USA disparity of wealth

For those who have not watched this video here it is:



Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMhvYeQPOcE


It still boggles my mind even though I have watched this video countless times.

How can you defend not taxing the 1% after this when their rates are SO low, compared to what they used to be

 

No one says don't tax top 1% except for liberals who want corporate welfare for companies who exploit loopholes like GE getting their environmentalist deductions.

One economic myth is the right wing capitalists don't want the rich to pay taxes but in reality its the loopholes we add trying to help poor people that end up only helping the rich.




Entire video is based on myths we never had high tax rates for the top we have higher tax rates today then we have ever had in US history anyone who says otherwise has no understanding of economics.


1) Yes the top tax rate was technically 79-50% in the past yet no one paid that there were no people in the top tax rate and even though close had so many tax loopholes they paid very low

Tax rates dropped when people got closer to the next income tax brackets and when loopholes were closing there was a huge drop when we implemented the double taxation corporate tax rates.



Right now someone could run a corporation make 1million he would pay over 40% in taxes (you only count income tax aren't counting the other taxes part of federal taxes like SS, Medicare, medicaid) but before he even paid that 40% his company already had to pay taxes on their income before paying him meaning they taxed it 2 times that 1million (he makes like 500k after taxes) he earned would have been way over 1million before taxes on the corporation.



I am sick of people making video's about how tax rates in America are too low. We pay more taxes in America then any country in the entire developed world. Go pay federal tax, state tax you pay 1/3 your pay check then go buy gas and pay gas tax & ethanol tax & state sales tax.

We spend most of our income on taxes.




Even if we had lower taxes today then before that is a good thing lower taxes spread the wealth when a rich man makes money he invests it and grows economy if he hoards his money he is killed by inflation if he invests it he creates jobs and earns profit. The only way to stay rich is by helping economy.





I also love people arguing that the rich get richer & poor get poorer when in reality everyone drifts towards the upper middle.


These documentaries focus on fake facts things like

Top Tax rates (while no one is even technically in that top tax rate while today many people are)

You will hear things like household income is stagnating & is no longer growing. That is true wanna know why? The average household is less people due to people making more to life on own individual income is on the rise while household is standing.

When you try to lie about your facts you don't have credibility. There was a time when I was young we respected men like Bill Gates who created jobs & grew technology now everyone feels they are entitled to the same wealth as Bill Gates.


Contrary to popular belief Capitalism is proven to work, & Socialism or any forms of collectivism have never once worked in large scale long term in the history of the world.


When America had more capitalistic properties we were the economic super power of the world everyone wanted to be in America now everyone moving money to Capitalist countries like Switzerland because we are ruining everyone trying to save everyone.

 

All of your posts make you seem like a hypocrite you always state that there is no fact behind any post that doesn't share you opinion yet all your "facts" are based off your opinion and I havnt seen you once post a reference nor a source. Learn to debate.
As for some of your statements I wish to address specifically your comment regarding bill gates. Bill gates is the most generous philanthropist the world has ever seen do you think he's truly lobbying for lower taxes? No he's more concerned with his foundation dedicated to helping others. Meanwhile there are those who are greedy for example the greedy oil tycoon that supports Romney. He's not a philanthropist the only time he hands out money is to get tax breaks for himself or to support the Romney foundation and that's morally wrong and unjustified. I await your response in why people with so much money need more.

 

I reference sources only when needed any jackass can go google www.biasedstatistics.com and pull up shit or someone can explain why your argument is invalid id rather have a person use their brain then use another persons argument.

I don't need statistics I simply stated the premise its based on is false it is a logical fallacy to base an argument on a false premise you can prove anything with a false premise. Therefore destroying teh premise of an argument destroys the argument.


I post facts when I am trying to prove a point the burden of proof is person making the claim not person disproving the claim.

When I make this thread I write sources because I am trying to prove the point.
http://www.hackforums.net/showthread.php?tid=2998352


If someone were to state Obama had a great economic record and I said no he didn't its not for me to find the data to prove he wasn't because I am not making the claim I am refuting his claim which was asserted without evidence therefor can be dismissed without evidence.


I have poor grammar I do not have poor debate skills.

 

Just the obvious bullshit lines you used in your post:

Bill Gates want rich people to pay more: http://www.policymic.com/articles/42307/bill-gates-tax-the-rich-more-to-help-reduce-deficit

USA tax rates, how the hell are we paying more than other developed countries:
http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/50eef524ecad04766900000c-960/tax rates ranking 100k.jpg

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/world/comparing-us-taxes-other-countries

The T.E.A. party is a bad joke my fellow American. Other Republicans laugh at you and hate you at the same time. You are splitting the party and thus destroying any chance you had of getting your goals accomplished. (Thankfully for the rest of us)

No.
http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-getting-richer-2013-4

Also, Rand will fail miserably in 2016.
It will be Christie versus Hillary and Hillary will win.

 

First of all you skipped over most of my post and tried to find a few red herrings but lets just ignore that.



YOU DO REALIZE WE HAVE A PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM THE RICHER PAY MORE THEN THE POOR GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

Ad Hominem & Appeal to Authority & misconception he doesn't believe in loopholes for rich and he beliefs the top should pay more which all agree with.

I agree with a Fair tax or Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan but I would also accept a flat tax (everyone pays same % like all pay 20%) Bill Gates thinks the top should pay more he doesn't say more much or whatever and his opinion is irrelevant he is not an economic he is a business man there is a difference he has no actual education in economics.

This isn't accounting for how the bottom 20% get more in tax rebates then pay in taxes, and 47% pay under 1% to income tax I would exclude non tax payers from the survey but lets talk about bigger picture.

This is not counting state taxes.
This is not counting Medicaid/Medicare tax
This excludes lots of variables other countries do not have state taxes so its easier to get numbers.

Texas has no federal income tax and is a growing economy while it doesn't take as much federal funds as it pays in yet states that take more taxes in people do worse.

Even if we did pay low taxes which we don't it wouldn't help economy.

That is snapshot data you are comparing the top incomes from people today & back you are not following the families you are not accounting for income mobility.

Rand has a great shot however I believe Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio will win but I would prefer Rand. Good to know you would like a president who kills America & lies to our own people.


Look families all drift towards upper middle
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf

Those who were rich one year fall to the middle. If you sell your house one year you are top 1% that year doesn't mean you are a 1%er


You cannot say look top 1% have this today and top1% had this back then because you are not following the families.

People who were rich 10 years ago wont always be rich in 10 years and people who are poor today wont be poor in 10 years. More people enter work force now and they start at the bottom but they work up.



Christie isn't running and he wouldn't win

TEA party is about freedom I don't care about what Moderate Republicans say or think I don't like republicans they are sellouts I like conservatives. We don't like corporations abusing you like liberals think corporations & government need to run our lives. I don't believe in corporate welfare, I don't believe in drug laws, I don't believe in federal interference in gay marriage, I don't believe in tax breaks to special interest groups of the president, I don't believe in trading security for freedom I follow the constitution and our founding fathers. (Especially Jefferson)

He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security. - Franklin



I fit the description of a classic liberal (Modern liberalism has changed) I am an individualist I belief in no governmental interference helping our corporatist society I want capitalism not corporatism.

 

I'm absolutely stunned people are still complaining about the tax rate on the upper class being too low. I see people complain all the time about how it's unfair that the upper class don't pay their 'fair share' of taxes.

Imagine you and 3 friends order a pizza. The pizza has 8 slices, and costs $8. All 4 people present eat 2 slices, and pay $2 each.

^ Everyone would agree that everyone paid their fair share of the pizza. They each had an equal amount and paid an equal price.

Now imagine this: Imagine you and 3 friends order a pizza, which costs $8. There are 10 slices, you eat one slice and each of your friends eat 3 slices. You each pay $2.

Most would say this is slightly less fair. You did not consume as much, but are paying for others. Relate this to all of the benefits and breaks that the poor get: Welfare, education grants, etc, that the rich pay for with their taxes and never benefit from.

Imagine you and 3 friends order a pizza which costs $8. There are 10 slices, you eat one slice and each of your friends eat 3 slices. You pay $7 and each of your friends pay 33 cents

This is the way the tax system is currently set up. The rich pay the lion's share of taxes, yet they receive almost no benefits.

 

What is even funnier is those who complain about rich not paying fair share are the same ones giving subsidies to companies like Exxon & GE for making their things "environmentally safer"

Every change we make to make things more green has worked negatively.

Electric cars pollute more due to how we get our electricity, catalytic converter which reduce co2 also reduce fuel efficiency making us pollute more co2. Ethanol makes our fuel less fuel efficient as well as take away our corn for food sources (Also needs to be subsidized since its not cost effective).


Then those same people are against safe Nuclear Power because they watch too many sci-fy shows.


Any time regulations pass its all funded by big corporations trying to cut little guy out ObamaCare is sponsored by many big corporations because they know it will make it impossible to compete.

 

Another thing is, the video in the topic post is such a piss poor example to make an argument for. It is focused around a survey they took asking people what they want the ideal wealth distribution would be, and what they thought the current distribution is. Then they made big visual representations of each of these figures.

I could make a video on say, teen pregnancy rates, survey 100 people who say the ideal rate is 3%, they thought the rate was 6% and compare it to the current rate of 9%. Toss all of these numbers on a graph and you could make it look like a much larger problem than it is.

Two of the three numbers being used as data come from a survey of non-experts, and one of the two numbers being "WHAT THEY SAID WAS IDEAL". I could say it's ideal that only 100 people live under the poverty level in the world, and then put that against a graph of the 2 billion people that do and go "OMG GUYS LOOK". Ideal is just that.... ideal. Fantasy. It just shows how the video is geared entirely towards an appeal to emotion and some sense of injustice, because it spends most of the video telling you that 90%+ of other people think one way, in an effort to make sure anyone in the video doesn't think for themselves.

 

But then they what they thought was reality which was a lot more life-like than ideal.

Ideal was just as you said, what people think it should be.
Reality is what they thought it was.
And then they showed the actual reality.


The BIG thing was, the ideal was as far off from the peoples "reality" than their reality was from the actual reality.

We are near 3rd world standards of disparity in wealth, yet you are

 

No we are not everything you are claiming is a lie.


Also even if there were income disparity look at America the poorest of poor people in America live better then royalty in the poor countries. In America no one starves due to lack of income/food, poor people have electronic devices people don't even dream of in 3rd world countries, people buy alcohol, cigarettes and many other things just because we can.


Notice how I am saying income not wealth, wealth is implying equities not money earned most people do not save money or have money left over its possible to be in top 1% in America for wealth, but not income, while earning 12 dollars an hour.

My link I sent you disproves your poor getting poorer & rich getting richer bullshit. You cannot compare top1% today to top 1% 10 years ago because they are different people the top1% today was not rich 10 years ago you need to follow people not take a snapshot of data to mislead your already false premise.

 

I'll humor you even though you sidestep my response with another fallacy.

What is wrong with people being incredibly wealthy if they earn it? What is wrong with people being poor if they don't have marketable skills?

Your battle here appears to be against the cold hard truths of life. Some people are more fit to make money than others, their skills are more valuable. If my talent is flipping burgers, and 200 million other people in this country can do it, supply and demand states I'm going to make minimum wage. If my talent is being able to throw a baseball on target at 100+ mph and only 50 other people can do that, I'll make 10 million per year. If my talent is creating a technology empire, and only 2 people can do that, I'm Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, and I earn billions.

Even if all of the wealth in the world was redistributed evenly, the people who have skills would simply return to the top of the food chain, and those who don't will go back to poverty. Just because someone has a lot of money doesn't mean it's a crime, they have to earn it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Walton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Hilton

What.



Someone that grows up with wealthy parents has more opportunities in life than someone who is born in a poor family, that fact is not arguable. We should be trying to fix that.

 

inequality of wealth:
http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-d...ribution-income-inequality.html#axzz2XGgz2BQp

USA value 40.81
Ethiopia value 29.83

 

You are comparing (arguably) the world's richest country with one of the worlds poorest countries. Of course the wealth inequality will be higher because there is more opportunity for class mobility in the US.

 

If you clicked on the link you would see that I had a plethora of options to choose from.

 

It doesn't matter. Any capitalist country has more class mobility than a third world country. Do you think this is a bad thing or something? Would you rather everyone live in poverty?

 

I'd rather have everyone closer together in economic equality.

 

There is no such thing as economic equality. When you have economic equality you don't have shared wealth you have shared misery.

There is a reason capitalism works and collectivism cannot work people won't work if they get no gain capitalism is based on greed if you are greedy you need to contribute to the economy for your income to grow if you want more you need to produce more.

Under socialism/communism there is no production because there is no reason to produce why would you risk your money to start a business if you cannot profit.

Income inequality is good it makes income mobility possible.



You get mad about Paris Hilton inheriting wealth but lets look at what she does.

Television personality, businesswoman, fashion designer, entrepreneur, model, actress, producer, author and singer.

She also donates time & money to countless charities she does not just inherit money people cannot inherit wealth its not possible for wealth to live forever.




Inflation is the force driving the economy if you just get money form your parents and hoard it then it gets devalued by inflation there for you are losing your wealth. But if you take the money invest it (making other people rich) you get more wealth this is good.



The poorest person in USA is richer then most royalty in other countries in the world.

 

Recidivism, in the perfect world what would be the best form of government?

Would it not be communism?

In a perfect world it would be communism, but we do not live in a perfect world -- but we can strive toward it and *more* economic equality is something we should be striving for.