Where is the Wealth?

[jackace]

One thing many people forget when they talk about taxes is they serve multiple purposes. The first is obviously to fund the Government and any services it provides, but a secondary purpose is to encourage behavior that benefits the entire system and discourage behavior that hurts the entire system. This is the number one reason why we have steadily reduced the tax burden on the top earners over the last 30+ years, it was supposed to be a benefit to everyone.

 

[Brigandier]

One thing many people forget when they talk about taxes is they serve multiple purposes. The first is obviously to fund the Government and any services it provides, but a secondary purpose is to encourage behavior that benefits the entire system and discourage behavior that hurts the entire system. This is the number one reason why we have steadily reduced the tax burden on the top earners over the last 30+ years, it was supposed to be a benefit to everyone.

Instead of using taxes to teach people things, how about we teach people things?

 

[Craig234]

One thing many people forget when they talk about taxes is they serve multiple purposes. The first is obviously to fund the Government and any services it provides, but a secondary purpose is to encourage behavior that benefits the entire system and discourage behavior that hurts the entire system. This is the number one reason why we have steadily reduced the tax burden on the top earners over the last 30+ years, it was supposed to be a benefit to everyone.

That was the propaganda line, of course the real reason is because it was a corruption of the rich wanting to have more and the power to get it, hurting the nation.

 

[EagleKeeper]

That was the propaganda line, of course the real reason is because it was a corruption of the rich wanting to have more and the power to get it, hurting the nation.

Why can not the 95% of the non-rich do something about it? Stop the "corruption" of the nation by the rich

They have 95% of the vote power to get the problem solved.

The rich only control 5% of the vote.

 

[dullard]

Why can not the 95% of the non-rich do something about it? Stop the "corruption" of the nation by the rich

They have 95% of the vote power to get the problem solved.

The rich only control 5% of the vote.

That depends on which vote you are talking about.

Median wealth of the US house: $765,000.
Median wealth of the US senate: $2.38 million.
Source.

I bet that most people would consider someone with $2.38 million to be wealthy (and half of all senators have more than that!). Those mostly wealthy senators have 100% of the votes that matter right now. Remember, they aren't voting for your best interest, they are often voting for their best interest.

If you are looking at the people who vote in the congressmen, you may be right that they have the power, but they are heavilly influenced by spending (see the Koch brothers effect in the last election) and often have to chose between one wealthy candidate and another wealthy candidate. The public often doesn't have a say.

What about primaries? Look at what we had to choose from. Not a poor one in that bunch.

 

[Patranus]

Why can not the 95% of the non-rich do something about it? Stop the "corruption" of the nation by the rich

They have 95% of the vote power to get the problem solved.

The rich only control 5% of the vote.

It all boils down the the federal government operating within the constitution.

If the federal government operated within the constitution it wouldn't have the ability to pick winners and loser. The "rich" and "evil corporations" (or unions for that matter) could throw all the money they wanted at something and it wouldn't change the problem.

The expansion of the commerce clause and the 17th amendment is what has allowed money to corrupt politics.

 

[EagleKeeper]

It the socalled 5% of the population have the wealth, then the other 95% would seem to have the ability to place restrictions on the use of that wealth and retention.

That is what the liberals seem to be requesting.

So if there is 95% of the people that do not like what is happening; why are they not electing officials to perform the will of the people.

Or is the will of the people a sham and available to the highest bidder?

 

[fskimospy]

Why can not the 95% of the non-rich do something about it? Stop the "corruption" of the nation by the rich

They have 95% of the vote power to get the problem solved.

The rich only control 5% of the vote.

Why are you asking this? Do you honestly think that the influence of the rich is limited to their voting power?

Of course you don't, which means you already know the answer to your question.

 

[dullard]

Or is the will of the people a sham and available to the highest bidder?

It isn't always the highest bidder. Some high profile people spending millions have lost. But those losses are rare and usually happens when they have extreme reasons not to vote for them. But, as I said before, we usually have the choice of

(a) millionaire with a D by his name
or
(b) millionaire with an R by his name.

Either way, you are electing people who associate with the wealthy, care far more about the wealthy than you probably do, and may very well personally benefit if they help the wealthy.

 

[KGB]

It the socalled 5% of the population have the wealth, then the other 95% would seem to have the ability to place restrictions on the use of that wealth and retention.

That is what the liberals seem to be requesting.

So if there is 95% of the people that do not like what is happening; why are they not electing officials to perform the will of the people.

Or is the will of the people a sham and available to the highest bidder?

Hence the cognitive dissonance evident here.

 

[SammyJr]

You pretty much prove your stupidity with this:

In your world, the "rich" don't work for a living. How do you suppose they got rich to begin with? Typical class warfare nonsense.

Depends on how you define work. Your average hedge fund manager/finance type is less useful to society than a part timer at a food stand but gets paid millions or billions of dollars, even if he screws up.

 

[QuantumPion]

Depends on how you define work. Your average hedge fund manager/finance type is less useful to society than a part timer at a food stand but gets paid millions or billions of dollars, even if he screws up.

Hence why you shouldn't be in charge of the economy, or even vote. You have no understanding of what labor, wealth or money is. You are driven purely by emotion with no understanding of how the world works. The perfect socialist subject.