the uber wealthy. They think it will create jobs and increase wages . Dam Hoover did this exact same thing right before the great depression. What a group of losers, and sellout.
Too many voters are utterly imbecilic, cheering things like taking $1 trillion from Medicaid. So, people who need healthcare who are poor, cant get it. Killing thousands of Americans a year. Because they are too ignorant to know it, and too evil to care to learn.
Simple question: is there any amount of concentration of wealth you agree is too high such that society is justified in forcing more equality?
If so, where do you draw the line compared to where we are? Are you trying to put all government spending into the same category of good or bad?
Some of that inequality has been created by government programs: Medicare and Medicaid have enriched doctors, dentists, and chiropractors. If you assume these programs are beneficial would you eliminate them because they increase inequality? Inequality was less in the 1950's-1960's when government revenues and expenditures as a percent of GDP were smaller than today.
Of course all government spending is not all good or bad. But too much is inefficient and wasted and enriches groups at the taxpayer's expense but are defended because some of the money helps the little guy.
Some of that inequality has been created by government programs: Medicare and Medicaid have enriched doctors, dentists, and chiropractors. If you assume these programs are beneficial would you eliminate them because they increase inequality? Inequality was less in the 1950's-1960's when government revenues and expenditures as a percent of GDP were smaller than today.
Of course all government spending is not all good or bad. But too much is inefficient and wasted and enriches groups at the taxpayer's expense but are defended because some of the money helps the little guy.
So, you aren't going to answer the question.
This I love , this guy doesn't have a clue what I even said but he comes up with some gibberish about God Only knows. It's hare working with the brain dead.
You're the one that said GIVE.
Give the poor your money. If you're not willing, let them earn it or do without.
Simple question: is there any amount of concentration of wealth you agree is too high such that society is justified in forcing more equality?
If so, where do you draw the line compared to where we are? Are you trying to put all government spending into the same category of good or bad?
NO. Simple answer.
You can't force something into place that can't ever be. All the wealth in the country could be equally distributed and within 10 years, your kind would be crying again about wealth inequality. You try to fix a problem you say exists with money but where the root cause isn't related to money.
The people in government that try to do what you believe should be done aren't doing it because they give a shit about those they say they're trying to help. They do it because they care only for themselves and getting elected. How many of them go in, usually better than the average person financially, but come out multi millionaires?
https://ballotpedia.org/Changes_in_...ors_and_Representatives_(Personal_Gain_Index)
You live in a little world that is for the brain dead , it's underneath a mushroom in the land of OZ. I've read 5 of your posts to find out that you have no clue what your talking about,it's simply gibberish that your masters tell you . Your just a slug along side the little mushroom who thinks that what stupid says is logic and what is logic is to confusing to even deal with. Your a waste. And you belong with scum bag as one of the grovelers at his feet drooling on his every word. Even though everyone who has a brain knows that his every word are lies and hate.
I've read yours and determined that you're nothing more than the typical stupid, left wing motherfucker. Your words don't come up to the level of gibberish.
Like I said Brain dead. CFM has said nothing that can be supported by anything other then the hate gibberish that comes from the other haters mouth. They are such puppets that they are able to be controlled 100% by one string , This clown is a one string puppet.I've read yours and determined that you're nothing more than the typical stupid, left wing motherfucker. Your words don't come up to the level of gibberish.
So, you aren't going to answer the question.
This question: Simple question: is there any amount of concentration of wealth you agree is too high such that society is justified in forcing more equality?
If so, where do you draw the line compared to where we are?
If the money is being earned fairly and other groups are capable of gaining wealth it is not the government's role to tell any group it can't make more money or take it away from them through taxation. The purpose of taxation is to fairly fund government activities, not regulation of income or wealth.
Example. The 95 million Americans who own mutual funds/stock easily earned 10-20% in 2017 and have increased their wealth greatly over time. Many of those people are middle-class teachers, plant workers, etc. As a result, their wealth has increased much more than similar workers who have no investments. It has increased inequality, but that wealth was fairly earned and government should not attempt to reduce that inequality. It has already encouraged investment through tax advantaged 401K, IRA, 403b plans.
If the upper income increases its wealth by 20% and the middle class by 10%, the result is increased inequality, but both groups are improving its situation and government should not interfere.
I would draw the line by removing any regulations or programs that hurt any group. The resulting dilemma is do we eliminate "corporate welfare" or "special interest benefits" in which government programs cause inequality. For example, food stamps provides additional wealth for farmers, truckers, food processors, grocery stores, and now even fast food places. These groups are benefiting more than food stamp recipients thus increasing inequality. The same applies to Medicare and Medicaid which increases the wealth of doctors, dentists, and chiropractors more than the patients.
The question for you: Do we end government programs that help the beneficiaries although they increase inequality through corporate welfare by expanding the wealth of upper income groups?
Last edited:
This question: Simple question: is there any amount of concentration of wealth you agree is too high such that society is justified in forcing more equality?
If so, where do you draw the line compared to where we are?
If the money is being earned fairly and other groups are capable of gaining wealth it is not the government's role to tell any group it can't make more money or take it away from them through taxation. The purpose of taxation is to fairly fund government activities, not regulation of income or wealth.
Example. The 95 million Americans who own mutual funds/stock easily earned 10-20% in 2017 and have increased their wealth greatly over time. Many of those people are middle-class teachers, plant workers, etc. As a result, their wealth has increased much more than similar workers who have no investments. It has increased inequality, but that wealth was fairly earned and government should not attempt to reduce that inequality. It has already encouraged investment through tax advantaged 401K, IRA, 403b plans.
If the upper income increases its wealth by 20% and the middle class by 10%, the result is increased inequality, but both groups are improving its situation and government should not interfere.
I would draw the line by removing any regulations or programs that hurt any group. The resulting dilemma is do we eliminate "corporate welfare" or "special interest benefits" in which government programs cause inequality. For example, food stamps provides additional wealth for farmers, truckers, food processors, grocery stores, and now even fast food places. These groups are benefiting more than food stamp recipients thus increasing inequality. The same applies to Medicare and Medicaid which increases the wealth of doctors, dentists, and chiropractors more than the patients.
The question for you: Do we end government programs that help the beneficiaries although they increase inequality through corporate welfare by expanding the wealth of upper income groups?
No, you still didn't answer the question. It seems like you wanted to imply your answer is no, there is no limit on how much concentration of wealth is ok, by adding a lame qualifier to try to have it both ways, 'as long as other groups are capable of gaining wealth'.
Clue: as inequality gets higher and higher and higher, other groups are less and less able to gain wealth. If they weren't, wealth wouldn't be so concentrated. That's one of the effects of very high concentration of wealth.
You're being rather pointless to talk to. It's as if I asked you about slavery being wrong, and you would only answer, 'well as long as the slave continues to have their freedom, slavery is ok'.
And this is part of the discussion to try to help you get a clue - to understand that your ideology worshiping unlimited concentration of wealth has problems you don't understand. That a big part of what happens with high concentration of wealth is that the wealth
is use to protect the fortunes of the few who have it - by definition they see 'others capable of gaining wealth' as a threat to themselves. They're against that opportunity.
Ask your local cable internet company how much they will encourage others to compete in the cable internet market with them, benefiting consumers but slashing their prices.
I've heard that in England, you might have 50 choices for service. The result is that it costs a lot less for a lot better service. Net Neutrality would be less of an issue because someone could offer it for competitive advantage. But in the US, thanks to right-wingers like you, we don't need that - one provider in a market is great, and their exploiting their monopoly by lobbying for and getting the right to make billions by selling access - great!
An effect of very high concentrations of wealth is that anything that makes money - like big companies - simply gets bid up more and more in value by the few who have more and more, making it harder for anyone else to own a company; funds dry up for entrepreneurs and others to get that chance to make money and innovate, and offer competition. Productivity falls, the economy grows less than would and might shrink eventually.
Any rational person doesn't see that as a good thing, unless they're a sociopath who is one of those few and wants plutocracy. But it doesn't get a lot more evil short of genocide - it's anti-democracy and hugely harmful to most.
Of course it starts in smaller amount - as we've seen for decades in the US, income for the bottom 80% has been flat while all the economic growth has gone to the top, instead of a rising tide lifting all boats. That's what you want.
And that results in the opposite of democracy, the rule of the people - it results in the rule of the dollar, buying public opinion and elections. Which is why we see their hired help controlling all the branches today, and their taking yet another $5 trillion.
So, no, you have not answered the question.
Now I've given you a lot to think about. But I'm going to give you one more thing.
You talk about 'if upper increases its wealth by 20% and the middle class by 10%'. This again shows the ignorance from your ideology. We could talk about that hypothetical, but it has nothing to do with the facts. For decades, it hasn't been 20% and 10%. And you simply don't understand how even if it were, the ongoing 20% and 10% always will result in that 10% ending. That that is the very nature of income inequality you are ignorant of because of ideology.
In fact, for decades, the real income of the large majority of Americans has been not 10% but 0% (if not worse), and the upper groups have taken all that growth, up over 100% over time.
Look at this chart and pay attention:
https://www.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/income-inequality.png
One last thing - what do people think the amount of equality should be? What do they think it is? And how does that compare to the facts? One more chart for you to look at:
http://static3.businessinsider.com/...ably-small-portion-of-the-countrys-wealth.jpg
Think about over half the country in that tiny bit of wealth on the chart. That's your 'able to gain wealth'.
If you are starting to get some clue about the idea - it'll take you time to start to realize how wrong your ideology is - great. If not, you seem hopeless at this time.
And you did not answer the question. You don't get to ask questions until you show you are listening - otherwise it's simply changing the subject, and that's not what I'm interested in.
Instead of giving it to the wealthy, who already have lots of it? That is what trickle down does. Now Trumps tinkle down. Going to get a break from the tax break for private jets? http://www.newsweek.com/republican-tax-bill-gives-private-plane-owners-tax-break-714381 How about breaks for golf course owners? This bill is theft for the plutocrats, just like the Dems said it would be.
No, you still didn't answer the question. It seems like you wanted to imply your answer is no, there is no limit on how much concentration of wealth is ok, by adding a lame qualifier to try to have it both ways, 'as long as other groups are capable of gaining wealth'.
Clue: as inequality gets higher and higher and higher, other groups are less and less able to gain wealth. If they weren't, wealth wouldn't be so concentrated. That's one of the effects of very high concentration of wealth.
You're being rather pointless to talk to. It's as if I asked you about slavery being wrong, and you would only answer, 'well as long as the slave continues to have their freedom, slavery is ok'.
And this is part of the discussion to try to help you get a clue - to understand that your ideology worshiping unlimited concentration of wealth has problems you don't understand. That a big part of what happens with high concentration of wealth is that the wealth
is use to protect the fortunes of the few who have it - by definition they see 'others capable of gaining wealth' as a threat to themselves. They're against that opportunity.
Ask your local cable internet company how much they will encourage others to compete in the cable internet market with them, benefiting consumers but slashing their prices.
I've heard that in England, you might have 50 choices for service. The result is that it costs a lot less for a lot better service. Net Neutrality would be less of an issue because someone could offer it for competitive advantage. But in the US, thanks to right-wingers like you, we don't need that - one provider in a market is great, and their exploiting their monopoly by lobbying for and getting the right to make billions by selling access - great!
An effect of very high concentrations of wealth is that anything that makes money - like big companies - simply gets bid up more and more in value by the few who have more and more, making it harder for anyone else to own a company; funds dry up for entrepreneurs and others to get that chance to make money and innovate, and offer competition. Productivity falls, the economy grows less than would and might shrink eventually.
Any rational person doesn't see that as a good thing, unless they're a sociopath who is one of those few and wants plutocracy. But it doesn't get a lot more evil short of genocide - it's anti-democracy and hugely harmful to most.
Of course it starts in smaller amount - as we've seen for decades in the US, income for the bottom 80% has been flat while all the economic growth has gone to the top, instead of a rising tide lifting all boats. That's what you want.
And that results in the opposite of democracy, the rule of the people - it results in the rule of the dollar, buying public opinion and elections. Which is why we see their hired help controlling all the branches today, and their taking yet another $5 trillion.
So, no, you have not answered the question.
Now I've given you a lot to think about. But I'm going to give you one more thing.
You talk about 'if upper increases its wealth by 20% and the middle class by 10%'. This again shows the ignorance from your ideology. We could talk about that hypothetical, but it has nothing to do with the facts. For decades, it hasn't been 20% and 10%. And you simply don't understand how even if it were, the ongoing 20% and 10% always will result in that 10% ending. That that is the very nature of income inequality you are ignorant of because of ideology.
In fact, for decades, the real income of the large majority of Americans has been not 10% but 0% (if not worse), and the upper groups have taken all that growth, up over 100% over time.
Look at this chart and pay attention:
https://www.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/income-inequality.png
One last thing - what do people think the amount of equality should be? What do they think it is? And how does that compare to the facts? One more chart for you to look at:
http://static3.businessinsider.com/...ably-small-portion-of-the-countrys-wealth.jpg
Think about over half the country in that tiny bit of wealth on the chart. That's your 'able to gain wealth'.
If you are starting to get some clue about the idea - it'll take you time to start to realize how wrong your ideology is - great. If not, you seem hopeless at this time.
And you did not answer the question. You don't get to ask questions until you show you are listening - otherwise it's simply changing the subject, and that's not what I'm interested in.
The problem is your ideology makes some false assumptions about the economy and economic motivations. To answer your question I do not believe there is some magic number that constitutes "too much" inequality. That entire approach is fraught with multiple problems and manipulations.
Now, you answer my question. Should we end programs that increase inequality because they create a form of corporate welfare that increases the wealth of some groups such as food stamps and Medicare and Medicaid that increases the wealth of doctors, dentists, chiropractors, food processors, grocery chains, etc. Or, do you think increasing wealth inequality is justified in these cases?
Instead of giving it to the wealthy, who already have lots of it? That is what trickle down does. Now Trumps tinkle down. Going to get a break from the tax break for private jets? http://www.newsweek.com/republican-tax-bill-gives-private-plane-owners-tax-break-714381 How about breaks for golf course owners? This bill is theft for the plutocrats, just like the Dems said it would be.
Taxing their money away from them is not the same thing as "giving it to the wealthy." Nobody is giving them anything. How much is our fair share of taxes?
The problem is your ideology makes some false assumptions about the economy and economic motivations. To answer your question I do not believe there is some magic number that constitutes "too much" inequality. That entire approach is fraught with multiple problems and manipulations.
You say a lot of false and unsupported things, because you are so blinded by your ideology, but the answer to my question is no, you cannot even imagine the idea of too much inequality - so you can't understand the harms of the issue. Talking about inequality to you is like talking to a dog crossing the street about the danger of traffic. Huh? Is there food or isn't there is all they can get from the discussion.
What's apparent is how much of a problem there is that someone who should be a rational human being is so blinded. What a danger. You can't possibly have any sensible political opinions in that blinded condition.
As to your question, it simply shows how delusional your understanding is, to think that the pay for healthcare providers for the poor is an example of the problem of plutocracy. It's not. You support economic slavery, and are completely ignorant that you do.
Any discussion with you about these issues is like discussing the flu vaccine with someone who thinks there's no such thing as a germ and if there were it's healthy.
So, if one person had all the wealth in the world, and everyone else either starved or was given just enough to eat if they served him, you say 'no problem. No correction needed.' That's what you said here. No amount of inequality is too much.
You say a lot of false and unsupported things, because you are so blinded by your ideology, but the answer to my question is no, you cannot even imagine the idea of too much inequality - so you can't understand the harms of the issue. Talking about inequality to you is like talking to a dog crossing the street about the danger of traffic. Huh? Is there food or isn't there is all they can get from the discussion.
What's apparent is how much of a problem there is that someone who should be a rational human being is so blinded. What a danger. You can't possibly have any sensible political opinions in that blinded condition.
As to your question, it simply shows how delusional your understanding is, to think that the pay for healthcare providers for the poor is an example of the problem of plutocracy. It's not. You support economic slavery, and are completely ignorant that you do.
Any discussion with you about these issues is like discussing the flu vaccine with someone who thinks there's no such thing as a germ and if there were it's healthy.
So, if one person had all the wealth in the world, and everyone else either starved or was given just enough to eat if they served him, you say 'no problem. No correction needed.' That's what you said here. No amount of inequality is too much.
You ignored the crux of the question. Because health care providers are being paid for healthcare for the poor you ignore the fact that these providers are making millions a year from Medicare and Medicaid which most of them would never be able to make without those programs. I did not claim it is an example of plutocracy, but that it is increasing inequality by giving those who already have a high income even more which is increasing the inequality you decry.
The fatal flaw in your reasoning is you want to reduce inequality by taxing those with the wealth (which government programs partially created) rather than giving permanent solutions for the lower income to increase their wealth. Simply giving them government benefits every year perpetuates their dependency and requires increasingly higher government spending. That is not to argue these programs should be abolished, but recognize that one cost of such programs is to increase inequality.
I notice you ignored the fact that inequality was lower during the 50's and 60's when government revenues and spending as a percent of the GDP were smaller than today.
You are stuck with the old Populist ideology normally pushed by the Democrats but preempted by Trump this year which blames all the problems on the evil rich people (incorrectly labeled plutocrats) who are holding down the little guy. The solution is to punish the wealthy and corporations and create more government spending programs (even though increased inequality has accompanied increased spending). When that doesn't work, you think we must not be taxing people enough or spending enough on government programs.
Since you're missing so much, one point.
In the 1950's and 1960's, when inequality was so much lose, it's because FDR raised the rates and corporations paid a much larger share of the taxes. That's what we need to do again.
The rates were higher but the effective tax rates were lower. The point you are missing is that government revenues and expenditures were a smaller percent of the GDP meaning government was taking a smaller percent of the economy. Also, that higher tax rates resulted in less revenue as a percent of GDP.
When Ike was president, the top tax rate was 90- percent. They didn't pay that much, but they paid a lot more than now and Trump is slashing it again. Back then, corporations paid 30 percent of the revenue collected. Now it is 8 . We built things back then, like the national highway system. Now we cannot maintain it. The Repubs said they want to destroy the system. Grover Norquist said their goal is to shrink the government to the size that you can drown it in a bathtub. They want a different America than the one we have had for a couple centuries. This is not far from insurrection. I wish the Republicans knew what kind of ride they are on.
When Ike was president, the top tax rate was 90- percent. They didn't pay that much, but they paid a lot more than now and Trump is slashing it again. Back then, corporations paid 30 percent of the revenue collected. Now it is 8 . We built things back then, like the national highway system. Now we cannot maintain it. The Repubs said they want to destroy the system. Grover Norquist said their goal is to shrink the government to the size that you can drown it in a bathtub. They want a different America than the one we have had for a couple centuries. This is not far from insurrection. I wish the Republicans knew what kind of ride they are on.
The rate was 91% in the 1950's but nobody paid that much--only Joe Dimaggio, Willie Mays, and Ted Williams. But that higher tax rate raised only 7.4% of GDP while today a lower tax rate brings in 9.3%. Tax rates probably had little to do with economic growth but rather the dominant position of the U. S. after WWII. The U. S. produced 60% of the manufactured goods because of the destruction of industrial capacity in Europe and Japan.
Insurrection? What Grover Norquist says is irrelevant in today's political climate.