Stop taxing the rich! I agree they should pay their fair share but they have been paying more than just their fair share. They deserve some money that they earn. Dont tax millions away because that is just more money going to things that increase our deficit and bury us in debt
the answer is no if the taxes are low enough then u dont have to worry if just say the tax is 5 dollers a week its not a big difference if u make 400 dollers or 3000 dollers a week it wont have a big effect
"A free ride should be offered to no one. We should all pay taxes according to what we make as we have always done in this history of this nation prior to those stupid Bush Rates. The rich do not bring in jobs but the person uptown who has a small factory or store does. The rich just invest more in the stock market or buy more fuel for their yachts.
DId your ever ask yourself what investing in stock market does ? Or even what it is for ? Can you explain why investing is a so bad ??
instead of tax cuts funding a welfare state, try making the rich create a amount of jobs at a certain lvl. Like if some one makes ____ they should employ ___ people. That way they make more money then employ more people and everyone has a job.
@singlaprety12 uhm, not every rich person even has employees. many wealthy people get rich by siyying on their ass betting on stocks, or are rich by inheritance. rich people dont create jobs because they have excess money. they create jobs when they need more manpower for production. if they dont need more manpower they use their extra money for more speculation or to further fund their self indulgent frivolous existence. more cars, property, hookers, ego festivals etc
In the current US. Yea we have no choice. Charging the rich more does not get at the root of the problem though. If we are funding a welfare state and a global police foreign policy then who else is going to pay it? Not the middle class! BUT, if we had a smaller government with less spending. We wouldn't have to tax the rich. People say "they hoard the money" which is not true. It does in effect "trickle down" and help the ordinary person. We cant be bailing out corporations though.
@AroundSun "People say "they hoard the money" which is not true. It does in effect "trickle down" and help the ordinary person" trickle down economics have been thoroughly debunked .they simply do not work .in fact low taxes for the very wealthy have proven to b detrimental to the economy. its no coincidence that the wealthiest Americans have enjoyed the lowest taxes sines the last grate depression resulting in where you are now.
@MUDSHARK111 You can not debunk the most successful and most prosperous economic system over the past 200 years. "Simply do not work", I love when people say this. Everyones definition of work is different. What works? What do you mean works? Low taxes across the board would be ideal, since the government can't possibly spend money better than someone spends their own. There is no proof anywhere that lowering taxes is detrimental to an economy. In fact, the opposite is true.
@AroundSun "There is no proof anywhere that lowering taxes is detrimental to an economy"i said for the very wealthy.specifically the top 2%look at the link between taxes growth and rescission. there's you proof if you are willing ."government can't possibly spend money better than someone spends their own money" well that rather depends one weather they spend it. and then how they spend it doesn't it ?
@AroundSun Bush lowered taxes for the wealthy and cut back the regulation of big corporations all based on the premise that these two policies would benefit the economy.did it ? or are we now in the worst recession since the grate depression ? what more proof do you need ?
@MUDSHARK111 They never have benefited the economy and never will and one big reason I have less respect for Obama is allowing it once again at a time which could not be less favorable for such a move. But at the end of the day the american people are responsible for all of the above and have the power to change it and I'm not talking about "elections" which are rigged by the republican activist supreme court all the way down to the locals.
@MUDSHARK111 Rich people pay the most taxes out of anyone, and the government wastes the money and provides bad investments. People are stupid and think tax cuts for the rich means they will pay less than what the middle or lower class is paying. That has never been the case. The more taxes and revenue the government collect, means the less money the people have.
@AroundSun "The more taxes and revenue the government collect, means the less money the people" only if its taken form every body .but that's not what we are talking about is it ?
it is just likefrance before the french revolution. the lower and middle class pays for the luxury of the upper class to the point that it actually harms the people.
I truly wish we could just set up the progressive tax already. It's maddening watching the super wealthy simply push their money around in a gamble for greed. What's being used as gambling chips in wall street could be set aside for public projects and American communities. Just how much does a good life cost? Because from where i'm standing, its well worth the price.
My ideal Flat/Progressive system would start with 12.5% for those between 29K and 99K annually no deductions. 14.5% for those earning 6 figures, no deductions, and 16.5% for those earning 7 figures or more no deductions. Under 29K don't pay federal taxes except for their SSI. This system would eliminate over 50% of all tax attorneys and cost thereof. CAN WE PLEASE STOP ELECTING LAWYERS AS POLITICIANS?
The rich already pay more under our current progressive tax system. Top 5% of all earners pay 53% of total tax burden. Top 10% pay 64% while the top 50% pay 96% of the tax burden. Lower 50% of all earners pay less than 4% tax burden. One may want to use the Laffer curve to asses how much to raise or lower taxes. I am not surprised he doesn't know this. This channel is garbage. Reason we live under a progressive tax system?...........LAWYERS.......Period!
@AnotherAgnostic Your posts would suggest the opposite is true. You are ignorant to the N'th degree with nothing to offer this forum but your sophomoric diatribe you loser troll. By the by, I live at Duval drive SSF CA. mouth. Any Day!
@AnotherAgnostic Also, calling yourself an "Agnostic" is an ignorant cop-out. Either you believe or you don't. Have the courage to call yourself an "Atheist." Then grow up!
@AnotherAgnostic As I stated, you are ignorant. It's a question of faith. Either one believes and has faith or one is without. Without faith is an atheist by definition. Your moral relativism doesn't factor in the equation. Claiming to be an "Agnostic" is a lame cop-out. Just have the sack to say you are not of the faith, (i.e; Atheist). Any notion that Agnosticism is somehow a neutral position is not to understand religion or faith at it's core, no assumption about it.
@luke55664, I can see you state a lot of nonsense and your perception is limited by an intolerant mind. Not everything is black or white, good or evil, or yes or no... on the contrary everything is almost Gray. Your one of those people are just barely smart enough to get everything wrong.
@AnotherAgnostic Your verbosity and hyperbole has no place among intelligent thought or discourse. I fail to see any point you are trying to make besides the one atop your head. You should get a secondary education so you may understand a thing or two. Claiming to be agnostic is BS. By definition, those that "Believe" in God don't actually know of a God. Therefore, like you, all people of faith are as agnostic considering they rely on faith not fact. Or did you assume they actually knew God?
1.a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2.a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective
3.of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4.asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
@luke55664, Are you trying to prove me right or something? number 1 pretty much sums up what I believe and what I have been saying all along when I stated "I choose truth over fantasy. To say there is or is not a God would be making an assumption. Some questions cannot be answered. "
What will happen to animals and the environment if Asian countries are payed back that money?? I'd rather have a cleaner planet with less torture of innocents. The deficit doesn't matter.
how about just lower taxes for the poor and leave it as is for the "well off" and raise it just a tad for the folks that have more money than they will ever spend anyway
off topic, last night i saw an infomercial for a penis pump and its free if you have insurance how fked up is that.
That's a ridiculous question because right now the Wealthy don't pay any taxes. They have lawyers to get them out of it, plus money made off stock (which is vast majority of their income) is only taxed 15%.
America's most prosperous period was the 1950's through the 1970's, when the top tax rate was 78%. When first Reagan and then Bush II gave the rich and Corporations huge tax cuts, the Rich spent the money on collectibles and Ponzi schemes and Corporations spent the money to move manufacturing overseas.
A high top end on marginal tax rates would also bring Executive Compensation under control because of diminishing returns.
The top 0.1% of Americans make 9.1% of the total income made in the US.
HOWEVER, this group of people who earn 9.1% of the income in the US pay for 17.4% of the money made by the US govt. from income taxes.
Sure, this obscenely rich 0.1% should pay more taxes... but when they make 9.1% of the total money earned they should only be paying 9.1% of the total income taxes in my opinion. I don't know, maybe it just makes sense to me.
the prob with flat taxes is it kills the poor caz then they will never beable to make the same amount as others and the weathy its like absolutely nothing to them but it kills some1 who makes min wage
@SciMethodFTW you mean a flat tax? it sounds fair but when you think about the marginal value of income between a multi millionare and a middle class family, things don't sould as fair anymore. I don't know, maybe it just makes sense to me.
@leftstanding Let's raise taxes on the rich now. When we get the national debt down to zero, then we can talk about a flat tax. Also this would be the perfect incentive for the rich to help getting rid of the national debt.
@luke55664 at what % will this flat tax be to balance the budget and reduce the debt?
And why can't we raise taxes on the rich more on a temporary basis to speed up paying down the national debt that much faster? That would greatly benefit the long term future of America.
@Trollmaster21 I posted my opinion. According to Art Laffer 12.5% to 13.5%, with no deductions for all, would balance the current budget. Suffice to say my %s would be more than enough with respect to what is coming 2014 (National health insurance reform, aka: "Obama Care"). By the by, nothing with respect to Big Gov. is temporary. The only long term fair tax would be a flat tax. Only state and municipalities should benefit from all other added taxes and surcharges.
No. Actually a tax based solely on the things we buy makes the most sense. You're taxed based not on what you make, but what you spend. Meaning that regardless of whether you're on welfare or not, if you buy a BMW M3 you're going to be taxed the same sum as me.
If I buy a an M3 due to my income and you buy a Ford Fiesta -- you save on taxes and I am still a self indulgent twit. Oh, and I pay more taxes. Then, I also have the right to buy the Fiesta and save what I have EARNED!
@dirtyproduction I think you misunderstand how percentages work. If a poor person buys a car and a rich person buys a really nice car, the poor person is still spending a larger portion of their income to purchase, and therefore, a larger percentage of taxes paid. A car is a huge purchase for someone on the low end. This is why sales taxes are considered a regressive tax; they hit lower incomes harder because lower incomes can't save. Sales taxes aren't "fair."
However, a poorer person can choose a car of lesser expense and enable him or herself to decide the amount of tax paid. There is more liberty with the method I propose.
If I were to suggest that a flat tax of $2,500 per car regardless of cost, your theory would have validity. However, my proposal allows citizens to choose the amount paid in taxes by the cost of the car.
I should not be expected to pay more than any other citizen due solely to my income.
@dirtyproduction The car is just an example. By the time you factor in food, clothing, and everything else a person needs to get by, the lowest bracket has spent 100% of their income just to get by (actually, on average, 109% of it), which means 100% of their income gets taxed. A wealthy person does not spend 100% of their income. Therefore, in a sales tax scenario, the poor get taxed at a higher rate. That's basic, Adam Smith economics. Pity you can't grasp the simple stuff.
It is simple. Use dollars and cents as opposed to statistical percentages. I pay the same tax on the same shirt, the same jar of peanut butter, etc. We are equally taxed on that which we buy. That is equality.
When did the poor man's right extend to my pocketbook... His right is to get a better job and make something of himself through hard work.
I do not want my pity to be governed by government. I should be able to extend my pity, by choice, to those I deem to need it.
@dirtyproduction Using raw figures like dollars and cents only works if everyone makes the same amount of money. This is why people who believe in a flat tax are batshit insane.
@dirtyproduction "the expense of defending the society, and that of supporting the dignity of the chief magistrate, are both laid out for the general benefit of the whole society. It is reasonable, therefore, that they should be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society, all the different members contributing, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities."
I guess Adam Smith, father of capitalism, was a socialist, huh?
I don't know that I'd call him a socialist, but I certainly wouldn't call him a capitalist in the modern sense. Yes. "The Wealth of all Nations" is an important book, but you fail to recognize his rhetoric in his, gosh, I can't think of the title 'moral' book.
Smith was a political economist, if there is such a thing. He dances a dance with socialist tendencies...
@Randvek Thank you for explaining taxes properly. I used your information in my paper, and I failed. The professor said I was dumber than mud.
Of course, I'm embellishing slightly. Mainly on the fact that I used your information for anything other than to wipe my ass with. Are you really that stupid?
Apparently we should tax all and everything over a certain amount. I am so sick of seeing a CEO make some very bad mistakes, bankrupting the company, giving all their employees a drastic paycut and still taking raises and bonuses when in fact they are clearly incompetent and all they deserve is time to be working on their resume. It's bullshit.
Of course NOT. Whats the point of working yourself to death to get more money to become rich etc when they just gona take the money away. My parents were paying 20%tax. They started working more to step up their lifestyle and the tax increased to 40% which means that they still earn about the same! That is the way it is in UK and if they do it in US it will be pointless to become doctors, dentists etc.
If US needs money then how about they stop fighting Israel's wars
@CannibalCorpse909 Yea, but the robber baron myth does not hold ground and is implying that the government owns your income and allows you to keep some of it the way a bureacrat sees fit.
why not they fuckin rich im strugglen to put gas in mah car buy xmas gifts 4 my love 1's stayin fresh life is fuckin hard unless ur white with x amout of cash or ur black in ur 1 of the lucky 1's that made it cuz whities only allowed certain ppl make it
Our combination of socialism and capitalism will end before the economy can turn? Not likely. It means abandoning public roads, police officers, fire fighters, public schools, and THE MILITARY. If we have no socialism you can say goodbye to all these things.
@CaptainNeatbeard I know this but I remember the carter years and how he had our economy worse than it is now. Reagan cut the marginal tax rate on the wealthy from 78% down to 30% and created the longest and largest peacetime growth in the U.S. economy ever. I know your not a complete socialist but Im Jeffersonian. Leave me and my employer alone, let the free market work its majic. I am all for rugged individualism, so yes when I punch the clock I have ten welfare people strapped to my back.
If you were Jeffersonian you would be, moderately, socialist too. And your Reagan tax cuts are off. It started at 70% and he cut it to 69.5% the first year. The next 5 years it was at 50%, this is when we experienced such large growth. But don't forget that he might've cut taxes on the rich but he paid for it by taking from the social security surplus to pay for it. I always hear tax cut tax cut tax cut but how are you gonna pay for it?
Lets start with this Health Care Bill. It will not improve healthcare and end up costing Trillions of new borrowed money. Not to mention the increased costs of premimums not counted as a tax increase. Or Cap and Trade? This boondoggle will put the entire energy market under direct government control and create a new market where big companies can buy up smaller ones and trade there energy credits. They will make a fortune without producing one extra joule of energy.
Speaking of energy. The government did takover a part of it back in the 60's. It created The Dept of Energy. This little gem was in response to the mid east oil embargo. It was suppose to get us off foreign oil dependency. We are now more dependant on foreign oil than ever. We've given giant oil companies rights to drill where they haven't. They just hold the rights so no one else can drill. The DOE employs 32,000 people and has an annual budget of $65 Billion. That's your tax dollars in action.
A free market system will always fail in a democracy. The reason is the exact same as why communism fails. It ignores a very fundamental "quality" in men, greed.
Do you think the FDA or the U.S. Competition Agency to name a few was invented without a need?
"We The People" demanded it because we were tired of getting rammed in the ass by "the free market".
A regulated market is the best we have tried so far.
The US regulate the wrong way sadly, learn from Europe.
Free market is the problem. If a company makes more money, does it go into hiring more employees? Sometimes, but it's extremely rare. Most of the time it simply goes into giving high level executives fat raises and fat 9th of February bonuses(random bonuses for the hell of it).
If we put a limit on how much CEOs could make (or maybe a "fuck you" tax effectively doing the same thing) we wouldn't have a fraction of the problems we have today.
How can you think anyone here has been FOR eugenics? When has ANYONE on here said they've been for eugenics? Your second youtube video doesn't work and the first one is circumstantial at best. I love it when people post other peoples youtube videos as defense of their arguments.
You never answered how a direct tax was unconstitutional. I'm waiting for you to enlighten me about how I'm a moron and don't know what I'm talking about. Come on. The clocks ticking.
I cannot believe i gotta hold your hand like a 5 year old, read the founding fathers documents,, consitution, bill of rights, articles of confederation etc etc. Do i have to google links to you on these documents, highlight the passages. I thought by now with basic education they would of taught you these, but then again our education is controlled by the gov/unions.... anyways look it up, u wont though so its pointless now.
Apparently you do have to hold my hand through the Constitution because you're taking a ride that isn't there. I have read all those documents and can tell you SPECIFICALLY that a direct tax is not unconstitutional. Additionally, the Articles of Confederation would have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with any part of our current tax system. Neither would the Bill of Rights. So yes. Why don't you walk me through and "highlight" those passages that make it illegal. It's clear you haven't read it.
Since you're saying that a direct tax is not unconstitutional, I can say that you're wrong. If you look at The Constitution and go to Article 1 Sec 9.4, it states,
"No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
This would then refer to Article 1 Sec 2.3. In this instance, making the so called rich simply pay more in tax would be considered unconstitutional.
Indeed, that would and I commend you for giving me an answer where jwka couldn't. However, if you look at the 16th amendment this takes away the unconstitutionality of the direct tax. It states that "the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on INCOMES, FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration." The 16th amendment makes it constitutional. So how can a part of the constitution be unconstitutional?
I agree, Income taxes are not in itself, unconstitutional. But the argument comes when talking about a GRADUATED INCOME TAX or picking out a specific group to be taxed. By then increasing or decreasing individual tax rates for specific groups or levels without enumeration is what really makes it unconstitutional. Not to mention a graduated income tax is "The Second Plank of The Communist Manifesto" I just hate to think our founding fathers wanted or would leave open doors for socialist policies.
Well that's a fair enough argument. However, the courts have seen it a different way. In fact, that's why they changed it to FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED. Before it wasn't allowed to be for any reason, it was based on population, as you know. And through the years the courts have REPEATEDLY ruled that it's constitutional. We live in a system of precedent and it's long been established.
So the belief that The 16th Amendment takes away the unconstitutionality of of the Direct Tax in Art 1 Sec 9.4 is wrong. They actually go hand in hand. If our representitives bothered to read and follow it.
How? I don't understand how you believe that. I just said that they specifically changed it so it could be from any source. Through the years the courts have interpreted it's meaning, multiple times, to be from any source for any reason in any amount. Where in the 16th amendment would it even lead you to believe anything different?
Well, I don't understand why you don't understand. Changing it to "From any source derived" gives the congress wider sources. In this case the source is from income. That doesn't change the fact that the percentage level of taxation should be uniform throughout all income levels to really make it constitutional. ie, A flat income tax or National Sales tax. Not a graduated income tax.
There is nothing in it that states direct taxes have to be uniform. It states "duties, imposts, and excises" (indirect tax) has to be uniform, not direct taxes (income tax)
So in the context that you are picking out a specific and unknown number of people to apply a DIRECT TAX in order to pay for another bill or law on a whim or because it's politically acceptable would be totally unconstitutional without first taking a census and getting a set number of those to be taxed. And that can only happen every 10 years.
But no. See I asked for YOU to explain to me. Instead you don't actually know. That's why you make the ad hominem attack. You have to resort to logically fallacious reasoning instead of providing examples to support your CLAIM. And it is a claim.
One last thing. I think it would help your case if your arguments did not all amount to "You're totally wrong in every way about everything. I can't believe you're so ignorant. I don't have to prove anything to you you're so ignorant. Maybe if you read the constitution and listen to Alex Jones you'd actually know something."
CaptainNeatbeard's request for a direct answer is an opportunity to prove yourself. You aren't getting anywhere by refusing it.
Did you not even think about what I wrote for even one nanosecond?! Quick review: YOU (jwka2001) are the one who brought up eugenics. You claimed that eugenics is a progressive and socialist invention, and that is "100% evil". I am not advocating a mandatory eugenics program, I am disputing your claim of "100% evil".
Are train cars a form of genocide and 100% evil because they brought jews to concentration camps? How can you allow rail transportation while knowing this TRUTH about it?
Good point about 100% evil. While people largely attribute eugenics to Darwin, especially because of social darwinism. This is a misunderstanding, though. Darwin's understanding of Eugenics was more to diversify because many in his family were married to their first cousins of a different family. So after a couple generations these two families would need to diversify their genes. The term eugenics didn't even appear until after his death.
Basically, Darwin's eugenics program was more about strengthening the species. He noted, also, that it would be a detriment to selectively breed based on strength because this would breed out the sympathy gene so vital to our survival.
...continued: As I have already told you, it CAN be used for the benefit of mankind: reducing the prevalence of hereditary diseases. Don't blame IT, blame the evil people who've [ab]used it.
Oh, I'm afraid my answer to your very first question for me somehow ended up in the wrong line of comments. I said that I have noticed you saying that poor people are all poor because they're lazy. But reality differs from that American Dreamworld.
(continued) and how someone cannot at least respect this form of government/free markets its beyond me. EVERY time socialism is introduced into a country the country begins to decline, these are facts. Every time Capitalism/free markets are put into a country it thrives. Its pointless to keep this conversation going, i hope you look into this, but i feel you wont. Best of luck hating people who are successful, and are out to get you ..lol seriously wtf is wrong with you fucks.
Next time instead of telling people to "look at the FUCKING constitution" why don't you take their advice. You say every time socialism has been introduced into a country it begins to decline and say it's a fact without providing any sort of evidence. That doesn't make it a fact that makes it a claim. Historically you're incorrect. In fact one of the key factors of modern western nations is socialism. Military, roads, public schools, police, fire fighters. All socialist programs.
china's rise from 3rd world with capitalism. Europe's decline when it started putting socalistic laws in. Look at there labor laws, every worker cannot work more than 34 hours a week, must get 6 weeks off etc. Those only hurt economy and people's standard of living. Limiting peoples hours they can work so that would stop 'the evil companies' when really just stopping pay increases.
You say that Europe's decline started with socialistic laws yet MOST OF EUROPE has a higher standard of living than we do. Their workers are also, proportionately, more productive than American workers because of the support of the worker, much like we used to have in this country. You keep citing what you like to call "facts" yet you don't really understand the context of those facts. Additionally, you still haven't explained how direct taxes are unconstitutional.
"china's rise from 3rd world with capitalism" lolz. China has a TOTALLY planned economy.
Everything is regulated. Its illegal to even make radios that can pick up certain frequencies FFS. Innovation is almost 0, intellectual property is not protected.
So Europe is in decline because of socialism, even though its FAR FAR to the right of China. But china is growing at 8% a year because of capitalism?
You've done it again. Made simplest inference on 'gut feeling' & what sum1 like HTWW says.
If it wasn't for American business and American consumers, China would still be a shit hole country with crumbling buildings and lead paint toys. And yet, they still are. I guess that's the plan.
Eh? What was that comment for? Do you think I am from china? Was that meant to 'hurt' my 'feelings' or something bizarre like that. It was a repy to non-sense you did'nt even say.
Explain why he is right. Or concur why he is wrong. flippant comments like that are bizarre.
Also I am still waiting to know why almost 100% of IBM clone PC's running Windows is not a monopoly?
Even of the total PC market apple is 9% with MacOS and 91% IBM ALL running Windows. Linux use is < error on the numbers
You see jwka, your big problem is that you want to live in a world of black and white where only the free market and socialism exist. A close examination of reality, however, would show you that we have an amalgam of the two but are mostly capitalist. The reason we have an amalgam of capitalism and socialism is that they work as a balance on each other to even things out. Tell you what. Why don't you provide me an example of a country that declined specifically because of socialism.
lol wow u must really know me,, if it was up to me just free markets cause i've seen what its done in poor countries.Seriously i cannot believe how u think, u obviously believe in the state and need to be taken care of. Russia declined from socialism, look at the lines for basic things. Once it went to more of a capitalistic nation look at how it has risen from its poverty. How can u not see it.. Im done talking to you, cause you'll never grasp basic concepts
What're you talking about? You're right. I'll never grasp the concepts you're trying to advocate because they're too simplistic. They think that one thing is the simple cause of problems. You think socialism killed the USSR? Do a little research. You know...like your Hitler research. One cause was a decline in oil production. Another was an economy focused on heavy industry in a world that began asking for more consumer products. Combine that with an increase in military spending.
@CaptainNeatbeard socialism never can work. it drains mans competative spirit and caters to the lowest common denominater. It has always turned the middle class into peasants. Why should one strive for excellence if they do not receive proper compensation. Its only the "little men" who fall for this.
Its fucking pointless with some of you. Look at the FUCKING constitution, where does it say all this stuff you mention. Look this shit up before you start spouting about how we need to tax 1 group of individuals and not another, seriously thats classism and seriously i thought we'd be behind this by now in our history. Free markets/liberty etc has given the world more freedom, more wealth, more people out of poverty than any other system. Why fuck with it if its not broke.
America's roads, highways, sewers, bridges, aqueducts, dams, levees and power grid are already crumbling due to maintenance budget cuts; and furious backlash to any taxes intended to expand those budgets.
jkwa has a point. Socialist shit like healthcare income tax and homless shelters are horrible ideas. Why would anyone bother paying rent every month if there is a place that will house them FOR FREE?
Its pathetic we live in an age where people think in terms of groups, fucking pathetic. But then again socialist/progressives usually think in groups cause thats all they see. But their lucky they live in America where our freedom allows them to think there flawed thoughts, in socialist countries, free thinkers tend to be killed for beliefs that are contrary to the state.
how am i a social Darwinist. I do believe in evolution yes, its simple to see. And i do agree that human beings also evolve since were a part of nature, but i dont agree with what you say in that one race or class is better than another. Where do you get this, after i've just given sentence after sentence below about how we need to think in terms of individuals and not groups and not tax 1 group over another, is beyond me. You obviously dont read.
BTW it was progressive/socialist who gave us the idea of Social Darwinism. It was called Eugenics, but people objected since its 100% evil. It was later changed into Planned Parenthood. Of course Nazi's had its own Eugenics with the jews, and we know how that went. Its why PP is always in ghetto neighborhoods, the owners and sponsors of these frequently talk about wanting to kill minorities. Look it up its fucked up evil shit, look up ENDGAME on youtube it talks about it.
Planned Parenthood's are everywhere.. Shot, they even have some in downtown DC off of K street which is one of the highest areas to live. So while a lot of poor might use them because they are cheap that doesnt mean that the middle and upper class arent in their either...
yea the history i listed above is all 100% true, they even had shit written down decades ago talking about how they'd get minorities to help run it to help get more people in. Of course abortion is always a choice, but this info should be noted.
Social Darwinism and eugenics are two separate ideologies.
Second,
Eugenics was not widely regarded as pure evil until AFTER the world learned of its use as a weapon for Nazi genocide.
Third,
100% evil? I suppose a black & white worldview befits a zealot such as yourself; but eugenics, while arguably unethical in application, has many positive uses. I wouldn't think 'pure evil' would so effective in... say... reducing the occurrence of thalassemia in Cyprus.
'Positive uses'? What is a positive use to commit a form of genocide? Wtf is wrong with you man, sure people can have abortions, people should have that choice, but the thought that one race should be more powerful than another based on this stupid belief of Eugenics and Social Darwinism. Lol in fact Darwin later did his own form of Eugenics on his family and researchers later on, but that only formed babies with major health problems. How can u possibly be for that.
Did I not make myself clear? Genocide is NOT the one and only possible application of eugenics. That's like saying that the sole purpose of animal breeding is to wipe out all but one breed of dog. Eugenics CAN be used that way, it most certainly HAS been used that way, but it doesn't always HAVE to be used that way. But most people will not see past its association with the Holocaust.
yes the whole there,their thing is a mistake yea cause im lazy,,lol But on your ideas on social Darwinism/eugenics is 100% wrong man, sure u know the basic 'idea' on what they are, but the history is all off. Anyways i hope you look into it, Youtube the video ENDGAME by alex jones, its pretty good. But you wont look into it cause of your slanted views. But thats ok. Stay the way you are.
Again with the "100%"... my, how adamant you are; it makes sense that you would follow that apocalyptic prophet Jones. But he is too full of assumptions for me, I am not one for faith.
Nothing worse to society than mob rule. So many scientists, so many free thinkers, people ahead of their time killed simply cause of 'mob mentality'. Nothing like the majority screwing over the minority. Only through the nature of free markets, free thinking and speech can mankind truly evolve, never when just the mob has the power, but also when the minorities do , (race or class based) Thinking other than this is a form of an ISM(racism/classism etc) and is group think and that is evil
I know it 'feels' right to tax the rich, but is it right? Should 1 group who for no other reason than being rich pay for something they might disagree with?
Seriously whats wrong with you people, your no better than racists, who wouldnt let blacks sit where whites do, cause they are 'different' we are NOT different, we are individuals. And until you start thinking in terms of individuals and not in groups (man/woman/white/black/rich/poor) the sooner racism/classism will stop.
well, i don't see any problems with taxing the rich, because, after all, when you make over 10 million dollars a year you can't spend it ALL, even Paul Allen doesn't buy a new yacht every year. the rich have money to burn, and if their companies raise prices to compensate then the consumers will buy the cheaper products.
Do we tax people simply cause they have money and others who dont? Do we tax success? How much should the rich be taxed? Should everyone be treated equal and like individuals, or do we have taxes based on class. Have the rich paid enough? Should hard working people be taxed more than lazier people? Do you hate rich people simply for being rich and successful and you are not rich nor successful?
well think of it this way jwka2001, if we made taxes a flat rate for everyone then those who make less than that and there are people like that would go to jail because they can't make that sort of money. those who make just a bit more than that would have a ton of their money go just to that and little left for themselves and those who make a shitload of money and can basically buy their own island and call it richopolis for all they care pay the same amount which is fucking pennies to them.
Well if it was legal there would be no income tax due to it being illegal. And if taxes were equal no one would pay cause there so high, so they mob mentality on the EVIL rich people ..... and since there such a small minority,, The gov knows that you hate rich people,, thats why they get taxed and people like you are like ' yea im poor there not, let them pay for the programs ill be using' Dont think of it in terms of money, think in terms of individuals,, what your thinking know is wrong,,
I like the way you think if income tax did not exist there would be a society..... If there was no income tax for the last 300yrs the country would look like Somalia at worst or the UAE at the very best.
Also with half the innovations as most of the academics in the world actually have to spend all their time thinking to making breakthroughs using public books rather than trying to collect money.
which is why we have an income tax that scales to income because if we didn't we would make enemies of everyone who isn't wealthy which happens to be most of the country. by the way not all wealthy people earned that money, many just inherit it from a relative who earned it and do minimal work while those who do most of the work never get a penny more than they ever do. its not communism what i suggest, its not socialist its being fair.
You keep reciting those statistics taht the top 1% pay 40% and so on. Yet you keep failing to acknowledge that the top 1%, who pay 40%, own 71% of the wealth. The top 10% own 90% of the wealth and a pay 68% of the taxes. You seem to think it's fair that those who own 71% of the wealth only pay 40% of the taxes.
Out of of one doller , the middle class paid more than the million and billionairs. They paid more because , they make trillions more than we do. taxing them would hurt nothing but there pride.
You keep claiming that the rich are taxed unreasonably and that everyone should be taxed equally yet you favor NOT taxing everyone equally. You favor giving tax breaks to people who do not need them. You favor letting the poor pay a disproportionate amount of the wealth. All you're doing is citing hypocrisy.
top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes, the top 10% pay 70% of the income taxes, and the top 50% pay 97% of all taxes, how do the poor/middle class pay more in taxes each year? Why is simply being rich/successful a reason enough to tax someone. Is that how you think, if someone is successful and your not, tax them back down to your level?
Imagine you're making over $200K a year. That is 10 times more than the poverty level. Now, what is more sufficient? Helping those that struggle to get ahead or $500 dinners and fancy cars? Oh but you're rich so you must have worked soooo hard for that money.
Comment removed
MrIndiemusic101 2 weeks ago
Stop taxing the rich! I agree they should pay their fair share but they have been paying more than just their fair share. They deserve some money that they earn. Dont tax millions away because that is just more money going to things that increase our deficit and bury us in debt
TNovaccaine 3 months ago
"Where do we get the money? We're not rich - let's tax the rich!"
uriituw 5 months ago
Thumbs up, thumbs up, thumbs up! They just need to raise the corporate tax, who even cares about these corporations? They are horrible.
natedaug1 6 months ago
the answer is no if the taxes are low enough then u dont have to worry if just say the tax is 5 dollers a week its not a big difference if u make 400 dollers or 3000 dollers a week it wont have a big effect
ryannewellisg 7 months ago
@carolo107
"A free ride should be offered to no one. We should all pay taxes according to what we make as we have always done in this history of this nation prior to those stupid Bush Rates. The rich do not bring in jobs but the person uptown who has a small factory or store does. The rich just invest more in the stock market or buy more fuel for their yachts.
DId your ever ask yourself what investing in stock market does ? Or even what it is for ? Can you explain why investing is a so bad ??
berglendurch 9 months ago
instead of tax cuts funding a welfare state, try making the rich create a amount of jobs at a certain lvl. Like if some one makes ____ they should employ ___ people. That way they make more money then employ more people and everyone has a job.
BING !!
singlaprety12 1 year ago
@singlaprety12 uhm, not every rich person even has employees. many wealthy people get rich by siyying on their ass betting on stocks, or are rich by inheritance. rich people dont create jobs because they have excess money. they create jobs when they need more manpower for production. if they dont need more manpower they use their extra money for more speculation or to further fund their self indulgent frivolous existence. more cars, property, hookers, ego festivals etc
BeingNobody1956 9 months ago
In the current US. Yea we have no choice. Charging the rich more does not get at the root of the problem though. If we are funding a welfare state and a global police foreign policy then who else is going to pay it? Not the middle class! BUT, if we had a smaller government with less spending. We wouldn't have to tax the rich. People say "they hoard the money" which is not true. It does in effect "trickle down" and help the ordinary person. We cant be bailing out corporations though.
AroundSun 1 year ago
@AroundSun "People say "they hoard the money" which is not true. It does in effect "trickle down" and help the ordinary person" trickle down economics have been thoroughly debunked .they simply do not work .in fact low taxes for the very wealthy have proven to b detrimental to the economy. its no coincidence that the wealthiest Americans have enjoyed the lowest taxes sines the last grate depression resulting in where you are now.
MUDSHARK111 1 year ago
@MUDSHARK111 You can not debunk the most successful and most prosperous economic system over the past 200 years. "Simply do not work", I love when people say this. Everyones definition of work is different. What works? What do you mean works? Low taxes across the board would be ideal, since the government can't possibly spend money better than someone spends their own. There is no proof anywhere that lowering taxes is detrimental to an economy. In fact, the opposite is true.
AroundSun 1 year ago
@AroundSun "There is no proof anywhere that lowering taxes is detrimental to an economy"i said for the very wealthy.specifically the top 2%look at the link between taxes growth and rescission. there's you proof if you are willing ."government can't possibly spend money better than someone spends their own money" well that rather depends one weather they spend it. and then how they spend it doesn't it ?
MUDSHARK111 1 year ago
@AroundSun Bush lowered taxes for the wealthy and cut back the regulation of big corporations all based on the premise that these two policies would benefit the economy.did it ? or are we now in the worst recession since the grate depression ? what more proof do you need ?
MUDSHARK111 1 year ago
@MUDSHARK111 They never have benefited the economy and never will and one big reason I have less respect for Obama is allowing it once again at a time which could not be less favorable for such a move. But at the end of the day the american people are responsible for all of the above and have the power to change it and I'm not talking about "elections" which are rigged by the republican activist supreme court all the way down to the locals.
callouschristian 1 year ago
@MUDSHARK111 Rich people pay the most taxes out of anyone, and the government wastes the money and provides bad investments. People are stupid and think tax cuts for the rich means they will pay less than what the middle or lower class is paying. That has never been the case. The more taxes and revenue the government collect, means the less money the people have.
AroundSun 1 year ago
@AroundSun "The more taxes and revenue the government collect, means the less money the people" only if its taken form every body .but that's not what we are talking about is it ?
MUDSHARK111 1 year ago
it is just likefrance before the french revolution. the lower and middle class pays for the luxury of the upper class to the point that it actually harms the people.
evilblades 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I truly wish we could just set up the progressive tax already. It's maddening watching the super wealthy simply push their money around in a gamble for greed. What's being used as gambling chips in wall street could be set aside for public projects and American communities. Just how much does a good life cost? Because from where i'm standing, its well worth the price.
drpeppa2357 1 year ago
Comment removed
drpeppa2357 1 year ago
Reluctance to tax, is partly bourne out of the newfound ability of corporations to give unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns.
The "Citizens United" case had only *increased* the amount of political cowardice .. with the Republican Party caving first.
milkgodnl 1 year ago
My ideal Flat/Progressive system would start with 12.5% for those between 29K and 99K annually no deductions. 14.5% for those earning 6 figures, no deductions, and 16.5% for those earning 7 figures or more no deductions. Under 29K don't pay federal taxes except for their SSI. This system would eliminate over 50% of all tax attorneys and cost thereof. CAN WE PLEASE STOP ELECTING LAWYERS AS POLITICIANS?
luke55664 1 year ago
The rich already pay more under our current progressive tax system. Top 5% of all earners pay 53% of total tax burden. Top 10% pay 64% while the top 50% pay 96% of the tax burden. Lower 50% of all earners pay less than 4% tax burden. One may want to use the Laffer curve to asses how much to raise or lower taxes. I am not surprised he doesn't know this. This channel is garbage. Reason we live under a progressive tax system?...........LAWYERS.......Period!
luke55664 1 year ago
@luke55664, your either rich or a fucking moron... either way I would cut your fucking head off and put it on a stick.
AnotherAgnostic 1 year ago
@AnotherAgnostic Your posts would suggest the opposite is true. You are ignorant to the N'th degree with nothing to offer this forum but your sophomoric diatribe you loser troll. By the by, I live at Duval drive SSF CA. mouth. Any Day!
luke55664 1 year ago
@luke55664, your on the list
AnotherAgnostic 1 year ago
@AnotherAgnostic Also, calling yourself an "Agnostic" is an ignorant cop-out. Either you believe or you don't. Have the courage to call yourself an "Atheist." Then grow up!
luke55664 1 year ago
@luke55664, I choose truth over fantasy. To say there is or is not a God would be making an assumption. Some questions cannot be answered.
AnotherAgnostic 1 year ago
@AnotherAgnostic As I stated, you are ignorant. It's a question of faith. Either one believes and has faith or one is without. Without faith is an atheist by definition. Your moral relativism doesn't factor in the equation. Claiming to be an "Agnostic" is a lame cop-out. Just have the sack to say you are not of the faith, (i.e; Atheist). Any notion that Agnosticism is somehow a neutral position is not to understand religion or faith at it's core, no assumption about it.
luke55664 1 year ago
@luke55664, I can see you state a lot of nonsense and your perception is limited by an intolerant mind. Not everything is black or white, good or evil, or yes or no... on the contrary everything is almost Gray. Your one of those people are just barely smart enough to get everything wrong.
AnotherAgnostic 1 year ago
@AnotherAgnostic Your verbosity and hyperbole has no place among intelligent thought or discourse. I fail to see any point you are trying to make besides the one atop your head. You should get a secondary education so you may understand a thing or two. Claiming to be agnostic is BS. By definition, those that "Believe" in God don't actually know of a God. Therefore, like you, all people of faith are as agnostic considering they rely on faith not fact. Or did you assume they actually knew God?
luke55664 1 year ago
@AnotherAgnostic this may help you out a bit.
ag·nos·tic
–noun
1.a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2.a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective
3.of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4.asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
luke55664 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@luke55664, Are you trying to prove me right or something? number 1 pretty much sums up what I believe and what I have been saying all along when I stated "I choose truth over fantasy. To say there is or is not a God would be making an assumption. Some questions cannot be answered. "
Have you ever been tested for A.D.D.?
AnotherAgnostic 1 year ago
Yes. Raise taxes on the rich now, or they'll be raised on everyone later.
Trollmaster21 1 year ago
yes
WikeddTung 1 year ago
What will happen to animals and the environment if Asian countries are payed back that money?? I'd rather have a cleaner planet with less torture of innocents. The deficit doesn't matter.
SleepySkeptic 1 year ago
always with the glass half empty.
how about just lower taxes for the poor and leave it as is for the "well off" and raise it just a tad for the folks that have more money than they will ever spend anyway
off topic, last night i saw an infomercial for a penis pump and its free if you have insurance how fked up is that.
500Banshee 1 year ago
That's a ridiculous question because right now the Wealthy don't pay any taxes. They have lawyers to get them out of it, plus money made off stock (which is vast majority of their income) is only taxed 15%.
Chnamanjx 1 year ago
America's most prosperous period was the 1950's through the 1970's, when the top tax rate was 78%. When first Reagan and then Bush II gave the rich and Corporations huge tax cuts, the Rich spent the money on collectibles and Ponzi schemes and Corporations spent the money to move manufacturing overseas.
A high top end on marginal tax rates would also bring Executive Compensation under control because of diminishing returns.
madpol1 2 years ago
The top 0.1% of Americans make 9.1% of the total income made in the US.
HOWEVER, this group of people who earn 9.1% of the income in the US pay for 17.4% of the money made by the US govt. from income taxes.
Sure, this obscenely rich 0.1% should pay more taxes... but when they make 9.1% of the total money earned they should only be paying 9.1% of the total income taxes in my opinion. I don't know, maybe it just makes sense to me.
(Libertarians ftw!)
SciMethodFTW 2 years ago
Since "equality" is the underlying principle, how about a flat tax?
HBSchool 2 years ago
the prob with flat taxes is it kills the poor caz then they will never beable to make the same amount as others and the weathy its like absolutely nothing to them but it kills some1 who makes min wage
kazooga1234 2 years ago
not to mention they dont usally keep there money in the us so then they skip all taxes
kazooga1234 2 years ago
@SciMethodFTW you mean a flat tax? it sounds fair but when you think about the marginal value of income between a multi millionare and a middle class family, things don't sould as fair anymore. I don't know, maybe it just makes sense to me.
leftstanding 1 year ago
@leftstanding Let's raise taxes on the rich now. When we get the national debt down to zero, then we can talk about a flat tax. Also this would be the perfect incentive for the rich to help getting rid of the national debt.
Trollmaster21 1 year ago
@Trollmaster21 A "Flat Tax" would balance the budget and reduce the national debt. Unless one likes high unemployment and government subsidies.
luke55664 1 year ago
@luke55664 at what % will this flat tax be to balance the budget and reduce the debt?
And why can't we raise taxes on the rich more on a temporary basis to speed up paying down the national debt that much faster? That would greatly benefit the long term future of America.
Trollmaster21 1 year ago
@Trollmaster21 I posted my opinion. According to Art Laffer 12.5% to 13.5%, with no deductions for all, would balance the current budget. Suffice to say my %s would be more than enough with respect to what is coming 2014 (National health insurance reform, aka: "Obama Care"). By the by, nothing with respect to Big Gov. is temporary. The only long term fair tax would be a flat tax. Only state and municipalities should benefit from all other added taxes and surcharges.
luke55664 1 year ago
The richer you are, the more opportunities you have to get richer. Of course they should get taxed more.
plusmin09 2 years ago 2
You should be taxed more for your underachievement. You're more likely to utilize the programs being funded by tax dollars.
dirtyproduction 2 years ago
my underachievement? LOL! You don't know me....
Getting taxed more because you use more taxes... Hmmm... does that really seem to work in your mind?
Go suck Hannity's balls and quit making such idiotic comments.
plusmin09 1 year ago
No. Actually a tax based solely on the things we buy makes the most sense. You're taxed based not on what you make, but what you spend. Meaning that regardless of whether you're on welfare or not, if you buy a BMW M3 you're going to be taxed the same sum as me.
If I buy a an M3 due to my income and you buy a Ford Fiesta -- you save on taxes and I am still a self indulgent twit. Oh, and I pay more taxes. Then, I also have the right to buy the Fiesta and save what I have EARNED!
dirtyproduction 1 year ago
O, ok thanks for explaining. Makes much more sense than raising taxes on peple that don't have the money. Just as long as you're not on Rush's side.
plusmin09 1 year ago
Do you feel that it is the burden of those who have a achieved financial stability to support those who have not...
I am on no side to be honest.
dirtyproduction 1 year ago
@dirtyproduction I think you misunderstand how percentages work. If a poor person buys a car and a rich person buys a really nice car, the poor person is still spending a larger portion of their income to purchase, and therefore, a larger percentage of taxes paid. A car is a huge purchase for someone on the low end. This is why sales taxes are considered a regressive tax; they hit lower incomes harder because lower incomes can't save. Sales taxes aren't "fair."
Randvek 1 year ago 3
However, a poorer person can choose a car of lesser expense and enable him or herself to decide the amount of tax paid. There is more liberty with the method I propose.
If I were to suggest that a flat tax of $2,500 per car regardless of cost, your theory would have validity. However, my proposal allows citizens to choose the amount paid in taxes by the cost of the car.
I should not be expected to pay more than any other citizen due solely to my income.
dirtyproduction 1 year ago
@dirtyproduction The car is just an example. By the time you factor in food, clothing, and everything else a person needs to get by, the lowest bracket has spent 100% of their income just to get by (actually, on average, 109% of it), which means 100% of their income gets taxed. A wealthy person does not spend 100% of their income. Therefore, in a sales tax scenario, the poor get taxed at a higher rate. That's basic, Adam Smith economics. Pity you can't grasp the simple stuff.
Randvek 1 year ago 10
It is simple. Use dollars and cents as opposed to statistical percentages. I pay the same tax on the same shirt, the same jar of peanut butter, etc. We are equally taxed on that which we buy. That is equality.
When did the poor man's right extend to my pocketbook... His right is to get a better job and make something of himself through hard work.
I do not want my pity to be governed by government. I should be able to extend my pity, by choice, to those I deem to need it.
dirtyproduction 1 year ago
@dirtyproduction Using raw figures like dollars and cents only works if everyone makes the same amount of money. This is why people who believe in a flat tax are batshit insane.
Randvek 1 year ago
You sound like a socialist...
Plus, you never answered why the poor man somehow acquired the right to the money of others...
Those who believe in the flat tax are advocates of equality while those who advocate income tax are fiscal slave masters.
Equality is simply a buzzword when one has his/her hand in the pockets of others.
The percentage of income used on necessities is moot. Prosperity should come only to those who achieve.
dirtyproduction 1 year ago
@dirtyproduction "the expense of defending the society, and that of supporting the dignity of the chief magistrate, are both laid out for the general benefit of the whole society. It is reasonable, therefore, that they should be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society, all the different members contributing, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities."
I guess Adam Smith, father of capitalism, was a socialist, huh?
Randvek 1 year ago
I don't know that I'd call him a socialist, but I certainly wouldn't call him a capitalist in the modern sense. Yes. "The Wealth of all Nations" is an important book, but you fail to recognize his rhetoric in his, gosh, I can't think of the title 'moral' book.
Smith was a political economist, if there is such a thing. He dances a dance with socialist tendencies...
dirtyproduction 1 year ago
@Randvek Thank you for explaining taxes properly. I used your information in my paper, and I failed. The professor said I was dumber than mud.
Of course, I'm embellishing slightly. Mainly on the fact that I used your information for anything other than to wipe my ass with. Are you really that stupid?
toneeeeeee 1 year ago
Apparently we should tax all and everything over a certain amount. I am so sick of seeing a CEO make some very bad mistakes, bankrupting the company, giving all their employees a drastic paycut and still taking raises and bonuses when in fact they are clearly incompetent and all they deserve is time to be working on their resume. It's bullshit.
shred5 2 years ago
IT'S NOT OUR MONEY! Why don't you boycott instead? What's that, you don't really give a fuck?
HBSchool 2 years ago
It's not theirs either, but they're allowed to steal it anyway.
You really don't know your face from your ass do you?
shred5 2 years ago
tax the bonuses of the bankers who took bailout money!!
Riverwidow64 2 years ago 2
Only additionally tax the bonuses? Are you crazy? Tax 100% of their fucking paychecks man, make them live in a cardboard box like they deserve!
shred5 2 years ago 2
Of course NOT. Whats the point of working yourself to death to get more money to become rich etc when they just gona take the money away. My parents were paying 20%tax. They started working more to step up their lifestyle and the tax increased to 40% which means that they still earn about the same! That is the way it is in UK and if they do it in US it will be pointless to become doctors, dentists etc.
If US needs money then how about they stop fighting Israel's wars
Piotrasdabadman91 2 years ago
Of course they should. Whats the difference if a person makes 32 million a year or 30 million a year? Not much, still rich and carefree.
The difference from making 300k a year to 20k a year...Big fucking difference.
CannibalCorpse909 2 years ago 26
@CannibalCorpse909 Yea, but the robber baron myth does not hold ground and is implying that the government owns your income and allows you to keep some of it the way a bureacrat sees fit.
AroundSun 1 year ago
@CannibalCorpse909 stfu..32 million to 30 million is still a 2 million difference..with that money I could invest into stocks and flip it.
rancid253 5 months ago
why not they fuckin rich im strugglen to put gas in mah car buy xmas gifts 4 my love 1's stayin fresh life is fuckin hard unless ur white with x amout of cash or ur black in ur 1 of the lucky 1's that made it cuz whities only allowed certain ppl make it
flow267 2 years ago
If you force the wealthy to pay more taxes, they will just force that cost on the consumer in the end by raising costs and laying off workers.
mainestategop 2 years ago
Historically, you're wrong.
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago
The tax on the wealthy isn't even that high. Reagan's highest tax on the wealthy was 30 percentage points higher than Obama's current rate.
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago
And they are forcing those costs on us.
mainestategop 2 years ago
@CaptainNeatbeard Dont worry that will change sooner than The economy can turn.
Trashfished 2 years ago
Our combination of socialism and capitalism will end before the economy can turn? Not likely. It means abandoning public roads, police officers, fire fighters, public schools, and THE MILITARY. If we have no socialism you can say goodbye to all these things.
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago
@CaptainNeatbeard I know this but I remember the carter years and how he had our economy worse than it is now. Reagan cut the marginal tax rate on the wealthy from 78% down to 30% and created the longest and largest peacetime growth in the U.S. economy ever. I know your not a complete socialist but Im Jeffersonian. Leave me and my employer alone, let the free market work its majic. I am all for rugged individualism, so yes when I punch the clock I have ten welfare people strapped to my back.
Trashfished 2 years ago
If you were Jeffersonian you would be, moderately, socialist too. And your Reagan tax cuts are off. It started at 70% and he cut it to 69.5% the first year. The next 5 years it was at 50%, this is when we experienced such large growth. But don't forget that he might've cut taxes on the rich but he paid for it by taking from the social security surplus to pay for it. I always hear tax cut tax cut tax cut but how are you gonna pay for it?
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago
"I always hear tax cut tax cut tax cut but how are you gonna pay for it?"
CUT FRIGGEN SPENDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
mickeysears 2 years ago
How simple. Military obviously. But which other areas?
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago
Which other areas? ALL!!
Lets start with this Health Care Bill. It will not improve healthcare and end up costing Trillions of new borrowed money. Not to mention the increased costs of premimums not counted as a tax increase. Or Cap and Trade? This boondoggle will put the entire energy market under direct government control and create a new market where big companies can buy up smaller ones and trade there energy credits. They will make a fortune without producing one extra joule of energy.
mickeysears 2 years ago
Speaking of energy. The government did takover a part of it back in the 60's. It created The Dept of Energy. This little gem was in response to the mid east oil embargo. It was suppose to get us off foreign oil dependency. We are now more dependant on foreign oil than ever. We've given giant oil companies rights to drill where they haven't. They just hold the rights so no one else can drill. The DOE employs 32,000 people and has an annual budget of $65 Billion. That's your tax dollars in action.
mickeysears 2 years ago
Or how about The Dept of Education? It did for education what the energy dept did for our energy independence. NOTHING!!!!!
The only difference here is that our kids are getting more dumbed down and intolorant at a cost of a mere $160 Billion last year.
The same can be said for The Dept of Homeland Security. This boondoggle has not made us any safer and only costs $58 Billion.
And the most obvious would the military spending. $1 Trillion per year and they get through with box cutters?
mickeysears 2 years ago
We don't have a free market, by the way. We have a capitalist system.
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago 2
@Trashfished
Amen, free market is the answer
Piotrasdabadman91 2 years ago
@Piotrasdabadman91
A free market system will always fail in a democracy. The reason is the exact same as why communism fails. It ignores a very fundamental "quality" in men, greed.
Do you think the FDA or the U.S. Competition Agency to name a few was invented without a need?
"We The People" demanded it because we were tired of getting rammed in the ass by "the free market".
A regulated market is the best we have tried so far.
The US regulate the wrong way sadly, learn from Europe.
TheSaltyAdmiral 2 years ago
Free market is the problem. If a company makes more money, does it go into hiring more employees? Sometimes, but it's extremely rare. Most of the time it simply goes into giving high level executives fat raises and fat 9th of February bonuses(random bonuses for the hell of it).
If we put a limit on how much CEOs could make (or maybe a "fuck you" tax effectively doing the same thing) we wouldn't have a fraction of the problems we have today.
shred5 2 years ago
Since your wrong on so many levels, i've found a few videos to help answer them better than i can.
/watch?v=GmzZ3X0zt1Y
eugenics. If you can be for it after seeing its history, well your evil, just straight up evil.
watch?v=PZpDjxIPpFc
This will solve your ' china's rise from 3rd world ' question. If you cannot get it, then well cmdrtobs, best of luck in life lol seriously.
jwka2001 2 years ago
How can you think anyone here has been FOR eugenics? When has ANYONE on here said they've been for eugenics? Your second youtube video doesn't work and the first one is circumstantial at best. I love it when people post other peoples youtube videos as defense of their arguments.
You never answered how a direct tax was unconstitutional. I'm waiting for you to enlighten me about how I'm a moron and don't know what I'm talking about. Come on. The clocks ticking.
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago
I cannot believe i gotta hold your hand like a 5 year old, read the founding fathers documents,, consitution, bill of rights, articles of confederation etc etc. Do i have to google links to you on these documents, highlight the passages. I thought by now with basic education they would of taught you these, but then again our education is controlled by the gov/unions.... anyways look it up, u wont though so its pointless now.
jwka2001 2 years ago
Apparently you do have to hold my hand through the Constitution because you're taking a ride that isn't there. I have read all those documents and can tell you SPECIFICALLY that a direct tax is not unconstitutional. Additionally, the Articles of Confederation would have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with any part of our current tax system. Neither would the Bill of Rights. So yes. Why don't you walk me through and "highlight" those passages that make it illegal. It's clear you haven't read it.
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago
Since you're saying that a direct tax is not unconstitutional, I can say that you're wrong. If you look at The Constitution and go to Article 1 Sec 9.4, it states,
"No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
This would then refer to Article 1 Sec 2.3. In this instance, making the so called rich simply pay more in tax would be considered unconstitutional.
mickeysears 2 years ago
Indeed, that would and I commend you for giving me an answer where jwka couldn't. However, if you look at the 16th amendment this takes away the unconstitutionality of the direct tax. It states that "the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on INCOMES, FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration." The 16th amendment makes it constitutional. So how can a part of the constitution be unconstitutional?
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago
I agree, Income taxes are not in itself, unconstitutional. But the argument comes when talking about a GRADUATED INCOME TAX or picking out a specific group to be taxed. By then increasing or decreasing individual tax rates for specific groups or levels without enumeration is what really makes it unconstitutional. Not to mention a graduated income tax is "The Second Plank of The Communist Manifesto" I just hate to think our founding fathers wanted or would leave open doors for socialist policies.
mickeysears 2 years ago
So a flat income tax would be totally Constitutional while a Graduated Income Tax really is not.
mickeysears 2 years ago
Well that's a fair enough argument. However, the courts have seen it a different way. In fact, that's why they changed it to FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED. Before it wasn't allowed to be for any reason, it was based on population, as you know. And through the years the courts have REPEATEDLY ruled that it's constitutional. We live in a system of precedent and it's long been established.
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago
So the belief that The 16th Amendment takes away the unconstitutionality of of the Direct Tax in Art 1 Sec 9.4 is wrong. They actually go hand in hand. If our representitives bothered to read and follow it.
mickeysears 2 years ago
How? I don't understand how you believe that. I just said that they specifically changed it so it could be from any source. Through the years the courts have interpreted it's meaning, multiple times, to be from any source for any reason in any amount. Where in the 16th amendment would it even lead you to believe anything different?
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago
Well, I don't understand why you don't understand. Changing it to "From any source derived" gives the congress wider sources. In this case the source is from income. That doesn't change the fact that the percentage level of taxation should be uniform throughout all income levels to really make it constitutional. ie, A flat income tax or National Sales tax. Not a graduated income tax.
mickeysears 2 years ago
There is nothing in it that states direct taxes have to be uniform. It states "duties, imposts, and excises" (indirect tax) has to be uniform, not direct taxes (income tax)
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago
So in the context that you are picking out a specific and unknown number of people to apply a DIRECT TAX in order to pay for another bill or law on a whim or because it's politically acceptable would be totally unconstitutional without first taking a census and getting a set number of those to be taxed. And that can only happen every 10 years.
mickeysears 2 years ago
Again. 16th amendment. The constitution didn't end in 1789. There is an open amendment process.
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago
But no. See I asked for YOU to explain to me. Instead you don't actually know. That's why you make the ad hominem attack. You have to resort to logically fallacious reasoning instead of providing examples to support your CLAIM. And it is a claim.
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago
One last thing. I think it would help your case if your arguments did not all amount to "You're totally wrong in every way about everything. I can't believe you're so ignorant. I don't have to prove anything to you you're so ignorant. Maybe if you read the constitution and listen to Alex Jones you'd actually know something."
CaptainNeatbeard's request for a direct answer is an opportunity to prove yourself. You aren't getting anywhere by refusing it.
LilAlfiq 2 years ago
But don't worry. If I was like you and didn't have the answer I'd be scared to respond, too.
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago
Did you not even think about what I wrote for even one nanosecond?! Quick review: YOU (jwka2001) are the one who brought up eugenics. You claimed that eugenics is a progressive and socialist invention, and that is "100% evil". I am not advocating a mandatory eugenics program, I am disputing your claim of "100% evil".
Are train cars a form of genocide and 100% evil because they brought jews to concentration camps? How can you allow rail transportation while knowing this TRUTH about it?
LilAlfiq 2 years ago
Good point about 100% evil. While people largely attribute eugenics to Darwin, especially because of social darwinism. This is a misunderstanding, though. Darwin's understanding of Eugenics was more to diversify because many in his family were married to their first cousins of a different family. So after a couple generations these two families would need to diversify their genes. The term eugenics didn't even appear until after his death.
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago
Basically, Darwin's eugenics program was more about strengthening the species. He noted, also, that it would be a detriment to selectively breed based on strength because this would breed out the sympathy gene so vital to our survival.
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago
...continued: As I have already told you, it CAN be used for the benefit of mankind: reducing the prevalence of hereditary diseases. Don't blame IT, blame the evil people who've [ab]used it.
Oh, I'm afraid my answer to your very first question for me somehow ended up in the wrong line of comments. I said that I have noticed you saying that poor people are all poor because they're lazy. But reality differs from that American Dreamworld.
LilAlfiq 2 years ago
(continued) and how someone cannot at least respect this form of government/free markets its beyond me. EVERY time socialism is introduced into a country the country begins to decline, these are facts. Every time Capitalism/free markets are put into a country it thrives. Its pointless to keep this conversation going, i hope you look into this, but i feel you wont. Best of luck hating people who are successful, and are out to get you ..lol seriously wtf is wrong with you fucks.
jwka2001 2 years ago
Next time instead of telling people to "look at the FUCKING constitution" why don't you take their advice. You say every time socialism has been introduced into a country it begins to decline and say it's a fact without providing any sort of evidence. That doesn't make it a fact that makes it a claim. Historically you're incorrect. In fact one of the key factors of modern western nations is socialism. Military, roads, public schools, police, fire fighters. All socialist programs.
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago 2
china's rise from 3rd world with capitalism. Europe's decline when it started putting socalistic laws in. Look at there labor laws, every worker cannot work more than 34 hours a week, must get 6 weeks off etc. Those only hurt economy and people's standard of living. Limiting peoples hours they can work so that would stop 'the evil companies' when really just stopping pay increases.
jwka2001 2 years ago
You say that Europe's decline started with socialistic laws yet MOST OF EUROPE has a higher standard of living than we do. Their workers are also, proportionately, more productive than American workers because of the support of the worker, much like we used to have in this country. You keep citing what you like to call "facts" yet you don't really understand the context of those facts. Additionally, you still haven't explained how direct taxes are unconstitutional.
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago
"china's rise from 3rd world with capitalism" lolz. China has a TOTALLY planned economy.
Everything is regulated. Its illegal to even make radios that can pick up certain frequencies FFS. Innovation is almost 0, intellectual property is not protected.
So Europe is in decline because of socialism, even though its FAR FAR to the right of China. But china is growing at 8% a year because of capitalism?
You've done it again. Made simplest inference on 'gut feeling' & what sum1 like HTWW says.
CmdrTobs 2 years ago
Or maybe more accurately we need to cite historical examples without understanding their context.
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago
If it wasn't for American business and American consumers, China would still be a shit hole country with crumbling buildings and lead paint toys. And yet, they still are. I guess that's the plan.
mickeysears 2 years ago
Eh? What was that comment for? Do you think I am from china? Was that meant to 'hurt' my 'feelings' or something bizarre like that. It was a repy to non-sense you did'nt even say.
Explain why he is right. Or concur why he is wrong. flippant comments like that are bizarre.
Also I am still waiting to know why almost 100% of IBM clone PC's running Windows is not a monopoly?
Even of the total PC market apple is 9% with MacOS and 91% IBM ALL running Windows. Linux use is < error on the numbers
CmdrTobs 2 years ago
You see jwka, your big problem is that you want to live in a world of black and white where only the free market and socialism exist. A close examination of reality, however, would show you that we have an amalgam of the two but are mostly capitalist. The reason we have an amalgam of capitalism and socialism is that they work as a balance on each other to even things out. Tell you what. Why don't you provide me an example of a country that declined specifically because of socialism.
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago 2
lol wow u must really know me,, if it was up to me just free markets cause i've seen what its done in poor countries.Seriously i cannot believe how u think, u obviously believe in the state and need to be taken care of. Russia declined from socialism, look at the lines for basic things. Once it went to more of a capitalistic nation look at how it has risen from its poverty. How can u not see it.. Im done talking to you, cause you'll never grasp basic concepts
jwka2001 2 years ago
What're you talking about? You're right. I'll never grasp the concepts you're trying to advocate because they're too simplistic. They think that one thing is the simple cause of problems. You think socialism killed the USSR? Do a little research. You know...like your Hitler research. One cause was a decline in oil production. Another was an economy focused on heavy industry in a world that began asking for more consumer products. Combine that with an increase in military spending.
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago
Like I said days ago 'lego simple'. Its a common theme in certain political ideologies.
1) Construct a load of principles about how the word works, using nothing but linear equations.
2)Use cognitive dissidence to bridge ideas that cannot be reconciled in anyway from your linear assumptions.
You end up with a load simple views that are attractive to many becuase they can understand them and they obey 'comon sense'
-> credit crunch = people not paying mortgages.
... I could go on.....
CmdrTobs 2 years ago
Don't forget that they have to tell people how it's unconstitutional while making it apparent that they haven't read the Constitution.
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago
@CaptainNeatbeard socialism never can work. it drains mans competative spirit and caters to the lowest common denominater. It has always turned the middle class into peasants. Why should one strive for excellence if they do not receive proper compensation. Its only the "little men" who fall for this.
Trashfished 2 years ago
Comment removed
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago
@Trashfished Ok. Thanks for the platitude. I haven't been advocating socialism.
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago
I've been advocating the reality that we are a combination of the two.
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago
Its fucking pointless with some of you. Look at the FUCKING constitution, where does it say all this stuff you mention. Look this shit up before you start spouting about how we need to tax 1 group of individuals and not another, seriously thats classism and seriously i thought we'd be behind this by now in our history. Free markets/liberty etc has given the world more freedom, more wealth, more people out of poverty than any other system. Why fuck with it if its not broke.
jwka2001 2 years ago
America's roads, highways, sewers, bridges, aqueducts, dams, levees and power grid are already crumbling due to maintenance budget cuts; and furious backlash to any taxes intended to expand those budgets.
Aint libertarianism grand?
Haydronn 2 years ago 2
jkwa has a point. Socialist shit like healthcare income tax and homless shelters are horrible ideas. Why would anyone bother paying rent every month if there is a place that will house them FOR FREE?
Haydronn 2 years ago
Its pathetic we live in an age where people think in terms of groups, fucking pathetic. But then again socialist/progressives usually think in groups cause thats all they see. But their lucky they live in America where our freedom allows them to think there flawed thoughts, in socialist countries, free thinkers tend to be killed for beliefs that are contrary to the state.
jwka2001 2 years ago
jwka2001: classic social darwinist
LilAlfiq 2 years ago
how am i a social Darwinist. I do believe in evolution yes, its simple to see. And i do agree that human beings also evolve since were a part of nature, but i dont agree with what you say in that one race or class is better than another. Where do you get this, after i've just given sentence after sentence below about how we need to think in terms of individuals and not groups and not tax 1 group over another, is beyond me. You obviously dont read.
jwka2001 2 years ago
Social darwinism IS NOT evolution.
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago
Libertarians believe in individuals and maximum freedom, how someone can be against that, is beyond me.
jwka2001 2 years ago
BTW it was progressive/socialist who gave us the idea of Social Darwinism. It was called Eugenics, but people objected since its 100% evil. It was later changed into Planned Parenthood. Of course Nazi's had its own Eugenics with the jews, and we know how that went. Its why PP is always in ghetto neighborhoods, the owners and sponsors of these frequently talk about wanting to kill minorities. Look it up its fucked up evil shit, look up ENDGAME on youtube it talks about it.
jwka2001 2 years ago
Planned Parenthood's are everywhere.. Shot, they even have some in downtown DC off of K street which is one of the highest areas to live. So while a lot of poor might use them because they are cheap that doesnt mean that the middle and upper class arent in their either...
nuumskee 2 years ago 4
yea the history i listed above is all 100% true, they even had shit written down decades ago talking about how they'd get minorities to help run it to help get more people in. Of course abortion is always a choice, but this info should be noted.
jwka2001 2 years ago
First,
Social Darwinism and eugenics are two separate ideologies.
Second,
Eugenics was not widely regarded as pure evil until AFTER the world learned of its use as a weapon for Nazi genocide.
Third,
100% evil? I suppose a black & white worldview befits a zealot such as yourself; but eugenics, while arguably unethical in application, has many positive uses. I wouldn't think 'pure evil' would so effective in... say... reducing the occurrence of thalassemia in Cyprus.
LilAlfiq 2 years ago 2
'Positive uses'? What is a positive use to commit a form of genocide? Wtf is wrong with you man, sure people can have abortions, people should have that choice, but the thought that one race should be more powerful than another based on this stupid belief of Eugenics and Social Darwinism. Lol in fact Darwin later did his own form of Eugenics on his family and researchers later on, but that only formed babies with major health problems. How can u possibly be for that.
jwka2001 2 years ago
Did I not make myself clear? Genocide is NOT the one and only possible application of eugenics. That's like saying that the sole purpose of animal breeding is to wipe out all but one breed of dog. Eugenics CAN be used that way, it most certainly HAS been used that way, but it doesn't always HAVE to be used that way. But most people will not see past its association with the Holocaust.
LilAlfiq 2 years ago
Fourth,
How could the social Darwinist and founder of eugenics be a "socialist" whilst opposing welfare.
And finally, you really need to learn the difference between "there", "their" and "they're"; as well as "its" and "it's".
LilAlfiq 2 years ago 2
yes the whole there,their thing is a mistake yea cause im lazy,,lol But on your ideas on social Darwinism/eugenics is 100% wrong man, sure u know the basic 'idea' on what they are, but the history is all off. Anyways i hope you look into it, Youtube the video ENDGAME by alex jones, its pretty good. But you wont look into it cause of your slanted views. But thats ok. Stay the way you are.
jwka2001 2 years ago
Again with the "100%"... my, how adamant you are; it makes sense that you would follow that apocalyptic prophet Jones. But he is too full of assumptions for me, I am not one for faith.
LilAlfiq 2 years ago
Nothing worse to society than mob rule. So many scientists, so many free thinkers, people ahead of their time killed simply cause of 'mob mentality'. Nothing like the majority screwing over the minority. Only through the nature of free markets, free thinking and speech can mankind truly evolve, never when just the mob has the power, but also when the minorities do , (race or class based) Thinking other than this is a form of an ISM(racism/classism etc) and is group think and that is evil
jwka2001 2 years ago
I know it 'feels' right to tax the rich, but is it right? Should 1 group who for no other reason than being rich pay for something they might disagree with?
Seriously whats wrong with you people, your no better than racists, who wouldnt let blacks sit where whites do, cause they are 'different' we are NOT different, we are individuals. And until you start thinking in terms of individuals and not in groups (man/woman/white/black/rich/poor) the sooner racism/classism will stop.
jwka2001 2 years ago
well, i don't see any problems with taxing the rich, because, after all, when you make over 10 million dollars a year you can't spend it ALL, even Paul Allen doesn't buy a new yacht every year. the rich have money to burn, and if their companies raise prices to compensate then the consumers will buy the cheaper products.
70mstang 2 years ago 2
I do not hate the rich. I'm just stating fact. They have loopholes on top loopholes that saves them money.
chapie9 2 years ago 2
there is loop holes you can do as well, they just have money to hire people who know them,,,,,,,Lots of loopholes,,
jwka2001 2 years ago
Top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes
Top 10% pay 70%
Top 50% pay 97%
Questions:
Do we tax people simply cause they have money and others who dont? Do we tax success? How much should the rich be taxed? Should everyone be treated equal and like individuals, or do we have taxes based on class. Have the rich paid enough? Should hard working people be taxed more than lazier people? Do you hate rich people simply for being rich and successful and you are not rich nor successful?
jwka2001 2 years ago
well think of it this way jwka2001, if we made taxes a flat rate for everyone then those who make less than that and there are people like that would go to jail because they can't make that sort of money. those who make just a bit more than that would have a ton of their money go just to that and little left for themselves and those who make a shitload of money and can basically buy their own island and call it richopolis for all they care pay the same amount which is fucking pennies to them.
thuzan117 2 years ago 4
Well if it was legal there would be no income tax due to it being illegal. And if taxes were equal no one would pay cause there so high, so they mob mentality on the EVIL rich people ..... and since there such a small minority,, The gov knows that you hate rich people,, thats why they get taxed and people like you are like ' yea im poor there not, let them pay for the programs ill be using' Dont think of it in terms of money, think in terms of individuals,, what your thinking know is wrong,,
jwka2001 2 years ago
You're so adamant that taxing the rich means you hate rich people. It's not so but nice strawman argument.
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago 5
I like the way you think if income tax did not exist there would be a society..... If there was no income tax for the last 300yrs the country would look like Somalia at worst or the UAE at the very best.
Also with half the innovations as most of the academics in the world actually have to spend all their time thinking to making breakthroughs using public books rather than trying to collect money.
CmdrTobs 2 years ago
which is why we have an income tax that scales to income because if we didn't we would make enemies of everyone who isn't wealthy which happens to be most of the country. by the way not all wealthy people earned that money, many just inherit it from a relative who earned it and do minimal work while those who do most of the work never get a penny more than they ever do. its not communism what i suggest, its not socialist its being fair.
thuzan117 2 years ago 2
You keep reciting those statistics taht the top 1% pay 40% and so on. Yet you keep failing to acknowledge that the top 1%, who pay 40%, own 71% of the wealth. The top 10% own 90% of the wealth and a pay 68% of the taxes. You seem to think it's fair that those who own 71% of the wealth only pay 40% of the taxes.
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago 5
You do realise earlier you said the rich should be taxed less to encourage jobs and reward success yet make statements about fairness?
"Should hard working people be taxed more than lazier people?" you say that like in our society there is a strong correlation.
There is from 0-25K after 25K being a different skin colour/gender/area improves you wage more than hard work.
You are filled with lego simple ideas. Poor = don't work hard. You need to update yourself with the state of reality.
CmdrTobs 2 years ago 2
Out of of one doller , the middle class paid more than the million and billionairs. They paid more because , they make trillions more than we do. taxing them would hurt nothing but there pride.
chapie9 2 years ago
Why is being successful a reason to be taxed more. Shouldnt everyone be treated equally, or should 1 group be treated better than another? And why?
jwka2001 2 years ago
You keep claiming that the rich are taxed unreasonably and that everyone should be taxed equally yet you favor NOT taxing everyone equally. You favor giving tax breaks to people who do not need them. You favor letting the poor pay a disproportionate amount of the wealth. All you're doing is citing hypocrisy.
CaptainNeatbeard 2 years ago 3
Its not about treating a group better. You are living in a fairly land in which intrest and a whole other bunch of fancial mechanisms don't exsit.
You are assuming the rich have one income stream just like the poor and have the same out goings like the poor only scaled up.
I actually agree with you if the world actually worked how you thought but it DOES NOT.
We have a society constantly growing richer at the top. The fed prints money so there is any cash for the bottom 70%.
CmdrTobs 2 years ago
I would have to say don't tax the rich more keep it equal.
dooooodeses 2 years ago
equal and fair :P
jwka2001 2 years ago
damn commies!
Pull0utBoy 2 years ago
For the last 8 years ,the middle class and working poor paid moore taxes per doller than the rich. ITS THERE TURN TO PAY.
chapie9 2 years ago
top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes, the top 10% pay 70% of the income taxes, and the top 50% pay 97% of all taxes, how do the poor/middle class pay more in taxes each year? Why is simply being rich/successful a reason enough to tax someone. Is that how you think, if someone is successful and your not, tax them back down to your level?
jwka2001 2 years ago
Imagine you're making over $200K a year. That is 10 times more than the poverty level. Now, what is more sufficient? Helping those that struggle to get ahead or $500 dinners and fancy cars? Oh but you're rich so you must have worked soooo hard for that money.
bcbowar50 2 years ago 2
Heh, people that make $200k rarely go to $500 dinners, I can't even think of a place that has $500 dinners.
jetfighter2011 2 years ago