59% support AOC's plan to raise top bracket to 70%

[LV426]

We already have public financing of presidential elections and have since 1976.

So once again you exercise the same bad habits as always...you ignore the parts that you can't argue and construct a straw man argument.

What I said was this:

Which is why we need public campaign finance with a ban on all donations to political campaigns and lobbying.

You left that second part out of what I said.

Why?

Why did you do that?

Why do you have a compulsion to make false arguments of someone else's position?

What gives? Why do you do that?

I think I know why; you've lived your life exclusively in bad faith, so you don't know any other way to act.

You have a personality disorder.

[LV426]

You are a moron, fcktard. I'm sorry I didn't all you a moron earlier, when you were being a moron. Moron, your claim that the top x% of taxpayers pays y% of the taxes tell us nothing about their tax rate, as I already told you. And, I said the rich pay a lower effective tax rate than the middle class. You pathetic sh!t-for-brains moron, those who pay a "negative" tax rate because of EIC are the poor (with kids), not the middle-class.

He acts exclusively in bad faith.

Don't expect Flash to make any good faith arguments.

Expect Flash to withhold exculpatory information or engage in sophistry.

He has a habit of not reading things all the way through and picking and choosing certain things to respond to for the benefit of shaping the narrative of his false argument.

He's trying to con people by acting as a sophist.

He's just another Trumpanzee.

[Flash]

See, your problem is that you only look at things in the controlled vacuum you create to insulate yourself from any criticism.

What isn't fair is that all the income gains the last 40 years went to the top 1%, who saw their marginal rates get cut. You all said, over and over and over, that if we let the rich "keep more of what they earned", it would trickle down.

It didn't. So you either lied, bullshitted us, or just had no fucking clue what you were saying.

So which is it? Are you a liar, a bullshitter, or an ignoramus?

So since they took 100% of the income gains, it's only fair they pay 100% of the tax burden.

And the thing is, I'm not even calling for them to pay 100% of the tax burden. All I'm calling for is for them to pay a higher rate on some of their income.

That's fair.

What's not fair is raising your own income by taking it from others and then not paying taxes on it.

Again, you make up stuff. I never said anything about income "trickling" down. As the wealthy increased their share of the income they also increased their share of the taxes paid--so they are paying taxes on that increased income at the top tax rate.

You don't want them to pay 100%? 88% is too little?

And, you exaggerate. The top did not get 100% of the income gains. In 1970 the top 20% made 43.3% of household income. By 2017 it was 51.5%.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...les-in-the-us/

Income gains from 1979-2015 after taxes and income transfers:

Bottom 20%: 79%
Middle 60%: 46%
Next 19%: 78%
Top 1%: 242%

https://www.cbpp.org/research/povert...ome-inequality

So the top gained much more, but all income groups saw income gains.

You seem to be engaged in some of that sophistry you accuse me of.

Bottom 20%:

[Wolverine]

Doesn't matter if she does or doesn't.

A Democratic House and Democratic Senate will do it, and a Democratic President will sign it into law.

You got a lot of seats to defend in the Senate in 2020.

You and your worthless love living off the hard work of others comrade, screw her and the socialist donkey she rode in on, this poll is strictly propaganda!

[Wolverine]

Maybe you think The Top .1% needs another Tax Break ...

Punishing the successful is a sure way to get your unlimited government control, as it shuts down initiative, and incentive to succeed among the masses comrade! That is a sure path to revolution and remember we believe in guns! Go beg at the liberal monarchs feet you puke! What is funny is you think they will only tax rich people.

[LV426]

Again, you make up stuff. I never said anything about income "trickling" down. As the wealthy increased their share of the income they also increased their share of the taxes paid--so they are paying taxes on that increased income at the top tax rate

The share of the income they got is not proportional to the share of taxes they paid.

[Flash]

So once again you exercise the same bad habits as always...you ignore the parts that you can't argue and construct a straw man argument.

What I said was this:

You left that second part out of what I said.

Why?

Why did you do that?

Why do you have a compulsion to make false arguments of someone else's position?

What gives? Why do you do that?

I think I know why; you've lived your life exclusively in bad faith, so you don't know any other way to act.

You have a personality disorder.

I left that part out because it has already been established we cannot ban campaign contributions because it is a violation of 1st Amendment free speech. Lobbying is also constitutionally protected by the 1st Amendment. American citizens should not be prohibited from contacting their elected representatives to lobby for their policy views.

I thought it would be silly to comment on something we already know cannot be done.

And you exercise the same bad habit by ignoring my comments that we already have public financing of presidential campaigns. Why advocate something we already have and made little difference in elections.

It is not a false argument to not comment on every argument you made. If it is then you made a false argument by not commenting about public financing of campaigns. You are guilty of all the same things you (usually) falsely accuse me of. Your arguments consist primarily of insults and anger.

[LV426]

You don't want them to pay 100%? 88% is too little?

Look, it's very clear.

Either raise everyone's wages instead of your own, or pay a larger share of the taxes.

Those are the only two choices.

[LV426]

Income gains from 1979-2015 after taxes and income transfers:

Bottom 20%: 79%
Middle 60%: 46%
Next 19%: 78%
Top 1%: 242%

I'm not sure how you can look at those numbers and think that the wealthy didn't walk away with all the income gains.

[Wolverine]

The share of the income they got is not proportional to the share of taxes they paid.

Why should the successful who create jobs be punished at some point the risked everything and now you want to punish them? What a tool!

[LV426]

So the top gained much more, but all income groups saw income gains.

Much more?

The top gained 242%.

No one else got to 100%.

So, yeah, they got all the income gains.

And in fact, these numbers are even worse, because you're showing that just 1% of workers, who already were making more than anyone else, saw their incomes more than triple.

No one else even saw their wages double in 40 years, yet the top 1% saw theirs more than triple.

So you want to talk fairness? Really? You want to split those hairs? Fine.

How many workers saw their incomes more than triple in 40 years? 1%.

How many workers saw their incomes rise at a much slower pace, not even half, not even a third? 99%.

But let's talk about the fairness of taxes, sure.

::

[LV426]

You and your worthless love living off the hard work of others comrade, screw her and the socialist donkey she rode in on, this poll is strictly propaganda!

No one believes for a second that you, personally, have a job.

You are so stupid, you got conned by Donald Trump.

[LV426]

Punishing the successful is a sure way to get your unlimited government control, as it shuts down initiative, and incentive to succeed among the masses comrade! That is a sure path to revolution and remember we believe in guns! Go beg at the liberal monarchs feet you puke! What is funny is you think they will only tax rich people.

If you think taxes are punishment, then your parents did a shit job raising you.

[LV426]

I left that part out because it has already been established we cannot ban campaign contributions because it is a violation of 1st Amendment free speech.

We can ban it with a Constitutional Amendment.

So you just choose to ignore the things you cannot explain.

What a fucking fraud.

[LV426]

I thought it would be silly to comment on something we already know cannot be done.

It can most definitely be done.

It just takes a Constitutional Amendment.

I think I can drive up more support for that Constitutional Amendment than you can drive support that political donations are "speech".

If money = speech, then there is no such thing as "free speech".