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.
so you dont think the rich get a better deal in america than the poor , its simply a case of all well off people being winners and all less well off folk being pathetic losers , its that simple ? , the system is fine as it is ?
I didn't say anything about winners and losers. Rich people do not compete against poor people, they compete against other rich people.
And no, the rich do not get a better deal in America than the poor.
asking a rich person to make a larger contribution...
They already do make a much larger contribution, W-A-Y out of proportion to their share of the earnings.
Compare their tax share to their income share from 1986 to 2006, here:
Even worse, in 2009 (latest data published by the IRS), the top 1% earned 16.93% of the income but paid 36.73% of the federal income tax revenue. That's a difference of 19.8%.
(Source: IRS data in Tables 5 and 6, here: Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data )
Where are the tax breaks Bush supposedly gave the rich? They sure don't show up in the actual IRS data. Why? Because they don't actually exist. They're a manipulative propaganda figment of the left's imagination. Why are so many fools swallowing the left's lies hook, line, and sinker?
Those who are artificially supported by public assistance have 3 times the birth rate of those who aren't. The welfare-dependent class is growing exponentially compared to everyone else.
(Stats and citations: //www.city-data.com/forum/22262778-post11.html )
Is that sustainable? Will taxpayers will be able to afford to keep paying more and more to financially support an exponentially growing welfare-dependent class? And how "moral" or "kind" is a country that incentivizes the highest rate of birth among its poor?What kind of future are all those children born into poverty going to have? Right off the bat there are overwhelming odds AGAINST them. Why does the left want to deliberately disadvantage so many of our country's children?
Last edited by InformedConsent; 08-21-2012 at 07:21 AM..
Who has more of their own money? The people who made wise life and financial decisions, and worked years for it.
Who pays a grossly disproportionately high share of the taxes? High income earners. They pay W-A-Y more than their actual share of the income.
It's an INCOME tax, remember? NOT a wealth tax. Otherwise, you'll be setting up situations in which retirees, etc., will be taxed on their wealth, like the appreciated value of their paid off homes, which will tax them out of whatever 'wealth' they've ever managed to accumulate.
(This post provides an example: //www.city-data.com/forum/25729511-post38.html )
Or is confiscating all of everyone's 'wealth' (paid off homes, cars, etc.) the left's REAL goal?
Who has more? The one who keeps 75% of millions or the one who keeps 95% of a few tens of thousands p.a.?
Even if you had to pay 50% of your millions, so what? You would still be a millionaire...
That is a ridiculous argument. So if someone has $100 million, it is okay to take $99 million off them because they will still have a million left
It is all the more ridiculous because it ignores how hard they have worked, how smart they are, what contribution they have made in terms of job creation, etc. etc.
Who has more of their own money? The people who made wise life and financial decisions, and worked years for it.
Who pays a grossly disproportionately high share of the taxes? High income earners. They pay W-A-Y more than their actual share of the income.
It's an INCOME tax, remember? NOT a wealth tax. Otherwise, you'll be setting up situations in which retirees, etc., will be taxed on their wealth, like the appreciated value of their paid off homes, which will tax them out of whatever 'wealth' they've ever managed to accumulate.
(This post provides an example: //www.city-data.com/forum/25729511-post38.html )
Or is confiscating all of everyone's 'wealth' (paid off homes, cars, etc.) the left's REAL goal?
Well, being a minimalist myself, that whole greed thing in the US has always been beyond me. Why people would even want to have so much money in the first place...
Those people drain the system and none of them deserves to get that much to begin with, no matter what they do for a living. If you expect pity for those poor millionaires who, at least officially, have to pay about 25% of their massive income, forget it.
I see it like this: Nobody should earn more than, say, 5 times as much as anyone else (talking about full-time employees here).
Up to 2.5 times for working up to 2.5 times as much, more than that is not really relevant as the week only has so many hours. So, let some eager beaver work 100 hours per week if they have no life and don't want one, obviously
And up to 2 times for better qualification, greater safety risks, and factors like that.
Some people earning hundreds or thousands of times as much as others who also work full time, is just a perversion.
That is a ridiculous argument. So if someone has $100 million, it is okay to take $99 million off them because they will still have a million left
It is all the more ridiculous because it ignores how hard they have worked, how smart they are, what contribution they have made in terms of job creation, etc. etc.
Who has more of their own money? The people who made wise life and financial decisions, and worked years for it.
Who pays a grossly disproportionately high share of the taxes? High income earners. They pay W-A-Y more than their actual share of the income.
It's an INCOME tax, remember? NOT a wealth tax. Otherwise, you'll be setting up situations in which retirees, etc., will be taxed on their wealth, like the appreciated value of their paid off homes, which will tax them out of whatever 'wealth' they've ever managed to accumulate.
(This post provides an example: //www.city-data.com/forum/25729511-post38.html )
Or is confiscating all of everyone's 'wealth' (paid off homes, cars, etc.) the left's REAL goal?
I think a lot of it is about jealousy. It's not fair, they have more than me.
What is really sad is that the poor will never see any of it anyway. It will all go into this or that politician's pet project.
It is all about taking the 'rich' down and not about lifting poorer people up. It is a lowest common denominator argument and that has never been a good route to prosperity.
Well, being a minimalist myself, that whole greed thing in the US has always been beyond me. Why people would even want to have so much money in the first place...
Those people drain the system...
Not true. They create jobs and grow the economy, but there aren't that many of them to begin with. Demonizing 0.1% or even 1% of the tax-filing public will change nothing. Confiscate their money, spend it all, kill the golden goose, and then what?
I think a lot of it is about jealousy. It's not fair, they have more than me.
What is really sad is that the poor will never see any of it anyway. It will all go into this or that politician's pet project.
It is all about taking the 'rich' down and not about lifting poorer people up. It is a lowest common denominator argument and that has never been a good route to prosperity.
Jealousy, yet another myth debunked in that link above
You make the mistake to believe everyone wants to be rich. Most people don't, they just want to lead decent lives without worrying about getting ill etc.
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.
