27 Apr 14
Originally posted by whodeyEvery social class except the very richest has been losing ground economically for many years. The reason is that the very wealthy are accumulating a growing proportion of the wealth and income in developed economies. The economies of most countries are distorted to meet their greedy requirements and they exercise hugely disproportionate political influence in order to secure their special position.
Actor Tim Allen recently tweeted a question, "How does increasing taxes on the wealthy help the middle class."
What say you?
Every social class benefits from policies that put some limit on the concentration of resources and power in fewer and fewer hands.
28 Apr 14
Originally posted by finneganSo if what you say is true, how will increasing the taxes of the wealthy help the little people?
Every social class except the very richest has been losing ground economically for many years. The reason is that the very wealthy are accumulating a growing proportion of the wealth and income in developed economies. The economies of most countries are distorted to meet their greedy requirements and they exercise hugely disproportionate political influenc ...[text shortened]... licies that put some limit on the concentration of resources and power in fewer and fewer hands.
28 Apr 14
Originally posted by RBHILLBut increasing taxes will not increase the money coming to you RB. It has already been determined what will be given to the poor. Raising taxes will do nothing to change this because they don't depend on the revenue to dish out entitlements.
Give money to the middle class that would help pay some bills. I am below the middle class.
28 Apr 14
Originally posted by finneganThe wealthiest 1% make tons of money
Every social class except the very richest has been losing ground economically for many years. The reason is that the very wealthy are accumulating a growing proportion of the wealth and income in developed economies. The economies of most countries are distorted to meet their greedy requirements and they exercise hugely disproportionate political influenc ...[text shortened]... licies that put some limit on the concentration of resources and power in fewer and fewer hands.
not from their labor but from their investments and inheritance.
28 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyBig business is the one getting the entitlements. The financial sector has the too big to fail companies headed by the too rich to jail. Big farmers have their subsidies. Too bad those growing healthy, non-GMO, organics are not subsidized. Oil is subsidized. The minimum wage means businesses get to underpay workers who then qualify for assistance so in fact it is Walmart who is getting subsidized by low wages.
But increasing taxes will not increase the money coming to you RB. It has already been determined what will be given to the poor. Raising taxes will do nothing to change this because they don't depend on the revenue to dish out entitlements.
28 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by PhrannyAll very astute observations.
Big business is the one getting the entitlements. The financial sector has the too big to fail companies headed by the too rich to jail. Big farmers have their subsidies. Too bad those growing healthy, non-GMO, organics are not subsidized. Oil is subsidized. The minimum wage means businesses get to underpay workers who then qualify for assistance so in fact it is Walmart who is getting subsidized by low wages.
So answer Tim Allen's question. How is taxing the wealthy more money, or anyone else for that matter, how is that helping the poor?
Can anyone answer this question? Do people think that entitlements will increase if more money comes in? Keep in mind that entitlements are fixed. They already plan on spending a certain amount no matter what revenue comes into the government.
28 Apr 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziI think it is an important question.
i am confused as to why it is important that tim allen tweeted this?
http://www.commonsenseissue.com/obama-s-truly-radical-capital-gains-tax-agenda-2/
Why exactly are we taxing people? Is it to create more revenue for the government or is it to create more revenue for the poor or, in the case of the article above, is it being used as a punitive measure. In the article above, President Obama was asked if he would raise capital gains tax if he knew it would decrease overall revenue due to Laffer Curve effects. The president said he would, indicating that it was only "fair". So I ask, fair to who if overall revenue decrease?
I get the sense that taxation is more of a way to keep people in line than a method of redistribution to the poor or even enriching those in Washington.
28 Apr 14
Originally posted by whodeyIt's a pity Obama knows nothing about economics, or he might have known that it is extremely unlikely that raising capital gains taxes would lead to reduced tax revenues. So asking if capital gains taxes should be raised if this leads to a reduction in revenues through Laffer curve effects is completely redundant.
I think it is an important question.
http://www.commonsenseissue.com/obama-s-truly-radical-capital-gains-tax-agenda-2/
Why exactly are we taxing people? Is it to create more revenue for the government or is it to create more revenue for the poor or, in the case of the article above, is it being used as a punitive measure. In the article above, Preside ...[text shortened]... eople in line than a method of redistribution to the poor or even enriching those in Washington.
28 Apr 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo you are saying that Obama is ignorant of economics?
It's a pity Obama knows nothing about economics, or he might have known that it is extremely unlikely that raising capital gains taxes would lead to reduced tax revenues. So asking if capital gains taxes should be raised if this leads to a reduction in revenues through Laffer curve effects is completely redundant.
Just know that I was anti-Obama before it became cool. 😵
Having said that, so you would say that taxation always leads to improvement of the poor, or would you say it depends on how you manage the revenue?
28 Apr 14
Originally posted by whodeyObama is a mere lawyer. He is a decent speaker and not too stupid (maybe even slightly smarter than GWB), but not an academic by any stretch of the imagination. He's just been too busy networking to spend a few hours studying basic economics.
So you are saying that Obama is ignorant of economics?
Just know that I was anti-Obama before it became cool. 😵
Having said that, so you would say that taxation always leads to improvement of the poor, or would you say it depends on how you manage the revenue?
I have never seen anyone claim, nor do I support the notion that "taxation always leads to improvement of the poor."