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.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,023,210 times
Reputation: 36027
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
Aren't you a teacher?
A Teacher??? One that lives very comfortably according to her post. Now I get where she's coming from - she's just spewing the typical teacher union's propaganda and her salary is based on taxes...
A Teacher??? One that lives very comfortably according to her post. Now I get where she's coming from - she's just spewing the typical teacher union's propaganda and her salary is based on taxes...
Caveat - I don't know for sure that she is. Someone else said in another thread that she was, and she neither confirmed nor denied it. It sure would go a long way in explaining her position on so many issues, though.
I do not have any children and I pay very high property taxes to support local schools. So what, these kids will soon be paying my social security so the more they make the more I can count on. After all, if I had been paying less tax and put it in the market, I would have just lost at least half of it. I'll pay the taxes.
In my opinion the very rich have received and are receiving the greatest benefit from a society that let then inherit, earn or steal the money. They should pay for the system that let them acquire and keep the wealth. The people that do not have the money should pay far less or nothing because the system is not serving them but assuring their lowly status.
Looking at the spending habits of even lower midddle class its also easy to see that tehy can pay more taxes and in fact are liely to within te=nyears. that is besides the fees so manypolitican like to do now. Its alwasy struck me as strnage that people bascailly want so much and yet they don't want to pay anyhtign themselves. That certainly isn't the case even in westerm europe.Only htose on wekafre basically pay nothig the other pay dearly as a per ceantage of income.
I do not have any children and I pay very high property taxes to support local schools. So what, these kids will soon be paying my social security so the more they make the more I can count on.
This attitude of "Since I paid for things I didn't receive, that makes it OK to take things from other people without paying for them because some weird notion of 'balance' is more important than freedom or property rights" is at the heart of modern liberalism.
And it will be the cause of America's downfall, if that happens, just as it was the cause of the fall of the Soviet Union and other modern-liberal-based (i.e. leftist, socialistic) societites.
It shoots down the fraudulent arguments of the Republicans and right-wing that taxes on the wealthy need to be lowered - more Bushanomics... as if we haven't suffered enough economic devastation from that already...
The top 1% are paying very low tax rates - Obama needs to make it a high priority to address this disparity...
I am POSITIVE that he will - but maybe not for a year or 2...
Well, Hell has frozen over. I agree with you: I am POSTITIVE that Barry will begin the REAL re-distribution of wealth in earnest in a year or 2.
Sharing the wealth will not harm us but the greed is good and what is mine is mine certainly will. What you call "balance" I consider to just be a "fair deal". The soviet Union was never a socialist economy but a mutant form of greed driven state kleptocracy driven by a nearly feudal ruling class. That it developed as far as it did is the astonishing.
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.