Why do you consider tis to be a problem? Are the poor making less? No. The poor are making more and the rich are making more. A rising tide lifts all ships...proportionally. Obviously that would increase the gap between the two.

Do you not READ?

I never stated that it was a "problem" I stated that your bullcrap line about this "redistribution" is all in your head. The gap has WIDENED over the last 35 years.

And no, the poor making more and the rich making more would not inherently widen the gap. The gap would stay consistent. The poor making a tad more to keep up with COLA and the rich making millions and billions more would widen the gap...which I state AGAIN I DON'T CARE. I'm just stating your "redistribution" theory isn't real.

In this REAL LIFE scenario, who is <i>anyone else</i>? Who are these "liberal politicians" who are "redistributing the wealth" IN REAL LIFE giving it to?

that cropped post of yours is an interesting sign of you being threatened. You speak logically sometimes thru a wall of fear.

The ability of a voter to have less needs answered by the gov't threatnens your beliefs.. relax

hahaha

No fear, no need to have my "needs" answered by the government. And for the record, how the hell do you know what my "beliefs" are?

Simply pointing out how through sarcasm ridiculous your post was. Just so it's very clear to you, I'll post the whole thread (instead of taking two sentences and taking it out of context like you did):




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RoninLB
the best is the Dem's preventing the lower working clsss from gaining over some control of their Soc Security. Possibility the only chance they will ever get to have some meaningful savings that they can eventually pass on to their families. They're afraid of a new generation of mini-capitalists following the stock and bond markets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



HAHAHAHA

OMG LIBERALS ARE SOOOO AFRAID OF THAT. They're soooo afraid of people passing meaningful savings on to their famillies. They're so afraid...very afraid. They're sooo terrified that they can't sleep at night thinking about people passing meaningful savings on to their families.

They lie awake at night wringing their hands!



You guys ever bother doing some thinking for a change? Here's a tip, try it. Quit listening to Rush and try to do some thinking on your own.

you're confirming my last post.. thanks

Ok.....whatever...you make no sense.

Again, who the hell do you think you are to presume to know what my "beliefs" are?

you're telegraphing them.

. . .and telegraphing that you should have gone with "hot_chick" as a log-on. (ie hot-head)

maybe next time.

Obviously if both groups increase their incomes by 10% or 50%....both improve their income, but the gap widens.

That is how a progressive tax rate works.

Have you ever hear of Earned Income Credit?

So flintstone, you hold the liberal politicians responsibile for the progressive tax system in this country?

A progressive tax rate is, by definition, wealth redistribution. I hold liberal politicians responsible for trying to make taxes so "progressive" that they stifle growth, unfairly penalize achievement, and create a disaffected lower class with no immediate incentive to work harder…. This ultimately results in class warfare.

Have you proof of the fact that this is all the "liberal politicians" doing?

And do you have proof that the progressive tax does this:

1. Stifle groth
2. unfairly penalizing achievement
3. creating a disaffected lower class with no immediate incentive to work harder?

Because if 1 and 2 were true, the gap would in fact not be getting larger.

And I'm interested to see some proof in number 3...

Don't you think it's just a tad bit closer to the truth that the only way the government can sustain itself at this time IS the progressive tax system, and that currently, if it's not progressive, there will not be enough revenue to support the government?

Geezus....if U think the tax code the USA has now isn't Progressive...than I don't know what to say to you....

The tax code as it now stands PROMOTES SPENDING and not saving..if U go to a National Sales Tax...it will have the effect of causing people to save money....something which hasn't been done since the 1960's....

The Dividend Tax Reduction...Also promotes savings...and not just by the wealthiest but by middle Americans as well....

This country with it's Accounts deficits has to do something to promote saving over spending....

Cool don't look at this as a Liberal vs Consevative issue....but look at it as an economic issue....

Clearly liberal voting records support increasing tax rates on higher wage earners...and it was part of the platform of your recent presidential candidate. The results (1-3) are mainstream economic theory on the results of such. The "proof" would be the results of the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts.

Obviously, to anyone with common sense, extremely progressive tax rates do exactly as posted.

I am for the Privatization of a portion of your SS....simply do the math of what the govt takes out of your wages on a yearly basis...and do the compounding of the interest that money would make over a person working career of say 45 years...and you will find that the income you derive at the end is far greater than SS and you will have a large amount of principle to pass on to your heirs....something SS doesn't do....

Now the tired ole saw is that people wouldn't save the money or they might pick the wrong investment etc... I would say a safety net of mandatory investment into a no touch account would be required and if the investment vehicle is simply bonds with a return currently of 6% to 8% is about as safe as your going to get....and over a 45 year period would be a substantial amount of moneies. (mandatory allocation of monies, with a greater emphasis on stocks when young turning to the safety of bonds when older)

Then why is the wage gap continually and "progressively" widens over the last 35 YEARS????????

Why are the results NOT indicative of your statements?

Oh, and I sure would appreciate some specfics regarding this:

Clearly liberal voting records support increasing tax rates on higher wage earners...

And not just one...you imply it's all liberal politicians.

And I'd sure like to see the balance of republican politican voting records re: same.

Something in the private sector have gone askew...the pay a CEO receives now for example...but this is a function of the Board of directors...

Secondly people with high tech skills are more highly sought than factory workers...

Many manufacturing jobs have gone overseas, becuae it is more cost effective...labour rates were askew in the USA after WW2 and with the rising compettion of foreign countries..it has put pressure on American labours compensation... Since the 1960's and 1970's it was a NO BRAINER to figure out American workers were overpaid...and some kind of adjustment was in order...the hope had bin that the tide would rise all boats...Baby the Golden Age of the American worker has past....and a return to the norm is now happening...

You have changed your argument. First you argued the difference between rich and poor....now you are discussing the "wage gap." They are quite different and are effected by taxes differently.