52% of Americans Wants to Heavily Tax the Rich (minimum wage, insurance, 2015)

[greywar]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

lower the rates for all

if your going to tax income (you'd be better off taxing spending) then tax everyone at 10% or 15%

if the government CAN'T run on a revenue based on 10%-15%..then there is a problem

the problem is governmental spending

Sigh. Welcome to a modern day economy. I know this might surprise you, but just because you say nonsense like this, doesn't make it suddenly true. 1.2 trillon - 1.8 trillion will not fund the 3.9 trillion in spending.

Now....could we cut spending? Absolutely! And think we should in some areas....but theres no way we could cut it in half as you suggest. The idea is ludicrous.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

no its not


why do liberals constantly lie...is it in their genes???

Liberals say a tax break is a tax expenditure.

Conservatives say a tax break is a taxpayer getting to keep more of their money.

I say a tax break is government transferring money from taxpayer A to taxpayer B.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981

First, define "rich".

Second, Tax hikes on the rich are unjustified from a moral and a pragmatic perspective. It is unjust for the government to forcibly take money from one person to give to someone else in the name of “fairness.”

It is unjust for the government to force people into the rental market (effectively transferring their income to landlords) by denying them affordable home ownership options that the private sector would provide if not constrained by government.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

Anybody having more money than me is rich.

The average American is rich?

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by Rakin

Really should be cut off welfare for all the people who refuse to get a job first.

How you gonna provide enough jobs for everyone who wants one?

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981

sigh,

The only goal of taxing the rich is creating class warfare.

Maybe these 52% should reconsider, what kind of goal are they trying to accomplish?

Taxing the rich doesn’t create a new job, open a new business, or add a cent into your own paycheck. So what is the purpose? Taxing the rich only serves to increase the size and scope of government.

Taxing the poor isn't class warfare?

[greywar]

Originally Posted by freemkt

How you gonna provide enough jobs for everyone who wants one?

As automation replaces more people, I suspect the situation is going to make folks come up with some insane rationals about it all.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas

No. That said: go to a Consumption Tax and the rich will end up paying more just through their own lifestyle.

??? ??? ???

Remember luxury tax? Remember yachts?

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by ORION83

Poor would have more taxes to pay if the rich CEO's etc didn't rob their labor for such low pay. I also already know the typical republican response is well EVERY job is a contract and negotiation etc...try living in the REAL WORLD for a bit...its not so cut and dry unless you have some income coming in even while you are looking for new job you have NO leverage and employer has ALL leverage which is why government is needed to fix these problems. Employers are greedy and take advantage so its time to fight back.

When people say I don't pay enough tax, I tell them I gave at the workplace. (My employer is in the top 1%.)

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by greywar

Sigh. Welcome to a modern day economy. I know this might surprise you, but just because you say nonsense like this, doesn't make it suddenly true. 1.2 trillon - 1.8 trillion will not fund the 3.9 trillion in spending.

Now....could we cut spending? Absolutely! And think we should in some areas....but theres no way we could cut it in half as you suggest. The idea is ludicrous.

what's ludicrous is the spending

cut the inefficiency...cut the unnecessary

for example...the federal department of education......why does it need 7000 employees?

1. schools are state run..they have state dept of ed's
a. while we ''may'' need the feds to set a standard..... lets say 100 academics to set standards for nation wide
b. so total needed 100

2. yes , part of the federal dept of ed is.....pell grants......
a. ok maybe 10 people per state to process pell requests
b. so total needed 500

3. that totals out to a ''needed'' 600 personnel ....not the 7000 on the books that we currently have


no-one is saying you cant have departments...only let's be smart about how we fund and man them....especially TO THE MISSION of said department
.
.
.
.
department of transportation....
why are we continuing to fund a failing entity of AMTRAK...???
Amtrak (part of the DOT's 130 billion dollar budget)...over 50 billion is allocated to HSR and Amtrak
why not send Amtrak the way of CONRAIL??


department of energy....16000 employees plus 94000 contractors ...with a budget sitting around 35 billion
do we really need 100k of employees/contractors to supervise the nations power grid??

DOHUD.....11,000 employees....meanwhile it was HUD with fannie/Freddie that caused the housing bubble/bust

DOHHS....67,000 employees...with a budget near 100 billion...and that doesn't count medicare/Medicaid

DoL.......17,500 employees.... with a budget of 137 billion

DOA......109,000 employees....with a budget of over 150 billion

IRS....90,000 employees, to process taxes...budget about 11 billion

department of state (formerly known as dept of foreign affairs).......19,000 employees

Dept of treasury.....116,000 employees....do we really need over 100k employees to run the treasury???


everyone of these could be cut by at least half