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.
The 80% number refers to millionaires. That you're considering them "rich" shows at best sloppy use of language.
To be in the top 1% in wealth you need $11 million. That's even an overly broad net to cast. The upper class is arguably the top 0.1% who have enough money to exert political power.
Being a self-made millionaire doesn't make you rich. It makes you bourgeois, or what we call upper middle class in the US.
Calling taxes slavery is reprehensible and sad. Keep carrying your fake cross.
It sure as hell IS slavery, especially when only some but not others are forced to pay. It's taking the fruits of some people's labor by threat of force (imprisonment and/or confiscation of things they own) to the sole benefit of others, especially in the case of public assistance programs.
Doesn't matter if there's a lock box. It's a separate funds with a separate set of books and tracking on it. Claiming people aren't paying into it, is a flat out lie.
No, it isn't. 27% of all US 1040 filers pay no federal income tax and no federal payroll taxes.
None of the argument about benefits matters. We're talking about whether it benefits tax policy to have income inequality.
Yes, it does, as I've already explained:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
For those who think Congress (BOTH parties) encourages policies that result in the rich getting richer... Here's an explanation of WHY that is. (Hint: You yourselves are clamoring for exactly that to happen)...
Quote:
[Economist Anatole] "Kaletsky argues that over-reliance on progressives taxes creates "a perverse incentive for governments to promote income inequality. If the solvency of the state and the ability to fund basic services for the poorest people in society depends on the rich getting even richer, it is tempting for even the most progressive politicians to support widening inequalities."
Got that? If the solvency of the state and the ability to fund basic services for the poorest people in society depends on the rich getting even richer, it is tempting for even the most progressive politicians to support widening inequalities.
That's exactly what happens in the US, and that's what's inherently wrong with a progressive tax system; it distorts and exacerbates income/wealth inequality by necessity in order to maximize tax revenue. The Europeans (including the Scandinavians) have figured that out, and therefore rely most heavily on regressive taxes such as VAT and MUCH flatter income tax brackets.
THIS is how European countries tax: regressively. Be sure to read the scatter plot chart and understand what it is telling us. There IS a distinct pattern:
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.
Low-income workers would be earning better wages if there wasn't such a glut of them. Supply and demand. Focus your efforts on what can be done to reduce the glut of no/low-skill workers in the US.
The top 1% makes makes 20.9% of all income, but pays 24.1% of all taxes.
That's deliberately misleading. Are you intentionally trying to mislead? The topic of the thread discuses the federal income tax cuts, therefore it's important to analyze this on the basis of federal income taxes. That's where THIS information is important to understand:
Look at which income group is paying a MUCH greater share of the Federal Income Tax (dark blue bar) than their share of the income (light blue bar): CRS (Congressional Research Service) Chart
It's Figure 7 in the report for those who have no idea what they're supposed to be looking at.
The bottom line is that the top 1% is earning 20.9% of all income, but pays 38.5% of all the federal income tax revenue. They're WAY overpaying their fair share.
They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection."
--Henry A. Wallace, 1944--
They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection."
--Henry A. Wallace, 1944--
The first part of that quote:
"The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."
Sounds exactly like google, twitter, youtube, facebook, etc., and their selective and one-sided censoring. Think very carefully about that...
Low-income workers would be earning better wages if there wasn't such a glut of them. Supply and demand. Focus your efforts on what can be done to reduce the glut of no/low-skill workers in the US.
That effort better not be promising my money to other people.
The real effort is to remove all but a few government regulations and start treat people as free people.
One reason that the poor people can’t rise up is because of government regulations.
For example, why does one need a license to sell medicines or practice medicine? Why can’t poor people sell a few drugs to make a living?
Another example, why aren’t poor people allowed to be employed until they can produce more value than the minimum wage?
Low-income workers would be earning better wages if there wasn't such a glut of them. Supply and demand. Focus your efforts on what can be done to reduce the glut of no/low-skill workers in the US.
The willingness to accept a lower wage is the most power tool in a competition for jobs.
The minimum wage law takes away this tool from the poor and force them into poverty.
That effort better not be promising my money to other people.
The real effort is to remove all but a few government regulations and start treat people as free people.
One reason that the poor people can’t rise up is because of government regulations.
For example, why does one need a license to sell medicines or practice medicine? Why can’t poor people sell a few drugs to make a living?
Another example, why aren’t poor people allowed to be employed until they can produce more value than the minimum wage?
I was thinking more along the lines of... stop flooding the US with no/low-skill immigrants, illegal or otherwise. The very same people who advocate open borders then decry the inevitable and unavoidable result of such: the glut of no/low-skill workers keeps wages artificially depressed.
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.
