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.
Will somebody please explain to me how the Left's fantasy of confiscating and redistributing other peoples' hard-earned savings is going to allow more of us to live better?
Precisely the reason why social security payouts need to be recalculated. High income earners are having their contributions redistributed to low income earners. Heck, if you made less than $100k, you're getting more than your fair share. You should get paid based on what you put into the system. Better yet, eliminate the system.
Why should government be entitled to 83% of someone's income?
If you want fairness, go a 17% flat tax on income with zero deductions.
Too low - the Feds take over 20% of the GDP. The aggregate tax bite is 39-44% of the GDP, (depending on which state you're in) so you need to bump up a flat tax.
On the opposite side, let's consider what would happen if American governments were limited to securing creator endowed rights and nothing more. . . all they are obligated to do is adjudicate disputes, prosecute criminals, and defend against all enemies, foreign or domestic.
How much taxation is needed to fund just that?
-On the opposite side, let's consider what would happen if American governments were limited to securing creator endowed rights and nothing more. . . all they are obligated to do is adjudicate disputes, prosecute criminals, and defend against all enemies, foreign or domestic.
How much taxation is needed to fund just that?
That's how it should be at the federal level. Each state and/or local government can decide to tax if they want to go beyond that.
..and the same tired anti-tax diatribes about how taxation is stealing. I'm reminded of the 5 year old who can't get ice cream and throws a tantrum.
Not everybody thinks the government is satan like you do. Hence you have people saying to eliminate social security and medicare, programs that the vast majority of people think are beneficial.
You see, it's called "civilization". A country where old and poor people don't suffer because the government DARES to have programs aimed at the collective good isn't "totalitarian", it's civilized. Because YOU think you'd be a big shot in the wild west (you probably wouldn't, by the way) doesn't mean that other people want to live that way.
Life is not black and white, and corruption doesn’t disappear in one election. The point to vote for Republicans is to shift the needles towards Rand Paul etc.
If more people do this, we would move to no corruption in a few decades.
Rand Paul is a Republicanin name only. He is really a Libertarian hiding out in the Republican Party.
Libertarians have not had any chances of winning any significant elections, so he learned from his Father & threw in with the Pubs...most of which hate him because he resists spending with every move he makes, and he can't be bought off and compromised.
Proof? He's one of the least affluent members of 535 Congresspersons. If he's dirty, he sure is doing a great job of hiding it. When you are squeaky clean, you can go rogue like he often does, and holds up the entire Senate on spending votes.
When the interest on the debt hits American's in the wallett over thnext 4 years, Paul will rise.
Tax the Rich 70 percent. That would cut into the deficit and get us back on track huge. They can afford it. Especially 12 years of bush and trump.
Are you saying the top marginal rate? At what income would you start? How much would it generate?
And why didn't Obama do this when he had a Congressional majority?
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.