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 won't consider things "fair" until everyone, regardless of income, ends up with the same dollars in their pockets after paying their taxes?
That's how I see it. The left seem to want people to end up with "their fair share".
No matter what type of tax structure you debate it always comes down to the wealthy keeping too much of their money.
It's not about how much they have to pay..it's about how much they get to keep and they are keeping too much.
Once you understand that, then you can debate with them.
Lets see.. under Eisenhower the rich were paying 90% in taxes..........
I'm all for that again,after all it was the "good" times..... even under a republican president.....
The rich didn't leave the country then and invest overseas.......
They didn't leave because there was money to made in the US. Wages were low and production and natural resource costs were too. Since neither of those things exist today, the outcome of a 90% tax rate might be a bit different.
They didn't leave because there was money to made in the US. Wages were low and production costs were too. Since neither of those things exist today, the outcome of a 90% tax rate might be a bit different.
Agreed.
I honestly don't think anyone should pay over 50% in taxes.
What we really need are loopholes and deductions to companies who pay more to employees than investors. Or to clarify, not necessarily more, but a set percentage.
For example, I'd love to get a tax break for paying my employees more. I'm not near the level of having investors or going public, but if I was, I'd love to have incentives to take care of my employees.
I pay my employees as 1099's because I can't afford to pay the insurance and for any benefits.
Have you heard that old truism, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction? Do you not think that if people in high finance and industry, etc. experience increased costs, they will just pass it on the consumers of there product as a price increase? Thus, it is the little guy, the alleged 99 percent person who will get hurt in the end. Now will one of you brilliant liberals tell me where I am making a mistake in my thinking?
A lot of businesses will cease to exist. They aren't stupid. The reality of "Atlas Shrugged" may be upon us. I expect a lot of "rich" people will find shelters for their money. Many will just retire and sell off their business assets.
They can raise taxes all they want. If there is nothing to tax, then what?
Lets see.. under Eisenhower the rich were paying 90% in taxes..........
I'm all for that again,after all it was the "good" times..... even under a republican president.....
The rich didn't leave the country then and invest overseas.......
Yeah, marginal tax rate for income above $400,000. In today's dollars, that's about $3,500,000.
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.
