Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I totally disagree, 110%. In my opinion, yes, we are an oppressed people. Yes, our government is very corrupt, self-serving, egotistical, power hungry, and anti-America. We have a government bought and paid for. Once elected to office, they exert their will, and not the will of the people. If that were not true, we would be in the sad shameful situation and condition that we're presently in.You could be absolutely correct. But, when you back an animal into a corner, they'll usually try to fight their way out. If and when we reach the proverbial "rock bottom", my guess is that somehow, some way, many will try to climb up and out of oppression, slavery, excessive taxation, and attack a corrupt and self-serving government. First, many have to feel the same pain, suffer the same hunger and misery, then we might see a light come on and people wake up. At this point, it's anyone's guess, and none of us has a crystal ball.Really? What a thought. I don't suppose that the socioeconomic survival of this once great nation would bring a few together to solve some of our problems. Nah, never happen, right? So, we just stand-by and together watch the collapse take place? What an interesting thought. I'll have to ponder that for a bit.Yes, we would still have them. Taxes doesn't stop alcoholics, drug addicts, criminals, terrorists, poverty, nor homelessness. Our laws, policies, and actions by those we entrust with our security and economic well-being, can stop those things. But, greed, power, self-service, and egos prevent all of the above from being corrected. Also, time is a big factor. None of it can be corrected over-night. It takes determination, will, resources, and everyone being on the same page of the playbook for it to happen.
The only way for everyone to be on the same page of the playbook is to kill every human being until you are down to one.
No. It wouldn't. It never has in the past and I see no reason to think it will happen in the future.
Which is why your idea of being on the same page is pointless. You have 300 million people, each with their own ideas on what that page is and probably almost as many playbooks. How do you go about getting a far left socialist to get on the same page with a free market libertarian? How do you get them to agree on what needs to be done to resolve the problem? You want to cut foreign aid, I see that as a monumental mistake. You think prisons are too cushy, I think they are too brutal. Which page are we going to be on - yours or mine?
Any solution which does not take into account we are human beings, with all of the baggage that entails, is doomed to failure.
I agree. If you look at history you will see multiple cases of the populace rising up against its government. I think if you examine that you will see the populace then creates yet another government, made up of the same type of people if not the same people, and continues to do what was being done before. Often even worse.
I doubt we will see such a thing in our society since our taxation is not excessive, nor is there oppression or slavery and the degree of actual corruption in government is quite small. IMO, the real problem lies in how we choose our leaders. There is a saying that anyone who desires power is precisely the type of person who should not be given power. In our system, someone who becomes a leader has to jump through an incredible number of hoops. So only those who really want power are willing to go through what it takes to achieve it. So those who do become our leaders spend their time in maintaining their position, because that is the type of person we choose. Thus, rather than coming together with other leaders to arrive at solutions, they concentrate on pleasing the electorate.
If we actually want to have solutions, then we need people who will consider their job to be finding solutions. Not just getting elected. So long as we select leaders via a popularity contest, nothing will change.
Your comments are not welcome as you are a far left wing radical. We get it. You can shut up now.We should not be funding wasteful unnecessary wars like that ass wipe Bush got us into ...what a waste of trillions eh conservatives ....way to go ....
You post as though stupidity were a virtue.....Your comments are not welcome as you are a far left wing radical. We get it. You can shut up now.We should not be funding wasteful unnecessary wars like that ass wipe Bush got us into ...what a waste of trillions eh conservatives ....way to go ....
I totally disagree, 110%. In my opinion, yes, we are an oppressed people. Yes, our government is very corrupt, self-serving, egotistical, power hungry, and anti-America. We have a government bought and paid for. Once elected to office, they exert their will, and not the will of the people. If that were not true, we would be in the sad shameful situation and condition that we're presently in.You could be absolutely correct. But, when you back an animal into a corner, they'll usually try to fight their way out. If and when we reach the proverbial "rock bottom", my guess is that somehow, some way, many will try to climb up and out of oppression, slavery, excessive taxation, and attack a corrupt and self-serving government. First, many have to feel the same pain, suffer the same hunger and misery, then we might see a light come on and people wake up. At this point, it's anyone's guess, and none of us has a crystal ball.Really? What a thought. I don't suppose that the socioeconomic survival of this once great nation would bring a few together to solve some of our problems. Nah, never happen, right? So, we just stand-by and together watch the collapse take place? What an interesting thought. I'll have to ponder that for a bit.The only way for everyone to be on the same page of the playbook is to kill every human being until you are down to one.
No. It wouldn't. It never has in the past and I see no reason to think it will happen in the future.
Which is why your idea of being on the same page is pointless. You have 300 million people, each with their own ideas on what that page is and probably almost as many playbooks. How do you go about getting a far left socialist to get on the same page with a free market libertarian? How do you get them to agree on what needs to be done to resolve the problem? You want to cut foreign aid, I see that as a monumental mistake. You think prisons are too cushy, I think they are too brutal. Which page are we going to be on - yours or mine?
Any solution which does not take into account we are human beings, with all of the baggage that entails, is doomed to failure.
I agree. If you look at history you will see multiple cases of the populace rising up against its government. I think if you examine that you will see the populace then creates yet another government, made up of the same type of people if not the same people, and continues to do what was being done before. Often even worse.
I doubt we will see such a thing in our society since our taxation is not excessive, nor is there oppression or slavery and the degree of actual corruption in government is quite small. IMO, the real problem lies in how we choose our leaders. There is a saying that anyone who desires power is precisely the type of person who should not be given power. In our system, someone who becomes a leader has to jump through an incredible number of hoops. So only those who really want power are willing to go through what it takes to achieve it. So those who do become our leaders spend their time in maintaining their position, because that is the type of person we choose. Thus, rather than coming together with other leaders to arrive at solutions, they concentrate on pleasing the electorate.
If we actually want to have solutions, then we need people who will consider their job to be finding solutions. Not just getting elected. So long as we select leaders via a popularity contest, nothing will change.
The money that needs to be given is enough to pay the bills and start paying on the debt. That makes sense eh? About an extra one trillion in raises taxes will do that. 500 billion of that you could get from the DOD, if you wanted to that is.
Ah the rich just have to shit an extra trillion dollars a year out their ass? What would be the impact of confiscating a trillion dollars a year from the 'rich'?
YOU MEAN THE TOP 10% WILL HAVE TO LOSE 25% OF THEIR PIECE OF THE PIE, OR AS THE POSIT WAS, JUST 12.5% IF WE TOOK HALF FROM DOD?
INSTEAD OF 68%+ OF THE PIE FOR THE TOP 10% THEY'D HAVE TO SURVIVE ON 56%???
Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
WAIT, THAT SOUNDS FAMILIAR, THE 50%+ PART:
In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.
In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.
Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!
LOL
Contain your irrational hatred of the 'rich' lib.
If you punish people for investing like the left wants to do all the time by raising the tax on capital gains
those that have money will not invest....
I appreciate your opinion, and respect your right to express it. Thanks.I totally disagree, 110%. In my opinion, yes, we are an oppressed people. Yes, our government is very corrupt, self-serving, egotistical, power hungry, and anti-America. We have a government bought and paid for. Once elected to office, they exert their will, and not the will of the people. If that were not true, we would be in the sad shameful situation and condition that we're presently in.You could be absolutely correct. But, when you back an animal into a corner, they'll usually try to fight their way out. If and when we reach the proverbial "rock bottom", my guess is that somehow, some way, many will try to climb up and out of oppression, slavery, excessive taxation, and attack a corrupt and self-serving government. First, many have to feel the same pain, suffer the same hunger and misery, then we might see a light come on and people wake up. At this point, it's anyone's guess, and none of us has a crystal ball.Really? What a thought. I don't suppose that the socioeconomic survival of this once great nation would bring a few together to solve some of our problems. Nah, never happen, right? So, we just stand-by and together watch the collapse take place? What an interesting thought. I'll have to ponder that for a bit.
No. It wouldn't. It never has in the past and I see no reason to think it will happen in the future.
Which is why your idea of being on the same page is pointless. You have 300 million people, each with their own ideas on what that page is and probably almost as many playbooks. How do you go about getting a far left socialist to get on the same page with a free market libertarian? How do you get them to agree on what needs to be done to resolve the problem? You want to cut foreign aid, I see that as a monumental mistake. You think prisons are too cushy, I think they are too brutal. Which page are we going to be on - yours or mine?
Any solution which does not take into account we are human beings, with all of the baggage that entails, is doomed to failure.
I agree. If you look at history you will see multiple cases of the populace rising up against its government. I think if you examine that you will see the populace then creates yet another government, made up of the same type of people if not the same people, and continues to do what was being done before. Often even worse.
I doubt we will see such a thing in our society since our taxation is not excessive, nor is there oppression or slavery and the degree of actual corruption in government is quite small. IMO, the real problem lies in how we choose our leaders. There is a saying that anyone who desires power is precisely the type of person who should not be given power. In our system, someone who becomes a leader has to jump through an incredible number of hoops. So only those who really want power are willing to go through what it takes to achieve it. So those who do become our leaders spend their time in maintaining their position, because that is the type of person we choose. Thus, rather than coming together with other leaders to arrive at solutions, they concentrate on pleasing the electorate.
If we actually want to have solutions, then we need people who will consider their job to be finding solutions. Not just getting elected. So long as we select leaders via a popularity contest, nothing will change.
If you think you are being oppressed, you have never seen oppression. If you think the taxation is excessive, you have never seen excessive taxation. I won't even comment on the slavery thing. You are in a society more free, well fed, unoppressed and lightly taxed than almost any in the history of the world. You can go where you like, say what you like, and do what you like with almost no restrictions. Try getting on line in China and say what crooks the government leaders are and then you'll see what oppression is. Try opening a business in a third world country and then you'll see what corruption is. There is a comedian looking at prison time in France because the government didn't like a tweet of his. As to taxation, do you know what the highest tax rate during the Eisenhower era was? 92% And with that we saw one of the greatest economic growth spurts in human history.
Of course our leaders are self-centered. Only a self-centered egotist would put themselves and their family through the nonsense it takes to become a leader. Any politician who tells the truth is guaranteed to lose, so only liars get elected. Blaming them for thinking of themselves is like blaming a cat for playing with a mouse. We put them there.
We live in a human society, so its not perfect. But you are not oppressed by any stretch of the word.
The best thing that could ever happen, the amazing eye opener would be instead of a payroll deduction performed by the employer, that say once per month or even quarterly every wage earner had to write a check and send it to the federal government or pay on line....Then we'd have 150 million people wanting to ( in a figurative sense) light a fire to the US Capitol and joyfully watch it burn.I see it as cutting waste first to see if we even need to raise taxes. There is a lot of waste and fraud associated with government spending.Raise taxes on the rich, tax college savings, raise gasoline taxes, and cut social programs? Or, cut the enormous waste that we all know should be cut? Or, should we do a combination of both? If your answer is to cut waste, what are the most obvious areas of waste that you would cut? If your answer is to raise taxes, what taxes would you increase? Or, what new taxes would you add? If your answer is to raise taxes, where would you use the new revenue? If your answer is to cut waste, where would you use the savings?
As painful as it will be, I think we should raise taxes first. But we have to do it across the board, so everyone feels the pain. And we need to keep raising them until the budget is balanced. Then there will be no need to convince people we need to cut spending. They'll be howling for it.
Right. But the problem is, most people don't care. They don't see the damage it does, and they're not paying the bill. If you want to get their attention, if you want to build real consensus on cutting government spending and waste, send them the bill.
Ah the rich just have to shit an extra trillion dollars a year out their ass? What would be the impact of confiscating a trillion dollars a year from the 'rich'?
YOU MEAN THE TOP 10% WILL HAVE TO LOSE 25% OF THEIR PIECE OF THE PIE, OR AS THE POSIT WAS, JUST 12.5% IF WE TOOK HALF FROM DOD?
INSTEAD OF 68%+ OF THE PIE FOR THE TOP 10% THEY'D HAVE TO SURVIVE ON 56%???
Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
WAIT, THAT SOUNDS FAMILIAR, THE 50%+ PART:
In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.
In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.
Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!
LOL
Contain your irrational hatred of the 'rich' lib.
If you punish people for investing like the left wants to do all the time by raising the tax on capital gains
those that have money will not invest....
"If you punish people for investing like the left wants to do all the time by raising the tax on capital gains
those that have money will not invest...."
Sure, THEY'LL JUST PUT IT UNDER THEIR MATTRESSES RIGHT? lol
STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP
These Charts Show There s Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider
Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)
If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong
Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes
Ok, if wars are senseless, who gets to roll over and take it in the ass first?I totally agree 110%. Senseless deadly costly wars are a drain in many ways. But, they do make defense contractors very rich. Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were/are costly in lives and money, and we're stupid for engaging in what amounts to high cost police actions.We should not be funding wasteful unnecessary wars like that ass wipe Bush got us into ...what a waste of trillions eh conservatives ....way to go ....
All wars are senseless. Short of a hostile alien race descending from space blasting everything everywhere there's no such thing as a just war. Watching old 50s WWII movies with foolish people storming abeach only to be cut to shreds by machine gun fire or blown up via morters and artillery I"m struck thinking how shortly after that happened Germany was someone we helped rebuild after their choice of starting a war. Where's the sense in that? Think everyone who died to the Germans would agree that was a pretty swell idea and certainly doesn't upset them they died fighting them.
All wars eventually end and everyone becomes fast friends (or at least doesn't shoot at each other any more.) But now, war has become a business endeavor so surprise-surprise we have never ending, unwinnable wars and a lot of pro-war propaganda integrated into our entire lives childhood onwards (unless you think simulated weapons are suitable toys for children of course.)
Why do you feel entitled to other peoples money?
YOU MEAN THE TOP 10% WILL HAVE TO LOSE 25% OF THEIR PIECE OF THE PIE, OR AS THE POSIT WAS, JUST 12.5% IF WE TOOK HALF FROM DOD?
INSTEAD OF 68%+ OF THE PIE FOR THE TOP 10% THEY'D HAVE TO SURVIVE ON 56%???
Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
WAIT, THAT SOUNDS FAMILIAR, THE 50%+ PART:
In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.
In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.
Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!
LOL
Contain your irrational hatred of the 'rich' lib.
If you punish people for investing like the left wants to do all the time by raising the tax on capital gains
those that have money will not invest....
"If you punish people for investing like the left wants to do all the time by raising the tax on capital gains
those that have money will not invest...."
Sure, THEY'LL JUST PUT IT UNDER THEIR MATTRESSES RIGHT? lol
STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP
These Charts Show There s Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider
Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)
If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong
Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes
But what about Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan?Ok, if wars are senseless, who gets to roll over and take it in the ass first?I totally agree 110%. Senseless deadly costly wars are a drain in many ways. But, they do make defense contractors very rich. Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were/are costly in lives and money, and we're stupid for engaging in what amounts to high cost police actions.We should not be funding wasteful unnecessary wars like that ass wipe Bush got us into ...what a waste of trillions eh conservatives ....way to go ....
All wars are senseless. Short of a hostile alien race descending from space blasting everything everywhere there's no such thing as a just war. Watching old 50s WWII movies with foolish people storming abeach only to be cut to shreds by machine gun fire or blown up via morters and artillery I"m struck thinking how shortly after that happened Germany was someone we helped rebuild after their choice of starting a war. Where's the sense in that? Think everyone who died to the Germans would agree that was a pretty swell idea and certainly doesn't upset them they died fighting them.
All wars eventually end and everyone becomes fast friends (or at least doesn't shoot at each other any more.) But now, war has become a business endeavor so surprise-surprise we have never ending, unwinnable wars and a lot of pro-war propaganda integrated into our entire lives childhood onwards (unless you think simulated weapons are suitable toys for children of course.)
Save for war, we'd all be speaking German, Japanese or Russian.
You would not have the freedom to post your opinion. If you did, you'd be thrown in prison, tortured or buried in some vast wasteland.
So don't oversimplify.
Why do you feel entitled to other peoples money?
YOU MEAN THE TOP 10% WILL HAVE TO LOSE 25% OF THEIR PIECE OF THE PIE, OR AS THE POSIT WAS, JUST 12.5% IF WE TOOK HALF FROM DOD?
INSTEAD OF 68%+ OF THE PIE FOR THE TOP 10% THEY'D HAVE TO SURVIVE ON 56%???
Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
WAIT, THAT SOUNDS FAMILIAR, THE 50%+ PART:
In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.
In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.
Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!
LOL
Contain your irrational hatred of the 'rich' lib.
If you punish people for investing like the left wants to do all the time by raising the tax on capital gains
those that have money will not invest....
"If you punish people for investing like the left wants to do all the time by raising the tax on capital gains
those that have money will not invest...."
Sure, THEY'LL JUST PUT IT UNDER THEIR MATTRESSES RIGHT? lol
STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP
These Charts Show There s Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider
Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)
If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong
Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes
Yer kidding, right?Yes, I remember reading about all the money that went missing in Iraq. Yes, defense spending is favoritism, kick-backs, and wasteful beyond words. But, we have many other areas of obvious waste and abuse of tax dollars also. We could save untold multi-$Billions by cutting just the obvious waste.Raise taxes on the rich, tax college savings, raise gasoline taxes, and cut social programs? Or, cut the enormous waste that we all know should be cut? Or, should we do a combination of both? If your answer is to cut waste, what are the most obvious areas of waste that you would cut? If your answer is to raise taxes, what taxes would you increase? Or, what new taxes would you add? If your answer is to raise taxes, where would you use the new revenue? If your answer is to cut waste, where would you use the savings?
I think we can raise taxes while lowering them across the board just by removing all loopholes and deductions. It could be a flat tax or based upon income as we have today. Of course, that would mean a tax system which was simple and you immediately have both the lawyers and the accountants in opposition, not to mention large corporations who would actually have to start paying tax.
The problem with waste is that it really doesn't have much of an impact. People will get up in arms because of a miniscule grant to study squid but will defend monstrous waste in other areas. More than $8 billion in cash just disappeared in Iraq, and I don't mean misspent - I mean disappeared, and no one was held accountable, no congressional committee was formed to investigate, no uproar in the press. Major contractors will underbid projects with the feds and then pump of the cost through cost over runs and no one bats an eye.
What waste?
The fact is....Yes. The problem is the resources are misused.Does the US need such a big expensive military? If it's long-term goal is total take over of the planet, yes it does. If it's really trying to be a 'global force for good' no it doesn't.
"I have a pen. I have a phone"who is being quoted here :We should not be funding wasteful unnecessary wars like that ass wipe Bush got us into ...what a waste of trillions eh conservatives ....way to go ....
Apparently we have to remind you again how many Democrats voted for the Iraq war, eat it.
"I am the Decider" ...who dat ?
Welfare isn't money? Wow..Just wow.Sure, list your cuts and how much? Start with the DOD, tons of fat in that. Don't start with Welfare since that isn't money.Lets "cut" first and then see where we are. Yes, we do need to grow the economy, but providing self-supporting opportunities that cover all education and skill levels will take care of that.Raise Taxes or Cut Waste?
Both, and grow the economy.
Which translates to "don't interfere with MY ideology"Do the math, not the ideology.WASTE: The care and support of illegal immigrants, foreign aid, projects such as the fence along our southern border, senseless deadly costly wars, supplying weapons to drug lords and terrorists, building mosques on foreign soil, subsidies to Brazilian corn crops, no-bid government contracts, excessive military and defense spending, Medicare and Medicaid fraud, subsidies to rich farmers and big oil, exploring the far reaches of the universe, looking for water on the surface of Mars, bribes paid to North Korea and Iran, excessive government travel, lavish White House parties, lavish vacations for the president and his wife, pork spending, ridiculous perks and benefits given to members of Congress, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.Sure, list your cuts and how much? Start with the DOD, tons of fat in that. Don't start with Welfare since that isn't money.Lets "cut" first and then see where we are. Yes, we do need to grow the economy, but providing self-supporting opportunities that cover all education and skill levels will take care of that.Raise Taxes or Cut Waste?
Both, and grow the economy.
I'll go one step, further. No more amendments to bills. This idea of attaching unrelated issues( pork barrel spending, pet legislation that has no chance of ever being passed on its own) to bills before they come to a vote. No more "poison pill" amendments.First, total transparency. Only when the taxpayers can get an accurate and clear picture of exactly where the money is going and who is routing it to their own pockets will we be able to agree on what is waste and what is not.
No more omnibus spending bills larded up with hidden riders and special interest spending that doesn't relate to the bill. Each federal department should have its own spending bill with items relating only to it. We pay a lot to keep Washington in session, let them earn it by understanding and hashing out where the money is to actually go. No more obamadon'tcare carp rammed through at the last minute. No more stool sample "we have to pass it to see what's in it" garbage.
Next, all spending bills must be posted openly online at least a week before they are voted on. Give the citizens a chance to educate themselves if they wish and make their voices heard.
Next, every spending bill must cite the Constitutional language permitting Congress to spend the money.
These steps by themselves wouldn't cut spending OR raise taxes. What they WOULD do is let the citizens see what's going on and would ultimately bring pressure to bring the budget in line. Let people see how much money is spent on a "bridge to nowhere", or outhouses on Skyline Drive, or massaging rabbits, etc.
I will do this for you.....The views written in this link are the opinion of the person that stated/wrote them.I also believe in taxing everyone at the same rate. And, I believe that having a sales tax that covers all taxation is way better than what we have now.Lower taxes on everyone, especially thr cih (progressive taxation is completely unfair, everyone should be taxed at the same rate ala a flat tax.)
Implement mandatory conservation, recycling, and more efficient versions of things. It's absurd we tax more rather than cutting back even if that means draconian laws 'encouraging' it. Can't build new power generating plants everytime existing supply can't meet the deamnd - you cut back usage and the demand. Otherwise it's like raising the debt ceiling every year instead of capping it and facing the music at long last.
All taxation is just legalized theft by the government. Suppose it's a necessary evil though. Though I'd lvoe to see what happens when there are no taxes at all. Bet there's less wars...But it seems to me if we tax more successful people a higher percentage then that's just punishing that success and is thus unfair. Also, there seems to be a lot of overlap with taxes. If you tax a set amount once, then taxing it again is also unfair. Yet that's exactly what we do with federal, state, and local taxes taxing the same fixed amount multiple times.
We tax earnings.
Then we tax what remains again at the state level.
Then we tax that remainder a third time locally.
Then we tax it yet again, a fourth time if you dare to actually spend any of it via Sales Tax.
And we don't stop there. You get taxed additional times if you invest in others and are actually successful. Get taxed if you dare die and have a balance remaining.
We're awfully taxed for a supposedly free coutnry. This is the only area I'm aware of I actually agree with the Tea Partiers.
So having the record wealth inequality is not enough, you want more.
Even the the rich are worried:
At Davos rising income inequality worries some billionaires too - CSMonitor.com
So drink the kool-aid...
