barbacoa taco said:

---

Yes, it's wrong. Call it what it is: wrong. These billionaires hire a team of lawyers to avoid paying taxes which amounts to hundreds of billions in lost revenue, which affects the working class the most, who obviously can't avoid paying taxes like they do.

Income inequality used to be not near as big of a problem. Supply side economics have had a devastating impact on the lower class. Nearly all of the benefits went to those at the top, and of course the bottom 50% got screwed over.

You have an incredibly messed up sense of morality if you think it's perfectly fine for billionaires to avoid paying taxes but think it's evil for taxes to be used to pay for programs that benefit poor people.

---

So got it. You think it is wrong. But is it illegal?

So were there less poor people when marginal rates were higher? I do not believe higher tax rates on say, the upper 5% has anything to do with poverty rates. If it did, I would think the dems would have data and loudly proclaim that.

Sounds like you just want to punish the wealthy.

And I wish there was no poverty also. But higher marginal tax rates does not do that historically. Let's do something that actually works and is just not based on envy of the rich.
https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/do-higher-taxes-reduce-inequality

barbacoa taco said:

---

Yes, it's wrong. Call it what it is: wrong. These billionaires hire a team of lawyers to avoid paying taxes which amounts to hundreds of billions in lost revenue, which affects the working class the most, who obviously can't avoid paying taxes like they do.

Income inequality used to be not near as big of a problem. Supply side economics have had a devastating impact on the lower class. Nearly all of the benefits went to those at the top, and of course the bottom 50% got screwed over.

You have an incredibly messed up sense of morality if you think it's perfectly fine for billionaires to avoid paying taxes but think it's evil for taxes to be used to pay for programs that benefit poor people.

---

I do believe it is also wrong to take people's property away without payment.
I'm not happy with the current tax system, way too many complications allowing way too much of what I consider corruption...but we do have laws against monopolies and insider trading...perhaps we need to start enforcing those laws more vigorously? But what if that puts us at a disadvantage in worldwide trade? China seems to have no trouble "fixing prices" to gain control over markets. You see the problem is difficult.
One could say that if a rich person files a report that contains what the state considers to be an error, and even though that error was approved by the rich person's accountants, that the error should be labeled a felony and since the error was repeated 34 times the rich person should be fined $34million and forced to pay before his appeal...
is that the sort of thing you think is fair and right?

dermdoc said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

Yes, it's wrong. Call it what it is: wrong. These billionaires hire a team of lawyers to avoid paying taxes which amounts to hundreds of billions in lost revenue, which affects the working class the most, who obviously can't avoid paying taxes like they do.

Income inequality used to be not near as big of a problem. Supply side economics have had a devastating impact on the lower class. Nearly all of the benefits went to those at the top, and of course the bottom 50% got screwed over.

You have an incredibly messed up sense of morality if you think it's perfectly fine for billionaires to avoid paying taxes but think it's evil for taxes to be used to pay for programs that benefit poor people.

---

So got it. You think it is wrong. But is it illegal?

So were there less poor people when marginal rates were higher? I do not believe higher tax rates on say, the upper 5% has anything to do with poverty rates. If it did, I would think the dems would have data and loudly proclaim that.

Sounds like you just want to punish the wealthy.

And I wish there was no poverty also. But higher marginal tax rates does not do that historically. Let's do something that actually works and is just not based on envy of the rich.
https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/do-higher-taxes-reduce-inequality

---

Oftentimes yes, it is illegal. Do you think these people are good law abiding citizens? If they want to avoid paying something, they'll find a way. They likely won't be prosecuted, and if they are, they have a legal team to fight it.

I'm guessing you've convinced yourself that my whole message is just a diatribe about how "rich people bad," in which case I'm disappointed with you, again. You should know by now i'm not on some crusade against rich or successful people. And it bothers me when conservatives play victim about this and say that the left just wants to "punish success" or whatever ridiculous spin they give it.

I want to punish the unethical ultra high net worth people, who have historically used their power to oppress the lower class, steal their wages, deny them healthcare, pension, and benefits, and then support politicians who cut their own taxes at the expense of the lower class. And then they have the nerve to say that lower class people are "entitled" for wanting to be treated with basic dignity and enact policies that help them afford to live, raise kids, and have proper healthcare.

I always go back to the famous Judge Judy quote: "dont pee on my leg and tell me it's raining."

And yes, this does hurt people. It increases the deficit by trillions. It makes politicians vote down very good and reasonable policies like paid sick leave, paid parental leave, and school lunches (which have been unequivocally proven to yield positive results) with "bUt hOw We gUnNa pAy fOr It??!1?" The same people who cite this ridiculous line have no problem signing away billions of dollars to fight foreign wars (Iraq, Israel) or bail out banks and major corporations (2008, covid). Keep in mind, people who will gladly do this will find a way to justify it, but if any public money is used to help the poor it's condemned as "evil socialism."

So yeah, basically I'm tired of being lied to, Derm. We have the money and power to enact real policy to help working people and fight inequality, and every day we make the active decision to not do it. Both parties are guilty, but the GOP is more openly hostile about it. The Democrats pretend to care, but at the end of the day will always prioritize their corporate interests.

right, because they've always been so benevolent and can be trusted to do the right thing, because our system encourages that at the end of the day. Tell me more, Mr. Keynes.

So you are stating that tax laws are being broken and the IRS does nothing about it?

And you still have not addressed the fact that raising marginal tax rates on anybody helps reduce poverty. Did you read the link I posted?

Why do you want to do something if it does not accomplish your stated goals? Just to do it?

And you want to know what really hurts the poor? Inflation. Check out the last 4 years.

dermdoc said:

---

So you are stating that tax laws are being broken and the IRS does nothing about it?

And you still have not addressed the fact that raising marginal tax rates on any odyhelps reduce poverty. Did you read the link I posted?

Why do you want to do something if it does not accomplish your stated goals? Just to do it?

And you want to know what really hurts the poor? Inflation. Check out the last 4 years.

---

Yes. We literally used to do this, derm. It worked. In the mid 20th century we reduced the wealth gap, and then all of this progress was erased after Reagan took office, and inequality is sky high again. Higher taxes on the ultra wealthy and closing tax loopholes, of course, aren't the only thing we can do, it's just one (or 2) things.

While this is on a global scale, the 8 richest people in the world (most of whom are American citizens) own more wealth than the bottom 50% in the world. There is no universe in which that is a good thing.

I want to know why you don't think income inequality is a problem? Because it's clear that when there is this much of a disparity, it's not a good thing, for individual people or society at large. Do you think it's inspirational or something, like maybe one day some poor person can get to that level?

because that's clearly not the case and we all know it. It's insulting to our intelligence to even suggest it. Yes, people can escape poverty. It happens sometimes, although it's very difficult to escape that downward spiral. And 99% of the time, escaping poverty just means living comfortably, not becoming rich. And near 0% of the time it means attaining sky high wealth. It's so incredibly rare and unlikely it's not worth discussing.

I'm not trying to take your money. Don't take this personally. I'm just confused as to why you and so many don't see this as a problem.

the irony in your statement is the rich people who love capitalism so much are perfectly fine with socialism when it benefits them, they just call it evil when it benefits those below them.

Zobel said:

---

Because you're naive enough to think that taxation addresses inequality. It doesn't. It never has in history.

---

It absolutely has, and we have the data to prove it. The greatest lie we've been told is that cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans will benefit society as a whole. It's done the exact opposite.

Surprise surprise, when you enact policies that almost entirely benefit the top 1%, they mostly just hoard their wealth and use their power to benefit themselves at the expense of those below them. Who coulda thunk it.

I could write a book on this, but there's plenty out there already. But you're not going to convince me that a system that gives people low wages, no benefits, no parental leave, sky high medical bills, exorbitant transportation costs, overdraft fees, and a minimal social safety net is "freedom."

Did you read the link I posted that states you are incorrect in your assumptions?

Zobel said:

---

You're hyperventilating about a caricature of a big evil meany pants moneybag. This is not a serious discussion.

Capitalism doesn't trust people to be benevolent. It accepts motivation and human nature as they are, and allows freedom.

Lurking behind every statist is someone who just doesn't like it when others don't do what they want. And then you call them evil thieves for it.

---

Tale as old as time…

And I assume since you are so passionate about income inequality that you spend a ton of money and time doing charity work? Or maybe voluntarily give more to the IRS to help with income inequality?

Or do you just want others to pay for the stuff you want?

And look up tax loopholes. They are by definition legal ways to pay less in taxes. Now whether they are morally right or not is another story.

And for the record I am all in favor of a flat or VAT (not both) tax with no legal loopholes or deductions.

The problem with higher marginal tax rates is that the truly wealthy a lot of times have very little earned income.

I guess you could do a wealth tax but that is incredibly hard to enforce and pretty much against the founding principles of this country.

barbacoa taco said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

So you are stating that tax laws are being broken and the IRS does nothing about it?

And you still have not addressed the fact that raising marginal tax rates on any odyhelps reduce poverty. Did you read the link I posted?

Why do you want to do something if it does not accomplish your stated goals? Just to do it?

And you want to know what really hurts the poor? Inflation. Check out the last 4 years.

---

Yes. We literally used to do this, derm. It worked. In the mid 20th century we reduced the wealth gap, and then all of this progress was erased after Reagan took office, and inequality is sky high again. Higher taxes on the ultra wealthy and closing tax loopholes, of course, aren't the only thing we can do, it's just one (or 2) things.

While this is on a global scale, the 8 richest people in the world (most of whom are American citizens) own more wealth than the bottom 50% in the world. There is no universe in which that is a good thing.

I want to know why you don't think income inequality is a problem? Because it's clear that when there is this much of a disparity, it's not a good thing, for individual people or society at large. Do you think it's inspirational or something, like maybe one day some poor person can get to that level?

because that's clearly not the case and we all know it. It's insulting to our intelligence to even suggest it. Yes, people can escape poverty. It happens sometimes, although it's very difficult to escape that downward spiral. And 99% of the time, escaping poverty just means living comfortably, not becoming rich. And near 0% of the time it means attaining sky high wealth. It's so incredibly rare and unlikely it's not worth discussing.

I'm not trying to take your money. Don't take this personally. I'm just confused as to why you and so many don't see this as a problem.

---

Whose money are you trying to take? Some anonymous other person? So that is okay? You realize you can raise tax rates of the top 1-5% high earnings to 90% and generate very little additional tax revenue? There are not enough people in this group to make a big difference. The vast majority of government tax income comes from the large group of working middle and middle upper class. About half of the American population pay zero federal income tax.

And what other things do you advocate doing? Seizing property? What does that sound like?

Nobody on this thread is saying income inequality is not a problem. As far as I can tell, you proposed two concrete ideas, raising marginal tax rates and closing loopholes.

I linked an article that pretty much goes through why increasing marginal tax rates does not work for what you want. Did you read it?

And as I mentioned, inflation, which you avoided addressing, hurts the lower and middle class a lot more than tax policies. Look at the last 4 years.

And may I ask why conservative Christians give more time and money to charities than any other group?

Why is that? And a lot of them are not rich. Maybe this Christian stuff really does change people and their hearts? Much better than using government force to make others act like you want them to act.

And I might add your arguments are why I find so much comfort in Christianity.

God is just and all Scripture is clear that those who exploit the poor will be judged accordingly. And when you believe in an eternal life in the presence of almighty God with no poverty, illness, death, etc. it changes your perspective.

Jesus told us this life would not be fair. And that the poor will be with us always. I try to concentrate on what I can do through charitable giving and work, prayers, and encouragement. I intentionally do not try to force others to do what I think they should do or spend a lot of time judging any questionable behavior they have. I trust God to be just and eternity is a long time.

And that does not mean we are not supposed to do what we can to help the poor, the prisoner, the sick, the dying, the grieving, etc. But Jesus never said force other people to do stuff like that. We are personally supposed to do that. And I have discovered nothing gives me more joy than those things.

dermdoc said:

---

And I might add your arguments are why I find so much comfort in Christianity.

God is just and all Scripture is clear that those who exploit the poor will be judged accordingly. And when you believe in an eternal life in the presence of almighty God with no poverty, illness, death, etc. it changes your perspective.

Jesus told us this life would not be fair. And that the poor will be with us always. I try to concentrate on what I can do through charitable giving and work, prayers, and encouragement. I intentionally do not try to force others to do what I think they should do or spend a lot of time judging any questionable behavior they have. I trust God to be just and eternity is a long time.

And that does not mean we are not supposed to do what we can to help the poor, the prisoner, the sick, the dying, the grieving, etc. But Jesus never said force other people to do stuff like that. We are personally supposed to do that. And I have discovered nothing gives me more joy than those things.

---

Yes I read the article

What I find interesting is you say all this stuff and claim to believe it, but continuously vote for people who vote for policies that clearly benefit the wealthy, like cutting taxes for billionaires, and cutting programs that help the poor, like Medicaid, social security, and food stamps.

You acknowledge that inequality may be a problem but your actions don't really reflect it.

That's great that you're charitable. But it's a bit of a cop out. No ones saying that's a bad thing (though I think people should beware of a lot of "charities" out there). I'm saying it's not enough and it hasn't solved a lot of society's issues.

I find your version of morality so perplexing. You claim to be Christian, but if you read the Bible it's clear that the message of Jesus is so at odds with the system we have in America today. You seem to have no issue with billionaires avoiding taxes ("it's legal therefore it's moral!"), and hoarding their wealth, and exploiting the lower class. All of that is beautiful American freedom to you.

But the second I suggest we invest in the public good, like paid parental leave and free school lunches, which have both PROVEN time and time again to be effective and to yield positive results, you think that's "evil socialism."

I think we're just at an impasse and I'll never understand your version of morality. It's traditional American Republican Christianity, which is a philosophy I personally find abhorrent.

barbacoa taco said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And I might add your arguments are why I find so much comfort in Christianity.

God is just and all Scripture is clear that those who exploit the poor will be judged accordingly. And when you believe in an eternal life in the presence of almighty God with no poverty, illness, death, etc. it changes your perspective.

Jesus told us this life would not be fair. And that the poor will be with us always. I try to concentrate on what I can do through charitable giving and work, prayers, and encouragement. I intentionally do not try to force others to do what I think they should do or spend a lot of time judging any questionable behavior they have. I trust God to be just and eternity is a long time.

And that does not mean we are not supposed to do what we can to help the poor, the prisoner, the sick, the dying, the grieving, etc. But Jesus never said force other people to do stuff like that. We are personally supposed to do that. And I have discovered nothing gives me more joy than those things.

---

Yes I read the article

What I find interesting is you say all this stuff and claim to believe it, but continuously vote for people who vote for policies that clearly benefit the wealthy, like cutting taxes for billionaires, and cutting programs that help the poor, like Medicaid, social security, and food stamps.

You acknowledge that inequality may be a problem but your actions don't really reflect it.

That's great that you're charitable. But it's a bit of a cop out. No ones saying that's a bad thing (though I think people should beware of a lot of "charities" out there). I'm saying it's not enough and it hasn't solved a lot of society's issues.

I find your version of morality so perplexing. You claim to be Christian, but if you read the Bible it's clear that the message of Jesus is so at odds with the system we have in America today. You seem to have no issue with billionaires avoiding taxes ("it's legal therefore it's moral!"), and hoarding their wealth, and exploiting the lower class. All of that is beautiful American freedom to you.

But the second I suggest we invest in the public good, like paid parental leave and free school lunches, which have both PROVEN time and time again to be effective and to yield positive results, you think that's "evil socialism."

I think we're just at an impasse and I'll never understand your version of morality. It's traditional American Republican Christianity, which is a philosophy I personally find abhorrent.

---

So you agree raising marginal tax rates does not do what you want to accomplish, correct? So why do it?

I posted above tax strategies being employed are legal. I distinctly stated they may or may not be moral.

And where did Jesus urge the government to help the poor? I do not find that in my Bible. Or address taxes except to pay what Caesar (or any governing authorities) say..

You have given 2 concrete possibilities to combat income inequality, correct?

Does history say they work?

And if not, why do them except to make you feel better. And when have republicans cut Social Security? When did I ever say anything about socialism?

Are you voting for the party that caused so much pain in the middle and lower classes the last four years? Or Biden's "handling" of the Middle East and Ukraine. And since I am against free lunches if I vote for Repubs I assume you are for inflation and war mongering since if you vote for a candidate you evidently support everything they do.

And I am the one with the strange morals?

I find wanting to use government force to make people financially act they way they want them to be abhorrent. And frankly scary. Certainly not Biblical.

And for the record to my knowledge I have not voted for a candidate who was against free school lunches for those who qualify. And my anecdotal experience is nobody is denied a school free lunch. Complete straw man.

And when did anybody cut Social Security recently? Or Medicaid? Did I miss something?

I know several states, including Texas, refused to accept increased Obamacare Medicaid funds because they did not want to be beholden to the feds. I do not remember a decrease in reimbursement.

And may I ask which charities you support with money and/or time?

I love Compassion International. With your passion for the poor it should be right up your alley.

And your skeptical attitude about private charities is well founded. As is my suspicion of government programs.

Who pays for paid parental leave?

Zobel said:

---

Who pays for paid parental leave?

---

Us. He does not care. It is always some anonymous rich horrible person who he thinks is the problem.

Bizarre.

Rongagin71 said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

Yes, it's wrong. Call it what it is: wrong. These billionaires hire a team of lawyers to avoid paying taxes which amounts to hundreds of billions in lost revenue, which affects the working class the most, who obviously can't avoid paying taxes like they do.

Income inequality used to be not near as big of a problem. Supply side economics have had a devastating impact on the lower class. Nearly all of the benefits went to those at the top, and of course the bottom 50% got screwed over.

You have an incredibly messed up sense of morality if you think it's perfectly fine for billionaires to avoid paying taxes but think it's evil for taxes to be used to pay for programs that benefit poor people.

---

I do believe it is also wrong to take people's property away without payment.
I'm not happy with the current tax system, way too many complications allowing way too much of what I consider corruption...but we do have laws against monopolies and insider trading...perhaps we need to start enforcing those laws more vigorously? But what if that puts us at a disadvantage in worldwide trade? China seems to have no trouble "fixing prices" to gain control over markets. You see the problem is difficult.
One could say that if a rich person files a report that contains what the state considers to be an error, and even though that error was approved by the rich person's accountants, that the error should be labeled a felony and since the error was repeated 34 times the rich person should be fined $34million and forced to pay before his appeal...
is that the sort of thing you think is fair and right?

---

Here is a clear list of reasons that the NY trial of Trump was mishandled and strong indication that it was done to cause election interference by Dems against Pubs.

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And when did anybody cut Social Security recently? Or Medicaid? Did I miss something?

I know several states, including Texas, refused to accept increased Obamacare Medicaid funds because they did not want to be beholden to the feds. I do not remember a decrease in reimbursement.

And may I ask which charities you support with money and/or time?

I love Compassion International. With your passion for the poor it should be right up your alley.

And your skeptical attitude about private charities is well founded. As is my suspicion of government programs.

---

17% of Texas residents have no health insurance. The highest rate in the country. You should know how much of a problem that is.

---

It is a big problem. According to this article, 60% of the uninsured qualify for Medicaid but are not enrolled. Sad.
https://www.kff.org/other/issue-brief/a-closer-look-at-the-remaining-uninsured-population-eligible-for-medicaid-and-chip/

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And when did anybody cut Social Security recently? Or Medicaid? Did I miss something?

I know several states, including Texas, refused to accept increased Obamacare Medicaid funds because they did not want to be beholden to the feds. I do not remember a decrease in reimbursement.

And may I ask which charities you support with money and/or time?

I love Compassion International. With your passion for the poor it should be right up your alley.

And your skeptical attitude about private charities is well founded. As is my suspicion of government programs.

---

17% of Texas residents have no health insurance. The highest rate in the country. You should know how much of a problem that is.

---

I remember Pres Johnson and the Great Society - was going to fix that.
I remember Pres Obama and his required insurance for all, free if poor.
But the huge number of illegal aliens have made it impossible to keep up,
and every effort to help encourages that many more to show up.

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And when did anybody cut Social Security recently? Or Medicaid? Did I miss something?

I know several states, including Texas, refused to accept increased Obamacare Medicaid funds because they did not want to be beholden to the feds. I do not remember a decrease in reimbursement.

And may I ask which charities you support with money and/or time?

I love Compassion International. With your passion for the poor it should be right up your alley.

And your skeptical attitude about private charities is well founded. As is my suspicion of government programs.

---

17% of Texas residents have no health insurance. The highest rate in the country. You should know how much of a problem that is.

---

Is health insurance a financial instrument or healthcare?

---

That is a great point.

Zobel said:

---

Who pays for paid parental leave?

---

Just so you know, in 2023, Texas had a $32 billion budget surplus. The state could have easily used that money to fund school lunches, teacher pay raises, broadband infrastructure, rural healthcare, the foster system, and/or parental leave.

We have the money to invest in the public good. We just actively choose to not use it.

Several states and most developed countries have paid parental leave. It's worked out well and reflects the state's values, which are encouraging child rearing and valuing time spent with young children during the early years. In other words, it is a public good worth investing in.

When I hear conservatives condemn this as evil socialism, I can only conclude one thing: conservative states (and the USA as a whole, which is a very right wing country) do not value child rearing and spending time with children. Why? Because there's no money in it. No money to be made from parents taking time off to spend with their kids. On the contrary, it requires investment. The only thing we value is capital. If you go bankrupt from your hospital bill from giving birth and then not being able to provide for your child while taking unpaid leave, then you deserve to starve. That's the message our current system sends.

Of course, wealthy people don't have this problem so it's not seen as an issue

Quote:

---

We have the money to invest in the public good. We just actively choose to not use it.

---

Who should decide how to invest the money?

You didn't answer. Who pays for paid parental leave?

Where does the money come from?

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And when did anybody cut Social Security recently? Or Medicaid? Did I miss something?

I know several states, including Texas, refused to accept increased Obamacare Medicaid funds because they did not want to be beholden to the feds. I do not remember a decrease in reimbursement.

And may I ask which charities you support with money and/or time?

I love Compassion International. With your passion for the poor it should be right up your alley.

And your skeptical attitude about private charities is well founded. As is my suspicion of government programs.

---

17% of Texas residents have no health insurance. The highest rate in the country. You should know how much of a problem that is.

---

It is a big problem. According to this article, 60% of the uninsured qualify for Medicaid but are not enrolled. Sad.
https://www.kff.org/other/issue-brief/a-closer-look-at-the-remaining-uninsured-population-eligible-for-medicaid-and-chip/

---

There are plenty of obstacles placed in people's way as well as a lack of access. Also, 60% reduction would still leave a huge uninsured population.

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And when did anybody cut Social Security recently? Or Medicaid? Did I miss something?

I know several states, including Texas, refused to accept increased Obamacare Medicaid funds because they did not want to be beholden to the feds. I do not remember a decrease in reimbursement.

And may I ask which charities you support with money and/or time?

I love Compassion International. With your passion for the poor it should be right up your alley.

And your skeptical attitude about private charities is well founded. As is my suspicion of government programs.

---

17% of Texas residents have no health insurance. The highest rate in the country. You should know how much of a problem that is.

---

Is health insurance a financial instrument or healthcare?

---

In the United States it is the prerequisite for access to regular and reliable healthcare.

Rongagin71 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And when did anybody cut Social Security recently? Or Medicaid? Did I miss something?

I know several states, including Texas, refused to accept increased Obamacare Medicaid funds because they did not want to be beholden to the feds. I do not remember a decrease in reimbursement.

And may I ask which charities you support with money and/or time?

I love Compassion International. With your passion for the poor it should be right up your alley.

And your skeptical attitude about private charities is well founded. As is my suspicion of government programs.

---

17% of Texas residents have no health insurance. The highest rate in the country. You should know how much of a problem that is.

---

I remember Pres Johnson and the Great Society - was going to fix that.
I remember Pres Obama and his required insurance for all, free if poor.
But the huge number of illegal aliens have made it impossible to keep up,
and every effort to help encourages that many more to show up.

---

It's amazing how everything can be turned into the fault of illegal immigrants rather than addressing the problems in policy. You mention Obama and Johnson without addressing how states and conservatives worked against those goals and limited the extent of the policies.