Reply With Quote
Ask yourself this.
How much wealth redistribution is enough?
When does it stop?
So you're against any form of progressive taxation? And if you are only for a flat tax, you realize that's "unfair" in the sense of how much each dollar is worth to a person?Finally, arguing for a flat tax seems to be akin to arguing that we should legalize all drugs. It's just a nonstarter. I haven't seen one policy that explains how a flat tax could even pay for half of our current spending without a severe strain on the middle class and below.Just look at your own posts WC... You have no sympathy for the lower classes, saying they have to have "skin in the game" and usually referring to them as lazy, cheaters etc etc, but sympathize with the rich household that has to give up a maid. And you wonder why there's class warfare?
Ask yourself this.
How much wealth redistribution is enough?
When does it stop?
Slippery slope strawman bull . 5% more is enough if we're simply talking fed income tax rates on the highest bracket of earners.
????
The reality is, everyone, regardless of how much they make is going to feel the 2% payroll tax increase so that is irrelevant.
The person making 300k per year will see a 4.6% tax increase on 50k, which is $2300.
The person making 350k taxes will increase $4600
400K = $6900
450k = $9100
and so on and so on. Not too much to ask when we are $16T in debt.
class warfare? You are so ing gullible. not even the repugs are using that line anymore because not enough people were stupid enough to buy it.
Once again, as I pointed out. We are calculating this differently. You are calculating the demonrats idea, I am calculating the all or nothing.
Or, because it's so blatantly obvious, it doesn't need to be said to intelligent people.
explain all or nothing rates. i am calculating reality.
Sorry. I'm done wasting my time with you.
I would know what?
BTW, don't have an Roomba yet...
Did you mean Robama?
Considering that the wealth redistribution in America over the past two decades has gone upwards, rather than downwards, I might ask you the same question. How much of a percentage of America's income should the top 1% get?
Really?
I didn't know we were taxing the poor and giving to the rich on an ongoing basis. And if you recall, I have been against all the bailouts, corn subsidies, energy subsidies etc. which I think are the only things you can claim as going to the rich, when it comes to redistribution.
As for a percentage of income? It doesn't matter. GNP, GDI, GDP, etc. are not static. If the poor living on handouts would get off their duffs and work any available job, those numbers would increase.
I don't see how you can say the percentage of income doesn't matter. Why do you think over the past 30/40 years, that wealth has grown moreso with the rich than the middle class? Are you saying that you think 98% of America is lazy, and only the 2% are the hard workers?
Tell me WC, do you think wage stagnation doesn't matter as long as the GDP is rising? Don't you think we might have a better economy if more money were in the hands of those who would be more likely to spend it?
And again, we see where your sympathies lie.
Appearances aren't everything.
Because since the 60's, we have had a welfare system that too many are complacent being a part of.
No.
I'm saying a significant part of America has no motivation to better themselves.
Sure it matters. It has mniothign to do with the rich though. I see it as an ignorant perception and convenient scapegoat.
Absolutely. But it doesn't need to be taken away from the others who may simply use it in other ways.
Yet you don't address it at all. Want more wealth and jobs here? Find a way to stop exporting our jobs overseas. Taxing the rich is not going to fix the employment problem.
What does that even mean?
Sure it does. Even if GDP is rising, if it's only going to the richest people, then that's not really effective/useful.
The two go somewhat hand-in-hand, don't they? If middle class wages ROSE, then you would have less people who need/qualify for that welfare.
What percentage? The amount on welfare? Because the number of people with wages that have stayed stagnant over the past few years is a lot higher than those on welfare.
How can it have nothing to do with the rich? The rich are the "job creators", right? So they're the ones in charge of determining salaries. As mentioned before, CEOs and other management figures have seen THEIR salaries raise greatly. So how come the "little guy" isn't seeing that? What's your reasoning?
I know you also didn't agree with the bailout and tax loopholes out there, but as long as they are still out there, we're already taking some from the middle class and giving it to the rich. As long as those are around, I'm fine with higher taxes.
Look at it this way... when people talk about capital gains tax compared to income tax, no one talks about it as redistributing from the lower to the upper classes. It's always talked about as "money for the job creators". We're losing tax money off of them, and look at all the people like yourself who are saying that the middle class should have to kick in more instead.
Who are the people who are exporting jobs overseas? Is it the small businesses? Hm... nope. It's the big corporations who have that ability. Maybe if becoming a CEO weren't so inviting, more people would stay as a smaller business!
What's that?
Good question how much money do you give job creators before they start creating jobs
It does nothing towards solving our debt problem.
How does taxing the rich increase the wages of everyone else?
The extra $1 trillion over 10 years would help to pay for Bush's re ed trip into Iraq.
Really? Are you going to suggest the debt problem can only be solved on the spending side? The consensus is we need $4t debt reduction over 10 years . This gets us 1/4 of the way.
Well,unfortunately the rich are not playing along with that whole trickle down thing they sold us so now were having to resort to confiscation and redistribution? Just think if they would have played along with capitalism and the invisible hand, this all could have been avoided.
By not driving us even further into debt that will eventually have to be paid, so an indirect benefit to the people.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions