The Wealthy Do Pay Income Taxes

Consolidated power does not benefit the masses. Only a fool would believe so.

 

More gibberish.
The topic was wealth disparity - the wealthy control government and power - and that is true whether government is large or small.

 

That is a nonsensical post.
"velocity of money"
"reduces worth higher taxes"
Just say NO! to drugs....

 

I understand that you guys selfishly want to spend my money, but the government inefficiently allocates capital resulting in reduced production.

 

You couldn't puzzle out a simple typo of "worth" for "with?"

 

A smaller government obviously has less power to sell thus more competition. More competition equals more parity equals less disparity.

 

"Worth" should have been "with". Either way, higher taxes slows down the transference of money. A simple review of capital gains tax rates and resulting revenue prices this.

 

He still won't understand it, they don't know what "velocity of money" is nor what a multiplier is. It's why they don't understand how the economy actually works, just what the op-eds tell them.

 

More gibberish. Actual history proves that to be untrue in the long run (2-3 years). And benefits are substantial.

 

Propaganda.

 

Lol, what. Obama treats incomes of 250 and up the same.

 

Show me with an increase in effective tax rate equaling increased production and sustained tax revenues.

 

Are you arguing that central planning is efficient?

 

Sounds like you have fallen for some propaganda.

 

The 1% wrote the current rules. Why would they rewrite?

 

You came first. So first, you show me "velocity of money reduces worth higher taxes. Less transacting = less taxes."

 

No, I was arguing that your post was propaganda.

 

It most certainly is infinite Digital wealth has no end,


Is there an end to numbers?

 

Figures don't lie but . . . can figure as folk wisdom goes.

In the Eisenhower times a CEO made maybe 5 or 10 times more than workers.
Today it is thousands of times more courtesy of the bipartisan tax cuts since JFK.

Taxes should be equally painful.
Not an equal membership fee.
And the uber rich do not feel the pain a 50K household does. Not hardly.
Consider




The Tax Code got way out of fairness regardless of "numbers" to allow the
above to happen. Si?


Moi

r > g

​

 

Taxes collected: All revenues gathered by the government.
Income taxes: Taxes specific to incomes-profit gains, gambling, payroll etc...
Payroll taxes: Taxes specific to wage earnings. FICA unemployment, social security, Medicare, etc...
Spending: All out flow of government funds.
Deficit spending: Deferred taxes to be paid at a later date. Occurs when taxes collected less than spending.
Debt: The accumulation of deficit spending.
Wealth: Durable goods accumulated through purchases using disposable income. Cash, cars, buildings, stocks, etc...
Cost of living: Minimum cost for food, shelter, clothing, school, insurance and other essential expenses.
Disposable income: That income left after cost of living met. Can be used to accumulate wealth, entertainment, vices, etc...
Discretionary spending: Disposable income of the government. Some things can't be changed, long term contracts, spending preprogrammed like Medicare or basic military expenditures, interest on the debt, etc...

These are simple descriptions of the terms thrown around here. Too often we say one thing when we mean another. For example, does the top 1% pay a larger percentage of income taxes than the bottom 80%? Yes. Do they pay a larger percentage of all federal taxes than the bottom 80%? No. Is wealth income? Not in of itself but wealth comes from disposable income. Those with a lot of cash on hand can accumulate wealth those without can not.

When I say that the wealthy are under taxed it's because they are increasing their wealth at an accelerated rate while the middle class is accumulating wealth at a retarded rate. To reduce taxes on the wealthy only increases the rate at which they accumulate wealth at a time when it's the middle class and poor that needs the boost.

 

No it's not. You're just flat, outright wrong as a matter of objective physical fact. You will find that happens a lot, as long as you presume to dispute with me.

Numbers are not wealth as they cannot be owned, so please don't be absurd.

 

Whut? Look, I'm pretty darned Republican, but I haven't heard Democrats say, "the rich don't pay taxes". What I have heard them say is that the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes. That's quite different.

 

Already proved wrong. You are looking at this post on some wealth, as already pointed out -- and ignored by you because you have no answers.

False, unsupported, and absurd claims are not arguments, sorry. No such thing as the screen you are seeing this post on? REALLLLY??

<yawn> I haven't done any squirming, won't be doing any, and you know it.

BWAAHHHAHAHHAAAA!!

I notice you haven't had the cojones to QUOTE any of the written record of our discussion, aside from a single context-less and meaningless character, because you are well aware that the written record shows me pounding you to smithereens.

<yawn> You need to stop digging. At this point, I can barely see you down there in the garbage you have tried to fling out of the hole you are in.

 

The more money you have, the more of it probably became "yours" only through government's help in the first place.

 

But factually false. The most equal countries, such as in Western Europe, have the biggest governments as a fraction of GDP. The most unequal countries --Third World hellholes like Pakistan, the Philippines, Honduras, Bangladesh, etc. -- all have small governments.