281–286 of 286 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, not true. Look at the effective tax rates. The lowest quintile pays single digit percentage (negative income tax when you account for the EITC). Top quintile pays an effective rate of over 30%.
For some reason the bottom quintile doesn't seem to make use of offshore tax shelters quite as much, as the top quintile. To those who have much, more will be given...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry to say, but if a city gives away so much to Amazon that it's a net negative, it's their own dam fault. Maybe they should take some negotiations or financial modeling classes. Amazon doesn't control the zoning laws, the city does. If housing prices increase, it's the city's fault. People act like Amazon is some all-powerful entity that can railroad an entity like a city council that has the power to change laws.
Yes, the city would be to blame. But so would Amazon. Amazon is run by people who know right from wrong, and are fully capable of taking responsibility for their actions. Amazon absolutely shares some blame with all of those. You cannot condemn one entity for not having "personal responsibility" and ignore the responsibility the other entities have in contributing to the situation.
Will you refuse to take the $100?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
we're in a time when taxes are being shifted more and more away from those who have (rich & corporations) Actually the exact opposite is happening. The top quintile is pay a bigger share of taxes than before.[1] In 1960, the top quintile paid 56.5% of all federal tax revenue. In 2005 it was 69%. Care to revise your position based on that? [1] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29861648/ns/politics-capitol_hill/... (table on r…
> Actually the exact opposite is happening. You're mistaken and given your responses elsewhere I think you're either confused or arguing in bad faith. The mean tax rate paid by the top 0.1% of earners in 1979 was just over 40%. This fell to about 25% in 2010.[1] Marginal rates followed a similar trend. Meanwhile the US Gini coefficient rose from .415 in 1979 to .476 in 2012.[2] This implies that the top quintile pays…
Second your graph shows rates for the top .1% and .01%. I was talking top quintile which you seemed to have forgotten plus you didn't challenge the data I provided.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GDP shouldn't be compared to revenue. Revenue is flow through a company from customers. It could even be for a loss. If you did 1Bn in revenue but paid 2Bn for the goods you're selling it's not really a win. GDP is more like the value add of a country. Profit is a better comparison. However, profit is tricky as companies often use it to grow rather than pay out profit. Amazon's profit was 4B. Even saying, reasonably…
GDP is also flow through a country from productivity to revenue realized. Every country is not adding its flat GDP to its wealth every year because a majority of the value created from GDP goes to buying other countries GDP in the same way a companies revenue goes mostly to paying for its operating costs. IE, the US has a 20 trillion GDP but only sees around 4 trillion growth a year in national wealth the same way Am…
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/06/28/gdp-for-...
GDP to market cap is worse. The net worth of a country is not it's GDP. The total wealth of the US is about ~90 trillion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
The estimates for total wealth, however, are really fraught and fluctuate, as does market cap in other currencies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technology is why we have the prosperity we have. There are plenty of countries without automation. And many allow anybody to immigrate to them. But don't expect air conditioning You'll have to hire a person to wave you with a fan. And don't expect those job-killing tubes to bring you your water. Hire a water carrier like everybody else. And in the truly pure countries, be prepared to drag your stuff with you without…
I've downvoted you because you're using extremely hyperbolic arguments that I don't feel add to the discussion.
But feel free to point out where I am exaggerating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For some reason the bottom quintile doesn't seem to make use of offshore tax shelters quite as much, as the top quintile. To those who have much, more will be given...
Is your statement based on fact or just how you think things work?