R
rdean
Guest
The enormous wealth of the few is basically subsidized by the many. If millionaires and billionaires were taxed by the schedules in effect in 1980 more revenue sharing dollars would return to the states, reducing the states, local communities and special districts of the need to raise fees and taxes. More money will be available for wage earners to pay for college, as tuition may drop, as fees and local taxes drop they may go to movies more oftern, eat out and enjoy life - in short stimulating the economy.
McConnell, Boehner, Murdoch, Limbaugh are all wealthy - surely they all earn over $250,000 per year. How many f/t employees do they employ? Suggesting the wealthy create jobs is little more than propaganda.
Cut taxes for the American Family, they will put money back into the economy - and the economy will grow. More jobs = more income tax revenue and government at all levels able to finance rebuilding our infrastructure, creating more private sector jobs and maybe solve some of the chronic problems of our nation.
We have become a plutocracy, anyone who beliefs differently is invited to explain why they believe I'm wrong.
One can also argue that if goverment stopped needing money to do things it was never intended to do in the first place, everyone would have more money because everyones taxes could be lowered.
The issue becomes that with the current system it never stops at "just raise the taxes back to X time." Sooner or later it has to be raised again and again. This is happening at the state and the city level more than the federal level. Whats worse there is at that level people of a certain income can just move away.
The system as it is set up when it comes to income taxes IS progressive. I would prefer monkeying around with the system to simplify it first, to see the true rates we are taxing at before we just decide to raise taxes on people who are "not us." re-defining the income tax as all income, for example, and not just wages. This would eliminate the distiction between capital gains, wage and investment income, and would probably allow for a lowering of the rate for all.
Do you believe it is healthy for a society, one which supports democratic institutions, to allow the redistribution of wealth?
Of course not. That's why the Bush tax cuts, with 52% going to the top 1% were such a disaster. The year Obama took office, insurance companies raised rates 39% and hospital costs became the number one cause of bankruptcy. Moving jobs to China using taxpayer paid subsidies and tax breaks so the rich could get even more rich.
This is only a repeat of the 1930's. When you concentrate all the money into the hands of a very few, it will always lead to a depression. Those rich people pour money into congress to change laws so their stealing is completely legal.
What this means is that Republican created the greatest transfer and redistribution of wealth from the Middle Class to the top 1% in the history of the world. How else can you describe the rich making staggering amounts of money and the middle class and the poor getting nothing, not even jobs. That is called a "transfer of wealth".
And the GOP plan is to continue. Look at what they did. Right after he last election, the only thing they could talk about was money to millionaires and billionaires. Not jobs. Not unemployment benefits. Not the Middle Class. No, "Millionaires and billionaires". Their only concern. It's not like you can deny it.
Last edited by a moderator: