Paying a "fair share"

Neither is immoral as far as I'm concerned. But I'm not a leftist.

I doubt [MENTION=17203]Iriemon[/MENTION] will ever come out in opposition the the use of the central bank.

 

Your gripe is that the rich receive more income than you want them to receive, which is to say that they are given more income by the nation (i.e. the people in the nation) than you want the people to give. So tell me, who is to blame for this situation other than the people giving income to the rich?

 

DEALT WITH PRIOR. Unresponsive. Perhaps you are like a kid with a piggy bank and think your money sits there in a bank vault? Sorry bout that, I truly am. The very acts of saving into a bank (here or offshore), a muni bond, a stock, a PE/VC fund, charitable donations, create consumption leverage innately greater than straight redistribution. Richie Rich's bank deposit savings is Cheech and Chong's CAR LOAN, HOUSE LOAN, TUITION LOAN... and of amounts greater than the actual deposits. It is amazing to me that you don't grasp that and think that saved money goes down into some black hole. Invested, saved money is SPENT, just as surely as any other money, it matters not that the depositor isn't doing the actual spending of it, SOMEONE ELSE IS.

Needs crayons. Not going to provide them. Go to your community college and take a Money and Banking course, I beg you. Every dollar, every -single- dollar, that is not burnt or buried is SPENT, if not by the depositor, by someone else. That spending is leveraged far greater than straight redistribution in many cases to boot. If you learn nothing else on this forum, learn that. Start with googling up "fractional reserve banking" which you very obviously do not understand.

Someone, tens of millions of someones, "suppressed wages" or no (yet another BS exercise in propaganda semantics I won't even bother with), very obviously has lots of discretionary $$, enough to keep their super rich "middle class" kids (our CHILDREN have more purchasing power than 75% of the world's countries have GDP) swimming in Katy Perry and Jay Z songs, Disney vids, Marvel superhero movies, elaborate expensive toys, CELLPHONES, lots of stuff making lots of people who sell them RICH... that we sure as hell DIDN'T have and COULDN'T afford when I was growing up in the middle class of the 70s-80s. "Hey Dad, can I have my own phone line?" in 1975. ROFL... run, run away like the wind.

Yet wonder of wonders, despite bogus inequality charts and fictive union label Complex "studies," the MASSES have enough money for their kids to have these mountains of junk today? What a head-scratcher, eh? Why don't you explain the casual dining industry, shopping malls, obscene musician and entertainer wealth, let alone all the tech innovation, in some fabled "environment of privation" for the 90% due to income inequality since 1981? How is it that whole MASS MARKET DEPENDENT industries have grown and flourished under this "inequality" that could never have even existed in the 70s-80s? Since all that money simply couldn't be trickling down, tell us, where the F does it come from? Is someone not telling the MASSES who buy all this crap that the rich took all their money so they can't buy it?

Repeats the advertisement, including the bogus "Reagan trickle down" nonsense. If you don't like our tax policy, that's fine, stop peddling the lie that it is 30 year old policy that's all to blame and not also the tax regime of FOUR other administrations over 27 years since. Call it what it is, OUR...UNITED STATES... TAX... POLICY, not "Reagan trickle down revolution."

Please, we aren't idiots. You aren't fooling anyone. Even someone who is filing their first 1040 understands what marginal rates are, so don't ignore them or the % of 1% income that is around the average and pays much lower rates on the way up. Tell us EXACTLY what you are going to do to the brackets to increase revenues by $300 billion, and phrasing it as "an effective 10 percentage points" is the most patently dishonest way you could have phrased the necessarily MASSIVE actual tax increase you are proposing, par for the course in union label land.

We'll leave aside forum shopping, tax planning (capital gains chilling) and the inevitable economic chaos and wealth destruction that would result until you are HONEST and tell us EXACTLY how much increase and on whom you are proposing to get your mythical $300 billion. We will also leave aside for the moment that $300 billion is only 10% of federal revenues and 5-8% of the actual budget/spending. Is your massive tax increase going to somehow make the government frugal? Give them more so they will spend less? That how it works? ROFLMAO.

Split more hairs, lose more points. "taking X% of the nation's income during the period since 1981" is not materially different than "income taken from the nation over years." Both are bogus, fallacious propaganda advertisements and relatively synonymous.

More plain semantic squirming with "very richest" for all to see. Transparent. OK, I will modify my claim, to "other than 10-20% of incorrigibles, whom no amount of redistribution will fix, and a trivial fraction of a % of wealthy children with trust funds and the like, the poor and rich are the exact same people in the US, just at different points in time." It's not at all irrelevant because it puts the LIE to charts and graphs that seek to falsely fix income statically in time as opposed to accurately accounting shifting income over the decades of the average career's advancement. The union label Complex trick of some "static poor" and "static rich" needs to be called out for the erroneous propaganda it is once and for all, and I am doing just that.

Unresponsive. We live in a fabulously wealthy country at all levels, far wealthier than we were 35 years ago AT ALL LEVELS (there's only so much lipstick Ivanka Trump can buy). The rise of the shopping mall, specialty retail like Bass Pro Shops, Toys R Us, et al, casual dining and obscenely rich pop stars, entertainers athletes and other MSM wealth -that did NOT exist during prior times of supposedly more equal income distribution- prove this conclusively, bogus charts and union label ads notwithstanding. Our masses are doing very well as their ability to buy mountains of junk attests.

Yet...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xL8rE9DT4g

The giant gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-lawyer-MSM Complex tick on the dog's back, its boneheaded, self-interested, illicit policies for 100 years, has far more to do with our economic malaise than any supposed inability of consumers to buy what they very obviously are buying.

Shaky correlations based on facts do not result in new facts or conclusions, despite propagandists' fervent wishes that they did, regardless whatever "trickle down" tax policy does or does not exist in the OBAMA administration.

 

I certainly don't agree with every action the Fed has taken or done. But as far as replacing the institution or its general procedure of managing money, no one has ever explained to me a better system.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not quite my position, but to answer your question, folks who voted in conservative reps and "trickle down" policies.

 

Voters are responsible for the nation (i.e. the people in the nation) giving more money to the rich than you want them to? How exactly did voters make the American people give more money to the rich?

 

Can you quote where I said that voters made the American people give more money to the rich? Thanks.

 

I asked you who is to blame for the rich being given more money by the people in the nation. You reply was: "to answer your question, folks who voted in conservative reps and "trickle down" policies."

So now I'm wondering how these folks were able to for make the American people choose to give more money to the rich.

 

So people have decided to give the richest 1% more money now. And you disagree with the decisions of the people of the nation?

 

So as I predicted, no opposition to the use of a central bank.

 

Again, can you quote where I said that voters made the American people give more money to the rich? Thanks.

I never said anyone made the American people give more money to the rich. If you can't characterize what I say accurately, please quote my statement verbatim. Thanks.

- - - Updated - - -

When did they do that?

Some of them. Do you?

 

Sure thing:

Hope that helps.

I see. So the American people are giving money to the rich of their own free will. And you disagree with their choice?

 

When they gave the richest 1% more money than in the past.

No, I don't disagree with the people's decision to spend their money as they wish.

 

Thank you. It helps prove how you mis-characterized what I said.

Prove they gave it to them of their own free will.

- - - Updated - - -

[

Why did they decide to give the richest 1% more money?

That wasn't the question. The question was: "And you disagree with the decisions of the people of the nation"?

 

Are you backtracking now? Are you reverting to your initial statement that the rich "take from" others? Because unless you are, you must face the fact that the rich are given their money by people who give it to them of their own free will.

Probably in exchange for something they value.

What decisions?

 

why should those who work hard and make more money than the lazy pay more?

 

See above.

Prove they gave them more money.

You tell me.

- - - Updated - - -

Why shouldn't those who work hard share in the gains and prosperity they help produce?

 

Yes, above we agreed that the rich don't take income but are given income.

Isn't that your whole claim. That the rich are being given more money now than in the 70s?

Okay. I don't disagree with the people's decision to spend their money as they wish.

 

why? what do they get in return other than demands for more and more.

existing is not a just claim on the wealth or hard work of others

 

Why should a person working two jobs pay more than a person working one job?

 

"share in the gains and prosperity they help produce" Lovely.

I've got no problem with sharing, but I have a feeling that the poster isn't talking about sharing but about forcible taking and redistribution.

 

Where did I agree to any such thing?

Where did I ever make such a claim? Prove they gave them more money.

That wasn't the question. The question was: "And you disagree with the decisions of the people of the nation"?

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks.

Good for you. If more people learned to share we wouldn't have this growing income inequality you support.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know. What?

Depends on the circumstances.

 

The other underlying plank of that grafty house is that they know full well they can tax the 1% and the .01% to the moon and not raise much more than a drop in the bucket due to a whole host of factors. They know full well that they are not proposing any rational, cohesive policy, but are merely soliciting votes from people who don't pay much taxes at all with these wealth inequality ads to soak not the rich... but ALL of us. They want to extract ever more and more from the 30% who are already paying 97% of all federal income taxes, who are already paying 30-50% of their working lives at all levels to fund gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-lawyer-MSM Complex TROUGHS. They will never admit this, but rest assured they know it full well.

The intent of all the municipal union label wealth inequality hoax is to convince people to vote for biggov machine Democrats, not to "help" anyone but government itself. They LOVE the bottom 20%, their clients, and need them to stay right where they are. They LOVE the 1%, THEIR 1% in government, education, Hollywood, media, so long as more of OUR money, ALL OF OUR MONEY not just some tiny few superwealthy, gets extracted through the wasteful corrupt government sieve. It's a tradeoff THEIR 1% are willing to make because the benefit outweighs the small cost to them. It's not people making $20k a year they want to help, but bureaucrats, contractors, union reps, grantees, et al who are making 70k now and want 100k for their easy, do-nothing govjobs that we all pay for.

 

We are talking about incomes here right? I was under the impression that were were talking about incomes resulting from economic exchange. Are you saying that these incomes are made by taking money from people against their will?

According to this chart, the top 1% was given more income in 2012 than in 1982.

What decisions are you talking about?

 

sharing suggests mutual benefits. Parasitic behavior does not. Income redistribution is essentially parasitic because those who have the money taken from them get no benefit. Rather, the politicians who do the looting and then distribute the loot to voters get goodwill and votes.

So lets not call forced income redistribution "Sharing"

its not like Jack Straw

We can share what we got of yours, 'cause we done shared all of mine"

(Robert Hunter)

 

It's more like a "Mr. Charlie" arrangement they are after. Will leave it to you to figure who "Mr. Charlie" is, and it's not anyone who profits from voluntary market transactions, but someone with a great big gun.