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.
No, none of the 'Conservatives' are going to comment on it, because it shows how great the perception of both liberals and conservatives of the distribution of wealth strays from the reality. It is a sad comment on the state of this nation that so much of it's wealth is owned by so few.
What is truly bothersome is that so many actually believe this is good for the economy and the country.
It is better for the good of the country to allow those that earned their wealth to be able to keep it instead of supporting the government to go and steal it legally from them at the point of a gun with the vast power and resources of government behind it.
A growing dependent class is the problem and folks that earn their money are not the cause of that.
Presuming by "commie" you mean communist, what communist entity are you aware of which allows its citizens to accumulate twenty million dollar fortunes?If it were up to me each of them would be worth $20 million. Because I believe that should be the limit applied to individual accumulation of personal assets.
Twenty million -- and confiscate every penny in excess of that amount. And I want to hear some greedy sonofabitch tell me he/she can't get along with so little.
And I really don't give a damn how you feel about that!
***aggressive stupid commie detected***
it is not up to you, thanks God
Your response identifies you as an ignorant, belligerent adolescent, which qualifies you for a place on my Ignore list. Congratulations.
Presuming by "commie" you mean communist, what communist entity are you aware of which allows its citizens to accumulate twenty million dollar fortunes?***aggressive stupid commie detected***
it is not up to you, thanks God
Your response identifies you as an ignorant, belligerent adolescent, which qualifies you for a place on my Ignore list. Congratulations.
your expropriationist stance is the main feature of the commie mindset.
It is none of your business how much money somebody accumulates.
You want some - earn it. If you are not capable to - that's your problem. But you have no right to other's people money.
Period.
Yeah. If you can't find a job making what Billy thinks is minimal, you just have to do without.
If you notice, I didn't set a standard you dick.
So, someone else sets the standard. Avoid the point much? Do you get the point? I guess not. I'll break it down so maybe you can follow it...
If I'm a low skilled worker, and I can't convince someone to give me a job for the minimum wage (regardless of who sets it), why should I be forced into to unemployment? Why can't I work for less if I want to?
"Why can't I work for less if I want to?"
Are you really this stupid?
Why would taking money away from the upper income levels return us to prosperity?
The upper eschelon would carry the burden of infrastructure, education and defense in proportion to the benefit they receive from it.
The top 1% paid 37.4% of all income taxes paid in 2010.
Do they really benefit 37 times more from the public education system and the Defense Department?
Do they drive 37 cars? Maybe their cars are 37 times bigger?
liar!!!the upper eschelon would carry the burden of infrastructure, education and defense in proportion to the benefit they receive from it.
the top 1% paid 37.4% of all income taxes paid in 2010.
Do they really benefit 37 times more from the public education system and the defense department?
Do they drive 37 cars? Maybe their cars are 37 times bigger?
your chart in not an indication of a change in tax policy, it's an indication of a change in wealth disparity.
"Why can't I work for less if I want to?"
Are you really this stupid?
It's an honest question. Can you answer it?
The upper eschelon would carry the burden of infrastructure, education and defense in proportion to the benefit they receive from it.
The top 1% paid 37.4% of all income taxes paid in 2010.
Do they really benefit 37 times more from the public education system and the Defense Department?
Do they drive 37 cars? Maybe their cars are 37 times bigger?
There is a point you are trying to make. What is it?
Are you saying that when the ultra wealthy control 90% of the nations wealth, that they will pay an even higher percentage of the nations taxes? Well no duh. If you have the nations wealth under control, who the fuk else is gonna pay the taxes?
And you think the ultra wealthy controlling the majority of the nations wealth and income is a good thing. Don't ya? So why you bitching?
The upper eschelon would carry the burden of infrastructure, education and defense in proportion to the benefit they receive from it.
The top 1% paid 37.4% of all income taxes paid in 2010.
Do they really benefit 37 times more from the public education system and the Defense Department?
Do they drive 37 cars? Maybe their cars are 37 times bigger?
Your chart in not an indication of a change in tax policy, it's an indication of a change in wealth disparity.
"Why can't I work for less if I want to?"
Are you really this stupid?
It's an honest question. Can you answer it?
This is going to be interesting!!
"Why can't I work for less if I want to?"
Are you really this stupid?
It's an honest question. Can you answer it?
"Why can't I work for less if I want to?"
Are you really this stupid?
It's an honest question. Can you answer it?
I can't even believe this is a serious question. The answer is quite simple. Because the vast majority of people would prefer to get paid as much as they can, fuck the tiny minority of people who would prefer to be paid less. Their preference should not be factored in. If anything, these individuals could flush the extra cash down the toilet. Who the fuck cares?
If I'm a low skilled worker, and I can't convince someone to give me a job for the minimum wage (regardless of who sets it), why should I be forced into to unemployment? Why can't I work for less if I want to?
The top 1% paid 37.4% of all income taxes paid in 2010.
Do they really benefit 37 times more from the public education system and the Defense Department?
Do they drive 37 cars? Maybe their cars are 37 times bigger?
Your chart in not an indication of a change in tax policy, it's an indication of a change in wealth disparity.
Your chart in not an indication of a change in tax policy,
It does show that since the Bush tax cuts, the top 1% pay a bigger chunk of total income tax than before.
it's an indication of a change in wealth disparity.
The chart doesn't show wealth. You should reread it.
Your chart in not an indication of a change in tax policy, it's an indication of a change in wealth disparity.
Your chart in not an indication of a change in tax policy,
It does show that since the Bush tax cuts, the top 1% pay a bigger chunk of total income tax than before.
it's an indication of a change in wealth disparity.
The chart doesn't show wealth. You should reread it.
Have you given any thought to the mechanisms behind this chart? Or does it just exist and you don't really care why?
Do you know what a positive feedback system will do over time?
Your chart in not an indication of a change in tax policy,
It does show that since the Bush tax cuts, the top 1% pay a bigger chunk of total income tax than before.
it's an indication of a change in wealth disparity.
The chart doesn't show wealth. You should reread it.
Have you given any thought to the mechanisms behind this chart? Or does it just exist and you don't really care why?
Do you know what a positive feedback system will do over time?
When you drop a chunk of taxpayers off the rolls, the top 1% ends up paying a larger chunk of total income taxes. How much of the total should they pay? 50%, 75%? 100%?
Do you know what a positive feedback system will do over time?
If you feel it is relevant to the discussion, by all means explain.
Have you given any thought to the mechanisms behind this chart? Or does it just exist and you don't really care why?
Do you know what a positive feedback system will do over time?
When you drop a chunk of taxpayers off the rolls, the top 1% ends up paying a larger chunk of total income taxes. How much of the total should they pay? 50%, 75%? 100%?
Do you know what a positive feedback system will do over time?
If you feel it is relevant to the discussion, by all means explain.
It doesn't have to be a chunk of taxpayers falling off the rolls. Stagnant or falling wages can have the same effect when other factors are growing exponentially.
Positive feedback system:
Feedback systems are generally designed using negative feedback. Meaning that an error signal is subtracted in some form from the system input in order to stabilize the performance of the system. When feedback becomes positive, that error signal will force the system to the limit of its capacity (usually in the direction of the initial conditions). That's what we're seeing in our economic system. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
It's an honest question. Can you answer it?
I can't even believe this is a serious question. The answer is quite simple. Because the vast majority of people would prefer to get paid as much as they can, fuck the tiny minority of people who would prefer to be paid less. Their preference should not be factored in. If anything, these individuals could flush the extra cash down the toilet. Who the fuck cares?
Heh... no fair changing the question. I didn't say anything about preferring to be paid less.
Here, try again (I bolded the part you're trying to ignore):
If I'm a low skilled worker, and I can't convince someone to give me a job for the minimum wage (regardless of who sets it), why should I be forced into to unemployment? Why can't I work for less if I want to?
I can't even believe this is a serious question. The answer is quite simple. Because the vast majority of people would prefer to get paid as much as they can, fuck the tiny minority of people who would prefer to be paid less. Their preference should not be factored in. If anything, these individuals could flush the extra cash down the toilet. Who the fuck cares?
Heh... no fair changing the question. I didn't say anything about preferring to be paid less.
Here, try again (I bolded the part you're trying to ignore):
If I'm a low skilled worker, and I can't convince someone to give me a job for the minimum wage (regardless of who sets it), why should I be forced into to unemployment? Why can't I work for less if I want to?
Giving up?
Anybody else?
Heh... no fair changing the question. I didn't say anything about preferring to be paid less.
Here, try again (I bolded the part you're trying to ignore):
Giving up?
Anybody else?
Sure I'll help them out. Because working for less is like a scab crossing the picket line during contract negotiations. It hurts everyone in the labor group when you lower the bar for the labor group.
