Raising Taxes On The Rich Would Reduce Income Inequality

[Truth Detector]

no one is asking for "income equality".

I could have sworn that was the thread premise shit-for-brains.

No one on the left is saying that the rich shouldn't be rich, or that there will not always be poor.

I don't recall having claimed leftists were saying this dunce.

It is the growing disparity between the very rich and everyone else that is disturbing to me personally.

I dont recall this being about what you find disturbing. The debate is that the dunces on the left believe that the Federal Government should be engaged in wealth redistribution schemes which have NEVER worked, never can work and never will work and which is a painfully stupid argument coming from seriously stupid people.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to run the trend lines out thirty more years and see that, by then, the top one tenth of one percent will own nearly everything, and the rest of us will own what little is left. My signature line is prescient in that regard.

That's not what will happen; apparently you failed rocket scientist school. You only believe this because you moronically believe that the economy is finite and that in order for a few to have more others must therefore have less. That is a dumb proposition that cannot be supported by any facts.

Here is a question for the economic dunces on the left; when Bill Gates amassed a fortune by providing a product milions of consumers wanted and demanded, how many people got poorer as a result?

The HONEST answer to that question will free your simple minds.

 

[Truth Detector]

Why do you need an elected official to figure out your problems? Can't you figure out your problems yourself?

BINGO; it is not the job of our elected representatives to solve our problems. Their job is to ensure our borders are protected, fund the military and ensure our laws are enforced through patent and copyright protection.

 

[Truth Detector]

How do you know what I think yurt?

Who says you think? That was a rhetorical statement. Based on the stupidity that erupts from your keyboard, it is apparent you don't think; you erupt.

 

[maineman]

I could have sworn that was the thread premise shit-for-brains.

for folks with greater than a sixth grade education (which is why I think you're really a little kid playing like a grown up in your mommy's basement), there is a very real difference between reducing inequality and achieving equality. Guess you were unaware of that, eh?

I don't recall having claimed leftists were saying this dunce.

I don't recall stating that you personally made that claim. maybe you could link me up to a post of mine where I said that?

I dont recall this being about what you find disturbing. The debate is that the dunces on the left believe that the Federal Government should be engaged in wealth redistribution schemes which have NEVER worked, never can work and never will work and which is a painfully stupid argument coming from seriously stupid people.

as long as there have been progressive income taxes and government provided social services targeted at the needy, there has been wealth redistribution. Don't like it? Renounce your citizenship and move somewhere that doesn't operate that way

That's not what will happen; apparently you failed rocket scientist school. You only believe this because you moronically believe that the economy is finite and that in order for a few to have more others must therefore have less. That is a dumb proposition that cannot be supported by any facts.

and your crystal ball is better than mine? That's your opinion. I disagree. What makes you think that the trend lines that document the vastly increasing gap between the haves and the have nots will somehow change direction?

Here is a question for the economic dunces on the left; when Bill Gates amassed a fortune by providing a product milions of consumers wanted and demanded, how many people got poorer as a result?

Straw man... no one has ever said that Bill Gates made people poorer.

 

[Truth Detector]

[h=1]Us population in 1969?[/h]
In: US History, Decade - 1960s [Edit categories]





Answer:
Population: 202,676,946

When the clock strikes midnight and we move from 2013 into 2014 the United States population will have reached a new record of more than 317 million people, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates. That will keep us as the third most populous country on the planet, behind only China (1.35 billion) and India (1.23 billion). Overall, the world population will top 7.1 billion at the start of 2014.

Looks like you don't do math.

You proved nothing moron, I asked how much worse the situation would be if not for Johnson's initiative.

You replied with an opinion piece from a right magazine (the Capitalist Tools!) you fucking idiot.

There is no way to prove it one way or the other,

Yes, you really are that ignorant and stupid you conservative dunce!

Dear shit-for-brains; I gave you census data that showed that the number of citizens in poverty have increased by 111,131 since the war on poverty was announced by LBJ. The goal was to eliminate poverty by a date certain.

We have spent over $20 trillion since that announcement; yet poverty has INCREASED rather than decreased.

Now I don't know about math challenged dunces like you on the Liberal left, but anyone with merely half a brain would look at these numbers and say we have not only failed, but we have been dupes to allow our Government to steal $20 trillion from taxpayers with NOTHING to show for it. I cannot begin to imagine the good that amount of money coud have done if it had remained in the economy creating jobs and wealth.

What brain dead morons on the left like you can't get your small closed minds around is the fact that you have been gullible dupes by empowering politicians who have used such wedge issues to not only line their own pockets, but to consolidate their political power getting re-elected by dunces like you who can't do the simplest of math.

Fact; Government cannot create ANYTHING without first extracting it from the economy. The multiplier effect on money confiscated from the economy by the Government is a wash for all intents and purposes. In other words, for math challenged dullards on the left, it does NOTHING to create net jobs.

You truly are a moron of epic proportions.

 

[maineman]

again... show us how many LESS people would be in poverty today if we HADN'T spent the money?

Can you do that? Don't you think you need to show how the war on poverty is counter productive and making people poorer faster than the absence of that initiative would in order to prove that it isn't working?

 

[Truth Detector]

for folks with greater than a sixth grade education (which is why I think you're really a little kid playing like a grown up in your mommy's basement), there is a very real difference between reducing inequality and achieving equality. Guess you were unaware of that, eh?

Even a sixth grader could keep up with the thread topic. However, I keep forgetting that you are a dishonest dunce of epic proportions who never deals with thread topics or the truth, but rather fabricate your own version of reality.

The utter stupidity that erupts from your keyboard is illustrated in the above commentary. You think acheiving equality and reducing inequality are mutually exclusive; moron.

You're the dunce who claims the thread isn't about reducing income inequality. I guess dishonest dunces like you think you can just change the debate whenever the stupidity of your previous claims are exposed resulting in new stupid claims. I call this the never ending circle of stupity. Comprehending it is beyond your grade level Commander.

I don't recall stating that you personally made that claim. maybe you could link me up to a post of mine where I said that?

So you're just here talking to yourself now, eh dishonest dunce? Which is why you choose to not reply with quotes so that you can wallow in false dialogue and pretend you don't mean what you type.

Dunce.

as long as there have been progressive income taxes and government provided social services targeted at the needy, there has been wealth redistribution. Don't like it? Renounce your citizenship and move somewhere that doesn't operate that way

Another incredibly dishonest and painfully stupid post by an incredibly dishonest ignoramus. So if I disagree with the nations policies I should renounce my citizenship? You're an utter moron.

I'll remember your simple minded third grade level argument the next time you whine about Republicans implementing their agenda.

Dunce.

and your crystal ball is better than mine? That's your opinion. I disagree.

It wasn't a crystal ball you painfully ignorant buffoon, it is a historic economic fact. Of course you would disagree; you're too stupid and ignorant to comprehend facts or reality.

What makes you think that the trend lines that document the vastly increasing gap between the haves and the have nots will somehow change direction?

They don't change direction dunce; everyone's direction goes up.

If you had taken even a moment comprehending my question and answering it honestly, you wouldn't ask such painfully stupid questions.

I'll try it again; when Bill Gates amassed a fortune by producing a product millions wanted and demanded, how many people got poorer from his amassed fortune?

Straw man... no one has ever said that Bill Gates made people poorer.

It isn't a strawman; it is in response to the stupid notions behind income inequality arguments. They require the zero sum mentality that suggests that people are poor because othsad have too much.

But again, you're too stupid and dishonest to comprehend that fact.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Bill Gates is your example?

Why not Paris Hilton?

 

[Truth Detector]

again... show us how many LESS people would be in poverty today if we HADN'T spent the money?

Another painfully stupid argument on par with uninformed leftist stuck permanently on stupid.

It is similar to the equally stupid claims suggesting that had we not spent $850 billion which did nothing but bury us in more debt, unemployment MIGHT have been higher.

What we DO know is that after allowing the government t to steal $20 trillion from those who earned their money, we have over a 100,000 more in poverty. By anyone's measurement except for dishonest dunces; that is an epic failure. You're just too painfully stupid and dishonest to comprehend it.

Can you do that? Don't you think you need to show how the war on poverty is counter productive and making people poorer faster than the absence of that initiative would in order to prove that it isn't working?

LMAO; you don't realize how stupid your argument is. You want me to prove a false claim; that's brilliant shit-for-brains.

Fact; we spent $20 trillion plus on the war on poverty.

Fact; there are 111 thousand more poor than when the war was announced.

I don't know about you, but I would have to say it was a massive failure, did not acheive it's announced results and had we left that money in the economy rather than piss it away based on nothing more than good intentions, Americans would have been infinately better off.

But I will remember your third grade logic the next time you make similar claims about Republcan initiatives. LMAO

You really are THAT incredibly stupid. You epitomize the low information dunces who elected Obama.

 

[Truth Detector]

Bill Gates is your example?

Why not Paris Hilton?

Is it not obvious why dunce? Because Paris Hylton did not create anything; she is the beneficiary of her fathers hard work.

But just the same; how many poor people has Paris Hylton spending her trust fund caused?

Are all leftists this stupid? Or do they work at it?

So how many people got poorer due to Bill Gates amassed fortune dunce?

 

[maineman]

the thread is about how raising taxes on the rich would reduce income inequality. It clearly will... the differential between the net income of the rich and the poor will decrease after taxes. Again... that is not economics or even politics, it is arithmetic.

The historical fact is that, the poor have gotten poorer and their wealth has decreased while the rich have gotten richer and their wealth has geometrically increased. The graph in this article is illustrative of that fact:

http://www.minnpost.com/community-v...ion-wealth-has-gone-upward-not-down-early-80s

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Is it not obvious why dunce? Because Paris Hylton did not create anything; she is the beneficiary of her fathers hard work.

But just the same; how many poor people has Paris Hylton spending her trust fund caused?

Are all leftists this stupid? Or do they work at it?

So how many people got poorer due to Bill Gates amassed fortune dunce?

Well, you sorta missed the point. Bill Gates came up with a unique product that people needed & wanted, and created a huge # of jobs in the process. He's like a prime example for what you're arguing; if every rich person was like Bill Gates, we probably wouldn't have much of an issue.

But, every rich person isn't like Bill Gates. In fact, many are not. Many don't contribute much to the general good, and take their millions our of circulation & out of our economy, keeping it in foreign banks & businesses. That's their right, but it's an issue, and certainly does hurt the poor & working class in this country.

 

[maineman]

and THAT trend, if allowed to continue unabated, will result in the very few owning nearly everything while the rest of us own less and less.

 

[Taft2016]

the thread is about how raising taxes on the rich would reduce income inequality. It clearly will...

In doing so, would it raise the lot of those in the poorest sectors?

Or merely bring those in the richest sectors closer to those in the poorest sectors?

If it's the latter, what is the benefit?

 

[maineman]

again.... taxes are used to fund social programs... like, for example, LiHEAP. If those in the poorest sector get financial assistance to pay their heating bills thus freeing up part of their limited income to buy other goods and services, is their lot not improved in some way?

 

[Taft2016]

again.... taxes are used to fund social programs... like, for example, LiHEAP. If those in the poorest sector get financial assistance to pay their heating bills thus freeing up part of their limited income to buy other goods and services, is their lot not improved in some way?

We can come back to this...

But first, I'd like an answer to my original question.

 

[maineman]

We can come back to this...

But first, I'd like an answer to my original question.

wasn't your original question:

"In doing so, would it raise the lot of those in the poorest sectors?"

and I answered that.

 

[zappasguitar]

How does one refute stupid you dunce?

With intelligence.

Which coincidentally is how so many posters refute your stupidity...an intelligent response.

 

[Taft2016]

wasn't your original question:

"In doing so, would it raise the lot of those in the poorest sectors?"

and I answered that.

If that's your final answer, very well.

Is there a possibility that all of these alleged "social benefits" the richest sectors are paying for will contract the job market (as is currently underway), and cause these alleged beneficiaries to lose their jobs?

What possible good is home heating assistance going to be when the owner's job is vanished and the house itself lost along with it?

 

[NOVA]

again.... taxes are used to fund social programs... like, for example, LiHEAP. If those in the poorest sector get financial assistance to pay their heating bills thus freeing up part of their limited income to buy other goods and services, is their lot not improved in some way?

Taxes are used to fight wars, buy ships and aircraft, bullets and guns, pay for parties, fuel AF1, built bridges and thousands of other things, too....
are you totally naive ? or just mostly...

There ain't enough tax money in the entire country to pay for Obama's spending at it is......take it all, and in the long run, you won't change a thing...

The big picture is obviously beyond your minds ability to imagine ....