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.
America is the only place on earth where low income citizens are worrying how to protect the rich.
Disclosure: by nature the rich do not need others defense. They care for themselves quite successfully.
Exactly. The poor in this country fight harder on behalf of the rich MORESO than the rich fight for themselves. And the catch is, they don't even know how stupid they look doing it. They aren't getting any brownie points from the wealthy in exchange for being shills. The wealthy has no more use for them than they do the poor libs who want to raise their taxes. Guys like Buffett laugh at them more than anything else.
I mean, you've got the truly rich arguing that we SHOULD raise their taxes, while some 40 hour a week working stiff is trying to claw my eyes out just because i show no deference to rich people.
I believe the government should learn how to responsibly spend the people's money it steals from our incomes first. So far it's shown no evidence of being able to responsibly spend the 2.2 trillion in revenues it already receives. Where are these extra taxes going to go? The Israeli Army, starving pottery makers in Argentina, Brazilian oil exploration, subsidies to manure manufacturers in Kygyzstan? I could list more. These people can't even make a budget for themselves, yet you want to give them more money.
Most cries for tax increases typically come from jealous human beings envious of others' success. I say this because no one (generally on the left) can tell me WHY. Why should we raise them on the rich? So the government has more money to spend irresponsibly?
Maybe it would be better if these tax increases were used to reduce the debt, rather than more handouts to spread the wealth to jealous wannabes. Maybe then I'd listen.
It's always taxing, never cutting. This is what I fear as a left leaning conservative (get it). I'm for legalizing drugs, but not for the reasons most are. I think creating policies/laws just to get tax revenue is a terrible idea. Stop spending and we wouldn't need taxes to begin with. Get rid of the Fed, let us have a real currency, and there would be more wealth than we would know what to do with.
To me, here is an acceptable train of logic, even as a libertarian. Tax cuts for the rich caused part of our deficit. Therefore, we are going to "reverse" them (the debt caused by deficit spending) by raising the rates, meaning to pay off the debt that these tax cuts caused.
Really? Do you really think the rich are worried about protecting the poor? Like you, the rich have a primary responsibility for their family. Everyone does.
Or equality for the poor? Spoken like a CHILD IMO. There is no such thing as equality of outcome unless you like the outcome of misery for all.
Please.
They THRIVE on the poor.Biggest BS I ever heard. I think the government employees and unions thrive on minimum wages and social programs which perpetuate poverty. The well off are getting slammed to have to support a system that redistributes wealth, so they don't benefit from the poor, NOBODY in the real world benefits from the poor, just in government world.
Go shovel that tripe somewhere else.Especially for your own words IMO.
It's only called class war when the poor fight back. What a load of poop. I doubt you give tons of your own money to the poor, you just love other people's money for that job. The poor can best fight back by working. Nobody stops them from working 80 hours a week like the Rich often do.
Go chew on that one. That would be a mouth full of nonsense.
The more you tax something the less of it exists.
The more you give things away the bigger the lines are for the give-aways.
That is the problem, not the wealthy, but government out of control with the spending of other people's money.
The more you tax something the less of it exists.
The more you give things away the bigger the lines are for the give-aways. That is the problem, not the wealthy, but government out of control with the spending of other people's money.
so you don't think the government is giving money to the wealthy?
To me, here is an acceptable train of logic, even as a libertarian. Tax cuts for the rich caused part of our deficit. Therefore, we are going to "reverse" them (the debt caused by deficit spending) by raising the rates, meaning to pay off the debt that these tax cuts caused.
There is a 100% budget, the government especially since obamo got in started to spend 240%. That is the problem.
You can confiscate all the personal wealth of all the so called rich and you could not get close to balancing the budget for even one year.
Libertarians would want almost no government, there is no big government libertarians I've ever heard of. I've heard of lots of recreational medicating ones.
The more you tax something the less of it exists.
The more you give things away the bigger the lines are for the give-aways.
That is the problem, not the wealthy, but government out of control with the spending of other people's money.
The theory of this post is that spending has gotten out of control. Has it?
Where are the huge new federal programs? The Affordable Care Act has not yet kicked in; the stimulus, such as it was, is fading out; where is this big government surge?
In answer, the peddlers of this myth point to the fact — which is true — that federal spending as a share of GDP has risen, from 19.6 percent in fiscal 2007 to 23.6 percent in fiscal 2010. (I use 2007 here as the last pre-Great Recession year). But what’s behind that rise?
A large part of it is a slowdown in GDP rather than an accelerated rise in government spending. Nominal GDP rose at an annual rate of 5.1 percent from 2000 to 2007; it only rose at a 1.7 percent rate from 2007 to 2010. How much would the ratio of spending to GDP have gone up if spending had stayed the same, but there had not been a slowdown? Here’s the answer:
So about half of the rise in the ratio is due to a fall in the denominator rather than a rise in the numerator.
That still leaves a significant rise in spending. What’s that about? Here’s one way to look at the federal budget; I compare growth rates in spending from 2000 to 2007 and from 2007 to 2010:
“Income security” is unemployment insurance, food stamps, SSI, refundable tax credits — in short, the social safety net. Medicaid is a means-tested program that also serves as part of the safety net. Yes, spending in these areas has surged — because the economy is depressed, and lots of people are unemployed.
What we’re seeing isn’t some drastic expansion of Big Government; we’re seeing the government we already had, responding to a terrible economic slump.
But to answer the OP, the reason why we need to tax the rich is this:
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.
