What a...

[Z1NONLY 10+ year member]

I'm not watching some idiotic youtube video that sources the heritage foundation. Show me a legit article and I'll read it.
That last one is an excellent one and shows exactly what I was saying. In the middle of the last century, thanks to government, the middle class's wealth overall grew enormously. Now, thanks to the rise of the right the past 30 years, the gains are being lost.

That's one way to maintain your position. Ignore evidence to the contrary. The facts provided therein, are accurate. Do you care to provide a legitimate counter to the fact that the poor are getting richer? (albeit slower than the rich are getting richer.)

As for your list of links...Thanks for demonstrating what an abject failure Obama has been.

Regarding the envy gap, please tell me how my neighbor having more money than me is at all relevant for any reason other than petty jealousy.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

As for your list of links...Thanks for demonstrating what an abject failure Obama has been.

Obama's 2 1/2 years in office has caused the disintegration of the middle class for the past 30 years? Wow, he is worse than I thought. Tell me, what specific policies of his caused all these things?

And I don't even know where you're coming from about the neighbor thing.

Maybe I'll watch your video tomorrow. I'm guessing it's going to be the bullshit about x amount of people have microwaves and refrigerators or something. Because if you have those, it's like living in a house made of gold and wiping your *** with 1,000 dollar bills.

 

[Z1NONLY 10+ year member]

Tell me, what specific policies of his caused all these things?

Obama has created an environment that's hostile to business. What rock have you been living under?

And I don't even know where you're coming from about the neighbor thing.

Your last link decrying the widening gap between the rich and the poor. That's the envy gap and I was asking you to explain why you think it relevant to anything.

Maybe I'll watch your video tomorrow. I'm guessing it's going to be the bullshit about x amount of people have microwaves and refrigerators or something. Because if you have those, it's like living in a house made of gold and wiping your *** with 1,000 dollar bills.

It's a video with facts demonstrating that America's poor are getting richer and are some of (if not the) wealthiest poor people on the planet.

 

[Linkz 10+ year member]

Obama's 2 1/2 years in office has caused the disintegration of the middle class for the past 30 years? Wow, he is worse than I thought. Tell me, what specific policies of his caused all these things?
And I don't even know where you're coming from about the neighbor thing.

Maybe I'll watch your video tomorrow. I'm guessing it's going to be the bullshit about x amount of people have microwaves and refrigerators or something. Because if you have those, it's like living in a house made of gold and wiping your *** with 1,000 dollar bills.

Then by what metric should we measure a person/families standard of living?

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

Obama has created a hostile business environment. What rock have you been living under?

I said specifically. What bills passed congress that he signed into law has decreased the personal savings rates for the past 30 years, stagnated wages for the past 30 years, decreased them in the past decade and raised inequality in the past 30 years? Also, the rich taking almost all of the income gains in the past 30 years is because of Obama's hostile business environment?

Also, what defines a "hostile business environment"? How do I know if an environment is hostile to businesses?

And it's not relevant because someone has more of something, it's because someone else has less of it. Rising inequality means that the non-rich have less money to spend to keep our economy strong. Is people having less money to spend a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

Then by what metric should we measure a person/families standard of living?

Leisure.

 

[Z1NONLY 10+ year member]

I said specifically. What bills passed congress that he signed into law has decreased the personal savings rates for the past 30 years, stagnated wages for the past 30 years, decreased them in the past decade and raised inequality in the past 30 years? Also, the rich taking almost all of the income gains in the past 30 years is because of Obama's hostile business environment?

My wife is encountering countless small business owners that are avoiding hiring in part because of their desire to avoid certain provisions of Obamacare.

Also, what defines a "hostile business environment"? How do I know if an environment is hostile to businesses?

The blanket ban on offshore drilling in the aftermath of the oil spill. Dragging feet on permits for drilling.

The Boeing law suit...

And it's not relevant because someone has more of something, it's because someone else has less of it. Rising inequality means that the non-rich have less money to spend to keep our economy strong.

No it doesn't. If my income increases at a rate of X% per year and my rich neighbor's increases at > X%, the gap between will grow, but it doesn't mean I have less income.

You taking any math classes?

And even if make less money it's not because my rich neighbor makes more.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

So the healthcare bill even has the ability to affect the past? No wonder it was so many pages.

Also, you didn't answer this:

Also, the rich taking almost all of the income gains in the past 30 years is because of Obama's hostile business environment?

 

---------- Post added at 11:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 PM ----------

 

And even if make less money it's not because my rich neighbor makes more.

If you're the only two people in the economy, yes, it is.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Thinking something is fair isn't the same thing as thinking it should be done.

lol... Whether you now want to sidestep it or not, you claimed you "never" said it, I proved you did. Your ego just wont allow you to admit it, it only will allow you to dodge/duck/dip/dive/dodge, even though it makes you look worse than simply admitting you were wrong. Why am I not surprised.

Looks like the closest I will get to seeing you admit you said it, and are 'sorry' you did, is by seeing you readjust your opinion to something less than 90% (of course, all the while still claiming you didnt really mean you 'wanted' to raise it to 90%, only that it would be 'fair'). When seeing this so amazingly obvious spin tactic from you, I have to wonder if you think we are all that stupid, or if you are just that smart that you can wiggle out of anything without us realizing it. Check your ego at the door.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Yes, you did. I guess I'll have to spell it out for you. You called me an 'extremist' because you said, that I said Republicans want to take all the tax burden off of the rich and put it all the the middle class. You said that I said the rich pay no taxes and the middle class pays them all.
Again, that is murdering what I said. I said the Republicans want to give the rich a free ride in SOLVING OUR DEBT PROBLEM. Here, let me show you, because you seem to be unable to find it yourself:

So again, feel free to apologize and tell me that I'm right about Republicans wanting to put zero burden on the rich to get us out of the debt crisis that has benefited them so much. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

That would make a lot more sense, if the rich aren't already paying taxes. They are. And while their percentage above $250 is lower than it use to be, they still pay more in pure dollars than do the poor.

And this goes back to my original point, over spending. DC has the attitude not of what spending should be, but who can afford to pay more. You claim the republicans alone are playing politics here, at the expense of the middle class and poor. But the democrats are still increasing spending, and placing the blame for our spending deficit on the republicans for not giving in to their desire to increase taxes on the rich to help offset their over-spending. That is no more responsible than are the republicans who want to keep tax rates the same in order to try and pressure the democrats into spending cuts. In the end, its the same shell game, albeit from opposing sides. Neither party is truly addressing the over spending problem, they are both using the deficit as leverage to get their way. Its only your rose colored glasses when viewing the intentions of democrats that prohibits you from seeing that the game works both ways.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Yeah, those poor poor millionaires.
At the end of the day, I think it's fair for the people at the top to pay a larger share of their income than the people at the bottom so the people at the bottom can live a little bit more comfortably. It makes a big difference for the people at the bottom, while the rich will be rich regardless. The fact is, though, that there is no objective correct or incorrect. We have different positions and different ideologies. Sure, I'd characterize it as you're more worried about the .5% richest people in this country (millionaires) who don't need anyone to worry about them while I care more about the majority who DO need people to worry about them, but it's still entirely objective.

What isn't objective, however, is the effects of what I think is fair versus what you think is fair. The middle class is a socialist creation. It was created by the government and is supported by government taxing the rich more than everyone else and redistribution of wealth. What is fact is that if you move to a flat tax where everyone pays the same amount, the middle class will disappear and the standard of living so many Americans have benefited from will along with it.

Stick to your principles if you want, but don't complain that our economy never gets better.

I already explained how your view on a flat tax is wrong, its funny you have chosen to completely ignore that point. So let me spell it out for you again. The rich have more money, therefore spend more money. With a flat sales tax, the people who spend the most, pay the most taxes. So you can claim it will make the middle class "disappear", but you offer zero corroborating evidence to suggest how or why.

Yeah, those poor poor millionaires.

This is the crux of your class bias. You think because "millionaires" have more money than non-millionaires, they should automatically pay more taxes (higher rate, they already pay a higher dollar amount even with the reduced tax rate percentages). How is this not socialism? It is socialism, no matter how much you want to deny it. Those "poor poor millionaires", earned that money. They earned it, they deserve their fair share of it. Even the millionaires who were born into that money deserve it, because their parents worked to earn it for their children. It boils down to, you aren't a millionaire, you are jealous, so you want more of their earned income for yourself. Selfishness veiled by the lie of wanting to be 'fair'.

You've already admitted you are getting an education that other people's tax money is paying for, increasing your ability to become one of those millionaires some day (if you work to earn it, like they already have). Yet you expect more from them, simply because they are "millionaires". Again, complete selfishness on your part.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I've yet to actually have the time to add up all your sources. Don't you worry.

Three Good Reasons to Let the High-End Bush Tax Cuts Disappear This Year
Letting the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 a year (notice, in the progressive tax system we have, their income under $250k will still be taxed like everyone else in the country, it's just their income over $250k that will be taxed more) will save us $690 billion dollars over the next 10 years. In case you're not familiar with the Bush tax cuts, we're talking an increase from 35% to 39.6%. A 4.6% increase results in $690 billion in savings over the next 10 years. And that isn't taking into account the save on the enormous interest we pay.

Here is what the tax rates were before Reagan's cuts, adjusted for inflation. (And we survived good before then)

0% $9,715.89

14% $15,716.88

16% $14,002.31

18% $34,005.61

21% $45,721.83

24% $57,723.80

28% $70,297.31

32% $85,442.66

37% $100,588.02

43% $130,878.72

49% $171,456.84

54% $244,611.77

59% $312,622.98

64% $464,076.53

68% $615,530.07

70%

The dollar amounts is the max that the rate applies to. So, for example, the rate is 0% for income up to $9,715.98. It's 14% for income between $9,715.90 and $15,716.88. There doesn't need to be that many brackets, but I think we should use these as a base.

This is what they are now.

10.0% $17,000

15.0% $69,000

25.0% $139,350

28.0% $212,300

33.0% $379,150

35.0%

Here is an idea of what I want.

0% $10,000

8% $40,000

15% $60,000

20% $80,000

25% $150,000

35% $250,000

45% $650,000

55%

Here is what people of these income levels would pay in income tax.

Income: Before Reagan / Today / Mine

$12,000: $319.78 / $1,200.00 / $160.00

$20,000: $1,645.39 / $2,150.00 / $800.00

$30,000: $3,445.39 / $3,650.00 / $1,600.00

$45,000: $6,475.22 / $5,900.00 / $3,150.00

$60,000: $10,144.62 / $8,150.00 / $5,400.00

$75,000: $14,532.72 / $11,000.00 / $8,400.00

$90,000: $19,560.59 / $14,750.00 / $11,900.00

$120,000: $31,825.31 / $22,250.00 / $19,400.00

$150,000: $45,872.59 / $30,069.50 / $26,900.00

$200,000: $71,799.74 / $44,069.50 / $44,400.00

$260,000: $104,969.16 / $63,254.50 / $66,400.00

$350,000: $159,938.01 / $92,954.50 / $106,900.00

$400,000: $191,938.01 / $109,871.50 / $129,400.00

$600,000: $325,374.95 / $179,871.50 / $219,400.00

$750,000: $430,064.34 / $232,371.50 / $296,900.00

$1,000,000: $605,064.34 / $319,871.50 / $434,400.00

$2,000,000: $1,305,064.34 / $669,871.50 / $984,400.00

$10,000000: $6,905,064.34 / $3,469,871.50 / $5,384,400.00

Notice that today versus before Reagan, poor people pay more, the middle class pays about the same and the rich pay significantly less. And what has this done for us, other than build up a gigantic debt? Nothing.

My tax brackets would significantly decrease deficit and you could remove a lot of exemptions as well, for both the rich and poor/middle class.

Tax bracket information: http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal&adjusted-20110909.pdf

You still have yet to "have time" to add up all my sources, but you've had time to add up all your increased revenue from the higher tax rates you want, make your nice little charts, spend another day arguing YOUR opinion, etc. Kind of ironic and hypocritical, huh?

 

[Z1NONLY 10+ year member]

So the healthcare bill even has the ability to affect the past? No wonder it was so many pages.

Well what else are you going to say when your own links demonstrate that Obama has damaged this country?

Your links didn't all go back 30 years. You had to go back to try and distract from the obvious. (Obama is hurting the country)

Also, you didn't answer this:
Also, the rich taking almost all of the income gains in the past 30 years is because of Obama's hostile business environment?---------- Post added at 11:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 PM ----------

[/color]

See. It's not just the rich getting richer.

If you're the only two people in the economy, yes, it is.

First off, there are for more than two people in the economy. However the more important issue is that you are wrong again.

If there are two people in an economy and one of them invents a functioning wishing well then sells it to the other for all of his money, both people will get richer.

There is not a fixed amount of wealth. Wealth is created when someone provides a good or service that people want need or desire.

Many of these goods increase our standard of living and make us all "richer".

The whole country is far richer than we were when we started.

I grew up poor, but I'm a 100% sure that my standard of living was higher when I was poor than it was for "rich" people at the begining of our country.

 

[Z1NONLY 10+ year member]

Let's also note that Obama's pretence is false to start with. The rich pay a higher percentage.

AP Fact Check Pulverizes Obama's Claim About Buffett's Secretary - President Obama - Fox Nation

AP Fact Check Pulverizes Obama's Claim About Buffett's Secretary

The rich pay a larger percentage than the rest of us. This "rich pay lower taxes" is a popular stereotype with class bigots. (Sort of like the way that racial bigots think black people are criminals)

 

[hispls 5,000+ posts]

A strong economy isn't about the amount of money owned by the rich but how much money is flowing through the economy.

Yet you refuse to learn about how money is created and how it really works. EVERYTHING else is smoke, mirrors, and meaningless debates over phony "party" rhetoric ignoring the real cause of every economic boom and bust since the invention of fiat money.

In the past 30 years, we've seen the opposite of this. Government is redistributing less, the middle class/poor have a smaller share of the wealth in this country (and thus, less money to spend) and the economy is suffering because of it. The middle class is disintegrating and it's because of less government, not more.

Do you really think we have less government now than we did 20 years ago? What ******* planet are you from?

Judging by the direction of this thread most of you people need to just quit voting and quit discussing these important adult matters until you can educate yourself. Start with some US history and give the constitution of the United States a thorough read (in the context of history, the federalist papers, etc.) Then learn about how money works, and more specifically fiat money and how it is created.