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.
With 8 years of chanting "Tax the Rich" we have had 22 US based companies leave the US in the past 3 years.
Americans renouncing their citizenship after the recent IRS changes is up 221%.
I posted a link showing that the US is #36 out of #38 in the world regarding fair and competitive tax rates.
Ignore all these pesky details and just keep on chanting "Tax the Rich" to pay for your welfare programs.
And how many incredibly wealthy Chinese and other nationalities have came in while the 2K or so Americans left? Bwahahaha.
Also your 221% increase was from several years ago. It went up what? 14% last year?
I will have to look at your link later, but its probably just as irrelevant.
Would you agree that the best scenario would be for the inequality to be reduced without taking away freedom and/or resources from other people?
If thats doable absolutely. But I will also be brutally honest and say that even if it means taking resources away it should be done. Not out of fairness, or dislike of those folks, but simply because the risks of a negative event are becoming real. Because the impact on our economy is probably harming them more then redistribution would.
If thats doable absolutely. But I will also be brutally honest and say that even if it means taking resources away it should be done. Not out of fairness, or dislike of those folks, but simply because the risks of a negative event are becoming real. Because the impact on our economy is probably harming them more then redistribution would.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt
The above is economic malpractice. There is no historical evidence that the current tax-rates depress the economy. In fact, the historical evidence says the opposite. If one looks at the high tax periods, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1990s, we see high taxes coupled with high investment and large economic gains.
Yes there is historical evidence. What you are ignoring with your 1940's to 1990's remark is that anyone with wealth during those years used many ways to jump through the loops put in place by government/IRS which put most of their "net" gains out of reach of IRS. It's the middle class, hourly payroll that has always had to "bite the bullet"
Quote:
Moreover, lorrysda claimed, "the reason we have a stagnant economy is that BO and his Dem party have tried to redistribute $'s from those who work for same to those who don't." Where, exactly, are those great redistributive programs put in place by Obama? What I see is the same programs we have had for a generation or more.
One of the biggest redistribution of wealth under BO and Dems is Obama Care...now either individuals paying their own insurance and/or the tax payer have to pay for all those who pay none or very little because they get "rebates" or whatever they call it. Tax payers have to pay for them. That's redistribution. And don't forget all the illegals on welfare and medical and all those kids shipped...AT TAX PAYER EXPENSE...all over the country with no medical checks so they spread disease throughout America. Wonderful redistribution there...NOT! All the "FREE" cells phones, and on and on and on.
Quote:
What I also see, by every economic measure, is that the economy now is far better than the economy that Mr. Obama inherited from his predecessor.
Today's economy is horrible and it was caused by Democrats who defied orders from President Bush to clean up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac plus the mandates to all mortgare lenders forcing them to make loans to people that were known to not be able to make payments (and BO was part of one of those lawsuits when he was the Community Organization...Geez!). Proof? Look up the House and Senate floor rants by Charles Schumer, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and other Dems defying President Bush's requests in the C-SPAN files. It's all there on tape.
Even though the Republicans had a majority in the first Bush years, that majority in the Senate was so slim there were no way to overcome Dem filibusters which constantly block legislation that would have corrected the problem and the economy would not have crashed in late 2007 which was 100% the fault of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the Dems in the House and Senate.
Taxpayers paid out 110 billion in Corporate welfare in 2014, that is more than was spent on SNAP and rental housing assistance for the poor, so maybe it's time to quit talking about the 'lack of work ethics' of the poor and shift the argument to the real problem - why in this supposed 'free market' we continue to provide subsidies to corporations, particularly those which earn a profit. They are the real welfare queens. I'm sorry for those of you who fell for the big right wing lie.
There is no such thing a "corporate welfare." Every penny that Corporations and businesses have to pay out to get to their "net" NOT "gross" income is passed on to the end consumer for the product or service...and that includes all the businesses in between that handle the product to bring it to market or provide the necessary products for a service business. BUSINESS DOES NOT PAY TAXES! Everything government adds to business is passed on to the end consumer. Corporate Welfare is a foolish scare tactic by either ignorance or political manipulators.
Gods...who would want complete equality? That would suck. What I want is LESS inequality. That doesn't mean I want equality either in wealth and income. I'm unsure why everyone keeps thinking that the people they disagree with on this want that.
.
why do you want less equality? Why not focus on improving the earning power of lower income people? Income inequality is meaningless.
This is one of the most dangerous opinions out there. You want Venezuela? This is how you get it. You get people so fed up with the "nah nah we run the country" that they elect complete crazies. This is one of the many dangers associated with rising inequality.
And...we just did that...our Constitution is being shredded and America is headed for 3rd-world country status if we don't wise up!
If thats doable absolutely. But I will also be brutally honest and say that even if it means taking resources away it should be done. Not out of fairness, or dislike of those folks, but simply because the risks of a negative event are becoming real. Because the impact on our economy is probably harming them more then redistribution would.
You understand that there are many do not want what they earned - taken away forcibly.
What is an example of a negative event becoming real?
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.
