Is it Envious or from Jealousy to ask the Rich to pay more taxes?

Easy credit is indeed part of the problem, but if you believe it appeared deus ex machina rather than from a desire of the financial system to generate even more economic activity (regardless of the bad long-term effects) then you are missing a crucial point, just as massive tax loopholes for the super-rich didn't just magically appear during the same period. There is a reason why both Romney and Obama didn't pay a lot of taxes relative to their income and capital gains earnings.

Too many of your examples were personal or individual ones. That is why I have stuck to a strictly group or aggregate consideration of the issues, where you end up considering the average result within a group. Even so, did you know that there is actually more income mobility in despised socialist Northern and Western Europe than there is in the USA (feel free to check the statistics)?

Personally, I support tightening up credit and removing most tax loopholes and subsidies (assuming Congress would ever pass such legislation) once the economy becomes more robust. This is doubly necessary because when the next economic downturn comes the wealth distribution will otherwise be even more skewed and the demographics will be even more unfavorable.

 

Lol didnt I post in here how many times I quit jobs? I dont need a Union I am my own Union.

 

well no this is a fallacy used by Liberals and progressives.
House hold income has ben stagnant but individual income is rising. The reason household income has been stagnant is because the size of household (number of workers in a household) is much smaller now than it was 30 years ago. Ints and Immoral dirty trick used by liberals

 

Woa... this is getting personal I am a Chicago guy and a Cubbie fan... Take Nascar so you saying Richard "the King" Petty should have not deserved a ride because of his dad Lee? Or what About Dale Earnhart he didnt derserve a shot at the Winston cup because of his father Ralph? sorry Richard and Dale were better then their Dad's were..

 

It is indeed an immoral trick if what you say is true. Do you have the sources handy?

I trust though that what you really mean is 'yes, I'm sure you did read that somewhere RPITA, but it's just an immoral trick used by some liberals.

 

Used by many liberals, notably obama in the last election. Check out this video:
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrtoSx-NbLQ[/quote]

the argument over truth in politics continues. It has been stagnant under Obama though. It was what happens when they do a "stimulus" every time it has been tried. But it was on the up before then. Google personal median income for tons of stats.

 

truth in politics continues. It has been stagnant under Obama though. It was what happens when they do a "stimulus" every time it has been tried. But it was on the up before then. Google personal median income for tons of stats.[/QUOTE]


Fortunately I don't need to go through all of the faulty reasoning in that video since I don't accept anything from the Hoover Institute as a valid reason to accept any claim anyway. Neutral sources only please.
Whether or not many liberals use immoral tricks is another claim I would need reasons to accept.
You should give some acceptable reasons for the claims that you have already made before making any more claims. That is if you want to have a productive debate, of course.

 

Fortunately I don't need to go through all of the faulty reasoning in that video since I don't accept anything from the Hoover Institute as a valid reason to accept any claim anyway. Neutral sources only please.
Whether or not many liberals use immoral tricks is another claim I would need reasons to accept.
You should give some acceptable reasons for the claims that you have already made before making any more claims. That is if you want to have a productive debate, of course.[/QUOTE]

Here is the data:

http://www.russellsage.org/sites/all/files/chartbook/Income and Earnings.pdf

They know this data. Yet they say what they say. So why lie? Surely you don't think everyone who makes these claims just does so without ever looking it up right? Even household income is up, just divorce rising slowed it. It should be common sense that divorce causes smaller household incomes because of the split, but I bet you will need a citation for that too?

 

Here is the data:

http://www.russellsage.org/sites/all/files/chartbook/Income and Earnings.pdf

They know this data. Yet they say what they say. So why lie? Surely you don't think everyone who makes these claims just does so without ever looking it up right? Even household income is up, just divorce rising slowed it. It should be common sense that divorce causes smaller household incomes because of the split, but I bet you will need a citation for that too?[/QUOTE]

On first glance, the data (I went to the source of your source) seems to support your claim. However I
know that statistics can be tricky, so I will need to look into this more closely. I may also need to look into the validity of what I
have read about this topic - and paraphrased earlier from memory. Thank you for showing me the way to the data. That being said, I don't think that we can effectively debate two issues at one time – liberals are immoral lairs and growth of household income. Can we just focus on the household income part? Also, your comment about me needing references for common sense statements is,
as you well know, disrespectful. Productive argument is difficult without common courtesy and basic respect. Agreed?

P.S. if you have looked at my posts on other threads, I guess I can understand your tone toward me. But I have vowed to change my ways, thanks to member ViciousGnome.

 

On first glance, the data (I went to the source of your source) seems to support your claim. However I
know that statistics can be tricky, so I will need to look into this more closely. I may also need to look into the validity of what I
have read about this topic - and paraphrased earlier from memory. Thank you for showing me the way to the data. That being said, I don't think that we can effectively debate two issues at one time – liberals are immoral lairs and growth of household income. Can we just focus on the household income part? Also, your comment about me needing references for common sense statements is,
as you well know, disrespectful. Productive argument is difficult without common courtesy and basic respect. Agreed?

P.S. if you have looked at my posts on other threads, I guess I can understand your tone toward me. But I have vowed to change my ways, thanks to member ViciousGnome. [/QUOTE]

Fair enough, let me know what you find.

 

The exception proves the rule. No one gets advanced placement from Daddy. If Junior inherited superior genes, he can do it on his own, can't he?
Second, if it is unjust for the son to have to pay for the sins of his father, then it is unjust for the son to benefit from the success of his father. But obviously, if you think that exceptional cases justify hereditary privileges, you can't see the logic of these two objections.

Your misery as a Cub fan was caused by the anti-democratic privilege of inheritance. PK Wrigley inherited the club from his Daddy around 1950. Being a spoiled puke like all the rest (exceptions proving the rule), he had never competed for anything in his life, so he saw no reason to make the Cubs competitive. Being sheltered and pampered, all he cared about was having a pleasant ballpark.

 

What misery? guess you never been to wrigley field and partied in the bleachers like I did in the 80's... guess the big differance between you and I, You look at the glass half empty, I look at it half full and the Blackhawks won the Stanley cup again...But it is an interesting question for a son not to pay for the sins of his father but gets the benifits...but 1. who then gets the money the state? and not the child? why have sex and have kids then if you can not pass on your legacy?. 2. Why dont you think genes dont have a play in this? like I pointed out Richard Petty was a better Nascar driver then Lee as well as Dale was a better driver than his Dad Ralph.

 

I thought this thread was about the value/lack of value of progressive taxation. I personally favor progressive taxation of individual income. I am against corporate taxation because Tax Incidence suggests that capital seldom pays the corporate taxes, especially if capital is mobile.

1. When supply is elastic the consumer generally pays the tax.

2. When demand is inelastic the consumer generally pays the tax.

3. Theoretically when demand is elastic capital is expected to pay the corporate tax. But,

4. When capital is mobile the corporate tax tends to be paid by labor.

I despise all forms of regressive taxation such as sales, VAT, fuel etc as the poor pay a higher % of their income in such taxes than do the rich.

 

You can look at the objective data tables here.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/

 

There was somebody on DebatePolitics who could also write his own ticket. However, in order to get in that position he had to work his way through college and he saw how the vast majority of employees get bullied. So he didn't lord it over his fellow employees when he became an exception to the rule.

"A man alone doesn't stand a chance": Hemingway, To Have and Have Not.

 

In other words, if you don't accumulate a big stash of loot to pass on to spoiled mooching Heirheads, then you shouldn't have kids.

If a workoholic Greedhead can't buy the love of his neglected children with his money, what good is it? In order to see if a job applicant will work very hard, the employer should ask how many children he has?

Birth privileges deserve the death penalty. If we have to do it on our own, so must the children of the rich. If you believe in aristocracy, the Nobility With No Ability, I suggest you go back to the crumbling castles of Europe where anti-democrats belong.