Need some help. Just what the heck does Liz Warren mean by "rigged?"

Dec 2018
1,839
587
New England
#1
Anyone watching the news these days can't help buy hear Sen. Warren employ her absolutely lovely speaking voice to assure us all how the US economy is "rigged." Would any of her supporters here like to explain what she means by that assertion and why we should believe her?
 
May 2018
2,841
1,996
USA
#2
She's 100% right. The economy is "rigged" to reward the rich/super rich at the expense of everyone else. Super-rich people pay lower rates on their investment profits than the middle class does on EARNED INCOME. Add in the %6.2 "SSI" tax that middle class earners pay on EVERY CENT OF THEIR INCOME vs the 0.0001% that the super rich pay towards SSI. Even Warren Buffett, one of the richest men in the world, commented on what a ridiculous system we have. Buffett said that his SECRETARY paid a higher tax rate than he did. (Buffett and Gates are both on the record eviscerating the super low tax rate on the wealthy in the USA).

I'm surprised you are ignorant of these things, you seem smarter than the average Trumplodyte.
 
May 2018
4,774
2,985
Chicago
#3
She's 100% right. The economy is "rigged" to reward the rich/super rich at the expense of everyone else. Super-rich people pay lower rates on their investment profits than the middle class does on EARNED INCOME. Add in the %6.2 "SSI" tax that middle class earners pay on EVERY CENT OF THEIR INCOME vs the 0.0001% that the super rich pay towards SSI. Even Warren Buffett, one of the richest men in the world, commented on what a ridiculous system we have. Buffett said that his SECRETARY paid a higher tax rate than he did. (Buffett and Gates are both on the record eviscerating the super low tax rate on the wealthy in the USA).

I'm surprised you are ignorant of these things, you seem smarter than the average Trumplodyte.
I can't help but feel that this is going to be another Nat thread where he denies reality in favor of trickle down fantasy. My interactions with him so far have been quite disingenuous. It usually ends with me being frustrated with his lack of realizing reality. He just refuses to acknowledge what is real.

I'm beginning to think he's a bot that just says whatever over and over, hoping people will believe it. Let me know if that changes for you.
 
Dec 2013
32,715
19,078
Beware of watermelons
#5
She's 100% right. The economy is "rigged" to reward the rich/super rich at the expense of everyone else. Super-rich people pay lower rates on their investment profits than the middle class does on EARNED INCOME. Add in the %6.2 "SSI" tax that middle class earners pay on EVERY CENT OF THEIR INCOME vs the 0.0001% that the super rich pay towards SSI. Even Warren Buffett, one of the richest men in the world, commented on what a ridiculous system we have. Buffett said that his SECRETARY paid a higher tax rate than he did. (Buffett and Gates are both on the record eviscerating the super low tax rate on the wealthy in the USA).

I'm surprised you are ignorant of these things, you seem smarter than the average Trumplodyte.

Wow. Maybe we should try something like a flat consumption tax.
 
Sep 2018
6,621
1,090
cleveland ohio
#6
Wow. Maybe we should try something like a flat consumption tax.
funny europe has switched to the se regressiv taxes to pay for social services, taxing wealthy heavily causes them to pick up and leave, capital today is very mobile thats a big problem a good example is when socialist government in france tried to put a supertax of 75% on wealthy, belguim lowered capital gains taxes to zero and a flood of rich froggies hopes in their citroens and moved across the border, mind you belgium is one of the most heavily taxes nations , except for capital that they wanted, its hard today to tax the rich they just push a button and off it goes to singapore or switzerland or holland holland no longer has a capital gains tax even though others taxes are crushing
 
Dec 2018
1,839
587
New England
#7
She's 100% right. The economy is "rigged" to reward the rich/super rich at the expense of everyone else. Super-rich people pay lower rates on their investment profits than the middle class does on EARNED INCOME. Add in the %6.2 "SSI" tax that middle class earners pay on EVERY CENT OF THEIR INCOME vs the 0.0001% that the super rich pay towards SSI. Even Warren Buffett, one of the richest men in the world, commented on what a ridiculous system we have. Buffett said that his SECRETARY paid a higher tax rate than he did. (Buffett and Gates are both on the record eviscerating the super low tax rate on the wealthy in the USA).

I'm surprised you are ignorant of these things, you seem smarter than the average Trumplodyte.
No need to be nasty, unless you'd like it good and hard in return.

You raise a good point. I have for many years maintained our federal tax system is unfair, though I suspect what you and I would consider "fair" would differ. That said, a couple of follow up questions:
  1. For those at lower income levels, just how much of a handicap can the federal income tax system be given that nearly half of all filers have a zero net liability? i.e. their effective rate is even lower than Buffet's.

  2. If the super rich were taxed at a higher effective rate, how would the system be "less rigged?" i.e. how would it, say, improve the chances of someone in the middle class moving into the upper middle class?
Lastly, regarding capital gains tax. Ultimately I agree with you that this source of income should not have a special, lower rate, but there are things to consider:
  • The lower rate does create an incentive for investment, and such investment is generally a healthy thing for an economy and thus also for everyone who depends on that economy.

  • Capital gains taxes are higher than they appear (though they do not matched other income rates). The cap gains tax is not indexed for inflation. For example, suppose you cash in an investment after five years with a return of 4% annually, and also suppose the inflation rate over that time was 2%. You're effective return is only 2%, but you're taxed as if it were 4%; i.e. you'll pay twice as much tax on your gain than it appears.

Again, not a reason to keep the special cap gain rate, but a mitigating factor.
 
Dec 2018
1,839
587
New England
#8
I can't help but feel that this is going to be another Nat thread where he denies reality in favor of trickle down fantasy. My interactions with him so far have been quite disingenuous. It usually ends with me being frustrated with his lack of realizing reality. He just refuses to acknowledge what is real.

I'm beginning to think he's a bot that just says whatever over and over, hoping people will believe it. Let me know if that changes for you.
That's rich coming from you.

A few thoughts:
  • What you get from me are my honest opinions. You're simply lying when you call me disingenuous.

  • As for being a bot, my goodness, you're as reflexively partisan a commenter as I've seen in this forum. I can't think of a single post you've made that I would describe as anything other than predictable. Your commentary is practically algorithmic.

  • Lastly, like so many political extremists , you confuse your opinions with "reality." You appear to be one of those people who cannot (or at least will not) make an effort to see two sides of an issue. IMO, that's a hallmark of immaturity.

Toodles.
 
Likes: Sabcat
May 2018
4,774
2,985
Chicago
#9
That's rich coming from you.

A few thoughts:
  • What you get from me are my honest opinions. You're simply lying when you call me disingenuous.

  • As for being a bot, my goodness, you're as reflexively partisan a commenter as I've seen in this forum. I can't think of a single post you've made that I would describe as anything other than predictable. Your commentary is practically algorithmic.

  • Lastly, like so many political extremists , you confuse your opinions with "reality." You appear to be one of those people who cannot (or at least will not) make an effort to see two sides of an issue. IMO, that's a hallmark of immaturity.

Toodles.
The difference between us is that I recognize reality and facts- things you rarely acknowledge. For some reason. you seem to think that no one has heard an opinion like yours before, as if it's a completely new thing that no one has ever thought of. Some of have been around enough to have heard it all. You're not bringing anything new to any discussion- just the typical conservative denial of reality and wishful thinking- asserting that what you want to be true is true instead of realizing what's true. And as far as being predictable? So far, I've nailed you on that in this thread. Honest opinions are neat- but they don't mean a damn thing if you can't back them up.
 
Dec 2018
1,839
587
New England
#10
The difference between us is that I recognize reality and facts- things you rarely acknowledge. For some reason. you seem to think that no one has heard an opinion like yours before, as if it's a completely new thing that no one has ever thought of. Some of have been around enough to have heard it all. You're not bringing anything new to any discussion- just the typical conservative denial of reality and wishful thinking- asserting that what you want to be true is true instead of realizing what's true. And as far as being predictable? So far, I've nailed you on that in this thread. Honest opinions are neat- but they don't mean a damn thing if you can't back them up.
I challenge you to cite a "reality" that I have not acknowledged in this thread. (or in any other thread in this forum that matter)
 

Similar Discussions