Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "The Bottom 100 Million | Bernie Sanders" video.

  1. +Ice Wafer Except wealth does not equal income.
    3
  2. +Kingbubbles I personally feel we should go back to a tax on the states. Get rid of all federal individual taxes like the founding fathers wanted. That will solve this problem. And I don't want Fox.
    2
  3. +Fresh Haus In a lot of ways that is true.
    1
  4. Bernie needs to learn the difference between wealth and income. What is the "fair share"? What is a "living wage"? Saying talking points with no details or specifics really shows how Bernie is a career politician. The women pay equality issue has been debunked several times. Bernie needs to really study economics if he expects to be president.
    1
  5. +Ice Wafer Plus, the economy is more complicated than that. You using the phrase "living wage" shows how little you understand economics.
    1
  6. +Ice Wafer What is the "basic standard of living"? All those phrases are just rhetoric. I bet my "basic standard of living" is very low compared to others. The flaw in the min. wage is that while you are forcing how much is paid per hour, you are not forcing how much is paid per week. So you raise the min. wage and hours get cut, then what?
    1
  7. +Melika Sasani You can't consume what you don't produce. If people had more money but productivity is the same then all you have done is increase the supply of money without increase the supply of goods and services. That means the value of money drops (higher prices). You also have this false thought that businesses are not spending, they are. They are investing. What grows the economy more, a business investing to grow and create more jobs, or some poor person with a couple of extra bucks buying egg noodles instead of raman noodles? Plus you don't need to stimulate demand, due to competition demand exists. People demand better goods and services so businesses invest to create them at an affordable price. But if the good and services are not there then you can't consume them. Thus raising the min. wage does not create jobs.
    1
  8. +Ryan Lowry Actually it is wealth, not money. Money does not equal wealth. This is how Bernie, a career politician is being deceptive.
    1
  9. +Adam Nasello The original poster said money. I did watch the video.
    1
  10. +Eric Jaffa The original poster said money. Plus wealth inequality is not bad. He has been called out on this in the past.
    1
  11. +Adam Nasello I was responding to the poster. Also we have such high income inequality due to the socialist policies we have in place. If we establish Bernie's policies it will either be 1. worse 2. all those with money will leave thus we have nothing left to tax
    1
  12. +Adam Nasello A homeowner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. The average homeowner has over 60% of their wealth tied into their home. Beyond owning a home the average person has little to no wealth. Now is that bad? No. Think about what wealth is. Someone owns a home, that is a vast majority of their wealth. Now what is next on the value list? Maybe their car. Then their flat screen TV, then their computer and so on. The reason why the top has so much wealth is because they own and run businesses. Not every desires to do that. The Walton family have so much wealth due to them owning half of walmart, as in the buildings, the trucks, the goods until they are sold and so on. With the wealth inequality that means there is wealth available. I don't mind that the top has so much wealth, I own a smart phone with my $25,000 a year salary. I own a reliable car. Everyone is better off. Now Bernie wants wealth redistribution. To do that you will literally have to give a Walmart to someone. Considering how over 50% of small businesses fail within 5 years that means it you give someone a Walmart the value of that building will drop thus wealth goes down. That is why wealth redistribution is impossible, it is only wealth destruction. So with that said you see the advantages of wealth inequality. As far as income inequality, that comes from socialist policies. People are given handouts thus don't value money. The top 10%, who pay 70% of taxes, value money. Thus you have income inequality.
    1
  13. +Ronan Ruddy I know what literally means. The Walton family have so much wealth due to them owning half of Walmart. To do wealth redistribution you will have to take their wealth, which is parts of Walmart, and give it to someone.
    1
  14. +Kingbubbles "people vote against their benefit." Or maybe they vote in their benefit. Who are you to say what is right and what is wrong? What makes you so almighty? What is the "fair share" of taxes? Just throwing statements around does not make them mean anything. I feel the top pay too many taxes. What is my justification? Why have one. You don't.
    1
  15. +Meteo Transmuter If you want a flat tax then I am fine with that.
    1
  16. +Kingbubbles Wealth does not equal income, learn that first. We should not be taxing wealth. The top 10% pay 70% of taxes.
    1
  17. +Ronan Ruddy What is "correctly and fairly"?
    1
  18. +Ice Wafer So you don't have an argument for "fair share", because as of now they do pay the rate set by the government. Warren Buffet paid around 50% of his taxes he received personally himself as income. He put 99% of his earnings into his stocks where he owns 1/3 of his business. That is why his tax rate seemed lower, but in reality his income tax rate was higher. According to you Apple paid their fair share, they followed the law set by the government.
    1
  19. +Ice Wafer 1. Tax is theft without representation and it is a waste 2. I personally want zero federal income tax and to go back to a tax on the states. The states can decide what is the "fair share" 3. I am not understanding this question 4. With this one pays less in taxes. I don't support that but instead support simplified tax code. 5. Not every business has stocks 6. You don't run a business, that is why. But as I said I support a simplified tax code 7. No one should
    1