The top 1% actually pays 36% (Not 40%) HOWEVER what they ‘extract’ from the working class -cash they impose on the working class- is 300% higher than the same amount (through fees, rents, costs, charges, and general cost of living) than it was before Ronald Reagan took office. In other words, the 1% pay a fraction of the same cost compared to the increase they’ve imposed by ‘hiring’ the Republican party to ‘de-regulate’ the economy for them.
Source(s) please? I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just asking for corroboration.
Sources for what?
For this:
im a fan of button down plaid shirts.
im not really understanding what you are saying? The top 1% pays 36% (to who? are you talking about taxes here?) HOWEVER what they extract from the working class - cash they impose on the working class (the top 1% imposes cash on the working class? ) is 300% higher than the same amount (what are weeking talking about here? the top 1% gives 300% more cash to the working class? or they sell their goods for 300% more than it costs to produce?) than it was before ronald reagan took office (ya need sources). In other words, the 1% pay a fraction (whats the fraction? source please.) of the same cost (same cost of what?) compared to the increase (in what? increase in cost) theyve imposed (?) by hiring the Republican Party to deregulate the economy for them.
So you are you saying that they pay the same to produce the goods, but because they lobby the government for favorable regulations that you are calling “deregulation” they are making more profits?
That sounds like they are taking advantage of socialism to me. Has socialism ever turned out differently? You are angry because this is not what you envisioned socialism to be? Sorry to crush your dreams.
I’m a fan of button down shirts too. Not so much when they are buttoned up.
I would be a socialist then- if girls looked like that all the time >.<
Still waiting on those sources, MissSocialist.
There was actually a point during the 2000s when the upper-income bracket savings rate fell into negative territory. The rich could afford to spend more than their (econometrically defined) income because of the increase in their net worth due to stock returns, real estate gains, and the like. If the top 10% owns 80% of the wealth, which is worth around 400% GDP, and the stock market is moving along at 10% a year, that’s a huge amount of net worth being accumulated without showing up in the income statistics.
Basically, the amount of net worth capitalists are gaining every year is even greater than their normally reported income, because that doesn’t include unrealized capital gains. And rental income is not even counted in consumption approach GDP.
Oh, and you guys are five.
Source on the effects of the Reagan tax cuts, if anyone really thinks they somehow hurt the rich; the chart on page 16 shows how before- and after-tax income converged for the top 1%.
What’s your definition of “capitalist” in this context, Ban-Evader?
Oh and I made no reference to MissSocialist’s avatar, so how am I five years old, exactly?
I asked MissSocialist for sources, not you. Or do you two know each other? (I wouldn’t be surprised if that were the case. For that matter, I wouldn’t be surprised if MissSocialist is just another account you created.)
The one economists (and not mouthbreathing rednecks) use. The segment of society holding most of the capital.
i cant believe that i was called 5 years old by someone named aalsdkfjalsdkfjlaskdflkhdglkadfalskdfjlaskdfja’lsdkfjladkfjalsdkh
All economists necessarily? And who exactly are you calling a “mouthbreathing redneck”?
Regarding your definition, what counts as “most of the capital”?
That’s not my M.O. I only create puppets after being banned.
Since you’re a known liar, I see no reason to believe you here.
All my statements are lies.
See what I did there?
Let’s go with over 50%.
What affect do you expect that to have on me, exactly?
Saying that you’re a known liar isn’t the same as saying that everything you say is a lie. My point is that I see no reason to trust you about anything. But you already knew that.
\Why “over 50%”? Why not some other definition?
But, very smart five year olds! But, for real, while none of us really knows if that photo is even really her, let’s assume it is. If you are going to post a very obviously unprofessional and non-serious photo of yourself (main focus being your DD cleavage falling out of your shirt with not even half of your face shown), then this tells me you probably want me to notice them. Do hookers dress like skanks because it is professional (well, I guess in hooker business it is professional)? No! They want you to notice certain things. You don’t get a tattoo on your forehead so no one can see it, do you? You want people to notice it. If she didn’t want to invite non-serious comments like “I like button down shirts”, then she shouldn’t have made such a non-serious photo her avatar.
Conclusion:
I am not five. I am male. Since MissSocialists hasn’t given us much in the way of intellect by which to respect her, I go to the default: looks. Dumb women need to be hot, just like poor guys need to be funny. It is their only way to survive, evolutionarily speaking.
The Hitch made some great observations on this topic
This one is really just more funny than true. His balls must have been so tiring to walk around.