Is Fixing Income Inequality Actually Un-American?

[Moderate Right]

That was not the reason to have welfare, or at least what Aristotle talked about....it was to prevent revolution.

You can't honestly compare the US to anything Aristotle wrote. I'm willing to bet you are for gun control against the second ammendment because times are different now than when the second ammendment was written while at the same time drudging Aristotle up out of his grave to argue economics.

 

[Moderate Right]

First, how the poor live compared to other European countries doesn't matter as much as how the middle class live in comparison. Yes, we provide many services for the poor via tax money, but the middle class in many other European countries get a good bang for their buck which is becoming less and less so here. Also, I would love to hear how our poor have it better than say the poor in Germany or France.

Proof please

 

[mmi]

Most if not all of the middle class will pay little or no federal tax.. making it very progressive for those below the standard deduction.

Why should people in, say, the second-highest quintile get effed over to make things better for the top few percent?

>>Or spent on wars are a myriad of other things that don't help them.

That's pretty weak. "Don't make a good decision, … because it might be followed by a bad one."

>>We don't have a revenue problem/.

I say we do — we should grab a hundred billion or so from the top of the scale. They've been cleaning up on both ends for a looooong time.

Last year, the top one percent grabbed 22.2% of national income, for an average of $1.74 million per household. That's about four trillion bucks. Three percent of that is $120 billion. That would cost those fat cats an average of about $52K annually. Hillary can send them all a nice photo to put on the wall.

>>if you don't make enough money we give you help.

Enough to afford decent housing?

>>we are not inundated with homeless people

You don't consider half a million an inundation? Fifty thousand are veterans.

>>The idea that the poor are living in squalor … Its a frequent liberal meme.

You consider this little girl a meme?



>> I believe you have used it as well.

You wouldn't want me to … Ignore her, would you?

>>the calls are to reduce the cost of HEALTHCARE.. and whats being reduced? Reimbursement to nurses, physicians, therapists, and the healthcare industry.

Any evidence to support that? Healthcare costs have been increasing at around 6.5% and are projected for that next year as well.



My understanding is that patients are the ones paying for that through higher deductibles and co-pays.

>>who buy the way is going to administrate that single payer... why of course THE INSURANCE industry.. just like private companies administrate medicare and Medicaid. now.

With much lower administrative costs. Medicare administrative costs are about 1.5%, Medicaid's are about 7%, and in the private sector they run anywhere from eight to as much as twenty percent.

all the liberal spending on social programs didn't help the poor

Then how was the poverty rate cut in half 1963-2000? The tooth fairy?

The blind cannot see. Their solution is always to double down on something that obviously didn't work before. Their trouble is they think too much with emotion instead of thinking things out and realizing that what they want just makes the situation worse.

"double down on something that obviously didn't work before" — SSE under Reagan and again under Bush43.

:"they think too much with emotion instead of thinking things out and realizing that what they want just makes the situation worse" — ditto.

 

[mmi]

that isn't a claim to someone's private property

"Lay and collect," pal. Read it and weep. Meanwhile, keep on payin' or be prosecuted. ☺

>>the constitution sets out to protect the seizer of peoples private property

Unreasonable seizures.

>>you are wrong as usual.

Yer not usually wrong, yer always wrong, and brutally, woefully wrong, every single god damn time — that's what makes crushing yer pathetic ass child's play.

>>Sure it is the more you make above the deductible the more you pay. that is progressive. if it wasn't progressive then everyone would pay the same amount but they aren't.

You don't know what progressive means in this context — "increasing in rate as the base increases." Find a dictionary and try it. Why do you bother to comment on these things?

>>The failed war on poverty has proven this wrong.

Poverty cut in half 1963-2000. You are ALWAYS proven to be wrong, and VERY easily. ☺

>>In many cases it is due to many other factors that don't allow them to make money.

Uh-oh. You seem to be just a weeeeee bit correct on that one. Maybe yer improving.

>>when you are living off the government you don't get to be picky. you get what they give you.

Yes, and we intend to give them more. Ya like that?

>>if you don't like it then it is up to them to do something.

We will help them more. You can whine about it.

>>Opinion is opinion

Not necessarily, at least imo.

>>there are still state clinics that will take them. that will not cost them anything.

Clinics? For people earning low wages? I'm intrigued. Do go on.

>>why do you like LCD healthcare

What's that, some kinda fancy TV? I have a Samsung.

>>do you not value your health more than that?

More than my TV? Tough choice, but I suppose I've have to go with my health.

>>No thanks

No thanks necessary. Happy to do it.

>>I value my health more than that sorry that you don't.

Don't worry about me — my ACA policy is working out just fine.

>>you would be wrong they are both political and economic systems. they are more economic than political although politics always plays a part.

I really love to hear yer views on political philosophy — very entertaining.

>>Jesus wasn't a communist

I was asking Him about that just the other day, and that's what He told me. Doubt Him if you wish.

>>then you didn't study it that well or only what you wanted to study.

On the latter, I suppose I didn't focus much on things that didn't interest me, and I may not be fully up to speed on some o' this new stuff. Dominionism (aka Christofascism) is something that came along after my time at university, but I get a good look at it on Faux News. As to the quality of my education, I am content. I do wish I'd done more with it, but I'm still around, so …

history has proved that the government handing out bread doesn't get people out of poverty.

We've come up with a new idea — cake!

That is a red herring to his discussion.

He's got an ocean full of 'em.

 

[ludin]

"Lay and collect," pal. Read it and weep. Meanwhile, keep on payin' or be prosecuted. ☺

Your failure as always is the same question I will ask you.
what right do YOU not the government but YOU have to someone elses property the answer is none.

Unreasonable seizures.

yep thinking that someone has more than what you think they should have is, and attempting to take it by
threat of government is unreasonable.

Yer not usually wrong, yer always wrong, and brutally, woefully wrong, every single god damn time — that's what makes crushing yer pathetic ass child's play.

not at all I have proven you wrong more times than I can count backed up by legit sources.
just as I proved you wrong here.

you are not the government and neither is he so you have 0 right to someone else's property.
nor do you have the right to tell them that they have to much.

You don't know what progressive means in this context — "increasing in rate as the base increases." Find a dictionary and try it. Why do you bother to comment on these things?

You don't get to make up your own definitions.
Forbes Welcome
proven wrong yet again.

Poverty cut in half 1963-2000. You are ALWAYS proven to be wrong, and VERY easily. ☺

lol wrong yet again.
Forbes Welcome

you need to stop reading the daily kos and huffpo they are severely wrong in their articles. not sure where you are getting your information but
it is highly flawed.

Uh-oh. You seem to be just a weeeeee bit correct on that one. Maybe yer improving.

Nope once again having to correct your incorrect statement.

Yes, and we intend to give them more. Ya like that?

by all means you and all the people like you and think that way can go here.
Gifts to the United States Government: Questions and Answers: Financial Management Service

you can give all the money you want to the federal government I have a family to take care of
and frankly they are more important than you.

We will help them more. You can whine about it.

you can give all the money you want now. why don't you?
the only person crying here is you. they make more than I think they should it isn't fair.

Not necessarily, at least imo.

Thanks for proving my point.

Clinics? For people earning low wages? I'm intrigued. Do go on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Psychiatric_hospitals_in_the_United_States
here you go.

What's that, some kinda fancy TV? I have a Samsung.

Pretty much already told me what I knew about your posts pretty much invalid on all points.

Don't worry about me — my ACA policy is working out just fine.

LOL I bet it is.

I really love to hear yer views on political philosophy — very entertaining.

read any economics book.

I was asking Him about that just the other day, and that's what He told me. Doubt Him if you wish.

I don't doubt Him at all. fact is you don't know what you are talking about as usual.

On the latter, I suppose I didn't focus much on stuff that didn't interest me, and I may not be fully up to speed on some o' this new stuff.. Dominionism (aka Christofascism) is something that came along after my time at university, but I get a good look at it on Faux News. As to the quality of my education, I am content. I do wish I'd done more with it, but I'm still around, so …

mediocrity explains a great deal, and you keep crying about what other people have.

He's got an ocean full of 'em.

pretty much all you have.

 

[iguanaman]

Please.. again you are a shill for the uber wealthy.

Remember your .."but who is going to help the people if not for the government.". Liberals push government involvement in bailing out companies to protect jobs and unions. They push liberal government spending to "increase production".
Its all your liberal idea that the answer is always "the government needs to help".

I thought to a liberal the debt does not matter?

Maybe you liberals should realize that all the liberal spending on social programs didn't help the poor but helped the wealthy sock away a lot of money....

It is you who should admit you have much more money because of the low rates you have enjoyed since Reagan. And while I am not worried about paying off the debt, at least I know where that money went...into the hedge funds and to the commodity speculators who bid up things we all need and use. Not to mention the stocks of the Dot com bubble and the tranches of mortgages that formed the housing bubble. That $40 trillion goes a long long way and some will take huge risks to get a piece of it. That's how we know that it is excessive and that it was a huge mistake to allow so much wealth to concentrate in so few.

 

[mmi]

what right do YOU not the government but YOU have to someone elses property

We, the people, are the gubmint. Get it?

>>thinking that someone has more than what you think they should have … and attempting to take it by threat of government is unreasonable.

What I or anyone else thinks someone should have is not really not the issue. We lay and collect democratically with SCOTUS as a last resort to defend constitutional rights. I don't see the majority siding with you.

>>I have proven you wrong more times than I can count

I would have thought you could count to one, but …

>>you are not the government and neither is he

We the people. ☺

>>You don't get to make up your own definitions.

I don't take reading assignments, not from the likes of you at least.

>>proven wrong yet again.

☺

>>wrong yet again.

Ditto. And how do you account for the drop here:



>>you need to stop reading the daily kos and huffpo

Never started.

>>not sure where you are getting your information

On poverty rates, the US Census Bureau. Unlike some, I don't look in the toilet for economic and social statistics.

>>having to correct your incorrect statement.

You said, "In many cases it is due to many other factors that don't allow them to make money." I had said, "In many cases, it is exactly because they don't make enough money." I figure there's room for both of us to be correct. A population can contain both many of this and many of that.

>>people like you and think that way can go here.

Ah, that gem again. I can't say where you can go without being sanctioned. But happily, you lose, and lose big. We liberals don't need to volunteer more money, we can instead elect a POTUS like Barry Soetoro and have him sic the IRS on yer ass if you don't cough it up as prescribed by law. Those dogs aren't as friendly as my coonhound pals.

>>you can give all the money you want to the federal government I have a family to take care of

Keep paying all the taxes required of you and you'll be allowed to stay with yer family. Otherwise, … CLANK! ☺

>>the only person crying here is you.

How am I crying?

>>they make more than I think they should it isn't fair.

Well, just don't cry about it, OK?

>>I bet it is.

That's one bet you'd win then.

>>read any economics book.

I have a bookshelf full of them. Whatever reading you've done on the subject doesn't seem to have helped.

>>you don't know what you are talking about as usual.

I talk to Him every day.

>>mediocrity explains a great deal

I suppose it does indeed explain a lot of things. In yer case, I'd go with "paucity."

>>you keep crying about what other people have.

Never. I do not experience envy. Or jealousy either. You RWers don't seem to know the difference, but my guess is that a lot of you are heavily burdened by both — a sure sign of weak character.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

And when do you expect this law to take effect? I have fantasies to that will never happen.

In the present situation, probably not in my lifetime.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

What a load of crap interpretation! We have the highest living standards across the board. All kinds of poor people have microwaves, big screen televisions, dvd players, and smartphones, not to mention many other luxuries.

That is no interpretation, but an actual quote from the article.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

You can't honestly compare the US to anything Aristotle wrote. I'm willing to bet you are for gun control against the second ammendment because times are different now than when the second ammendment was written while at the same time drudging Aristotle up out of his grave to argue economics.

??? None of what you have here addresses what I said about Aristotle.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

I'm curious what percent of people will always be poor and what percent will always be rich. None of those groups are structurally permanent. Hell, all those years, Bill Gates was not in the top 1% as Microsoft paid him $1 in salary and paid no dividends.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Proof please

I find this link has a comprehensive break down of the safety net services of those in some European countries.

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/gl..._u.s._have_a_european-style_welfare_state.pdf

 

[pdog]

No. I am using my Constitutional right not to engage in baiting, non sequitur, and nonsense on a message board.

no, you're using your constitutional right to stay ignorant. You had a definition for something that was wrong. You were given the correct term. And you chose to poo-poo it.

 

[pdog]

Of course I know that..

you do NOT KNOW that. The assertion is that higher taxes on the wealthy will lead to higher government "revenues" and increased public sector jobs (including those for the homeless).

You might be able to say that higher taxes MIGHT not result in higher revenues and therefore no such increase would occur. But neither of us can guarantee anything.

 

[Moderate Right]

I find this link has a comprehensive break down of the safety net services of those in some European countries.

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/gl..._u.s._have_a_european-style_welfare_state.pdf

First, how the poor live compared to other European countries doesn't matter as much as how the middle class live in comparison. Yes, we provide many services for the poor via tax money, but the middle class in many other European countries get a good bang for their buck which is becoming less and less so here. Also, I would love to hear how our poor have it better than say the poor in Germany or France.

Your paper does not show how the middle class in the US are doing compared to the middle class in Europe. It doesn't even refer to the middle class. It refers to the poor.

 

[pdog]

Whatever.. you are lost.

Fine. Explain why without just repeating yourself.

It is a progressive tax and I explained how its more equitable.

NO YOU DID NOT. First you did not answer the very simple question if it is like a progressive tax, why not just use a progressive tax. You certainly didn't explain why it is equitable.

I make slightly less than Mitt Romney.. but he pays a lower effective rate because of deductions. A neurosurgeon makes less than me.. and he pays almost the same rate. Its unequitable because its based on who is most politically connected and gets the best deductions.

JFC!....ANY TAX SYSTEM CAN ELIMINATE DEDUCTIONS!! Stop adding in distractions and let your argument stand on it's own merit.

A flat tax eliminates that.

You just got done describing the descrepencies created by deductions. It seems logical that ELIMINATING THE DEDUCTIONS would be the thing that eliminates that.

I will pay the same tax rate as someone else.. after deduction.. and the more money they make the more tax they will pay..

....still describing an actual progressive tax. Still not sure where you're not on board with an actual progressive tax.

So you try again.

Lol. You have no idea how silly you look in this do you.

Explain why you want a system that allows Romney to pay 11%.. and a neurosurgeon that makes much less should pay a higher rate. Because that's what happens with tax systems that have multiple deductions and exemptions and credits.

Beat that deduction strawman! Beat it! Beat it real good! Ok you done? Return to my post now where #1 said "any tax system can eliminate deductions".

 

[pdog]

Oh please. The mentally ill are going to get a a public sector job?

You're right MR, all homeless are mentally ill. Great debating sir. You really outflanked me on that one.

 

[Moderate Right]

you do NOT KNOW that. The assertion is that higher taxes on the wealthy will lead to higher government "revenues" and increased public sector jobs (including those for the homeless).

You might be able to say that higher taxes MIGHT not result in higher revenues and therefore no such increase would occur. But neither of us can guarantee anything.

Typical liberal policy. Let's see, we are running 500 billion dollar deficits with approximately a 20 trillion dollar national debt and you want to tax the rich more so that we can spend the increased tax revenues to create public sector jobs to employ the homeless, who the majority have mental issues and even I admit that most of them can't even work a job in the first place.

 

[Moderate Right]

You're right MR, all homeless are mentally ill. Great debating sir. You really outflanked me on that one.

Most of the homeless are mentally ill. Please show where I said all of the homeless are mentally ill. The only way you can win a debate is to twist other's words around to suit your dishonest debating tactics.

 

[pdog]

Typical liberal policy.

I'm not sure why you lead off each of your threads this way. It does not help you.

Let's see, we are running 500 billion dollar deficits with approximately a 20 trillion dollar national debt and you want to tax the rich more so that we can spend the increased tax revenues to create public sector jobs to employ the homeless

yup that's about right. Depending on revenues the deficit may also go down. Do you have a rebuttal?

, who the majority have mental issues

citation needed

and even I admit that most of them can't even work a job in the first place.

stereotype or citation needed.

 

[pdog]

Most of the homeless are mentally ill.

citation needed.

Please show where I said all of the homeless are mentally ill.

--I said that with a larger public sector their might be less homeless.

--You said "oh please the mentally ill are going to get a public sector job" which, in the absence of any other statement, attempts to change my argument of "less homeless" into either "less mentally ill homeless" OR implies that all "homeless" are mentally ill. Take your pick.

The only way you can win a debate is to twist other's words around to suit your dishonest debating tactics.

Lol. This is called "projecting".

 

[Moderate Right]

I'm not sure why you lead off each of your threads this way. It does not help you.


yup that's about right. Depending on revenues the deficit may also go down. Do you have a rebuttal?



citation needed


stereotype or citation needed.

I should have clarified that the majority of the homeless are either mentally ill or suffer addictions to alcohol or other substances. Most of these people are unemployable.

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/addiction.pdf

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/Mental_Illness.pdf

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Your paper does not show how the middle class in the US are doing compared to the middle class in Europe. It doesn't even refer to the middle class. It refers to the poor.

No, that is untrue. There is a whole section in the paper that addresses income support and safety nets that apply not only to the poor, but to all families like "family benefits", "health care", "income support policies/unemployment policy, sick benefits, disability benefits, labor market policies etc....which in all these areas beat the US especially when it comes to such things as family benefits.

 

[Moderate Right]

No, that is untrue. There is a whole section in the paper that addresses income support and safety nets that apply not only to the poor, but to all families like "family benefits", "health care", "income support policies/unemployment policy, sick benefits, disability benefits, labor market policies etc....which in all these areas beat the US especially when it comes to such things as family benefits.

But even that is not evidence that the middle class in Europe is doing better than the middle class in the US. Maybe the middle class in Europe is actually doing worse than the middle class in the US and that's why they need more social programs in Europe to lift the middle class up. So far you have presented zero evidence that the middle class in Europe does better than the middle class in the US, merely that they have more social programs.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

But even that is not evidence that the middle class in Europe is doing better than the middle class in the US. Maybe the middle class in Europe is actually doing worse than the middle class in the US and that's why they need more social programs in Europe to lift the middle class up. So far you have presented zero evidence that the middle class in Europe does better than the middle class in the US, merely that they have more social programs.

If you read about their labor market policy, they do keep wages higher than say the US because they regulate the market more, and also have in place more protections for workers. That alone would be a gain in most people's opinions. Also, the fact they have social safety nets in place gives them a better standard of living because they can spend more time with family enjoying life than say working until they die to afford some small luxuries, but could be fired if they wanted to take more time off to let's say spend more time with family (especially if they have small children or an elderly parent to help out).