military = jobs program

But not everyone agrees with you that this will be best. I dont think Kirkwood is just out to fuck with denis. I think he believes the tax cut will fuck the middle class.


He may be wrong, but I believe his opinion is valid.

What shouldnt be reduced?

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

Of course he's not. We are on incredibly good terms and have met several times.


The individual portion of this tax cut is not doing much. It is something on the order of $300B over $10 years. It is a modest simplification of the current system. In that way, it will have almost zero impact on your direct tax bill. Let's not kid ourselves, the bill is all about corporate tax reform. And in that way, it is a revolutionary change from the current system. It brings about globally competitive rates. But more importantly, it does away with our unique global taxation system.

Now if you equate corporate tax cuts with screwing the middle class, then I can't help you. I know the left has MANY that feel that way. I look at it as making the United States a more competitive place to invest capital and strengthening our companies against their global peers.

And finally, I can't tell you if it will make people happier.

Yea, I just didnt know what you were referring to without quoting what "it" was.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

Yea, I think we all pretty much agree that cutting corporate taxes will be good for economic growth. It's just a matter of who and how the growth benefits the citizens.

Did you read the article? It's a pretty good argument. If the Dems pulled that card, the wealthy CEO's would have to choose between taking a hit to their pocketbook or arguing against the elimination of the corporate tax. Good idea and good politics.

[
Well, then eliminate it and tax the rich more. I like it.

I don't really debate any particular tax plan or particular side of the political aisle but when was it accepted without question that the rich should pay more than others? At some point I assume the idea of a tax was pretty flat. A king or some emperor basically took the same from everyone. Income tax obviously came much later than the founding fathers so I get the timing of our current system. Just made me wonder how this seemingly unchangeable idea was hatched.

I don't really debate any particular tax plan or particular side of the political aisle but when was it accepted without question that the rich should pay more than others? At some point I assume the idea of a tax was pretty flat. A king or some emperor basically took the same from everyone. Income tax obviously came much later than the founding fathers so I get the timing of our current system. Just made me wonder how this seemingly unchangeable idea was hatched.

We have this highly progressive income tax system where any way you cut it, the top slice is paying the majority of taxes. And yet we have ever growing income inequality. So clearly the tax system can't neutralize the reasons for growing income inequality.

Income inequality has increased over the past 50 years as income taxes have become less and less progressive. But hey, that must just be a coincidence.

Income inequality has increased over the past 50 years as income taxes have become less and less progressive. But hey, that must just be a coincidence.

Eveyone should have to pay some taxes though. Just part of being a citizen. Even if it is $100/year. For show.

Taxation without representation isn't the subject of the question. Progressive percentages is.

Dennis just made a good point about income inequality. That leads me to a second question though. Why is IE inherently bad anyway? In our present system you can argue poor people don't have enough in general. In a model like our though if there is a good basic bottom what difference does it make at all how much Gates or Buffet make?

Aren't you a Christian?

Dennis just made a good point about income inequality.

Technically I guess but what does that have to do with anything?

No he did not make a good point about income inequality. He made a misleading if not completely false point about income inequality.

Would it be ok if 1 American had 99.9% of the money?
.

The teachings in general urge you to take care of the meek, the poor.

Support for income inequality would seem to run against that.

Think of an extreme example and work backwards. Would it be ok if 1 American had 99.9% of the money?

If your answer is no, then we are just talking degrees of inequality.

My take is when you have billionaires and homeless people living in the same city, something seems off about that.

My take is when you have billionaires and homeless people living in the same city, something seems off about that.

Do you think the only difference between them is money?

Seems to be some disagreement here.