FCC orders review of Disney licences after Jimmy Kimmel joke

Just now, newnative said:

I've already stated in previous posts where I would be finding new 'revenue streams'. I disagree that raising taxes could reduce tax revenue collected. It's also clear that reducing taxes leads to--surprise!--less tax revenue collected. The latest ill-advised tax reduction will cost 3 to 4 trillion dollars over the decade.

Will that dumb tax cut produce any 'trickle-down' benefits of note? No. And, after literally decades, it's hard to believe anybody still believes in trickle-down economics. Google's take:

Evidence suggests trickle-down economics does not work as intended. Studies indicate that cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations does not significantly boost economic growth or employment, but instead increases income inequality. While it boosts capital for the rich, the benefits rarely trickle down to middle and lower-income earners.

Yes, Google, it's definitely worked to increase income inequality in the US. In the last 4 decades--hmm, around when trickle-down was introduced--income inequality grew so much that the US has the worst income inequality of any of the G7 nations. How bad is it? Google:

The top 1% of American households hold over 31% of total U.S. household wealth, with their combined net worth hitting a record high of $52 trillion to $55.8 trillion as of late 2025/early 2026. This elite group holds a higher share of wealth than the entire bottom 90% combined, highlighting a massive, record-setting concentration of wealth.

So. US debt--39 trillion. 1% superduper-rich--52 to 56 trillion. There's one 'revenue stream' to take a look at.

If you raise income tax to 100%, how much would you collect?

Just now, Yellowtail said:

If you raise income tax to 100%, how much would you collect?

Just now, Yellowtail said:

If you raise income tax to 100%, how much would you collect?

Let's ask math wizzes Trump and Kennedy.

Just now, newnative said:

Let's ask math wizzes Trump and Kennedy.

So, you don't know that either.

If you increased capital gains taxes to 100%, how much would you collect?

Just now, Yellowtail said:

So, you don't know that either.

If you increased capital gains taxes to 100%, how much would you collect?

Just now, Yellowtail said:

So, you don't know that either.

If you increased capital gains taxes to 100%, how much would you collect?

Just now, Yellowtail said:

So, you don't know that either.

If you increased capital gains taxes to 100%, how much would you collect?

Don't know this one, either--a super dumb idea not worth even thinking about. Dumb questions like this are a total waste of time--especially since I never advocated for 100% capital gains taxes--who would--or even mentioned capital gains at all. I think I've made the points I wanted to make and I am moving on.

Just now, newnative said:

Don't know this one, either--a super dumb idea not worth even thinking about. Dumb questions like this are a total waste of time--especially since I never advocated for 100% capital gains taxes--who would--or even mentioned capital gains at all. I think I've made the points I wanted to make and I am moving on.

You said: "I disagree that raising taxes could reduce tax revenue collected."

But now you refuse to think about it and call it "a super dumb idea".

You don't want to think about it, because once you start thinking about it, your position falls apart, so you are unable to answer honestly.

Following the FCC of the renewal applications for Disney licenses based upon possible violations of discrimination/DEI 'reverse-discrimination' matters (not Jimmy Kimmel) per the directive:

Therefore, Disney’s ABC is hereby directed to file license renewals for all of their licensed

TV stations within 30 days--in other words, by May 28, 2026.

So 3 more weeks for you guys to have to constrain your excitement on the matter until the response is due.

14 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

You said: "I disagree that raising taxes could reduce tax revenue collected."

But now you refuse to think about it and call it "a super dumb idea".

You don't want to think about it, because once you start thinking about it, your position falls apart, so you are unable to answer honestly.

Let's review. You asked me if capital gains taxes were raised to 100%, how much revenue would be collected. I replied that I had no idea, and raising capital gains taxes to 100% would be a 'super dumb idea'. And, it is.

Maybe read my post again:

"Don't know this one, either--a super dumb idea not worth even thinking about. Dumb questions like this are a total waste of time--especially since I never advocated for 100% capital gains taxes--who would--or even mentioned capital gains at all."

I've made myself perfecly clear in previous posts that it is my 'position' that taxes do need to be raised for just about everybody but the poor earning less than specified incomes. The minutiae to be worked out by experts, not me. I've also stated that it is very unlikely to happen--with too few people wanting to do anything 'hard' these days.

Just now, newnative said:

Let's review. You asked me if capital gains taxes were raised to 100%, how much revenue would be collected. I replied that I had no idea, and raising capital gains taxes to 100% would be a 'super dumb idea'. And, it is.

Maybe read my post again:

"Don't know this one, either--a super dumb idea not worth even thinking about. Dumb questions like this are a total waste of time--especially since I never advocated for 100% capital gains taxes--who would--or even mentioned capital gains at all."

I've made myself perfecly clear in previous posts that it is my 'position' that taxes do need to be raised for just about everybody but the poor earning less than specified incomes. The minutiae to be worked out by experts, not me. I've also stated that it is very unlikely to happen--with too few people wanting to do anything 'hard' these days.

Why would you not know? Per your claim that "raising taxes could reduce tax revenue collected", and because the rate the rich generally pay on capital gains is 20%, would the revenue not increase 400%?

Just now, Yellowtail said:

Why would you not know? Per your claim that "raising taxes could reduce tax revenue collected", and because the rate the rich generally pay on capital gains is 20%, would the revenue not increase 400%?

What I said:

"I've already stated in previous posts where I would be finding new 'revenue streams'. I disagree that raising taxes could reduce tax revenue collected."

So, not what you posted. Maybe I should have also stated what I thought was patently obvious--that if something utterly preposterous is proposed, such as your 100% tax on a revenue stream, all bets are off and tax revenue could decrease on that revenue stream. As already stated, the recent tax cut extension will result in 3 to 4 trillion dollars added to the national debt in the next 10 years. Adding interest costs brings it up to 4.5 trillion.

Yes, the rich pay 20% on capital gains--but only when their income reaches $600,000 for joint filers, $533K for singles. There is certainly room for some adjustment to increase this revenue stream, by lowering the amount when the 20% kicks in, raising the 20% somewhat, or doing a combination of both.

What is abundantly clear is the tax cuts of 2017, and the recent extension, benefit the rich and corporations far more than anyone else. To wit:

Analyses of recent U.S. tax policies, particularly the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) and its subsequent extensions, generally conclude that benefits are disproportionately skewed toward high-income individuals and corporations. While many households received some tax reduction, studies show the top 1% receive the largest benefits, with estimates suggesting nearly half of the extended benefits would go to the top 5% of earners.

And, as already stated in a previous post, 40 years of waiting in vain for 'trickle-down' to trickle-down. Instead, over those trickle-down years, the rich just got richer, with the top 1% holding 31% of US household wealth, and the US now having the biggest wealth gap of any of the G7 nations.

Just now, newnative said:

What I said:

"I've already stated in previous posts where I would be finding new 'revenue streams'. I disagree that raising taxes could reduce tax revenue collected."

So, not what you posted. Maybe I should have also stated what I thought was patently obvious--that if something utterly preposterous is proposed, such as your 100% tax on a revenue stream, all bets are off and tax revenue could decrease on that revenue stream. As already stated, the recent tax cut extension will result in 3 to 4 trillion dollars added to the national debt in the next 10 years. Adding interest costs brings it up to 4.5 trillion.

Yes, the rich pay 20% on capital gains--but only when their income reaches $600,000 for joint filers, $533K for singles. There is certainly room for some adjustment to increase this revenue stream, by lowering the amount when the 20% kicks in, raising the 20% somewhat, or doing a combination of both.

What is abundantly clear is the tax cuts of 2017, and the recent extension, benefit the rich and corporations far more than anyone else. To wit:

Analyses of recent U.S. tax policies, particularly the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) and its subsequent extensions, generally conclude that benefits are disproportionately skewed toward high-income individuals and corporations. While many households received some tax reduction, studies show the top 1% receive the largest benefits, with estimates suggesting nearly half of the extended benefits would go to the top 5% of earners.

And, as already stated in a previous post, 40 years of waiting in vain for 'trickle-down' to trickle-down. Instead, over those trickle-down years, the rich just got richer, with the top 1% holding 31% of US household wealth, and the US now having the biggest wealth gap of any of the G7 nations.

You said that raising taxes could not increase taxes, so do you agree that making capital gains taxes 90% instead of 20% would increase revenue 350% or not?

In any event, why should one taxpayer pay a greater percentage than another taxpayer? What is fair about that?

And saying that richer households benefit more from tax deductions than poor households, is like say people that drive cars benifit more from lower gas prices than do people that ride bicycles.

Lower income households benefit most from the tax revenue and pay the least.

A person that earns $20K a year, pays $290 a year in Medicare taxes.

A person that earns $100K a year pays $1,450 a year in Medicare taxes.

A person the earns $1M a year pays $14,500 a year in Medicare taxes.

They all get the same benefit and stand in the same line.

Just now, Yellowtail said:

You said that raising taxes could not increase taxes, so do you agree that making capital gains taxes 90% instead of 20% would increase revenue 350% or not?

In any event, why should one taxpayer pay a greater percentage than another taxpayer? What is fair about that?

And saying that richer households benefit more from tax deductions than poor households, is like say people that drive cars benifit more from lower gas prices than do people that ride bicycles.

Lower income households benefit most from the tax revenue and pay the least.

A person that earns $20K a year, pays $290 a year in Medicare taxes.

A person that earns $100K a year pays $1,450 a year in Medicare taxes.

A person the earns $1M a year pays $14,500 a year in Medicare taxes.

They all get the same benefit and stand in the same line.

Show me the exact quote where I said 'raising taxes could not increase taxes'. Huh? What I actually said:

'Maybe I should have also stated what I thought was patently obvious--that if something utterly preposterous is proposed, such as your 100% tax on a revenue stream, all bets are off and tax revenue could decrease on that revenue stream.'

Not the same thing as your garbled 'raising taxes could not increase taxes.' We obviously disagree on how taxes should be handled, and what is fair and not fair with taxation. I doubt either of us will be changing the other's mind.

Just now, newnative said:

Show me the exact quote where I said 'raising taxes could not increase taxes'. Huh? What I actually said:

'Maybe I should have also stated what I thought was patently obvious--that if something utterly preposterous is proposed, such as your 100% tax on a revenue stream, all bets are off and tax revenue could decrease on that revenue stream.'

Not the same thing as your garbled 'raising taxes could not increase taxes.' We obviously disagree on how taxes should be handled, and what is fair and not fair with taxation. I doubt either of us will be changing the other's mind.

Are you saying now that raising taxes could reduce revenue? It has to be one or the other.

In any event, why should one taxpayer pay a greater percentage than another taxpayer? What is fair about that?

Just now, Yellowtail said:

Are you saying now that raising taxes could reduce revenue? It has to be one or the other.

In any event, why should one taxpayer pay a greater percentage than another taxpayer? What is fair about that?

Progressive tax is of course widespread around the world. Could be that someone in a low paying job cannot spare much of their wages for taxes - to be able to get by - whereas a very high paid person can afford it.

I waxed lyrical in a different post how sometimes it is clearly fair and sometimes it isn't - this can depend on the background of the relevant parties and other factors.

I am constantly peeved about how people on lower incomes seem to be on a better deal than me e.g. pay much less tax, get benefits I don't get, etc - and people on much higher incomes seem to at times find ways to avoid their taxes through high powered accountants.

I personally though think some progressiveness in tax rates makes sense.

Australia seems set to make changes such as:

• reducing the ability to claim rental property losses

• reducing discounts on capital gains

• tightening the rules on uses of family trusts to split income and have income paid by low tax individuals though earned by high income individuals.

The government sees it in part as a generational thing - to limit tax benefits for the older wealthy parties and possibly give some tax cuts to wage earners. The young often feel the boomers and Generation X had it easier.

Just now, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Progressive tax is of course widespread around the world. Could be that someone in a low paying job cannot spare much of their wages for taxes - to be able to get by - whereas a very high paid person can afford it.

I waxed lyrical in a different post how sometimes it is clearly fair and sometimes it isn't - this can depend on the background of the relevant parties and other factors.

I am constantly peeved about how people on lower incomes seem to be on a better deal than me e.g. pay much less tax, get benefits I don't get, etc - and people on much higher incomes seem to at times find ways to avoid their taxes through high powered accountants.

I personally though think some progressiveness in tax rates makes sense.

Australia seems set to make changes such as:

• reducing the ability to claim rental property losses

• reducing discounts on capital gains

• tightening the rules on uses of family trusts to split income and have income paid by low tax individuals though earned by high income individuals.

The government sees it in part as a generational thing - to limit tax benefits for the older wealthy parties and possibly give some tax cuts to wage earners. The young often feel the boomers and Generation X had it easier.

Did you not understand the question?

Just now, Yellowtail said:

Did you not understand the question?

Did you not understand what you wrote? You asked 'In any event, why should one taxpayer pay a greater percentage than another taxpayer? What is fair about that?'

That is progressive tax and that is what i discussed and gave reasons why it might be fair.

Not sure what to make of the right wingers on this site sometimes ...

Just now, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Did you not understand what you wrote? You asked 'In any event, why should one taxpayer pay a greater percentage than another taxpayer? What is fair about that?'

That is progressive tax and that is what i discussed and gave reasons why it might be fair.

Not sure what to make of the right wingers on this site sometimes ...

I know what progressive taxes are.

My questions were why should one taxpayer pay a lower percentage than another?

You did not explain why it was fair, you said because some could afford it while others "can't.". How about progressive pricing for cars, or food or homes?

In the US, almost half the "taxpayers" pay no income tax, yet they benefit more from the taxes than the people that pay them. They will most all vote for higher taxes. The tax issue is used to divide the country and to pander for votes.

Being a citizen should not be free.

Just now, newnative said:

I've made myself perfecly clear in previous posts that it is my 'position' that taxes do need to be raised for just about everybody but the poor earning less than specified incomes. The minutiae to be worked out by experts, not me. I've also stated that it is very unlikely to happen--with too few people wanting to do anything 'hard' these days.

How about cutting some federal spending?

Just now, Yellowtail said:

I know what progressive taxes are.

My questions were why should one taxpayer pay a lower percentage than another?

You did not explain why it was fair, you said because some could afford it while others "can't.". How about progressive pricing for cars, or food or homes?

In the US, almost half the "taxpayers" pay no income tax, yet they benefit more from the taxes than the people that pay them. They will most all vote for higher taxes. The tax issue is used to divide the country and to pander for votes.

Being a citizen should not be free.

So you know what progressive taxes are, ask why one should pay less than the other, then say I did not address the question?

Is not the ability to pay what fairness is about?

No one has mentioned setting prices - the government can of course tinker at the edges - stamp duty concessions for first homebuyers, in America I believe you have food stamps, but the progressive tax system helps in fairness.

Your statements about policies regarding the level of tax, being pandering for votes, is your opinion and hardly opens up the discussion but shuts it down.

Similarly to suggest that low paid workers, for example, are citizens living relatively for free, compared to their bosses, because they pay a lower percentage of tax, is fairly black and white and can sound kind of arrogant. But there it is.

Just now, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Did you not understand what you wrote? You asked 'In any event, why should one taxpayer pay a greater percentage than another taxpayer? What is fair about that?'

That is progressive tax and that is what i discussed and gave reasons why it might be fair.

Not sure what to make of the right wingers on this site sometimes ...

Why not a flat tax?

Just now, TedG said:

Why not a flat tax?

Everyone can have an opinion on that. This might be obvious but:

One extreme way to look at it - aka Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead - is we are all born with opportunities and those who have the ingenuity, brains, guts, hard work, and perseverance deserve the riches they earn and if you don't get there then cop the consequences.

The other is that some are born with a huge advantage over others and there can be some leveling of the playing field - at least so low income earners can live a dignified life and high income earners can support the community a bit more that gave them the opportunity. Keep in mind the rich may benefit out of proportion from government spending - use of roads, educating their staff, etc.

Maybe flat tax can't work because at the low income end it has to be very low and there simply wont be enough tax to pay for things if the rich have similar rates of tax.

So cut spending - fair enough but what is cut is not so simple. Doge found that out.

Just now, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Everyone can have an opinion on that. This might be obvious but:

One extreme way to look at it - aka Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead - is we are all born with opportunities and those who have the ingenuity, brains, guts, hard work, and perseverance deserve the riches they earn and if you don't get there then cop the consequences.

The other is that some are born with a huge advantage over others and there can be some leveling of the playing field - at least so low income earners can live a dignified life and high income earners can support the community a bit more that gave them the opportunity. Keep in mind the rich may benefit out of proportion from government spending - use of roads, educating their staff, etc.

Maybe flat tax can't work because at the low income end it has to be very low and there simply wont be enough tax to pay for things if the rich have similar rates of tax.

So cut spending - fair enough but what is cut is not so simple. Doge found that out.

What is your goal of taxation?

1) Maximization of revenue?

2) Punishing people?

Just now, TedG said:

What is your goal of taxation?

1) Maximization of revenue?

2) Punishing people?

Do I get a prize for answering your questions?

Definitely not 2 and not necessarily 1. Ideally to make society run smoothly - hopefully improving the lot of as many as possible - while treating it's individual constituents fairly - or something. People have to feel it's fair. Not paying your fair share could be lazy people on benefits, rich buggers using tax tricks, or whatever.

Thailands an interesting case in point.

Lot of people have worked hard and done well. Amazing progress in a couple of generations when there was real serious poverty. But many work hard on very low wages and have a tough life and hard to escape to something better. Not everyone is clever and innovative and ambitious and entrepreneurial - or is part of the controlling class - but if they work hard should hopefully be able to have a decent life. At one end too the sick and old and others can have it seriously tough compared to their friends in the west.

Just now, Fat is a type of crazy said:

So you know what progressive taxes are, ask why one should pay less than the other, then say I did not address the question?

Correct. Explaining that it's progressive, does not explain why one paying a higher rate and one paying nothing is fair.

Just now, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Is not the ability to pay what fairness is about?

No.

Just now, Fat is a type of crazy said:

No one has mentioned setting prices - the government can of course tinker at the edges - stamp duty concessions for first homebuyers, in America I believe you have food stamps, but the progressive tax system helps in fairness.

Why should the rich get to live in big houses while the poor live in small houses? Why should the poor not be able to buy a big house and pay what they can afford?

Just now, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Your statements about policies regarding the level of tax, being pandering for votes, is your opinion and hardly opens up the discussion but shuts it down.

How does it shut the discussion down? We have members in Congress wearing "eat the rich" dresses, and telling voters that they are poor. only because others are rich.

Just now, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Similarly to suggest that low paid workers, for example, are citizens living relatively for free, compared to their bosses, because they pay a lower percentage of tax, is fairly black and white and can sound kind of arrogant. But there it is.

I said nothing of living for free. I said being a citizen should not be free.

Tax policies incentivize people to save money and invest. I have any number of investment vehicles that I would not have, but for tax avoidance. The poor get none of that.

Everyone should have skin in the game.

Just now, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Do I get a prize for answering your questions?

Definitely not 2 and not necessarily 1. Ideally to make society run smoothly - hopefully improving the lot of as many as possible - while treating it's individual constituents fairly - or something. People have to feel it's fair. Not paying your fair share could be lazy people on benefits, rich buggers using tax tricks, or whatever.

Thailands an interesting case in point.

Lot of people have worked hard and done well. Amazing progress in a couple of generations when there was real serious poverty. But many work hard on very low wages and have a tough life and hard to escape to something better. Not everyone is clever and innovative and ambitious and entrepreneurial - but if they work hard should hopefully be able to have a decent life. At one end too the sick and old and others can have it terribly tough compared to their friends in the west.

Everyone that is honest, dependable and hard working should enjoy a reasonably comfortable life.

Do benefit programs typically benefit honest, dependable, hardworking people? I think not.

Most wealthy people in the US are not born into wealth.

Just now, Yellowtail said:

Correct. Explaining that it's progressive, does not explain why one paying a higher rate and one paying nothing is fair.

No.

Why should the rich get to live in big houses while the poor live in small houses? Why should the poor not be able to buy a big house and pay what they can afford?

How does it shut the discussion down? We have members in Congress wearing "eat the rich" dresses, and telling voters that they are poor. only because others are rich.

I said nothing of living for free. I said being a citizen should not be free.

Tax policies incentivize people to save money and invest. I have any number of investment vehicles that I would not have, but for tax avoidance. The poor get none of that.

Everyone should have skin in the game.

I don't understand your point as I have said that paying different rates might be fairer and given reasons. Not sure what else you are after...

Then you again go into arguments about asset ownership again which is a different topic - using an extreme comparison as though discussing different rates of tax somehow can be likened to saying all should have rights to a big house .. like extreme communism or something. Your mention of someone talking of 'eat the rich' is again going to extremes ...

My mention of living relatively free was in the context of your previous comment i.e. that the low income earners living paying relatively low levels of tax - living for free in that comparative tax paying context .. which was what was the topic

Your last bit seems to be saying you have investments on which you pay less tax than you might otherwise .. and 'the poor get none of that' .. suggesting you may - as an example - earn say $50,000 and pay a lot less tax due to tax avoidance than a $50,000 wage earner .. so it's not clear what your point is in the context of your argument that the poor should pay relatively more tax ..

Just now, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I don't understand your point as I have said that paying different rates might be fairer and given reasons. Not sure what else you are after...

I do not understand your point either, that one should pay more, because they have more. Most people work for what they have.

Just now, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Then you again go into arguments about asset ownership again which is a different topic - using an extreme comparison as though discussing different rates of tax somehow can be likened to saying all should have rights to a big house .. like extreme communism or something. Your mention of someone talking of 'eat the rich' is again going to extremes ...

I do not see it as much of a jump from not having to pay taxes for not having to pay for a home. Do the poor not get "free" housing where you come from?

My concern is the "greedy rich" rhetoric, it smacks of Marxism. Do you not agree?

Just now, Fat is a type of crazy said:

My mention of living relatively free was in the context of your previous comment i.e. that the low income earners living paying relatively low levels of tax - living for free in that comparative tax paying context .. which was what was the topic

Your last bit seems to be saying you have investments on which you pay less tax than you might otherwise .. and 'the poor get none of that' .. suggesting you may - as an example - earn say $50,000 and pay a lot less tax due to tax avoidance than a $50,000 wage earner .. so it's not clear what your point is in the context of your argument that the poor should pay relatively more tax ..

I said being a citizen should not be free, and that everyone should have skin in the game. You turned into something it was not.

My point is, that the rich are incentivized to save money and improve their lives, while the poor are incentivized to stay poor an moan about the rich.

Just now, Yellowtail said:

I do not understand your point either, that one should pay more, because they have more. Most people work for what they have.

I do not see it as much of a jump from not having to pay taxes for not having to pay for a home. Do the poor not get "free" housing where you come from?

My concern is the "greedy rich" rhetoric, it smacks of Marxism. Do you not agree?

I said being a citizen should not be free, and that everyone should have skin in the game. You turned into something it was not.

My point is, that the rich are incentivized to save money and improve their lives, while the poor are incentivized to stay poor an moan about the rich.

We seem to be talking at cross purposes on some of this but I get what you are saying. I feel I was not turning your free comment into something else but never mind.

The greedy rich rhetoric may or may not reek of Marxism e.g. they may in fact be talking about a situation where very rich people are paying little or no tax and then complain that others should be paying more and that could be construed as greedy. They may too be gaining wealth in ways that are borderline illegal - or actually illegal - as could be the case for such as Trumps own family.

I don't concur that in normal situations the poor benefit from staying poor - one of the benefits of lower tax rates for lower incomes is that the lower paid will keep more of the additional wages to offset, say, loss of benefits.

Just now, Fat is a type of crazy said:

We seem to be talking at cross purposes on some of this but I get what you are saying. I feel I was not turning your free comment into something else but never mind.

I feel you were/are turning it into something else, but never mind.

Just now, Fat is a type of crazy said:

The greedy rich rhetoric may or may not reek of Marxism e.g. they may in fact be talking about a situation where very rich people are paying little or no tax and then complain that others should be paying more and that could be construed as greedy.

What percentage of total income tax revenue do you think the bottom 50% in the US think the top 1% in the US pay?

Just now, Fat is a type of crazy said:

They may too be gaining wealth in ways that are borderline illegal - or actually illegal - as could be the case for such as Trumps own family.

Tax evaders should be prosecuted. Do you really think that after twelve years of intense scrutiny that the Trump family are tax evaders?

Do you also believe the Steele Dossier was real, and the recent assassination attempt was fake?

Just now, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I don't concur that in normal situations the poor benefit from staying poor - one of the benefits of lower tax rates for lower incomes is that the lower paid will keep more of the additional wages to offset, say, loss of benefits.

I never said the poor benefitted from staying poor, I said that they are incentivized to stay poor.

Just now, Yellowtail said:

I feel you were/are turning it into something else, but never mind.

What percentage of total income tax revenue do you think the bottom 50% in the US think the top 1% in the US pay?

Tax evaders should be prosecuted. Do you really think that after twelve years of intense scrutiny that the Trump family are tax evaders?

Do you also believe the Steele Dossier was real, and the recent assassination attempt was fake?

I never said the poor benefitted from staying poor, I said that they are incentivized to stay poor.

The eat the rich comment was not necessarily about tax evasion but about the wealthy and powerful getting benefits simply due to being rich and powerful. You don't have to look far to have huge concerns about how Trump and his family have benefited but that's off topic - as are the valid concerns about his actions with Russia and that I do not think this or other assassination attempts were fake.

Seems like nitpicking again - if one has incentives to stay poor surely that means that there is a benefit from taking that action.

Just now, cdemundo said:

So what was the Kimmel joke again?

While acting as a host for a fake White House Correspondents' Dinner sketch, Kimmel said of Melania, "Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow".