Taxing poor people is probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard. And I am as pro capitalist as they come.

Throwing a 30% tax bracket at the worker from mcdonalds is not going to go well at all. Politically speaking thats probably how you get them to riot and burn everything down.

and not understanding a concept and being able to accept that it works doesn't make it not real

Everyone who makes tame's point just means consumption, but the problem with their argument (that they don't realize) is that their argument makes no sense because they only consider consumption.

I shouldn't have to repeat myself. It is a fairly easy concept to grasp: You are saying one group is better off having more money if you intentionally ignore the positive effects on the economy of saving and investing while acknowledging that the rich save and invest more.


Example to illustrate my point in simpler terms.
3+1=x
2+2=y

Your argument is that x>y because we should ignore the second number in the equation and only count the 1st number while I am arguing that x=y because we need to count the first and second number.

yes.
alla french REVOLUTION, alla every other ****ing empire that tried taxing poor a **** ton

ofc they deserve to be taxed but we need to be fair.


those are tax cuts and jobs act of 2017 numbers

he literally gave people under 40k a avg 3% tax cut.

I didnt see it. im not sure if those numbers are true, but its a fair start.

The far prog left just cant grasp this. they just cant understand the scope of economy and some fine parts of it.

however, we cant tax the poor more. but we also can tax the top .5% more as wel. without it damaging our ecosystem.

jlawok.gif

it has never been shown to work.

Again, stop bringing up irrelevant points. The argument you are defending is that low earners should be taxed more, implied in this that it should be substantially more since it should somehow work as a motivator.

To point out that this is stupid macro-economically does not say anything about the middle-class or the wealthy. You just need to pretend this is the case, because you got air to go on. It's spin.

It's the rhetorical equivalent of
A. "Oranges are healthy".
B. "Stop supporting Israel, you moron"

Instead, explain to this forum how many poor would be lifted out of the low earner bracket by raising their taxes and how you arrived at those projections, or at the very least what kind of economic theory you are relying on to make the argument.

I think you are confusing me with another poster. Someone else yesterday (or the day before) said we should tax the poor more to encourage them to work more. I strongly disagree with the idea that we should tax the poor more (I already said this in post 85).

So now that we cleared that up let’s get back to our conversation (below is your post that started this conversation): the general idea that an economy is better off with more money in the hands of less productive people than the rich because the poor spend a higher % of their income is wrong because you are ignoring half of the equation.

Nah, let's not return to anything. Instead, you should learn to follow a conversation or actually read a post before you object.

I have no interest in defending whatever imaginary things I'm saying in your head.

I am the one following the conversation.

Someone else said we should tax the poor more to encourage them to work more.
Both you and I (my post is #85) disagreed with the statement.
Then you said more money in the hands of the poor is better for the economy because they spend more of it.
I responded by saying you ignored half the equation (investing and saving is also putting money in the economy).
Then you accused me of saying we should tax the poor more to encourage them to work more.

Nope, I said:

How is what I said you posted different than your second and third sentence?

I don't think anyone is arguing high taxes on low income earners is good for the economy. The argument being raised is who out of high income, middle income and low income earners should get the bigger tax cut if that was needed to stimulate the economy or there was excess surplus in the budget to give back to taxpayers in a strong performing economy. The better argument for the economy I think is for those tax cuts to be greater for the higher income you earn as inevitably you will try to earn more to save or be able to invest that money somewhere rather than if you cut the low income tax bracket more which widens the gap to the next tax bracket and makes it harder to give that incentive for low income earners to get more ahead in life.

It is a post objecting to higher taxes for the poor being good for the economy.

Not whatever imaginary tangled web of socio-economic commentary on the state of the middle-class, the wealthy and the importance of poor people you have construed in your head.

Get it?

I have now spent a bunch of posts untangling your imagination, and it is extremely boring. Move on.

I think you are right that it is best if we move on from this. I am glad that we agree that taxing the poor more is stupid - you just come to that conclusion using bad logic

More on measuring wealth inequality

That criticism makes sense to me. It obviously doesn't change the larger point that you can see rising inequality in income distribution data as well, but it's a good point about methods, I think.

Thanks, chezlaw, along with well named, for giving me hope that there are still reasonable liberals out there.

Slighted, juan says lots, tons, of reasonable things. He also says some inflammatory things. Which causes many people on your side to go nuts. He is just being a rhetorician. I personally get annoyed with lots of the inflammatory things said by many on your side, but it doesn't change the reasonable things said.

You know that's not how any of this works. If someone says an unreasonable thing you have to reject everything they've ever said.
And not only that--if anybody associated with you ever says or does anything unreasonable then guess what--everything you have ever said also gets thrown out.
This is the only way to maintain the purity of discourse, unfortunately or fortunately.

Yeah, the slighteds of this world see everything in black and white. You are either on the good (left) side or the evil (right) side. There's no inbetween. Kind of makes political debate pointless really.

In this rendition of The Emperor Wears New Clothes.... there are clothiers and then everyone else. The way you view things will depend on your self interest and internal bias.

This guy was literally arguing that people are either Never Trumpers who cannot be trusted, or have an unyielding fealty to Trump.

i like how someone saying a few relatively normal things means you have to let them spew crazy racist conspiracy theories most of the time, in order for you the listener to be considered rational also..

They just did it. At least something similar. The recent tax plan raised taxes on the poor. And they have been killing health care subsidies and other help effectively devastating the paychecks of the lower classes.