What Taxing the Rich Could Yield

LV426 said:
They pay a larger share because you cut taxes, idiot.

You and your core principles are the cause of the very thing you're complaining about, you asshole.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Bush-Obama tax cuts virtually eliminated federal income taxes for the bottom 40% and increased the amount earned in tax credits.

I thought everybody already knew that.

We were not arguing why they pay more of our income taxes at the time, you always add extra stuff that I "omitted" which was not included in the original discussion.
 
LV426 said:
So now comes the part of the debate where you try and move the goalposts, isn't it?

Here's what you said:



ANYONE

So right away, you make a false argument, and in your defense of that false argument, you make another false argument.

The fact is that your character is so rotten to the core, that all you can do is make these kinds of bullshit arguments.

I believe you don't even know what it's like to be honest anymore.

I think you've been so dishonest for so long that operating in bad faith is habitual with you. You don't know any other way to act. It's become ingrained in your personality.

You cannot operate without acting in bad faith...your mind simply won't let you.
Click to expand...

I know what I said and you proved me correct. What was the goal post and where did I move it? You always resort to personal insults and the old "bad faith" charge when you learn your math is wrong---like claiming $30,000 is in the 67th percentile of earners. You always drop your "math" discussion and start the insults. If you can't win an argument---smear the person (like was done to Ford and Kavanaugh).
 
LV426 said:
A few things:

but the part you leave out is that the amount they pay is about half of what they used to since their rate is about half of what it was in 1980.

Full stop.
Click to expand...

I left out that part because it is completely false (according to the IRS). The marginal tax rate is about half, but not the effective tax rate.
 
LV426 said:
He says all liberals think anyone who attained wealth cheated.

I said that liberals don't believe everyone who attained wealth cheated, but that many did.

He takes that as affirmation of his straw man when it completely says the opposite.

Now he's just trying to shift the goalposts so he doesn't have to admit he's full of shit. Because if he admitted that, he might also have to admit that what he believes is full of shit. And if he admitted that, he'd have to admit his judgment and instincts aren't as good as he wants people to think.

He's a selfish asshole.
Click to expand...

He is a thoughtless asshole...at very least.

But an asshole, nonetheless.
 
Flash said:
Because that is a silly question. The issue is not how much inequality is too much but how it occurred. For those claiming government is "giving" the wealthy more money or suggesting they are taking it away from others are missing the boat. Most of them somehow want to deprive others of their wealth by taking it away and redistributing it to others. A poor policy.
Click to expand...

The reason you think it to be a silly question...is because it IS NOT A SILLY QUESTION.

It is an uncomfortable question for the assholes of the right to deal with.

HOW EXTREME WOULD IT HAVE TO GET BEFORE YOU WOULD SEE IT TO BE TOO MUCH.

My guess is even someone like you would see 1 person owning 99% of all the nation's wealth as too extreme...although I am interested to see how you deal with that.

Would 1 person owning 99% of all the nation's wealth finally get you off that absurd horse you are riding?

How about 10 people owning 98% of the nation's wealth?

How about 100 people owning 90% of the nation's wealth?

C'mon.

Answer, Flash...because there is NOT a silly question in that lot.
 
Frank Apisa said:
The reason you think it to be a silly question...is because it IS NOT A SILLY QUESTION.

It is an uncomfortable question for the assholes of the right to deal with.

HOW EXTREME WOULD IT HAVE TO GET BEFORE YOU WOULD SEE IT TO BE TOO MUCH.

My guess is even someone like you would see 1 person owning 99% of all the nation's wealth as too extreme...although I am interested to see how you deal with that.

Would 1 person owning 99% of all the nation's wealth finally get you off that absurd horse you are riding?

How about 10 people owning 98% of the nation's wealth?

How about 100 people owning 90% of the nation's wealth?

C'mon.

Answer, Flash...because there is NOT a silly question in that lot.[/QUOTE

It is silly because there is no good answer. Obviously all three of your examples are too extreme.

And I am libertarian, not conservative.

And, in reference to another post of yours, you do not have to be a registered party member to be a Democrat or Republican. Many states do not have party registration--you are simply a registered voter.
Click to expand...
 
Flash said:
It is silly because there is no good answer.
Click to expand...

It is NOT silly...and you are correct that there is no good answer...FOR YOU AND OTHERS LIKE YOU.


Obviously all three of your examples are too extreme.
Click to expand...

Yes...they are too extreme...but necessary because you are unwilling to see that 20% owning 85% of the wealth of the nation IS TOO EXTREME ALSO.

MUCH TOO EXTREME.

So tell me...would 20% owning 90% of the total wealth be enough for you to see a problem exists?

And I am libertarian, not conservative.
Click to expand...

That is even worse.

The American conservatives who use the descriptor "libertarian" are the bottom of the conservative bucket. Libertarianism leads to chaos and anarchy. No sane person actually wants it.

And, in reference to another post of yours, you do not have to be a registered party member to be a Democrat or Republican. Many states do not have party registration--you are simply a registered voter.
Click to expand...

I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT...NO MATTER WHAT.

I ALSO AM NOT A REPUBLICAN.
 
Frank Apisa said:
It is NOT silly...and you are correct that there is no good answer...FOR YOU AND OTHERS LIKE YOU.




Yes...they are too extreme...but necessary because you are unwilling to see that 20% owning 85% of the wealth of the nation IS TOO EXTREME ALSO.

MUCH TOO EXTREME.

So tell me...would 20% owning 90% of the total wealth be enough for you to see a problem exists?



That is even worse.

The American conservatives who use the descriptor "libertarian" are the bottom of the conservative bucket. Libertarianism leads to chaos and anarchy. No sane person actually wants it.



I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT...NO MATTER WHAT.

I ALSO AM NOT A REPUBLICAN.
Click to expand...

Interesting you think Libertarians are at the bottom of any bucket. They were for gay marriage and against discrimination far before the democrats and republicans. They were against the war on drugs and the militarization of the police while republicans and democrats were fighting over who could make more punitive laws and punishments
 
Frank Apisa said:
It is NOT silly...and you are correct that there is no good answer...FOR YOU AND OTHERS LIKE YOU.

Yes...they are too extreme...but necessary because you are unwilling to see that 20% owning 85% of the wealth of the nation IS TOO EXTREME ALSO.

MUCH TOO EXTREME.

So tell me...would 20% owning 90% of the total wealth be enough for you to see a problem exists?

That is even worse.

The American conservatives who use the descriptor "libertarian" are the bottom of the conservative bucket. Libertarianism leads to chaos and anarchy. No sane person actually wants it.

I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT...NO MATTER WHAT.

I ALSO AM NOT A REPUBLICAN.
Click to expand...

Your error is thinking libertarians are in a conservative bucket. There are as many in the liberal trash as the conservative trash.

The problem with your question is that is presumes that at some magical number inequality is too high and you would want to impose some oppressive government action you would see as a solution to the problem.

I think income inequality may be a more important measure than wealth inequality. And, less inequality does not necessarily equal a good situation. A very poor nation is bad for everybody although inequality is low. The inequality index should be measured after taxes and transfers because countries like the U. S. have a very progressive income tax and spend a lot in social welfare which are not included in poverty levels or income data.

Discussing what level of inequality is too much is less important than policy responses.
 
LV426 said:
He says all liberals think anyone who attained wealth cheated.

I said that liberals don't believe everyone who attained wealth cheated, but that many did.

He takes that as affirmation of his straw man when it completely says the opposite.

Now he's just trying to shift the goalposts so he doesn't have to admit he's full of shit. Because if he admitted that, he might also have to admit that what he believes is full of shit. And if he admitted that, he'd have to admit his judgment and instincts aren't as good as he wants people to think.

He's a selfish asshole.
Click to expand...

Your mother cheated you when the bitch didn't abort you.
 
CFM said:
Your mother cheated you when the bitch didn't abort you.
Click to expand...

She has a reading comprehension problem. She bases that entire post on the lie that I said "all liberals think anyone who attained wealth cheated."

I never said that.
 
49061397_10157103011814548_9077800532743028736_n.jpg
 
Frank Apisa said:
You are a fucking moron, IHA.

For you...and the other fucking American conservative morons who do not see what is happening...

...I ask:

What would it take for you to see the disparity as a major problem?

Would .01% of the people owning 75% of the wealth of the nation be enough?

Would 5% owning 90% of the wealth be enough?

Would 20% owning 90% of the wealth be enough?

Just how bad would things have to get for you idiots to even SEE that the problem exists?
Click to expand...

I don’t see income disparity as a problem. Never will. What someone else has or doesn’t have has zero bearing on what I have, don’t have or more importantly my happiness

Buffett and Gates have more money than I could ever dream of having, but it is irrelevant to my life.

Gates can’t force me to do anything can he? I don’t use any Microsoft products so from where I sit, I have more impact on his life in that sense
 
I Love America said:
I don’t see income disparity as a problem. Never will. What someone else has or doesn’t have has zero bearing on what I have, don’t have or more importantly my happiness

Buffett and Gates have more money than I could ever dream of having, but it is irrelevant to my life.

Gates can’t force me to do anything can he? I don’t use any Microsoft products so from where I sit, I have more impact on his life in that sense
Click to expand...

I agree though Warren does own my local paper and after they tried to soak me recently with a near 50% price hike which was the second hike in a year, I no longer subscribe. The conversation went like this: "Due to changing market conditions, we had no choice but to increase your rate" "Okay well due to your rate increase, your market is now one less subscriber." "If you agree not to cancel, I can give you your old rate" "If you can give me my old rate, then changing market conditions did not require a 50% increase. Cancel it now. Today. No more."
 
I Love America said:
I don’t see income disparity as a problem. Never will. What someone else has or doesn’t have has zero bearing on what I have, don’t have or more importantly my happiness

Buffett and Gates have more money than I could ever dream of having, but it is irrelevant to my life.

Gates can’t force me to do anything can he? I don’t use any Microsoft products so from where I sit, I have more impact on his life in that sense
Click to expand...

Income disparity isn't a problem. Seems the level of Frank's, etc. happiness is based on how much they can take from those they envy. Instead of working on how they better themselves, they focus on seeing how little those who make more can keep of what they've earned. As long as I'm doing better, what difference does it make if someone else does?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top