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

[LV426]

OMG, are you STILL trying to raise my taxes, someone put this nut-bags panties in his mouth already

STOP.

No one believes for a second that you are employed and have an income stream.

 

[LV426]

^^^^ Thinks "1% share of AGI" makes him sound important

Your buddy Flash was the one who brought that into the debate.

Also, you can't even participate in the debate because you're a fucking idiot. After all, you're so dumb you got conned by a C-List celebrity with a bad tan and mail-order wife.

 

[Flash]

Your entire argument is illogical.

You argued several metrics that you ended up abandoning because you deliberately withheld exculpatory information. Then you tried to present them honestly, but you couldn't do that either, so you just abandoned them completely.

Before, it was you trying to use rev-GDP to prove some point that raising taxes wouldn't raise that, even though the stats you showed did, and then once the context of how much a % means in terms of gross revenue was added, you ditched that entire argument! TOTALLY CHICKENED OUT OF IT. You dropped it completely. You never even mentioned rev-GDP again.

Now we have virtually the same situation again, this time with a new metric, 1% share of AGI.

So now you provide one year of 1% share of AGI and present that one year as the example of why you think the rich are paying a fair share. Yet, you don't post the year of AGI before trickle down and before the massive transfer of income to the top because it will show that the 1%'s share of AGI grew at the expense of everyone else, thus providing justification for a fair higher tax rate.

So you just repeat the same bad faith over and over, which is why it's habitual and why I'm right to assume you're mentally ill.

All of this is in service of your ego. You simply don't want to give me the satisfaction of being right because either I'll rub it in your face (And chances are I will), or because your ego cannot handle it.

Such a snowflake.

Your economics is faulty if you think income gains by one group come at the "expense" of others. If my income increases by $1 million and yours increases by $50,000, my gains did not take anything away from you. We both gained. Your envy is driving your economics.

 

[Flash]

You just said money was speech.

So if money = speech, then there is no such thing as free speech.

So we're not debating the merits of campaign finance reform, we're just debating what you personally think "free speech" means, and that definition changes as your argument changes.

Total. Fucking. Fraud.

Who buys the shit you're selling?

Please paste the post in which I said "money was speech."

I said campaign contributions are protected free speech under the Constitution according to a majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy. That was the Supreme Court.

 

[Flash]

So you just post what the AGI share is in 2015, but you don't post what the share was in 1980 so we can compare the two sets of figures.

Prove me wrong that wasn't your intent. Go ahead. Rehabilitate your bad faith. I'll pop popcorn.

No matter what years I post you complain about all the years I left out.

In 1980 the AGI share of the top 1% was 20.65%.

 

[Adolf_Twitler]

Your economics is faulty if you think income gains by one group come at the "expense" of others. If my income increases by $1 million and yours increases by $50,000, my gains did not take anything away from you. We both gained. Your envy is driving your economics.

Have you ever been a preferred Stock Holder? Ever attend a stock holder meeting?

Let me tell you- when a bunch of preferred stock holders have a meeting and decide there will be no raises handed out this year in the lower ranks- or demands layoffs- just so they can take windfall dividends for themselves- then YES one income group is controlling people's incomes from another income group!

So dance some more Mr. Bojangles!

 

[Flash]

Have you ever been a preferred Stock Holder? Ever attend a stock holder meeting?

Let me tell you- when a bunch of preferred stock holders have a meeting and decide there will be no raises handed out this year in the lower ranks- or demands layoffs- just so they can take windfall dividends for themselves- then YES one income group is controlling people's incomes from another income group!

So dance some more Mr. Bojangles!

The income gains of the stockholders do not come at the expense of others. How they choose to divide that money among themselves is a different issue.

Any gains made among just those stockholders do not come at the expense of myself or others. If a business has 100 employees and 50 choose to participate in a retirement fund and retire with $1 million, that is not at the expense of the 50 who chose not to participate although it created increased income inequality among the workers.

 

[Bulletbob]

Poll: A majority of Americans support raising the top tax rate to 70 percent

In the latest The Hill-HarrisX survey, which was conducted Jan. 12 and 13 after the newly elected congresswoman called for the U.S. to raise its highest tax rate to 70 percent, found that a sizable majority of registered voters, 59 percent, supports the idea.

...

45 percent of GOP voters say they favor it while 55 percent are opposed to it. Independent voters who were contacted backed the tax idea by a 60 to 40 percent margin while Democratic ones favored it, 71 percent to 29 percent.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-ame...ricans-support-raising-the-top-tax-rate-to-70

GOOD THEN YOU PAY 70 PERCENT OF YOUR INCOME UN TAXES IT WILL BE GOOD FOR YOU, SHOW HOW BIG A MORON YOU REALLY ARE

 

[LV426]

GOOD THEN YOU PAY 70 PERCENT OF YOUR INCOME UN TAXES IT WILL BE GOOD FOR YOU, SHOW HOW BIG A MORON YOU REALLY ARE

I don't make enough money to hit the top tax rate, and neither do you.