The one statement "The wealth continues to be transferred away from the wealthy, not to the wealthy" was clearly yours... (I'm sure we both agree that that is the case.)
Yes, and it was included in my quote of you to show the claim that your calling ridiculous.
Its my statement but your statement was about my statement, and in isolation looses its meaning, because out of context "that" could refer to anything. In context it obviously refers to my statement. I provided the context. I don't know why your are upset about that.
What evidence have you for it, showing that "wealth" "continues to be transferred away from the wealthy"?
The US tax code is a "progressive" system. Also even an actual flat tax (and one with no personal exemption, so everyone really pays the same percentage) would still transfer wealth away from the wealthy, as they would pay more dollars in taxes than the non-wealthy, while at the same time they are not eligible for many transfer programs.
A change in distribution of wealth ("the rich getting richer") is not the same thing as a transfer of wealth. The fact that the rich pay taxes means that wealth is being transferred from them. Even a dollar in tax liability for a billionaire would be a transfer away from that person, and would still be so if he was doubling his wealth every year without his tax payments going up by a penny.
As for net transfers, the wealthy pay a strong majority of federal government taxes, while many transfer programs are limited to the poor, or to the poor and near poor, or to those groups and the middle class. Those that are not income limited apply to all, and the non-wealthy are numerous, so much of the money from those programs still goes to the non-wealthy. |
