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.
Because they can, and its not detrimental to their life to do so.
Guess what happened in the past when tax rates were sky high on the rich? Nothing. The rich STILL lived way better than everyone else, and their ownership of capital assets, which is what wealth really is, allowed them to recollect all the money eventually any how.
Their manner of living should be of no business to anyone else as long as they are paying their fair share--meaning an acceptable amount of their income in taxes, and 90% is not acceptable. Even 40% is highly debatable. Like I said, flat tax every person in this country 25% and 20% on unearned income and there would be more than enough to keep the roads repaired and fire engines rolling.
But yet you are defending something that you will never be
Never really wanted to be, and I am happy and thankful
to God Our Holy Father In Heaven that he has allowed me to have
more than what I need, and even able to share some of it with others ! ! !
.
All of this rhetoric aside, can someone explain how they feel it is acceptable for anyone to have to pay 90% of their income in taxes?
I know alot of this is hard to understand and so looks like rhetoric. But these issues are at the core of what we all sense and know is going on, so at least try and get the music.
I'm not going to go into detail as it would be a wasted effort, but there is a certain level of income that we all have to have for basic needs. Then at a higher level we get our wants. And at a higher level we assuage our insecurities, and that level goes to infinity.
Of course there are a few who truly did have a great idea, made a great service, or product, and they deserve to be rewarded. But any more than a certain level and you are draining from others, which is not cool in an actual civilization, because civilizations are built on cooperation. He wouldn't have made that money without his workers, and keep in mind that it was only the money -above- $400k (in 1950's dollars) that was taxed at 92%.
The Strong will always use their strength to crush the Weak, -not- to compete with them. This is why we have effective monopolies in most industries these days, most dangerously in Energy.
Scientific American did a study a couple years ago that showed that if we had spent 1/10th of what we'd spent on the Irag WAR at that time, instead on building out a national solar PV grid, that in 20 years 83% of our nation's electricity would be generated for free. Look it up. Now, that is the difference between INVESTMENT, and CONSUMPTION, which most of us chose to do instead. And what do we now have from the Eyerack WAR? NOTHING. Nothing, except the unpayable national debt, whereas we would have been building our future with a solar grid.
Nobody knows, though. Nobody can see. On the whole the American people are fairly low quality, although we think we're of the highest as we watch Family Guy and eat potato chips. It's a national delusion.
Their manner of living should be of no business to anyone else as long as they are paying their fair share--meaning an acceptable amount of their income in taxes, and 90% is not acceptable. Even 40% is highly debatable. Like I said, flat tax every person in this country 25% and 20% on unearned income and there would be more than enough to keep the roads repaired and fire engines rolling.
Hold on, you think its not justifiable taxing a person making 100 million a year, 90%, leaving them STILL with 10 million, but it IS justifiable taxing people 25% of their income when they cant even afford food?
Sorry Mitt. Eroding the colossal consumer demand of the lower classes by jacking their tax rates up is just going to destroy the economy further.
Only if 100% of it come from the backs of the same people paying 35% of very little earned
My husband and I are not 1%-ers but we aren't all that far off. Neither of us was born with a silver spoon, we've worked our tails off to get where we are. He is a regular employee (not an officer or even manager) with a large corporation and I am a partner in a small business with 30 employees--a few of which have made more than I do the past couple of years because business has been slow so the officers took pay cuts rather than lay people off.
A good chunk of our "wealth" was saved by living well below our means and carefully investing in a variety of avenues.
Now, you really think that I should be taxed on 90% of my income?
Hold on, you think its not justifiable taxing a person making 100 million a year, 90%, leaving them STILL with 10 million, but it IS justifiable taxing people 25% of their income when they cant even afford food?
Sorry Mitt. Eroding the colossal consumer demand of the lower classes by jacking their tax rates up is just going to destroy the economy further.
Because they can, and its not detrimental to their life to do so.
Guess what happened in the past when tax rates were sky high on the rich? Nothing..
Mainly because very few of the ultra rich paid the rates. They either stopped producing (Reagan would refuse his 4th movie each year, as MANY actors did, to avoid the highest bracket), or they had massive deductions that left them paying a lower percentage. There was no AMT.
But what the uber lefties forget is when RR refused his 4th movie, many flunkies working the set lost income, too.
My husband and I are not 1%-ers but we aren't all that far off. Neither of us was born with a silver spoon, we've worked our tails off to get where we are. He is a regular employee (not an officer or even manager) with a large corporation and I am a partner in a small business with 30 employees--a few of which have made more than I do the past couple of years because business has been slow so the officers took pay cuts rather than lay people off.
A good chunk of our "wealth" was saved by living well below our means and carefully investing in a variety of avenues.
Now, you really think that I should be taxed on 90% of my income?
Likely, you wouldnt fall in to a 90% bracket. Taxing someone making like 200k 90% is clearly excessive. However, taxing someone 90% who is making 50 million is not excessive. Even after taxes, they would STILL be making more than 99.999999999 percent of people, so their "elite" status would not be removed.
What would be removed would be them just hoarding gallons of wealth under the mattress, essentially removing it from the economy.
A good chunk of our "wealth" was saved by living well below our means and carefully investing in a variety of avenues.
Now, you really think that I should be taxed on 90% of my income?
Think about what you just wrote. It's not your savings that was taxed, but your income.
You never made $400k in the '50's.
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.
