Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[Chuz Life]

Ok. So, are "those providing labor" rich people or poor people?

They're just people. But productivity has increased, yet wages remain largely stagnant. So where are all those profits going?

One thing at a time.

I am trying to make the point that a "tax on the rich is a tax on the poor."

You are claiming that the rich are STEALING off of their workers by not paying them enough for their labor.

Correct?

 

[JonKoch]

Got it you want to conflate debt with a yearly budget *Shaking head*

HINT, BJ BILL HAD 4 SURPLUSES, 3 AFTER VETOING THOSE FISCAL GOP'S $792 BILLION TAX CUT, THEN DUBYA WAS ELECTED, LOL

Four surpluses and STILL added $1.4 trillion to the national debt??

So, basically, what you're saying is that during the first four years when Dems were in charge of Congress, they spent like drunken sailors, but during the last four years that Congress was controlled by the Republicans, he followed their lead, announced that " ... the era of big government is over ... " adopted their sane fiscal approach, and were able to offset all but $1.36 trillion of the debacle from the first 4 years.

Yes, DEBT is different than a yearly budget, but BJ Bill got US back to 20% of GDP after not a single GOPer voted for the 1993 tax increases that created the surpluses



BTW, this is what the GOPers were saying about the 1993 tax bill


FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’
FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’




After BJ Bill had his first budget surplus, he had to veto the GOP's $792+ billion tax cut to get three more, then Dubya was installed as Prez and the GOP had control of the economy

but Obama increased the debt by how much?

what does decreasing the deficit matter when we just borrow more to maintain and increase our spending?

AGAIN, Care to point to POLICIES under Obama that created the debt?

HINT Dubya took BJ Bill's 20% of GDP and dropped it to 14.6% AS he blew up spending to nearly 24% of GDP AS he cheered on the Banksters subprime bubble. TRY to think

What does decreasing the deficit by 2/3rds compared to the one the GOPer handed you????

tell me what creates debt?

SPENDING more than revenue
Obama signed off on spending proposals during his terms that nearly doubled the debt

that was his policy

and as I stated a deficit is merely a one year stat debt is collective so tell me why obsess about a one year deficit when the government will just borrow more every year to keep feeding its spending addiction?

Got it, you will not admit POLICY INHERITED by Obama versus policy CREATED by Ronnie/Dubya created debt.

Hint taking revenues from 19.6%-20% (CARTER/CLINTON) of GDP to 14.6%-17.4% as Dubya/Ronnie did was POLICY that created the debt along with Dubya's 2 UNFUNDED wars Bubs



Spending addiction? LMAOROG

 

[JonKoch]

Would that be a statistics class where you're taught cutting tax revenue will somehow increase tax revenue?

obviously the more you tax the more you kill the economy and less revenue you collect

LMAOROG, Gawd you are as dumb as a rock

Study: Optimal Top Tax Rate For The Rich Is 70 Percent

According research by Nobel Prize-winning economist Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez, the optimal top income tax rate for wealthy earners is about 70 percent, far below today’s top rate of 35 percent. Diamond and Saez argue that the top tax rate should be set at the point where it maximizes revenue, which can then be used to aid lower-income Americans. They also note that “even increasing the average federal income tax rate of the top percentile to 43.5 percent, which would be sufficient to raise revenue by 3 percentage points of GDP, would still leave the after-tax income share of the top percentile more than twice as high as in 1970.”
Study: Optimal Top Tax Rate For The Rich Is 70 Percent

YOU DO KNOW THERE IS A LEFT AND RIGHT OF LAFFER'S CURVE RIGHT? RONNIE REAGAN HAD A TOP RATE OF 50% WHEN YOU KLOWNS CLAIM THE ECONOMY WAS BOOMING!!!

Once again, simplicity has tripped you up.

What was the net tax rate during the period of 50%? How much wages/income was going to taxes?

What is the net tax rate today? It isn't only about income tax, or only about capital gains tax, or only about sales tax, or only about corporate tax. It is the collective impact of the overall tax load.

You mean when Carter left 19.6% of GDP and Ronnie GUTTED it to 17.4%?

TAXES ON THE RICH GREATLY WERE REDUCED BUBS, BUT RONNIE INCREASED TAXES ON THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS 11 TIMES TO MAKE UP REVENUES!

Are you EVER going to have a valid point Bubs?

You always want to reduce taxes on the rich since they're the ones that create businesses and make the economy grow in . The top 1% pay 40% of all income tax that represents a huge loss of productivity from our most important people.

LMAOROG, You mean the income tax that is simply 24% of ALL US taxes?

Weird when they paid MUCH higher taxes there weren't any jobs or growth Bubs?

Most important people? LMAOROG

The Failure of Supply-Side Economics. Three Decades of Empirical Economic Data Shows That Supply-Side Economics Doesn't Work

The Failure of Supply-Side Economics - Center for American Progress

 

[JonKoch]

Got it you want to conflate debt with a yearly budget *Shaking head*

HINT, BJ BILL HAD 4 SURPLUSES, 3 AFTER VETOING THOSE FISCAL GOP'S $792 BILLION TAX CUT, THEN DUBYA WAS ELECTED, LOL

Four surpluses and STILL added $1.4 trillion to the national debt??

So, basically, what you're saying is that during the first four years when Dems were in charge of Congress, they spent like drunken sailors, but during the last four years that Congress was controlled by the Republicans, he followed their lead, announced that " ... the era of big government is over ... " adopted their sane fiscal approach, and were able to offset all but $1.36 trillion of the debacle from the first 4 years.

Yes, DEBT is different than a yearly budget, but BJ Bill got US back to 20% of GDP after not a single GOPer voted for the 1993 tax increases that created the surpluses



BTW, this is what the GOPers were saying about the 1993 tax bill


FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’
FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’




After BJ Bill had his first budget surplus, he had to veto the GOP's $792+ billion tax cut to get three more, then Dubya was installed as Prez and the GOP had control of the economy

but Obama increased the debt by how much?

what does decreasing the deficit matter when we just borrow more to maintain and increase our spending?

STILL waiting for the policies passed under Obama that created this debt you righties LOVE to talk about?

I mean it can't be Dubya inheriting a Gov't with 20% of GDP revenues and spending while leaving Obama 14.6% revenues and almost 24% on spending could it???

well I hate to make your tiny brain explode but I am neither right nor left. I unlike you can think in more than 2 dimensions

More right wing BS Bubs, I see from your comments who you are


Hint libertarians are farrr right on economics as well as the myths and fairy tales they believe in!


BUT YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION???

 

[JonKoch]

but Obama increased the debt by how much?

what does decreasing the deficit matter when we just borrow more to maintain and increase our spending?

STILL waiting for the policies passed under Obama that created this debt you righties LOVE to talk about?

I mean it can't be Dubya inheriting a Gov't with 20% of GDP revenues and spending while leaving Obama 14.6% revenues and almost 24% on spending could it???

well I hate to make your tiny brain explode but I am neither right nor left. I unlike you can think in more than 2 dimensions

Actually there are only two dimensions in all of political philosophy over all ages: freedom versus government. Do you understand

funny but the government part of freedom vs government has many dimensions do you understand?

No founders believed government is one dimension and that dimension should be tiny

LMAOROG

MUST be why the got rid of that "states rights" thing for the larger, central Gov't Constitution??? lol

 

[JonKoch]

Would that be a statistics class where you're taught cutting tax revenue will somehow increase tax revenue?

obviously the more you tax the more you kill the economy and less revenue you collect

LMAOROG, Gawd you are as dumb as a rock

Study: Optimal Top Tax Rate For The Rich Is 70 Percent

According research by Nobel Prize-winning economist Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez, the optimal top income tax rate for wealthy earners is about 70 percent, far below today’s top rate of 35 percent. Diamond and Saez argue that the top tax rate should be set at the point where it maximizes revenue, which can then be used to aid lower-income Americans. They also note that “even increasing the average federal income tax rate of the top percentile to 43.5 percent, which would be sufficient to raise revenue by 3 percentage points of GDP, would still leave the after-tax income share of the top percentile more than twice as high as in 1970.”
Study: Optimal Top Tax Rate For The Rich Is 70 Percent

YOU DO KNOW THERE IS A LEFT AND RIGHT OF LAFFER'S CURVE RIGHT? RONNIE REAGAN HAD A TOP RATE OF 50% WHEN YOU KLOWNS CLAIM THE ECONOMY WAS BOOMING!!!

Once again, simplicity has tripped you up.

What was the net tax rate during the period of 50%? How much wages/income was going to taxes?

What is the net tax rate today? It isn't only about income tax, or only about capital gains tax, or only about sales tax, or only about corporate tax. It is the collective impact of the overall tax load.

You mean when Carter left 19.6% of GDP and Ronnie GUTTED it to 17.4%?

TAXES ON THE RICH GREATLY WERE REDUCED BUBS, BUT RONNIE INCREASED TAXES ON THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS 11 TIMES TO MAKE UP REVENUES!

Are you EVER going to have a valid point Bubs?

TAXES ON THE RICH GREATLY WERE REDUCED BUBS, BUT RONNIE INCREASED TAXES ON THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS 11 TIMES TO MAKE UP REVENUES!

It's a good thing the tax cuts for the poor and middle class were larger than the hikes, eh?

Well the treasury disagrees Bubs, the middle 40% (between bottom 40%-80%) paid more federal taxes in 1989 than 1980!

But glad to see you think it's ok to not only starve US treasury of revenues BUT to benefit those at the very top the most which is what Reaganomics is

 

[The Derp]

Cutting taxes on individuals in the 80s seemed to help.

Did it, though? Almost immediately after Reagan's 1981 tax cut, the unemployment rate shot up to a record high of 10.8% by the end of 1982, more than a year after the cuts were passed, and one year with them in effect. Then the Fed lowered interest rates throughout 1982, and increased spending by $32B for 1983. Those things had more to do with revenue growth than the mysterious tax cuts that don't pay for themselves, and never will. Reagan then raised taxes 11 times the rest of his term. How can this be if tax cuts are so wonderful?

Cutting taxes on individuals increases after tax income.

No. It increases household debt. That's it. The reason is because tax cuts have to be paid by something, since they don't pay for themselves (despite Conservatives saying over and over they do), that something always ends up being increased sales and excise taxes, as well as increased tuition and health care costs. Why? Because by cutting revenues, you produce deficits. Those deficits have to be closed somehow. And what is always first on the chopping block? Education. We saw it in Kansas last year. Taxes were cut, massive deficits appeared, the BBA in KS meant that the deficit gap had to be closed. So how did they close it? By raiding the welfare block grant (meaning tax cuts are dependent on welfare), by shutting down Public schools early, and by hiking tuition costs at Kansas' state colleges. We saw the same thing happen in Arizona, Wisconsin, and Louisiana too. In fact, those cuts cost Brownback his teabag KS legislature, cost Jindal his governorship, and cost Walker his credibility (not like he had any in the first place, but whatevs).

The government has pumped trillions into college spending and you're surprised prices have jumped? You never tried again after you failed Econ 101, did you?

Moron, when the government "pours money" into higher education, it does so to decrease tuition costs for students. When government cuts education spending to pay for tax cuts we were promised would pay for themselves, that increases tuition costs because schools have to make up for the funding gap that came from spending cuts. Looks like you need to go back and take Intro to Math for Remedial Students again.

They were too high.

According to whom? Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and created over 22,000,000 jobs. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and lost 460,000. Bush cut taxes because, in his own words, "surpluses mean we are overtaxed" (how are you supposed to pay down debt if you don't have surpluses?) and in Greenspan's own words, that paying off the debt too soon "wouldn't be fair to the bondholders". The whole reasoning behind the Bush Tax Cuts -besides the false promise they would pay for themselves- was more of the same trickle-down bullshit nonsense we've heard the last 40 years. It took a housing bubble in order to get the economy moving again. A housing bubble you blame on Clinton and the Democrats. But doing so means you cannot credit Bush for the resulting growth from that housing bubble. You can't give Bush credit for something while blaming everyone else for the consequences of that thing. I mean, you can, but you're just being shitty when you do.

I paid down my household debt with my tax cut.

And right on cue comes the unverifiable Conservative anecdote that is supposed to be a substitute for actual fact. I don't believe you when you make these wild claims. You wouldn't believe me if I told you I was Tom Brady, so why the fuck should I believe you when you make claims about yourself?

ou think tax cuts can be blamed for private sector job loss? Wait...you're trying to make liberals look stupid. Now your posts make sense. Thanks!

Hold the phone, dude! The promise of tax cuts was that they would create jobs and growth. Neither of which happened. So the promise is bullshit, which makes the policy bullshit. Tax cuts kill jobs. We saw it during Reagan (unemployment spiked immediately after the tax cuts were passed), going from 7.4% in August 1981 (the month Reagan's tax cut was passed), up to 10.8% unemployment by December 1982. So if tax cuts create jobs, where were all the jobs? The only conclusion we can make is that cutting taxes did nothing to increase consumer demand, which flat-lined resulting in a decline of business expansion and layoffs.

 

[JonKoch]

Why would consumer spending be flat with an across the board tax cut and increased business formation?

There is no proof tax cuts increased business formation at all. Consumer spending is flat because wages are flat as inflation takes hold. People are making nearly the same they did before, but inflation has caused prices to rise, meaning they have less to spend in the consumer economy because their wages were flat, and user fees for things like college tuition, excise taxes, and others increased because of a drop in revenues that create deficits, that lead to spending cuts.

Why did Bush cut taxes in 2001? He didn't need to. All it did was spike household debt while costing 70,000 private sector jobs from 2001-4. After 8 years of Bush Tax Cuts, private sector employment declined by 460,000. So do tax cuts create jobs? No.

There is no proof tax cuts increased business formation at all.

Cutting taxes on individuals in the 80s seemed to help.
You disagree?

Cutting regulations helped as well.

Consumer spending is flat because wages are flat

Cutting taxes on individuals increases after tax income.

user fees for things like college tuition....and others increased

The government has pumped trillions into college spending and you're surprised prices have jumped?
You never tried again after you failed Econ 101, did you?

Why did Bush cut taxes in 2001?

They were too high.

All it did was spike household debt

I paid down my household debt with my tax cut.

while costing 70,000 private sector jobs from 2001-4.

You think tax cuts can be blamed for private sector job loss?
Wait...you're trying to make liberals look stupid. Now your posts make sense. Thanks!

"Cutting taxes on individuals in the 80s seemed to help.
You disagree?"


Source? Ronnie gutted taxes from 70% to 50% and unemployment did the opposite of what was promised, it went to 10.8%, highest post WW2 level and took 28 months to get below 8%???



"Cutting regulations helped as well."

LMAOROG, WHICH "REGULATION" WAS THAT? YOU MEAN OVERSIGHT?



"FREE MARKET" MISES:

]
Deregulation. Another crucial aspect of freeing the market and getting government off our backs is deregulation, and the administration and its Reaganomists have been very proud of its deregulation record. However, a look at the record reveals a very different picture. In the first place, the most conspicuous examples of deregulation; the ending of oil and gasoline price controls and rationing, the deregulation of trucks and airlines, were all launched by the Carter administration, and completed just in time for the Reagan administration to claim the credit. Meanwhile, there were other promised deregulations that never took place; for example, abolition of natural gas controls and of the Department of Energy.


Overall, in fact, there has probably been not deregulation, but an increase in regulation. Thus, Christopher De Muth, head of the American Enterprise Institute and a former top official of Reagan's Office of Management and the Budget, concludes that "the President has not mounted a broad offensive against regulation. There hasn't been much total change since 1981. There has been more balanced administration of regulatory agencies than we had become used to in the 1970s, but many regulatory rules have been strengthened."

The Myths of Reaganomics


BTW, HOUSEHOLD DEBT DOUBLED UNDER DUBYA, IN JUST 7 YEARS

 

[JonKoch]

REALLY? LMAOROG

We can't dare touch those babies with the obligation to fund OUR Gov't or they'll put their money under their pillows???

Idiot.

Let's go through this slowly with some q&a.

1. Where do rich people and their businesses get their money from?

Generally theft

Okay, your answer is idiotic as hell.... But let's run with it. Who does the rich and their big businesses "steal" from?

Those providing labor

Ok. So, are "those providing labor" rich people or poor people?

Working people cheated, generally, by the "job creator" class Bubs


NOW back to why those "job creators" who receive 250%-400% of ALL US income post 1981-present than they did 1945-1980 (6%-10%), WHILE paying a MUCH smaller tax burden need a reduction in taxes? Besides the rights desire to blow up debt, to "starve the beast"!!!!

 

[JonKoch]

Ok. So, are "those providing labor" rich people or poor people?

They're just people. But productivity has increased, yet wages remain largely stagnant. So where are all those profits going?

One thing at a time.

I am trying to make the point that a "tax on the rich is a tax on the poor."

You are claiming that the rich are STEALING off of their workers by not paying them enough for their labor.

Correct?

THAT'S JUST BS

The U.S. Treasury uses a rate of 82 percent of Corp tax burden falling on OWNERS OF CAPITAL

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/TP-5.pdf

Corporate tax: the great incidence hoax
Corporate tax: the great incidence hoax - Tax Justice Network


OF COURSE THAT "JOB CREATOR" CLASS SURE HAS SPENT BILLIONS TO PARROT YOUR BS TALKING POINTS AS THEIR WEALTH HAS EXPLODED SINCE REAGANOMICS!

 

[JonKoch]

Bull shit. Looks like you never took a statistics class or failed one.

Would that be a statistics class where you're taught cutting tax revenue will somehow increase tax revenue?

obviously the more you tax the more you kill the economy and less revenue you collect

LMAOROG, Gawd you are as dumb as a rock

Study: Optimal Top Tax Rate For The Rich Is 70 Percent

According research by Nobel Prize-winning economist Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez, the optimal top income tax rate for wealthy earners is about 70 percent, far below today’s top rate of 35 percent. Diamond and Saez argue that the top tax rate should be set at the point where it maximizes revenue, which can then be used to aid lower-income Americans. They also note that “even increasing the average federal income tax rate of the top percentile to 43.5 percent, which would be sufficient to raise revenue by 3 percentage points of GDP, would still leave the after-tax income share of the top percentile more than twice as high as in 1970.”
Study: Optimal Top Tax Rate For The Rich Is 70 Percent

YOU DO KNOW THERE IS A LEFT AND RIGHT OF LAFFER'S CURVE RIGHT? RONNIE REAGAN HAD A TOP RATE OF 50% WHEN YOU KLOWNS CLAIM THE ECONOMY WAS BOOMING!!!

Once again, simplicity has tripped you up.

What was the net tax rate during the period of 50%? How much wages/income was going to taxes?

What is the net tax rate today? It isn't only about income tax, or only about capital gains tax, or only about sales tax, or only about corporate tax. It is the collective impact of the overall tax load.

I'll wait patiently for your response on tax incidence on Corps being 82% (ON OWNERS OF CAPITAL) according to treasury


HERE:
Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

 

[Chuz Life]

Ok. So, are "those providing labor" rich people or poor people?

They're just people. But productivity has increased, yet wages remain largely stagnant. So where are all those profits going?

One thing at a time.

I am trying to make the point that a "tax on the rich is a tax on the poor."

You are claiming that the rich are STEALING off of their workers by not paying them enough for their labor.

Correct?

THAT'S JUST BS

The U.S. Treasury uses a rate of 82 percent of Corp tax burden falling on OWNERS OF CAPITAL

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/TP-5.pdf

Corporate tax: the great incidence hoax
Corporate tax: the great incidence hoax - Tax Justice Network


OF COURSE THAT "JOB CREATOR" CLASS SURE HAS SPENT BILLIONS TO PARROT YOUR BS TALKING POINTS AS THEIR WEALTH HAS EXPLODED SINCE REAGANOMICS!

Your deflecting will not work on me.

Where do the rich get their money from?

 

[JonKoch]

Ok. So, are "those providing labor" rich people or poor people?

They're just people. But productivity has increased, yet wages remain largely stagnant. So where are all those profits going?

One thing at a time.

I am trying to make the point that a "tax on the rich is a tax on the poor."

You are claiming that the rich are STEALING off of their workers by not paying them enough for their labor.

Correct?

THAT'S JUST BS

The U.S. Treasury uses a rate of 82 percent of Corp tax burden falling on OWNERS OF CAPITAL

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/TP-5.pdf

Corporate tax: the great incidence hoax
Corporate tax: the great incidence hoax - Tax Justice Network


OF COURSE THAT "JOB CREATOR" CLASS SURE HAS SPENT BILLIONS TO PARROT YOUR BS TALKING POINTS AS THEIR WEALTH HAS EXPLODED SINCE REAGANOMICS!

Your deflecting will not work on me.

Where do the rich get their money from?

TAX POLICY SURE HAS HELPED THE PAST 36 YEARS BUBBA

I'll note YOU IGNORE THE CORP TAX INCIDENCE AND WHO IT FALLS ON HOWEVER

 

[JonKoch]

Ok. So, are "those providing labor" rich people or poor people?

They're just people. But productivity has increased, yet wages remain largely stagnant. So where are all those profits going?

One thing at a time.

I am trying to make the point that a "tax on the rich is a tax on the poor."

You are claiming that the rich are STEALING off of their workers by not paying them enough for their labor.

Correct?

THAT'S JUST BS

The U.S. Treasury uses a rate of 82 percent of Corp tax burden falling on OWNERS OF CAPITAL

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/TP-5.pdf

Corporate tax: the great incidence hoax
Corporate tax: the great incidence hoax - Tax Justice Network


OF COURSE THAT "JOB CREATOR" CLASS SURE HAS SPENT BILLIONS TO PARROT YOUR BS TALKING POINTS AS THEIR WEALTH HAS EXPLODED SINCE REAGANOMICS!

Your deflecting will not work on me.

Where do the rich get their money from?

 

[Chuz Life]

Your spam and diversions do not answer the question...

"Where does the rich get their money from?"

 

[JonKoch]

Your spam and diversions do not answer the question...

"Where does the rich get their money from?"

Your ability to try to stick to one talking point is noted Bubs

You'll note CONTEXT that tax cuts for the rich ARE and have been the biggest gain by those "job creators" since 1980's

(Hint it's called TAX POLICY)...

 

[The Derp]

One thing at a time.

But they're intrinsically linked. A worker increasing their productivity should result in a wage increase, right? Well, worker productivity has increased, corporate profits have increased, yet worker wages have remained stagnant. So to where are all those profits going?

I am trying to make the point that a "tax on the rich is a tax on the poor."

Actually, a tax cut for the rich is a tax increase for the poor. The reason is because tax cuts result in revenue drops, and those revenue drops result in deficits. To close deficits, spending is cut or excise taxes are raised. In the case of spending cuts for example, the first thing always on the chopping block is education. So a state misses revenue projections because of tax cuts, then the state has a BBA that requires them to balance the budget, so they do that by cutting finding to education and health care, and/or they raid the welfare block grant, or they raise excise and sales taxes. So that's how the poor end up paying for tax cuts for the rich, who are supposed to trickle-down, right???

You are claiming that the rich are STEALING off of their workers by not paying them enough for their labor.Correct?

That's exactly correct.

 

[JonKoch]

Ok. So, are "those providing labor" rich people or poor people?

They're just people. But productivity has increased, yet wages remain largely stagnant. So where are all those profits going?

One thing at a time.

I am trying to make the point that a "tax on the rich is a tax on the poor."

You are claiming that the rich are STEALING off of their workers by not paying them enough for their labor.

Correct?

"I am trying to make the point that a "tax on the rich is a tax on the poor."-"


I guess i knocked THAT premise out of the park and you refused to comment on it Bubs

YOU MUST HAVE JUST "MISSED" THIS POST TO YOU RIGHT??

Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

Ok. So, are "those providing labor" rich people or poor people?

They're just people. But productivity has increased, yet wages remain largely stagnant. So where are all those profits going?

One thing at a time.

I am trying to make the point that a "tax on the rich is a tax on the poor."

You are claiming that the rich are STEALING off of their workers by not paying them enough for their labor.

Correct?

Yes, that is the left wing position, the democrats have been advancing through politics.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage to actually work, makes rational choice theory, sense.

 

[The Derp]

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage to actually work, makes rational choice theory, sense.

Very valid point. A better case would be to use the real-world example of Walmart.

Walmart made $14B in profits last year (not revenue, but profit)
It costs US Taxpayers about $5B a year to provide Walmart workers with assistance benefits like SNAP, Medicaid, etc.
So we are subsidizing more than 1/3 of Walmart's profits because they don't pay their workers a high enough wage.

So wondering why those on the right are perfectly OK with taxpayers subsidizing more than 1/3 of Walmart's profits, yet they get all screechy the minute anyone talks about spending more on education or health care.