Cops took more stuff from people than burglars did last year

[Selaphiel]

they create wealth
and
poor people get jobs

That is a claim that is not exactly undisputed. Feel free to provide evidence. Wealth inequality is only increasing, not just in the US, but in the world.

Doesn't really affect what I said, even if it is true. I simply pointed out that given how much of the actual financial wealth they are in possession of, their tax contributions are not as impressive as that sole graphic suggested.

 

[brewmama]

So that shows that the wealthy pay the taxes. The poor only amounts to 2.8 percent. So why tax the poor at all, that 2.8 could be added to the top 50 % and it wouldn't hurt them a bit. Just 2.8 spread across the top 50 percent and the poor wouldn't be so poor. No income tax for the poor, now there's an idea I can get behind.

Good point, although the poorest people do not pay any income tax. The cut-off is something like this:

"Like most figures in the tax code, the cutoff point rises over time to allow for inflation. If you're a single filer under 65 in 2012, for example, you start paying taxes when your taxable income reaches $9,500. If you're a married couple filing jointly and both over 65, you need a combined income of $21,300. When you're a single dependent under 65, you pay if you earn $5,800 or receive $950 in unearned income such as dividends."

Plus they get the EITC, which often negates any taxes paid.

"The United States federal earned income tax credit or earned income credit (EITC or EIC) is a refundable tax credit for low- to moderate-income working individuals and couples, particularly those with children. The amount of EITC benefit depends on a recipient's income and number of children."

 

[chrysostom]

That is a claim that is not exactly undisputed. Feel free to provide evidence.

usa

 

[Selaphiel]

usa

Think you need to look up what constitutes evidence, or an argument for that matter.

Your answer is like answering "the earth" when asked for evidence for a scientific hypothesis.

 

[chrysostom]

Think you need to look up what constitutes evidence, or an argument for that matter.

Your answer is like answering "the earth" when asked for evidence for a scientific hypothesis.

you need to look up reason and logic

it is right next to reality

 

[brewmama]

That is a claim that is not exactly undisputed. Feel free to provide evidence. Wealth inequality is only increasing, not just in the US, but in the world.

Doesn't really affect what I said, even if it is true. I simply pointed out that given how much of the actual financial wealth they are in possession of, their tax contributions are not as impressive as that sole graphic suggested.

Wealth inequality is actually just a meme for envy and jealousy, which is rabidly promoted here and in other socialist/communist countries. For the top to have more takes nothing away from the bottom. Economics is not a zero sum game. Our poor are MUCH better off than the poor around the world.

Considering how much money the government steals from the producers of our economy (take a look at our budget!), I'd say they pay way more than they should have to.

Take a look at Cuba and Venezuela to understand what happens to a country when the "rich" or producers leave, and what happens to jobs. It's devastating.

 

[PureX]

The graph is basically meaningless, because all it shows are the taxes paid, and not the taxes needed.

The nation is falling apart because we are not collecting the taxes we need to fix things, to build new things, and to properly take care of our people. Not taxing the wealthy is not so much a problem of the ratio of taxes being paid (as the right wing shills for the rich always want to insist), it's a problem of starving the government of the money it needs to run a very big, very complex, and very powerful nation, as it needs to and should be run, just so that the very rich can become even richer.

And this isn't an issue of "fairness" as much as it's an issue of simple necessity. If we keep starving the government so the very rich can become even richer, they will simply buy the government (they already have, basically) and we will be living in an oligarchy (we pretty much already are). And oligarchies inevitably strangle their people, economically. Which is exactly what's going on.

 

[Selaphiel]

you need to look up reason and logic

it is right next to reality

I see you are confused about reason and logic as well. Reason and logic are mere tools that define valid jumps from premises to conclusions.

Appeal to reason and logic absent evidence backing up an argument with premises means nothing. You should not play with concepts you clearly do not understand.

So where is your evidence? You haven't even attempted to make an argument, your reply was "usa" which is about as much of an argument as a belch would be.

 

[chrysostom]

The graph is basically meaningless, because all it shows are the taxes paid, and not the taxes needed. .

this is rich

pun intended

 

[brewmama]

The graph is basically meaningless, because all it shows are the taxes paid, and not the taxes needed.

The nation is falling apart because we are not collecting the taxes we need to fix things, to build new things, and to properly take care of our people. Not taxing the wealthy is not so much a problem of the ratio of taxes being paid (as the right wing shills for the rich always want to insist), it's a problem starving the government of the money it needs to run a very big, very complex, and very powerful nation, as it needs to and should be run, just so that the very rich can becomes even richer.

And this isn't an issue of "fairness" as much as it's an issue of simple necessity. If we keep starving the government so the very rich can become even richer, they will simply buy the government (they already have, basically) and we will be living in an oligarchy (we pretty much already are). And oligarchies inevitably strangle their people, economically. Which is exactly what's going on.

That's a ridiculous argument. If you took every cent the rich have, it would only fund the government for a brief time. As a liberal it seems you think the government should be taking care of nearly everyone, no matter what the cost. I see where you are coming from and where your errors in thinking are. You are unable to even see the damage such policies do to individuals and the country.

 

[Selaphiel]

Wealth inequality is actually just a meme for envy and jealousy, which is rabidly promoted here and in other socialist/communist countries. For the top to have more takes nothing away from the bottom. Economics is not a zero sum game. Our poor are MUCH better off than the poor around the world.
.

Have I stated otherwise? That is true. It is also true that the middle class are doing better in for example Scandinavian countries, with social democratic systems.

BUT

Does that mean that the system is optimal? No, wealth inequality is not a myth. It is a simple fact that financial fact gets concentrated more and more among a very select few people. It is absurd to suggest that it is either that or communism with a complete equal distribution.

It is not a zero sum game, but nor is there such a thing as infinite growth. Our growth is already way past what this planet can handle.

 

[chrysostom]

That's a ridiculous argument. If you took every cent the rich have, it would only fund the government for a brief time. As a liberal it seems you think the government should be taking care of nearly everyone, no matter what the cost. I see where you are coming from and where your errors in thinking are. You are unable to even see the damage such policies do to individuals and the country.

you are so right

pun intended

 

[brewmama]

Have I stated otherwise? That is true. It is also true that the middle class are doing better in for example Scandinavian countries, with social democratic systems.

BUT

Does that mean that the system is optimal? No, wealth inequality is not a myth. It is a simple fact that financial fact gets concentrated more and more among a very select few people. It is absurd to suggest that it is either that or communism with a complete equal distribution.

It is not a zero sum game, but nor is there such a thing as infinite growth. Our growth is already way past what this planet can handle.

I can see why you might think that, but that was also being said before computers and the huge technological advances that have created so much wealth came about. When unleashed mankind has an astonishing ability to improve living conditions and create wealth (and growth). I wouldn't be so arrogant as to say there is a limit. And the Simon-Ehrlich wager proved that.

 

[PureX]

That's a ridiculous argument…

Unless you can discuss this subject without inventing positions for me, who you don't know at all, I don't see how we can discuss it. Do you?

Once you watch this, and understand what it's saying, we can chat. Otherwise, there's no point.

 

[chrysostom]

Unless you can discuss this subject without inventing positions for me, who you don't know at all, I don't see how we can discuss it. Do you?

Once you watch this, and understand what it's saying, we can chat. Otherwise, there's no point.

we respond to your stupid posts
and
we don't need to watch your stupid videos

 

[brewmama]

we respond to your stupid posts
and
we don't need to watch your stupid videos

:thumb:

 

[Nick M]

Uncle Milt

 

[intojoy]

Then you've no problem with wealth redistribution via taxes under the similar rubric: "They didn't need it that much Tim."?

Send me a check quip

 

[quip]

Send me a check quip

its in the mail.

 

[musterion]

Uncle Milt

To this day I'm amazed Milt was allowed on TV. Would not happen today since leftists have supplanted liberals like Donahue and cannot tolerate Milt's dissent.