zappasguitar
Well-known member
That's been the extent of Defective Truth's contributions also.
Do you plan on asking him to (sit) this one out?
Raising Taxes On The Rich Would Reduce Income Inequality
- Thread starter Yoda
- Start date
That's been the extent of Defective Truth's contributions also.
Do you plan on asking him to (sit) this one out?
maineman
Banned
If you want to say that the income in question is pre-tax, then what would any income tax, regardless of how progressive, have to do with the topic at hand? The issue is, that a progressive income tax reduces the post tax income of rich people by a greater percent than it does poor people.... that's why they call it progressive.
duh.
Remember... you said that anyone - including all the republican presidents since the dawn of the federal income tax were actually marxists for supporting progressive taxation?
It was a direct response to you this....
Originally Posted by maineman
why do you think that cutting back on their work force is the preferred solution for business owners...(personally owned business)
who, if they are smart enough to run a successful business are also smart enough to shield their business from personal income tax issues?
and I said NOTHING about corporate tax rates or income inequality....so lets leave the goalposts in position for a change.
maineman
Banned
you need to follow the flow of the conversation instead of trying to play "gotcha" by pouncing on one aspect of one post of mine taken out of context. You look like an idiot... and a creepy obsessive one at that.
You need to pay attention to the quotes and realize that is what the response is to.....comrade...
Taft2016
Verified User
Apples and apples. If I am being taxed more on the personal income I take out of my corporation, I am going to take more income out of my corporation to compensate for it.
Do I keep employee A and tell my daughter she has to go to community college, or do I let employee A go and allow my daughter to go to the college of her choice?
Economic illiteracy.
Originally Posted by maineman
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.
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 for whatever reason....
It makes no difference if its your 'choice' or not....the only reasonable, relevant and sane place to start talking about 'income inequality' is with your income from the get go...
Relevant. Depends on how long that someone is being benefitted. Does the recipient need very temporary help while he attempts to get back on his feet, or does he surrender to the government's desire to have everybody dependent on the table scraps they want to provide? See, if the government were proactive, they would invest in a plan to get welfare recipients ready to get back into a robust private sector. unfortunately, that's not how today's government wants it. Today's public sector hates the private sector, and wants it destroyed. The best way to do that is to teach people that they are only worth the shit that the government provides. Everyone's contained, including bleeding heart masochists who believe in this kind of bullshit.
Yes it is; when one reads but cannot comprehend. I guess you missed the part where they will still be in need dunce thus NOT benefiting from the programs you claim they DO benefit from.
But again, I am allowing an idiot to avoid the thread topic with off topic strawman claims and arguments; shame on me.
Yes, while pointing at you and laughing. Dunce.
No they did not shit-for-brains; it is a derogatory term used by dishonest leftist morons like you trying to avoid the facts, substance and honest debate.
That doesn’t make them Teabaggers you pathetic moron.
You don’t have to call yourself a Marxist to spout Marxist rhetoric you pathetic moron.
Seeing is something you apparently cannot do just as you cannot think, cannot be honest and cannot stay on a topic without your bloviating stupidity.
Once again; Income inequality arguments are the pabulum for idiots. The reason is obvious for anyone who has a brain; because income inequality is a fabricated issue by idiots on the left based on Marxist class envy.
It is equally retarded to suggest that the Government should, or can, rectify such fabricated issues.
It is a dunces premise that requires the belief that the reason for this inequality is because the rich caused the poor to earn less; it is so painfully stupid that only gullible retards like you can fall for it. It is a dunce premise that must argue that the economy is finite and therefore, if the rich get more, the rest get correspondingly less . Again, it is a false argument that only naive gullible retards like you can believe.
But when I comes to retarded arguments and claims, you're the king.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
LMAO; the whiney vagina dunce once again adds NOTHING to any thread debate other than his typical effeminate whining.
Run along shit-for-brains; no one wants to argue with an idiot like you.
maineman
Banned
why are you so frightened to just answer my question?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
[/translation]
LMAO; you're such an incredibly stupid dunce. The question has been answered ad nausea; you're just too fucking stupid to comprehend it and think that by asking the same stupid question over and over again, you'll somehow get a different answer. You're the definition of a retard.
Dismissed Comrade.
maineman
Banned
you asked me who made the claim that recipients of LiHEAP did not benefit from the program. I answered your question. YOU made that claim.
taxes, regardless of how progressive, have NOTHING to do with the topic at hand, which is INCOME inequality, or did you change the topic again.
the issue is income inequality....not disposable income after you've spent some of that income....any and all spending of your income reduces what is left, no matter
how the money was used....including taxes.
"income tax reduces the post tax income of rich people by a greater percent than it does poor people"... ALL SPENDING does it too...thats what makes you argument stupid.