Already found the tax loopholes...

[TurtleDude]

LOL, I hope you're not hurting your back moving those goals posts....

And your comment is just completely divorced from reality. There has never been a time in U.S. history, perhaps world history, when the wealthy commanded a larger share of income or held a greater share of net worth. Corporate profits are close to all time highs as a share of GDP. The middle class and poor have gone decades with income lagging every measure that traditionally led income higher - productivity or GDP growth.

So your premise is for this economy to be sustainable, the path forward is for the wealthy to command even more income and wealth and for the poor to suffer MORE. What kind of data can you use to support this premise?

FWIW, 20th and 21st century world history also tells us governments often fail, and sometimes lots of people like you die, are killed, when government serves only the interests of the wealthy and collectively says to the poor, "F you."

merely distributing wealth to those who haven't earned it doesn't work. How do you plan on getting the poor to become more economically valuable

 

[Kushinator]

It wouldn't take all that though, all it takes is for some critical mass of the working public to simply cease cooperating and participating in an economic system set up to exploit them. A daily regimen of "today I will not enable the grand lie, but will call out the lie at every opportunity".

It won't get to that point. Well before the outrage and rioting will be some sort of negative income tax/basic income guarantee.

 

[iguanaman]

still haven't figured out labor is commodity and company that pays too much for it compared to its competitors is gonna fail

That "commodity" are also your customers and a society that pays them too little is going to fail. It is so obvious that I can only think that you are purposely ignoring that fact.

 

[Fenton Lum]

the problem is-the poor, when they vote, vote for more stuff that they want someone else to pay for. If they start getting more feedback about the cost of government, they might stop clamoring for more and more handouts

Horse**** agan sir, here is your system:

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profits versus externalized risk and expense for the “job creator” class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses

And all anyone can mount as a defense of what we all know is true - that the system is not working and we are cannibalizing society at large to keep your house of cards up - is that those crummy impoverished little people with no power, no lobbyist representation, no funding to enact think tank legislation, and no say in their own governance are to blame for your grand economic system that must be foisted on the rest of the world via violence, military interventionism/occupation and multiple endless wars of economic colonialism.

 

[Kushinator]

merely distributing wealth to those who haven't earned it doesn't work.

You distribute income instead!

How do you plan on getting the poor to become more economically valuable

By allowing them to work for/with/on what interests them, and not on what's the best way to earn enough for rent and food. Entrepreneurship is in a dark period....

 

[MTAtech]

yes, if you want them to keep voting for dependency. if you want them to stop being dependent and stop voting for the pushers, then they need to feel the pinch when the government spends more

On this dependency meme...

 

[Fenton Lum]

That "commodity" are also your customers and a society that pays them too little is going to fail. It is so obvious that I can only think that you are purposely ignoring that fact.

Denial is all they have to pull out of their pockets at this point, hence the buying up of the media machine once Clinton deregulated the FCC. US media is now nothing but corporate state TV.

 

[TurtleDude]

LOL, I hope you're not hurting your back moving those goals posts....

And your comment is just completely divorced from reality. There has never been a time in U.S. history, perhaps world history, when the wealthy commanded a larger share of income or held a greater share of net worth. Corporate profits are close to all time highs as a share of GDP. The middle class and poor have gone decades with income lagging every measure that traditionally led income higher - productivity or GDP growth.

So your premise is for this economy to be sustainable, the path forward is for the wealthy to command even more income and wealth and for the poor to suffer MORE. What kind of data can you use to support this premise?

FWIW, 20th and 21st century world history also tells us governments often fail, and sometimes lots of people like you die, are killed, when government serves only the interests of the wealthy and collectively says to the poor, "F you."

bring it on. I sort of hope you lefties who keep screaming for revolution and violence actually start it. I suspect you aren't going to like the reality of such a move. after such a revolution, the two major parties in the USA will be the GOP and the Libertarians

 

[iguanaman]

merely distributing wealth to those who haven't earned it doesn't work. How do you plan on getting the poor to become more economically valuable

LOL That is what inheritance is and that is why our founders did not believe in it. They felt all assets should revert to the State at death. The "poor" have made record profits for corporations that you have refused to share. How much more value can you get than that?

 

[TurtleDude]

On this dependency meme...

you cited another thread. BFD

 

[TurtleDude]

LOL That is what inheritance is and that is why our founders did not believe in it. They felt all assets should revert to the State at death. The "poor" have made record profits for corporations that you have refused to share. How much more value can you get than that?

remind me what part of the constitution supports your idiotic claim. how do the poor make "record profits"? you are lying

 

[Kushinator]

bring it on. I sort of hope you lefties who keep screaming for revolution and violence actually start it. I suspect you aren't going to like the reality of such a move. after such a revolution, the two major parties in the USA will be the GOP and the Libertarians

The whole blaze of glory fantasy huh?

 

[Fearandloathing]

You seem to be upset by the fact that under the new law, a wealthy tycoon will only pay a 25% tax on his bonus rather than the 39% he pays now or the 100% that you wish it would be. Perhaps you might write your democratic representative and ask him to get involved in the legislation rather than sitting on the sidelines in lock-step opposition to any form of tax relief. But it is good to see you liberals finally worrying about the deficit now that Obamas $10 trillion debt spree is over. I guess deficits matter again and can stifle the economy after all. But you would have to explain how your 'social mobility' is decreased simply because I pay a little less in taxes or where it was determined to be the role of the federal government to control income inequality.

The truth is, the left hates tax cuts because it limits their ability to transfer wealth from one American to another. Period. Its not about funding roads or paying police, its about the left robbing Peter to pay Paul simply because they think Peter has too much and Paul not enough.

Wow, you sure do add hyperbole to the debate and deliberate misled if not lied in the response...how very Trump.

your democratic representative and ask him to get involved in the legislation rather than sitting on the sidelines in lock-step opposition to any form of tax relief

All of that is based on an assumption without an iota of facte.


But it is good to see you liberals finally worrying about the deficit now that Obamas $10 trillion debt spree is over.

There is not one shred of evidence in the OP to draw that conclusion, in fact there isn't enough evidence in history.

The truth is, the left hates tax cuts because it limits their ability to transfer wealth from one American to another. Period. Its not about funding roads or paying police, its about the left robbing Peter to pay Paul simply because they think Peter has too much and Paul not enough

Really? and your evience of "hate" is?

Incidentally, why is it Trumpers use that word so readily?

Other than all that it is a typical rant from the Trump dump.

 

[haymarket]

Ah yes, but the "capitalists" fixed all that. Post that, the ability of the people to organize like concentrated power and wealth organizes was systematically dismantled over time. By design. There were also many more organized groups of citizens at that time applying pressure on power. It will take a rebirth of the people uniting, but the lift is a heavier lift now. Concentrated corporate power and wealth has basically taken over the govt, the media machine, the legal system and the economic system. There is no political solution to any of this working within the confines of the system itself which is designed to pretect and serve those in power. It is sheer folly to beseach your oppressor to please stop oppressing me for your own benefit.

I keep coming back to the end of FIGHT CLUB. I wonder if it will take something like that to upset the apple cart that the rich have designed for themselves at the expense of everyone else?

 

[TurtleDude]

The whole blaze of glory fantasy huh?

nah, its always lefties who scream about starting violent uprisings. I suspect most of the people best equipped to survive in such a scenario are not leftwing socialists

 

[TurtleDude]

The whole blaze of glory fantasy huh?

great song by Bon Jovi though!

 

[MTAtech]

you cited another thread. BFD

another thread in which I was responding to you on basically the same argument but three years ago.

 

[LesGovt]

I reread our entire exchange. In which of your posts do you claim that you presented verifiable evidence supporting your own personal pontifications?

Reread # 207 and I have never said that I posted verifiable evidence. I do not need to. It is true that real compassion expressed by the people through charity is much more compassionate than taking hard-earned money from one group of people who never get to see the money to give to another group of people. If you or I did that, it would be called theft. Theft is not more compassionate than charity.

I invite you to read "Death of American Compassion."

 

[haymarket]

Reread # 207 and I have never said that I posted verifiable evidence. I do not need to. It is true that real compassion expressed by the people through charity is much more compassionate than taking hard-earned money from one group of people who never get to see the money to give to another group of people. If you or I did that, it would be called theft. Theft is not more compassionate than charity.

I invite you to read "Death of American Compassion."

All you have is your own personal pontifications. Present us with verifiable evidence of your claims.

 

[JasperL]

merely distributing wealth to those who haven't earned it doesn't work. How do you plan on getting the poor to become more economically valuable

Sheesh, you've established ANOTHER set of goal posts to kick towards....

I do have to laugh at the pretty astounding lack of self awareness in your post, though. What did Buffy do to "earn" a multi-$million or multi-$billion inheritance, tax free? What you're suggesting is we raise taxes on working people - in the House bill about $40 billion per year after it's fully phased in - to pay for a tax cut that Buffy and Don Jr. and many others did nothing to "earn" except be born to the right parents, which is a HELLUVA hard thing to do, so kudos to them and you I guess!

What I don't understand about a bunch of you wealthy guys is how you expect the party to continue, and the party is pretty fantastic for the top 0.1% right now, if the response to the poor from government is, if they followed your preferences, essentially - "F you." We just elected Trump, and the most popular politician in America right now might be an actual, honest to goodness socialist. It's not like we can't look around the world and see that coming when the system fails nearly everyone but your country club buddies and Ivy League college chums.

 

[TurtleDude]

Sheesh, you've established ANOTHER set of goal posts to kick towards....

I do have to laugh at the pretty astounding lack of self awareness in your post, though. What did Buffy do to "earn" a multi-$million or multi-$billion inheritance, tax free? What you're suggesting is we raise taxes on working people - in the House bill about $40 billion per year after it's fully phased in - to pay for a tax cut that Buffy and Don Jr. and many others did nothing to "earn" except be born to the right parents, which is a HELLUVA hard thing to do, so kudos to them and you I guess!

What I don't understand about a bunch of you wealthy guys is how you expect the party to continue, and the party is pretty fantastic for the top 0.1% right now, if the response to the poor from government is, if they followed your preferences, essentially - "F you." We just elected Trump, and the most popular politician in America right now might be an actual, honest to goodness socialist. It's not like we can't look around the world and see that coming when the system fails nearly everyone but your country club buddies and Ivy League college chums.

just wait until the rich actually unite, right now half the rich are big government welfare socialists. hopefully, the snarling of the lower classes will force them to unite with the rich who tire of big government

 

[JasperL]

bring it on. I sort of hope you lefties who keep screaming for revolution and violence actually start it. I suspect you aren't going to like the reality of such a move. after such a revolution, the two major parties in the USA will be the GOP and the Libertarians

Yes, please give me an example in history where the system failed the poor and what came after was a government that reliably only served the wealthy. The only way that happens is with a police state forcing such a solution.

Just look at any polling on any issue. What do people say they want with healthcare - the clear majority? UHC. If libertarian policies, slashing government benefits to the poor and old and sick, leaving it up to the free market, was actually popular, why does the GOP have to lie to their base about it? I doubt if there's a more popular government program that "socialist" Medicare, and running a close second is probably SS. And we don't have to guess about it - we just have to observe the political truism that those ARE the third rails of contemporary politics.

Trump just got elected promising UHC and to not cut a penny from Medicare or Medicaid, which is roughly the same policy choice of Hillary and Bernie. Why hasn't the GOP ran on and managed to pass deep cuts to SS and Medicare? You know how they won a lot of opposition to the ACA? Telling seniors about death panels and the big cuts to Medicare. Etc................

You're just delusional if you think there is majority support for libertarian policies. Heck, libertarian preferences - people who when faced with what libertarian philosophy actually supports and who would elect people to do that - don't rise above the number of bona fide commies in this country.

 

[JasperL]

just wait until the rich actually unite, right now half the rich are big government welfare socialists. hopefully, the snarling of the lower classes will force them to unite with the rich who tire of big government

I don't know what that means. I guess it's some kind of threat. :yawn:

It's pretty sad that you can't come up with coherent arguments and so issuing silly threats is the best you got. "snarling of the lower classes" is a nice, snobbish touch, though!

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes, please give me an example in history where the system failed the poor and what came after was a government that reliably only served the wealthy. The only way that happens is with a police state forcing such a solution.

Just look at any polling on any issue. What do people say they want with healthcare - the clear majority? UHC. If libertarian policies, slashing government benefits to the poor and old and sick, leaving it up to the free market, why does the GOP have to lie to their base about it? Trump just got elected promising UHC and to not cut a penny from Medicare or Medicaid, which is roughly the same policy choice of Hillary and Bernie. Why hasn't the GOP ran on and managed to pass deep cuts to SS and Medicare? You know how they won a lot of opposition to the ACA? Telling seniors about death panels and the big cuts to Medicare. Etc................

You're just delusional if you think there is majority support for libertarian policies. Heck, libertarian preferences - people who when faced with what libertarian philosophy actually supports and who would elect people to do that - don't rise above the number of bona fide commies in this country.

80 years of the New Deal dependency has turned many Americans into children who want government to take care of them. our job is to force more people to become adults and stop demanding others provide for their existence. People who gain power by continuing the dependency and those who want to be perma-children are hateful of detaching more and more people from the public umbilical cord

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't know what that means. I guess it's some kind of threat. :yawn:

It's pretty sad that you can't come up with coherent arguments and so issuing silly threats is the best you got. "snarling of the lower classes" is a nice touch, though!

tell us why you are such a fan of the nanny state/ do you again real or perceived power from others being dependent on the government or do you want the government to take care of you. Or worse, are you envious of others and want the government to take from them what you don't have but think you deserve?