I've asked more than once on here why the people receiving food stamps, rent assistance, and other financial assistance from the government should not be expected to work off some of the benefits that they receive. I was told that it would be unfair and discriminatory to expect them to do that! Huh? President Roosevelt did it during the Great Depression, and the people not only loved him for it, but we are still enjoying the national parks and other work they did. Since Roosevelt was apparently wrong, in their opinion, I've stopped asking. I still think it was a great idea he had, though, since self esteem is so important when you are considered an asset to society, and not a drag on same, but what do I know? :lol:
Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:.
"Incapable of understanding your responses"? :lol:
Dude, you are pretty ****ing funny! :lol:
Did my break down help this time or do you need me to sound out the words for you now?
I'm confused - when did I thank him?
Greetings, Bodhisattva. :2wave:
And the simple retort was that what other people earned never had any effect (scared me) on my life, but you tried to insinuate you never stated "scared". Man up Dick. Good night, and maybe I'll see you next month...
Post #298 on page 30. No biggy... I was just curious since there wasn't much there.
God no. Not even close. Hell i think we need more brackets for the rich.
I went back and read my post. I didn't thank him for anything - I gave him a like, because I also don't agree that rich people are always the villains they are currently being portrayed to be. Class envy is being encouraged today as part of some agenda to divide people, and that's not the right thing to do. Would you enjoy being reviled because a poor person didn't like the fact that you have more than they did? That is a rhetorical question, but I can't think you would.
Despite the fact that the top 10% of earners already pay over 70% of federal income taxes now?eace
This are some of the lowest rates in history. But this also just shows the rising income inequality, and where most of the wealth is going to, the top. So to answer your question. Yes.
So . . . If 70% isn't enough for the top 10% to pay, how much should they pay?eace
Individual tax rates? Or as a percentage of total taxes they pay?
the top 5% pay more of the federal income tax bill than the rest of the country combined. DO the top 5% use more than half of all the benefits and services funded by said taxes? if the answer is no (duh, that is obvious) then the top 5% pay too much taxes
As i realize and I as I stated earlier, this also just shows the rising income inequality, and where most of the wealth is going to, the top. So yes the rich should pay more taxes.
Yes and no. The purpose of taxes is to fund the federal government. But taxes can be used to fight inequality. Is it the only tool needed to fight inequality? No. Its one of many.so you think that the purpose of taxes is to prevent "inequality"
"Punishing"? Na its not punishing them. Taxes are paid because you live in a civilized society and to used to fund a government.or to punish the winners when they win "too much
Yes and no. The purpose of taxes is to fund the federal government. But taxes can be used to fight inequality. Is it the only tool needed to fight inequality? No. Its one of many.
"Punishing"? Na its not punishing them. Taxes are paid because you live in a civilized society and to used to fund a government.
that's a moronic argument. are you saying the rich should pay more taxes to compensate for the market not valuing low skills work enough?
If "the market" was all that determined a person's pay, then America's pay scale would be just like that found in third-world nations - people getting paid less than three dollars a day for a full day's work.
Think about it, guy - is there ANYWHERE in the world, where there's a strong middle class getting paid good wages where there is not a significant minimum wage or - in the case of Germany - an effective minimum wage determined by the unions?
No. Not a single one.
So in every case that works like YOU think it should, the nation winds up being a third-world nation. Exactly how do you propose that such won't be the case this time?
Sure you are. As you should be. The economy is not equal.that's crap. iF I have to pay 40% of my income to the government when most people pay less than 10% I am being punished because I am being treated unequally
:roll: Look up taxing and spending clause.the reason why the tax code costs us BILLIONS in compliance costs and time is because it has mutated into a tool congress uses for all sorts of extra and un constitutional powers
Sure you are. As you should be. The economy is not equal.
:roll: Look up taxing and spending clause.
When it comes to taxation. Absolutely. As they do with the rich they also do with the poor. We have a series of regressive taxes as well.the government should treat people equally. you seem to be against that
Envy it all you want.its all about envy I suspect
:lamo So "moronic" you couldnt even point out a single flaw the response.and your moronic response based on the T&S clause is irrelevant
When it comes to taxation. Absolutely. As they do with the rich they also do with the poor. We have a series of regressive taxes as well.
Envy it all you want.
:lamo So "moronic" you couldnt even point out a single flaw the response.
Even if your theory is considered valid, does not change the powers given to congress.you don't understand all the extra constitutional powers congress grabbed by playing winners against losers with the tax schemes
Yea! So we should make everything regressive then!and life is regressive
Heard this like a million times from you. But if this is true why do GOP POTUS' and Republican controlled congresses still always keep the progressive tax?Too bad and the main reason for progressive income taxes is so the government can buy the support of people like you without making you pay the fair value of all the government goodies you want
Thank god they arent. One person one vote remember? Or are you against that as well?if votes were proportionate to taxes, progressive tax schemes would be as scarce as rocking horse poop
Yes and no. The purpose of taxes is to fund the federal government. But taxes can be used to fight inequality. Is it the only tool needed to fight inequality? No. Its one of many.
"Punishing"? Na its not punishing them. Taxes are paid because you live in a civilized society and to used to fund a government.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?