Liberals are like abused women

Okay, so I believe you answered yes, correct?

 

I'm not the one who used "nation's income" in this thread, you were.

But as I previously wrote, to me it is the gross personal income, which is the total of all individual incomes.

 

Nowhere is it more evident than when it comes to discussions of self defense.

 

Oh, I must be confusing it with the many other threads where you reference "the nation's income".

So in this thread we're talking about, what did you call it?, gross personal income. Can we agree that this is the sum of all individual incomes?

Also, how does this sum differ from the the term you have used in other threads, which is "the nation's income"?

 

Sure

Depends on the context, but as I just said: "to me it is the gross personal income, which is the total of all individual incomes."

I suppose there could be context where it might refer to GDP or something else.

 

The income of the rich contributes the lion's share of this "gross personal income". And since there's no real difference between "gross personal income" and "the nation's income", it would seem that the rich contribute the lion's share of "the nation's income".

 

Agree. Shaken lefty syndrome.

 

No, the income of the rich, or anyone else, is what they receive.

That is not the same as what they contribute to generating it.

 

I don't follow. Please explain how the income one receives could not be the same as what they contribute to generate it.

 

Sure. A guy works 40 hours a week mopping floors at Walmart so the place looks nice and attractive to customers who come in and buy their stuff, and makes $7.40 an hour.

Walmart heirs receive a couple billion a year for doing nothing more than having inherited a bunch of stock.

The guy mopping the floor does more to generate the income Walmart gets and distributes, but his income is a microscopic fraction of the heirs' income.

There is no relationship between what was done to contribute to the income, and how it was distributed.

 

So the guy who works 40 hrs/week mopping floors contributes about $12,000 to the nation's income. Are you saying you think he should contribute more?

 

If I own something, I can give it to whomever I please and that doesn't hurt anyone, right?

 

No. Your assertion is based upon an inference you are making without evidence, support, or even rational argument, that the income someone gets is equal to the contribution they make, because it suits your political ideology.

You've utterly failed to show any prove or evidence that your inference is accurate.

Your assertion that the "rich are contributing the lion's share" to the nation's income is thus shown as nothing more than unsubstantiated, baseless say-so based on partisan ideology.

 

Contribution they make to what?

The nation's income is the sum of everyone's income. Everyone contributes to the nation's income. The rich just happen to contribute the lion's share.

 

Income.

No. Your assertion is based upon an inference you are making without evidence, support, or even rational argument, that the income someone gets is equal to the contribution they make, because it suits your political ideology.

You've utterly failed to show any prove or evidence that your inference is accurate.

Your assertion that the "rich are contributing the lion's share" to the nation's income is thus shown as nothing more than unsubstantiated, baseless say-so based on partisan ideology.

 

No, not really. I'm just measuring their income. I'm not saying anything about the contribution they make. I'm just measuring their income. And their income contributes to the nation's income. And the rich contribute the lion's share of the nation's income.

 

Sounds a little marxist to me.

 

No, really, the concept of getting paid based on what you contribute is a meritocracy concept.

 

You've spent the last 5 pages talking about what they contribute, and now you saying that "you're not saying anything about the contribution they make"?

 

Everyone who has income contributes to the nation's income (which is the sum of all our incomes). The rich contribute the lion's share to the nation's income.

 

So your position is that the amount that someone contributes is always the same amount they get, and the amount they get is always the same amount they contribute?

 

Yes. If my income is $10,000, then my contribution to the nation's income can be nothing other than $10,000. It's basic math.

 

OK. Now that we've figured that out, we can go back to your first post:

"So you want working Americans to contribute more to the nation's income? How are you going to see that they contribute more?"

Which we can rephrase based on what you've just admitted:

"So you want working Americans to get more of the nation's income? How are you going to see that they get more?"

And, based on your position, my answer is yes. I want working Americans to get more of the nation's income, and to share in the growth and prosperity they helped to create, which has not been the case since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution.

And I've explained numerous times how we see they get more of why they help create:

Cut FICA tax rates for middle class workers and make up the difference by eliminating the income cap and investment income exemptions that effectively shield the wealthy from these taxes. Empower unions to represent more workers to leverage higher wages. Link the MW to inflation like income tax brackets are indexed. Expand overtime laws. Eliminate part time worker loopholes. Eliminate the tax preference for unearned income over earned income by raising the tax rates on unearned income. Require all employees to be covered with health care, or better yet, make Medicare applicable to all so our businesses are not burdened with this cost. Expand low interest rate loans for education and job training.

In short, reverse "trickle down".

Thank you for clarifying your position.

 

Wouldnt that be based on the worth of what you contribute?

 

Depends on what you mean by "worth". But generally speaking, yes.