Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[bripat9643]

That's right, far from rocket science, it's total bullshit. You have no proof that much higher taxes make people work less (and they don't work less in places like Germany or Scandinavian countries).

The ignorant false narrative of the greedy, lazy Dumbocrat continues to collapse under the weight of reality. Here is undeniable proof that higher taxes cause people to work less. In fact, they stop working completely (for the U.S.) and start working for nations that embrace their efforts instead of demonizing it. What now idiot - er, uh ilia? Come on, give us some really "clever" excuse for this undeniable reality that is backed up with multiple links from multiple sources...

Americans renouncing citizenship in record numbers, seek to avoid tax | Fox News

Americans turn in passports as new tax law hits - Sep. 4, 2013

5 citizens who left the U.S. to avoid paying tax - CBS News

That just demonstrates people will try and avoid paying taxes when given the opportunity. That doesn't mean they stop working. Did you think you stumbled onto something meaningful?

Wrong. They do stop working if the tax rate is oppressive enough. In Sweden you can't find a doctor after 5:00 PM. They're all out on the tennis court. It doesn't pay them to work more than 40 hours a week because most of the additional income would be taxed away by the government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Last year I paid 3% effective.

Show me.

Romney, after the additional six moths of moving numbers paid 12%.

If most of your income is taxed at 15% and you donate millions to charity, your rate would drop below 15% as well.

In 2012 my portfolio made $16.5M and paid $495k total tax.

You seem to be confused with tax rates vs. actual tax paid.

You seem to be unable to prove your fable.

So run through it for me.

Show how your $16.5M gives you a $495k liability.
Pretend I'm a liberal, use small words.

It's actually pretty simple, he is lying.

 

[OnePercenter]

Those who have a lot of capital gains. If you include payroll taxes the issue is even more pronounced.

Poor people with capital gains pay the same rate, but don't let the facts spoil your rant.

Effective is one of those "adjectives" that libtards like to use to show how life isn't fair. First they argue for progressive income taxes and vote for separate taxes for different types of income. Then they argue what they built sucks because it means not everyone pays the same tax rates on all types of income. It's nutz. I don't think it's possible to please a libtard. We could give them all of everyone assets and income and they would still bitch it's not enough.

Effective is used to compare and contrast ACTUAL numbers between two tax paying entities.

 

[georgephillip]

"As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government.

Prove it. Use facts and numbers, not feelings.

Let us see if we agree on some facts and numbers.
Revenues for the 1980s increased by 99.6%.
Does that sound factual or sentimental to you?

Wait, revenues increased in the 1980s?
But you said there was a lack of revenue.
Were you lying, or stupid?

It's simple, Stool:
The percentage of revenue increase in the 80s was less than it was in the 70s.
Naturally there was a shortage of revenue for Star Wars.
Stay grounded.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let us see if we agree on some facts and numbers.
Revenues for the 1980s increased by 99.6%.
Does that sound factual or sentimental to you?

Wait, revenues increased in the 1980s?
But you said there was a lack of revenue.
Were you lying, or stupid?

It's simple, Stool:
The percentage of revenue increase in the 80s was less than it was in the 70s.
Naturally there was a shortage of revenue for Star Wars.
Stay grounded.

So you lied when you said there was a lack of revenue. Got it.

 

[georgephillip]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

folks that put this kinda crap up will insist that the economic pie is a zero-sum equation...

but it ain't... capital is built up and increased by the hard work and sweat of millions of lowly folks workin' their asses off...

'n if you don't know what I'm talkin' about... go take a lesson in basic economics...

What chapter in your basic economic text explains how one percent of the population increased their incomes by 31% between 2009 and 2012 while the incomes of the remaining 99% grew by 0.4%?

 

[bripat9643]

Where did you get the idea opportunity was something you had to earn, and who have you selected as the judge for deciding who among us deserves opportunity?

"op·por·tu·ni·ty noun \ˌä-pər-ˈtü-nə-tē, -ˈtyü-\
: an amount of time or a situation in which something can be done
plural op·por·tu·ni·ties

Full Definition of OPPORTUNITY

1
: a favorable juncture of circumstances <the halt provided an opportunity for rest and refreshment>
2
: a good chance for advancement or progress"

Opportunity - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

ok....I own a business. I post on line an ad for applicants in my landscaping company. I am looking for a supervisor with a ground applicators license and prefer at least an associates degree in turf management. Plus I prefer at least two years combined supervisory and practical experience.
I get two applicants looking for an opportunity to work for me in a supervisory capacity.
One has no supervisory experience but has a turf degree. The other meets all of the criteria in the ad. The latter by meeting the criteria has EARNED the opportunity to come work for me. While the former has not. Very simple concept.
By acquiring certain skills, the second applicant EARNED that opportunity.
You object to this concept, why?

You hire based on the following question:

What are you going to do to facilitate a 100% increase in revenue every 18 months?

Yeah, right. A company that increased its revenue that fast would be the size of Walmart in 12 years.

 

[bripat9643]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

folks that put this kinda crap up will insist that the economic pie is a zero-sum equation...

but it ain't... capital is built up and increased by the hard work and sweat of millions of lowly folks workin' their asses off...

'n if you don't know what I'm talkin' about... go take a lesson in basic economics...

What chapter in your basic economic text explains how one percent of the population increased their incomes by 31% between 2009 and 2012 while the incomes of the remaining 99% grew by 0.4%?

That's the chapter on liberal fairytales.

 

[OnePercenter]

Last year I paid 3% effective.

Show me.

Romney, after the additional six moths of moving numbers paid 12%.

If most of your income is taxed at 15% and you donate millions to charity, your rate would drop below 15% as well.

In 2012 my portfolio made $16.5M and paid $495k total tax.

You seem to be confused with tax rates vs. actual tax paid.

You seem to be unable to prove your fable.

So run through it for me.

Show how your $16.5M gives you a $495k liability.
Pretend I'm a liberal, use small words.

Tax planning.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In 2012 my portfolio made $16.5M and paid $495k total tax.

You seem to be confused with tax rates vs. actual tax paid.

You seem to be unable to prove your fable.

So run through it for me.

Show how your $16.5M gives you a $495k liability.
Pretend I'm a liberal, use small words.

Tax planning.

Your posts are light on proof, as usual.

 

[deltex1]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

You're correct...capitalism has made America the richest nation in the world...total inequality among nations....oooorah!!!

 

[georgephillip]

Share? There is no "share"....What someone else's income may be is nobody else's business.
Productivity rises with for example, technology, education and technical training. Productivity is realized when fewer people are required to increase output.
The most wealthy people are not the stereotypical blue blooded Greenwich CT mansion dwelling people you equate with wealth. The fact is most wealthy people work very hard to earn their wages. They also take the highest risk.
The one constant is this. Higher education and better training lead to higher wages. It has to be that way.
BTW, opportunity is EARNED. Not given. Not deserved.
There are far too many of us who work hard so that we may EARN opportunity to see it given away to those who refuse to make it their business to improve their skill set so that they are in the running for higher pay.

Where did you get the idea opportunity was something you had to earn, and who have you selected as the judge for deciding who among us deserves opportunity?

"op·por·tu·ni·ty noun \&#716;ä-p&#601;r-&#712;tü-n&#601;-t&#275;, -&#712;tyü-\
: an amount of time or a situation in which something can be done
plural op·por·tu·ni·ties

Full Definition of OPPORTUNITY

1
: a favorable juncture of circumstances <the halt provided an opportunity for rest and refreshment>
2
: a good chance for advancement or progress"

Opportunity - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

ok....I own a business. I post on line an ad for applicants in my landscaping company. I am looking for a supervisor with a ground applicators license and prefer at least an associates degree in turf management. Plus I prefer at least two years combined supervisory and practical experience.
I get two applicants looking for an opportunity to work for me in a supervisory capacity.
One has no supervisory experience but has a turf degree. The other meets all of the criteria in the ad. The latter by meeting the criteria has EARNED the opportunity to come work for me. While the former has not. Very simple concept.
By acquiring certain skills, the second applicant EARNED that opportunity.
You object to this concept, why?

In the scenario you sketch out, I have no objection to your definition of earned opportunity. I think I was limiting my conception to situations of candidates with equal qualifications for entry-level openings. Thanks for the insight.

 

[bripat9643]

All of them.

Last year I paid 3% effective.

Romney, after the additional six moths of moving numbers paid 12%.

The average middle-class American pay 15% average.

Last year I paid 3% effective.

Show me.

Romney, after the additional six moths of moving numbers paid 12%.

If most of your income is taxed at 15% and you donate millions to charity, your rate would drop below 15% as well.

In 2012 my portfolio made $16.5M and paid $495k total tax.

You seem to be confused with tax rates vs. actual tax paid.

How much of those gains did you realize?

 

[georgephillip]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

You're correct...capitalism has made America the richest nation in the world...total inequality among nations....oooorah!!!

At no small price to the millions of Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Afghanis, and Iraqis who've paid for the American lifestyle with their lives, limbs, and homes.

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

"The extreme dualities of poverty and wealth inevitably create the vulnerable and the powerful, the abuser and the abused.

"There are wide ranging consequences of such social division, foremost being the erosion or denial of democracy.

"With money comes power and with power comes political influence, making it inevitable that 'inequality reinforces itself by corroding our political system and our democratic governance,' as Stiglitz says."

Ooorah for Wall Street and the 1%.

 

[OnePercenter]

ok....I own a business. I post on line an ad for applicants in my landscaping company. I am looking for a supervisor with a ground applicators license and prefer at least an associates degree in turf management. Plus I prefer at least two years combined supervisory and practical experience.
I get two applicants looking for an opportunity to work for me in a supervisory capacity.
One has no supervisory experience but has a turf degree. The other meets all of the criteria in the ad. The latter by meeting the criteria has EARNED the opportunity to come work for me. While the former has not. Very simple concept.
By acquiring certain skills, the second applicant EARNED that opportunity.
You object to this concept, why?

You hire based on the following question:

What are you going to do to facilitate a 100% increase in revenue every 18 months?

Yeah, right. A company that increased its revenue that fast would be the size of Walmart in 12 years.

Conceivable, depending on the original size, but there aren't any facts that back that up. If you own a business, 100% growth every 18 months should be your goal.

 

[OnePercenter]

Last year I paid 3% effective.

Show me.

Romney, after the additional six moths of moving numbers paid 12%.

If most of your income is taxed at 15% and you donate millions to charity, your rate would drop below 15% as well.

In 2012 my portfolio made $16.5M and paid $495k total tax.

You seem to be confused with tax rates vs. actual tax paid.

How much of those gains did you realize?

$16.5M minus $495k.

 

[Intense]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

Free Market Capitalism pretty much balances out cause and effect. There is always going to be some kind of measure of exchange between people. In what alternate reality is outcome guaranteed? Certainly not this one. What exactly do you have of value that you want to exchange? You obviously want to encourage servitude. What is the ultimate payoff to your plan? Prisons? Work Camps? Execution? Mass Executions? Don't hold back, tell us. Why the need to control and redistribute private property that is not yours? What is your problem with the work ethic? Is investment evil? Should we really just give up everything to you, and people like you? Would it make you feel more important? Is that it?

 

[georgephillip]

And what criteria would you use to decide which incomes are warranted and which aren't? I ask because I've yet to find a system of making such judgments that is less subject to corruption and graft than free markets. Any scheme which centralizes authority over distributing economic power, regardless of whether it's nominally 'democratic' or not, is a more convenient target for those interested in manipulating matters to their own ends.

What are your markets "free" of?
Undue democratic regulations or the undue monopolistic influence of the richest 0.01% of humanity?

Coercion.

It's not a just means of distributing economic power in my view, regardless of whether it represents the will of the majority. In the end, it's more likely to produce the kind of undue inequities we want to prevent.

Am I correct in assuming you want markets free of "co·er·cion
1.the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
"'t wasn't slavery because no coercion was used'
synonyms: force, compulsion, constraint, duress, oppression, enforcement, harassment, intimidation, threats, arm-twisting, pressure"

Isn't this contrary to human nature?

https://www.google.com/#q=coercion

 

[Intense]

What are your markets "free" of?
Undue democratic regulations or the undue monopolistic influence of the richest 0.01% of humanity?

Coercion.

It's not a just means of distributing economic power in my view, regardless of whether it represents the will of the majority. In the end, it's more likely to produce the kind of undue inequities we want to prevent.

Am I correct in assuming you want markets free of "co·er·cion
1.the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
"'t wasn't slavery because no coercion was used'
synonyms: force, compulsion, constraint, duress, oppression, enforcement, harassment, intimidation, threats, arm-twisting, pressure"

Isn't this contrary to human nature?

https://www.google.com/#q=coercion

Are you the exhaustive authority on what human nature is and isn't now? Well excuse me! What could be more diverse than the full spectrum of what human nature is and isn't?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In 2012 my portfolio made $16.5M and paid $495k total tax.

You seem to be confused with tax rates vs. actual tax paid.

How much of those gains did you realize?

$16.5M minus $495k.

You realized $16.5 million in a taxable account and only paid 3%?