Can any con/repub give me good reason why the rich should not be taxed MORE?

[manifold]

Except, my weasely little friend, that's not what you tried to imply. I said our government is spending too much money and you said, no that was not the problem.

I did not attempt to imply anything. I was simply correcting your factual miscue. If you think the best solution to the deficit problem is to cut spending only, you are not stating a fact, you are editorializing.

Which I never stated. I said our government has an over spending problem, that is not the same as as saying the only solution is to cut spending.

And that's still not a fact.

 

[California Girl]

I fall into the broad category of the rich. And I'm willing to pay more. Just as soon as those paying nothing pay something.

Actually, I am more concerned that, if we pay more, that we have a Government who will stop spending us into oblivion.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Is the educational system so poor that you don't know the answer to this?

What do you think the answer is? Anybody who isn't for corporations paying an income tax for profits in other counties (or eliminating federal income taxes of citizens living in other countries), isn't truly for a "fair tax". If somebody wants everybody to pay the same amount of taxes fine-but apply it across the board.

Also in case your answer is jobs: let's take Walmart as an example (first thing that popped into my head). A Walmart store in Canada and an individual (US citizen) have to each pay Canadian income tax. The individual has to also pay a US income tax-but Walmart does not. Walmart is an American company making a profit. The store in Canada also supply no real jobs in the US.

It's only fair that companies pay taxes for things individuals pay taxes on. Especially if somebody wants to claim that they're "people" too.

Anybody who isn't for corporations paying an income tax for profits in other counties (or eliminating federal income taxes of citizens living in other countries), isn't truly for a "fair tax".

We're the only country in the world that charges companies a tax on world-wide income.

Not true. This is from the IRS:

"The corporate foreign tax credit is a set of provisions designed by Congress to eliminate potential double taxation on the foreign-source income of U.S. corporations. Double taxation occurs when an item of income is taxed by both the United States, as the corporation's country of residence, as well as by the country where the income was generated. The current provisions allow U.S. businesses to credit their foreign taxes paid, accrued, or deemed paid against their U.S. income tax liability, subject to limitations that prevent taxpayers from using taxes paid in a country with a higher tax rate than the U.S. to offset their tax liability on U.S. income. Corporations are required to calculate this credit separately for different income categories to prevent taxpayers from combining income that is traditionally taxed at low rates, such as dividend or interest income, with income that is typically taxed at higher rates, such as active business income. The corporate foreign tax credit is reported on Form 1118, Foreign Tax Credit - Corporations."

The idea that companies in the US pay a "world tax", compared to individuals isn't true. As I said before: Companies don't pay US federal taxes in other countries-when the profit is earned there, like Americans do.

If you have any sources that say otherwise-I'd love to hear them.


SOI Tax Stats - Corporate Foreign Tax Credit Statistics

 

[midcan5]

There is a pattern of thought in America that the rich work hard and the poor are lazy. That is the simple high level view. In reality anyone who lives in the real world knows that many of the poor work hard and many of the rich are as lazy as hell. I know lots of both types having risen up the food change and owning expensive property among the so called hard workers. But why argue, if you truly believe it is only a matter of work, then you would need to provide empirical evidence which should be easy. Take a hundred children born poor who work hard and see if they match up to a hundred wealthy children who are lazy, and I would bet a big figure, you'd find the lazy ones did better. Why? Again if you live in the real world you'd know, but why argue. I done seen it with me own eyes. As my dear father used to say too often before he abandoned ship, it takes money - he was mostly right. Paradox is, everyone knows an exception, which of course reinforces error.


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax


"Many conservatives and libertarians defend the current levels of income inequality on the basis of merit. They claim the rich got rich because they worked harder, longer or smarter than the rest. However, researchers have conducted a vast number of empirical studies on what factors contribute to success, and in what proportion. A classic example of one of these studies is the 1972 book Inequality, by Christopher Jencks. (1) And these studies show that the meritocrat's position is not just arguably wrong, but clearly wrong." The rich get rich because of their merit.


"Responsible Wealth, a project of United for a Fair Economy, is a network of over 700 business leaders and wealthy individuals in the top 5% of income and/or wealth in the US who use their surprising voice to advocate for fair taxes and corporate accountability. If you're in the top 5% (over $200,000 household income and/or over $1 million net assets) and you care about economic justice, please join Responsible Wealth today!" Responsible Wealth | United for a Fair Economy


"If The $5.15 Hourly minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation since 1990, it would now stand at $23.03.
A Minimum Wage employee who works 40 hours a week for 51 weeks a year goes home with $10,506 before taxes.
Such A Worker would take 7,000 years to earn Oracle CEO Larry Ellison’s yearly compensation.
In 2005, there were 9 million American millionaires, a 62% increase since 2002.
In 2005, 25.7 million Americans received food stamps, a 49% increase since 2000." A Look at the Numbers: How the Rich Get Richer | Mother Jones

Words fail me, how any sane person can think we can raise the highest tax rate to 70% and solve all our problems, it's just ludicrous. Lotta people in that boat, but man, you're a long way from reality.

That's because you have been trained well or maybe programmed well. Corporations love you guys and the rich love you guys too. Well love may be too strong a word, as they appreciate your lack of concern for America and your complete care of the rich. They asked me to tell you to keep up the concern and to vote in others who are concerned that the rich need more. But I guess there is no need as you already care so much.

You guys are too predictable, I could post the same reply and you'd still worry about the rich. LOL Think I will.

Why do conservatives, republicans and libertarians find it necessary to come to the aid of the well to do? You know money has power when it can change a nation that considers itself Christian, into a nation that worships money and defends money. It would be like the Sermon on the mount in which only the rich were invited, and instead of fish, given caviar. It sure as hell is the oddest phenomena of modern America. Mount Rushmore needs Walton, Buffett, and Gates. Let me tell you folks they don't need your sympathy and good wishes. And the uber-wealthy, of whom I personally know a few, don't need your love either. They're OK without you coming to their aid. The ones who need help were in that original sermon and that old time religion which was really what religion was about. Where'd religion go in America? Oh sorry I forgot it was reversed and now gawd is my rich friends, jeez, they ain't very gawd like.

Below is a breakdown on how to help the country and the world. Take note and please stop defending the wealthy you'll make them feel guilty. Oh and please note they don't think of you in spite of your well wishes. Life is too nice. LOL

What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You?, by Peter Singer

 

[Cowman]

I fall into the broad category of the rich. And I'm willing to pay more. Just as soon as those paying nothing pay something.

Basically just a continuation of the elite rich mentality. "I'll pay more as long as there is more suffering beneath me."

 

[Listening]

I fall into the broad category of the rich. And I'm willing to pay more. Just as soon as those paying nothing pay something.

Basically just a continuation of the elite rich mentality. "I'll pay more as long as there is more suffering beneath me."

Please define "suffering".

I love this kind of rhetoric. It makes it easy to see who is typing without thinking.

 

[Wiseacre]

There is a pattern of thought in America that the rich work hard and the poor are lazy. That is the simple high level view. In reality anyone who lives in the real world knows that many of the poor work hard and many of the rich are as lazy as hell. I know lots of both types having risen up the food change and owning expensive property among the so called hard workers. But why argue, if you truly believe it is only a matter of work, then you would need to provide empirical evidence which should be easy. Take a hundred children born poor who work hard and see if they match up to a hundred wealthy children who are lazy, and I would bet a big figure, you'd find the lazy ones did better. Why? Again if you live in the real world you'd know, but why argue. I done seen it with me own eyes. As my dear father used to say too often before he abandoned ship, it takes money - he was mostly right. Paradox is, everyone knows an exception, which of course reinforces error.


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax


"Many conservatives and libertarians defend the current levels of income inequality on the basis of merit. They claim the rich got rich because they worked harder, longer or smarter than the rest. However, researchers have conducted a vast number of empirical studies on what factors contribute to success, and in what proportion. A classic example of one of these studies is the 1972 book Inequality, by Christopher Jencks. (1) And these studies show that the meritocrat's position is not just arguably wrong, but clearly wrong." The rich get rich because of their merit.


"Responsible Wealth, a project of United for a Fair Economy, is a network of over 700 business leaders and wealthy individuals in the top 5% of income and/or wealth in the US who use their surprising voice to advocate for fair taxes and corporate accountability. If you're in the top 5% (over $200,000 household income and/or over $1 million net assets) and you care about economic justice, please join Responsible Wealth today!" Responsible Wealth | United for a Fair Economy


"If The $5.15 Hourly minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation since 1990, it would now stand at $23.03.
A Minimum Wage employee who works 40 hours a week for 51 weeks a year goes home with $10,506 before taxes.
Such A Worker would take 7,000 years to earn Oracle CEO Larry Ellison’s yearly compensation.
In 2005, there were 9 million American millionaires, a 62% increase since 2002.
In 2005, 25.7 million Americans received food stamps, a 49% increase since 2000." A Look at the Numbers: How the Rich Get Richer | Mother Jones

Words fail me, how any sane person can think we can raise the highest tax rate to 70% and solve all our problems, it's just ludicrous. Lotta people in that boat, but man, you're a long way from reality.

That's because you have been trained well or maybe programmed well. Corporations love you guys and the rich love you guys too. Well love may be too strong a word, as they appreciate your lack of concern for America and your complete care of the rich. They asked me to tell you to keep up the concern and to vote in others who are concerned that the rich need more. But I guess there is no need as you already care so much.

You guys are too predictable, I could post the same reply and you'd still worry about the rich. LOL Think I will.

Why do conservatives, republicans and libertarians find it necessary to come to the aid of the well to do? You know money has power when it can change a nation that considers itself Christian, into a nation that worships money and defends money. It would be like the Sermon on the mount in which only the rich were invited, and instead of fish, given caviar. It sure as hell is the oddest phenomena of modern America. Mount Rushmore needs Walton, Buffett, and Gates. Let me tell you folks they don't need your sympathy and good wishes. And the uber-wealthy, of whom I personally know a few, don't need your love either. They're OK without you coming to their aid. The ones who need help were in that original sermon and that old time religion which was really what religion was about. Where'd religion go in America? Oh sorry I forgot it was reversed and now gawd is my rich friends, jeez, they ain't very gawd like.

Below is a breakdown on how to help the country and the world. Take note and please stop defending the wealthy you'll make them feel guilty. Oh and please note they don't think of you in spite of your well wishes. Life is too nice. LOL

What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You?, by Peter Singer

See, here's why you're such a simpleton. You honestly believe that conservative repubs are more supportive of the rich than we are of everyone else when in fact the opposite is true. I don't think ANYBODY gives two hoots about the welfare of the rich; most of us believe that the policies and programs we support are the best ways to improve the lot on life for those less wealthy. It so happens that these ideas result in the rich getting richer; why? Because EVERY possible way to grow the economy and create more jobs necessarily means the rich get richer. There's no way around it; there's no possible way to to avoid it.

I know you don't believe any of this. All a pack of lies spread by an idiot. Which is fine, I would expect nothing less coming from a hopeless ideologue.

 

[Bern80]

I did not attempt to imply anything. I was simply correcting your factual miscue. If you think the best solution to the deficit problem is to cut spending only, you are not stating a fact, you are editorializing.

Which I never stated. I said our government has an over spending problem, that is not the same as as saying the only solution is to cut spending.

And that's still not a fact.

What isn't a fact? That I didn't say it? or Or it isn't a fact to state that government has a problem with overspending? When you consistently spend more than you take in, that's a problem. That is an undeniable fact. No amount of saying 'no it isn't' like some petulent child that didn't get is toy is gonna change that.

 

[Listening]

What isn't a fact? That I didn't say it? or Or it isn't a fact to state that government has a problem with overspending? When you consistently spend more than you take in, that's a problem. That is an undeniable fact. No amount of saying 'no it isn't' like some petulent child that didn't get is toy is gonna change that.

Oh that's a fact. Even the dems admitted it during the debt ceiling discussions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What do you think the answer is? Anybody who isn't for corporations paying an income tax for profits in other counties (or eliminating federal income taxes of citizens living in other countries), isn't truly for a "fair tax". If somebody wants everybody to pay the same amount of taxes fine-but apply it across the board.

Also in case your answer is jobs: let's take Walmart as an example (first thing that popped into my head). A Walmart store in Canada and an individual (US citizen) have to each pay Canadian income tax. The individual has to also pay a US income tax-but Walmart does not. Walmart is an American company making a profit. The store in Canada also supply no real jobs in the US.

It's only fair that companies pay taxes for things individuals pay taxes on. Especially if somebody wants to claim that they're "people" too.

Anybody who isn't for corporations paying an income tax for profits in other counties (or eliminating federal income taxes of citizens living in other countries), isn't truly for a "fair tax".

We're the only country in the world that charges companies a tax on world-wide income.

Not true. This is from the IRS:

"The corporate foreign tax credit is a set of provisions designed by Congress to eliminate potential double taxation on the foreign-source income of U.S. corporations. Double taxation occurs when an item of income is taxed by both the United States, as the corporation's country of residence, as well as by the country where the income was generated. The current provisions allow U.S. businesses to credit their foreign taxes paid, accrued, or deemed paid against their U.S. income tax liability, subject to limitations that prevent taxpayers from using taxes paid in a country with a higher tax rate than the U.S. to offset their tax liability on U.S. income. Corporations are required to calculate this credit separately for different income categories to prevent taxpayers from combining income that is traditionally taxed at low rates, such as dividend or interest income, with income that is typically taxed at higher rates, such as active business income. The corporate foreign tax credit is reported on Form 1118, Foreign Tax Credit - Corporations."

The idea that companies in the US pay a "world tax", compared to individuals isn't true. As I said before: Companies don't pay US federal taxes in other countries-when the profit is earned there, like Americans do.

If you have any sources that say otherwise-I'd love to hear them.


SOI Tax Stats - Corporate Foreign Tax Credit Statistics

The high U.S. corporate income tax rate is driving jobs overseas as businesses work to remain as competitive as possible in the global marketplace. It doesn’t help that the United States is the only country in the world that taxes its businesses on the income they earn in foreign countries. Every other country only taxes businesses on the income earned within their borders. A reduction of the corporate income tax rate down to at least the average 25 percent rate in the OECD is long overdue.

High Corporate Income Tax Rate Driving Jobs Overseas

 

[Rozman]

The only reason for me is because with Obama and his ilk it will not be enough.
As soon as that stream of revenue comes in they will spend it.
When it's gone the Libs will be screaming for more.

To them and the Libs here it will never be enough.More revenue,more revenue....more,more,more...

 

[The T]

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

In what way does this not make any sense?

And don't get it twisted. I have nothing against the wealthy. I think these hard-working individuals deserve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

And YOU are the abitor of what is fair and what people are paid?

Can you tell us why 1/2 of the population doesn't PAY any taxes and gets money back for NOT paying?

And why you're at it? Can you explain WHY food stamp recipients have gone up under this president more than any other?

 

[DiamondDave]

Yup, I'm on board with cutting spending. But we're talking about taxes now. Try and stay on topic.

You're the one saying that how you attack the deficit is thru higher taxation on the 'rich' or ending the 'Bush tax cuts'... I am merely saying that cutting spending is the better approach

And doing both would be even better...

Not when you are putting the burden on only 1/2 the citizenry... and predictably, it would be the 1/2 you don't happen to reside in

 

[BlindBoo]

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

In what way does this not make any sense?

And don't get it twisted. I have nothing against the wealthy. I think these hard-working individuals deserve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

And YOU are the abitor of what is fair and what people are paid?

Can you tell us why 1/2 of the population doesn't PAY any taxes and gets money back for NOT paying?

And why you're at it? Can you explain WHY food stamp recipients have gone up under this president more than any other?

I'm sure you mean federal income taxes. Short anwer is they don't make enough money. Their accumulated income is a small % of all income generated.

 

[Intense]

There is a pattern of thought in America that the rich work hard and the poor are lazy. That is the simple high level view. In reality anyone who lives in the real world knows that many of the poor work hard and many of the rich are as lazy as hell. I know lots of both types having risen up the food change and owning expensive property among the so called hard workers. But why argue, if you truly believe it is only a matter of work, then you would need to provide empirical evidence which should be easy. Take a hundred children born poor who work hard and see if they match up to a hundred wealthy children who are lazy, and I would bet a big figure, you'd find the lazy ones did better. Why? Again if you live in the real world you'd know, but why argue. I done seen it with me own eyes. As my dear father used to say too often before he abandoned ship, it takes money - he was mostly right. Paradox is, everyone knows an exception, which of course reinforces error.


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax


"Many conservatives and libertarians defend the current levels of income inequality on the basis of merit. They claim the rich got rich because they worked harder, longer or smarter than the rest. However, researchers have conducted a vast number of empirical studies on what factors contribute to success, and in what proportion. A classic example of one of these studies is the 1972 book Inequality, by Christopher Jencks. (1) And these studies show that the meritocrat's position is not just arguably wrong, but clearly wrong." The rich get rich because of their merit.


"Responsible Wealth, a project of United for a Fair Economy, is a network of over 700 business leaders and wealthy individuals in the top 5% of income and/or wealth in the US who use their surprising voice to advocate for fair taxes and corporate accountability. If you're in the top 5% (over $200,000 household income and/or over $1 million net assets) and you care about economic justice, please join Responsible Wealth today!" Responsible Wealth | United for a Fair Economy


"If The $5.15 Hourly minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation since 1990, it would now stand at $23.03.
A Minimum Wage employee who works 40 hours a week for 51 weeks a year goes home with $10,506 before taxes.
Such A Worker would take 7,000 years to earn Oracle CEO Larry Ellison’s yearly compensation.
In 2005, there were 9 million American millionaires, a 62% increase since 2002.
In 2005, 25.7 million Americans received food stamps, a 49% increase since 2000." A Look at the Numbers: How the Rich Get Richer | Mother Jones

Words fail me, how any sane person can think we can raise the highest tax rate to 70% and solve all our problems, it's just ludicrous. Lotta people in that boat, but man, you're a long way from reality.

That's because you have been trained well or maybe programmed well. Corporations love you guys and the rich love you guys too. Well love may be too strong a word, as they appreciate your lack of concern for America and your complete care of the rich. They asked me to tell you to keep up the concern and to vote in others who are concerned that the rich need more. But I guess there is no need as you already care so much.

You guys are too predictable, I could post the same reply and you'd still worry about the rich. LOL Think I will.

Why do conservatives, republicans and libertarians find it necessary to come to the aid of the well to do? You know money has power when it can change a nation that considers itself Christian, into a nation that worships money and defends money. It would be like the Sermon on the mount in which only the rich were invited, and instead of fish, given caviar. It sure as hell is the oddest phenomena of modern America. Mount Rushmore needs Walton, Buffett, and Gates. Let me tell you folks they don't need your sympathy and good wishes. And the uber-wealthy, of whom I personally know a few, don't need your love either. They're OK without you coming to their aid. The ones who need help were in that original sermon and that old time religion which was really what religion was about. Where'd religion go in America? Oh sorry I forgot it was reversed and now gawd is my rich friends, jeez, they ain't very gawd like.

Below is a breakdown on how to help the country and the world. Take note and please stop defending the wealthy you'll make them feel guilty. Oh and please note they don't think of you in spite of your well wishes. Life is too nice. LOL

What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You?, by Peter Singer

We are coming to the aid of Property Rights, both for the Rich and the Poor.

Government has no interest in repairing wrong here, just in getting a bigger cut and more control. Be honest MidCan. Government wants to be Dealer, It want's to look at it's cards after dealing each hand, and make new rules for that hand. Government doesn't want to correct wrongs. Government just want's the whole Pot.

 

[Intense]

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

In what way does this not make any sense?

And don't get it twisted. I have nothing against the wealthy. I think these hard-working individuals deserve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

And YOU are the abitor of what is fair and what people are paid?

Can you tell us why 1/2 of the population doesn't PAY any taxes and gets money back for NOT paying?

And why you're at it? Can you explain WHY food stamp recipients have gone up under this president more than any other?

I'm sure you mean federal income taxes. Short anwer is they don't make enough money. Their accumulated income is a small % of all income generated.

Or.... the System has failed big time at being Impartial, and has now again resorted to Class Warfare, using the Power of the Vote to Extort large sums of money.

 

[manifold]

Which I never stated. I said our government has an over spending problem, that is not the same as as saying the only solution is to cut spending.

And that's still not a fact.

What isn't a fact? That I didn't say it? or Or it isn't a fact to state that government has a problem with overspending? When you consistently spend more than you take in, that's a problem. That is an undeniable fact. No amount of saying 'no it isn't' like some petulent child that didn't get is toy is gonna change that.

Are you being intentionally dense? Have you forgotten what we're actually talking about?

I said there is no good reason not to go back to the Clinton era tax rates, to which you replied that there is a good reason... that the REAL problem is overspending. I said the real problem is the deficit, which reflects BOTH spending AND tax revenues and that is a fact. And as always, the appropriate balance of spending cuts and tax increases required to close a deficit gap is a matter of opinion. Apparently your opinion on the matter is so strong that you've jedi-mind tricked yourself into believing it's a fact. I happen to agree that spending cuts are necessary, but I'm smart enough to know that that is just my opinion.

 

[Intense]

There is no good reason to keep the current Tax Code.

There is no good reason for It's Replacement to be more than 100 pages.

 

[Cowman]

I fall into the broad category of the rich. And I'm willing to pay more. Just as soon as those paying nothing pay something.

Basically just a continuation of the elite rich mentality. "I'll pay more as long as there is more suffering beneath me."

Please define "suffering".

I love this kind of rhetoric. It makes it easy to see who is typing without thinking.

Demanding that poor people who barely have enough money to maintain their existence at the lowest rung of society pay additional taxes before being willing to have the rich move back to a previous tax rate is a pretty nasty thing.

The rich with that mentality have no idea how hard it is to live with such a small amount of income. I make less than 15,000 a year and that's not even the lowest rung and I find it really hard to maintain financial sanity in my life. But no... it's such an awful horrendous thing to bump up the rich tax percentage a couple points. The lack of humanity in those poor people!

 

[Listening]

Basically just a continuation of the elite rich mentality. "I'll pay more as long as there is more suffering beneath me."

Please define "suffering".

I love this kind of rhetoric. It makes it easy to see who is typing without thinking.

Demanding that poor people who barely have enough money to maintain their existence at the lowest rung of society pay additional taxes before being willing to have the rich move back to a previous tax rate is a pretty nasty thing.

Suffering is demanding ? Can slow down long enough to think about what you are typing ?

If your defintion of "suffering" was happening, I might be concerned.

But it isn't.

So I'm not.

Our poor would be considered middle class in most societies and have more material wealth than the average middle class family of the 50's.

They utilize services. They can help pay for them.