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.
Not people I know. Examples of the irresponsible things people do with their finances.The narrative put forward by the left on this 'inequality' nonsense, is not about economics.
Not even close.
Most people who struggle financially do so because of irresponsible spending habits.
Everything is relative. The more people earn the more they spend. Many spend foolishly.
For example, buying expensive cars when a standard one will do just fine. Buying "too much house"....Is it really necessary for two people to buy a 4,000 square foot home?
Using credit cards for everything. Even groceries. HUH?
People who rather than paying their bills on time insist on going out to dinner or other frivolous spending.
$130 pay tv bills because they MUST have premium movies. $100 cell phone when a pay as you go phone will do fine....The list goes on and on.
When on peels back the layers of the onion, most financial problems are the doing of the individual.
You can bruise yourself rolling on the floor, by the way..
I see nothing humorous.
The discussion is about markets not about the personal finances of random people you know.
If you have anything to say about the changes in markets that have lead to growing income inequality then I will be happy to respond.
Until then....
ROFLMAO
We're not discussing markets. They have not changed. Market based economy is just that. Market based. No one would be bitching if they were not running out of money before the end of the current week or pay period. Why would they?
Your entire premise is based on your belief that inequality exists. It doesn't. For that to be true, then equality would have been the economic model in the first place. Never has. Never will. We have brilliant minds and creative hands. We have ditch diggers and convenience store workers. Is it your notion that they should be equally compensated because "they work hard"?...Please. We are not talking about lifting those at the bottom. The process begins with punishing those at the top.
This inequality thing is simply a political argument set forth to build a voting base for democrats.
In short, it's a narrative.
More than the $20 Trillion hit to the US economy and the $563 Trillion hit to the world economy with the derivative debacle brought to you by Phil 'S&L Crises' Gramm (R)?
My plan puts more money back into the pocket of the American people and helps small business.
Your plan is "command and control economics"....Never worked. Never will.
Why?
Oh but it is. What's the number one idea you libs put forth in your alleged solution to so called 'income inequality'? Confiscatory taxation and government control. That in and of itself is punishment.Not people I know. Examples of the irresponsible things people do with their finances.The discussion is about markets not about the personal finances of random people you know.
If you have anything to say about the changes in markets that have lead to growing income inequality then I will be happy to respond.
Until then....
ROFLMAO
We're not discussing markets. They have not changed. Market based economy is just that. Market based. No one would be bitching if they were not running out of money before the end of the current week or pay period. Why would they?
Your entire premise is based on your belief that inequality exists. It doesn't. For that to be true, then equality would have been the economic model in the first place. Never has. Never will. We have brilliant minds and creative hands. We have ditch diggers and convenience store workers. Is it your notion that they should be equally compensated because "they work hard"?...Please. We are not talking about lifting those at the bottom. The process begins with punishing those at the top.
This inequality thing is simply a political argument set forth to build a voting base for democrats.
In short, it's a narrative.
Yes the issue is about markets.
Yest they can change and have changed.
No it is not about paying ditch diggers the same as "brilliant minds."
No it is not about punishing those at the top.
So yeah, you are just pathetically wrong on all of your points.
Oh but it is. What's the number one idea you libs put forth in your alleged solution to so called 'income inequality'? Confiscatory taxation and government control. That in and of itself is punishment.Not people I know. Examples of the irresponsible things people do with their finances.
We're not discussing markets. They have not changed. Market based economy is just that. Market based. No one would be bitching if they were not running out of money before the end of the current week or pay period. Why would they?
Your entire premise is based on your belief that inequality exists. It doesn't. For that to be true, then equality would have been the economic model in the first place. Never has. Never will. We have brilliant minds and creative hands. We have ditch diggers and convenience store workers. Is it your notion that they should be equally compensated because "they work hard"?...Please. We are not talking about lifting those at the bottom. The process begins with punishing those at the top.
This inequality thing is simply a political argument set forth to build a voting base for democrats.
In short, it's a narrative.
Yes the issue is about markets.
Yest they can change and have changed.
No it is not about paying ditch diggers the same as "brilliant minds."
No it is not about punishing those at the top.
So yeah, you are just pathetically wrong on all of your points.
Knock it off with the insults. (Pathetically)...Is that why you came here? To heap insults on people who dare to disagree with your point of view.
Let me know. I can get down into the gutter with the best of them. Debate or trade barbs. Your call.
While America certainly has its share of people in chronic poverty and those with vast wealth, we are an economically mobile society. There are no class or cast systems that might prevent anyone with initiative from bettering their station in life. IRS data tracking the same group of taxpayers between 1999 and 2007 showed that Americans can move from one economic group to another fairly quickly.For example, nearly 60% of taxpayers who began in the lowest income group in 1999, moved to a higher income group by 2007. Conversely, roughly 40% of taxpayers who started out in the highest income group moved to lower income groups within eight years.
Official Statistics on Inequality, the Top 1%, and Redistribution | Tax Foundation
Hey lets just go on our merry way here in America. There is no problem. It's just the jealous poor people bitching about whatever they bitch about.
One day, when the ultra rich control 60% of the nations income, will you be surprised that the ultra rich pay an even higher percentage of income tax?
How about if the ultra rich have 80% of the nations income. Still be surprised that they pay the bulk of the income tax.
Them poor ultra rich people. I bet you feel for them. All the vitriol and jealousy directed at them. Poor poor ultra wealthy people.
But I do want to be clear about one thing. I could give a flying fuck less if the ultra rich people were taxed at 50% of their income. If you make 10 million a year and can't get by on 5 million a year, fuck ya is what I say. They don't have an income problem, they must have a spending problem.
The answer to what? How to complete the economic destruction of the United States? I wasn't aware that we were looking for that.
More than the $20 Trillion hit to the US economy and the $563 Trillion hit to the world economy with the derivative debacle brought to you by Phil 'S&L Crises' Gramm (R)?
My plan puts more money back into the pocket of the American people and helps small business.
You would put all small business out of business. No question about it.
Your plan is "command and control economics"....Never worked. Never will.
Why?
Answered in an earlier post.
But to repeat....See "Soviet Union"...70 years of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs".
FAIL..
Command and control economics leaves ZERO incentive for the producers to produce. The inventors to invent. The skilled to ply their trade. Why? Because policy of the central government mandates the taking of the fruits of that labor for government to distribute as it sees fit. This of course after the government ruling elite gets it's cut of the bounty.
There is a solution to your problem. If you believe you are under paid, do something about it. Get training. Go back to school. Go to your boss and ask what you can do to improve your value to the employer....Above all, Stop complaining.
How can the poor get poorer? If you don't have anything, you cant have less than anything.
We could let them starve:
Time to mandate 1,000 times law on ceo, board members and upper management compared to the lowest paid. This way corporations spend more of their profits on paying better wages to the works and expansion.
The point of taxing the rich more is to allow us to tax the middle class less. Using the word "punishment" is juvenile and just a lame appeal to emotion. I am not all that interested in illogical arguments like that.
Making the poor poorer and limiting upward mobility is evil.
I'll never support competing with China on slave labor.
Making the poor poorer and limiting upward mobility is evil.
I'll never support competing with China on slave labor.
except you do support it - by supporting the leftard policies/
that is EXACTLY what the left always does - enriches the very rich, throws the bone to the very poor and robs the middle class and stalls the upward mobility.
Making the poor poorer and limiting upward mobility is evil.
I'll never support competing with China on slave labor.
except you do support it - by supporting the leftard policies/
that is EXACTLY what the left always does - enriches the very rich, throws the bone to the very poor and robs the middle class and stalls the upward mobility.
That would be the right. A perfect example would be Angelo Mozilo.
except you do support it - by supporting the leftard policies/
that is EXACTLY what the left always does - enriches the very rich, throws the bone to the very poor and robs the middle class and stalls the upward mobility.
That would be the right. A perfect example would be Angelo Mozilo.
no, it is the left.
the perfect example is obama with his obamacare and his 5 year reign and it's results - the exact description of the formula - rob the middle class (done); enrich the very rich ( very well done) and throw the bone to the poor ( also done).
Why?
Answered in an earlier post.
But to repeat....See "Soviet Union"...70 years of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs".
FAIL..
Command and control economics leaves ZERO incentive for the producers to produce. The inventors to invent. The skilled to ply their trade. Why? Because policy of the central government mandates the taking of the fruits of that labor for government to distribute as it sees fit. This of course after the government ruling elite gets it's cut of the bounty.
There is a solution to your problem. If you believe you are under paid, do something about it. Get training. Go back to school. Go to your boss and ask what you can do to improve your value to the employer....Above all, Stop complaining.
-Nothing that you wrote has anything to do with my plan. All my plan does is move taxes into the hands of Americans to spend as they see fit, and control greed.
-Let's put a stop to this 'value to the employer' bullshit. As an employer (for decades) I can tell you with fact that employees make employers 100% of revenue. So I ask you; What is the value of employees?
Oh but it is. What's the number one idea you libs put forth in your alleged solution to so called 'income inequality'? Confiscatory taxation and government control. That in and of itself is punishment.Yes the issue is about markets.
Yest they can change and have changed.
No it is not about paying ditch diggers the same as "brilliant minds."
No it is not about punishing those at the top.
So yeah, you are just pathetically wrong on all of your points.
Knock it off with the insults. (Pathetically)...Is that why you came here? To heap insults on people who dare to disagree with your point of view.
Let me know. I can get down into the gutter with the best of them. Debate or trade barbs. Your call.
The point of taxing the rich more is to allow us to tax the middle class less. Using the word "punishment" is juvenile and just a lame appeal to emotion. I am not all that interested in illogical arguments like that.
While America certainly has its share of people in chronic poverty and those with vast wealth, we are an economically mobile society. There are no class or cast systems that might prevent anyone with initiative from bettering their station in life. IRS data tracking the same group of taxpayers between 1999 and 2007 showed that Americans can move from one economic group to another fairly quickly.For example, nearly 60% of taxpayers who began in the lowest income group in 1999, moved to a higher income group by 2007. Conversely, roughly 40% of taxpayers who started out in the highest income group moved to lower income groups within eight years.
Official Statistics on Inequality, the Top 1%, and Redistribution | Tax Foundation
Hey lets just go on our merry way here in America. There is no problem. It's just the jealous poor people bitching about whatever they bitch about.
One day, when the ultra rich control 60% of the nations income, will you be surprised that the ultra rich pay an even higher percentage of income tax?
How about if the ultra rich have 80% of the nations income. Still be surprised that they pay the bulk of the income tax.
Them poor ultra rich people. I bet you feel for them. All the vitriol and jealousy directed at them. Poor poor ultra wealthy people.
But I do want to be clear about one thing. I could give a flying fuck less if the ultra rich people were taxed at 50% of their income. If you make 10 million a year and can't get by on 5 million a year, fuck ya is what I say. They don't have an income problem, they must have a spending problem.
While I agree with the premise, we don't need to be in a war against the wealthy. When you say to tax them at 50%, I agree, but I do not believe they should be taxed at a rate any higher than that, and this is where we reach a real problem. Some wealthy people earn most of their money in real earnings, and they pay a substantial federal income tax rate, along with state taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and on and on and on. I don't believe anyone should be taxed more than half of their earnings, so my 50% is a maximum of all taxes. The problem is that with many of the people you are referring to is that the bulk of their earnings are capital gains and those are taxed at a rate much too low. This is how many avoid paying a reasonable tax rate. I think if we just increased the capital gains rate a little bit, then we could quit dicking around with everything else.
What is settled is the "wealthy" don't pay taxes. The Right try to pass off the upper middle class wage earner as the "wealthy." It is the wage earner who pays the lion's share of the taxes! The wealthy do not work for wages and it is wages that are overtaxed, not wealth!!! Even your MessiahRushie admits it!Oh but it is. What's the number one idea you libs put forth in your alleged solution to so called 'income inequality'? Confiscatory taxation and government control. That in and of itself is punishment.
Knock it off with the insults. (Pathetically)...Is that why you came here? To heap insults on people who dare to disagree with your point of view.
Let me know. I can get down into the gutter with the best of them. Debate or trade barbs. Your call.
The point of taxing the rich more is to allow us to tax the middle class less. Using the word "punishment" is juvenile and just a lame appeal to emotion. I am not all that interested in illogical arguments like that.
This argument has been settled.
The so called 'wealthy' already pay the lion's share of taxes.
What is settled is the "wealthy" don't pay taxes. The Right try to pass off the upper middle class wage earner as the "wealthy." It is the wage earner who pays the lion's share of the taxes! The wealthy do not work for wages and it is wages that are taxed, not wealth!!! Even your MessiahRushie admits it!The point of taxing the rich more is to allow us to tax the middle class less. Using the word "punishment" is juvenile and just a lame appeal to emotion. I am not all that interested in illogical arguments like that.
This argument has been settled.
The so called 'wealthy' already pay the lion's share of taxes.
August 7, 2007
CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.
RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT
The Truth About Taxes
August 6, 2007
RUSH: I've told you before: the income tax is designed to keep people like his [Buffett's] secretary from becoming wealthy! There is no "wealth" tax. So this is a big misnomer. ...
But there's no tax on wealth. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.
I'm talking about genuine wealth, not the way Democrats define "rich."
December 06, 2012
RUSH: The problem is, in Warren Buffett's case, you could raise the income tax rate to a hundred percent and you're gonna be collecting taxes on about $120,000 of income. The rest of his income is not earned, so to speak. It's dividend, capital gains. He's got his wealth. You're going to have to institute a wealth tax to go get people like Buffett and many moguls and many executives. They've insured themselves.
You have to understand, the income tax is to prevent you from accruing wealth.
