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.
Yes. The biggest problem in the US right now is that 80% of the assets are controlled by just 1% of the people especially since they then use those assets to bribe politicians into enacting still more laws which are favorable to them and harmful to everyone else. THAT is the reason the US now has the least social mobility of any 1st world country.
The vision of FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, The Clintons, Michael Moore and Michelle Obama is for the 99% to control 99% of the wealth while the 1% controls 1% of the wealth.
The vision of FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, The Clintons, Michael Moore and Michelle Obama is for the 99% to control 99% of the wealth while the 1% controls 1% of the wealth.
You call that fair? The 1% control the wealth that they do because they put the effort into creating that wealth. Why should the 99% reap any benefit whatsoever from wealth that was created by someone else?
The vision of FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, The Clintons, Michael Moore and Michelle Obama is for the 99% to control 99% of the wealth while the 1% controls 1% of the wealth.
That is not the truth. Why lie? The Democratic party mostly serves the needs of rich people. This is not even a debatable point, but the Democratic party does introduce legislation that they feel addresses some of the issues of the middle class and even less frequently addresses the issues of poor people.
Right now the top 1% control a huge percentage of US wealth. I think it is between 35% and 40%. This is highly unequal. So yeah I guess the median Democratic politician would want the wealth to be distributed more equally, but than how it is currently divided, but so would most conservative voters when they know how much of the wealth the top 1% controls.
You call that fair? The 1% control the wealth that they do because they put the effort into creating that wealth. Why should the 99% reap any benefit whatsoever from wealth that was created by someone else?
Nonsense, without the creation of a nations, no one has wealth. Wealth is a societal creation that only exists when you have the many working for the benefit of a few.
So quite literally, the wealthy owe their wealth to the people of this nation, not the other way around, and this isn't some philosophical point, without societies, which create money, create laws, create markets, there is no wealth. Without workers, and consumers, there is no wealth.
Nonsense, without the creation of a nations, no one has wealth. Wealth is a societal creation that only exists when you have the many working for the benefit of a few.
So quite literally, the wealthy owe their wealth to the people of this nation, not the other way around, and this isn't some philosophical point, without societies, which create money, create laws, create markets, there is no wealth. Without workers, and consumers, there is no wealth.
BS. The wealthy don't owe society for existing. The creation of wealth is not the purpose of society, it is a side benefit. No matter what society you exist in, you aren't going to get wealthy unless you have a marketable idea or product that people want and/or need. Society doesn't come up with marketable ideas, individuals do. Levying exorbitant "special" taxes on people who have the creativity, willpower, and drive to succeed in order to redistribute their wealth to people that are unwilling and/or unable to succeed isn't fairness, it's punishment for success.
Further, the idea that societies create markets is a chicken/egg argument. Without the need to interact for trading purposes, it is very possible that human society would still exist at the paleolithic clan level, in which small bands of humans stayed together and seldom interacted with others. Seriously, you need to study history before you start arguing this point.
Nonsense, without the creation of a nations, no one has wealth. Wealth is a societal creation that only exists when you have the many working for the benefit of a few.
So quite literally, the wealthy owe their wealth to the people of this nation, not the other way around, and this isn't some philosophical point, without societies, which create money, create laws, create markets, there is no wealth. Without workers, and consumers, there is no wealth.
Since you get nothing from them stop buying their product and don't work for them. It's that simple.
Yes, they will. Every democratic country goes through this. You may think the government and the politicians are controlled by the rich but they are not. They are actually controlled by "the poor" or the 99%.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
Would never happen because the people who make the rules are rich, and their rich friends would buy them off - unless there's a loophole that can be taken advantage of.
You want fair taxation of the rich - tax everyone equally and remove all behavior considerations from the tax code. If you are over 18, you pay a fixed amount. Rich and poor are treated the same way. Don't try to achieve social and financial justice through the tax system. Taxes should be to fund the government budget only. Oh - we don't have a budget. They should get no money without an approved budget in place.
That would be fair for the rich because they'd be paying a lot less than they are now. Right now 50% pay no taxes at all...if you had flat tax rate that everyone paid, obviously all those people would have to pay it as well...so what would it be...10%...15%.....20%? So all the people not paying anything, will now have to find away to set aside 10-15-20% (that they don't have) and everyone else (especially the rich), will probably end up paying less than they are now. Is that what you meant by fair?
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.
