Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Quantum Windbag]

I have to prove you wrong even when you don't even bother to clearly argue your reasoning?

That doesn't seem right.

You have a problem with basic math? Tough fucking shit, either prove me wrong using whatever you want, or pretend I didn't actually make a point.

You didn't prove the point you thought you did that is for sure.

How do you know what I point I had? You said my arguments were beyond your comprehension.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

We've been over this before with him a dozen times. He's lying. The dumb ass is talking about revenue, not profit. He knows someone that paid 500k on 16.5m in revenue and he thinks it makes him smart to say it was him, even though he has no clue what a business is, or the simple fact that businesses don't pay taxes on revenue. Guy's an idiot.

Let me make it simple. $16.5M income, $495k taxes.

Let me make it simple for you. 16.5m gross income, 14.5m sheltered because the 14.5m of the 16.5m is not considered taxable income by the IRS, 2m taxed resulting in .5m taxes. Or you are a liar or criminal that does not report your revenue, such as a drug dealer.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

We've been over this before with him a dozen times. He's lying. The dumb ass is talking about revenue, not profit. He knows someone that paid 500k on 16.5m in revenue and he thinks it makes him smart to say it was him, even though he has no clue what a business is, or the simple fact that businesses don't pay taxes on revenue. Guy's an idiot.

Let me make it simple. $16.5M income, $495k taxes.

Let me make it even simpler, you are lying.

 

[bripat9643]

Income inequality leads directly to more volatile economic cycles. If you want to talk about why I will happily do so.

Really? Where is the evidence for that?

The income of the 1% is way more volatile than that of the bottom 99%. This is in large part to the way they make money (capital investment) You can see large increases in the income of the top 1% and large decreases as well.

As more and more income is concentrated in that 1% the ups and down of the economic cycle become more pronounced.

In addition the government is becoming more and more reliant on income taxes as a source of income and therefor there will be larger swings, both up and down, in tax revenues. Failure to account for this has already shaped our last/current recession and will likely have an even bigger impact on the next one unless government learns to plan better.

Your Marxist theory that wealth continues to be concentrated in the hands of the capitalists is pure bunk. Even if it were true, there's no evidence that it would cause recessions to be more severe. For one thing, the government has actually become less reliant on income taxes as a source of income. Payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes and other taxes account for the majority of government revenue. For another thing, less revenue to the government does not cause recessions. It's a symptom of a recession, not the cause. Less revenue to the government actually promotes economic growth, not a reduction in growth.

 

[TemplarKormac]

We've been over this before with him a dozen times. He's lying. The dumb ass is talking about revenue, not profit. He knows someone that paid 500k on 16.5m in revenue and he thinks it makes him smart to say it was him, even though he has no clue what a business is, or the simple fact that businesses don't pay taxes on revenue. Guy's an idiot.

Let me make it simple. $16.5M income, $495k taxes.

Let me make it even simpler, you are lying.

Indeed:

People/businesses making $400,000 or more pay 39.6% of their income in taxes, which means someone who earns $16.5 million will actually pay roughly $6,534,000 in taxes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

We've been over this before with him a dozen times. He's lying. The dumb ass is talking about revenue, not profit. He knows someone that paid 500k on 16.5m in revenue and he thinks it makes him smart to say it was him, even though he has no clue what a business is, or the simple fact that businesses don't pay taxes on revenue. Guy's an idiot.

Let me make it simple. $16.5M income, $495k taxes.

Prove it.

Make it simple.

 

[OnePercenter]

You did not explain why lower capital gains rates are a problem.

Obtuseness is not a response.

I agree, so stop being obtuse.

Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. The group that the tax code favors doesn't need any favors and the group getting the worse end has seen decades of wage stagnation. This has grown to be such a problem the economy is struggling to recover. Economic volatility has gotten worse. Income inequality has gotten worse.

Copy and pasted from my own post that you quoted twice.

Obtuseness is not a response.

The tax code, which is heavily skewed in favor of people with low incomes, gives preferential treatment to people that don't need it?

Then why does the top 20% get 50% of the overall tax breaks?

 

[OnePercenter]

FICA is a tax based on income.
The issue being discussed was Reagan's skyrocketing revenues produced from tax cuts.
Reagan spiked FICA taxes and three-quarters of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. It's hypocritical to claim revenue increases in the 80s were due to tax cuts on 25% of the population without mentioning the tax increases experienced by the other 75%.

SS is supposed to be a program funded by the people that receive it. It's not supposed to be like progressive income tax where the upper income folks are forced to foot the bill for the income folks. Are you incapable of understanding that? Why are folks like you always looking for a free ride? Don't you have any pride at all?

as originally conceived, you are correct, SS was to be a forced savings plan for retirement and you would get your money back if you lived long enough to retire.

As soon as LBJ merged SS funds with the general fund, that ended. Since then SS is nothing but a tax whereby working people pay for retired people. As a tax, it should be collected on all income of all kinds.

Educate yourself.

snopes.com: Social Security Changes

Monies paid into the Social Security trust have never been "put into the general fund." The requirements for how the Social Security Trust Fund is to be financed and invested have not changed since the fund's inception in 1939. The reference to Lyndon Johnson indicates that someone was probably confused by a change implemented at the end of the Johnson administration (1969) that altered how the fund was accounted for in the federal budget but did not change the actual operations of the fund itself.

 

[bripat9643]

SS is supposed to be a program funded by the people that receive it. It's not supposed to be like progressive income tax where the upper income folks are forced to foot the bill for the income folks. Are you incapable of understanding that? Why are folks like you always looking for a free ride? Don't you have any pride at all?

as originally conceived, you are correct, SS was to be a forced savings plan for retirement and you would get your money back if you lived long enough to retire.

As soon as LBJ merged SS funds with the general fund, that ended. Since then SS is nothing but a tax whereby working people pay for retired people. As a tax, it should be collected on all income of all kinds.

Educate yourself.

snopes.com: Social Security Changes

Monies paid into the Social Security trust have never been "put into the general fund." The requirements for how the Social Security Trust Fund is to be financed and invested have not changed since the fund's inception in 1939. The reference to Lyndon Johnson indicates that someone was probably confused by a change implemented at the end of the Johnson administration (1969) that altered how the fund was accounted for in the federal budget but did not change the actual operations of the fund itself.

In other words, it was a con from the start.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. The group that the tax code favors doesn't need any favors and the group getting the worse end has seen decades of wage stagnation. This has grown to be such a problem the economy is struggling to recover. Economic volatility has gotten worse. Income inequality has gotten worse.

Copy and pasted from my own post that you quoted twice.

Obtuseness is not a response.

The tax code, which is heavily skewed in favor of people with low incomes, gives preferential treatment to people that don't need it?

Then why does the top 20% get 50% of the overall tax breaks?

Because, just like your claim about your income and how much you paid, you are lying. Everyone gets the tax breaks, the top 20% more likely to itemize rather than take the standard deduction.

 

[OnePercenter]

We've been over this before with him a dozen times. He's lying. The dumb ass is talking about revenue, not profit. He knows someone that paid 500k on 16.5m in revenue and he thinks it makes him smart to say it was him, even though he has no clue what a business is, or the simple fact that businesses don't pay taxes on revenue. Guy's an idiot.

Let me make it simple. $16.5M income, $495k taxes.

Let me make it simple for you. 16.5m gross income, 14.5m sheltered because the 14.5m of the 16.5m is not considered taxable income by the IRS, 2m taxed resulting in .5m taxes. Or you are a liar or criminal that does not report your revenue, such as a drug dealer.

Much like Bill Gates, I'm the principal of multiple trusts which are Nevada corporations, but thanks for playing.

 

[georgephillip]

The labor market has struggled for decades while the capital market has exploded.

Why the U.S. Has Lost Manufacturing Jobs

By Michael S. Rozeff

January 31, 2014

The U.S. government could help American workers tremendously by ending its extremely costly interventions overseas and reducing its military establishment..... the reduction in government spending .... matched by tax cuts, then the economy would be given a big leg up to adjust to productive lines of work. The U.S. is over-investing in phantom security.

The U.S. government could help American workers tremendously by scrapping Obamacare and freeing up the medical sector of the economy, thereby making it more competitive and producing lower costs and higher quality.

The U.S. government could help American workers tremendously by making Social Security optional for them.


.

OK cut military spending.

I think it is pretty obvious that UHC is far more efficient than the horrible Frankenstein monster that is our current system. So I agree with the general problem but there is a lot more evidence supporting UHC than there is in the idea the free market will solve our problems.

Making SS optional would just put more pressure on people to make good decisions and save for themselves.

If you want legit conservative ways to improve things look to the corporate tax code. The way it works in the US is relatively unique in that it hurts US production and favors foreign production. Other nation's tax codes do the opposite.

You can also look at Chinese manipulation of our currency. That is not really anything either side is for.

You can also look at regulations from a trade perspective. Having common regulations with Europe and Canada can help facilitate trade.

You mentioned in another post how you thought NAFTA has been beneficial to the US economy (if I remember correctly)

Are you equally impressed with the TPP,particularly its manifest secrecy?

"WikiLeaks has released the draft text of a chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, a multilateral free-trade treaty currently being negotiated in secret by 12 Pacific Rim nations.

"The full agreement covers a number of areas, but the chapter published by WikiLeaks focuses on intellectual property rights, an area of law which has effects in areas as diverse as pharmaceuticals and civil liberties.

"Negotiations for the TPP have included representatives from the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Mexico, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, and Brunei, but have been conducted behind closed doors.

"Even members of the US Congress were only allowed to view selected portions of the documents under supervision."

WikiLeaks publishes secret draft chapter of Trans-Pacific Partnership | Media | theguardian.com

 

[itfitzme]

But the fact of the matter IS that income inequality at a certain level is a bad thing for society and should be avoided if possible.

Low income --should be bad - for the recipient. But some folks are UNmotivated.

But "society" , by which you mean taxpayers and producers should not be adversely affected. They should be allowed to exercise their right to stand their ground and defend their wealth using deadly force if necessary.

.

I understood the logic was that less money reduces motivation. I've read, here, that income taxes on the wealthy causes them to be less motivated to produce. So why would we expect otherwise of everyone else?

 

[OnePercenter]

We've been over this before with him a dozen times. He's lying. The dumb ass is talking about revenue, not profit. He knows someone that paid 500k on 16.5m in revenue and he thinks it makes him smart to say it was him, even though he has no clue what a business is, or the simple fact that businesses don't pay taxes on revenue. Guy's an idiot.

Let me make it simple. $16.5M income, $495k taxes.

Let me make it even simpler, you are lying.

Can't stand the fact that the people you've been supporting for years make it easier for the rich to get richer?

 

[OnePercenter]

The tax code, which is heavily skewed in favor of people with low incomes, gives preferential treatment to people that don't need it?

Then why does the top 20% get 50% of the overall tax breaks?

Because, just like your claim about your income and how much you paid, you are lying. Everyone gets the tax breaks, the top 20% more likely to itemize rather than take the standard deduction.

For 50% of the tax breaks, which moots your claim of 'heavily skewed in favor of people with low incomes'.

 

[OnePercenter]

as originally conceived, you are correct, SS was to be a forced savings plan for retirement and you would get your money back if you lived long enough to retire.

As soon as LBJ merged SS funds with the general fund, that ended. Since then SS is nothing but a tax whereby working people pay for retired people. As a tax, it should be collected on all income of all kinds.

Educate yourself.

snopes.com: Social Security Changes

Monies paid into the Social Security trust have never been "put into the general fund." The requirements for how the Social Security Trust Fund is to be financed and invested have not changed since the fund's inception in 1939. The reference to Lyndon Johnson indicates that someone was probably confused by a change implemented at the end of the Johnson administration (1969) that altered how the fund was accounted for in the federal budget but did not change the actual operations of the fund itself.

In other words, it was a con from the start.

Which is why ten's of millions receive SS payments every month.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let me make it simple. $16.5M income, $495k taxes.

Let me make it simple for you. 16.5m gross income, 14.5m sheltered because the 14.5m of the 16.5m is not considered taxable income by the IRS, 2m taxed resulting in .5m taxes. Or you are a liar or criminal that does not report your revenue, such as a drug dealer.

Much like Bill Gates, I'm the principal of multiple trusts which are Nevada corporations, but thanks for playing.

Explain how these trusts reduce your income taxes.

 

[OnePercenter]

Let me make it simple for you. 16.5m gross income, 14.5m sheltered because the 14.5m of the 16.5m is not considered taxable income by the IRS, 2m taxed resulting in .5m taxes. Or you are a liar or criminal that does not report your revenue, such as a drug dealer.

Much like Bill Gates, I'm the principal of multiple trusts which are Nevada corporations, but thanks for playing.

Explain how these trusts reduce your income taxes.

Ask your tax guy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Much like Bill Gates, I'm the principal of multiple trusts which are Nevada corporations, but thanks for playing.

Explain how these trusts reduce your income taxes.

Ask your tax guy.

I'd rather hear you prove your silly claim.

 

[Bombur]

Really? Where is the evidence for that?

The income of the 1% is way more volatile than that of the bottom 99%. This is in large part to the way they make money (capital investment) You can see large increases in the income of the top 1% and large decreases as well.

As more and more income is concentrated in that 1% the ups and down of the economic cycle become more pronounced.

In addition the government is becoming more and more reliant on income taxes as a source of income and therefor there will be larger swings, both up and down, in tax revenues. Failure to account for this has already shaped our last/current recession and will likely have an even bigger impact on the next one unless government learns to plan better.

Your Marxist theory that wealth continues to be concentrated in the hands of the capitalists is pure bunk. Even if it were true, there's no evidence that it would cause recessions to be more severe. For one thing, the government has actually become less reliant on income taxes as a source of income. Payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes and other taxes account for the majority of government revenue. For another thing, less revenue to the government does not cause recessions. It's a symptom of a recession, not the cause. Less revenue to the government actually promotes economic growth, not a reduction in growth.

Wealth concentration is not a theory. It is either happening or it isn't.

Recessions are measured in severity based largely on how large the reduction in GDP is. The more significant the loss in income the bigger the loss in GDP, everything else remaining the same.

Income taxes accounted for around 40% of tax collections in 2013 for states. In 92 it was only 31%. The trend is going to continue since the income tax is the one tax that will see natural growth, especially leading up to the next recession.

When the latest recession hit the income tax was by far the most volatile tax and the volatility was mostly due to large changes in income of the top 1% of income earners.

Government revenues are important because the government will also have to respond to the recession. If they raise taxes or cut programs the recession will be larger. Either way they are likely to go into debt just to keep expenses at current service levels.

Pretty much everything you just said is wrong. I trust you understand that I consider any facts talked about here can be easily confirmed through a couple minutes of using google.