Trump Wants to Take From the Poor and Give to the Wealthy

[Halbhh]

Guess wrong? The 1% are not the “ultra rich” that “live on capital gains”? On what planet? Not earth.

If you are interested in what in what I'm talking about, See summary below, or else recall (and go back to the first post I made to you and read the link to get more). If interested. It's ok if not.

The ultra rich are more like the 0.01% and up and they aren't employed typically (though can be nominally), and instead of what we think of as employment income they instead have capital gains, see. And that's just the simplified nutshell. Then gets more complicated from there.

So the giant majority of their federal taxes aren't in the 37% top income bracket generally.

Got that?

They might have some trivial amount of ordinary income in that 37% bracket, but 99% of their real gain is capital gains typically, taxed at a far lower rate.

They pay federal tax rates which depending on convenient offsetting losses, will be up to a possible maximum rate of 20% on those gigantic capital gains.

(Almost none of their income is on that the 37% bracket. see?)

In practice their federal tax effective rates will be numbers like 14% or 17%, to use a real life example.

You could read the link in the first post i wrote to you...

 

[NotreDame]

If you are interested, go back to the first part I made to you. If interested. It's ok if not. The ultra rich aren't employed typically, and instead of what we think of as employment income they instead have capital gains, see. And that's just the simplified nutshell. Then gets more complicated from there. So their federal taxes aren't in the 39% bracket generally.

They pay rates like 17%.

The post of yours I addressed, you said “many” of the “rich.” You used Buffet as an example, not as the rule.

And I’m well aware there are some rich who live off investments (for instance, cash in some stock) as I made that same point to another poster.

 

[Halbhh]

The post of yours I addressed, you said “many” of the “rich.” You used Buffet as an example, not as the rule.

And I’m well aware there are some rich who live off investments (for instance, cash in some stock) as I made that same point to another poster.

Ok. I was thinking of my first post to you being #57. But that's not really important.

ALL of the ultra rich have most of their income from capital gains and/or capital gains by another name, and they pay lower effective federal tax rates than much of the middle class. See?

So this whole time we are taking past each other I bet. But maybe you see something new at this point? That the ultra rich actually pay lower tax rates than someone making $250,000. Can you see that?

 

[faroukfarouk]

Perhaps if you were to take off your blinders, we might actually have a dialogue, but as it is, please let me recommend you read Moby Dick if you really wish to enjoy some overrun sentences. Although my arguments may not be so deficient as you claim, my talent in writing overrun sentences pales in comparison with good ole Melville's extraordinary talent in that regard.

Since you are not a plutocrat, you may be interested in what an actual plutocrat has to say on this topic:

Interesting boon by Herman Melville, 'Moby Dick'...(Part set in Halifax, Nova Scotia...)

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Trump Wants to Take From the Poor and Give to the Wealthy

That's ridiculous!
We in this part of town are much better off thanks to
Mr. President Trump.
And we are not rich.
2020 looking better each day.
M-Bob

 

[NotreDame]

Perhaps if you were to take off your blinders, we might actually have a dialogue, but as it is, please let me recommend you read Moby Dick if you really wish to enjoy some overrun sentences. Although my arguments may not be so deficient as you claim, my talent in writing overrun sentences pales in comparison with good ole Melville's extraordinary talent in that regard.

Since you are not a plutocrat, you may be interested in what an actual plutocrat has to say on this topic:

Perhaps if you were to take off your blinders, we might actually have a dialogue

But I see well enough to recognize you’ve made some bad arguments.

Although my arguments may not be so deficient as you claim

Yes, I may have under valued their deficiency. You’ve made bad arguments.

Let me know when you have some thoughts of your own on this matter.

 

[iluvatar5150]

No one who creates this many jobs wants to take from the poor.

lol wut? I don't want to be mean but it sort of boggles my mind how ignorant one would have to be in order to take this position. A quick look at the history of industrial development in the west will give one loads of examples of people and organizations that created tons of jobs while also squeezing as much as possible from the powerless. Trump himself ran a scam university that cheated people (often desperate people) out of thousands.

 

[bekkilyn]

But I see well enough to recognize you’ve made some bad arguments.

Yes, I may have under valued their deficiency. You’ve made bad arguments.

Let me know when you have some thoughts of your own on this matter.

"Ohh that's just bad because...reasons" is your example of a good argument? How very silly!

 

[TLK Valentine]

Thanks for finding and conveying this reporting.

That will be something to watch: will farm subsidies turn into a means of crony capitalism (aka corruption).

... and a ploy to intimidate the farm vote.

"You have no choice but to vote for me; a Democrat will stop the handouts I made you dependent on!"

 

[NotreDame]

"Ohh that's just bad because...reasons" is your example of a good argument? How very silly!

Trying to deflect from the fact you’ve made weak arguments by asserting I didn’t repeat the many flaws of your position in my last post, despite doing so in several preceding posts, is very silly.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

What do you think the dems do when they spend billions of American tax dollars spent in handouts to corrupt foreign politicians to prop up corporations or the billions in endless foreign wars in order to have access to airspace, pipelines or their precious resources in order to benefit large corporations?

The Dems? It was George Herbert Walker Bush who sent me to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in 1990-1991 and George W. Bush who sent me to Afghanistan. They are Democrats now? I guess so if a long time Democrat and notorious flip flopper can call himself a Republican and have people believe it.

What ever happened to taking all the Iraqi oil to pay for the war?

Those are American tax dollars that could be going to Americans, for American infrastructure or American public programs - but instead we are enriching the corporations and lining the pockets of our politicians who are so rich they can't even comprehend the mindset of the working class.

Do you mean the Trump Cabinet? The one that has more Millionaires and Billionaires than any previous Cabinet?

Here's your bread and circus.

it ought to keep you distracted while Rome burns. .. when its over our children will all be slaves..

Yes, someone wants us distracted…

 

[Hazelelponi]

The Dems? It was George Herbert Walker Bush who sent me to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in 1990-1991 and George W. Bush who sent me to Afghanistan. They are Democrats now? I guess so if a long time Democrat and notorious flip flopper can call himself a Republican and have people believe it.

What ever happened to taking all the Iraqi oil to pay for the war?



Do you mean the Trump Cabinet? The one that has more Millionaires and Billionaires than any previous Cabinet?



Yes, someone wants us distracted…

Are you a long time republican? If so I'm sure you noticed the defection from the democratic party that led to a split in the republican party after the former dems, for all intents and purposes, took it over.

The conservatives then left the republican party (for the most part) and became non voters in largest part because there was nothing left to vote for inside the republican or the democrat party.

Trump is an outsider - ie not part of what is affectionately called the elite (who would be a dem 40 or so years ago) who promised conservative (not democrat or modern republican) stances - it's why he got the vote.

He's followed through on those policies as best as he's been able, fighting everyone in both parties for it. (Yea!)

So he will still get the vote. I'm not a Bush republican. Bush was never a republican by definition of what that term used to mean. And guess what he hates Trump too - just like a clear majority of elite republicans who are so close to democrat desires that their policies are no different..

ever notice the single party in congress the last few decades?

 

[bekkilyn]

Trying to deflect from the fact you’ve made weak arguments by asserting I didn’t repeat the many flaws of your position in my last post, despite doing so in several preceding posts, is very silly.

Except for that one small fact that you have no idea what you are talking about! (But I'm sure you could get up to speed by spending more time on it, surely. It just takes patience and practice.) Maybe you really just need to take a deep breath or three, plant a smile on your face and turn that frown upside down, and hug a pack of wriggly, fluffy puppies. It really does make things feel all better!

 

[NotreDame]

Except for that one small fact that you have no idea what you are talking about! (But I'm sure you could get up to speed by spending more time on it, surely. It just takes patience and practice.) Maybe you really just need to take a deep breath or three, plant a smile on your face and turn that frown upside down, and hug a pack of wriggly, fluffy puppies. It really does make things feel all better!

Except for that one small fact that you have no idea what you are talking about!

Add this unsubstantiated claim to your heap of unsubstantiated claims. I’d be remiss if I also didn’t mention a specific claim about the middle class that was contradicted by facts.

Your posts have been an inundation of unsubstantiated claims, and more vacuous posts, like the one above, exacerbates it.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It was to the states to provide welfare (see NC Constitution for an example) and the federal government to promote the General Welfare (preamble - US Constitution). Never was there any intention, until marxist theory reached the halls of Congress in the early 20th century, that any federal program should be providing entitlements. This creates government dependencies in which power can and has proven to usurp the very freedoms of those who have grown dependent. This has rather always been (and should still be) the jobs of the churches, charities, and municipalities.

You might want to re-read your history. “Poor laws” go back quite a bit farther than the 20th century, and the federal government was getting involved at least as early as the civil war. Dependencies can be engendered from any assistance program regardless of whether it’s public or private, local or federal, so I don’t understand why you’d make that point. And private charity has repeatedly shown over time that it’s unable to scale up to the size needed to address the magnitude of the problems we face. Additionally, having assistance fractured among many different organizations instead of centrally distributed is a great way to create inefficiencies and inconsistencies in the delivery of those services.

Trump's doing the right thing here. Get the federal government out of welfare; completely and entirely. Let those who know the people in need provide for the people in need.

Getting the federal government out of welfare will do nothing but let poor states become even poorer.

 

[Cimorene]

Trump Wants to Take From the Poor and Give to the Wealthy

This has pretty much always been his modus operandi.

 

[bekkilyn]

Add this unsubstantiated claim to your heap of unsubstantiated claims. I’d be remiss if I also didn’t mention a specific claim about the middle class that was contradicted by facts.

Your posts have been an inundation of unsubstantiated claims, and more vacuous posts, like the one above, exacerbates it.

And you just continue to exacerbate your own foolishness with your arrogance and your projection of your own weaknesses onto others, making it practically impossible for anyone to have any sort of serious discussion with you. So you may as well take my advice to breathe, hug a puppy or two, and perhaps move along if you're not in the mood for more ridiculous banter.

 

[bekkilyn]

You might want to re-read your history. “Poor laws” go back quite a bit farther than the 20th century, and the federal government was getting involved at least as early as the civil war. Dependencies can be engendered from any assistance program regardless of whether it’s public or private, local or federal, so I don’t understand why you’d make that point. And private charity has repeatedly shown over time that it’s unable to scale up to the size needed to address the magnitude of the problems we face. Additionally, having assistance fractured among many different organizations instead of centrally distributed is a great way to create inefficiencies and inconsistencies in the delivery of those services.

Getting the federal government out of welfare will do nothing but let poor states become even poorer.

If it's something that *everyone* needs, or *will* need, such as health care (not insurance), then it is more efficient to manage it on a federal level so that everyone is served. Why some people can't seem to see the logic of it is mind-boggling.

 

[NotreDame]

And you just continue to exacerbate your own foolishness with your arrogance and your projection of your own weaknesses onto others, making it practically impossible for anyone to have any sort of serious discussion with you. So you may as well take my advice to breathe, hug a puppy or two, and perhaps move along if you're not in the mood for more ridiculous banter.

Once again, you aren’t going to make your prior bad arguments strong by personally attacking me. The insults you make about me doesn’t make your arguments better. The problem isn’t me. The problem is your bad arguments.

Like your other posts, this post here has no basis in reality. The impediment to “any sort of serious discussion” is your modus operandi of making claims and failing to support them with any sound logic, evidence, or both, or just being wrong.

Previously, you made a comment about the middle class that was contrary the data I cited.

You’ve made unsubstantiated claims of unjustified appropriation. You’ve appealed to notions of fairness without making any sound argument and/or providing evidence for an objective understanding of fairness and how it’s application results in a specific outcome here.

I’m not the problem. I’m not this boogeyman you try to make me. The problem are your poor arguments. Make them better, or at least try to do so, as opposed to personally insulting me, which does nothing to make your arguments better.

 

[NotreDame]

If it's something that *everyone* needs, or *will* need, such as health care (not insurance), then it is more efficient to manage it on a federal level so that everyone is served. Why some people can't seem to see the logic of it is mind-boggling.

Maybe because it is not more efficient. You’ve certainly made no sound argument it is or would be more efficient.

More problematic, however, is the notion it would be more efficient is an ineluctable notion. You treat your unsubstantiated claim as absolutely true, like 2+2=4, or gravity accelerates objects toward the ground at 9.8 meters per second squared.

Your treatment of the claim of efficiency as absolute truth is a nice ploy, after all no one in their right mind would dare challenge an absolute truth like 2+2=4, or your claim of efficiency. It’s a nice rhetorical trick to claim others are wrong without having to make an argument to support your claim.

Well, your “logic of it” may be wrong, it hasn’t been shown to be right, which is problematic.