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.
Originally Posted by freemkt
23% (approx) owe no federal income tax after taking the standard deduction and personal exemption(s). How much is their fair share?
After taking the standard deduction and personal exemption(s), 23% have zero taxable income.
This is okay with you because garblegurgleblghedybleh so there!
Yes, it is OK because it's legal. And those that take advantage of deductions take nothing in welfare, food stamps, etc. Those that DON'T pay federal tax can also take advantage of the deductions, and usually collect welfare, food stamps, etc. So they TAKE much more than they give, unlike those of us that GIVE more than we take.
23% (approx) owe no federal income tax after taking the standard deduction and personal exemption(s). How much is their fair share?
23% (approx) owe no federal income tax after taking personal exemptions, deductions, and applicable tax credits. How much is their fair share?
The Libs will have to decide that. Because in their delusional little brains, the rich apparently need to pay more of their fair share. So they must have a number in their heads. And whatever that number is, would be the same for those 23%.
I couldn't begin to know what that number is. I'm rational.
It's not a problem, it's a smokescreen that has been manufactured to drum up public support for wealth redistribution.
1) Why was there need to resurrect this thread from among the dead?
2) How is income inequality (misleading term indeed) a "smoke screen"? Is it factually incorrect, or a lie?
3) the greatest "wealth redistribution" already took place in America during the last 30 years. That is solid fact. If this trend can ever be reversed, still remains to be seen.
Income inequality becomes a bigger problem in election years when the democrats need an issue to fire up the base with.
However, Obama supports QE trickle down policy that has created more wealth income inequality. So it is a bit hypocritical for Obama to speak out against trickle down policies AND growing wealth inequality while stocking the FED full of QE trickle downers every chance he gets.
1) Why was there need to resurrect this thread from among the dead?
Apparently someone had a boogie in their butt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oberon_1
2) How is income inequality (misleading term indeed) a "smoke screen"?
It's Orwellian....like "WMD" (snicker).
Define "Income Inequality" objectively in no uncertain terms, so that everyone may readily recognize it, and we have some means to determine when such "inequality" (snicker) no longer exists.
Anything that cannot be objectively defined is inherently misleading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oberon_1
Is it factually incorrect, or a lie?
Yes, on both accounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oberon_1
3) the greatest "wealth redistribution" already took place in America during the last 30 years. That is solid fact.
No such redistribution has taken place, and you cannot prove it.
In 1987, Donna's grandfather died, leaving her 100 acres of farmland valued at $220/acre.
The total theoretical value of that asset was $22,000.
During the period 1987 through 2014, the intense demand for 4,400 sq ft McMansions has increased the theoretical value of the land to $22,800/acre.
The total theoretical value of that asset is now $2.3 Million.
1] What crime(s) did Donna commit?
2] What crime(s) did the land commit?
3] How much money does Donna have?
4] Explain how "Wealth" was "re-distributed" to Donna.
5] What caused the theoretical value of Donna's land to increase?
Quote:
Originally Posted by oberon_1
If this trend can ever be reversed, still remains to be seen.
How much of the $60 TRILLION in alleged "Wealth" is real? (Note: Use a US government web-site to support your claim).
Income inequality is being talked about alot nowdays but what do those who want to end it want exactly? Do they want all people to have equal incomes regardless of job skills and profession? Should an architect and brick layer earn the same to make them equal?
If income equality is the goal then what exactly does that mean and look like?
Income inequality is a liberal made up problem for them to solve.
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.
