- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 36,812
- Reaction score
- 10,270
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Yeah, no, top marginal rates had a positive correlation to gdp gains.Whatever makes you feel better about being wrong Gimmee.
Yeah, no, top marginal rates had a positive correlation to gdp gains.Whatever makes you feel better about being wrong Gimmee.
H. Ford knew that he had to pay his workers enough money to be able to buy his cars and after his people joined a union and went on a long nasty strike his wife forced him into excepting the union , so after that he swore there would never be any non union workers in his company
one more thing I get upset about is Trump calming Ford and GM brought back jobs from Mexico because of him
He had nothing to do with those jobs coming back to the states it was the UAW contract from 2015 or 16
Have a nice evening
Orwellian-if you follow the law you are breaking the law. But this is only true if you are richer than he thinks you should be. If you suck off the public teat, yet vote for more and more taxes on those who actually pay them, that is perfectly legitimate.
You act as if stock/bond investments do no good for the economy except to reward their investors. In that case - outlaw corporations selling stock and see what happens. Maybe we should outlaw renting and mortgages too - if you don't have the cash then you can't live in a house or even own a piece of land.
Rather than constantly complain about wealth/income inequality, complainers should just start their own businesses and pay themselves what they FEEL they are worth.
Not really. When the wealthy write their own laws to benefit themselves, a moral question about the basis for these laws is appropriate and necessary.
Okay.. lets flip this around and look at it from his perspective. Yes.. his relatives worked hard.. and made a pile.. that he inherited. He also went on to do obviously well at college and then on to get a law degree. And worked hard enough to be a federal prosecutor and worked to keep dangerous criminals away from society and behind bars.
And I don't know his kids.. but I would bet that they are college educated and doing their own things.
NOW.. please explain why he doesn't deserve the money he has...
But the fellow that was busy drinking and doing drugs in highschool.. who will never make more than minimum wage because he works only enough to pay for his drinking and drugs...
Explain why that fellow deserves Turtledudes money? And that it should be taken from turtledude and "redistributed"..to the other fellow.
Its always funny to watch "rich" volks ignore total taxation, its as if they live in a world where only fed taxes exist.if the wealthy wrote the laws that way, why the hell do they pay 40% of the income tax when they only make 20% of the income--or why is there a death tax which is essentially a surcharge upon those who pay tons of income taxes?>
If we really wrote the tax code, everyone would pay the same amount for having a vote
if the wealthy wrote the laws that way, why the hell do they pay 40% of the income tax when they only make 20% of the income--or why is there a death tax which is essentially a surcharge upon those who pay tons of income taxes?>
If we really wrote the tax code, everyone would pay the same amount for having a vote
Hmm.. that's an argument for a flat tax.
Where it ends up back in a rich persons back.. so... whats your point?
Again; I dont care how much wealth people have, or what they chose to do with it.
Now, on the completely different subject of corporate welfare, bail out, and moving jobs overseas, I have a different view.
But the above wasn't what this was about.....it was about people deciding that they want what others have and seeking a way to pass laws to take it simply because they arbitrarily decided that "they dont need that much wealth, and I should have some of it".
Its always funny to watch "rich" volks ignore total taxation, its as if they live in a world where only fed taxes exist.
Of course it is relevant since it includes fed taxation.that has no relevance. we are talking about the federal income tax and a scheme to tax the rich more at a federal level.
Of course the "rich" pay more in nominal dollars.....because.....wait for it.....they capture a greater share of income......HURRR DURRRRRRRRRRRR!the rich already pay more actual(nominal) dollars
Of course it is relevant since it includes fed taxation.
Of course the "rich" pay more in nominal dollars.....because.....wait for it.....they capture a greater share of income......HURRR DURRRRRRRRRRRR!
We have had this debate before, you lost it then, I won't put you through it again....but the plain fact is, if so many felt cheated, they would leave en masse.lefties try to make federal taxation more "progressive" because they believe that progressive taxes are the only fair tax and the try to do this to offset some state taxes that are not progressive.
It is based on the marxist mantra of "from each according to their ability". There is nothing that objectively establishes that "progressive" rates are more fair. In reality, you should pay for what you get and the rich do NOT get more from the government
We have had this debate before, you lost it then, I won't put you through it again....but the plain fact is, if so many felt cheated, they would leave en masse.
uh, the evidence is real world, are the wealthy feeling cheated by fed progressive levels and leaving the US en masse?you proclaimed I lost without any evidence. Many sucking on the public teat would be in deep trouble but for the government. The rich do pretty well without any of the welfare socialist nonsense.
uh, the evidence is real world, are the wealthy feeling cheated by fed progressive levels and leaving the US en masse?
No.
QfriggingED.
But we probably had some progressives that suffered from terminal jealousy because some people were more successful than others and didn't need the progs enlightened and scientific help.that doesn't prove anything. I would note before we have an income tax, we had an army, a navy, a marine corp, a postal system colleges, roads, railways and didn't lose any wars
No, it's an argument against treating unearned income preferentially. A progressive income tax doesn't change that.
Oh, yeah...it does, but then this is a rhetorical exercise.that doesn't prove anything.
We had no standing military to speak of, no infrastructure to speak of, state colleges were state affairs...and abysmal per capita gdp with much greater levels of inequality and poverty.I would note before we have an income tax, we had an army, a navy, a marine corp, a postal system colleges, roads, railways and didn't lose any wars
We know that Democratic candidate for president Yang opposes progressive welfare - demanding that Jeff Bezos, The WalMart Heirs, Man Zuckerman, Bill Gates, his wife etc all need $1000 per month welfare each just like any poor person.
No Democrats have complained about his welfare-for-the-rich - so stop pretending you favor anything based upon a person's wealth. Everyone should receive and pay EXACTLY the same $$ amount is a premise I have not read ONE Democrat on the forum oppose when it comes to Yang, Warren, or any of the other Democrats promoting welfare for billionaires.