GrumpyDog (11-21-2012)
Just prior that that....
You're logic is fine, except it's based on a hypothetical. Here's some problems with it.
One, the 1/3s and 2/3s are not static but dynamic. By looking only at statistics you've abstracted yourself away from actual individuals who move in and out of those groups all the time.
Two, the 1/3 do pay over 2/3s. You see, they contribute not only taxes but also to the generation of wealth everyone shares in.
Three, it would be far better to instead of an income tax use a consumption tax, like the Fair Tax in order to get the incentives right.
Those and other points seems to be beyond the grasp of liberals.
Wow! So a few people go from poor to rich. But not many, it seems..............
Even if the premise had any validity in the context in which it was presented, it turns out to be largely false.
Last edited by Awryly; 11-21-2012 at 09:39 PM.
Come sit down beside me I said to myself
And although it doesn't make sense
I held my own hand as a small sign of trust
And together I sat on the fence
Anon. Very anon.
Actually it's more than you think.Wow! So a few people go from poor to rich. But not many, it seems..............
Not if you bothered to follow your sources. [10] is about meritocracy, not economic mobility. Moreover, it does exactly what I pointed out is misleading, it looks at statistical groups, not individuals. Hell, you're always going to have a statistical top 1%, the point is the people in the group keep changing.Even if the premise had any validity in the context in which it was presented, it turns out to be largely false.
I won't bother with the remaining sources since you obviously didn't bother to read them either.
Re your source [10]:
Come sit down beside me I said to myself
And although it doesn't make sense
I held my own hand as a small sign of trust
And together I sat on the fence
Anon. Very anon.