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

[Billy000]

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.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

To what extent is enough and who is to make that distinction?

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Jobs

 

[WillowTree]

It's already been asked and answered a million times and you're still asking?

 

[DiamondDave]

What YOU think someone SHOULD be paid is irrelevant in a free society... you NOR government gets to dictate what someone SHOULD be paid...

And in a free society of equal treatment under law, how is it you think the 'evil rich' should be treated differently where ~50% pay income taxes and ~50% pay ZERO income taxes to the fed??

Government also does not exist for the redistribution of wealth... sorry charlie, this ain't a commune

The only share you are entitled to is the share you actually earn thru your own effort, choices, actions, etc.... not one that is owed to you simply because you exist as a citizen in this country

 

[California Girl]

What YOU think someone SHOULD be paid is irrelevant in a free society... you NOR government gets to dictate what someone SHOULD be paid...

And in a free society of equal treatment under law, how is it you think the 'evil rich' should be treated differently where ~50% pay income taxes and ~50% pay ZERO income taxes to the fed??

Government also does not exist for the redistribution of wealth... sorry charlie, this ain't a commune

The only share you are entitled to is the share you actually earn thru your own effort, choices, actions, etc.... not one that is owed to you simply because you exist as a citizen in this country

^^^^ This.

 

[blastoff]

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.

 

[Ropey]

Can any Democrat tell me why the rich need to be shaken down? Capitalism does not eat the rich imho.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ]EAT THE RICH! - YouTube[/ame]

Socialists do eat the rich.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Exhibit A why we need to burn down our "Educational" system

 

[Vaard]

I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.
-Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
October 28, 1785

 

[Ropey]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS4yf723kmY]Reagan responds to Obama and his supporters - YouTube[/ame]

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

As I see it, one of the most wonderful things about this country is that a person can come here, literally with nothing in their pocket. Or, like me, they can be born to parents who worked very hard for their entire life, but really didn't have much. Literally anyone in this country, regardless of who their parents were or what 'station' they were born into can work very, very hard. If they do, then they will be successful. Part of that success is the accumulation of wealth.

Oh, now I know that the left would like us to believe that 'wealth' is really flowers, and sitting around holding hands and singing "kum ba yah" with everyone. But wealth, to most Neanderthal's like me, means that I don't have to worry about buying groceries next week. Or that if I want to have a 60" flat screen to watch the Super Bowl on, I can go down and buy one. It also means that when I get to an age where I don't want to work 12 or 16 hour days seven days a week, I can do so and have money to live on for the rest of my life. And since I worked for 30 years to accumulate that retirement money, that some one won't come along and steal it from me. Either by sticking a gun in my face or by using a proxy such as the government to stick a gun in my face.

You see, it amazes me that there are people like you who feel 'entitled' to what belongs to someone else. I didn't need the government. Didn't want the government. Actually can tell you that the government did everything within it's power to ENSURE that I did not succeed. But in spite of the government, I didn't do so bad. Now I have accumulated a nest egg that MAY see me through to the end of my life. If there is anything left over, then I will give it to my children. But of course, the government will be standing there too with their hand out.

My question to you is: Why do you feel that the United States government is anything but a hinderance to personal success? Have you seen ANYTHING that they have done that tells you that they can take the dollar from me and use it better than I can? What is in your life that allows you to believe that there is a difference between an armed man stealing your wallet and the United States government stealing your money? Besides over paid beaurocrats, what 'jobs' are created by the United States government? The constitution of the United States is a document BASED on limiting government's interference in our lives. Why is it now all the rage to allow government intrusion into every aspect of our lives?

I know that as a 'leftie' you have this bleeding heart for all of the down trodden and believe that 'the man' is responsible for all of the evil in this world. Course, the problem with all of the 'good' you want to do is that it's really not 'good' at all and "the man" is fiction. It's dependency. Go to a Native American reservation and see what 'good' the American government does for people. The entire state of Oklahoma is a reservation in reality. Billions in giveaways and still mind-numbing poverty. The sad part is, the Native Americans don't know how to break the cycle. Well, most don't. Some have severed ties completely with the government and as a result are prospering. There's a tribe in New York state that won't take a dime from the government and to get their allotments, tribal members MUST work at a tribal facility. Take their lesson, it's working.

The United States government is too big, too expensive, too intrusive, too inefficient, too ridiculous... The fact that you want MORE to feed this monstrosity borders on the insane. And since I pay for this monstrosity, I am telling you that enough is enough... Flowers and holding hands better help you get through the night, because I'm not giving you my retirement money.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Why is it that if an individual receives an income in another country-that individual still pays U.S. Federal income tax. However if an American company makes profits in other countries-they don't pay income tax on that.

 

[Listening]

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.

In here is some assumption that these programs are important and necessary.

Many don't see it that way at all.

So once we agree on what we need to pay for, we can agree how to pay for it.

 

[Claudette]

As I see it, one of the most wonderful things about this country is that a person can come here, literally with nothing in their pocket. Or, like me, they can be born to parents who worked very hard for their entire life, but really didn't have much. Literally anyone in this country, regardless of who their parents were or what 'station' they were born into can work very, very hard. If they do, then they will be successful. Part of that success is the accumulation of wealth.

Oh, now I know that the left would like us to believe that 'wealth' is really flowers, and sitting around holding hands and singing "kum ba yah" with everyone. But wealth, to most Neanderthal's like me, means that I don't have to worry about buying groceries next week. Or that if I want to have a 60" flat screen to watch the Super Bowl on, I can go down and buy one. It also means that when I get to an age where I don't want to work 12 or 16 hour days seven days a week, I can do so and have money to live on for the rest of my life. And since I worked for 30 years to accumulate that retirement money, that some one won't come along and steal it from me. Either by sticking a gun in my face or by using a proxy such as the government to stick a gun in my face.

You see, it amazes me that there are people like you who feel 'entitled' to what belongs to someone else. I didn't need the government. Didn't want the government. Actually can tell you that the government did everything within it's power to ENSURE that I did not succeed. But in spite of the government, I didn't do so bad. Now I have accumulated a nest egg that MAY see me through to the end of my life. If there is anything left over, then I will give it to my children. But of course, the government will be standing there too with their hand out.

My question to you is: Why do you feel that the United States government is anything but a hinderance to personal success? Have you seen ANYTHING that they have done that tells you that they can take the dollar from me and use it better than I can? What is in your life that allows you to believe that there is a difference between an armed man stealing your wallet and the United States government stealing your money? Besides over paid beaurocrats, what 'jobs' are created by the United States government? The constitution of the United States is a document BASED on limiting government's interference in our lives. Why is it now all the rage to allow government intrusion into every aspect of our lives?

I know that as a 'leftie' you have this bleeding heart for all of the down trodden and believe that 'the man' is responsible for all of the evil in this world. Course, the problem with all of the 'good' you want to do is that it's really not 'good' at all and "the man" is fiction. It's dependency. Go to a Native American reservation and see what 'good' the American government does for people. The entire state of Oklahoma is a reservation in reality. Billions in giveaways and still mind-numbing poverty. The sad part is, the Native Americans don't know how to break the cycle. Well, most don't. Some have severed ties completely with the government and as a result are prospering. There's a tribe in New York state that won't take a dime from the government and to get their allotments, tribal members MUST work at a tribal facility. Take their lesson, it's working.

The United States government is too big, too expensive, too intrusive, too inefficient, too ridiculous... The fact that you want MORE to feed this monstrosity borders on the insane. And since I pay for this monstrosity, I am telling you that enough is enough... Flowers and holding hands better help you get through the night, because I'm not giving you my retirement money.

Great Post Sniper.

I agree 100% plus.

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

So I assume you supported letting the Bush tax cuts expire?

 

[Conservative]

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.

To what extent is enough and who is to make that distinction?

the people who don't have the money, apparently.

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

So I assume you supported letting the Bush tax cuts expire?

And how many would still pay zero in federal income taxes, even if that happened?? If its >1, I guess you would tend to think blastoff would still be against it....

 

[Conservative]

As I see it, one of the most wonderful things about this country is that a person can come here, literally with nothing in their pocket. Or, like me, they can be born to parents who worked very hard for their entire life, but really didn't have much. Literally anyone in this country, regardless of who their parents were or what 'station' they were born into can work very, very hard. If they do, then they will be successful. Part of that success is the accumulation of wealth.

Oh, now I know that the left would like us to believe that 'wealth' is really flowers, and sitting around holding hands and singing "kum ba yah" with everyone. But wealth, to most Neanderthal's like me, means that I don't have to worry about buying groceries next week. Or that if I want to have a 60" flat screen to watch the Super Bowl on, I can go down and buy one. It also means that when I get to an age where I don't want to work 12 or 16 hour days seven days a week, I can do so and have money to live on for the rest of my life. And since I worked for 30 years to accumulate that retirement money, that some one won't come along and steal it from me. Either by sticking a gun in my face or by using a proxy such as the government to stick a gun in my face.

You see, it amazes me that there are people like you who feel 'entitled' to what belongs to someone else. I didn't need the government. Didn't want the government. Actually can tell you that the government did everything within it's power to ENSURE that I did not succeed. But in spite of the government, I didn't do so bad. Now I have accumulated a nest egg that MAY see me through to the end of my life. If there is anything left over, then I will give it to my children. But of course, the government will be standing there too with their hand out.

My question to you is: Why do you feel that the United States government is anything but a hinderance to personal success? Have you seen ANYTHING that they have done that tells you that they can take the dollar from me and use it better than I can? What is in your life that allows you to believe that there is a difference between an armed man stealing your wallet and the United States government stealing your money? Besides over paid beaurocrats, what 'jobs' are created by the United States government? The constitution of the United States is a document BASED on limiting government's interference in our lives. Why is it now all the rage to allow government intrusion into every aspect of our lives?

I know that as a 'leftie' you have this bleeding heart for all of the down trodden and believe that 'the man' is responsible for all of the evil in this world. Course, the problem with all of the 'good' you want to do is that it's really not 'good' at all and "the man" is fiction. It's dependency. Go to a Native American reservation and see what 'good' the American government does for people. The entire state of Oklahoma is a reservation in reality. Billions in giveaways and still mind-numbing poverty. The sad part is, the Native Americans don't know how to break the cycle. Well, most don't. Some have severed ties completely with the government and as a result are prospering. There's a tribe in New York state that won't take a dime from the government and to get their allotments, tribal members MUST work at a tribal facility. Take their lesson, it's working.

The United States government is too big, too expensive, too intrusive, too inefficient, too ridiculous... The fact that you want MORE to feed this monstrosity borders on the insane. And since I pay for this monstrosity, I am telling you that enough is enough... Flowers and holding hands better help you get through the night, because I'm not giving you my retirement money.

 

[Bern80]

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.

HOW you derive your income has nothing to do with how much one should be taxed. So theres one reason they shouldn't be taxed more.

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?

In the sense that you are not entitled to more money simply because the economy grows.

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.

There are so many problems with whole notion that the rich need to pay more taxes it's hard to know where to start. Is it your goal to simply get government more money? If so, why? I ask that because I really don't see the point in taxing anyone simply for the sake of taxing them. I would be all for things like simplifying our tax code and eliminating loop holes, exemptions, etc. that the rich can take advantage of that the poor middle class can't, but taxing more simply because they have more when they're already contributing the bulk of tax revenue AND nearly half of U.S. household aren't contributing anything at all is simply immoral. So many questions:

What is it you think taxing the rich is going to do for you? How will it make things better for you?

Why should the rich be responsible for making things better for you, as opposed to say.......YOU?