By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
It's a factual statistical measurement. Your not liking the results doesn't change that.
The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
Sounds neat, have a link to the metrics?
Income equality means fuck all and is achievable only by force. Totalitarian regimes the world over have excelled at "income equality" with the masses all being equally poor.
Merit based systems necessarily preclude income equality. In a merit based system, income is based on demand. Income inequality is ultimately what drives people to excel in fields deemed valuable by the population as a whole. The issue is whether or not the opportunity for advancement exists. If opportunity is restricted for reasons other than merit, then the restriction needs to be lifted. If the merit based opportunity does exist and you choose not seek that or other opportunities out, that's on you, you have no right to some else's gains. I know this is a foreign concept to you snowflakes, but the only truly fair system is one based on merit, and that necessarily precludes income equality.
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
It's a factual statistical measurement. Your not liking the results doesn't change that.
The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
Sounds neat, have a link to the metrics?
Income equality means fuck all and is achievable only by force. Totalitarian regimes the world over have excelled at "income equality" with the masses all being equally poor.
Merit based systems necessarily preclude income equality. In a merit based system, income is based on demand. Income inequality is ultimately what drives people to excel in fields deemed valuable by the population as a whole. The issue is whether or not the opportunity for advancement exists. If opportunity is restricted for reasons other than merit, then the restriction needs to be lifted. If the merit based opportunity does exist and you choose not seek that or other opportunities out, that's on you, you have no right to some else's gains. I know this is a foreign concept to you snowflakes, but the only truly fair system is one based on merit, and that necessarily precludes income equality.
Please tell me how reducing the tax rate for those with taxable income over $450k a year from 39% to 33% will help with the merits of earning money.
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
It's a factual statistical measurement. Your not liking the results doesn't change that.
The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
Sounds neat, have a link to the metrics?
Income equality means fuck all and is achievable only by force. Totalitarian regimes the world over have excelled at "income equality" with the masses all being equally poor.
Merit based systems necessarily preclude income equality. In a merit based system, income is based on demand. Income inequality is ultimately what drives people to excel in fields deemed valuable by the population as a whole. The issue is whether or not the opportunity for advancement exists. If opportunity is restricted for reasons other than merit, then the restriction needs to be lifted. If the merit based opportunity does exist and you choose not seek that or other opportunities out, that's on you, you have no right to some else's gains. I know this is a foreign concept to you snowflakes, but the only truly fair system is one based on merit, and that necessarily precludes income equality.
I'm not sure which totalitarian regime you are referencing, but most had way worse income inequality than the US does. I'm not sure you even know what the metric is.
Qualitative opportunity equality sounds great, but you still haven't provided any data or measurements. Where does the US rank in that regard?
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
It's a factual statistical measurement. Your not liking the results doesn't change that.
The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
Sounds neat, have a link to the metrics?
Income equality means fuck all and is achievable only by force. Totalitarian regimes the world over have excelled at "income equality" with the masses all being equally poor.
Merit based systems necessarily preclude income equality. In a merit based system, income is based on demand. Income inequality is ultimately what drives people to excel in fields deemed valuable by the population as a whole. The issue is whether or not the opportunity for advancement exists. If opportunity is restricted for reasons other than merit, then the restriction needs to be lifted. If the merit based opportunity does exist and you choose not seek that or other opportunities out, that's on you, you have no right to some else's gains. I know this is a foreign concept to you snowflakes, but the only truly fair system is one based on merit, and that necessarily precludes income equality.
Please tell me how reducing the tax rate for those with taxable income over $450k a year from 39% to 33% will help with the merits of earning money.
Once again you're missing the point and conflating issues. Are you really that stupid? Never mind, rhetorical question.
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
It's a factual statistical measurement. Your not liking the results doesn't change that.
The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
Sounds neat, have a link to the metrics?
Income equality means fuck all and is achievable only by force. Totalitarian regimes the world over have excelled at "income equality" with the masses all being equally poor.
Merit based systems necessarily preclude income equality. In a merit based system, income is based on demand. Income inequality is ultimately what drives people to excel in fields deemed valuable by the population as a whole. The issue is whether or not the opportunity for advancement exists. If opportunity is restricted for reasons other than merit, then the restriction needs to be lifted. If the merit based opportunity does exist and you choose not seek that or other opportunities out, that's on you, you have no right to some else's gains. I know this is a foreign concept to you snowflakes, but the only truly fair system is one based on merit, and that necessarily precludes income equality.
Please tell me how reducing the tax rate for those with taxable income over $450k a year from 39% to 33% will help with the merits of earning money.
Once again you're missing the point and conflating issues. Are you really that stupid? Never mind, rhetorical question.
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
It's a factual statistical measurement. Your not liking the results doesn't change that.
The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
Sounds neat, have a link to the metrics?
Income equality means fuck all and is achievable only by force. Totalitarian regimes the world over have excelled at "income equality" with the masses all being equally poor.
Merit based systems necessarily preclude income equality. In a merit based system, income is based on demand. Income inequality is ultimately what drives people to excel in fields deemed valuable by the population as a whole. The issue is whether or not the opportunity for advancement exists. If opportunity is restricted for reasons other than merit, then the restriction needs to be lifted. If the merit based opportunity does exist and you choose not seek that or other opportunities out, that's on you, you have no right to some else's gains. I know this is a foreign concept to you snowflakes, but the only truly fair system is one based on merit, and that necessarily precludes income equality.
Please tell me how reducing the tax rate for those with taxable income over $450k a year from 39% to 33% will help with the merits of earning money.
You're kidding, right? You cannot possibly believe that 6% spent by the government is as efficiently circulated and spent as 6% in the private sector. Let me put it this way: You'd prefer the military that drops bombs on people get that 6% instead of having it reinvested locally or into banks or stocks that help people retire or fund their kid's tuition. Right?
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
It's a factual statistical measurement. Your not liking the results doesn't change that.
The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
Sounds neat, have a link to the metrics?
Income equality means fuck all and is achievable only by force. Totalitarian regimes the world over have excelled at "income equality" with the masses all being equally poor.
Merit based systems necessarily preclude income equality. In a merit based system, income is based on demand. Income inequality is ultimately what drives people to excel in fields deemed valuable by the population as a whole. The issue is whether or not the opportunity for advancement exists. If opportunity is restricted for reasons other than merit, then the restriction needs to be lifted. If the merit based opportunity does exist and you choose not seek that or other opportunities out, that's on you, you have no right to some else's gains. I know this is a foreign concept to you snowflakes, but the only truly fair system is one based on merit, and that necessarily precludes income equality.
Please tell me how reducing the tax rate for those with taxable income over $450k a year from 39% to 33% will help with the merits of earning money.
You're kidding, right? You cannot possibly believe that 6% spent by the government is as efficiently circulated and spent as 6% in the private sector. Let me put it this way: You'd prefer the military that drops bombs on people get that 6% instead of having it reinvested locally or into banks or stocks that help people retire or fund their kid's tuition. Right?
Put it in context with what southern dog said.
In a perfect world we wouldn't spend as much as we do. But that's not how it works. We can't cut taxes then add to the military budget. If we are going to have meaningful cuts to the government, I'm fine with it.
Keep in mind, I'm in the group that'll get a sizeable tax cut under Trump.
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
It's a factual statistical measurement. Your not liking the results doesn't change that.
The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
Sounds neat, have a link to the metrics?
Income equality means fuck all and is achievable only by force. Totalitarian regimes the world over have excelled at "income equality" with the masses all being equally poor.
Merit based systems necessarily preclude income equality. In a merit based system, income is based on demand. Income inequality is ultimately what drives people to excel in fields deemed valuable by the population as a whole. The issue is whether or not the opportunity for advancement exists. If opportunity is restricted for reasons other than merit, then the restriction needs to be lifted. If the merit based opportunity does exist and you choose not seek that or other opportunities out, that's on you, you have no right to some else's gains. I know this is a foreign concept to you snowflakes, but the only truly fair system is one based on merit, and that necessarily precludes income equality.
Please tell me how reducing the tax rate for those with taxable income over $450k a year from 39% to 33% will help with the merits of earning money.
You're kidding, right? You cannot possibly believe that 6% spent by the government is as efficiently circulated and spent as 6% in the private sector. Let me put it this way: You'd prefer the military that drops bombs on people get that 6% instead of having it reinvested locally or into banks or stocks that help people retire or fund their kid's tuition. Right?
Put it in context with what southern dog said.
In a perfect world we wouldn't spend as much as we do. But that's not how it works. We can't cut taxes then add to the military budget. If we are going to have meaningful cuts to the government, I'm fine with it.
Keep in mind, I'm in the group that'll get a sizeable tax cut under Trump.
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
It's a factual statistical measurement. Your not liking the results doesn't change that.
The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
Sounds neat, have a link to the metrics?
Income equality means fuck all and is achievable only by force. Totalitarian regimes the world over have excelled at "income equality" with the masses all being equally poor.
Merit based systems necessarily preclude income equality. In a merit based system, income is based on demand. Income inequality is ultimately what drives people to excel in fields deemed valuable by the population as a whole. The issue is whether or not the opportunity for advancement exists. If opportunity is restricted for reasons other than merit, then the restriction needs to be lifted. If the merit based opportunity does exist and you choose not seek that or other opportunities out, that's on you, you have no right to some else's gains. I know this is a foreign concept to you snowflakes, but the only truly fair system is one based on merit, and that necessarily precludes income equality.
Please tell me how reducing the tax rate for those with taxable income over $450k a year from 39% to 33% will help with the merits of earning money.
You're kidding, right? You cannot possibly believe that 6% spent by the government is as efficiently circulated and spent as 6% in the private sector. Let me put it this way: You'd prefer the military that drops bombs on people get that 6% instead of having it reinvested locally or into banks or stocks that help people retire or fund their kid's tuition. Right?
Put it in context with what southern dog said.
In a perfect world we wouldn't spend as much as we do. But that's not how it works. We can't cut taxes then add to the military budget. If we are going to have meaningful cuts to the government, I'm fine with it.
Keep in mind, I'm in the group that'll get a sizeable tax cut under Trump.
Really? Because you sound dirt poor.
I am. But yes really. Well it depends actually. I'm in the 25% tax bracket now. There is a small slice of that bracket that's projected to get an increase. It really depends on exactly how he changes brackets and deductions.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), or the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), was a trade agreement between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States of America and Vietnam. The finalized proposal was signed on 4 February 2016 in Auckland, New Zealand, concluding seven years of negotiations. It currently cannot be ratified due to U.S. withdrawal from the agreement on 23 January 2017. The former Obama administration claimed that the agreement aimed to "promote economic growth; support the creation and retention of jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in the signatories' countries; and promote transparency, good governance, and enhanced labor and environmental protections."[6] The TPP contains measures to lower both non-tariff and tariff barriers to trade,[7] and establish an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism.[6][8] The TPP began as an expansion of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPSEP or P4) signed by Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore in 2005. Beginning in 2008, additional countries joined the discussion for a broader agreement: Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, United States, and Vietnam, bringing the total number of countries participating in the negotiations to twelve. Current trade agreements between participating countries, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, will be reduced to those provisions that do not conflict with the TPP or provide greater trade liberalization than the TPP.[9] The Obama administration considered the TPP a companion agreement to the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a broadly similar agreement between the U.S. and the European Union.[10] Participating nations aimed at completing negotiations in 2012, but the process was prolonged by disagreements over contentious issues, including agriculture, intellectual property, and services and investments.[11] A final agreement was signed on 5 October 2015, and then awaited ratification by the signatories.[12][13] The treaty was made public on 5 November 2015.[14] CNN called it "the largest proposed free trade deal in history".[15] On 20 November 2016, Singapore declared that they would amend legislation to bring the TPP into effect.[16] On 21 November 2016, U.S. president-elect Donald Trump announced that he planned to withdraw the United States from the TPP after he took office; on 23 January 2017, President Trump signed a presidential memorandum to withdraw.[5] Mainstream economic analyses by the U.S. International Trade Commission,[17] the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the World Bank and the Office of the Chief Economist at Global Affairs Canada found that the final agreement would, if ratified, lead to net positive economic outcomes for all signatories, while a heterodox economic analysis by two Tufts University economists found that the agreement would adversely affect the signatories.
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
It's a factual statistical measurement. Your not liking the results doesn't change that.
The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
Sounds neat, have a link to the metrics?
Income equality means fuck all and is achievable only by force. Totalitarian regimes the world over have excelled at "income equality" with the masses all being equally poor.
Merit based systems necessarily preclude income equality. In a merit based system, income is based on demand. Income inequality is ultimately what drives people to excel in fields deemed valuable by the population as a whole. The issue is whether or not the opportunity for advancement exists. If opportunity is restricted for reasons other than merit, then the restriction needs to be lifted. If the merit based opportunity does exist and you choose not seek that or other opportunities out, that's on you, you have no right to some else's gains. I know this is a foreign concept to you snowflakes, but the only truly fair system is one based on merit, and that necessarily precludes income equality.
I'm not sure which totalitarian regime you are referencing, but most had way worse income inequality than the US does. I'm not sure you even know what the metric is.
Qualitative opportunity equality sounds great, but you still haven't provided any data or measurements. Where does the US rank in that regard?
When is Trump going to deregulate the banks with an executive order? They've been handcuffed for almost 8 years now. When they're allowed to go back to margin their accounts 40X-50X like they used to, the stock market and housing prices will rocket!
Comments
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
Sounds neat, have a link to the metrics?
Is this real????
In other words Abundance mother fucker.
Merit based systems necessarily preclude income equality. In a merit based system, income is based on demand. Income inequality is ultimately what drives people to excel in fields deemed valuable by the population as a whole. The issue is whether or not the opportunity for advancement exists. If opportunity is restricted for reasons other than merit, then the restriction needs to be lifted. If the merit based opportunity does exist and you choose not seek that or other opportunities out, that's on you, you have no right to some else's gains. I know this is a foreign concept to you snowflakes, but the only truly fair system is one based on merit, and that necessarily precludes income equality.
Qualitative opportunity equality sounds great, but you still haven't provided any data or measurements. Where does the US rank in that regard?
In a perfect world we wouldn't spend as much as we do. But that's not how it works. We can't cut taxes then add to the military budget. If we are going to have meaningful cuts to the government, I'm fine with it.
Keep in mind, I'm in the group that'll get a sizeable tax cut under Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), or the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), was a trade agreement between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States of America and Vietnam.
The finalized proposal was signed on 4 February 2016 in Auckland, New Zealand, concluding seven years of negotiations. It currently cannot be ratified due to U.S. withdrawal from the agreement on 23 January 2017. The former Obama administration claimed that the agreement aimed to "promote economic growth; support the creation and retention of jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in the signatories' countries; and promote transparency, good governance, and enhanced labor and environmental protections."[6] The TPP contains measures to lower both non-tariff and tariff barriers to trade,[7] and establish an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism.[6][8]
The TPP began as an expansion of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPSEP or P4) signed by Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore in 2005. Beginning in 2008, additional countries joined the discussion for a broader agreement: Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, United States, and Vietnam, bringing the total number of countries participating in the negotiations to twelve. Current trade agreements between participating countries, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, will be reduced to those provisions that do not conflict with the TPP or provide greater trade liberalization than the TPP.[9] The Obama administration considered the TPP a companion agreement to the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a broadly similar agreement between the U.S. and the European Union.[10]
Participating nations aimed at completing negotiations in 2012, but the process was prolonged by disagreements over contentious issues, including agriculture, intellectual property, and services and investments.[11] A final agreement was signed on 5 October 2015, and then awaited ratification by the signatories.[12][13] The treaty was made public on 5 November 2015.[14] CNN called it "the largest proposed free trade deal in history".[15] On 20 November 2016, Singapore declared that they would amend legislation to bring the TPP into effect.[16] On 21 November 2016, U.S. president-elect Donald Trump announced that he planned to withdraw the United States from the TPP after he took office; on 23 January 2017, President Trump signed a presidential memorandum to withdraw.[5]
Mainstream economic analyses by the U.S. International Trade Commission,[17] the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the World Bank and the Office of the Chief Economist at Global Affairs Canada found that the final agreement would, if ratified, lead to net positive economic outcomes for all signatories, while a heterodox economic analysis by two Tufts University economists found that the agreement would adversely affect the signatories.