Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-14-2016, 10:35 AM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,737,789 times
Reputation: 14745

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
When I point it out as I will do in a minute its argued "that isn't a flat tax". It is.

0-10,000 nothing

10-20,000 a FLAT 5%

20-30,000 a FLAT 10%
Yeah. Those people are right, that isn't a flat tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-14-2016, 10:41 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,118,301 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
The persistent rise in the share of income that the top 1% in many countries hold may be hurting the reported life ratings of the other 99%, with concerning implications for public health and national productivity, new research shows. A 1% increase in the share of taxable income held by the top 1% hurts life satisfaction as much as a 1.4% increase in the country-level unemployment rate.

(snip)

The authors started their research by asking if income inequality at the very top really matters to the average person's life evaluation -- and the results show conclusively that it does. Other studies have demonstrated the strong links between unhappiness and low productivity, the increase in sick leave and stress. Policymakers may need to pay more attention to the wider consequences of the rising share of income the top 1% enjoy.

Income Inequality Hurts Life Ratings Worldwide
Explain to me this freemkt..

Who buys federal debt, the rich or the poor?

I'll answer for you, obviously the rich..

so the rich, makes money off of federal debt, leaving the middle class to pay the money back, thereby increasing wealth inequality because the rich gets richer and the rest get poorer, which makes me curious why you guys on the left, non stop babble about needing to add to the debt, as if somehow it helps the lower segments of society when the opposite is true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2016, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Fairfax, VA
3,826 posts, read 3,388,757 times
Reputation: 3694
Quote:
Originally Posted by oberon_1 View Post
I wish they stop calling it "income inequality". It's really not about "equality" and it gives conservatives endless arguments against it. It's about livable wages for low income workers and stopping insane earnings at the top.
No reasonable person in todays society demands equal income for all.

If you earn enough to have a roof over your head and food in your belly, you are doing better than millons in other countries. We are not responsible to make sure our "poor" have acces to a cell phone or TV.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2016, 11:03 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,210,872 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64 View Post
Because that is a simplified progressive tax. Good in theory, but the majority of the tax code is incentives to reward certain productive behaviors like home ownership or using solar power.
Which should end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2016, 11:03 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,464,007 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Explain to me this freemkt..

Who buys federal debt, the rich or the poor?

I'll answer for you, obviously the rich..

so the rich, makes money off of federal debt, leaving the middle class to pay the money back, thereby increasing wealth inequality because the rich gets richer and the rest get poorer, which makes me curious why you guys on the left, non stop babble about needing to add to the debt, as if somehow it helps the lower segments of society when the opposite is true.

Yes, Congress redistributes income upward every time it spends and every time it raises the debt ceiling.

I'm not the one calling for more spending, I'm calling for reducing our standard of living by reducing regulation and reducing expenses.

Problem is, Americans have entirely way too much (emotional and financial) baggage tied up in their homes and neighborhoods and nobody is willing to see retrenchment in those aspects of their lives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2016, 11:04 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,210,872 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
Yeah. Those people are right, that isn't a flat tax.
As the definition has come to be known. Most liberals aren't really liberal and most conservatives aren't actually very conservative.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2016, 11:12 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,464,007 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsRock View Post
If you earn enough to have a roof over your head and food in your belly, you are doing better than millons in other countries. We are not responsible to make sure our "poor" have acces to a cell phone or TV.

Ah, that might be fine for those living in the present, but is utterly insufficient for any forward-thinking human who is concerned about earning enough to live in the future.

To that end, I would like to be able to spend less today on the roof over my head in order that I might be able to save for a future time in which I can no longer earn enough to keep a roof over my head.

But other people with more money than I don't want me to have those cheaper housing options.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:42 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top