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.
sorry but if it is factually untrue, thats a lie. It was not meant as a personal attack. Go read your link. It points out exactly what I was referring too. Theres also a bunch of stuff involving how we funded ourselves that I would have to research...basically in the end governments require money to function, they can get that via import taxes, printing, or income taxes...but in the end it comes down to us providing it one way or another. Debating if the spending levels are correct is far more useful then trying to go back and claim that there was no income via a income tax reference, which at best is half true as per the link you provided.
Quote:
by the way, hope you feel better. Allergy can be annoying. I have it too.
My condolences. this sucks pretty bad. the weathers all nice...but I know what that means. It makes it hard to concentrate. And makes me grumpy.
sorry but if it is factually untrue, thats a lie. It was not meant as a personal attack. Go read your link. It points out exactly what I was referring too. Theres also a bunch of stuff involving how we funded ourselves that I would have to research...basically in the end governments require money to function, they can get that via import taxes, printing, or income taxes...but in the end it comes down to us providing it one way or another. Debating if the spending levels are correct is far more useful then trying to go back and claim that there was no income via a income tax reference, which at best is half true as per the link you provided.
My condolences. this sucks pretty bad. the weathers all nice...but I know what that means. It makes it hard to concentrate. And makes me grumpy.
It is okay. By the way, I've re-read that article couple of times. And you are indeed accurate. I also agree with the bolded.
Student loan debt is now 1.2 trillion dollars. Last year the Government made 50 billion on the interest and private banks made 150 billion. Isn't that another 'tax' on the middle class? I doubt if many trust fund babies have to worry about going in debt for 10 years in order to go to college. Is that 'fair'? Are these kids who have to incur huge amounts of debt to get an education 'takers' and should they pay for the 'makers' kid's to go to school? Because it looks to me like that is what is happening. That 150 billion interest in private loans went into someones pocket and it sure wasn't mine; so my guess is that it paid for a bunch of rich kids Harvard and Stanford degrees. The system is whack..why this has to end up being a partisan issue really puzzles me.
I am a trust fund recipient and it is a daily struggle to keep what is mine otherwise the fed would siphon it off. That money is taxed already yet the fed feels they are entitled to a 2nd or third bite at that apple.
According to a new Gallop poll, 52% of Americans want to heavily tax the rich to redistribute wealth
Well, people always want to get more by doing less, so this doesn't surprise me. I guess it's just too difficult to work harder so they can accumulate more wealth.... It's far easier to weaponise government and orchestrate a mass theft.
Enough is enough.The economy needs higher taxes on the rich. It's the only way it works.
Do you think our government should or should not redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich?
You are misleading a bit.
We already tax the rich to redistribute wealth. How is it that a third of families make a profit on the income tax. How is it that so many families get government assistance?
Heavy is also vague and subjective. I would answer yes, we should have a progressive tax structure. I would also answer no, we should not move to a KingFish style tax plan.
Enough is enough.The economy needs higher taxes on the rich. It's the only way it works.
Do you think our government should or should not redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich?
Here we go again.
And, again, the rich will most likely be those EARNING $250K and up annually. Interesting, too, that close to 50% pay no Federal income tax, anyway. We have said that, as that number increases, they'll just keep voting for the gub-ment to confiscate our money and give it to them.
You are right about one thing: Enough is enough... Quit coveting other people's stuff.
Lower income households have a higher Marginal Propensity to Consume (MPC), while high income households have a lower MPC. The MPC of lower income households (-$35,000) are 3x higher than high income households ($200,000+)
again the 01/03 tax cuts (aka the 'bush' tax cuts)...were more towards the poor and middleclass
the rich got less of any cuts than the poor and middleclass
but everytime the freaking liberals say tax the rich...they end up taxing the middleclass
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.
Interesting, too, that close to 50% pay no Federal income tax, anyway. We have said that, as that number increases, they'll just keep voting for the gub-ment to confiscate our money and give it to them.
