Income inequality in America...I want your thoughts on this.

What an interesting mixture of dishonest and clueless you are.

The point is not that 80-36 = 44. The point is that 1936-1980 includes 45 years. Interestingly enough, you got it right here:

Not sure if you got that right by accident or you are just being dishonest now, as usual. Incredible!

 

5 individual years. From 76 - 80 is 4 years. 80 - 76 = 4

 

that is 1936 to 1980 INCLUSIVE (because both 1936 AND 1980 had a tax of 70% or greater. Is this beginning to sink in ? Maybe you could come to New York and attend a CUNY college (or an elementary school, as the case may be)

 

It includes 45 individual years. When counting from a starting point, the starting year is never considered the first year. Doesn't require a mathematician to figure that one out, but I guess it does.

An individual year was counted due to a continuation. Nothing accidental or dishonest about it. Doesn't require math 101 to understand this either.

 

I hope for your sake, nobody else is reading this exchange. I mean that sincerely.

If anyone out there is reading this, for God's sake, would you pleas explain this to her. And Miss Jonelyn, look up the word inclusive in the dictionary **** Again 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 There are 5 numbers there. Pheeeeeww!!

 

Are you nuts ? YOU mentioned 1918 in YOUR post a while ago. Now you try to backtrack with something as lame as this ? HA HA. Sorry babe, You're not fooling ANYBODY. That's it >> 2:15 AM here in Florida, I'm outtttta here!!

 

Yes. Five different numbers. Five individual years. Now try accumulating the years. From year 1976 - 1980 is how many years, exactly? I guess by this point, Carter as been in office for 5 years instead of 4. This is certainly news to him. He has to re-write his books and everything.

A starting point cannot be considered the first in the duration. 1976 - 1976 is not one year. 1976 - 1977 is one year.

It's really bad when you can't even get the math right. Again, this age calculator is here if you need it. Also, here's a time and date calculator just in case you need to check your work.

 

Did I mention 1918, or did you because you were moving the goalpost?

 

Okay. Let's not count starting years from protectionist's post.

3+9+9+9+9+4 = 42.

That wouldn't even make sense according to your (wrong) post before:

Your cluelessness and dishonesty must be involved in some sort of positive feedback cycle.

 

It doesn't make sense because he calculated the entire equation wrong and the duration of the years are broken up. The years are in order going by his source. All he is doing is breaking the years up to make this math more accurate. Just like omitting years he doesn't like. Otherwise, would be wrong.

I'm sorry, but you said 1936 - 1980 is 45 years and you are pretty much going out of your way to defend bad math. You're pretty much as clueless and dishonest as you can get. Until you show that you can formulate your own thoughts for once, pretty much anything you say is meaningless to me.

​

 

Whoops! 3+9+9+9+9+4 = 43, obviously.

I think MissJ infected me. LMFAO.

 

No, you were brain-dead long before I had anything to do with you:

Not that your credibility wasn't already shot. No way you're convincing anyone you are capable of simple addition.

 

Of course you chop it out completely to confuse readers. Here we go:

Interestingly, that would add up to 48, not 47 as MissJ first claimed. She got the 1918-1921 right though, as there are four years.

My full post (now within context, not dishonestly chopped up):

Here, I'll help you MissJonelyn, like I would help an elementary school child:

1. 1918
2 .1919
3 .1920
4 .1921
5 .1936
6 .1937
7 .1938
8 .1939
9 .1940
10. 1941
11. 1942
12. 1943
13. 1944
14. 1945
15. 1946
16. 1947
17. 1948
18. 1949
19. 1950
20. 1951
21. 1952
22. 1953
23. 1954
24. 1955
25. 1956
26. 1957
27. 1958
28. 1959
29. 1960
30. 1961
31. 1962
32. 1963
33. 1964
34. 1965
35. 1966
36. 1967
37. 1968
38. 1969
39. 1970
40. 1971
41. 1972
42. 1973
43. 1974
44. 1975
45. 1976
46. 1977
47. 1978
48. 1979
49. 1980

 

Yup. Let's not count the starting years from protectionist's example, Miss J. That makes perfect sense. Let's just turn the 10s into 9s. Let's just turn the 5 into a 4...

Problem is, that way it wouldn't add up to anything she or anyone else claimed. WTF?

This is how low her dishonesty/cluelessness/etc. positive feedback cycle has brought her. This is SAD!

 

Nothing has been chopped up for anything. A year has just been added to make up for the gaps in intervals. This is how the time and date calculated adds the intervals itself, if you understand this basic fact at all.

If thats how you would help an elementary student, then you're no smarter than a fifth grader. All you've done was count 49 different years, not their individual durations. From 1918 - 1919 is one year, not 1918 alone. Anyone who is believes that 1936 - 1980 is 45 years has a bad education. And probably taught themselves.

 

protectionist

Nice how you have conveniently forgotten about my last response to you in post #372. Your argument about how many years the top marginal rate was 70+% is irrelevant. Here's something else that makes it irrelevant:



The graph is from this link. Note his observation about the "inverse relationship between the highest marginal income tax rate and the share of taxes collected from the wealthy."

For a an in depth analysis of this period of taxation go here: #8 The Not So Surprising History of Tax Cuts

 

LOL.....Of course you dont care about effective rates, because it basically renders moot your entire misplaced rant.

 

It wouldn't add up if you change the intervals, as well as make up the addition as you go along. 1966 to 1975 is not 10 years. Its 9 years.

What's sad is that I have to use a time and date calculator to add up the years for you. As well as ask random people on my twitter the amount of years from 1936 -1980. The fact that I can get ramble people to demonstrate how big of fools you both are is nothing out of the ordinary. https://twitter.com/missjonelyn/status/312534467770191872

 

Oh, and I forgot something in that OECD study knockdown. I couldn't find where they accounted for U.S. military spending as the world's policeman. In 2010 America spent 42.2% of the world share of military spending. By contrast, none of the top eight countries in the OECD study made a list where the fifteenth listed country in military spending (Wikipedia) was Turkey at 1.1%. It must be nice to be able to spend so many tax dollars on egalitarian governance while ignoring spending on world security – and then get lauded for it by liberals (and a so-called conservative).

 

Yup.

In regard to that link, the only reason people want higher taxes on the rich is because they have been lied to by liberals and this supposed conservative. In fact, government revenues have increased more after every tax cut in the last sixty years than after every tax increase.



For more on tax cuts and increases go here: #8 The Not So Surprising History of Tax Cuts

 

By being some celebrity with an IQ of <100. Stock Market (at least the one we have now) does not serve its intended purpose at all and is instead the art of greatly overpricing stocks. Also, being the CEO of some company like McDonalds and hiring scientists to make their unhealthy, heart disease causing food addictive.

 

Yes exactly! The highest per capita income and one of the highest median incomes. You should learn what median means. It's the income inequality that is hosing you. Don't you get the fact that you're #2 in the world, just behind Mexico? Or are you trying to pretend that doesn't matter?

 

????????

Nobody was determining age or duration.

Every year is counted in full. That was the whole point. There were 49 individual years like that (according to protectionist).

Seriously, WTF is wrong with you.

 

Every date is counted in full. Not year. A year is a period of 365 days. And no, he did not say "49 different years," nor did he say "49 individual years. He said "there were 49 years of over 70% tax on the top bracket."

Going from one 1918 to 1919 is considered 1 year. Not counting from 1918 and then counting the next. That's complete and utter idiocy.

There is nothing wrong with me. You both are complete morons. That's basically a given.

​

 

Nobody was trying to determine duration from a specific date in year such and such to same date in year such and such. That's just your idiocy in play again. There is a total of 49 years according to the information protectionist provided. 49 x 365 (366 in some years).

Wouldn't surprise me if she, just like you, thinks that:

1. Location doesn't effect land value.
2. Inelastic supply means neither supply nor demand would not change.
3. There is no such thing as a capitalist company.
4. Citing the East India Company as being 'publicly held' proves that it wasn't a privately owned capitalist company. So I guess you don't know the difference between 'publicly held' and 'publicly owned' either.
etc.