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.
The power isnt supposed to belong to the people to govern, the power is supposed to be balanced equally, thats why the 3 branches of government, and the 3 levels, i.e. federal, state, and individual.
Thats also why the Constitution was written to limit the federal government
Says the guys who talk about "freedom" and "liberty".
Kind of a theoretical question that must be asked in lieu of the Supreme Court's decision earlier this week. If the rich have so much money to give that they needed the high court to allow them to give even more money to political campaigns, they should be able to afford to pay higher taxes, right?
I say the government starts to treat everyone equally, instead of trying their damnedest to make us all equally poor.
Still, can any of you actually answer the question in my OP?
Don't you mean as much as you think they should?
I'll answer your question - I think they should be able to spend their money as they see fit, without the government stealing it just because they are successful.
I'll answer your question - I think they should be able to spend their money as they see fit, without the government stealing it just because they are successful.
i.e. If you're rich, you should be able to buy as many politicians as you like.
Repealing the 17th Amendment is a completely un-American, anti-democratic, and pro-corporatist idea that has no foundation in the principles of freedom and liberty.
I'll answer your question - I think they should be able to spend their money as they see fit, without the government stealing it just because they are successful.
So do I.
That is why I spend mine rather than giving it to the government to spend.
IMO...we are taxed on what we keep...not what we make.
Kind of a theoretical question that must be asked in lieu of the Supreme Court's decision earlier this week. If the rich have so much money to give that they needed the high court to allow them to give even more money to political campaigns, they should be able to afford to pay higher taxes, right?
Why should they? People do not earn money to fund the government. They should be able to spend their money any way they want on whatever they want. Keep your greedy hands off my money.
Your answer, lets make those who pay the most, pay even more..
Yes, its as stupid as it sounds..
No, only those that ignore history are stupid.
We had a very prosperous country when tax-rates on upper incomes were higher. Since then, the rich got richer and everyone else has lost ground or is stagnant.
American has historically been a nation that pioneered very high taxes on the rich to foster the American egalitarian ideal and went along with fear of creating a hereditary aristocracy.
Conservatives, with their modern notion that redistribution and “penalizing success” is un-American is completely at odds with our country’s actual history. During the Progressive Era, it was commonplace and widely accepted to support high taxes on the rich specifically in order to keep the rich from getting richer.
High taxes on the wealthy coupled with redistribution are very much American ideals.
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.
