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.
Supposedly that is what people were paying, a percentage of their income. If that were strictly followed and tax shelters were eliminated, it would be fair. If you overtax the wealthy, then we will lose our incentive to succeed. Also, why should people that have worked hard pay more than their fair share? We already have a nation of people that feel that they are entitled to a free ride. Do you honestly feel that it is up to the wealthy to provide for everyone else? A capitalist society will not survive that kind of thinking.
Exactly. And that begs the next question...where are we now headed as a society ?
250 after taxes is around the 150k range. ok, so you can pay your mortgage, your insurance, save a little, put you kids through college, own two cars and take one family vacay a year. That's rich? Um...no. Comfortable, yes.
Don't be ridiculous. One of the separators between those who succeed and those who don't is love of work. If you love your work, your immeresed in it 24/7. You're always in touch, always learning more, always ready to make that next move before the next guy does. If you only tolerate your work, you aren't invested in it to nearly the same degree, and typically you don't reap as big a reward from whatever investment you do make. People who love their work keep on at it long after they have succeeded. They aren't in it for the money. The money isn't how they define themselves.
How many people would continue working at a job they love if they can't make ends meet? "The people who continue to work after they've been successful" if that means they have enough money to retire but don't, then that represents a very small segment of society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
"Do you honestly feel that it is up to the wealthy to provide for everyone else? A capitalist society will not survive that kind of thinking."
Adam Smith would disagree with you. Alfred Marshall would disagree with you. A lot of other people would as well.
Why would they think the wealthy are responsible? Are you mixing them up with the Edinburgh con man John Law?
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 02-04-2010 at 11:56 PM..
Paying down the national debt means less money has to go to servicing the debt and can instead be used to pay for government programs ...so that additional debt is not incurred.
You trot Warren Buffett out... how much has Warren donated to reduce the national debt? Hmmm???
Can you answer that? Or have you been bamboozled by someone who wants you to believe what he says but ignore what he actually does?
I don't think it's more taxes you want..I think you actually want their wealth redistributed. So what is your line where you define "excess" ?
And what should be done with that excess ?
News flash to all of you conservatives, wealth redistribution already happensright now. If the gap between poor and rich increases, then the rich are getting a bigger share of the total resources while the share going to the poor decreases. Do some calculations instead of just complaining about taxes which pay for a lot of things you take for granted.
And why can't you make enough ? Why can't you get ahead ?
What is holding you back ?
Pretty simple, you can only work so many hours per week, and drink so much caffeine to pay attention in school. Everyone has limits. Humans are not machines which can work endlessly.
You shouldn't depend on the rich to keep you afloat.
I think the rich are far more dependent on the current system of tax cuts and wage suppression to maintain their wealth, than the poor are dependent on the rich. Again the income gap isn't holding steady, its INCREASING. That means the rich are getting richer while the poor lose more. Why you right wingers don't see this wealth redistribution baffles me.
We're heading for socialism. Now you have to argue if that's good or bad...
Yeah, because there are only two choices...pure capitalism and pure socialism. That's all you can have, right? There aren't any blends or mixtures in between that combine those things that have worked well from one model with those things that have worked well from aniother. We couldn't possibly create a system that did that, could we...
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.
