Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

     


    Best part:


    "The Internal Revenue Service reports that the top 1% earn 15% of society's income but pay 37% of all federal income taxes. The top 5%, with 27% of income, pay 64% of income taxes.


    Moreover, the tax shares of the wealthy have been rising steadily since 1980, when the top 1% paid 17% and the top 5% paid 35%."



    Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-brain-trust/071114-708479-thomas-pikettys-idea-to-tax-the-rich-would-make-us-all-poorer.htm#ixzz37RPDEOZX
    Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    What an inane statement, that the wealthy "use a ton more of the nation's infrastructure" !

    What does that mean, exactly? Their limousines ruin the pavement on the roads built by the wonderful Government?

    Sounds just like Granny Warren's Marxist tirade about how the rich couldnt have done  it without the Nanny State's partnership....

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    What an inane statement, that the wealthy "use a ton more of the nation's infrastructure" !

    What does that mean, exactly? Their limousines ruin the pavement on the roads built by the wonderful Government?

    Sounds just like Granny Warren's Marxist tirade about how the rich couldnt have done  it without the Nanny State's partnership....



    The Marxists, er, I mean, liberals who post here will never see this.  Too much anger on the left.  Too much of it focused against success, too much of it focused on anger.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

     

    "use a ton more of the nation's infrastructure" !

     

    What does that mean, exactly?

     

     



    I'd invite you to think about it if there was any hope of success

     



    You don't build that.

    marxist idiot.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    In response to high-road's comment:

    So what ever happened to all the benefits these 'job creators' were supposed to rain down on society?

    We've all heard the wingnut speil: "If the rich get richer everybody wins."

    Well ... where are all the jobs?

    Where are all the 'rising boats'?

    Where's all the wealth that's supposed to flow down the hill, enriching everyone?

    Oh, I get it:

    When the wingnuts embrace the 'trickle down' theory of their betters, it's not economics ... it's more of a 'trickle down and tell them it's raining' type of theory.

    And it's "winning" Charlie Sheen style ....

     



    Job creators are not investing, they are doing stock buy backs instead.  Why? 

    The democrats have made investing their capital too expensive.  Better to buy back shares, which in turn raises the price of the stock.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    In response to high-road's comment:

    So what ever happened to all the benefits these 'job creators' were supposed to rain down on society?

    We've all heard the wingnut speil: "If the rich get richer everybody wins."

    Well ... where are all the jobs?

    Where are all the 'rising boats'?

    Where's all the wealth that's supposed to flow down the hill, enriching everyone?

    Oh, I get it:

    When the wingnuts embrace the 'trickle down' theory of their betters, it's not economics ... it's more of a 'trickle down and tell them it's raining' type of theory.

    And it's "winning" Charlie Sheen style ....

     



    For the moment, the rich getting richer and no trickle down can be laid at the feet of the Obama Administration of course.

    The trillions of dollars expended to keep the banks from failing and propping  up the economy goes to whom?? Banks, or "rich people". They get their hands on it first and they are the first to profit. Meanwhile, the rest of us have too much debt so we are trying to pay that off rather than consuming as much as normal.

    Then look at what is happening with college loans. Who gets saddled with the loans to pay off Big Education? People with no money to pay the tuition. Who has the money to pay $250K for tuition? Rich people. What happens then? Their kids graduate debt free ready to leap ahead of those saddled with debt. The rich get richer.

    Then you ought to examine how the banksters got away with their fraudulent loans without going to jail as opposed to what happened to the Savings and Loan scandal where over 1000 people went to jail. Ask yourself who is being rewarded for taking huge risks without having to face personal - or even corporate - risk? The 1%ers you hate so much. And what organization can't lexist without the "too-big-to-fail" banks to sell their debt?? That would be the spendthrift Obama Administration. 

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    In response to high-road's comment:

    So what ever happened to all the benefits these 'job creators' were supposed to rain down on society?

    We've all heard the wingnut speil: "If the rich get richer everybody wins."

    Well ... where are all the jobs?

    Where are all the 'rising boats'?

    Where's all the wealth that's supposed to flow down the hill, enriching everyone?

    Oh, I get it:

    When the wingnuts embrace the 'trickle down' theory of their betters, it's not economics ... it's more of a 'trickle down and tell them it's raining' type of theory.

    And it's "winning" Charlie Sheen style ....

     




    So what ever happened to all the benefits the Obama Government stimulus and welfare spending  was supposed to rain down on society? Obama and the Dems have been in charge since way back in 2009, and the economic recovery is pathetic. THye got their trillion dollar stimulus and doubled food stamps, and raised taxes on the rich....

     

    We've all heard the moonbat speil: "Stimulate the economy by doubling food stamps"

     

    Well ... where are all the jobs?

     

    Where's all the wealth that's supposed to flow, , enriching everyone?

     

    Oh, I get it:

     

    When the moonbat s embrace the 'Government can redistribute income , pick winners and losers and stimulate the private sector economy’ theory   it's not economics ... it's more of a 'take the taxpayers money and hire more public sector unionized layabout liberal bureaucrats, and create more Government dependent Democrats ' type of theory.

     

    And it's "winning" Charlie Sheen style ....

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    Gee - I wonder why R2 is using just Federal Income Taxes and not Federal Taxes. 

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    In response to high-road's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     


    In response to high-road's comment:

     


    So what ever happened to all the benefits these 'job creators' were supposed to rain down on society?We've all heard the wingnut speil: "If the rich get richer everybody wins."
    Well ... where are all the jobs?Where are all the 'rising boats'?
    Where's all the wealth that's supposed to flow down the hill, enriching everyone?
    Oh, I get it:
    When the wingnuts embrace the 'trickle down' theory of their betters, it's not economics ... it's more of a 'trickle down and tell them it's raining' type of theory.
    And it's "winning" Charlie Sheen style ....


    So what ever happened to all the benefits the Obama Government stimulus and welfare spending  was supposed to rain down on society? Obama and the Dems have been in charge since way back in 2009, and the economic recovery is pathetic. THye got their trillion dollar stimulus and doubled food stamps, and raised taxes on the rich....


    We've all heard the moonbat speil: "Stimulate the economy by doubling food stamps"


    Well ... where are all the jobs?


    Where's all the wealth that's supposed to flow, , enriching everyone?

    Oh, I get it:


    When the moonbat s embrace the 'Government can redistribute income , pick winners and losers and stimulate the private sector economy’ theory   it's not economics ... it's more of a 'take the taxpayers money and hire more public sector unionized layabout liberal bureaucrats, and create more Government dependent Democrats ' type of theory.

    And it's "winning" Charlie Sheen style ....

     

    Don't look know but the stimulus reversed an 800,000+/month job loss into 150,000/month job gains immediately after it was enacted. A stimulus doesn't get much better than that.  You can't just deny the facts and ignore the reality and think history will somehow bend to your alternate version of events.

     

    By the end of Obama's first term, the economy had added more jobs than the entire 8yr baby-Bush term:

     

    2001 - 2009 = 1 million jobs added

     

    2009 - 2013 = 1.5 million jobs added

     

    2013 - 6/2014 = 3.5 million jobs added

     

    http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls" rel="nofollow">http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

     

     

     

     

     

    And both nominal and effective tax rates for all taxpayers are lower now than they were during the longest peacetime economic expansion in modern US history in the 1990's. 



    What you choose to ignore is the cyclical nature of the private sector economy. All recessions end. The private economy would have risen on its own, faster and more robust, without the parasitic Federal Government's massive wasteful stimulus, which hurt the economic recovery..

    Proof is, the Obama non-recovery since 2009 is the worst by far, the worst economic recovery since WW2. Also has the lowest percentage of people in the workforce since the 70s, when many women stayed at home...more and more are out on phony SSI disability, or getting a fat public sector pension, or collecting a Government  welfare check...that is Obama's legacy...

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

     

    The democrats have made investing their capital too expensive. 

     

     



    When did "democrats" raise the capital gains tax?

     



    Obamacare and regulation is that to which I refer.  Try thinking instead of reacting.

    when your options are to: bank your money at a half a percent interest, pay a huge penalty to put the money to work, or simply buy back stock, the choice is simple.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts