Why do Democrats love class warfare so much? (solution, Miami, financial)
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.
Why wouldnt they? Liberals NEED victims or people to see themselves as victims. Liberals survive mostly off of making people think they are hopeless victims who need government to bail them out and take out the evil rich people.
But do note, that a lot of these people who are "poor" or think they are entitled to this and that, are the same ones that will still make sure they have a smart phone from an evil corporation, overspend to see movies in theaters every other weekend, spend money on music to rich record labels/artists, watch the Whoredashians (aka talentless trash who are very wealthy for being famewhore trash).
Why do Democrats have this love affair with class warfare?
The mentality of some Republicans is just ridiculous. For some of them everything is a "war" or a "fight" or "competition." Pointing out inequities is not "class warfare" it's simply pointing out the truth. and no I'm not objecting to people making large amounts of money. It's the means by which some people acquire their money that I take issue with. If EVERYONE, rich and poor alike, would lead their lives in an honest and just manner, the world would be a much better place.
Why do Democrats have this love affair with class warfare? So much, they invent fraudulent sayings like the "rich don't pay their fair share" and can't stand that someone actually used his brains to make himself successful. Is it because they are jus trying to buy votes? Or do they hate someone who is not under the control of the government hand?
Just curious to see their reasoning.
Simple...
Its called "divide and conquer" and the dems are master of it!
Look what they have done to minorities in this country.
Simple...
Its called "pointing out evident truths and protecting minority classes from the tyranny of the majority" and the dems are master of it!
Look what they have done to minorities in this country.
as President Obama said...it's simple math. I'm sure I know how some people here feel about Jon Stewart but it's hard to argue with his facts. Start watching at the link below at aroun 2:30. People keep complaining about the bottom 50% not paying taxes. Basically if we taxes the bottom 50% at 50% of EVERYTHING THEY OWN..., it will raise about 700 billion dollars. That's about the same as raising the top 2% about 2% or 3%.
Again, it's simple math. Keep complaining about the bottom 50% who don't pay taxes because they are poor. Even if we did 'do something' to change their tax rate, it really does not change anything. We will still have to have these conversations about what to cut, by how much and how much revenue we need to increase...thus back onto the topic of cutting tax loopholes and raising capital gains tax rates back to a normal level
I want a flat tax for individuals.
And a simple tax on profits for corporations.
I'm pretty sure East India Company and like would have loved that. But, not Adam Smith...
“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion”
"When the toll upon carriages of luxury, upon coaches, post-chaises, &c. is made somewhat higher in proportion to their weight, than upon carriages of necessary use, such as carts, waggons, &c. the indolence and vanity of the rich is made to contribute in a very easy manner to the relief of the poor, by rendering cheaper the transportation of heavy goods to all the different parts of the country."
I think he saw the world and its realities quite a bit differently than you. But then, as I said earlier, anybody uttering those words in the USA today with any authority would be deemed "Damn Socialist" by the "Real Americans".
Your problem is not how to get more taxes out of the rich to fund your social programs for the poor.
Your problem should be how to keep the number of people who cannot afford to live off their own salary down.
Yes. The disproportionate tax ratesshould be fixed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Congratulations on that first step towards recognizing the realities. I must admire your admittance, to go from "revenue increased" to "revenue was unchanged".
The problem then is, why did it remain unchanged when the economy and the population grew?
Lol, I understand you misguided desire to change the subject, but I shant let you.
Please defend you position that tax rates mean anything independent of tax code.
Lol, I understand you misguided desire to change the subject, but I shant let you.
Please defend you position that tax rates mean anything independent of tax code.
I await your next deflection with bated breath!
Cheers!
My bad... I thought you'd your first cup of coffee when I posted a rebuttal to the idiocy you would cling onto using a link YOU provided. Not that I'm not fearful of qualifying as an insane with yet another attempt to present you with facts...
Your claim...
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
With loopholes a plenty. Reagan lowered the top marginal rate from 70% to 28%, closed loopholes and revenue................increased.
Debunked here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Well, if that is the data you want to use, as opposed to federal income tax alone, we can surely go about it. Here's what I see (not accounting for increase in population but also presenting size of receipts as a percentage of GDP):
1977: $1.055T (18.0% of the GDP)
1981: $1.251T (19.6% of the GDP)
So, during Carter years, federal receipts increased by 18.5%.
Reagan's tax tweaks were implemented in 1981. During Reagan years:
1981: $1.251T (19.6% of the GDP)
1985: $1.251T (17.7% of the GDP)
There was ZERO increase in federal receipts in first four years (1981-85). The receipts as a percentage of GDP declined.
Apply the same logic to Clinton years when top marginal rates were increased (to where President Obama wants):
1993: $1.512T (17.5% of the GDP)
1997: $1.890T (19.2% of the GDP)
THAT is a 25% increase in federal tax receipts, and a substantial increase in federal revenue as a percentage of the GDP.
Fast forward to first four years under W Bush, and results from his two tax cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA):
2001: $2.215T (19.5% of the GDP)
2005: $2.153T (17.3% of the GDP)
And once again, we did not see an increase in federal receipts. In fact we saw a decline in tax receipts, and a decrease in federal revenue as a percentage of the GDP.
As you should be able to see, the data you relied on, to make your point, it proving it to be a myth you maintain.
Then you come with as logical response as a unicorn in reality...
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
Why mot use percent of revenue compare to unicorns? Are you suggesting your parameters are more important than the amount of revenue needed to run the government?
The fact remains those tweaks as you call them reduced top marginal rates dramatically while not affecting revenue.
Surely you must see the myth of tax rates on revenue. It is the tax CODE that matters.
Cheers!
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
1- We were talking about federal income tax receipts. You skipped that and went for federal tax receipts instead. I obliged.
2- You presented a link with data, I obliged to use it and debunked the myth you maintained, and are likely to cling on to. Facts such, no?
So, now you want to make another switch to revenue "needed" to run government? Then please do tell, how Reagan's tax cuts, fixing loop holes and spending was meeting THAT target.
Then you presented this beauty for a counter argument... well, as good as a typical right wing argument gets to be here at C-D...
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
LOL, it is you, my friend, who took the data and mangled it, using completely arbitrary and useless parameters. I understand you needed to do that in order to support, what you believe passes for argument.
The facts stand on their own. Reagan reduced the top marginal rate and revenue was unchanged.
Do you wish to pursue the myth that tax rates, independent of tax code, is relevent?
Cheers!
But I admired your willingness to admit the fallacy you previously held, from revenue increased (above) to revenue was unchanged (here).
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Congratulations on that first step towards recognizing the realities. I must admire your admittance, to go from "revenue increased" to "revenue was unchanged".
The problem then is, why did it remain unchanged when the economy and the population grew?
Only to realize now, that the admiration of positive signs of you being in touch with the reality and admittance... was expecting too much.
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 12-30-2011 at 10:29 AM..
Your problem is not how to get more taxes out of the rich to fund your social programs for the poor.
Your problem should be how to keep the number of people who cannot afford to live off their own salary down.
And flat tax is that solution? Well, at least we know now that Putin has it right and Adam Smith was wrong.
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.
