The People Are Taxed To Much!

What you earn as compensation for your work, efforts, ideas, investments, etc is irrelevant... they are not "getting their wealth" from the government...

If I advance my career to 200K, that does not entitle you to a share of my income, nor does it mean I deserve unequal treatment in the % of taxation as a punishment for success..

Again... wingers such as yourself and the selective equality you crave, when it benefits you

The rich, or investor class, benefit from infrastructure and defense much more than the poor. The corporations they invest in use the roads, the railroads, the airports, etc, etc. The army protects the interests they invest in overseas and the police domestically.

Therefore the income tax was developed. The constitution was amended so it could exist.



During the last 30-40 years, the top tier income taxes have been lowered dramatically, allowing the rich to keep their infrastructure benefits without paying for them. Which allowed them to increase the gap in wealth between them and the rest of the country.

As a result, the revenue level from the rich remained the same, but revenue from everyone else decreased.

Other factors that added to this effect were increases in the Payroll tax (which cuts off at around 100k) and increases in sales tax. Both of these led to reductions in wealth among the middle and lower classes, leading to less tax revenue.



The Deficit is total revenue vs total spending. I think we all agree we need to do something about spending, but Republicans like yourself seem to think that lowering taxes is some sort of magic bullet to fix the economy. It is not.

Total Revenue is raised by lowering taxes up until a certain point, according to Laffer's formula. But once that point is passed, total revenue stops rising and starts going down.

Total revenue, in relation to GDP, went down under Bush. That was fine, as long as GDP increases outpaced revenue decreases, as per Laffer's formula. But much of the GDP increase of the Bush Administration years was false wealth, generated by derivatives that were very overvalued, and sometimes worthless.

When the market corrected for those derivatives, trillions of dollars in wealth disappeared from the system, and GDP decreased.

From 2008-2009, total tax revenues decreased by 11%.
 
Last edited:
Wow. Are you serious? The Federal Governments number one priority from the very first day of our republic is to protect this nation from outside aggression. It is very much mandatory that we provide a defense of this nation. No where else in the Constitution is there such a requirement. Taking from the largess of the people to spend upon the unfortunate certainly is not.

As stated before, we spend more on "defense" than the rest of the world combined.

Most of our "defense" spending is not going to "protecting the nation from outside aggression", it is going to projecting our own power in an aggressive manner toward other nations.

Thus, most of our "Defense" spending is not spent on "defense", it is spent on "offense", which is not mandated in any way by the constitution.
 
What you earn as compensation for your work, efforts, ideas, investments, etc is irrelevant... they are not "getting their wealth" from the government...

If I advance my career to 200K, that does not entitle you to a share of my income, nor does it mean I deserve unequal treatment in the % of taxation as a punishment for success..

Again... wingers such as yourself and the selective equality you crave, when it benefits you

The rich, or investor class, benefit from infrastructure and defense much more than the poor. The corporations they invest in use the roads, the railroads, the airports, etc, etc. The army protects the interests they invest in overseas and the police domestically.

Therefore the income tax was developed. The constitution was amended so it could exist.



During the last 30-40 years, the top tier income taxes have been lowered dramatically, allowing the rich to keep their infrastructure benefits without paying for them. Which allowed them to increase the gap in wealth between them and the rest of the country.

As a result, the revenue level from the rich remained the same, but revenue from everyone else decreased.

Other factors that added to this effect were increases in the Payroll tax (which cuts off at around 100k) and increases in sales tax. Both of these led to reductions in wealth among the middle and lower classes, leading to less tax revenue.



The Deficit is total revenue vs total spending. I think we all agree we need to do something about spending, but Republicans like yourself seem to think that lowering taxes is some sort of magic bullet to fix the economy. It is not.

Total Revenue is raised by lowering taxes up until a certain point, according to Laffer's formula. But once that point is passed, total revenue stops rising and starts going down.

Total revenue, in relation to GDP, went down under Bush. That was fine, as long as GDP increases outpaced revenue decreases, as per Laffer's formula. But much of the GDP increase of the Bush Administration years was false wealth, generated by derivatives that were very overvalued, and sometimes worthless.

When the market corrected for those derivatives, trillions of dollars in wealth disappeared from the system, and GDP decreased.

From 2008-2009, total tax revenues decreased by 11%.

#1 The top tier taxes have been lowered but are still above that of other taxpayers.... I.E. selective equality
#2 The 'rich' do not benefit any more from infrastructure.... there are no special roads for the rich or courts only for the rich or legislators only for the rich.... but nice try
#3 There is no link between sales tax being the determining factor of any supposed income loss.... but nice to see you complaining about a tax system based on equality... shows even more evidence of your support of selective equality
#4 You seem to confuse equal taxation with support of 'lowering taxes', but that is a typcal ploy of the winger, and we're used to seeing it
 

Forum List

Back
Top