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.
Only because he didn't have the political power to impose a flat tax. I contend that by lowering the top tier tax rates to more closely equate them with the lower tiers, he was stepping us down to an eventual flat (or flatter) tax system. That's how they operate. They whittle things away one tiny shred at a time until it's as close to all gone as possible. And when either things crash, as the economy did in 2008, or we wake up and realize we have no rights anymore, as women finally did with all the regressive abortion legislation that's been enacted in the past 10 years, that's when the backlash finally happens. It's their hope — and frequent reality — that any demand to return to previous levels or laws or regulations is seen as so drastic that it would never be met with electoral approval. Witness the hysteria over Dodd-Frank, which doesn't even come close to meeting the restrictions under the eventually-repealed Glass-Steagall, which took them 25 years to finally dispose of.
I am not fooled. I agree when taking all taxes into consideration the nation barely has a progressive tax and that Republicans are responsible for much of that being the case, but it cannot be argued that on income taxes alone our tax system is very progressive. And the Republicans have not attempted to change that yet.
"Other libs" thinking for me? That's who you think our Founding Fathers are — "other libs"?
Direct quotes are "textbook distortions"? Really?
Also, P.S., I wrote the linked article, so it's "the same lib," actually.
I'm curious why you would ignore the content of the post to fling a personal attack towards me? Do you not care on what principles this country was founded? Do you not want to return the country to the ideals of our Founding Fathers?
I sure do. But the founders work left to establish and form this nations principles...was not Liberal leftist Socialist Lies, distortions, etc.
Because someone making $40K per year shouldn't be paying proportionately more than someone making $40 million. The rich shouldn't be sucking off the sweat of the poor and middle class.
and because the 95% of Americans can vote to force the other 5% to pay more taxes. The top 5% of taxpayer pay about 40% of the income taxes, so you just want them to pay 45%?
I think you need to do more cutting and pasting on both those issues.
No, I don't Congress sets the tax rates. THe IRS is just the agency they use to collect the taxes. This is objective reality.
The constitution does give the federal government the right to collect taxes, that is also objective reality. There is no other perspective on those facts. Now please deal with reality before responding to me again.
As long as the money flows to DC..that's all they care about.
The victims are nameless faces fallen for the cause.
This is the same party that hates the banksters yet JPMorgan is used to process the government cards and earns over $5 billion per year from taxpayer money and has it's own division just to handle government electronic payments. And most don't even know that.
With their logic it flows in while the tax base shrinks with not enough coming in. Their plan is let's spend more than we're take in. What planet are these people living on?
"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich . . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
"It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxuries, and not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people, that ought ever to be taxed."
Adam Smith, "An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of The Wealth Of Nations."
Did he ever envision the top 5% paying 40% or more of all income taxes?
With their logic it flows in while the tax base shrinks with not enough coming in. Their plan is let's spend more than we're take in. What planet are these people living on?
Well it's not the planet Vulcan because Spock was a pretty smart guy.
It was amazing to see how easy it was in CA for people who pay no or little income tax to say to upper income people that they have to pay more taxes so those who pay none can continue to get free stuff from the payers. This is what happens when you have more takers than makers.
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.
