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.
"They want to wreck the economy and take down free market capitalism "That's obvious. I enjoy watching them panic as argument after argument is stripped away from them.hadit, they are stupid with Socialism! They don't care! That's the big ruse here! They argue like they care about capitalism... like they care about people... the truth is, they don't care about anything other than destroying capitalism and installing socialism. They will lie, mislead, pretend to be intellectual... whatever it takes.
That's the thing, they really don't have an argument. Not an honest one. They pretend like they are arguing about the economy and how to make things better... they don't give two shits about the economy or making things better. They want to wreck the economy and take down free market capitalism because they're communist scum. It's how they operate. Convince a lot of really gullible people into thinking they have the best of intentions when their true intent is to destroy this free market capitalist system.
"Free market capitalism" is a stupid statement, it can never exist, it never will. Monopolies, corruption, greed..
The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon.The truth hurts.Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth
Is it true that increasing taxes on the wealthy will always cause a reduction in economic growth? If we tax the wealthy at, say, 50 percent, and the reward from a new, innovative product is only $50 million instead of $100 million, would that reduce effort? Would you work any less for “only” $50 million?
There is likely a margin at which such a reduction in the reward for effort matters, a promise of $80,000 per year is a lot different from a promise of $40,000, but this can be overcome through progressive taxation. Taxes on the wealthiest households, even taxes that are quite large, are unlikely to have much of an effect, if any, on innovative activity.
Some types of taxes on the wealthy may even enhance economic growth. There is mounting evidence, for example, that too much inequality reduces growth, so taxes that are used to promote equality can also promote growth. In addition, economic growth can be increased through a large estate tax on the wealthiest households.
Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth
"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
Now that's funny!
Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
"The causes of wealth inequality?" The idea that wealth could ever be equally distributed is absurd.
The determination was made entirely on bullshit. You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.
Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality. The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching. Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy. Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.
"They want to wreck the economy and take down free market capitalism "That's obvious. I enjoy watching them panic as argument after argument is stripped away from them.hadit, they are stupid with Socialism! They don't care! That's the big ruse here! They argue like they care about capitalism... like they care about people... the truth is, they don't care about anything other than destroying capitalism and installing socialism. They will lie, mislead, pretend to be intellectual... whatever it takes.
That's the thing, they really don't have an argument. Not an honest one. They pretend like they are arguing about the economy and how to make things better... they don't give two shits about the economy or making things better. They want to wreck the economy and take down free market capitalism because they're communist scum. It's how they operate. Convince a lot of really gullible people into thinking they have the best of intentions when their true intent is to destroy this free market capitalist system.
"Free market capitalism" is a stupid statement, it can never exist, it never will. Monopolies, corruption, greed..
Pure socialism has never existed either. Yet, you call yourself a socialist. The fact is that the closer a country gets to free market capitalism, the faster its economy grows. The empirical evidence on that score is irrefutable.
LOL. Because countries with high tax rates on the wealthy are OBVIOUSLY experiencing this.We have to take care of our billionaires otherwise they'll leave us.
And once they're gone, they are gone forever.
And then what will we ever do?
You'll go back to your tin shack and eat your gruel by torch light.
The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon.The truth hurts."Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
Now that's funny!
Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
"The causes of wealth inequality?" The idea that wealth could ever be equally distributed is absurd.
The determination was made entirely on bullshit. You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.
Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality. The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching. Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy. Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.
"They want to wreck the economy and take down free market capitalism "That's obvious. I enjoy watching them panic as argument after argument is stripped away from them.hadit, they are stupid with Socialism! They don't care! That's the big ruse here! They argue like they care about capitalism... like they care about people... the truth is, they don't care about anything other than destroying capitalism and installing socialism. They will lie, mislead, pretend to be intellectual... whatever it takes.
That's the thing, they really don't have an argument. Not an honest one. They pretend like they are arguing about the economy and how to make things better... they don't give two shits about the economy or making things better. They want to wreck the economy and take down free market capitalism because they're communist scum. It's how they operate. Convince a lot of really gullible people into thinking they have the best of intentions when their true intent is to destroy this free market capitalist system.
"Free market capitalism" is a stupid statement, it can never exist, it never will. Monopolies, corruption, greed..
Pure socialism has never existed either. Yet, you call yourself a socialist. The fact is that the closer a country gets to free market capitalism, the faster its economy grows. The empirical evidence on that score is irrefutable.
BZZZ. Wrong
The US WAS a HEAVY protectionist society from the Founding until the early 1970's AND the times we WERE closest to the "hands off" approach, Harding/Coolidge, Ronnie's S&L and Dubya's subprime, the BUBBLES POPPED!
The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon.
"The causes of wealth inequality?" The idea that wealth could ever be equally distributed is absurd.
The determination was made entirely on bullshit. You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.
Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality. The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching. Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy. Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.
How does telling the truth make you "witless?"
Interesting. You do know, don't you Cletus, that your graph clearly shows the effective federal tax rates declining sharply BEFORE Reagan took office, right?I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
................................Total U S Debt............................
09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)
09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
Let's just make them pay 90%...
How.....?
Warren Buffet's salary is $100,000 a year. You can raise the top tax rate to 100%. He won't pay a dime more in taxes.
Zuckerberg has a salary of $1 a year. You can raise ALL taxes to 100%, and he won't pay a dime more in taxes.
You people think you can 'make' people pay taxes. Every country that has tried that, has failed.
LOOK AT WHAT EFFECTIVE RATES THE "JOB CREATORS" USED TO PAY, PRE REAGANOMICS!!
The Buffett Rule is part of a tax plan proposed by President Barack Obama in 2011.The tax plan would apply a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than a million dollars a year. According to a White House official, the new tax rate would directly affect 0.3 percent of taxpayers.
WEIRD THE GOP OPPOSES IT RIGHT?
Buffett Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon."The causes of wealth inequality?" The idea that wealth could ever be equally distributed is absurd.
The determination was made entirely on bullshit. You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.
Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality. The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching. Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy. Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.
How does telling the truth make you "witless?"
Oh sorry, I forgot the bottom 60% of US making less than $20,000 PER family (filing INCOME TAX RETURNS) are the moochers, NOT the "job creators" employing them and such low wages, the MUST get welfare to survive
"They want to wreck the economy and take down free market capitalism "That's obvious. I enjoy watching them panic as argument after argument is stripped away from them.
That's the thing, they really don't have an argument. Not an honest one. They pretend like they are arguing about the economy and how to make things better... they don't give two shits about the economy or making things better. They want to wreck the economy and take down free market capitalism because they're communist scum. It's how they operate. Convince a lot of really gullible people into thinking they have the best of intentions when their true intent is to destroy this free market capitalist system.
"Free market capitalism" is a stupid statement, it can never exist, it never will. Monopolies, corruption, greed..
Pure socialism has never existed either. Yet, you call yourself a socialist. The fact is that the closer a country gets to free market capitalism, the faster its economy grows. The empirical evidence on that score is irrefutable.
BZZZ. Wrong
The US WAS a HEAVY protectionist society from the Founding until the early 1970's AND the times we WERE closest to the "hands off" approach, Harding/Coolidge, Ronnie's S&L and Dubya's subprime, the BUBBLES POPPED!
We were "hands off" all during the 19th century, so your claim is absolute bullshit. Our tariff rates varied over the years. The last time we raised them sharply was at the beginning of the Great Depression. I suppose that was just a coincidence, eh?
Made entirely on bullshit? You have yet to even examine the study, and it looks at more then statistical data, of course, a willfully ignorant person like yourself has no interest in facts. Can never exist? Progressive taxation and strong labor participation in unions can help this, along with state regulations to benefit working people, like the minimum wage, labor laws, making sure workers can get back stolen pay, etc, etc.. Looting the wealthy? You see, this is the problem with you guys, you have this insane idea that taxation, which is allowed, is somehow looting. This is the 21st century, every country on earth conducts taxation, except somalia and other "free market" countries that lack an evil gubment to tell the rich what to do. Corrupt system of bribery? Yeah, you seem to be forgetting that american "democracy" is largely controlled by the candidates who manage to get the endorsements of the wealthy, we need public funding of elections and we need to end citizens united. Vote buying? Oh please, voters vote based on the party that has their interests in mind, that's how democracy works, you probably disagree with this, which is understandable, given you're a verified nut case. Crony capitalism? Ah, a classic phrase thrown out by "free market" worshipers who fail to understand that a "free market" can never exist, ever, it's impossible, everywhere it has had the chance to thrive, it has led to monopolies, horrid conditions, and, eventually, the formation of a strong government to control the "free market." Welfare leeching? Want to look at the facts of welfare? First, we have to determine how you define welfare, I'll go with this: "Welfare is the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens, sometimes referred to as public aid."The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon.The truth hurts.Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth
Is it true that increasing taxes on the wealthy will always cause a reduction in economic growth? If we tax the wealthy at, say, 50 percent, and the reward from a new, innovative product is only $50 million instead of $100 million, would that reduce effort? Would you work any less for “only” $50 million?
There is likely a margin at which such a reduction in the reward for effort matters, a promise of $80,000 per year is a lot different from a promise of $40,000, but this can be overcome through progressive taxation. Taxes on the wealthiest households, even taxes that are quite large, are unlikely to have much of an effect, if any, on innovative activity.
Some types of taxes on the wealthy may even enhance economic growth. There is mounting evidence, for example, that too much inequality reduces growth, so taxes that are used to promote equality can also promote growth. In addition, economic growth can be increased through a large estate tax on the wealthiest households.
Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth
"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
Now that's funny!
Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
"The causes of wealth inequality?" The idea that wealth could ever be equally distributed is absurd.
The determination was made entirely on bullshit. You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.
Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality. The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching. Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy. Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.
What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint? You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet. Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.You don't understand. Raising taxes without spending restraint is foolish in the extreme. It will only increase the debt. You don't give a meth addict money, hoping he'll better his life, because you KNOW he will simply buy more meth. Same with the crew now in Washington. With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity.we dont have the time to sit around and wait for your supposed pressure to build up to realization....we have to accept that from the beginning of the country basically a certain level of government spending is inevitable.....and that a certain level of tax revenue is needed.....now maybe you dont want to take it back up to even....but need more taxes on the rich now so that debt doesnt get past the point of no retrun.
well then put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.
well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........
How dare you think those "job creators" need to pay a min 30% fed tax burden like Obama has proposed for nearly 4 years, and the GOP blocked in the Senate and NEVER brought up in the House. You think the "job creator" will create a job paying taxes in the US???
Interesting. You do know, don't you Cletus, that your graph clearly shows the effective federal tax rates declining sharply BEFORE Reagan took office, right?Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:
................................Total U S Debt............................
09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)
09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
Let's just make them pay 90%...
How.....?
Warren Buffet's salary is $100,000 a year. You can raise the top tax rate to 100%. He won't pay a dime more in taxes.
Zuckerberg has a salary of $1 a year. You can raise ALL taxes to 100%, and he won't pay a dime more in taxes.
You people think you can 'make' people pay taxes. Every country that has tried that, has failed.
LOOK AT WHAT EFFECTIVE RATES THE "JOB CREATORS" USED TO PAY, PRE REAGANOMICS!!
The Buffett Rule is part of a tax plan proposed by President Barack Obama in 2011.The tax plan would apply a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than a million dollars a year. According to a White House official, the new tax rate would directly affect 0.3 percent of taxpayers.
WEIRD THE GOP OPPOSES IT RIGHT?
Buffett Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kennedy reduced it from 95% to 70%. That was the golden age, according to turds like dtwo3.
Yeah, which is why we need to raise taxes on capital gains, given the low tax rate on the income of the rich.What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint? You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet. Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.You don't understand. Raising taxes without spending restraint is foolish in the extreme. It will only increase the debt. You don't give a meth addict money, hoping he'll better his life, because you KNOW he will simply buy more meth. Same with the crew now in Washington. With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity.
well then put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.
well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........
How dare you think those "job creators" need to pay a min 30% fed tax burden like Obama has proposed for nearly 4 years, and the GOP blocked in the Senate and NEVER brought up in the House. You think the "job creator" will create a job paying taxes in the US???
That's funny since the "Buffet Rule" wouldn't affect that vast bulk of Buffet's income, which comes from capital gains. How like a liberal to propose tax increases that he wouldn't have to pay.
The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon.
The determination was made entirely on bullshit. You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.
Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality. The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching. Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy. Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.
How does telling the truth make you "witless?"
Oh sorry, I forgot the bottom 60% of US making less than $20,000 PER family (filing INCOME TAX RETURNS) are the moochers, NOT the "job creators" employing them and such low wages, the MUST get welfare to survive
The 60% makes a lot more than $20,000. If they would starve without welfare, that means before welfare 60% of the population must have starved to death. Is that what you're implying?
I should mention I do support lowering the corporate tax rate.Yeah, which is why we need to raise taxes on capital gains, given the low tax rate on the income of the rich.What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint? You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet. Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.well then put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.
well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........
How dare you think those "job creators" need to pay a min 30% fed tax burden like Obama has proposed for nearly 4 years, and the GOP blocked in the Senate and NEVER brought up in the House. You think the "job creator" will create a job paying taxes in the US???
That's funny since the "Buffet Rule" wouldn't affect that vast bulk of Buffet's income, which comes from capital gains. How like a liberal to propose tax increases that he wouldn't have to pay.
Made entirely on bullshit? You have yet to even examine the study, and it looks at more then statistical data, of course, a willfully ignorant person like yourself has no interest in facts. Can never exist? Progressive taxation and strong labor participation in unions can help this, along with state regulations to benefit working people, like the minimum wage, labor laws, making sure workers can get back stolen pay, etc, etc.. Looting the wealthy? You see, this is the problem with you guys, you have this insane idea that taxation, which is allowed, is somehow looting. This is the 21st century, every country on earth conducts taxation, except somalia and other "free market" countries that lack an evil gubment to tell the rich what to do. Corrupt system of bribery? Yeah, you seem to be forgetting that american "democracy" is largely controlled by the candidates who manage to get the endorsements of the wealthy, we need public funding of elections and we need to end citizens united. Vote buying? Oh please, voters vote based on the party that has their interests in mind, that's how democracy works, you probably disagree with this, which is understandable, given you're a verified nut case. Crony capitalism? Ah, a classic phrase thrown out by "free market" worshipers who fail to understand that a "free market" can never exist, ever, it's impossible, everywhere it has had the chance to thrive, it has led to monopolies, horrid conditions, and, eventually, the formation of a strong government to control the "free market." Welfare leeching? Want to look at the facts of welfare? First, we have to determine how you define welfare, I'll go with this: "Welfare is the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens, sometimes referred to as public aid."The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon.The truth hurts."Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
Now that's funny!
Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective
"The causes of wealth inequality?" The idea that wealth could ever be equally distributed is absurd.
The determination was made entirely on bullshit. You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.
Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality. The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching. Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy. Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.
Now, you can put so many different things into this definition, but welfare is a necessity of any civilized society, especially in a country such as america where wages are stagnant, where the cost of living continually increases, the cost of child care... It doesn't help that education costs keep rising and the minimum wage isn't moving, although you nutjobs want to completely remove it, which is fucking hysterical, but that's another point entirely. Structural unemployment, children, the disabled, the elderly, people who don't make enough to feed their kids.. These are the majority who use welfare, and before you try to go into an incoherent rant on immigrants, illegal immigrants cannot vote, and they cannot get on welfare programs, unless you count hospital care and education, which I believe should continue, given that I consider myself a decent human being and want America to be seen as a great country in the eyes of the world. Let's go back to your productive point, when you define the "productivity" or worth of someone based on their wealth, that is a hilariously skewed worldview, is the walton family productive because they inherit money? Is the CEO of nestle productive when he relies on his employees to do all of the manual labor, and assigns tasks to his advisors and the like? Those at the bottom, the majority of workers within a business, they are the ones who are productive, not the CEO'S who continue to accumulate more and more wealth while the workers wages stay stagnant. You claim taxation on the rich can never grow the economy, I'm sure you realize that Reagan, conservative hero, realized he had to raise taxes. Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010
Just thought I'd throw that in there, given many conservatives, and people like yourself, worship Reagan as some god. You have yet to show any coorelation between high taxes on the rich and a failing economy, the IMF report shows otherwise, and before you yell out that they're a "communist" homo fascist neonazi propaganda organ, you should come to the conclusion that calling everything you can't understand propaganda is immature and dishonest, but this doesn't surprise me, people like yourself aren't really open to reason, although It's funny to play with you like you're a little toy for my cat.
"Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state"
"Passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913, the 16th amendment established Congress's right to impose a Federal income tax."
You will need to somehow show a direct correlation, given that the economic growth has been all over the place.
How do you define a welfare state?
Where do you find these ridiculous charts? Regardless, this chart doesn't support your claim, at all, given that wars always bring massive economic growth, well, unless it's bush. LOL.Made entirely on bullshit? You have yet to even examine the study, and it looks at more then statistical data, of course, a willfully ignorant person like yourself has no interest in facts. Can never exist? Progressive taxation and strong labor participation in unions can help this, along with state regulations to benefit working people, like the minimum wage, labor laws, making sure workers can get back stolen pay, etc, etc.. Looting the wealthy? You see, this is the problem with you guys, you have this insane idea that taxation, which is allowed, is somehow looting. This is the 21st century, every country on earth conducts taxation, except somalia and other "free market" countries that lack an evil gubment to tell the rich what to do. Corrupt system of bribery? Yeah, you seem to be forgetting that american "democracy" is largely controlled by the candidates who manage to get the endorsements of the wealthy, we need public funding of elections and we need to end citizens united. Vote buying? Oh please, voters vote based on the party that has their interests in mind, that's how democracy works, you probably disagree with this, which is understandable, given you're a verified nut case. Crony capitalism? Ah, a classic phrase thrown out by "free market" worshipers who fail to understand that a "free market" can never exist, ever, it's impossible, everywhere it has had the chance to thrive, it has led to monopolies, horrid conditions, and, eventually, the formation of a strong government to control the "free market." Welfare leeching? Want to look at the facts of welfare? First, we have to determine how you define welfare, I'll go with this: "Welfare is the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens, sometimes referred to as public aid."The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon.
"The causes of wealth inequality?" The idea that wealth could ever be equally distributed is absurd.
The determination was made entirely on bullshit. You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.
Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality. The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching. Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy. Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.
Now, you can put so many different things into this definition, but welfare is a necessity of any civilized society, especially in a country such as america where wages are stagnant, where the cost of living continually increases, the cost of child care... It doesn't help that education costs keep rising and the minimum wage isn't moving, although you nutjobs want to completely remove it, which is fucking hysterical, but that's another point entirely. Structural unemployment, children, the disabled, the elderly, people who don't make enough to feed their kids.. These are the majority who use welfare, and before you try to go into an incoherent rant on immigrants, illegal immigrants cannot vote, and they cannot get on welfare programs, unless you count hospital care and education, which I believe should continue, given that I consider myself a decent human being and want America to be seen as a great country in the eyes of the world. Let's go back to your productive point, when you define the "productivity" or worth of someone based on their wealth, that is a hilariously skewed worldview, is the walton family productive because they inherit money? Is the CEO of nestle productive when he relies on his employees to do all of the manual labor, and assigns tasks to his advisors and the like? Those at the bottom, the majority of workers within a business, they are the ones who are productive, not the CEO'S who continue to accumulate more and more wealth while the workers wages stay stagnant. You claim taxation on the rich can never grow the economy, I'm sure you realize that Reagan, conservative hero, realized he had to raise taxes. Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010
Just thought I'd throw that in there, given many conservatives, and people like yourself, worship Reagan as some god. You have yet to show any coorelation between high taxes on the rich and a failing economy, the IMF report shows otherwise, and before you yell out that they're a "communist" homo fascist neonazi propaganda organ, you should come to the conclusion that calling everything you can't understand propaganda is immature and dishonest, but this doesn't surprise me, people like yourself aren't really open to reason, although It's funny to play with you like you're a little toy for my cat.
"Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state"
"Passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913, the 16th amendment established Congress's right to impose a Federal income tax."
You will need to somehow show a direct correlation, given that the economic growth has been all over the place.
How do you define a welfare state?
The determination was made entirely on bullshit. You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.
Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality. The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching. Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy. Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.
How does telling the truth make you "witless?"
Oh sorry, I forgot the bottom 60% of US making less than $20,000 PER family (filing INCOME TAX RETURNS) are the moochers, NOT the "job creators" employing them and such low wages, the MUST get welfare to survive
The 60% makes a lot more than $20,000. If they would starve without welfare, that means before welfare 60% of the population must have starved to death. Is that what you're implying?
Sorry Bubba, i forgot WHO I was dealing here with, the brain dead
Bottom HALF of US make LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY AVERAGE. I added in the extra 10% and another $5,000 (BET IT'S CLOSE)
Starved to death? No Bubba, saying BEFORE Reaganomics, the bottom HALF of US had 18% of the pie (would be almost $20,000 PER FAMILY) TODAY!
Implying? NO BUBBA, SAYING THANKS TO CORPS REFUSAL TO PAY A LIVING WAGE, GOV'T HAD TO STEP UP WITH SAFETY NETS!!!
Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
Where do you find these ridiculous charts? Regardless, this chart doesn't support your claim, at all, given that wars always bring massive economic growth, well, unless it's bush. LOL.Made entirely on bullshit? You have yet to even examine the study, and it looks at more then statistical data, of course, a willfully ignorant person like yourself has no interest in facts. Can never exist? Progressive taxation and strong labor participation in unions can help this, along with state regulations to benefit working people, like the minimum wage, labor laws, making sure workers can get back stolen pay, etc, etc.. Looting the wealthy? You see, this is the problem with you guys, you have this insane idea that taxation, which is allowed, is somehow looting. This is the 21st century, every country on earth conducts taxation, except somalia and other "free market" countries that lack an evil gubment to tell the rich what to do. Corrupt system of bribery? Yeah, you seem to be forgetting that american "democracy" is largely controlled by the candidates who manage to get the endorsements of the wealthy, we need public funding of elections and we need to end citizens united. Vote buying? Oh please, voters vote based on the party that has their interests in mind, that's how democracy works, you probably disagree with this, which is understandable, given you're a verified nut case. Crony capitalism? Ah, a classic phrase thrown out by "free market" worshipers who fail to understand that a "free market" can never exist, ever, it's impossible, everywhere it has had the chance to thrive, it has led to monopolies, horrid conditions, and, eventually, the formation of a strong government to control the "free market." Welfare leeching? Want to look at the facts of welfare? First, we have to determine how you define welfare, I'll go with this: "Welfare is the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens, sometimes referred to as public aid."The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon."The causes of wealth inequality?" The idea that wealth could ever be equally distributed is absurd.
The determination was made entirely on bullshit. You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.
Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality. The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching. Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy. Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.
Now, you can put so many different things into this definition, but welfare is a necessity of any civilized society, especially in a country such as america where wages are stagnant, where the cost of living continually increases, the cost of child care... It doesn't help that education costs keep rising and the minimum wage isn't moving, although you nutjobs want to completely remove it, which is fucking hysterical, but that's another point entirely. Structural unemployment, children, the disabled, the elderly, people who don't make enough to feed their kids.. These are the majority who use welfare, and before you try to go into an incoherent rant on immigrants, illegal immigrants cannot vote, and they cannot get on welfare programs, unless you count hospital care and education, which I believe should continue, given that I consider myself a decent human being and want America to be seen as a great country in the eyes of the world. Let's go back to your productive point, when you define the "productivity" or worth of someone based on their wealth, that is a hilariously skewed worldview, is the walton family productive because they inherit money? Is the CEO of nestle productive when he relies on his employees to do all of the manual labor, and assigns tasks to his advisors and the like? Those at the bottom, the majority of workers within a business, they are the ones who are productive, not the CEO'S who continue to accumulate more and more wealth while the workers wages stay stagnant. You claim taxation on the rich can never grow the economy, I'm sure you realize that Reagan, conservative hero, realized he had to raise taxes. Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010
Just thought I'd throw that in there, given many conservatives, and people like yourself, worship Reagan as some god. You have yet to show any coorelation between high taxes on the rich and a failing economy, the IMF report shows otherwise, and before you yell out that they're a "communist" homo fascist neonazi propaganda organ, you should come to the conclusion that calling everything you can't understand propaganda is immature and dishonest, but this doesn't surprise me, people like yourself aren't really open to reason, although It's funny to play with you like you're a little toy for my cat.
"Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state"
"Passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913, the 16th amendment established Congress's right to impose a Federal income tax."
You will need to somehow show a direct correlation, given that the economic growth has been all over the place.
How do you define a welfare state?
