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.
You are not special. You are not any more deserving. You have not worked any harder than such people (the reverse is more likely to be true) to get where you are. You just don't want to be bothered with picking up your fair share of the tab. That is all it really boils down to.
Don't want to be bothered with picking up the fair share? Again, what part of earn 22.83% of the the income but pay 40.42% of the income taxes do you not understand?
Don't want to be bothered with picking up the fair share? Again, what part of earn 22.83% of the the income but pay 40.42% of the income taxes do you not understand?
That would be the part that you are and have continuously been unable to explain concerning why tax equity grounds should favor paying taxes according to annual income share instead of current wealth share.
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...
I said we're heading for socialism. It will most likely turn out as a mix capitalism and socialism.
However this path is a very slippery slope is my point.
That would be the part that you are and have continuously been unable to explain concerning why tax equity grounds should favor paying taxes according to annual income share instead of current wealth share.
By law, it's an INCOME tax, not a wealth tax. I've explained that numerous times.
Wealth has been accumulated over time from income that has already been taxed, or will be taxed when withdrawn from tax-deferred investments. To reiterate: already been taxed.
I said we're heading for socialism. It will most likely turn out as a mix capitalism and socialism. However this path is a very slippery slope is my point.
We've not had anything qualifying as pure capitalism at least since the Sherman Act in 1890, so we have been at one level or another on this slope of yours for quite some time and not slid off it yet. We did come close in the 1930's, but a liberal Democrat saved the day. Indeed, on the strength of the managed capitalism which that gentleman inspired, and as well with the rise of unions at about the same time, the subsequent fifty years or so saw the greatest expansion in the status and well-being of the middle class in our or anyone else's history. Then in or around 1980, we changed course toward the right, and the state of the middle class has been in decline ever since. The lessons to be learned in that should be rather obvious...
Didn't anyone tell you..upper middle class is now "rich".
You're right up there with Bill Gates and Warren Buffet...ok hand it over right now !!!!
Apparently. Who knew.
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.
