Repeal your regressive state local and sales taxes and you'll have your wish. That's the cause of the problem you're complaining about.
One dimensional solutions gets one dimensional results.Repeal your regressive state local and sales taxes and you'll have your wish. That's the cause of the problem you're complaining about.
That's not 'interesting', that's 'a great data point'.
The richest 400 earners in the US are taxed at a lower rate than the middle class now, thanks to Trump's tax cuts. Too bad the deficit also exploded, meanwhile the economic "rocket fuel" seems to be just sugar in the tank.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americ...s-pay-a-lower-tax-rate-than-the-middle-class/
View attachment 11839
Nobody is advocating for the household income to be what it was in the 40s-50s?Unless 1940-1950 is your dream land...its also a useless data point.
If the goal is to bring household income back to that levels, then we might as well go back to the barter system in the dark ages.
Back then the population was <130 Million.
A new house cost $6500. New Cars cost $800, gas was $0.18, the salary of a doctor/lawyer was $7-10K annually.
The reason why people were so successful in that time period, is labor was scarce... every able body was fighting in WW2.
If you want to eliminate 40 million people and then close off immigration to bring that back, i'm all for it, but good luck selling that to your friends who think that the best way to win elections is to import a new voting base.
Nobody is advocating for the household income to be what it was in the 40s-50s?
I think what they're advocating is that we were all better off when the wealth gap was much smaller... you know, it almost seems to make some kind of sense for a consumer driven society.
Prove to me that under her plan my taxes will not go up 1¢...
"things were better back then".... Ahhh, the old bullshit narrative.
What... exactly... was better "back then" ?
Access to Internet? Nope
Access to phones / smartphones? Nope
Access to vehicles/cars? Nope...
Crime rate was lower? Nope...
What was "better" back then? The answer is nothing.
you are bringing technological advancements into a discussion about income inequality back then and now. Completely irrelevant. Insert quarter and try again.
Congresswoman Kardashian is upset that she was asked to check her privilege.
Again though, you're just proving the point. What did citizens have "way back when" that they no longer have now?
Income inequality was lower.
Because when there is significant income inequality, it starts to squeeze on the necessities. When someone can't afford housing, it doesn't matter if they have an iphone. And despite republican talking points, getting rid of the iphone isn't going to do shit towards them affording housing.WHAT. DID. THEY. HAVE ?
Again, proving the fucking point derp derp.
If someone has more money than you - who cares? How does that make or break you? Just because someone gets more money than you doesn't mean you don't have something. It's not that you got a smaller slice of pie, it's that the pie simply got bigger.
Stop comparing your stack size to other people's stack size. That's called jealousy.
Pensions.Because money is something that is constant. It never adds or drops in value - and likewise, products never adds or drops in value.... They just always stay constant, right? Thus why we can judge everything based on the past for everything.
Again though, you're just proving the point. What did citizens have "way back when" that they no longer have now?
WHAT. DID. THEY. HAVE ?
Again, proving the fucking point derp derp.
If someone has more money than you - who cares? How does that make or break you? Just because someone gets more money than you doesn't mean you don't have something. It's not that you got a smaller slice of pie, it's that the pie simply got bigger.
Stop comparing your stack size to other people's stack size. That's called jealousy.
Your blue state Democratic legislator almost exclusively control the amount the 50% pay. No amount of you putting misleading graphics up will change that. If you want the poors to pay less then you need to reduce your regressive SALT.
The truly wealthy hide in the top 1%, obviously. It's not about the poors paying less, anyway, but about the wealthy paying more.
WHAT. DID. THEY. HAVE ?
Again, proving the fucking point derp derp.
If someone has more money than you - who cares? How does that make or break you? Just because someone gets more money than you doesn't mean you don't have something. It's not that you got a smaller slice of pie, it's that the pie simply got bigger.
Stop comparing your stack size to other people's stack size. That's called jealousy.
WHAT. DID. THEY. HAVE ?
Of course. It's always THEY need to pay more. Never WE need to pay more, or I MYSELF need to pay more.
Oh how partisanly typical.
I vote my self interests. It's in my self interest to see government tax the holy hell out of the ultra-rich. You would likely see that it is in your self-interest as well if you would but remove your ideological blinders.Of course. It's always THEY need to pay more. Never WE need to pay more, or I MYSELF need to pay more.
If they have it so bad I'm sure there are many willing to trade them places and pay the higher taxes.Of course. It's always THEY need to pay more. Never WE need to pay more, or I MYSELF need to pay more.
Oh how partisanly typical.