Am I the only person who likes Bernie?

[marshallnoise]

You've moved the goalposts 3 times now, first it was "inequality doesn't exist" and then it was "it's proof of a functioning capitalist economy" and now it's "something cannot be fixed"

Coward, through and through.

What you call moving goal posts, I called three sides of the same coin.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[Kershaw]

^ You must exist inside a hypercube.

so maybe do something original and like answer the question
because what you want has never worked before. higher taxes on the wealth do not solve wealth inequality

It has never worked before? Oh yes, I must have missed the post scarcity wealth equal society of the middle ages that ended in disaster.

Really, the only time period with any relevant data is the last century and when there was prosperity in this country, the taxes were significantly higher for the wealthy. Like the 60s, when the taxes started at 20% for lowest income bracket and topped out at 91% for the highest income bracket. I'm not saying those are the numbers to shoot for, but you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

You're such a joke, I just can't decide whether you're serious or a troll.

[marshallnoise]

^ You must exist inside a hypercube.



It has never worked before? Oh yes, I must have missed the post scarcity wealth equal society of the middle ages that ended in disaster.

Really, the only time period with any relevant data is the last century and when there was prosperity in this country, the taxes were significantly higher for the wealthy. Like the 60s, when the taxes started at 20% for lowest income bracket and topped out at 91% for the highest income bracket. I'm not saying those are the numbers to shoot for, but you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

You're such a joke, I just can't decide whether you're serious or a troll.

You do realize that those tax rates weren't effective tax rates, right? The effective tax rates were MUCH lower than 91% due to what you were allowed to write off. Talk about moving goal posts...

[Kershaw]

Do you just pick words from previous posts and repeat them?

[marshallnoise]

Do you just pick words from previous posts and repeat them?

You are citing that higher tax rates lead to prosperity and I refuted that notion. Inconvenient? Maybe.

[Wschnitz]

Wait so when there is an example of higher tax rates working its "moving goalposts, can write off a lot" but when you talk about marginal tax rates and ways to write off now its "the end of the world commiemurica tax oblivion 2016 ethanbradberry"

[marshallnoise]

Wait so when there is an example of higher tax rates working its "moving goalposts, can write off a lot" but when you talk about marginal tax rates and ways to write off now its "the end of the world commiemurica tax oblivion 2016 ethanbradberry"

Whoa whoa whoa, what are you saying? You simply can't claim that the base tax rates were higher back in the day and we were more prosperous because of it and be telling the whole story. That's all I am saying.

[gwb72tii]

You've moved the goalposts 3 times now, first it was "inequality doesn't exist" and then it was "it's proof of a functioning capitalist economy" and now it's "something cannot be fixed"

Coward, through and through.

troll some more mr uslysses
never said it could not be fixed, or that there is no inequality. it does not need to be fixed. and yes income inequality/wealth inequality, whatever term you want to assign this non problem, is a sign of a functiong economy, it's a good thing. it means you and mr kershaw being stuck on the bottom is not permanent. perhaps you two will get tired of envying those that have wealth and work harderr and smarter.
taking from the rich will not solve what you two believe to be unjust, which is really your complaint. taking from the rich will not make your lives better. and those in the top 1% are not the same people year after year. they go up, and down.
there is no economic theory i am aware of that supports the belief that taking large amounts of money out of an economy yields a more robust economy. made you feel good perhaps, but a 91% marginal bracket does not cause an economy to expand faster.
the most famous progressive economist, alan greenspan, said "all taxes are regressive", they all slow the economy.

[BraveUlysses]

troll some more mr uslysses
never said it could not be fixed, or that there is no inequality. it does not need to be fixed. and yes income inequality/wealth inequality, whatever term you want to assign this non problem, is a sign of a functiong economy, it's a good thing. it means you and mr kershaw being stuck on the bottom is not permanent. perhaps you two will get tired of envying those that have wealth and work harderr and smarter.
taking from the rich will not solve what you two believe to be unjust, which is really your complaint. taking from the rich will not make your lives better. and those in the top 1% are not the same people year after year. they go up, and down.
there is no economic theory i am aware of that supports the belief that taking large amounts of money out of an economy yields a more robust economy. made you feel good perhaps, but a 91% marginal bracket does not cause an economy to expand faster.
the most famous progressive economist, alan greenspan, said "all taxes are regressive", they all slow the economy.

You're conflating a bunch of different things here: wealth and income inequality are related to but not the same as economic mobility.

Secondly, I'm not at the bottom and I'm not envious. I earn a great paycheck and have good benefits, and have been continuously employed since I graduated from college in 2005. I'm comfortable being in the middle class and want to ensure the middle class does not continue to shrink and be burdened with additional taxes. I live within my means, thank you very much.

Thirdly, my apologies if you did not say that wealth inequality did not exist, I probably made the mistake of paying attention to another terrible marshal post.


Now, with that out of the way, do you honestly believe that there's absolutely no wealth distribution (ignoring government enforced wealth redistribution, because I nor you are advocating that) ratio that would cause you concern? We're already seeing insane percentages go to fewer and fewer people and less and less to the rest of the population--at what point would it concern you that the system is rigged and needs to be fixed? How lopsided would the distribution have to be before it concerns you?

Please don't quote greenspan, he's part of the reason we had the financial shitstorm of 2008.

[gwb72tii]

wow thanks for the civil tone

my point is that the federal government cannot alter the gap thru punitive tax rates. it has never worked in the past so why would it work now? but punitive tax rates would make you feel better somehow?
the wealth gap/income gap shows a functioning economy because the 1% turns over all the time, there are few permanent members. it means there is mobility. that's a good thing.

what's exacerbated the issue is fed policy, greenspan, bernanke and now yellen. their policies have benefited the rich at the expense of everyone else. if you want to even the disparity, get the fed out of trying to manage the economy, cut taxes for everyone, and cut spending. let's get the government to live within it's means. getting our economy back to a 3%+ real growth rate will help.

or how about something outside the box? eliminate personal taxes altogether, institute a VAT, lower corp taxes to a flat 10%.

[BraveUlysses]

You're right that it's not the same 400 highest income households on the list every year but economic mobility isn't really measured by who's in the top 400 highest incomes in a given year. Those people are outliers and not indicative of how economic mobility works for 99.9% of the population. Economic mobility has stalled out the US in the past 20 years and is not as mobile as most americans believe it is.

I think a VAT would only work if this country is ready to give up on its rampant consumerism and I dont see that happening.

[mrsleeve]

FAIR TAX....... NOT A V.A.T. allows the taxing agent too much freedom and ease to raise taxes with out much uproar. Not to mention adds layer upon layer of complexity to the system on the production end of things

[Wschnitz]

My tin foil hat is back on today, Arizona was a mess, democracy my ass.

[markseven]

Trump's position on many things is for political expedience, only. This was something I detested when Obama was campaigning.

Cruz will be divisive and alienate non-Christians.

Kasich is great, but has a snowball's chance (all viable candidates are in this bucket, unfortunately).

Hillary has always been a non-starter.

While I don't agree with Bernie's ideology, he appears to have the most character and integrity (as much as any politician at this level can have, and still remain a pol). I am basing my decision on this alone. I think I am going to vote for Bernie and simply deal with the SC nomination(s) as they come.

[Wschnitz]

Birdie sanders 2016!!!