Do wealthy people owe the 99% something? Should they? (gallon, rating, top 10)
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.
Look at what the bottom 45% or making. I'd gladly switch my 200K+ family income for someone making less than $30K a year..because life is so much easier for those moochers.
This is the kind of absolute excrement that the talk radio listeners on this board try to sell you all the time. I pay more taxes than 95% of the country, but somehow I don't feel like they are pulling one over on me. Even with an EBT card, subsidized housing, and subsidized child care, I wouldn't change places with them. Yet some of these right wing internet warriors are convinced these people are their true enemies. The Ronald Reagan welfare queen strategy continues to work on stupid people.
Have to repost because it covers most of the responses that have come afterwards.
Look at what the bottom 45% or making. I'd gladly switch my 200K+ family income for someone making less than $30K a year..because life is so much easier for those moochers.
This is the kind of absolute excrement that the talk radio listeners on this board try to sell you all the time. I pay more taxes than 95% of the country, but somehow I don't feel like they are pulling one over on me. Even with an EBT card, subsidized housing, and subsidized child care, I wouldn't change places with them. Yet some of these right wing internet warriors are convinced these people are their true enemies. The Ronald Reagan welfare queen strategy continues to work on stupid people.
You wouldn't trade place with Steve Jobs either. What you said is a fallacy.
Just because you wouldn't trade places with them, it does NOT mean their place is bad.
The whole point from the right wing nut jobs is fairness. Is it fair for the taxpayers to be forced at gunpoint to raise other people's children and provide good living for other people just because?
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,610,214 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
You wouldn't trade place with Steve Jobs either. What you said is a fallacy.
Just because you wouldn't trade places with them, it does NOT mean their place is bad.
The whole point from the right wing nut jobs is fairness. Is it fair for the taxpayers to be forced at gunpoint to raise other people's children and provide good living for other people just because?
Is it?
I say it is, because children shouldn't be punished because of the short comings of their parents
I say it is, because children shouldn't be punished because of the short comings of their parents
That's fair.
If so, their children should be put up for adoption immediately because the parents a) can't provide adequate care financially or physically, and b) have not been a good role model.
Agreed?
Could we also require the parents to go through sterilization just in case?
Last edited by lifeexplorer; 09-26-2017 at 12:13 PM..
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,610,214 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
That's fair.
If so, their children should be put up for adoption immediately because the parents a) can't provide adequate care financially or physically, and b) have not been a good role model.
If so, their children should be put up for adoption immediately because the parents a) can't provide adequate care financially or physically, and b) have not been a good role model.
Agreed?
Could we also require the parents to go through sterilization just in case?
You are getting carried away.
The state can force adoption now. The question is the criteria. And it is now limited because of cost. Likely be much cheaper to support the mother reasonably well.
"role model"? Now there is a Pandora's box. What criteria?
The state can force adoption now. The question is the criteria. And it is now limited because of cost. Likely be much cheaper to support the mother reasonably well.
"role model"? Now there is a Pandora's box. What criteria?
And a little eugenics to end?
Simple criteria. The fact that someone produces a baby without the means to support the baby shows clearly the person cannot be a good role model, is irresponsible and is endangering the life of the child.
Their tax rate should be higher. Thanks to deductions, writeoffs, and tax shields, the super wealthy often pay a lower rate than the upper middle class. If I was president there would be a 40% bracket for people making more than $1M per year but I'd also reduce the corporate rate to 15%.
Their tax rate should be higher. Thanks to deductions, writeoffs, and tax shields, the super wealthy often pay a lower rate than the upper middle class. If I was president there would be a 40% bracket for people making more than $1M per year but I'd also reduce the corporate rate to 15%.
Totally untrue.
Why their tax rate should be higher? Everybody either needs to pay the same tax rate or the same amount.
Could you please provide one example of deduction/writeoff/tax shield?
How about I create a deduction for you. For every dollar you give me, I'll give you $0.90 back. How about that?
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.
