It is. I was willing to have a discussion until he basically pointed out he doesn't care about culture, sovereignty, or care for our country.
TAX AVOIDANCE IN THE US That nonetheless does not have any effect upon the total volume of untaxed-but-taxable Income that shifts up into Wealth (because of Tax Boondoggles and artificially low upper-income tax rates): What is it with people who refuse to understand the calamity shown above? Do you really think it is "fair and impartial" that top 0.1% of American families own as much of the Wealth as the bottom 90%?!? Do you not wonder why? Or do you fall for the inanity, "Well that's the way the cookie crumbles .... " Tax Avoidance (from here) - excerpt: And, Tax Evasion (excerpt from here):
I don't consider it unfair at all. Their "wealth" is largely stock and the value of that stock is largely dependent on other wealthy people's willingness to buy it.
I don't consider it unfair at all. Their "wealth" is largely stock and the value of that stock is largely dependent on other wealthy people's willingness to buy it. In addition, wealth is not income and income numbers for the poor do not reflect all the money that is already being taken from the rich to provide them food, housing, and checks. If you rent an apartment, your rent money is reflected in your income, but if someone else gets that same apartment paid for by the government it does not reflect in their income, yet you would both be living in the same apartment, so you cannot possibly argue to me that the person who gets it for free is somehow more downtrodden than the person who pays for their rent.
You are just being dense. How does the tax bracket of one individual have any affect on the ability of an unrelated family to support themselves?
If you wife has a hobby job and you make $50K in income, your wife isn't poor and doesn't get an earned income tax credit. If your live-in girlfriend has a hobby job and you make $50K, she isn't really poor either but she gets an earned income tax credit check and could be eligible for other government programs because the government sees her as "poor". Your decision to not put a ring on it can make a huge difference in how that woman is counted.
Bollocks. Wealth is Income net of taxation. (Net Worth* is Wealth minus Debt.) You are dismissing gingerly the facts that upper-incomes are a rip-off due to very low Income taxation permitting Income to drift upwards into Wealth. And, of course, since "everybody's doin'it" then tax-evasion must be OK! Which is a cretinous excuse ... *Estimate of Net Worth in the US (from Domhoff, here):
What "give aways"? Change your language if you want to debate with me. I'm playing a factual game, not your silly repetition of childish sarcasm.
Pathetic drivel. I know two Army soldiers who actually landed in Normandy and are still alive. They have lived the remainder of their lives in France, having returned here after the war. We are close to 150K Yanks in France alone, and we aint goin' back. It's not the French cuisine that's keeping us here. It is the sensation that though Income Disparity is a fact of life, at least higher taxation is highly acceptable because it allows for a relatively less-costly National Health Service and Free Tertiary Education (for their children). The benefits (compared to the lack of them) in America are very clear; and not all the flag-waving and national hymn-singing stateside is going to change that fact. The US is regressing not progressing ...
I see, then I guess EITC should also take into account the finances of the father. Since you are still being dense though I will write out a much longer scenario. My wife and I gross in excess of $150k a year putting us into the middle class. How does our tax bracket have any affect on a single mother of 4 that neither of us know?
Maybe those surviving soldiers will save France the next time someone decides to invade. The French certainly didn't do anything prior to WW2, during WW2, or after it, to secure their future.
That would depend on whether or not either of your combined $150K a year comes from providing goods or services to the poor.
Yeah, right - which is why so much research has gone into the matter by economists. Moving right along ...
Research shows that 1/3 of high income earners live paycheck to paycheck, but saying "by economists" to made up facts is an appeal to fictitious authority.
What don't you understand? Having wealth does not require any income. You don't need to make a single dollar in income for a year and your wealth can increase.
Income first, Wealth afterwards. Even if you only win a lottery, it is first Income, then taxed and becomes Wealth. Why is that distinction important? Because upper-income taxation lowered first by LBJ in the 1960s, then again by Reckless Ronnie in the 1980s, went from 90% to less than 30%. And with carried interest boondoggles even lower. What is the sense of amassing wealth way, way beyond one's needs? To impress who? The tax-man? That Wealth, were it taxed and respent in the economy (by the government) would do more good for more people than just bouncing around Investment Banks in NYC. Moreover, putting a 99% tax on all Income over, say, $10MB a year would stop the mad-frenzy to obtain it. Which was the prime-reason behind the SubPrime Mess that triggered the Great Recession and the massive job-loss from which the US has still not fully recovered ...
1. Who is allowed to determine what someone needs? 2. Those 90% rates also had so many deductions that effective rates were less than half of that. 3. Top tax rate went from. 91% to 70% in the 70's. Reagan lowered rates and removed a huge portion of the deductions at the same time. 4. So you think high earners should only be allowed to keep 1% of what they earned? That's simply stupid and doesn't require any further explanation. 5. Show me any proof at all that higher tax rates will benefit anyone. Govt spending has more than doubled over the last decade and we see no change in poverty rates even though trillions of dollars have been spent on give away programs for the working and lazy poor.
