Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-04-2014, 07:21 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,026 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13713

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Think of how much drug money comes out of the poverty stricken areas, of which is paid for by taxpayers..
And because recreational drug use is still largely illegal, none of those transactions or the income from such are taxed.

Imagine the tax revenue drug dealers would pay...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-04-2014, 07:23 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,108,083 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
And because recreational drug use is still largely illegal, none of those transactions or the income from such are taxed.

Imagine the tax revenue drug dealers would pay...
I guess if one can buy drugs, one can pay taxes..

Instead we hear non stop excuses from the left about how their poor, so they shouldnt do their fair share..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2014, 07:29 AM
 
215 posts, read 351,143 times
Reputation: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan View Post
Kind of a theoretical question that must be asked in lieu of the Supreme Court's decision earlier this week. If the rich have so much money to give that they needed the high court to allow them to give even more money to political campaigns, they should be able to afford to pay higher taxes, right?
Yes, they do. Giving money directly to politicians allows the money to go where they want it. Taxes are supposed to benefit everyone, control and distribution of tax money is much harder to control.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2014, 07:31 AM
 
7,214 posts, read 9,394,916 times
Reputation: 7803
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Completely backwards. The states having a voice in the Senate was there to give the States equal protection from the federal government and to limit its size. The 17th amendment removed the states voice at the federal level and with that removal, came federal mandates and removal of states ability to legislate itself.
Except it didn't work that way at all and you know it. Do you understand why the 17th Amendment was enacted? Do you care?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2014, 07:33 AM
 
Location: North Idaho
2,395 posts, read 3,012,542 times
Reputation: 2934
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan View Post
Kind of a theoretical question that must be asked in lieu of the Supreme Court's decision earlier this week. If the rich have so much money to give that they needed the high court to allow them to give even more money to political campaigns, they should be able to afford to pay higher taxes, right?
The top 10% of income earners paid 71% of the taxes in 2010. Exactly how much more would you like to tilt the table?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2014, 07:36 AM
 
Location: My beloved Bluegrass
20,126 posts, read 16,159,824 times
Reputation: 28335
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan View Post
Kind of a theoretical question that must be asked in lieu of the Supreme Court's decision earlier this week. If the rich have so much money to give that they needed the high court to allow them to give even more money to political campaigns, they should be able to afford to pay higher taxes, right?
Just because they can afford more, doesn't mean they should have to pay more. By that theory, if you can afford to go on vacation or donate a few bucks to the PTA, then you can afford to pay more in taxes. It is no different, except now we are talking about you as opposed to someone else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2014, 07:39 AM
 
Location: San Francisco born/raised - Las Vegas
2,821 posts, read 2,111,688 times
Reputation: 1905
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan View Post
Kind of a theoretical question that must be asked in lieu of the Supreme Court's decision earlier this week. If the rich have so much money to give that they needed the high court to allow them to give even more money to political campaigns, they should be able to afford to pay higher taxes, right?
Yes, but they will not be required to do as such.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2014, 07:41 AM
 
24,832 posts, read 37,344,316 times
Reputation: 11538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erratikmind View Post
Yes, but they will not be required to do as such.
LOL...I will burn my money before giving it to the government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2014, 07:46 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
13,714 posts, read 31,176,487 times
Reputation: 9270
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
No, only those that ignore history are stupid.

We had a very prosperous country when tax-rates on upper incomes were higher. Since then, the rich got richer and everyone else has lost ground or is stagnant.

American has historically been a nation that pioneered very high taxes on the rich to foster the American egalitarian ideal and went along with fear of creating a hereditary aristocracy.

Conservatives, with their modern notion that redistribution and “penalizing success” is un-American is completely at odds with our country’s actual history. During the Progressive Era, it was commonplace and widely accepted to support high taxes on the rich specifically in order to keep the rich from getting richer.

High taxes on the wealthy coupled with redistribution are very much American ideals.
The income tax is a relatively recent phenomena in the US. And rates were initially very low.

The time when you think the US was very prosperous is also a time of rampant racisim, sexism, homophobia, and otherwise blatant discrimination. If the picture of prosperity is that time period, when marginal tax rates were higher, then all the other things that were part of the general thinking during the Progressive Period must be good too, right? Or do you pick and choose the things you like and believe in?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2014, 07:49 AM
 
Location: DFW
40,951 posts, read 49,189,517 times
Reputation: 55008
Amazing what some people will come up with to steal your money for themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:00 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top