US study lays bare extreme pay-ratio problem

You are deceptive, but perhaps not intentionally.

Once upon a time, the huge middle class in america paid more of the total taxes than the top 1 percent. This changed when the income that once went to the middle, started going to the top. So, you tax the money where it goes. And now, it goes to the top.

If you want to see this reversed, to where the middle pays the most in taxes, hell, reverse what created more income traveling to the top and let it travel to the middle.

Reagan did not have a slave labor globalistic economic model. Bush Sr put us on that path, and clinton signed it and then followed through with the same economic philosophy.

 

I didn't mention progressive tax. I referred to your application of 'divide & conquer'.

I didn't expect you to realise that you've essentially referrred to Marxist eonomics. Hey ho!

 

Says the man who's livelihood is dependent on government taxation and takeover of the economy

 

You're replied twice now with nonsense. All I did was acknowledge your application of Marxist analysis. You should thank me!

 

You acknowledged your hallucinations and wishful thinking Mr Statist

 

Look, its really not my fault that you use Marxist theory without knowing it...

 

No that would be the progressive tax proponents such as yourself

 

Again with the random reference to progressivity. Its like you want to recover some sort of regressive nature after the Marxism. God bless!

 

Oh sweet Reiver, you're too cute.
That some chap wants to inflict vicious tax rates on people who are not even rich says nothing about me. People have unequal wealth. So what? They can keep it.

 

You seem to think adjusting your random reply randomly will be interesting. I'm just interested in your application of Marxism. I'm wondering how far you'll take it.

 

You don't have to be interested, yet you are.
I'm wondering how long you'll keep trying to project your statist love onto me.

 

Two ignorant items in your post.

First, federal tax revenue has been fairly constant and independent of the top tax rate. The top tax rate is not the issue and is meaningless, its an item of propaganda for people who want to increase taxes but don't understand economics. The effective tax rate is the issue as it reflects the entire tax code.

Second, if the bottom 80% live in luxury and are content with their wealth and the wealth of the top 20%, the difference is irrelevant. You make the "percentage" argument to incite jealousy in people who are currently not jealous and spiteful.

In Brazil, the difference between the top 20% and the rest is tremendous, its the difference between luxury and true poverty. In the USA, the difference between the top 20% and the rest is the difference between a nice big house and a gigantic mansion, and nobody cares.

 

I don't love or hate right winger use of Marxism. I merely find it interesting. This is a jolly thing. Originally I thought you were a right wing bot without any insight.

 

Originally I thought you were a big government statist, and I was right.

 

IMF is very liberal. It makes welfare loans that cripple countries just like our domestic liberals make welfare loans or gifts that cripple people.

 

It's a shame that you have to lie about people.

 

Big government boy pulled the lie card.
Cute

 

You continue to lie. But I don't mind. That you used Marxism without knowing it is blessing enough!

 

Reaching for straws looks good on you

 

Comrade, your Marxism outstrips your humour.

 

Your imagination is full on retard today

 

Such crassness! Given you've referred to two aspects of heterodox economics (divide & conquer; financial elite), will you be entertaining us with any further examples?

 

For me, there is only one justification for raising taxes on the very rich, and that is for the goal of producing a balanced federal budget. I can guarantee you that, if the very rich had to pay high taxes on their upper incomes, there would be a lot of pressure exerted in Washington, D.C., to reduce unnecessary spending and get that federal budget balanced. "Class envy" is not a reason, and I'll tell you why ...

In this country there is already a pathway people can take that can give them a decent life. A great deal of that pathway is under our control. Here are some parts to it off the top of my head.

- Stay in school. Don't drop out of high school. Get a college degree, even if you cannot afford to be a full time student. Pay for one or two classes at a time if you have to, but get it done.

- Don't get involved in drugs.

- Don't commit crimes.

- Don't become an unwed mother.

- Create a good work record.

- Don't waste money.

- Treat people with courtesy and respect.

I would bet you that the vast majority of successful people followed this path, and the vast majority of those living in poverty did not.

 

You said financial elite.
I advocate low rates and equal application for all.
Exposing the corporatistic tax code that favors the scourge market manipulators and their pseudoscientific economist apologizers like yourself, who whip the people with their Marxist central banks, controlling the market price of money while directing flows with their digital printing presses is hardly Marxist Karl

 

You did come out with the heterodox approaches in more base language. This is true.

You sound like jameshere in your inability to construct relevant economic comment. No problem mind you. I'm sure your third example of Marxist thought will be arriving just around the corner....