We grant greater tax considerations for the children of the wealthy, less for children of the poor. (purchase, money)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
TaxPhd, the purpose of progressive income tax rates is the grant lesser rates of taxes upon lesser earners; it is, a populist taxing method.
Reducing the progressive income tax rates by a uniform rate of taxable incomes rather than of tax rates is consistent with populist economic policies.
You pretend not to perceive that? Come on; you really do not expect us to believe you’re so mathematically challenged?
Come on; your post is due to your duplicity. I do not believe your pretended ignorance.
Respectfully, Supposn
I understand perfectly, and there is no mathematical challenge here. I simply pointed out the inconsistency of the position. You like the progressive system when it sticks it to high earners, but you whine when the same system that you are in favor of provides those same people with an (albeit small) increased benefit. Just call it what it is.
i dont feel any personal obligation to help the poor "catch up". they're not stupid, they can figure it out for themselves should they be motivated to do so.
people i have personal relationships with? i'll always jump at the chance to help them with anything. poor or not poor- doesn't matter.
what is your point, OP? the situation you've described does not upset me. should it? is there something wrong with me?
i dont feel any personal obligation to help the poor "catch up". they're not stupid, they can figure it out for themselves should they be motivated to do so.
people i have personal relationships with? i'll always jump at the chance to help them with anything. poor or not poor- doesn't matter.
what is your point, OP? the situation you've described does not upset me. should it? is there something wrong with me?
Brocco, the extent of individuals and their dependents benefits due to populist economic policies are generally and inversely proportional to their incomes; (i.e. those earning less benefit proportionally more and those earning more benefit proportionally less.
Populist policies improve their nation’s entire economy. The purchasing powers of all income earners are increased because they are all sharing the benefits derived from a greater economy. The proportional increases are inversely related to the individuals’ incomes but the individual AMOUNTS of increased earnings are greater for those earning more and lesser for those earning less.
If you’re among the wealthiest segment of our nation and are not motivated by patriotism, there’s no reason for you to be concerned; otherwise if your motivation due to social status is greater than your concern for patriotism and/or the improvement of you and your family’s living standards, you do have some reason to be concerned. If additionally you’re dependent upon earnings derived from employment, you have much greater reason to be concerned.
I understand perfectly, and there is no mathematical challenge here. I simply pointed out the inconsistency of the position. You like the progressive system when it sticks it to high earners, but you whine when the same system that you are in favor of provides those same people with an (albeit small) increased benefit. Just call it what it is.
Taxphd, there is no political inconsistency between the method I advocate for reducing taxes upon net incomes, and my advocacy of populist economic policies; The compatibility of the concepts are due to mathematically described relationships.
I suspect that you’re a proponent of what I would consider to be regressive economic policies, (i.e. advocacy of policies that are less rather more amiable to the financial concerns of those earning lesser incomes). I assume you consider my belief of essentially understanding both the declared and the undeclared motives of those opposed to populitism as a great presumption on my part.
I’m accustomed to hearing those opposed to populitism whine about the economic failures due to the regressive policies they have thus far been able to enact or perpetuate.
I write posts such as this which do “call it as it is”.
Taxphd, there is no political inconsistency between the method I advocate for reducing taxes upon net incomes, and my advocacy of populist economic policies; The compatibility of the concepts are due to mathematically described relationships.
No, there isn't a political inconsistency, and that's not what I said (and I suspect that you understand that). It's abundantly clear that you want to stick it to the wealthy both coming and going. Hit them with high marginal tax rates while at the same time reducing the benefit of their deductions. Your wealth envy/hate comes through very clear in your posts.
No, there isn't a political inconsistency, and that's not what I said (and I suspect that you understand that). It's abundantly clear that you want to stick it to the wealthy both coming and going. Hit them with high marginal tax rates while at the same time reducing the benefit of their deductions. Your wealth envy/hate comes through very clear in your posts.
Excerpted from an 11:06 PM, 20FEB2015 post to the thread
Minimum wage, stimulus, and the 1% .
Populist economic policies percolate their nations’ people up through income brackets of increasing purchasing powers. Due to the increased migration of employees to wages of greater purchasing powers and their effects upon their nations’ median wage and their entire economies benefit.
Although proportional to incomes, lesser earners are greater beneficiaries of populist policies, (because the entire population shares a greater pie), higher income earners receive the greater amounts of benefits due to their nations’ economic improvement.
The obvious question is if populist policies are of such net benefit, why are so many conservatives opposed to them?
Of course if you’re doing so well with the status quo, you’re much less likely to risk change and more likely to believe what has been to your benefit has also been to your nation’s best interests. Although commercial enterprises and their nations’ best interests generally converge, upon some issues they diverge.
What’s seldom discussed is some people’s need to obtain and/or retain superior status over others. These are people of such little confidence in their own self worth that they are impelled to do what they can to restrain and/or diminish others. They cannot admit even to themselves that if they had to choose greater status for themselves or greater wealth and lesser status, their need for status is of greater priority. To their minds the greatest benefit of wealth is the status that that they can derive from that wealth.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Taxphd, in response to my contention that populist policies are generally the economically superior policies for our nation you state “It's abundantly clear that you want to stick it to the wealthy both coming and going. Hit them with high marginal tax rates while at the same time reducing the benefit of their deductions. Your wealth envy/hate comes through very clear in your posts”.
I in turn inquire if your contentions in this matter are based upon your equating what has been to your own financial benefit and what would be to our nation’s superior economic benefit or are you among those that prefer greater status for themselves and less wealth for our entire nation?
TaxPHD, if Tennessee legislators such state Senator Watson's anti-populist views prevail, Tennessee’s economy and its aggregate population will be poorer for it.
Respectfully, Supposn
Refer to: Sen. Bo Watson slams VW over labor policies, UAW recognition | Business - Around the Region | Times Free Press
///////////////////////////////////////
NASHVILLE -- Top Volkswagen officials came under harsh questioning Tuesday from a Chattanooga Republican lawmaker who charged that the German auto manufacturer is a "magnet for organized labor, intentionally."
During a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on the state Economic and Community Development's budget, which includes $165.8 million in proposed state incentives to the company, Sen. Bo Watson, R-Hixson, repeatedly drilled David Geanacopoulos, Volkswagen America's general counsel, about its labor policies.
Watson said the incentives for Volkswagen "will give Southeast Tennessee a big foothold in the automotive industry particularly in research and development and ... development of a new line of VW vehicles" -- a planned SUV.
"However, Mr. Chairman and committee members," Watson said, "VW is a magnet for organized labor, intentionally."
TaxPHD, I wonder if we’re in agreement upon one point. It should not be government’s task to determine what private enterprises’ activities are worthy of subsidy from the general public funds. More over government should not be directly subsidizing any particular private enterprises of industries.
I’m a proponent of a specific species of Import Certificates policy for USA’s global trade. It does not favor or disfavor among USA or among foreign enterprises and industries. It is market rather than government driven and its entire direct costs are defrayed by USA purchasers and users of foreign goods.
Brocco, the extent of individuals and their dependents benefits due to populist economic policies are generally and inversely proportional to their incomes; (i.e. those earning less benefit proportionally more and those earning more benefit proportionally less.
Populist policies improve their nation’s entire economy. The purchasing powers of all income earners are increased because they are all sharing the benefits derived from a greater economy. The proportional increases are inversely related to the individuals’ incomes but the individual AMOUNTS of increased earnings are greater for those earning more and lesser for those earning less.
If you’re among the wealthiest segment of our nation and are not motivated by patriotism, there’s no reason for you to be concerned; otherwise if your motivation due to social status is greater than your concern for patriotism and/or the improvement of you and your family’s living standards, you do have some reason to be concerned. If additionally you’re dependent upon earnings derived from employment, you have much greater reason to be concerned.
Respectfully, Supposn
i will always have to depend on other people for help in life. such is the nature of living within a society.
i would never depend on the government, though. i have trouble understanding why anyone would.
Excerpted from an 11:06 PM, 20FEB2015 post to the thread
Minimum wage, stimulus, and the 1% .
Populist economic policies percolate their nations’ people up through income brackets of increasing purchasing powers.
I don't necessarily disagree, but neither am I ready to concede the point. Does this happen in a meaningful way? Does this bring about life changing results, or does it provide a minimal increase in discretionary spending that may likely result in increased purchases of booze, tobacco and lottery tickets?
Quote:
Due to the increased migration of employees to wages of greater purchasing powers and their effects upon their nations’ median wage and their entire economies benefit.
I missed the connect between the first pont and this one. I don't see how providing some additional income results "in the increased migration of employees to wages of greater purchasing powers." It sounds like they are being given more money, rather than being put into a position to work a better job with an increased wage.
Quote:
Although proportional to incomes, lesser earners are greater beneficiaries of populist policies, (because the entire population shares a greater pie)
If you take money away from person A, and give it to person B, the pie is exactly the same. Unless person B is able to leverage that to a greater extent than person A, thus "growing the pie." Is it your contention that the poor will do that better than the rich?
Quote:
The obvious question is if populist policies are of such net benefit, why are so many conservatives opposed to them?
This is far from a foregone conclusion.
Quote:
What’s seldom discussed is some people’s need to obtain and/or retain superior status over others. These are people of such little confidence in their own self worth that they are impelled to do what they can to restrain and/or diminish others. They cannot admit even to themselves that if they had to choose greater status for themselves or greater wealth and lesser status, their need for status is of greater priority. To their minds the greatest benefit of wealth is the status that that they can derive from that wealth.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
and
Quote:
I in turn inquire if your contentions in this matter are based upon your equating what has been to your own financial benefit and what would be to our nation’s superior economic benefit or are you among those that prefer greater status for themselves and less wealth for our entire nation?
Status means little to me. I would gladly give up what little status I have for more wealth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
