From what I gather, it seems that he has no problem with the rich (that would include him, I suspect) paying a higher percentage of taxes. He does not expect the rich to hand over their money directly to the poor. He just wants everyone to pay their fair share. I don't see anyhting wrong with that.
You only get a break if you claim it. I donate around $2000 in money, time, or goods to charity throughout the year, but I don't claim it. Why? Because I don't participate in charitable giving for the financial reward. These people saying the noble thing are still just saying. They are perfectly capable of actually taking action but generally do not.
You only get a break if you claim it. I donate around $2000 in money, time, or goods to charity throughout the year, but I don't claim it. Why? Because I don't participate in charitable giving for the financial reward. These people saying the noble thing are still just saying. They are perfectly capable of actually taking action but generally do not.
Why is it better to give your money to a bloated wasteful government to disperse as opposed to giving the money directly yourself? As individuals we give $300 billion annually. Just because we are not funnelling it through the government first does not mean we are not sharing our wealth. Individuals in the U.S. give more internationally than every other country (excluding the U.S.) combined gives. We give more than the U.S. government gives.
Certainly sounds reasonable. The problem arises when we try to figure out what a "fair share" is.From what I gather, it seems that he has no problem with the rich (that would include him, I suspect) paying a higher percentage of taxes. He does not expect the rich to hand over their money directly to the poor. He just wants everyone to pay their fair share. I don't see anyhting wrong with that.
Let's say you have an idea, start your business and build a factory right in the good ole US of A. Do you not think for a moment that taxpayers money would help you?
Certainly sounds reasonable. The problem arises when we try to figure out what a "fair share" is.
If I'm worth $80 Million and I inherited it all, what's my "fair share (this should be an easy one)?"
If have $150,000 in the bank, but I earned that from Alaskan Crabbing (probably the most dangerous profession) what's my "fair share to cut away?"
If I'm worth $5,000,000 and 70% of that was earned by starting/building/owning a chain of Garbage Collection Companies and 30% is "passive income (investments)," how much is my "fair share to cut away?"
If I'm worth $5 Billion by developing a social media tool that improved the life of millions for free (against pressure to the contrary), what is my "fair share to cut away?"
So how much do you think it's "fair" to hack away from these people's lives because they "dared to be successful?"
Of course, "some" should be taken away and the rich should be taxed more than the other classes, but what consitutes "fair" has many different meanings depending one your perspective.
I think in that situation that I will be paying quite a bit in taxes already. Are you assuming they are not?
Yes. And you'll also be using the benefit of tax dollars that paid for the roads to you factory, and the educated people that you hire. I'm sure if there's a fire, tax dollars will be there to put it out.
I am not sure. First, my country is different. Form what I do know, we don't get taxed on inheritance (hasn't that already been taxed?) or winnings (lottery). But the more you make, the higher the bracket. Also we have tax shelters that are quite beneficial.
I think the rhetoric should have been toned down a long time ago. Unfortunately, I'm not in charge. Partisan politics will always be a big point of contention between people. The problem is that it shouldn't take something like the Gifford shooting for people to want to tone it down.
Threats? That is what progressives have devolved to? What a jack ass Moore is. He clearly does not understand business, nor the meaning of hypocrisy. Where did he make his millions? How much does he give back to the government?
Ok, So my question to libs....
Maxine Waters, "Tea partiers can go straight to hell....And I intend to help them get there...."
Andre Carson, "The tea party wants to see blacks hanging from a tree...."
Hoffa, "This is a war!....
Is this the more civil discourse dear leader was calling for after the Giffords shooting?
What is the matter with progressives?
You want violence? I say bring it...I am ready.
j-mac
You're right, except the Safeway shooting wasn't political. It was an irrational act by an irrantional person.
I don't think it was a partisan issue either. However, because of it, people wanted to town down the rhetoric. My point is that it shouldn't take something like that for people to want to tone it down.
I think most rich would be smart enough to have some firearms around their house so they can shoot anyone threatening their property and safety. After all thanks to liberals like him ****ting all over the 2nd amendment firearms are not something the poor in many places in the country can legally afford, And due to their anti-2nd amendment beliefs many idiots like him will not be adequately armed.
I learned this as a small boy. while my dad was a hunter, he didn't have any real serious artillery. One of my best friends was a guy whose father ran a major manufacturing operation. His politics were rather undisclosed. So one day I was at their house playing ping pong with my friend and his dad was sitting in the study next to the rec room. Behind his chair was a short hall with a locked cabinet. On the news came stories about the race riots after the King murder. The guy's wife asked her husband what they would do if the riots came to their neighborhood. SO the guy goes to the cabinet and unlocks it and pulls out a real honest M-16 rifle. He was well connected and was able to get what was then state of the art military firepower-it was one of the first ones with the forward assist on it. He had two of them.
He keeps them on a boat he sort of lives on now offshore.
The guy served in korea and he knew how to use them.
Lol...everyone I know has guns everywhere in thier house and many alot more heavy hitting than an m-16...tell ya a secret most americans have guns...
and if and I pray it never happens...the poor and middleclass were ever pushed into a position to believe they had to be violent to survive...the rich wouldnt last a hot minute...but that will never happen...and I sincerely hope it never does. The usa isnt like Iran and Syria and Venezuela where the mass's are unarmed and defenseless against govt and the powerful....thats why I would fight to the death for our right to bear arms as a people its our right as free men
I'm surprised that this even counts as a threat. How many times in the last two centuries (plus thirty five years) have the oppressed risen up in revolution against their oppressors? Especially in cases of the lower classes rising up against the wealthy. Granted, our revolution doesn't quite mirror that, as it was upper class people rebelling against upper-er class people, but consider the French Revolution, the numerous communist revolutions, the non-violent revolution of Ghandi, many African nations rebelling against their colonial oppressors and vying for freedom... We are in the era of the oppressed masses rising up against their wealthy oppressors. I'd prefer the non-violent route, but if that choice isn't taken, then violence is almost guaranteed. That's the direction the world is going in. Wealthy oppressors have ruled for thousands of years. Now its time they get what's coming to them.
start your rebellion on my estate. please. My kid is almost a master level pistol shot I wanna see how good he really is
Ahh yes, the standard conservative wild west duel fantasy.
Revolutions don't work that way.
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?