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.
The only thing we can do, is to reduce that inequality by taxing high income earners more, and taxing everyone else less.
Riddle me this.
How will taxing the rich more increase wages for the poor?
If there's no demand for a product or service, the company wouldn't be expanding in the first place.
They got even richer and the entire world uses electric light now. Thanks mainly to JP Morgan's "greed" and Thomas Edison's innovation.
Was there demand at first? None. Was there demand later? You bet.
It doesn't. But by taxing the rich more, we can tax the rest less. That will help the rest bringing more money home.
Yes, I know that economy is expanding and innovation creates more wealth. But it does not preclude -- at the same time -- the rich from getting richer at the expense of the rest.
It doesn't. But by taxing the rich more, we can tax the rest less. That will help the rest bringing more money home.
Even if the poor weren't taxed at all, they'd still be poor. And the rich will only be a little less rich.
If the government didn't spend as much, they wouldn't need to raise taxes on anyone.
The poor could probably get away with not paying any taxes at all (they already do)
His vision would not bear him fruits if not for those little people who work for him, and for those taking other low-paying jobs. Those people make his vision possible.
Why do you automatically assume that by working for him they're getting paid low, unfair wages?
Again, your pattern of thinking is based on a flawed logic.
And while you're right about his vision not being possible without the labor of the workers, it's still more valuable and should be compensated as such. You will find a few men with ideas to start their own companies, and even fewer with the initiative to take action. Workers, however, are a dime a dozen. You can pull a half decent worker off the street, but competent CEOs are few and far between.
Forget it. You're dealing with someone who imagines rich people sitting in their offices with the factory visible from their windows wearing tuxedos and monocles.
There is no arguing with someone with that many misconceptions and that ignorant of how business actually works.
It doesn't. But by taxing the rich more, we can tax the rest less. That will help the rest bringing more money home.
Even if the poor weren't taxed at all, they'd still be poor. And the rich will only be a little less rich.
So we are not trying to build a socialism in this country! Nobody suggests eliminating the inequality, the point is that we should reduce it.
If the government didn't spend as much, they wouldn't need to raise taxes on anyone.
If the government didn't spend that much, it would not be able to care for our elders and disabled, and it would leave us defenseless against our enemies abroad. That is where 80% of the government spending goes. Of course they can always close NASA.
The poor could probably get away with not paying any taxes at all (they already do)
No, they don't -- every worker pays payroll and other taxes.
Yes, I know that economy is expanding and innovation creates more wealth. But it does not preclude -- at the same time -- the rich from getting richer at the expense of the rest.
So what? They obviously do. They provide a service that everyone else buys. What's wrong with that?
What you're preaching is full blown socialism. "If I earn more money than my friends, it's at their expense."
Yes, I know that economy is expanding and innovation creates more wealth. But it does not preclude -- at the same time -- the rich from getting richer at the expense of the rest.
So what? They obviously do. They provide a service that everyone else buys. What's wrong with that?
They would provide us with the same valuable services even if they know that one day they may end up reaching the 70% bracket. Just as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs did.
What you're preaching is full blown socialism. "If I earn more money than my friends, it's at their expense."
What I'm preaching, I guess, is that you are just as dump and insensitive as most right-wingers are supposed to be (and the rest are simply using their dumb followers to get rich).
It doesn't. But by taxing the rich more, we can tax the rest less. That will help the rest bringing more money home.
Even if the poor weren't taxed at all, they'd still be poor. And the rich will only be a little less rich.
Are you starting to see the flaw in this logic?
If the government didn't spend as much, they wouldn't need to raise taxes on anyone. The poor could probably get away with not paying any taxes at all (they already do), and the rich would have more money to raise the wages to the poor.
That to me makes a little more sense than increasing the burden on the ones solely responsible for the workers even having a job.
It doesn't. But by taxing the rich more, we can tax the rest less. That will help the rest bringing more money home.
Even if the poor weren't taxed at all, they'd still be poor. And the rich will only be a little less rich.
Are you starting to see the flaw in this logic?
If the government didn't spend as much, they wouldn't need to raise taxes on anyone. The poor could probably get away with not paying any taxes at all (they already do), and the rich would have more money to raise the wages to the poor.
That to me makes a little more sense than increasing the burden on the ones solely responsible for the workers even having a job.
The poor already pay no income taxes so tell me how can they pay less?
It doesn't. But by taxing the rich more, we can tax the rest less. That will help the rest bringing more money home.
Even if the poor weren't taxed at all, they'd still be poor. And the rich will only be a little less rich.
Are you starting to see the flaw in this logic?
If the government didn't spend as much, they wouldn't need to raise taxes on anyone. The poor could probably get away with not paying any taxes at all (they already do), and the rich would have more money to raise the wages to the poor.
That to me makes a little more sense than increasing the burden on the ones solely responsible for the workers even having a job.
The poor already pay no income taxes so tell me how can they pay less?
Even if the poor weren't taxed at all, they'd still be poor. And the rich will only be a little less rich.
Are you starting to see the flaw in this logic?
If the government didn't spend as much, they wouldn't need to raise taxes on anyone. The poor could probably get away with not paying any taxes at all (they already do), and the rich would have more money to raise the wages to the poor.
That to me makes a little more sense than increasing the burden on the ones solely responsible for the workers even having a job.
The poor already pay no income taxes so tell me how can they pay less?
They can pay less in other taxes (payroll tax, etc). Also, it is not just about the poor, the main victim here is the middle class. They should see their taxes lowered, or at least not increased in order to balance the budget.
The poor already pay no income taxes so tell me how can they pay less?
They can pay less in OTHER taxes (payroll tax, etc). Also, it is not just about the poor, the main victim here is the middle class. They should see their taxes lowered, or at least not increased in order to balance the budget.
Dummy. 47% of working people pay no income taxes.
They can pay less in OTHER taxes (payroll tax, etc). Also, it is not just about the poor, the main victim here is the middle class. They should see their taxes lowered, or at least not increased in order to balance the budget.
Dummy. 47% of working people pay no income taxes.
Oh for Pete's sake -- are you for real???
Dummy. 47% of working people pay no income taxes.
Oh for Pete's sake -- are you for real???
Oh, and if any of you thought that Rabbi wouldn't negg me for that post, you can put all your doubts to rest.
Oh for Pete's sake -- are you for real???
Oh, and if any of you thought that Rabbi wouldn't negg me for that post, you can put all your doubts to rest.
About that amount do not pay federal income taxes.
The problem with what you and the Democrats are proposing is that you are going down the route of California whereby the tax burden has shifted to upper earners and the wealthiest, and the tax base has become very volatile and highly dependent on capital gains. That's unhealthy.
I'll reiterate, I don't mind taxes rising on the wealthy, but taxes are going to also have to go up on others as well eventually because the system isn't sustainable. I think I read somewhere that the 1% paid $300 billion in taxes. The deficit is $1.2 trillion. Half of federal spending is SS and Medicare and Medicaid, which are primarily middle class programs. Those programs are going to become more underfunded, and the middle class's taxes will have to rise to pay for them.
Oh, and if any of you thought that Rabbi wouldn't negg me for that post, you can put all your doubts to rest.
About that amount do not pay federal income taxes.
The problem with what you and the Democrats are proposing is that you are going down the route of California whereby the tax burden has shifted to upper earners and the wealthiest, and the tax base has become very volatile and highly dependent on capital gains. That's unhealthy.
I'll reiterate, I don't mind taxes rising on the wealthy, but taxes are going to also have to go up on others as well eventually because the system isn't sustainable. I think I read somewhere that the 1% paid $300 billion in taxes. The deficit is $1.2 trillion. Half of federal spending is SS and Medicare and Medicaid, which are primarily middle class programs. Those programs are going to become more underfunded, and the middle class's taxes will have to rise to pay for them.
Or we could just slash spending back to something sustainable.
Oh for Pete's sake -- are you for real???
Oh, and if any of you thought that Rabbi wouldn't negg me for that post, you can put all your doubts to rest.
About that amount do not pay federal income taxes.
The problem with what you and the Democrats are proposing is that you are going down the route of California whereby the tax burden has shifted to upper earners and the wealthiest, and the tax base has become very volatile and highly dependent on capital gains. That's unhealthy.
I think I read somewhere that the 1% paid $300 billion in taxes.
The deficit is $1.2 trillion
Half of federal spending is SS and Medicare and Medicaid, which are primarily middle class programs. Those programs are going to become more underfunded, and the middle class's taxes will have to rise to pay for them.
We're going to have to cut spending.
