Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Judging by the comments here most of you agree with my original post but just like to argue or for some reason feel you have to stick up for Obama.
You hate the right more than you love your own children.
Technically these aren't platitudes. The wealthy have gotten wealthier. In fact we overly encouraged it to the point where it has become detrimental to the middle class (we siphoned off money for services in order to fund tax cuts for the wealthy).
No, most people agree that wages are not rising for the poor. They are falling slightly. Purchasing power in America for the poor is lowering. Much of this is due to decreased manufacturing thus less job options. Purchasing power parity for the lowest rungs has significantly fallen.
I am overseas. I was born in Riyadh, currently live in Seoul, have family in Ivory Coast and France.
Increasing taxes slightly will not harm the rich. The tax rate in the 1950s was significantly higher than today. Yet, we laud the 1950s as the height of American achievement.
the rich getting richer does nothing to those who aren't their wealth is newly-made wealth. You are confused with the old "fixed pie" model liberals just can't get past.
I can make a trillion dollars and not one cent of it comes from denial of wealth from others. They make money by producing, set me restate that, PRODUCING wealth, and use that wealth to purchase what I PRODUCE that they want.
You will never understand a thing about economics if you don't get past the fix pie mode of thinking you are stuck in, much to the detriment of your "logic".
The wealthy are already over taxed, and the money is squandered to pay off preferred groups in exchange for nothing of value. Increasing the taxes on the rich, as has been done over and over since JFK had it lowered to 23% and resulted in massive economic growth, is flawed policty even if they can afford it. The rich funnel their money into economic activity. The government squanders it on largely valueless activities. You must think large-scale to understand this.
The situatkion with the economy and taxes in the 50's is a schill. We were recovering from, and transferring the economy to peace-time activities. Not a valid example, to say the least.
Here's tax cut chart. I think that the rich should pay more taxes...in order to precisely do what you advocate, having everything applied fairly.
I think while we're at it, use that money to keep things in line with income increases. Because while the richest Americans saw an increase in income, the poorest Americans saw a slight decrease (while the cost of living went up...esp. education and healthcare). Middle class Americans have been stagnant for a long time now.
Part of it is because the rich aren't being treated fairly...they're treated better.
Ha..ha....makes me laugh. I would like to understand what you mean by fair. Services have value. Why should a wealthy person pay more for a service. (that means they are paying for some elses bills). Do you go to a restaurant and expect to pay the same price for the same food as someone else - or be told, you make more money and we are going to charge you 2x as the next person next to you "to be fair".
So why should someone pay 60K in income taxes for services such as police, fire, education, etc. when over 40% of US citizens pay 0? How is that fair? Guess many want a free ride on some one elses dime.
The wealthy are doing fine, they can handle a tax increase (see the average tax cut they received...it's far larger as a percentage of income than any other group).
Let's also remember that the wealthier are getting wealthier, while literally the poor are getting poorer.
I don't think that this is a good direction for our nation...
So your solution is to forcefully take from those who have, and redistribute their income to the have nots?
Now it is not obviously free but the system is based on the idea that the healthy pay for the sick (as any civilized society should.)
This is the line of thinking that gets us in trouble. What's wrong with asking people to pay for their own stuff? Why should I pay for people who aren't as well off, and why should I expect someone better off to pay for me? If I can't pay for myself, I need to work harder or smarter to make up the difference. That's common sense, if you ask me. It's not common sense to mooch off someone else.... That's shameful, IMO.
Technically these aren't platitudes. The wealthy have gotten wealthier. In fact we overly encouraged it to the point where it has become detrimental to the middle class (we siphoned off money for services in order to fund tax cuts for the wealthy).
No, most people agree that wages are not rising for the poor. They are falling slightly. Purchasing power in America for the poor is lowering. Much of this is due to decreased manufacturing thus less job options. Purchasing power parity for the lowest rungs has significantly fallen.
I am overseas. I was born in Riyadh, currently live in Seoul, have family in Ivory Coast and France.
Increasing taxes slightly will not harm the rich. The tax rate in the 1950s was significantly higher than today. Yet, we laud the 1950s as the height of American achievement.
Again, why not let the people paying the bills decide if they want to pay more for services for others....yes, we should siphon money off - this is not the Govt money, so they don't have a right. People wanting a service should pay for it.....
Isnt that what family is for to help you take care of yourself? When people in my family got ill. I never thought it was a total strangers place to take care of them.
You are saying that other people should work to provide for someone else to have this care.
The cost of private medical care is simply too high for the typical family to afford out of pocket, even in the UK. What happens if your family is unwilling or unable to look after you? What if you have no family? Private insurance is a scam, the only other alternative is public insurance (AKA single payer.)
Yes that is what I am saying the healthy should pay for the sick- because the sick person when in work was doing the same for others, unless they are chronically ill of course a point i've already adressed. That's how insurance works.
Because the nature of being sick is that you cannot take care of yourself. Obviously it varies due to the severity of illness but we will all have a serious illness at some point in our lives.
This is such crap. Are you a fortune teller now? And how can you say someone can't take care of himself when sick? That's why people save their money, and have health insurance, etc., so they don't have to go work when recuperating from, say, a heart attack.
This is the line of thinking that gets us in trouble. What's wrong with asking people to pay for their own stuff? Why should I pay for people who aren't as well off, and why should I expect someone better off to pay for me? If I can't pay for myself, I need to work harder or smarter to make up the difference. That's common sense, if you ask me. It's not common sense to mooch off someone else.... That's shameful, IMO.
The sick are unable to look after themselves- that's the nature of being sick! Look at the cost of medical care as if someone ill can afford it out of pocket.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
