Paying a "fair share"

People should pay for the services they use. And actually those services should not be provided by the government. There's not much the government does that the private sector can't do better. And by restricting itself to governing, the government would cost a great deal less to fund.

 

You've been rebutted on this claim many times, and you've been unable to muster a suitable counter. There is no consumption without someone instigating the mechanism to provide goods to consume. In short, your claim that consumption creates economic growth is so specious - so utterly simplistic - as to be easily dismissed.

Acknowledging the critical role consumption plays is not nearly as important as acknowledging that the need to consume creates opportunity for economic growth.

That's it. Opportunity for economic growth. Someone still has to take advantage of the opportunity: and they don't do for free, and don't do it without major financial risk.

So: when discussing whether consumption is the more important variable, or taking risk to take advantage of opportunity, the more valuable thing to nurture is the amelioration of risk.

No matter how much is invested in enterprise if the enterprise cannot sell it's goods or services (i.e. consumption of goods and service) it goes bankrupt.

I refuted this so soundly in the other thread that you had no choice but to agree. So why didn't it change your re-parrot of this nonsense? You actually just offered a numerical statistic, and you took it to 6 decimal places, rendering it statistically ZERO. That is so brainless as to simply merit laughing at the attempt.

I've already pointed out to you that EVERY business loan is an investment in business, and VIRTUALLY all them are invested with money furnished by outside investors. Your claim is absolutely ignorant of business economics.

Liberals use Alinsky's tactic of ingraining falsehood through repetition. This revisionism has likewise been rebutted countless times. Anyone with a brain stem understands that economies are cyclical, and anyone with that brain stem can also see the massive economic expansion which took place right after implementation of Reagan's policies. That eventually the economy cooled substantially - 20 years later, I might add - is a ridiculous way to contend that what Reagan employed was failure.

You should do so well as to manage 20 years of economic expansion after implementation of Obama's policies.

 

Before even addressing taxation let me clarify that I don't support Keynesianism and we don't even really apply Keynesian economic principles in the US. We use a bastardized version that probably has Keynes rolling in his grave.

Next is that they're an old saying, "You can't get blood from a turnip." For those that haven't heard the expression here's what it means.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-it-mean-to-get-blood-from-a-turnip.htm

While it varies slightly based upon specific locations in the United States when we address national taxation we need to use the "median cost of basic necessities" when addressing taxation based upon the common sense idiom of "You can't get blood from a turnip."

Even conservatives will admit it makes absolutely no sense to tax someone and they have to provide welfare assistance to the same person because they cannot afford the basic necessities of life because of the taxes they pay. All that is accomplished is creating "bigger government" to provide welfare assistance that would be avoided if that same person isn't having the money taken away from them in the first place by the government. Both conservatives and libertarians that support smaller government would come out in opposing taxing the "poor" and then being forced to have government refund that same tax money in the form of welfare assistance so they can afford basic necessities. It creates government purely for the sake of government and that's stupid.

So let's don't tax the income required for basic necessities. Sen Rand Paul supports this in prinicple as opposed to our current system of "tax deductions and tax credits" although there are some fundamental flaws in his "Flat Tax" proposal but it does include an "exemption" for basic necessities.

The fundamental flaw is that he establishes the "exemption" as a specific amount of dollars that is arbitary and subject to obsolescence over time as the cost of living changes and it would constantly require revisions by Congress that are unlikely to happen. Think about it in this context, when was the last time the minimum wage was adjusted for inflation? The same thing would occur with an exemption established in "dollars" like Sen Paul recommends. Within just a few years the exemption wouldn't cover the necessary expenditures of the household even though that is the express purpose of the exemption.

When I created my "Flat Tax w/exemption" proposal I set the "exemption" based upon "median income" so it would float over time not requiring Congressional action. I mention $50,000 in my proposal but that is exclusively based upon the current median income while the 'law' would simply refer to the median income that is adjusted every year. Yes, my proposal is for $2,000 more than Sen Paul's but the principle is identical and I used the median income because it's a common calculation that we have a long historical foundation for.

Next is Sen Paul's possible proposal for the flat tax rate.

The problem is that this would actually result in even less revenue that the federal government is currently receiving resulting a ballooning of the national debt. It is fiscally irresponsible to not fund the current authorized expenditures of Congress because that forces the tax burden onto future generations that are not represented in Congress today. Sen Paul's position is that we need to reduce federal spending, and I support that, but to reduce federal spending we need to address the problems that necessitate the spending and Sen Paul doesn't propose doing that.

For example if we want to reduce the government spending on welfare assistance we need to reduce the poverty that necessitates the spending. Simply "cutting" the spending doesn't fix the problem and, in fact, makes it worse. It isn't the welfare spending that's the problem, that's just a symptom of the problem. The problem is the poverty and you don't fix problems by addressing the symptom of the problem. Giving aspirin to a person with a brain tumor can relieve the pain but it doesn't cure the brain tumor. If you don't treat the brain tumor then next week you're going to have to treat it with more expensive pain medications and that's what we see with welfare assistance. We're treating the pain but not the problem.

Other possible problems with Sen Paul's proposal....

I don't disagree that company provided benefits should not be taxed as income to the employee and they are an expense for the enterprise that are deductable as a "cost of doing business" so we have no disagreement on this.

Now the Capital Gains proposal is a bit ambiguous. Does Sen Rand Paul suggest that when a financial transaction takes place, such as a person selling $1 million worth of bonds, that the 17% tax be imposed "at the business level" on the proceeds from the transaction? There is a business transaction taking place and that's what his proposal suggests and I would disagree with that. The person might have spent $900 to purchase the bonds and would be losing $70,000 on the sale because of the $170,000 in taxation on the proceeds from the sale. That makes no sense to me and I don't have a clue what Sen Paul is suggesting.

If Sen Paul is suggesting that no taxes be collected on the $100,000 in net profits from the bond sale, even though a business transaction is taking place, then that's also wrong. That is income just like any other form of income and that $100,000 spends just like any other $100,000.

Once again that "$100,000" in income is the same regardless of whether the person goes to work everyday to earn it or sits on a beach drinking margarita's collecting it based upon prior investments. That money spends the same regardless of how they manage to acquire it. If one of them is required to spend part of it on taxation then the other should also be required to spend part of it on taxation.

I even have a problem with this proposal if he's only addressing dividend or interest income because it could represent a part of the income to the household that falls below the "exemption" level where the person would pay no income taxes on it. A lot of retirees live off of dividend payments and don't break the "exemption" level in taxation. I addressed this by making the dividend (or interest) payment deductable to the enterprise to avoid double taxation.

As Sen Rand Pual correctly notes a "Flat Tax With an Exemption" eliminates any need for the Alternative Minimum Tax.

I have no idea where the Republican obsession with the estate tax comes from. As even Fox News reported on the recent "Repeal the Estate Tax" measure by Republicans:

http://radio.foxnews.com/2015/04/18/republicans-pass-tax-cut-for-rich-that-blows-up-deficit/

Apparently even Fox News, the mouthpiece for the Republican Party, choked over this one.

On a final note I'll look at three more aspects of Sen Rand Paul's proposal.

Yes, a "Flat Tax With an Exemption" is so simply to administer that it fundamentally removes about 90% of the need for the IRS.

Sen Rand Paul is correct because the "Flat Tax With Exemption" is a progressive tax, that if created without "political favoritism or agendas" that corrupts the tax code, provides a fair tax for everyone. "Progressive tax rates" have always represented corruption but with a single rate above an exemption level that corruption cannot be imposed by the politicans.

The 15.3% FICA/Payroll/Self-Employment tax remains, as noted, and Sen Paul doesn't address that tax but I do with a privatization plan that would all but eliminate Social Security (except for a safety net roughly 4-times better than we have today) and would completely eliminate Medicare after a transitional period of 45 years (the working career of the average person).

So in one sense Sen Rand Paul is moving in the right direction but for whatever reason he's still not able to reach a fair tax proposal because it appears he wants to retian crony caplitalism that provide favoritism to some at the expense of others and he's still fiscally irresponsible because he refuses to fund the authorized expenditures of Congress which is the very purpose for taxation.

Reference Rand Paul proposal for a flat tax:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/31/pf/taxes/rand-paul-flat-tax/index.html

 

In 2011, some 46.2 million Americans lived below the official poverty line — 15 percent of the country. Of those, roughly 10.4 million counted as the "working poor," people who either had jobs or were looking for at least half the year, but still fell below the line.

Generally speaking, there are obvious reasons why we have workers ranging from $7.25/hour to million$ per year. There is some luck involved, but the primary differences are the amount of skills, the amount of education, lifestyle choices, appearance and interpersonal relationship skills, work performance, and making better decisions. It is unfortunate that so many choose not to acquire those things that give them more value in the workplace. But this should not mean we continue to punish others who made better choices and found success. Should we assist those in need...absolutely! But this should not be done politically or by interfering with the working processes of the private sector and markets. If government and politics truly cared about the working poor then they would take steps to assure better education, obtaining skills, making better choices in life, providing affordable housing, providing effective mass-transit, and working WITH the private sector instead of AGAINST the private sector...

 

I disagree.

The fundamental reason for any tax, income, property, sales, excise, tariff, is to fund the governmental operations that it is assigned to do by the legislative/exectivie body. How to collect that revenue is where the burden lies within.

There are two axioms with revenue tax collection. One, no one likes to pay a tax. And two, everyone wants someone else to pay that tax.

Given that, every tax system has winners and losers. Thus there is no such thing as a "fair share." We simply use that to convince ourselves that whatever tax system we have in place is not too over burdensome to the people who pay.

For it to be over burdensome would mean a system that is too complicated for the average person to understand. It also means the steps one has to go through to pay for that tax.

But eve nwith the simpliest methods, people do not lik to pay. Take for instance the mail in rebate. It is quite easy to do. Fill out a single form that includes basic info and where you bought the product. Include a copy of the receipt and bar code of the product. Mail it and 6 to 8 weeks later, you have a check. Yet, of 100 people who have the opportunity for a mail in rebate, less than 30 would actually go through with the process. The same anolgoy can be applied to the tax system. The more simple you make it, the more peope would not go through wit the sysem.

That is why in every tax system there is a system of checks and counter checks to make sure everyone does it the right way. Oour idea of fair, so to speak.

The sytem you explained is exactly the system that was set up in 1913. With the deductions and exemptions necessary to be required to file, only 15% of the populace in 1913 was required to file a income tax return. The numbers grew less and less each year as people found ways to hide their income from the Bureau of Income Revenue, I think that was the name of the agency at that time. But a broader based tax system, that is flatter with less deductions and credits, would be far more valuable than a NRST, flat tax, or even your system. It would meet the goal of funding the government as well as meeting the requirements for a sytem that is not too burdensome, complicated, and excessive. That was the approach of the JCT in 2005 which rejected several other models inclsuing a system similar to yours BTW.

 

But you left out one important detail: location.

Let me give you an example. I have a friend. Used to work for Dallas Semiconductor Inc. Was a biomechencial engineer. Made good money. Married, happily, had kids and lived in a area where my friend's extended family was also located. The family did everything together and for the most part, the parents had jobs as well. They wre not rich, but they were not poor either. Well, my friend was offered a job in Vermount with a higher paying salary. There were a couple of problems. One, my friend's spouse wold have to quit their job and move with little or no chance in finding work up there and two the young kids would have to move and be in a place where they would have to make friends agan. Not to mention, the ywould be away from their cousins whom they play with quite regularily. So, my friend did not take the job. In your view, it would have been better, but in their view, it would have been disasterous.

The point is that it is not always about the skills you list, it is aobout things that do not come with the job. The family. The location of where you live. And the realities of a decision that would not only affect you, but others around you.

For most people, moving is not an option because of the roots they have established where they live. This is not like The Grapes of Wath today. Today, people have roots, deep seeded roots, in the community they live. And unless there in a job that requires them to constanly be moving, most people will not move, but simply wait for the opportunity to come to them.

 

You coul not be more wrong even if you tried. And it is this type of stereotyping that shows just how ignorant you are when it come to these things.

People who are poor do not watch television shows 24/7/365. The working poor definitely don't. But those who cannot work because they are on SSI or SSDI are receiving money that can eithe r barely keep them alive or it is not enough.

If a poor uses a system, like public transportation, they pay far more than what you pay through your taxes.

 

I can support this since I don't use the military this would significantly reduce my taxes. And the old mantra that there is not much that the government does that can't be done better by the private sector, while an article of faith in some sectors, seems to remain essentially unproven and undemonstrated. As a matter of fact it is arguable that government actually assumes functions because the privatesector has failed to meet the need for those functions.

I am not implying that everything the government does is necessary because it is also obvious that once the government assumes a function it is very hard to eliminate the function if it eventually become unnecessary.

 

You clearly need to do some research into class mobility in the United States. Start with the GINI coefficient and then go on from there. You will easily discover that where you end up in the United States is more influenced by where you start than any other factor.

 

you are making statements that you do not support. The fact is, I spent 30 years cleaning up the problems caused by people who didn't have much of a work ethic. ANd no, I pay hundreds of thousands a year in taxes. I pay MORE income taxes than 50 Million people combined each year so stop making stuff up

 

The key word is "equitable compensation" and that doesn't imply that if the bottom pay level is increased that all other pay levels must be increased proportionately. The employee earning $30/hr really doesn't care if the employer increases the starting wage from $7.25/hr to $15/hr because they're still being paid substantially more than the new hire because of their experience and job skills. The employee that's already earning $15/hr would care though and expect an increase so that they're still earning more than the new hire but the increase doesn't have to be the same percentage. The current employee at $15/hr would probably accept a $3/hr increase, raising their wages to $18/hr if the starting wage is increased to $15/hr as being an "equitable" increase because they'll be earning more than the new hire reflecting their existing experience and job performance. The person earning $20/hr would probably accept a $1/hr increase as being "equitable" reflecting their greater experience and job performance and, as noted, the person earning $30/hr wouldn't necessarily expect any increase. What you find is that the further away from the increase the current employee is in compensation the less it concerns them.

Remember this is not presented to the employees as a "general wage increase" but instead as a "starting wage increase" and employees are not irrational. The employees do want "equitable" compensation but they don't expect irrational compensation. As long as they earn more than those with less experience and/or lower performance they will always believe they're being treated equitably.

The "Market" typically defines the lowest possible compensation but never the highest possible compensation for a job skill. You're certainly correct that the lowest possible compensation is determined by numerous factors including the labor market supply and demands but that is the still the "lowest" possible compensation necessary to secure employees for the enterprise. You're also correct that the business model, based upon the business plan, is highly important in how labor costs effect the pricing of the product or service being sold by the enterprise and I've never seen a business plan that couldn't be improved. It's the employers job to best utilize the employee and many do a very poor job of accomlishing that.

Over 45 years of experience has demonstrated to me that the single most important thing the employer can do is eliminate "non-value-added" tasks for the employee. I've been involved in reducing "non-value-added" work where up to 30% of the workers time was literally wasted because they were doing fundamentally unnecessary tasks. Let me provide an example.

I was working for a larger aerospace company working on a government contract. The government contract required the company to address 7 different items (tasks) in dealing with "descrepancies" (i.e. parts/assemblies not meeting drawing requirements) while the company's process and procedures require 11 different items (tasks) to be addressed. Each of those 4 additional items required time to complete but did nothing as far as meeting the customer's requirements. We eliminated those 4 additional items and dramatically reduced the amount of labor/time necessary to address discrepancies based upon the contract. Of note this also improved the "cause and corrective action" related to the discrepancies by the company because employees were more focused on the remaining 7 items/tasks that needed to be addressed so by eliminating "work" we improved our performance significantly.

The same principle applies to any enterprise but few are good at reducing non-value-added work predominately because of poor management due to an inadequate business plan that doesn't create the ideal business model.

An improvement to the business plan that changes the business model will always lead to a more productive workforce that allows higher compensation. That is management's responsibility! People need to stop believing that the management should be excused from any responsibility in improving the business plan/model to accomodate higher compensation.

Far from it because the cost of labor is not trivial and should never be treated that way. At the same time it is a cost just like rent and utilities that must be accounted for in the business plan/model where an increase in a single expenditure can be offset by an change in the business plan/model. There is a standard business model that establishes typical "employee compensation" needs to fall within the 20% to 30% range of gross revenues (not applicable to all enterprises but to the vast majority). Yes, if the costs of employee compensation go up they still have to be maintained within this percentage of gross sales but that's a pretty wide percentage range where compensation is still within acceptable limits.

The "right" always puts forward the proposition that laying off workers will result from a compensation increase so that the percentage of gross profits remains the same but that's really not in the best interests of the enterprise and, in fact, it could reduce customer service resulting in lower gross revenues negatively effecting the enterprise. The ideal means of accomodating the increase is by increasing gross revenues. There are many factors involved in generating more sales but most revolve around customer satisfaction and the perception of "value" by the customer. Marketing also plays a huge role because it brings new customers in and then it's up to the enterprise to ensure that the customer has a pleasurable experience and leaves with the perception that they received "value" for their dollar. There are always many, many things the enterprise can do to increase sales and gross revenues. Let me provide a single example that I know you can relate to.

You stopped for a meal at a restaurant, ordered what you wanted, and finish eating. Did the waiter/waitress ask if you wanted dessert when you're done eating? Some times they do and sometimes they don't but the key is in whether they asked. Most people will be satisfied and decline but a few will always decide to have dessert simply because it was offered. A restaurant where the wait-staff always offers desert (as a part of the business model) will always average more revenue per customer than one that doesn't. It might only be 5% more but that is lost revenue for the restaurant that doesn't offer dessert.

There are always changes in the business plan/model that can be incorporated that will increase gross revenue. The problem is that most small enterprises don't even have a current business plan even if they started out with one. If a survey was done of enterprises I seriously doubt that even 5% would have a current business plan that they'd reviewed within the last 30 days and a business plan needs to be reviewed at least once a month for it to remain viable. As I believe I've mentioned while I'm retired I've founded a new manufacturing company with a partner and in our weekly business meeting we always do a quick review of our business plan and incorporate improvements. It's a fundamental responsibility of the management to do this to keep the business plan/model current because every day that passes introduces changes that must be addressed for the future.

There are so many examples that prove this belief wrong.

Real World Example: Flat panel TV's were very expensive when introduced because there wasn't a large consumer base for them. As consumer demand increased so did production and the prices plummeted and the functionality increased dramatically at the same time.

Hypothetical Example: We have 10 burger stands, each with 10 employees, and they sell 10 burgers per employee per hour currently. With increase income in the local community the number of burgers they sell increases to 15 burgers per employee per hour in the future. Do they have to raise their prices because burger sales have increased by 50%? Their fixed costs (such as rent and employee compensation) have not changed and basically the only additional cost they've incurred is the cost of the ingredients to produce the additional hamburgers. Even if they have to hire an additional employee the enterprise is still generating more revenue that before without increasing pricing. The enterprise might even decide to reduce pricing because of the increased sales to generate a greater market share or perhaps they'll purchase better ingredients so they can provide a superior product that will also increase market share.

The "economics of scale" virtually always allow for lower pricing based upon increased volume (demand). Increased demand will always be met by the market and with increased demand comes lower prices based upon the economics of scale.

If the business plan/model is not changed to accomodate the increase in wages this is probably true and it's management's responsibility to change the business plan/model to: A) accomodate the increase, and B) improve employee productivity.

Always remember that "employee productivity" is directly linked to the tasks they are assigned by management. If management assigns tasks that benefit the enterprise then the employee's labor benefits the enterprise. If the management assigns tasks that don't benefit the enterprise or fails to provides tasks to the employee then the enterprise suffers. Employee performance is directly tinked to management because the motivated employee will do the tasks assigned and even employee motivation is a function of management.

Virtually everyone in a low-paying job is over-qualified for the job. Few low wage jobs, for example, require a HS education while the majority of employees in low paying jobs have a HS education. The "right" always says that people should simply improve themselves (often with a college education that a low income worker can't afford) but the statistics reflect that even those with college degrees are often over-qualified related to the jobs they have.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/thecoll...mployed-the-job-market-waiting-for-graduates/

In general American workers are typically over-qualified as opposed to being under-qualified when it comes to employment, a fact that those on the "right" seem to ignore.

BTW - This is the wrong thread to address this issue on. There are two other threads on the "minimum wage" that are more appropriate.

 

Really? In your posts, where is your data and evidence. I have seen no links, stadies, econometric analysis, etc to support your claims aobout poor people or the use of services. The only thing you have done is give our opinion, unsubstantiated as it is.

The argument you make, "I have spent 30 years of solving people's problems with poor worth ethics" does not contribute to why people are poor nor does it reflect the reality of people are poor. YOu pretty much read that or heard that somewhere else. You are generalizing about a gropu of people that you know nothing about, much less are interested in what they do personally or professionally.


The only one who is making things up is you and others like you. YOu have no clue what the reality is when it comes to poor people. People are poor for a variety of reasons. Some are based on medical issues. Others based on family commitments. Others because of a lack of confidence. And the list goes on. It is not because of poor work ethics.

 

most poor people are poor due to poor choices

Dropping out of school
doing drugs
and getting knocked up are the three major reasons

If you stay in HS
don't do drugs
and don't breed before marriage you have a less than 5% chance of ending up in poverty

 

No they are not.

None of what you cited are root casues of being poor. Lets take the reason of breeding before marriage. I take it you have not heard of Bristol Palin. She had a baby with her boyfriend BEFORE she is married. Yet, she is not poor is she.

Or let's take a look at dropping out of school. I am assuming you mean secondary school. Ever heard of "Mi Familia?" In the Latino community, sometimes the sons have t owork before they can finish school in order to support their family. That is not example of making a poor choice. It is an example of a complex situation that population statistics cannot accont for in their false pretenses.

Again, you are making gross generalizations about a group of people you know absolutely nothing about. And simply posting your opinion does mean you are providing evidence to support your claim. YOu are giving an unsubstantiated opinion on a topic based on your own beleifs and values that go in direct contrast to the established evidence of why people oare poor. This attitude of treating poor people as second class citizens is appalling in any country and shows the lack of education and objectiving reasoning you have on this topic.

 

It is worth noting that with all the " unfair" taxes the very rich appear to be paying their share of the nation's wealth is increasing while everbody else's share is decreasing. Somehow the facts don't quite add up. And I really don't think it is because they work harder than everybody else. Could it be the definition of income used for tax purposes?

- - - Updated - - -

The biggest cause of being poor is being born into the wrong family.

 

Relocation is always an option...maybe not an immediate option but it is an option. Where people place themselves determines what jobs are available no matter their credentials. It would be stupid to attend college for example studying aerospace then choose to live in Redding, CA.

Separately, I've always wondered if the government did start another WPA type program, in which most of these projects are in remote areas, how many Americans would actually relocate for the work?

Lastly, if and when people refuse to locate for better employment, they must then accept whatever is available locally...

 

Makes no difference the influences...people need to make decisions which better their lives, which changes their lives when change is necessary. There are success stories from every possible scenario so obviously all people if they wish can achieve whatever it is they desire as long as it's within their potential. Yes it's more difficult for some than others but so what. Inaction is just an excuse...

 

What a stupid argument. You think you can pick out one person which fits the general description of what happens, and that one person forms the template of the majority?

Do you need chapter and verse of the fallacy you just violated?

You contrive an example without considering any poor choice that resulted in a child having to leave school to work? There's still easily latitude for a poor choice in there you know. Hell, since you made it up, I'll give it to you: the kid had to work because the dad is an alcoholic, and can't hold a job.

There. Two can play the imagination rationalization game.

Really? He's demonstrated first-hand experience. That's more than you've offered. BTW: his first hand experience mirrors mine, so I believe your version even less.

You should heed your own clucking.

And so are you. His reasons make intuitively far more sense than yours, and are - once again - a reflection of my personal experience, both with being poor, and living in a very poor neighborhood.

Vice and laziness are the two largest reasons for poverty by far.

You continue to invent things. Democrats who support cradle to grave entitlement treat poor people like a second-class citizen. They are guilty of the soft bigotry of low expectations, and are smarmy beyond belief and full of false piety.

Go wear another colorful ribbon and tell us how much you care.

 

No, it's because increasing taxes on the wealthy increases their resolve to avoid taxes, and part of that strategy is influence peddling in the very halls of Government which collect the taxes.

If Government passes a law that HugeMart has to pay 40% more taxes than SmallMart, but HugeMart succeeds in creating endless regulatory laws that HugeMart has the personnel to defeat/overcome/manage, but SmallMart doesn't, then HugeMart doesn't care about the 40%; they just made it up by grabbing a larger market share while SmallMarts die.

The other reason is that the exponential rate of growth of already large numbers continue to be larger than whatever the lower incomes are generating.

If you tax the wealthy @ 60%, they still have 40% with which to work. Their 40% will grow faster and do more than 100% of your much smaller pot.

It's just math, as I have repeatedly posted regarding in other threads.

What you have to ask yourself is how the rest of the public has gained by taxing people of means more highly. I submit to you that they haven't: all that has happened is that Government has gotten enormous; which allows it to continue to feed you the people propaganda regarding how necessary it is, and simultaneously allows it the size necessary to continue to give those with wealth whatever they need to continue to succeed.

Do the opposite. Allow the wealthy to keep their money; allow the rest of us to keep our money, shrink the size and influence of Government a ton, and this problem begins to resolve itself.

But it is in the vested interest of Government to ensure that the opposite happens. So, you get politicians like Shrillary who wail and moan about the rich while being extremely rich herself, and collecting what is supposed to be 2+ billion dollars in campaign contributions from those same rich.

Perhaps they know something you don't? Perhaps they too know what I'm trying to tell you?

That implies that people are helpless to change their circumstance. I disagree, and suggest that people focus on the things that they can change, and not what they cannot. Focus instead on the things that KEEP people poor.

It's not where you start that matters.

 

I'm ignoring the wall of text, and focusing on this line:

That's ridiculous, and indicative of your utter lack of market knowledge. There is nothing distinguishing the market for flat panel TVs from the market for TVs in general. Flat panels were merely an innovation, and the reason that they were so expensive had nothing to do with the consumer base, which had long been established for TVs regardless.

They were expensive because it was expensive to develop the technology. As time goes on, they continue to drop in price because the cost of development and tooling has now been amortized over a far longer period of time.

OLED TVs; 4k/8k TVs are expensive too, yet they're flat panel TVs as well. You going to try to claim that same argument? I'd hope not. Their technology was likewise expensive to develop, and manufacturers had to pay for that cost in advance of recouping it with sales.

 

Geez and not everyone who shoots up heroin ends up dying either.

look it up, I am right, the three most prevalent causes of people being poor are what I listed

Look, I realize the socialist left wants to pretend that its not peoples' fault they are poor so as to justify more government redistribution of wealth but I tire of the parasite enablers who say I have a duty to pay and pay and pay for others

- - - Updated - - -

wrong family being one that doesn't instill work ethics in you I suppose

 

Unfortunatly this is incorrect. Growth is measured by percentage increase and the bottom number is totally irrelevant. Repeatedly posting something doesn't make it true. Now if you said the absolute increase instead of the growth rate your statement would be correct.

 

So if economies are cyclical, which they are without question, it is illogical for you to ascribe the growth to Regan's policies.

 

Most people are poor because they were born to poor parents. Do you research on class mobility in the United States.