I didn't say entirely... you did.
your spin once again... the top earners get a bigger cut because their share of the wealth pie has become astronomical the past few years. but their share of the tax cut was not ratable to the increase in their wealth, it is much greater, therefore making them even more wealthy, relative to the lower income scale earners.
Originally Posted by Chung Tran
Gimme a break. You're being incredibly lame. Drop the word "entirely" from my post if you think it matters. It doesn't.
Every time a dim-retard says "tax cut" they reflexively add the words "for the rich". That's the talking point. Today's dim-retards oppose any and ALL tax cuts because, to paraphrase Grover Norquist, they want to FEED THE BEAST (not starve it) and suck every dollar of the economy's income and resources out of private hands. As New York's Sandinista Mayor de Blowmeo put it, "there's plenty of money out there, it's just in the wrong hands". Is that your mantra too, chung?
The dim-retards weren't always this clueless. They actually introduced the original template for cutting taxes as a successful tool of fiscal policy. The 1964 JFK tax cuts were enacted under Democratic auspices (liberal economist Walter Heller was in charge of the Council of Economic Advisers for both JFK and LBJ) in what is viewed as the heyday of successful Keynesian "fine-tuning" macromanagement of the economy. Partly in response to the lower tax rates, the economy boomed from 1964-69.
Alas, today's dim-retards are Socialists, not Keynesians. They only know how to preach the politics of envy and demonize any and ALL tax cuts as a giveaway to the rich.
It's remarkable how badly the dim-retards have screwed themselves by pushing increasingly progressive tax schemes on us. They've made government more and more dependent for its revenues on a smaller and smaller slice of the population. This gives governments a perverse incentive to prefer MORE income inequality, not less. Think about it. If every marginal dollar of income earned by a rich fuck generates 35-50 cents in tax revenues, while the same dollar earned by a minimum wage worker may not be taxed at all, who do you think they want to see grow richer??
It also means high-tax states like New York and California are fiscally fucked every time there is a recession, because they are overly reliant on high earners for such a disproportionate share of their revenues. Look at the way their state budget deficits exploded during the 2008/09 recession. Their revenues plummeted much faster than their GDPs did. Yet these lib-retard states never learn. As soon as tax revenues start to recover, they spend every dollar that comes in and leave themselves fiscally even more vulnerable to the next recession.
You need to rethink your ideas about taxes and inequality, chung. Your old lib-retard tax-and-spend "solutions" ain't working.
