Fifty Years of Tax Cuts for Rich Didn’t Trickle Down (percentage, Texas)
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.
You need to ask yourself whether people are your slaves. That is what you are advocating - slavery.
You slappng slavery on to the action without any explanation, does not make it so. I've already debunked your slavery claims in other parts on here. I'll keep debunking it when you try to use it.
You slappng slavery on to the action without any explanation, does not make it so. I've already debunked your slavery claims in other parts on here. I'll keep debunking it when you try to use it.
Because you always want to force other people to pay for your expenses.
A married couple retiring last year after both spouses earned average lifetime wages paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank
What's wrong with that picture?
They lied.
If a married coupled paid $598,000 in FICA taxes, then what was their FICA taxable income?
Simple: $598,000 / 6.2% = $9,645,161
So, this couple that Göbbels Institute holds out to be a typical American couple made $9.6 Million in their lifetime.
If they both worked 40 years then they're average yearly income was at least $241,129 which is hardly representative of America.
There are three different measures of Life Expectancy used by actuarial scientists (and Social Security):
1) Life Expectancy from Birth
2) Life Expectancy from Age 35
3) Life Expectancy from Age 65
Life Expectancy from Birth and from Age 35 have declined but not from Age 65.
It has ZERO to do with healthcare.
Other countries do not have a Baltimore or Chicago or Cincinnati or Detroit or St Louis where Blacks indiscriminately murder Blacks on a daily basis.
You do understand that 6.2% of your population commits 54.9% of all murders, right?
The other cause of low Life Expectancy from Birth is drug-over doses, which other countries do not experience either.
Having universal healthcare will not stop 6.2% of your population from committing 54.9% of murders nor will it stop drug over-doses.
You're right. It's Demand-pull Inflation.
Demand-pull Inflation is not caused by the Federal Reserve. It occurs when Demand for a good, service or resource far exceeds both the available Supply and Rate of Increase of Supply.
That's why "91%" is in quotes.
Liberals on this forum have repeatedly claimed the tax rate was 91% on 100% of income and I repeatedly beat them down with the fact that it was 91% on a tiny portion of income and that because the IRS Tax Code of 1954 and earlier are in no way like the IRS Tax Code of 1986, very few people actually paid more than 55%.
But none of that matters because tax rates have no effect or bearing on the stupidity of The Poor® because The Poor® are stupid.
Period.
Don't you watch TV? There's some turd with $1,200 in butt-ugly tattoos whining that he ain't got $400 cash for an emergency.
The Poor® do everything wrong. They got $125 for dope but they ain't got $125 to spend at the vocational school on a MIG/TIG welding certification course that will allow them to double, triple or quadruple their hourly wage.
The only way to help The Poor® is to assign them a Life Coach who would live in their home and tell them every second of their pathetic lives what to do and what not to do so they don't screw it up and be a burden on the restivus.
couldn't simply rep, so I just have to quote and say a few points are overly harsh* - at least in the society that we've become - but generally spot on.
I don't ever see anyone counter the argument that if we took all the US individual wealth, and spread it evenly per person or per family, that pretty soon 90% of the rich would be rich again and 90% of the poor would be poor again.
*harsh = a fairly simple and obvious truth. But rather than attempt to change the mindset and behaviors that lead to this, we must simply be quiet and accept their behaviors, but attempt to make policy that rewards their behavior and "meets them where they are".
We're talking about whether it benefits tax policy to have income inequality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good
Who said anything about evenly distributing wages? Shrinking income equality doesn't mean eliminating it. It means pay people a decent wage especially if their production is what's generating revenue.
the first statement is hard to understand. Could you please clarify?
the second is quite true in a perfect economy. If on were "paid by the piece", and that piece became $0.30 more valuable through their efforts, then they should be paid a large portion of $0.30. All of it? Doubtful. But probably a majority.
It really is as simple as the Econ 101 "Widget Factory" though. At least for discussion purposes.
Who said anything about evenly distributing wages? Shrinking income equality doesn't mean eliminating it. It means pay people a decent wage especially if their production is what's generating revenue.
A decent wage is determined by the parties involved in a transaction, not by you or any other dictators.
If the workers don’t think the wage offered is decent, they don’t have to accept it.
Or you can open your own company and offer whatever wage you feel as decent.
The rich pays all the taxes. Check the treasury website.
It's not as skewed as one would think.
The top 1% makes makes 20.9% of all income, but pays 24.1% of all taxes.
The bottom 20% makes 2.8% of all income and pays 2.0% of all taxes.
Here, we can see the progressive factor of taxes in play, but it's not extreme by any means. In fact, outside the top 1%, no other earning bracket pays more than 1% of total taxes than they earn out of all income.
A decent wage is determined by the parties involved in a transaction, not by you or any other dictators.
If the workers don’t think the wage offered is decent, they don’t have to accept it.
Or you can open your own company and offer whatever wage you feel as decent.
It’s called freedom.
are you required to employ someone, or to work a certain # of hours yourself?
that's about where the "slave" and "taxed at gunpoint" reveal the nonsensical nature of the assertion.
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.
