The rich are getting richer

[StormRider]

Have you guys ever watched Survivor? In every season there are always some lazy people who do nothing but lie around on the beach all day. This always causes resentment among the people who work their butt off. This happens every season. You cannot create a society in which you mandate everybody gets an equal share because this will cause major strife and resentment against the people who just don't work. In the end, a lot of people would just stop working hard because they are tired of supporting all the people who just slack off and live off the hard work of others. This society would just have a mediocre standard of living. Look at the standard of living between every capitalist society and every communist society.

The current capitalist US society isn't perfect. In my opinion, it needs some tweaking. I like the idea of a capitalist society that rewards hard work while providing a socialist safety net for those less fortunate.

The sad fact is that life isn't fair. But all I want is an opportunity -- the possibility that my hard work will be rewarded. But I also know that this isn't a guarantee that my hard work will always be rewarded. But all I want is a chance.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: StormRider
Have you guys ever watched Survivor? In every season there are always some lazy people who do nothing but lie around on the beach all day. This always causes resentment among the people who work their butt off. This happens every season. You cannot create a society in which you mandate everybody gets an equal share because this will cause major strife and resentment against the people who just don't work. In the end, a lot of people would just stop working hard because they are tired of supporting all the people who just slack off and live off the hard work of others. This society would just have a mediocre standard of living. Look at the standard of living between every capitalist society and every communist society.

The current capitalist US society isn't perfect. In my opinion, it needs some tweaking. I like the idea of a capitalist society that rewards hard work while providing a socialist safety net for those less fortunate.

The sad fact is that life isn't fair. But all I want is an opportunity -- the possibility that my hard work will be rewarded. But I also know that this isn't a guarantee that my hard work will always be rewarded. But all I want is a chance.

Are you suggesting that Americans live in poverty because they're lazy?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: alchemize
Anyone ever watched someone with food stamps check out at a grocery store? If you haven't, it's enlightening.

There's your incentive.

Enlightening in what way?

Enlightening in how it is frittered away on T-Bones and lobster.

Should their diet be restricted to bread and water?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: StormRider
Have you guys ever watched Survivor? In every season there are always some lazy people who do nothing but lie around on the beach all day. This always causes resentment among the people who work their butt off. This happens every season. You cannot create a society in which you mandate everybody gets an equal share because this will cause major strife and resentment against the people who just don't work. In the end, a lot of people would just stop working hard because they are tired of supporting all the people who just slack off and live off the hard work of others. This society would just have a mediocre standard of living. Look at the standard of living between every capitalist society and every communist society.

The current capitalist US society isn't perfect. In my opinion, it needs some tweaking. I like the idea of a capitalist society that rewards hard work while providing a socialist safety net for those less fortunate.

The sad fact is that life isn't fair. But all I want is an opportunity -- the possibility that my hard work will be rewarded. But I also know that this isn't a guarantee that my hard work will always be rewarded. But all I want is a chance.

The wealthiest few percent of the population are paying less in tax now than they have in 40 years. As a result, the burden of tax has shifted onto the MIDDLE CLASS. What this means is that the quality of life of the majority of people in the country -- people like you, i.e., the so-called middle class -- has declined. More equal distribution means making multi-billionaires like Richard Scaife and multimillionaires like George Bush pay more in tax. It does not mean making people like you (assuming you are of the middle class) pay more tax.

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: StormRider
Have you guys ever watched Survivor? In every season there are always some lazy people who do nothing but lie around on the beach all day. This always causes resentment among the people who work their butt off. This happens every season. You cannot create a society in which you mandate everybody gets an equal share because this will cause major strife and resentment against the people who just don't work. In the end, a lot of people would just stop working hard because they are tired of supporting all the people who just slack off and live off the hard work of others. This society would just have a mediocre standard of living. Look at the standard of living between every capitalist society and every communist society.

The current capitalist US society isn't perfect. In my opinion, it needs some tweaking. I like the idea of a capitalist society that rewards hard work while providing a socialist safety net for those less fortunate.

The sad fact is that life isn't fair. But all I want is an opportunity -- the possibility that my hard work will be rewarded. But I also know that this isn't a guarantee that my hard work will always be rewarded. But all I want is a chance.

Are you suggesting that Americans live in poverty because they're lazy?

Nope. Did you read the bolded line? There are lots of hard working people who are poor or middle class. Hard work isn't a guarantee unfortunately. But all these hard working people do have a chance.

However, if you create a society where an equal share is "forced" upon everyone then no one has a chance (except for the corrupt party officials). And I guarantee you that this society will have a much overall lower standard of living than the current society.

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: StormRider
Have you guys ever watched Survivor? In every season there are always some lazy people who do nothing but lie around on the beach all day. This always causes resentment among the people who work their butt off. This happens every season. You cannot create a society in which you mandate everybody gets an equal share because this will cause major strife and resentment against the people who just don't work. In the end, a lot of people would just stop working hard because they are tired of supporting all the people who just slack off and live off the hard work of others. This society would just have a mediocre standard of living. Look at the standard of living between every capitalist society and every communist society.

The current capitalist US society isn't perfect. In my opinion, it needs some tweaking. I like the idea of a capitalist society that rewards hard work while providing a socialist safety net for those less fortunate.

The sad fact is that life isn't fair. But all I want is an opportunity -- the possibility that my hard work will be rewarded. But I also know that this isn't a guarantee that my hard work will always be rewarded. But all I want is a chance.

The wealthiest few percent of the population are paying less in tax now than they have in 40 years. As a result, the burden of tax has shifted onto the MIDDLE CLASS. What this means is that the quality of life of the majority of people in the country -- people like you, i.e., the so-called middle class -- has declined. More equal distribution means making multi-billionaires like Richard Scaife and multimillionaires like George Bush pay more in tax. It does not mean making people like you (assuming you are of the middle class) pay more tax.

This is what I meant when I said that I agree our current system might need some "tweaking"

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
It kind of makes sense that the poor generally stay poor and the rich tend to stay rich. When you think about it, you learn a lot of your financial knowledge from your parents. If your parents have poor spending/saving habits, then chances are that you will too. Every now and then someone will break the mold but for the most part, it stays the same.

I hate this argument and generalization. It's often used in conjunction with social darwinist viewpoins. Do you have any evidence that most kids have the same financial knowledge as their parents? No. And if I were to think of what I see, in my experience people often have different attitudes towards money than their parents. I hope you don't think people are poor or rich because of their "financial knowledge." Sure, money management helps at the edges, but most people have certain income based on their job (and some on inheritance) which really has nothing to do with "financial knowledge."

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: alchemize
Anyone ever watched someone with food stamps check out at a grocery store? If you haven't, it's enlightening.

There's your incentive.

Enlightening in what way?

Enlightening in how it is frittered away on T-Bones and lobster.

Speaking of elitists. I suppose in your view they should be restricted to eating cat food and stale bread. :roll:

Anyway, I call BS. I worked in a grocery store when I was in high school. I checked out people using food stamps probably thousands of times. I wasn't keeping score, but I don't remember ever seeing someone buy lobster with food stamps, and I don't remember that much steak. Instead, I remember lots of starches, lots of whatever was on sale, and lots of baby food -- no coincidence since family size affects eligibility.

(And so what if a poor family buys an occasional T-bone? We're not talking prime filet. You can get choice or select T-bones on sale for less than decent hamburger. The thing that ticked me off was watching some food stamp customers using their cash on cigarettes and beer. They were the exception, of course, but if you're looking for over-generalized slurs to dehumanize the poor, you might base them on something legitimate.)

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: alchemize
Anyone ever watched someone with food stamps check out at a grocery store? If you haven't, it's enlightening.

There's your incentive.

Do you despise them? Or is it the fear of knowing you're a paycheck or two or maybe a medical crisis away from being them?

Despise? No, I pity "them", kinda like I pity you.

And I'm a good 26-38 paychecks away from being "them", because I've followed my own advice, even on an 1-income family.

Tell me old wise "BBOND", oh honest one, how many sucks on the govt tit are you away from being one of "them"?

But I've followed the advice you've followed. I worked hard all my life and now I'm enjoying the fruits of my labors.

Where is all the anger coming from? Do you despise me too?

Because you really only have two options.

You either check out early or you become a retiree just like me -- sucking off the government tit in your jargon -- or enjoying those "golden years" we're all promised while being hated by people like yourself for having lived long enough to collect on our investment to society.

I hope you make it. It would be a real shame is fate stepped in and changed all your carefully laid plans.

Well I suppose the difference between you and me is that if fate did step in, then I'd accept it as fate. You'd blame the government for not properly providing for you, as you've been "promised" :roll: So you can sit there and not-so-subtley wish harm on me and my family all you want, but I won't be crying foul - as a previous poster pointed out, "that's life".

And as I've mentioned, I don't despise you, I pity you.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: alchemize
Anyone ever watched someone with food stamps check out at a grocery store? If you haven't, it's enlightening.

There's your incentive.

Do you despise them? Or is it the fear of knowing you're a paycheck or two or maybe a medical crisis away from being them?

Despise? No, I pity "them", kinda like I pity you.

And I'm a good 26-38 paychecks away from being "them", because I've followed my own advice, even on an 1-income family.

Tell me old wise "BBOND", oh honest one, how many sucks on the govt tit are you away from being one of "them"?

But I've followed the advice you've followed. I worked hard all my life and now I'm enjoying the fruits of my labors.

Where is all the anger coming from? Do you despise me too?

Because you really only have two options.

You either check out early or you become a retiree just like me -- sucking off the government tit in your jargon -- or enjoying those "golden years" we're all promised while being hated by people like yourself for having lived long enough to collect on our investment to society.

I hope you make it. It would be a real shame is fate stepped in and changed all your carefully laid plans.

Well I suppose the difference between you and me is that if fate did step in, then I'd accept it as fate. You'd blame the government for not properly providing for you, as you've been "promised" :roll: So you can sit there and not-so-subtley wish harm on me and my family all you want, but I won't be crying foul - as a previous poster pointed out, "that's life".

And as I've mentioned, I don't despise you, I pity you.

I wouldn't wish any harm on anyone. I'm only pointing out that "The Best Laid Plans O' Mice and Men Gang Aft Aglay."

And I don't blame "government". I do blame liars like Bush whose true agenda is shifting even more wealth from us to the "upper" class. And to destroy Social Security with a "plan" which even Bush was forced to admit wouldn't do a damn thing to help and indeed would do irreparable harm.

And the goverment didn't provide for me. I've always provided for myself. And since the government chose to take thousands of dollars per year from my paycheck ostensibly for a retirement benefit I will insist they do just that.

You must have me confused with one of those stereotypes dancing around in your head.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Well I suppose the difference between you and me is that if fate did step in, then I'd accept it as fate. You'd blame the government for not properly providing for you, as you've been "promised" :roll: So you can sit there and not-so-subtley wish harm on me and my family all you want, but I won't be crying foul - as a previous poster pointed out, "that's life".

And as I've mentioned, I don't despise you, I pity you.

I would "blame the government" only to the extent they were responsible, i.e., usually not much. What I would expect from my government is the same thing I expect for everyone in similar circumstances. I expect such a wealthy and (allegedly) civilized and enlightened society to take care of its members who have fallen due to "fate". I expect our government to provide a safety net, to ensure the well-being of those less fortunate than you or me. The measure of a society's worth is what it does for the poor and powerless, not what it does for the rich and powerful.

 

[Riprorin]

Mother Teresa said that "lonliness is the most terrible poverty".

She should know as she worked with the poorest of the poor.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: smc13
The article doesn't actually say that the poor are getting poorer. it says the wealthy are earning more money then they did in '79. You are making the incorrect assumption that the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor. There isn't a fixed total dollar amount.

lets play with numbers. Lets say in 1979 the total amount of money was $100 (just an easy number to work with)

1979 total $100
lowest 20% $1
top 1% $33.1
middle 79% $65.9

Now lets say today the total is $300

2005 Total $300
lowest 20% $2
top 1% $177
middle 79% $121


Obviously the numbers are made up, however this does demonstrate that it is entirely possible for everyone's income levels to increase at the same time with the richest 1% just earning much more then everyone else.

Also, there is nothing in the article that establishes that the richest in '79 are the richest in '2005 and the poorest in '79 are the poorest in '2005. In fact, we know that this isn't the case. The richest American today (Bill Gates) wasn't the richest in '79. His family was wealthy but not at the top 1% if I remember correctly.

too sum up. That the rich are getting richer doesn't mean the poor are getting poorer

the gap between the rich and poor in increasing. wealth is relative. the poor are relatively poorer.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: MantisFistMonk
There is something you can do about it.

Go out there and create wealth for yourself and your family.

Welcome to the United States, a capitalistic system in which you get back as much as you put into it.

what a load of garbage.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: StormRider

Originally posted by: wchou
LIFE'S NOT FAIR LIKE THEY SAY IN SCHOOL, i hate that
It can be if we are willing to make change so it will be fair
rich will always be rich, poor will always be poor
that's a sad fact
Everything taught in school was to make the poor obedient to the rich
Elite school and public school are very different
one teaches you how to control people like their cattles
the other teaches you how to become a good servant for corporation

for example, income taxes are not necessary only sales taxes and those who make the most money should foot most of the bill not us the employee
that is how we who get paid less for a corporation who profits off our labor are screwing us left and right, up and down sort of like milking a cow as dry as dust leaving them barely enough to support their living expenses

People are brainwashed into believing that income taxes are necessary that it helps build road, pay for the government's funding, schools and authority
Don't forget property taxes including school taxes that even if you don't have any kids going to school, you are still liable
They just don't want middle aka low class people to have an easy life
There is no middle, their is only high or low
you are either born rich or born poor

I know a lot of people who were born into poor or middle class families that are now rich.

i know a lot of people who were born into rich families, didn't do sh!t, and are still rich.

 

[SuperTool]

What we need are nice progressive taxes like we had after the war.

 

[smc13]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: StormRider
Have you guys ever watched Survivor? In every season there are always some lazy people who do nothing but lie around on the beach all day. This always causes resentment among the people who work their butt off. This happens every season. You cannot create a society in which you mandate everybody gets an equal share because this will cause major strife and resentment against the people who just don't work. In the end, a lot of people would just stop working hard because they are tired of supporting all the people who just slack off and live off the hard work of others. This society would just have a mediocre standard of living. Look at the standard of living between every capitalist society and every communist society.

The current capitalist US society isn't perfect. In my opinion, it needs some tweaking. I like the idea of a capitalist society that rewards hard work while providing a socialist safety net for those less fortunate.

The sad fact is that life isn't fair. But all I want is an opportunity -- the possibility that my hard work will be rewarded. But I also know that this isn't a guarantee that my hard work will always be rewarded. But all I want is a chance.

The wealthiest few percent of the population are paying less in tax now than they have in 40 years. As a result, the burden of tax has shifted onto the MIDDLE CLASS. What this means is that the quality of life of the majority of people in the country -- people like you, i.e., the so-called middle class -- has declined. More equal distribution means making multi-billionaires like Richard Scaife and multimillionaires like George Bush pay more in tax. It does not mean making people like you (assuming you are of the middle class) pay more tax.

What you are saying isn't true. The wealthiest have a lower tax rate then they have in 40 years. Do they pay less taxes? No. The wealtiest make considerably more now then they did in '79 (see the original post) so they pay more in taxes then they did in '79. True, it is less then they would if the tax rate had stayed the same (though there is no evidence that they would have made as much if the tax rate had stayed as high as it was - so there is no evidence they would have paid more taxes), however they are still paying more taxes.

Quality of life is worse now then it was in 1965? You're kidding, right? We have moved away from manufacturing jobs to service jobs which means we have easier jobs. We have significantly better conviences now then we did in 1965. Microwaves, color TVs, cable and satelite TV. VCRs and dvd recorders/players, music cds and movie dvds, ATMs, computers and game consoles. internet acess, cell phones, etc. How is quality of life worse?

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: StormRider

Originally posted by: wchou
LIFE'S NOT FAIR LIKE THEY SAY IN SCHOOL, i hate that
It can be if we are willing to make change so it will be fair
rich will always be rich, poor will always be poor
that's a sad fact
Everything taught in school was to make the poor obedient to the rich
Elite school and public school are very different
one teaches you how to control people like their cattles
the other teaches you how to become a good servant for corporation

for example, income taxes are not necessary only sales taxes and those who make the most money should foot most of the bill not us the employee
that is how we who get paid less for a corporation who profits off our labor are screwing us left and right, up and down sort of like milking a cow as dry as dust leaving them barely enough to support their living expenses

People are brainwashed into believing that income taxes are necessary that it helps build road, pay for the government's funding, schools and authority
Don't forget property taxes including school taxes that even if you don't have any kids going to school, you are still liable
They just don't want middle aka low class people to have an easy life
There is no middle, their is only high or low
you are either born rich or born poor

I know a lot of people who were born into poor or middle class families that are now rich.

i know a lot of people who were born into rich families, didn't do sh!t, and are still rich.

I call them lucky. In communist societies the same thing happens. They were born into the families of the party leadership.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
What we need are nice progressive taxes like we had after the war.

I agree. Progressive taxation helps balance capitalistic systems.

 

[smc13]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: smc13
The article doesn't actually say that the poor are getting poorer. it says the wealthy are earning more money then they did in '79. You are making the incorrect assumption that the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor. There isn't a fixed total dollar amount.

lets play with numbers. Lets say in 1979 the total amount of money was $100 (just an easy number to work with)

1979 total $100
lowest 20% $1
top 1% $33.1
middle 79% $65.9

Now lets say today the total is $300

2005 Total $300
lowest 20% $2
top 1% $177
middle 79% $121


Obviously the numbers are made up, however this does demonstrate that it is entirely possible for everyone's income levels to increase at the same time with the richest 1% just earning much more then everyone else.

Also, there is nothing in the article that establishes that the richest in '79 are the richest in '2005 and the poorest in '79 are the poorest in '2005. In fact, we know that this isn't the case. The richest American today (Bill Gates) wasn't the richest in '79. His family was wealthy but not at the top 1% if I remember correctly.

too sum up. That the rich are getting richer doesn't mean the poor are getting poorer

the gap between the rich and poor in increasing. wealth is relative. the poor are relatively poorer.

Wealth is relative? HAHAHA. So my $60,000 a year becomes less if someone wins $20,000,000 lottery? How so? I can still buy the same things I could the day before they won the lottery. If I get a 5% raise next year and some millionaire's wealth increases by 10% that makes me poorer? How? If I make 5% more I can buy 5% more goods. What you are talking about is just jealousy. There will always be people richer and people poorer. There is nothing wrong with that. Someone's success doesn't make me poor.

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: SuperTool
What we need are nice progressive taxes like we had after the war.

I agree. Progressive taxation helps balance capitalistic systems.

Don't we already have a progressive tax? We don't want too progressive a tax where you have to pay 50% of what you earn. The rich might make more money but they also incur more expenses too.

For example, as I make more money, I also have incurred more expenses in terms of a big mortgage, etc.

I always thought a somewhat flat tax (with no loop holes and where if you make below a certain amount, you don't have to pay taxes) would be better.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Anyone ever watched someone with food stamps check out at a grocery store? If you haven't, it's enlightening.

There's your incentive.

Yes I have it it always has pissed me off. Most of the people using the stamps are better dressed than I and getting better food such as Filet Mignon steaks with those stamps.

Makes you wonder whether to go up or down and maybe down the ladder is not so bad.

Subsidized by the rich.

Perhaps that is the answer and the Republicans will be OK with it.

After total decimation of the middle class is complete soon the Rich will be 100% subsidizing the poor they helped to make poor.

What a fitting prophecy

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: smc13

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: smc13
The article doesn't actually say that the poor are getting poorer. it says the wealthy are earning more money then they did in '79. You are making the incorrect assumption that the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor. There isn't a fixed total dollar amount.

lets play with numbers. Lets say in 1979 the total amount of money was $100 (just an easy number to work with)

1979 total $100
lowest 20% $1
top 1% $33.1
middle 79% $65.9

Now lets say today the total is $300

2005 Total $300
lowest 20% $2
top 1% $177
middle 79% $121


Obviously the numbers are made up, however this does demonstrate that it is entirely possible for everyone's income levels to increase at the same time with the richest 1% just earning much more then everyone else.

Also, there is nothing in the article that establishes that the richest in '79 are the richest in '2005 and the poorest in '79 are the poorest in '2005. In fact, we know that this isn't the case. The richest American today (Bill Gates) wasn't the richest in '79. His family was wealthy but not at the top 1% if I remember correctly.

too sum up. That the rich are getting richer doesn't mean the poor are getting poorer

the gap between the rich and poor in increasing. wealth is relative. the poor are relatively poorer.

Wealth is relative? HAHAHA. So my $60,000 a year becomes less if someone wins $20,000,000 lottery? How so? I can still buy the same things I could the day before they won the lottery. If I get a 5% raise next year and some millionaire's wealth increases by 10% that makes me poorer? How? If I make 5% more I can buy 5% more goods. What you are talking about is just jealousy. There will always be people richer and people poorer. There is nothing wrong with that. Someone's success doesn't make me poor.

it not that hard a concept to understand. sure you can buy as much, but everyone else can buy much more.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: smc13

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: StormRider
Have you guys ever watched Survivor? In every season there are always some lazy people who do nothing but lie around on the beach all day. This always causes resentment among the people who work their butt off. This happens every season. You cannot create a society in which you mandate everybody gets an equal share because this will cause major strife and resentment against the people who just don't work. In the end, a lot of people would just stop working hard because they are tired of supporting all the people who just slack off and live off the hard work of others. This society would just have a mediocre standard of living. Look at the standard of living between every capitalist society and every communist society.

The current capitalist US society isn't perfect. In my opinion, it needs some tweaking. I like the idea of a capitalist society that rewards hard work while providing a socialist safety net for those less fortunate.

The sad fact is that life isn't fair. But all I want is an opportunity -- the possibility that my hard work will be rewarded. But I also know that this isn't a guarantee that my hard work will always be rewarded. But all I want is a chance.

The wealthiest few percent of the population are paying less in tax now than they have in 40 years. As a result, the burden of tax has shifted onto the MIDDLE CLASS. What this means is that the quality of life of the majority of people in the country -- people like you, i.e., the so-called middle class -- has declined. More equal distribution means making multi-billionaires like Richard Scaife and multimillionaires like George Bush pay more in tax. It does not mean making people like you (assuming you are of the middle class) pay more tax.

What you are saying isn't true. The wealthiest have a lower tax rate then they have in 40 years. Do they pay less taxes? No. The wealtiest make considerably more now then they did in '79 (see the original post) so they pay more in taxes then they did in '79. True, it is less then they would if the tax rate had stayed the same (though there is no evidence that they would have made as much if the tax rate had stayed as high as it was - so there is no evidence they would have paid more taxes), however they are still paying more taxes.

Quality of life is worse now then it was in 1965? You're kidding, right? We have moved away from manufacturing jobs to service jobs which means we have easier jobs. We have significantly better conviences now then we did in 1965. Microwaves, color TVs, cable and satelite TV. VCRs and dvd recorders/players, music cds and movie dvds, ATMs, computers and game consoles. internet acess, cell phones, etc. How is quality of life worse?

Than 65? It's not worse. In the last several years real median income is down. Note that is not true for the upper brackets.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: StormRider

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: SuperTool
What we need are nice progressive taxes like we had after the war.

I agree. Progressive taxation helps balance capitalistic systems.

Don't we already have a progressive tax? We don't want too progressive a tax where you have to pay 50% of what you earn. The rich might make more money but they also incur more expenses too.

For example, as I make more money, I also have incurred more expenses in terms of a big mortgage, etc.

I always thought a somewhat flat tax (with no loop holes and where if you make below a certain amount, you don't have to pay taxes) would be better.

Yes, we need a very progressive tax system with top marginal rate well north of 50%. We had it in the 50s and we had a huge economic boom.