Income disparity is the cause of poverty

I don’t have much time, work beckons…
the reason we have poverty is income disparity…

Apple for example has 76 BILLION dollars in overseas banks
that they pay no tax on… Exxon has not paid federal taxes in years
and they are one of hundreds of companies that don’t pay ANY federal taxes…
45 is one of thousands of wealthy individuals who don’t pay taxes every year
and they are part of reason we have poverty in America…
the conservative mantra is we can’t afford schools and art and sciences
because we are too poor and we are too poor because we don’t have the taxes
from all those companies and individuals… we are in poverty because the wealth
and companies don’t pay their fair share of taxes… we have massive income
disparity and because of that we have poverty… end income disparity and you
end poverty…end the wealthy and corporations to avoid paying their fair share
of taxes and you end poverty…the one leads to the other…tax cuts don’t
and have never, ever been shown to create jobs… building infrastructure is
a proven way of creating jobs and increasing the tax base… Keyensian economics
works and works well… if you want to “Make America great again” you want
to begin with eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy, you want to make
corporations pay their fair share of taxes, you want to rebuild America and
put people back to work… this is the surefire way to “MAGA”

Kropotkin

What do taxes have to do with income disparity?

The income of the wealthy is astronomical and the income of the working poor is meager. It’s the income being paid to the top: CEO, upper management, and shareholders that causes the hard working stiffs to earn next to nothing.

If taxation was more equally distributed among all “workers”, the cost of living would be reduced for everyone. But this has to coupled with reducing wage disparity. There needs to be an upper limit on earnings. A CEO making six million a year while the janitor makes fifteen thousand is insane.

First, establish what would be considered a living wage in a state-geographical area.
We must allow for initiative, education, talent, etc. to be rewarded. Sooo… an individual should be able to earn up to say, ten times the living wage in their state-area. Isn’t that reasonable? Meritocracy rewarded. An individual could receive anywhere from two -ten times a living wage.

Any earnings above the ten times is an absolute tax which eventually reduces the tax rate for individuals, small business, even large corporations. The government ends up with enough money that it doesn’t have to borrow itself into bankruptcy.

Somehow, I don’t think this could ever happen. Human greed ALWAYS wins…

How so?

If taxes were collected with greater equality, then the tax rate would eventually be reduced. Why? Because the monies necessary to run efficient governance would actually be collected at whatever the current tax rate happens to be.

Consider: Because of the current disparity in tax collection, the government has to borrow money to meet its obligations, which in turn increases the required interest payments on those loans - which increases the pressure to raise taxes and/or increase the debt ceiling. It becomes the vicious cycle we all know so well. I’m not suggesting a flat tax, but something pretty damn close. There are too many people expecting a free lunch. Stop that and things eventually even out -ie- lower taxes for everyone.

Efficient governance? :laughing: When has that ever happened, I mean really?

If people had a living wage, medicaid costs would drop ($100 a pop per month X 50 million), costs for food assistance programs ($150 a pop per mo. X 50 million) would drop, childcare costs ($400 a pop per mo. X 20 million), a slew of welfare programs which are very costly because they are fluctuating monthly costs (rather than one time costs per year) would drop so way less taxes would be needed and could be reverted into infrastructure, education, and the justice system.

They say hope springs eternal. Maybe not.