United States Is Going Off The Deep End To The Right

[WrestlingRasta]

2 minutes ago, red viking said:

You asked me to take 30m to research a particular question that you seem to be seeking hard data for. If you want the hard data, go ahead and find it yourself. The problem is that there are a lot of ways to look at that data, since you weren't very specific. Therefore, this could end up being a huge rabbit hole and I don't have time for that. 

I do know for a FACT that the rich do NOT provide enough in taxes or charitable donations to help the poor and it isn't even remotely close to what they stash away or "invest." I can guarantee that whatever you find won't refute that. I've also seen enough data myself that proves that. 

Maybe YOU are the one that needs to be educated. Go look up what you asked about and get back to me. 

Nice try, but I already told you, I don’t play those stupid little games. 

[Bigbrog]

1 minute ago, red viking said:

You asked me to take 30m to research a particular question that you seem to be seeking hard data for. If you want the hard data, go ahead and find it yourself. The problem is that there are a lot of ways to look at that data, since you weren't very specific. Therefore, this could end up being a huge rabbit hole and I don't have time for that. 

I do know for a FACT that the rich do NOT provide enough in taxes or charitable donations to help the poor and it isn't even remotely close to what they stash away or "invest." I can guarantee that whatever you find won't refute that. I've also seen enough data myself that proves that. 

Maybe YOU are the one that needs to be educated. Go look up what you asked about and get back to me. 

So you think people that are "rich" (whatever rich means) should not save money to ensure financial stability in the future, both for themselves and their kids?  Do you think they should have zero savings and any extra income should go to the "poor" (whatever poor means)?  

Also, provide the actual data for the "fact" that "the rich do NOT provide enough in taxes or charitable donations to help the poor...."

[WrestlingRasta]

4 minutes ago, red viking said:

https://inequality.org/great-divide/true-cost-of-billionaire-philanthropy/

Were you talking about this? All the money that they "donate" that actually provides political favors in return that are tenfold? 

Hey you’re getting a start. Everything begins with a start. Keep going, only 29 minutes left to go. And report back when you’ve done some good honest looking into the topic “all the rich do with their money is stash it away and leave it to their kids”. You already shown that’s not at all true , and if you keep learning yourself you’ll find so much more. 

Edited Wednesday at 08:12 PM by WrestlingRasta

[red viking]

Just now, Bigbrog said:

So you think people that are "rich" (whatever rich means) should not save money to ensure financial stability in the future, both for themselves and their kids?  Do you think they should have zero savings and any extra income should go to the "poor" (whatever poor means)?  

Also, provide the actual data for the "fact" that "the rich do NOT provide enough in taxes or charitable donations to help the poor...."

They should save as much money as they can for their own self interest but need to pay their fair share in taxes. The net result would be a little less money for their investments. So many may be able to save $900 million instead of $1 billion. I think they'll still be OK.

The proof is the millions of people scraping to get by and incredibly high child poverty rate in this country, while fat cats acquire more wealth than they can shake a stick at. 

[red viking]

1 minute ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Hey you’re getting a start. Everything begins with a start. Keep going, only 29 minutes left to go. 

The actual data just shows more of the same.  I don't think you understand that i've already done this research and don't have time to re-do it for your benefit. The only way you'll actually get educated is to look it up yourself and make a good-faith effort. 

[WrestlingRasta]

Just now, red viking said:

The actual data just shows more of the same.  I don't think you understand that i've already done this research and don't have time to re-do it for your benefit. The only way you'll actually get educated is to look it up yourself and make a good-faith effort. 

again… nice try 

[red viking]

1 minute ago, WrestlingRasta said:

again… nice try 

educate yourself Rasta. If you want an answer to a question, you need to look it up yourself. I can teach you how to fish but I'm not giving you the actual fish. 

[Bigbrog]

3 minutes ago, red viking said:

They should save as much money as they can for their own self interest but need to pay their fair share in taxes. The net result would be a little less money for their investments. So many may be able to save $900 million instead of $1 billion. I think they'll still be OK.

The proof is the millions of people scraping to get by and incredibly high child poverty rate in this country, while fat cats acquire more wealth than they can shake a stick at. 

But you're conflating several different topics that don't necessarily have a one-to-one correlation/causation.  First, the cause of millions of people scraping to get by and the high child poverty rate (not sure what "high" means to you) is not those that are "rich".   Nor is the answer to reduce the number of people scraping by and the high child poverty rate is to have the "rich" give more of their earnings to the poor or to have them pay more taxes.  

[WrestlingRasta]

4 minutes ago, red viking said:

educate yourself Rasta. If you want an answer to a question, you need to look it up yourself. I can teach you how to fish but I'm not giving you the actual fish. 

You’re not illustrating to everyone, what you think you are illustrating to everyone. You probably should have stopped when you claimed I parrot Fox News, but you didn’t learn after the fact, and you clearly aren’t still with your little games. You probably should just move on.  

[red viking]

What's the solution then? Have them pull themselves up by their boot straps? LOL. 

[red viking]

1 minute ago, WrestlingRasta said:

You’re not illustrating to everyone, what you think you are illustrating to everyone. You probably should have stopped when you claimed I parrot Fox News, but you didn’t learn after the fact, and you clearly aren’t still with your little games. You probably should just move on.  

You've still provided absolutely zero information. Just a bunch of questions and more so accusations. You need to educate yourself. 

[Bigbrog]

1 minute ago, red viking said:

What's the solution then? Have them pull themselves up by their boot straps? LOL. 

So your solution is that the "rich" give more to the poor, don't save as much for their future, and pay more in taxes and it will magically fix people scraping by and the "high" child poverty rate??  That is funny! 

Your solution puts ZERO ownness on the actual people in that situation or the adults who are having kids and don't make a lot of money.  How do you not see that your solution would never have an impact on the problem you are so concerned with.  But go ahead...keep attacking the "rich" people...LOL

[ionel]

15 minutes ago, red viking said:

They should save as much money as they can for their own self interest but need to pay their fair share in taxes.

And what is "fair share?" If a"fair share" exists then why do so many pay no tax on their income?

If tax rate is 99% and you raise it to 100% will tax revenue go up or down?  If tax rate is 1% and you lower it to 0% will tax revenue go up or down?  This is to illustrate that there is always a point where lowering the tax rate will increase tax revenue and there's always a point where raising tax rate will increase tax revenue.  If you don't know anything about income elasticity then you have no idea what you are talking about.  Biden knows nothing about income elasticity thus when he says "fair share" ... 

[red viking]

7 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

So your solution is that the "rich" give more to the poor, don't save as much for their future, and pay more in taxes and it will magically fix people scraping by and the "high" child poverty rate??  That is funny! 

Your solution puts ZERO ownness on the actual people in that situation or the adults who are having kids and don't make a lot of money.  How do you not see that your solution would never have an impact on the problem you are so concerned with.  But go ahead...keep attacking the "rich" people...LOL

The poor need to do more also, but for the most part, they are doing all they can. Most of these people (vast majority) are doing what they can and don't actually want to be poor. A lot of people are handicapped, addicted, or have other problems, and a lot have just had bad luck.The childaren also have zero control over their situations 

[red viking]

2 minutes ago, ionel said:

And what is "fair share?" If a"fair share" exists then why do so many pay no tax on their income?

If tax rate is 99% and you raise it to 100% will tax revenue go up or down?  If tax rate is 1% and you lower it to 0% will tax revenue go up or down?  This is to illustrate that there is always a point where lowering the tax rate will increase tax revenue and there's always a point where raising tax rate will increase tax revenue.  If you don't know anything about income elasticity then you have no idea what you are talking about.  Biden knows nothing about income elasticity thus when he says "fair share" ... 

99% is WAY too high so that's a nice straw man argument. We would easily raise revenue by raising taxes on the rich. 

[ionel]

Just now, red viking said:

99% is WAY too high so that's a nice straw man argument. We would easily raise revenue by raising taxes on the rich. 

FDR tried that it didn't work, revenue went up when they lowered taxes.  If you can't understand the 99% example then there's no chance you can comprehend income elasticity or why raising taxes even when down at 35 to 40% could lower revenue.  

[red viking]

2 minutes ago, ionel said:

FDR tried that it didn't work, revenue went up when they lowered taxes.  If you can't understand the 99% example then there's no chance you can comprehend income elasticity or why raising taxes even when down at 35 to 40% could lower revenue.  

FDR raised taxes AND revenue. Your facts are so wrong it isn't even funny. 

[red viking]

5 minutes ago, ionel said:

FDR tried that it didn't work, revenue went up when they lowered taxes.  If you can't understand the 99% example then there's no chance you can comprehend income elasticity or why raising taxes even when down at 35 to 40% could lower revenue.  

A 99% is a gross extrapolation and therefore a completely different situation. Total strawman. 100%. 

[ionel]

Just now, red viking said:

FDR raised taxes AND revenue. Your facts are so wrong it isn't even funny. 

What did the rich do when the tax rate was 95%?  Why did JFK lower taxes.   Some people can't understand thermodynamics, some can't solve the Skutsky equation or prove the normal distribution sums to 1.0 or solve differential equations.  Some don't understand elasticity.  There is no reason to try to teach these concepts to any of these folks.

Call dismissed.  

[red viking]

1 minute ago, ionel said:

What did the rich do when the tax rate was 95%?  Why did JFK lower taxes.   Some people can't understand thermodynamics, some can't solve the Skutsky equation or prove the normal distribution sums to 1.0 or solve differential equations.  Some don't understand elasticity.  There is no reason to try to teach these concepts to any of these folks.

Call dismissed.  

Going from 35 to 40% top marginal tax rate is a COMPLETELY different situation than raising a tax rate that is already 95%. You may want to take a class in optimization. There's a curve (upside down "U") that provides the most tax revenue and it's always somewhere much higher than 0% but much lower than 100%. It's actually very complicated because we have different marginal tax rates, there are other taxes, and other factors at play, but to compare raising a tax rate that is already at 35% to one that is already at 95% shows a gross ignorance of the optimization concept. 

[Scouts Honor]

7 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

Wow...I can't stand the utter arrogant hypocrisy of your posts...man...you are a true whackadoodle.   You, of ALL people, should never, EVER, lecture someone on how to post nor tell them to "get off their high horse" and "stop judging".  These posts are exactly why EVERONE thinks you are a freaking clown of a poster.

no its the post where he calls everyone shit for brains 

and actually stupid

[Scouts Honor]

2 hours ago, red viking said:

They pay other taxes though, so your statement is misleading. 

no income tax is not misleading at all 

[Scouts Honor]

2 hours ago, red viking said:

Not all all. that would be a disaster. The poor actually need their money and they spend it. The rich merely stash their money away and pass it on to their kids. Our tax system isn't progressive enough. 

 

im not rich... but who..other than my kids and family, have a right to the money i have earned? 

especially after it's been taxed 

[Scouts Honor]

2 hours ago, red viking said:

What a dumb statement. Many people don't have the additional income to invest and are spending everything they have for a 2-bedroom apartment for their family of five and eating macaroni & cheese for dinner every night. 

Living in the bubble...it must be great. 

i thought bidenomics was incredible

[Scouts Honor]

if we took all the 'trillionaires' money... it would fun the govt for less than a year...