I think thats too many zeros, if your trying to say 7.4 Trillion, I believe its like this:
7,400,000,000,000
7,400,000,000,000
another moronic post by cwjerome. Ugh.
Most new employment is caused by corporations. Rich people do not hire them. Just because the rich own an overwelming amount of the corporations does not mean that they are the corporations. The rich didnot create these corporations, the corporations created them. The rich contribute nothing to society, as they do not produce anything.
The only people the rich ever hire are their servants.
Digiram, I do thank the working class... I respect everyone. Some don't, as evidenced by envious ignorance such as miketheidiot. What I'm saying is (besides the fact that the rich pay practically all the taxes), it's people who start with something and make even more that has grown the pie and helped everyone. The people who create wealth, the people who have the ideas, ambition, and yeah a little luck to make new products, grow businesses, and create jobs. If it wasn't for people like this creating wealth and a higher standard of living -and getting rich in the process- we'd be as poor as any African nation.
I have nothing but good things to say about the working class and their contributions, I just think the "rich" get a raw deal from the left-wing kooks.
I have nothing but good things to say about the working class and their contributions, I just think the "rich" get a raw deal from the left-wing kooks.
The wealthly don't do this though. Corporations do. The wealthly control the corporations and exploit them. All the creativity, new products and such come from the bottom of the corporations. The rich do not do r&d.
Everyone is falling for the Bush speak.
There are two issues twisted together.
1) A fair tax cut based on taxes paid.
2) A tax cut designed to best stimulate the economy.
Bush did #1, while claiming #2.
Most experts believe doing #2 would have been the correct decision.
There are two issues twisted together.
1) A fair tax cut based on taxes paid.
2) A tax cut designed to best stimulate the economy.
Bush did #1, while claiming #2.
Most experts believe doing #2 would have been the correct decision.
Everyone across the board got a tax cut, yes, but you are falling for the rhetoric over substance.
But now dividends are taxed like capital gains: How many poor people own stock? Not very many. How many rich people own stocks? wow.. a lot more. That translates into millions for fat-cat CEOs. I might save $10 on my 200 shares of pfizer, whoopdefukindoo, the Bush family saves millions.
Estate tax being eliminated. Already was a $1 million exemption. That probably covers 90% of US families. Now its being eliminated, so Bush and his fellow rich bastard friends (Kenny-Boy Lay of Enron for example) can protect their fortune.
Bush is fiscally conservative with HIS money. Not ours.
But now dividends are taxed like capital gains: How many poor people own stock? Not very many. How many rich people own stocks? wow.. a lot more. That translates into millions for fat-cat CEOs. I might save $10 on my 200 shares of pfizer, whoopdefukindoo, the Bush family saves millions.
Estate tax being eliminated. Already was a $1 million exemption. That probably covers 90% of US families. Now its being eliminated, so Bush and his fellow rich bastard friends (Kenny-Boy Lay of Enron for example) can protect their fortune.
Bush is fiscally conservative with HIS money. Not ours.
If you continue to steal the successful people's wealth, they will leave
This sums it up. The very successful people are not tied to 9-5 jobs like we are making mortgage payments and living paycheck to paycheck. They are liquid and mobile. If you go up to Mr. LotsaBux and tell him, "I'm John Kerry and I'm going to raise your taxes even more than the 50% federal, state, and local that you are paying now, " he will leave the country taking all of his wealth with him. If you go up to Mr. JoeAmerica and raise his taxes, he will have no choice but to cut back on his spending and savings and pay the higher taxes.
Very successful people are wealthy for a reason - they know how to stay wealthy and avoid unfair taxation. All raising taxes for the "evil, greedy, rich" people will do is raise taxes for us - the middle class.
This sums it up. The very successful people are not tied to 9-5 jobs like we are making mortgage payments and living paycheck to paycheck. They are liquid and mobile. If you go up to Mr. LotsaBux and tell him, "I'm John Kerry and I'm going to raise your taxes even more than the 50% federal, state, and local that you are paying now, " he will leave the country taking all of his wealth with him. If you go up to Mr. JoeAmerica and raise his taxes, he will have no choice but to cut back on his spending and savings and pay the higher taxes.
Very successful people are wealthy for a reason - they know how to stay wealthy and avoid unfair taxation. All raising taxes for the "evil, greedy, rich" people will do is raise taxes for us - the middle class.
* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1.
* The sixth would pay $3.
* The seventh $7.
* The eighth $12.
* The ninth $18.
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
This argument is fundementally flawed. To take your example and use it to correct yourself: There are more men in the lower and middle income class so by numbers they pay more in or equally more to those in the more wealthy class. In otherwords individually they pay less but when lumped together they pay more or an equal amount.
* The fifth would pay $1.
* The sixth would pay $3.
* The seventh $7.
* The eighth $12.
* The ninth $18.
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
This argument is fundementally flawed. To take your example and use it to correct yourself: There are more men in the lower and middle income class so by numbers they pay more in or equally more to those in the more wealthy class. In otherwords individually they pay less but when lumped together they pay more or an equal amount.
We are individuals!!! This is not socialism where all of the fruits of our labor are pooled together and divided up according to some bureaucrat's decision.
There will ALWAYS be more people in the lower class than the upper class. That is the way it works. But thanks to capitalism, everyone has the opportunity to move up. The desire to better oneself is what drives innovation and capitalism. What's the incentive to innovate and advance if all you end up doing is giving it back to the government?
You are confusing opportunity with success. Not everyone succeeds. But as people keep more of their money, they will create more jobs and more opportunities for people of lesser skills.
Each individual should bear the same amount of financial burden and impact as another. A person that makes low wages will be hit just as hard by taxes as a person that makes millions. Why because it is a percentage of their income and their ability to pay. It is what is fair. It may not be fair in total amount paid but it is fair in percentage. There is no way around it, even if your sent out tax bills in dollars it would have to be that way. Ironically, socialism and communism would be the only solution to this since, ideally everyone would make the same and everyone would pay the same. But we all know you are against that, and I personally don't subscribe to the Russian perspective of communisim or socialism. So ixnay on that one.
Unlike you money for many is not the only reason to innovate and advance. Greed doth not make a human spirit.
That sounds fair. However, our system is not set up like that. It is a graduated tax system where the more you make, the higher the percentage you pay. That is why Kerry says we will only raise the taxes of the very successful people making over $200K. Say a 10% flat tax. If you make $10,000/year, you pay $1,000. If you make $1,000,000/year, you pay $10,000. Currently, if you make $10,000/year, you pay almost nothing and if you make $1,000,000/year you pay $500,000. That is not fair. A possibly better tax would be a pure consumption tax. You only pay for what you buy. Since the very successful people will consume more, they will pay more in taxes.
Yes, the only other reason to innovate other than profit is survival.
Again it boils down to shared burden. I neglected to mention there is a limit to how much burden you can place on the lower class and this is shown by the simple fact that you can only tax the lower class so much before you tax them to the grave. This is not the same with the upper class. They have more financial abilities and resources. And therefore can bear a larger burden to equal out the, for lack of a better word, sticker shock or emotional toll of their taxes.
To your benefit I would agree with a flat tax in principal. But i don't think it will work because there is no way you could generate enough money, while avoiding a huge and dispropotionate sticker shock on the lower class, and still fund the government with out having a tiered system like we have now.
A consumption tax would be a invitation to fiscal disaster. If we hit a strong recession spending goes down and there goes our budget. For me as I see it a consumption tax is nothing more than a rollercoaster of surplusses and deficits which does nothing for the stability of the economy or the stock market.
But that's not my problem. It's my money. If I fell so inclined I may donate to charities to help the poor people, but it should be my decision, not the government's.
Fund government?! For what? Government should be this tiny referee with big a whistle (military). That's all. Other than military, what needs funding? Slash all of the government programs. Slash welfare. Slash social security. Slash medicare. I don't mind paying my taxes to fund the latest military weapons. I have a very hard time paying my taxes to fund welfare or publik skule education or nonsense like that.
A consumption tax would have to go hand-in-hand with a very fiscally responsible government. Neither the Republicans or Democrats have a plan for that, unfortunately. There would not be any deficits, just periods of surpluses and more surpluses which would be given back to us, the taxpayers. Just look at what Alaska does - the government give checks to their residents based on oil profits. Amazing, a government actually returning surpluses back to the people.
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
Ah hell, we don't need roads and schools. We don't need any safeguards from the government such as the FDA. Who cares if our food is safe? Who cares if people can afford an education....if they can't afford a "private" education, they get none. I don't like the social programs and I tend to agree that they need to be cut. Seeing (local) counties in West Virginia that have 43% of the people having a main source of income from SS/SSI is mind boggling...considering that many of these people say that they are "disabled" but can sitll manage to take the four wheeler into the mountains and ride all day long (sickening).
Did you get a public education?
I would guess not based on your answer above....especially the deliberate mis-spelling of "public school".
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter