Is that why we have such a widening wealth gap?
The Tax cuts have hurt America and have further indebted us.
A few are getting VERY wealthy while most are just incurring Tax debt
This is a sad and silly way to view it, IMO. That the million isn't "what it used to be" is much like the "I walked 17 miles to school, uphill, both ways!" stories.Spin a million is just not what it used to be. When a millionalire ment something the average home was worth 30K or so.
I have at least 20 good friends that are worth more than a million. Most of it is in land and homes, buildings, equipment, livestock, though not cash. But they just make a reasonable living off of the land.
ps none of those millionaires belong to the country club
They are good people and know the value of self worth.
ps it is not about money.
This is a sad and silly way to view it, IMO. That the million isn't "what it used to be" is much like the "I walked 17 miles to school, uphill, both ways!" stories.
It is a great number to achieve whether it be in worth, or in actual spending power. To say otherwise denies the significance of the achievement, it is designed to make others feel better for being barely ten-thousandaires...
Yes, but just saying that doesn't take from the significance of the accomplishment.But a million isn't what it used to be. That's just true, dude.
"the top 1% are capturing more and more of the income wealth total in this country....thus, even with a lower tax rate, they are paying more of the income tax total."
Wealth is not "Captured".
"Captured" leaves an idea that because they have it, it means that others have no ability to get it. It is the fundamental idea behind the "zero-sum" economic model where if one gets rich everybody else must be getting poorer. It doesn't reflect reality. How an idea is presented can play into propaganda. To ignore the presentation is denial.nitpicking on word choice is not a good argument. Pretend he had written "earned". Now what do you have to say?
"Captured" leaves an idea that because they have it, it means that others have no ability to get it. It is the fundamental idea behind the "zero-sum" economic model where if one gets rich everybody else must be getting poorer. It doesn't reflect reality. How an idea is presented can play into propaganda. To ignore the presentation is denial.
Of course that sort of slight linguistic coloration DOES carry insinuations, but to point that out and ignore the MAIN argument is a weak post at best.
Does he disagree with the MAIN point that they are paying more because they're earning disproportinately more as well? Were don't know. And so the main point goes basically unaddressed. It's weak. It's called nitpicking.