Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [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)
 
Old 03-22-2019, 06:18 PM
 
1,067 posts, read 624,417 times
Reputation: 1258

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff View Post
I see that you and TaxPhD both feel zero need to support your opinions...
If a claim was made that water is wet, would you be looking for supporting documentation? Some things are obvious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-22-2019, 07:03 PM
 
10,759 posts, read 5,676,526 times
Reputation: 10884
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff View Post
I see that you and TaxPhD both feel zero need to support your opinions...
You made the positive assertion. The burden of proof lies with you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2019, 07:04 PM
 
10,759 posts, read 5,676,526 times
Reputation: 10884
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonutty View Post
The numbers have been questioned previously in this thread. Of course it matters if one end of the equation uses a different standard than the other. Why are all touting the significance of these figures loathe to support them?

Without consistency there is no comparison to be made. THAT is why it matters.
Pick whichever numbers fit with your narrative. The underlying point still stands.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2019, 09:21 PM
 
Location: Ruidoso, NM
5,668 posts, read 6,596,333 times
Reputation: 4817
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
You made the positive assertion. The burden of proof lies with you.
Proof? That 1+1=2? The progressive income tax and transfers do reduce income disparity. If that is unintentional, then I wonder what the real reason could be...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2019, 09:22 PM
 
Location: Ruidoso, NM
5,668 posts, read 6,596,333 times
Reputation: 4817
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
Pick whichever numbers fit with your narrative. The underlying point still stands.
I agree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2019, 11:00 PM
 
11,025 posts, read 7,843,194 times
Reputation: 23702
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
Pick whichever numbers fit with your narrative. The underlying point still stands.
Prove it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2019, 11:17 PM
 
10,759 posts, read 5,676,526 times
Reputation: 10884
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff View Post
Proof? That 1+1=2? The progressive income tax and transfers do reduce income disparity. If that is unintentional, then I wonder what the real reason could be...
No, you claimed that reducing income disparity was the goal. and you haven’t shown that to be case, only that that is a result.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2019, 11:18 PM
 
10,759 posts, read 5,676,526 times
Reputation: 10884
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff View Post
I agree.
Yeah, but I think we have different points.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2019, 11:21 PM
 
10,759 posts, read 5,676,526 times
Reputation: 10884
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonutty View Post
Prove it.
Prove it? Have you already forgotten what you’re arguing? I asked a question. Here what I posted that you responded to:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
Whether the correct percentage of taxes paid is 37 or 43, is either of those numbers reasonable when the amount of total income earned by the 1% is only 21%?
What would you like me to prove?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2019, 12:39 AM
 
Location: Washington state
7,029 posts, read 4,898,284 times
Reputation: 21893
You know what? I don't care what tax percentage the top 1% pay. Because the fact is, if they had to pay 98% of their income to tax, they'd still have millions more dollars left over than I'd have if I only paid 1%. So somehow I fail to feel sorry for them.
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 > Economics

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:48 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