Raising Taxes On The Rich Would Reduce Income Inequality

Taft2016 said:
again... by causing those at the top of the income scale to cut back on their workforce to compensate for the losses caused by the additional taxes.
Click to expand...

why do you think that cutting back on their work force is the preferred solution for business owners... who, if they are smart enough to run a successful business are also smart enough to shield their business from personal income tax issues?
 
Truth Detector said:
BINGO; but remember, you're arguing with a dishonest clueless dunce stuck on stupid. LOL
Click to expand...


Now really...there's no need to be so hard on yourself like that.

You may be dishonest, clueless and stupid; but NO ONE believes you're STUCK on stupid...you just choose to hang out around stupid most of the time.
 
maineman said:
and how can an increased top end marginal tax rate NOT reduce the post tax income differential between the richest in that tax bracket and those not in it?
Click to expand...

By that logic, if a rich guy donated 10 million to charity, the income differential between him and some poor guy would be reduced after the donation.....laughable logic.
 
maineman said:
why do you think that cutting back on their work force is the preferred solution for business owners... who, if they are smart enough to run a successful business are also smart enough to shield their business from personal income tax issues?
Click to expand...

So if all of these people are "smart enough" to shield themselves from these tax increases, WTF is the point of raising them in the first place?

I'll save TD the trouble of chiming in; Yes, you really are that stupid.
 
Taft2016 said:
So if all of these people are "smart enough" to shield themselves from these tax increases, WTF is the point of raising them in the first place?

I'll save TD the trouble of chiming in; Yes, you really are that stupid.
Click to expand...

can all of YOUR income be shielded by your personally owned business?

and again... if you want to speak like adults, you'll refrain from gratuitous insults as well.... your call.
 
NOVA said:
By that logic, if a rich guy donated 10 million to charity, the income differential between him and some poor guy would be reduced after the donation.....laughable logic.
Click to expand...

taxable income differential would be reduced, and disposable income differential would be reduced, absolutely. I donate to charity because I believe in the causes I donate to AND because it reduces my taxable income. It also reduces my disposable income as well, but that is a choice I make.
 
maineman said:
why do you think that cutting back on their work force is the preferred solution for business owners...
who, if they are smart enough to run a successful business are also smart enough to shield their business from personal income tax issues?
Click to expand...

Two different issues....

Business runs on margins...cutting the work force may or may not be the preferred solution, many other circumstances will be at play in deciding that...but it
could be the easiest solution....
What can a business do....
Cut the labor costs with demanding more productivity, cutting employees, cutting wages, cutting benefits, etc.
Cut overhead costs by not buying more or newer equipment, outsourcing, raise prices on your product, etc...
They most likely will go with the solution that has the lowest risk to the business....and that usually is labor.

Personal income tax is a totally different and irrelevant matter....
 
I Love America said:
Actually, there is a solution. It has been thought of. It was actually instituted for a brief period of time. It is called free markets and the United States Constitution. Unfortunately, both have been rejected by a large swath of people who are uneducated and jealous of others. Then there are the charlatans who capitalize on those feelings of resentment to further their political goals of control.

It isn't complicated. There will ALWAYS be the haves and have nots. Lefties are fine with themselves being THE HAVES, but they care very little about the HAVE NOTS other than to use them as pawns in their never ending acquisition of political power[.]
Click to expand...



Thing1 said:
That's not correct. Unfettered capitalism would & has led to even worse trends in income inequailty.

What the rich don't realize is that it benefits everyone if those at the bottom & in the middle are lifted up. The current model of the rich getting richer, while wages stagnate for everyone else, is not sustainable, or good for the economy as a whole. It's only a matter of time before something gives - as history has shown us time & again.
Click to expand...


I think ILA is referring here to that free market in slaves that the Constitution protected for several decades until the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation, the 13th Amendment, and later several Supreme Court decisions, which tended to put a damper on most (certainly not all) slavery in America. But the free market in human property was about as unfettered as you can get as long as your blessed fucking freedom doesn't depend on your skin color. Because you know deep down inside we all want to be slave traders!
 
maineman said:
taxable income differential would be reduced, and disposable income differential would be reduced, absolutely. I donate to charity because I believe in the causes I donate to AND because it reduces my taxable income. It also reduces my disposable income as well, but that is a choice I make.
Click to expand...

Every time a person spends money it reduces whats left, his remaining disposable income...wtf IS your point....
Whether its taxes or a new car or a donation to charity....what the hell difference does it make.....thats what makes your pre-tax and after-tax argument so stupid....
Taxes are just another way of using your income....its don't matter if its voluntary or forced spending....get a fuckin' clue already.

The starting point is INCOME...not after you've spent some of it.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
seeing as how we've continually increased the regulations and regulatory oversight on capitalism only to see the divide between the wealthy and poor grow, it would seem that regulating capitalism has failed utterly.
Click to expand...

Since when was regulatory oversight of capitalism supposed to reduce income inequality. OSHA regulations were never designed to reduce income inequality you ignorant fool, and neither were environmental regulations! You netter change that name from smarterthanyou to dumberthanyou!
 
maineman said:
can all of YOUR income be shielded by your personally owned business?
Click to expand...

No, you can't, which is why your point was idiotic.

Which brings us back to letting employees go to compensate for additional tax burdens.

Can you please plant your frog ass on one lilypad, as opposed to leaping from one senseless point to another?
 
NOVA said:
Two different issues....

Business runs on margins...cutting the work force may or may not be the preferred solution, many other circumstances will be at play in deciding that...but it
could be the easiest solution....
What can a business do....
Cut the labor costs with demanding more productivity, cutting employees, cutting wages, cutting benefits, etc.
Cut overhead costs by not buying more or newer equipment, outsourcing, raise prices on your product, etc...
They most likely will go with the solution that has the lowest risk to the business....and that usually is labor.

Personal income tax is a totally different and irrelevant matter....
Click to expand...

why would anyone try to compare apples and oranges by tossing in corporate tax rates into a discussion about reducing income inequality? Do you think anyone is really suggesting that the incomes we need to compare to determine income inequality are those of Fred Smith, the clerk at Walmart versus General Motors?
 
NOVA said:
Personal income tax is a totally different and irrelevant matter....
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. A lot of people in my neighborhood hire landscapers. Housekeepers. Babysitters. Increased personal taxes will impact that.

Additionally, less going out for leisure activities, entertainment, and dining, impacting those businesses and causing job loss there.
 
Darla said:
How is the middle class "way better off" today than 20 years ago? What metrics are you using here?
Click to expand...

You mean you don't know? Why 40" flat screen televisions for $300 and laptop computers for under $500. Come on get with the program, sure people are struggling and working for minimum wage and qualifying for food stamps in record numbers but hey they have some of the fanciest toys available at really good prices if they could only afford them. Trouble is Republic are are cutting food stamps. So the money that was going to go for that fancy TV now has to pay for food. And they couldn't afford cable anyway, so the only they could watch would be netflix if they could afford even that meager payment. But that shit is still out there and the prices are coming down! In the meantime the price of food and fuel has not been coming down it has been going up so there is that too!
 
Taft2016 said:
No, you can't, which is why your point was idiotic.

Which brings us back to letting employees go to compensate for additional tax burdens.

Can you please plant your frog ass on one lilypad, as opposed to leaping from one senseless point to another?
Click to expand...

apples and oranges.... individual tax rates versus corporate tax rates.

lily pad anyone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top