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.
I was looking at another thread. Someone suggested that the very wealthy should be taxed more. Lots of people agreed, but a lot of people were against the idea.
Why would you possibly be against this idea? I doubt many people on this forum fall into the category of being very wealthy, so why should you be against the idea?
And if you ARE very wealthy, then you should pay up a little bit more money. Do not be greedy, if you care about America it seems as though you would not mind paying a little bit more of your riches to help the USA prosper.
The rich are ones who can afford it. Low income workers in America are simply unable to take on any more expenses. They are already stretched to the limits financially, and they are already paying quite a lot of taxes. Taxes must come from SOMEWHERE, the rich have gotten lots of new tax breaks over the past few decades. We must start taxing them more once again. Bring it back to where it was at around the 70s and 60s.
I was looking at another thread. Someone suggested that the very wealthy should be taxed more. Lots of people agreed, but a lot of people were against the idea.
Why would you possibly be against this idea? I doubt many people on this forum fall into the category of being very wealthy, so why should you be against the idea?
And if you ARE very wealthy, then you should pay up a little bit more money. Do not be greedy, if you care about America it seems as though you would not mind paying a little bit more of your riches to help the USA prosper.
The rich are ones who can afford it. Low income workers in America are simply unable to take on any more expenses. They are already stretched to the limits financially, and they are already paying quite a lot of taxes. Taxes must come from SOMEWHERE, the rich have gotten lots of new tax breaks over the past few decades. We must start taxing them more once again. Bring it back to where it was at around the 70s and 60s.
So.... why shouldn't the rich be taxed more?
Because there's a thing called charity that liberals are unaware of because they have never partaken in it themselves. Rich people and well off people give to charity voluntarily if they want. Most do and that is a fact. Why should we force the government to put a group of swat police in front of their house if they don't give away their money?
Also, the more you tax people with money, the less incentive people have to work or create.
I'm poor as ****, and will probably never own a business or win the lottery, but I don't feel the need to steal from others like liberals do.
Take for example the World Series of Poker champion in 2008 .. Peter Eastgate... He lived in a socialist country (Denmark I believe it was)... There was a 3 month gap between the time he was going to actually get paid at least $1,000,000 or up to $9,000,000 in winnings, since the final table was delayed for 3 months.
During that 3 months off, he moved to England because the tax rates were much lower there.
Socialist countries simply do not have their rich people staying there. The first chance they get they move to a more friendlier place that won't steal their money.
The thing is Peter Eastgate had the chance to make a lot of money in America, there was never any chance for someone like him or almost 99.999 % of his other Denmark citizens to succeed in their own socialistic land.
That is after all what socialism and high taxation is... it tries to make everyone equal, causing everyone to be poorer and worse off together.
Americas taxes on individuals and businesses has been hurting this country for decades. They were too high back then and too high now. This is why businesses have left this land. There should be no income tax and no minimum wage laws, and you will see the rise of businesses once again America.
Last edited by ManGoneADreamin; 10-27-2009 at 01:09 AM..
Many people don't accept the premise that you're greedy if you think giving up half your income is plenty enough even if you're rich;
The U.S. has a high rate of class mobility, meaning theoretically any of us have a shot at getting rich and we don't want the government waiting to put their foot in our ass if we get there;
We don't want to kill the geese that lay the golden eggs -- i.e., people fundamentally understand what happens when you destroy the incentive to produce.
I think people defend the obscenely rich for this reason:
"[C]apitalist demagogues the world over (not just in the US) have managed to convince everyone else that the common person has just enough of a chance to become rich that it is in everyone’s interest to let the currently rich do what they want. After all, if you raise taxes on them, some day you may join the ranks of the high society and have to pay those same taxes."
Because there's a thing called charity that liberals are unaware of because they have never partaken in it themselves. Rich people and well off people give to charity voluntarily if they want. Most do and that is a fact. Why should we force the government to put a group of swat police in front of their house if they don't give away their money?
Also, the more you tax people with money, the less incentive people have to work or create.
I'm poor as ****, and will probably never own a business or win the lottery, but I don't feel the need to steal from others like liberals do.
Why do you even need to talk about "liberals". This is not even about liberals, are you confusing issues?
The fact is, taxes must come from somewhere. Where do you think they should come from? How do you suggest the USA pays for all of it's infrastructure and services? Tell me your plan.
Many people don't accept the premise that you're greedy if you think giving up half your income is plenty enough even if you're rich;
The U.S. has a high rate of class mobility, meaning theoretically any of us have a shot at getting rich and we don't want the government waiting to put their foot in our ass if we get there;
We don't want to kill the geese that lay the golden eggs -- i.e., people fundamentally understand what happens when you destroy the incentive to produce.
So what's the alternative then? Where should we get the money?
I think people defend the obscenely rich for this reason:
"[C]apitalist demagogues the world over (not just in the US) have managed to convince everyone else that the common person has just enough of a chance to become rich that it is in everyone’s interest to let the currently rich do what they want. After all, if you raise taxes on them, some day you may join the ranks of the high society and have to pay those same taxes."
There is truth to this. Bush's and Clinton's tax cuts to the welathy have made it much more difficult for low income people to move up to higher income levels.
I think that taxing the very wealthy, even just a few % more should be done. It worked great in the 70s. It's the way to a strong middle class. When lower income people pay much more in taxes, then they are basically being enslaved.
Look at this way. The United States is in debt by billions of dollars. Do you see the government adopting your attitude? No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ManGoneADreamin
Because there's a thing called charity that liberals are unaware of because they have never partaken in it themselves. Rich people and well off people give to charity voluntarily if they want. Most do and that is a fact. Why should we force the government to put a group of swat police in front of their house if they don't give away their money?
Also, the more you tax people with money, the less incentive people have to work or create.
I'm poor as ****, and will probably never own a business or win the lottery, but I don't feel the need to steal from others like liberals do.
Take for example the World Series of Poker champion in 2008 .. Peter Eastgate... He lived in a socialist country (Denmark I believe it was)... There was a 3 month gap between the time he was going to actually get paid at least $1,000,000 or up to $9,000,000 in winnings, since the final table was delayed for 3 months.
During that 3 months off, he moved to England because the tax rates were much lower there.
Socialist countries simply do not have their rich people staying there. The first chance they get they move to a more friendlier place that won't steal their money.
The thing is Peter Eastgate had the chance to make a lot of money in America, there was never any chance for someone like him or almost 99.999 % of his other Denmark citizens to succeed in their own socialistic land.
That is after all what socialism and high taxation is... it tries to make everyone equal, causing everyone to be poorer and worse off together.
Americas taxes on individuals and businesses has been hurting this country for decades. They were too high back then and too high now. This is why businesses have left this land. There should be no income tax and no minimum wage laws, and you will see the rise of businesses once again America.
That was my thought. Maybe "we" shouldn't actually be trying to spend money that isn't "ours" in the first place.
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.
