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.
If increasing the tax rate for the super rich is wealth redistribution, it is only fair to also agree that decreasing it is too.
No, because wealth distrubution means taking it from the person who earned it and giving it to someone else. By taking less from someone you are not "redistributing" anything. It is concerning that someone would need this explained because it seems too many people think individual's earnings are the governments and anything we get to keep is due to their largess.
Is this yet more talk about the "super rich" attempting to justify taxing millions of Americans at disproportionately high rates?
After all the yammering about Wall Street bonus babies and the top ten most highly compensated CEOS's, we always learn that the "green with envy" faction wants to tax the heck out of the productive sector, millions of people.
Just stop it. Most of us have figured out that the surest route to mass impovrishment is to continue pounding the taxpayers and the productive.
No, because wealth distrubution means taking it from the person who earned it and giving it to someone else. By taking less from someone you are not "redistributing" anything. It is concerning that someone would need this explained because it seems too many people think individual's earnings are the governments and anything we get to keep is due to their largess.
+1
I was going to type this exact point of view. I don't see how some people don't understand this concept by now. If you are simply keeping less of your own money, how are you taking it out of someone else's pocket?
The only leg one has to stand on in this argument is through the bailouts of Wall Street and big businesses. but even in that case, that's only wealth distribution to Wall Street and SOME big corporations, not high income earning Americans who own their own businesses or make their own money outside of Wall Street / big corporations.
Even in my example it's a better argument that wealth distribution is occurring from high income earning Americans to Wall Street / big corporations since they pay a higher portion of income taxes.
People should not be punsihed for being successful.
A flat tax for everyone would be much more fair.
If you are successful, and make more money, you will then pay more in taxes.
If the tax rate was 10% for everyone you could make the following comparison:
If you make $20,000 a year you pay $2,000 in taxes.
If my make $200,000 a year you will pay $20,000 in taxes.
If you make $2,000,000 a year you will pay $200,000 in taxes.
If you make $20,000,000 a year you will pay $2,000,000 in taxes.
That is FAIR.
+1 !!!!!!!!!!
Such a simple concept yet many are not advocating for it, even many of the "fairness police".
Let me challenge you a little (or anyone else who wants to reply). Do you believe in removing all tax loopholes / tax credits for businesses, rich, and poor with this flat tax proposal?
I'm for a flat tax too. A 0% flat tax. The income tax is one of the more evil direct taxes.
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.
