Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Middle class conservatives love giving it all to the top 1%.
Middle class conservatives love giving it all to the top 1%.
the top 1% of earners in this country earn about 19% of the income but pay nearly 37% of the income tax in this country, so what the fuck are you babbling about?
Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes — The American Magazine
Are you really okay with around 40% of Americans paying NO income tax?
Middle class conservatives love giving it all to the top 1%.
the top 1% of earners in this country earn about 19% of the income but pay nearly 37% of the income tax in this country, so what the fuck are you babbling about?
Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes — The American Magazine
Are you really okay with around 40% of Americans paying NO income tax?
And many of those people make that money from the stock market through speculation. It's why our food prices are spiraling and our gas is too high. Are these the "earners"? They are legally fucking the country good and using that money to buy right wing politicians to make sure it stays legal. Seems to be working. The Republican base sees that as a "good thing".
And many of those people make that money from the stock market through speculation. It's why our food prices are spiraling and our gas is too high. Are these the "earners"? They are legally fucking the country good and using that money to buy right wing politicians to make sure it stays legal. Seems to be working. The Republican base sees that as a "good thing".
buying stock doesn't increase the price of anything. In fact, it probably reduces prices by providing capital to companies so they can expand production. It's also doesn't meet the definition of "speculation."
All you've proven is that your ideas are based on total ignorance of economics.
Food and fuel are sold on the commodities markets, not the stock market.And many of those people make that money from the stock market through speculation.Middle class conservatives love giving it all to the top 1%.
the top 1% of earners in this country earn about 19% of the income but pay nearly 37% of the income tax in this country, so what the fuck are you babbling about?
Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes — The American Magazine
Are you really okay with around 40% of Americans paying NO income tax?
It's why our food prices are spiraling and our gas is too high
You're talking to someone who believes the tax code is a means through which to exact social justice.Middle class conservatives love giving it all to the top 1%.
the top 1% of earners in this country earn about 19% of the income but pay nearly 37% of the income tax in this country, so what the fuck are you babbling about?
Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes — The American Magazine
Are you really okay with around 40% of Americans paying NO income tax?
So they can keep more of they money they make.if you give some sector a tax break and you do not give all the other sectors of tax collection an equal tax break, then you ARE GIVING that "business" as an example, money. Money that other tax payers still have to pay out of their income....and you are putting more of the tax burden on to these other sectors of the tax base with the higher deficits being accumilated due to giving SOME tax breaks.
No, you aren't giving them money. That's like saying if a thief steals $1000 from all your neighbors but only steals $500 from you, then he has given you $500.
Not taking your money is not giving you money.
if you are NOT "giving them more money" to use, via giving them a tax break, then why bother giving them a tax break?
So they can keep more of they money they make.No, you aren't giving them money. That's like saying if a thief steals $1000 from all your neighbors but only steals $500 from you, then he has given you $500.
Not taking your money is not giving you money.
if you are NOT "giving them more money" to use, via giving them a tax break, then why bother giving them a tax break?
There is a fundamental - and glaringly obvious - difference between giving someone money and not takimg money from them.
If anyone pays taxes, then everyone should pay taxes.Is it okay to not take tax money from all those people that the rightwing bitch and moan about....the 40% of americans that pay no income tax?So they can keep more of they money they make.if you are NOT "giving them more money" to use, via giving them a tax break, then why bother giving them a tax break?
There is a fundamental - and glaringly obvious - difference between giving someone money and not takimg money from them.
The rightwing voter has been lied to again.
Wealth distribution starts when you protect the owners of business from competition, but not the workers (see globalization).
Here is how it works. First, you stop enforcing the Sherman Act & anti-trust laws... then you flood the country with cheap Mexican labor... then you free capital to go to the 3rd world for sweat shop labor. All these things have the effect of redistributing wealth upward.
(But you give none of these protections to labor, which must compete with Taiwanese workers who make $2 a day)
The current distribution system is rigged in favor of capital. It is rigged in favor of people who can afford to buy politicians.
If a Mexican lawyer came into California and tried to practice law illegally, he would get nowhere. He would go to jail. Same thing with a Mexican doctor. If a Mexican laborer slipped across the border, however, he would find work instantly. Wealthy professions are protected from competition, whereas the jobs of the poor are not. This is a distributive act which protects the wealthy from competition.
Why don't we hear about how the distribution system is rigged in favor of capital and the wealthy? -because the poor can't afford to buy the doctrinal system and pump out propaganda.
The redistribution doesn't stop there. Big business lobbies Washington for monopoly control over health insurance, communications, energy, pharmaceuticals, and fill-in-the-industry. The merge and consolidate and eliminate the kinds of competition that would lower prices. They capture regulators and pay to have anti-trust laws weakened. (What do you think lobbying is for?)
All of this stuff redistributes wealth upward.
Surely the rightwing voter understands that the distribution system is thoroughly rigged in favor of the people wealthy enough to buy government.
(You people can't this naive. The OP is repeating talk radio garbage)
(wow, just wow)
Dean Baker could not have said it any better.The rightwing voter has been lied to again.
Wealth distribution starts when you protect the owners of business from competition, but not the workers (see globalization).
Here is how it works. First, you stop enforcing the Sherman Act & anti-trust laws... then you flood the country with cheap Mexican labor... then you free capital to go to the 3rd world for sweat shop labor. All these things have the effect of redistributing wealth upward.
(But you give none of these protections to labor, which must compete with Taiwanese workers who make $2 a day)
The current distribution system is rigged in favor of capital. It is rigged in favor of people who can afford to buy politicians.
If a Mexican lawyer came into California and tried to practice law illegally, he would get nowhere. He would go to jail. Same thing with a Mexican doctor. If a Mexican laborer slipped across the border, however, he would find work instantly. Wealthy professions are protected from competition, whereas the jobs of the poor are not. This is a distributive act which protects the wealthy from competition.
Why don't we hear about how the distribution system is rigged in favor of capital and the wealthy? -because the poor can't afford to buy the doctrinal system and pump out propaganda.
The redistribution doesn't stop there. Big business lobbies Washington for monopoly control over health insurance, communications, energy, pharmaceuticals, and fill-in-the-industry. The merge and consolidate and eliminate the kinds of competition that would force them to lower prices. They capture regulators and pay to have anti-trust laws weakened. (What do you think lobbying is for?)
All of this stuff redistributes wealth upward.
Surely the rightwing voter understands that the distribution system is thoroughly rigged in favor of the people wealthy enough to buy government.
(You people can't be this naive. The OP is repeating stuff he has never studied in a rigorous university context)
(wow, just wow)
Do you believe money is a commodity?The rightwing voter has been lied to again.
Wealth distribution starts when you protect the owners of business from competition, but not the workers (see globalization).
Here is how it works. First, you stop enforcing the Sherman Act & anti-trust laws... then you flood the country with cheap Mexican labor... then you free capital to go to the 3rd world for sweat shop labor. All these things have the effect of redistributing wealth upward.
(But you give none of these protections to labor, which must compete with Taiwanese workers who make $2 a day)
The current distribution system is rigged in favor of capital. It is rigged in favor of people who can afford to buy politicians.
If a Mexican lawyer came into California and tried to practice law illegally, he would get nowhere. He would go to jail. Same thing with a Mexican doctor. If a Mexican laborer slipped across the border, however, he would find work instantly. Wealthy professions are protected from competition, whereas the jobs of the poor are not. This is a distributive act which protects the wealthy from competition.
Why don't we hear about how the distribution system is rigged in favor of capital and the wealthy? -because the poor can't afford to buy the doctrinal system and pump out propaganda.
The redistribution doesn't stop there. Big business lobbies Washington for monopoly control over health insurance, communications, energy, pharmaceuticals, and fill-in-the-industry. The merge and consolidate and eliminate the kinds of competition that would lower prices. They capture regulators and pay to have anti-trust laws weakened. (What do you think lobbying is for?)
All of this stuff redistributes wealth upward.
Surely the rightwing voter understands that the distribution system is thoroughly rigged in favor of the people wealthy enough to buy government.
(You people can't this naive. The OP is repeating talk radio garbage)
(wow, just wow)
Actually there might be some truth in what you say, but you've got the major issue wrong. Wealth is not redistributed upward, it is created at all levels but primarily at the top cuz the rich guys have the most to invest. The wads of money a rich guy makes does not come at the expense of a bunch of poor people, when Bill gates makes a billion dollars a year or whatever, it's not like a hundred million or so other people lost that money, it's not zero sum.
Kiddies....all GOVERNMENT is, one way or the other, wealth redistribution.
We can debate specific policies, of course, and we ought to, too.
But to end wealth redistribution entirely demands that we have NO government.
Kiddies....all GOVERNMENT is, one way or the other, wealth redistribution.
We can debate specific policies, of course, and we ought to, too.
But to end wealth redistribution entirely demands that we have NO government.
The redistribution of wealth is a new dynamic. Taxes were always taken to run administration and services of the country. Floating a welfare nation is a new development.
My objection is that it creates a large pocket of weakness in the country, is an economic drain on resources that could be better spent and was never the original intent of the taxation system. I have no problem of government programs that spur the economy by providing temporary jobs like FDR did. But people worked for that money and provided services that built America. It was no free ride, which is what it has become.Kiddies....all GOVERNMENT is, one way or the other, wealth redistribution.
We can debate specific policies, of course, and we ought to, too.
But to end wealth redistribution entirely demands that we have NO government.
The redistribution of wealth is a new dynamic. Taxes were always taken to run administration and services of the country. Floating a welfare nation is a new development.
And is your objection to said floating borne of concern that it's economically unsustainable or because it violates some subjective standard of righteousness?
