Republicans: why do you ignore the wealth inequality issue?

[kwc57]

I still havent seen a good reason why I should hate someone just because he has more money than me.

Let me splain it to you. Remember how back when you were a kid and Santa brought little Timmy across the street that sweet Schwinn Stingray bike and all you got was a stocking full of coal. It wasn't "fair" was it? Remember how much you hated Timmy for having that cool bike? Remember how he wouldn't let you ride it? Remember how you used to throw your coal at him when he rode by? Avie, it just isn't "fair" that some people have more and better stuff than others. I mean after all, they did absolutely nothing to get it. They were just lucky.....and greedy. Obviously Santa just liked them more than the others and that just isn't "fair". Do you understand now?

 

[Ernie S.]

The amount is immaterial. The issue is that the federal government in it's arrogance beleives it is entitled to ANY part of an estate just because a person happens to die.
That money has been taxed many times over and government still wants another bite at the apple.
I once heard an interview of a top level IRS spokes person. She used the words "we let you keep"....I almost wanted to go the radio station and plant my foot in this woman's ass.
That phrase "we let you keep" presupposes the notion that all wealth belongs to government FIRST....Hogwash.
Unfortunately there are many people in this country who believe everything begins and ends with government.

From what I've seen, that's the primary difference between left and right when it comes to property, including the income that we earn from labor or investments. Those on the right, whether they fully think it through or not, embrace the Founderts' understanding that if personal property is not sacred and untouchable by govetrnment, there is no freedom. The government should receive, courtesy of the people, only as much as is necessary to fund the Constitutional functions of government. Those on the right are not given to class envy but see the infinite possibilities in a social contract in which the people are not servants of the government.

The left however, sees everything belonging to the collective and, whether they fully think it through or not, philosophically see the government as the entity that determines what rights, including property, that we will be allowed to have. If you read carefully what they write, the left embraces the concept of a monarchal government with rightful power over the people. They seem unable to conceive of a government as the servant of the people and resist that concept when it is put before them. They see that the duty of the people is to serve the government who then takes care of everybody who isn't rich. Class envy is just one of the phenomenon that helps them justify their ideology in their own minds.

The Founders gave us a Constitution and philosophy of government in which the people can be free, unfettered by whatever circumstances into which they are born, and where opportunity is there for the taking for everybody. It is ever more obvious that we are losing the heart and soul of that Constitution, however, and if we do not constantly defend and fight for it, it will soon be too late to reverse that trend.

They aren't taxing the dead person. They're taxing the recipient of a large sum of money. That's how taxes work.

What did that money do to deserve to be taxed? It was earned and taxes were paid on it. It sat for maybe years in an interest bearing account and taxes were paid on the interest. Had the deceased kept on living, taxes would continue to be paid on the earnings, but suddenly, the person dies and the account goes into the name of a son or daughter and the government is first in line to tax the principal?

 

[freedombecki]

From what I've seen, that's the primary difference between left and right when it comes to property, including the income that we earn from labor or investments. Those on the right, whether they fully think it through or not, embrace the Founderts' understanding that if personal property is not sacred and untouchable by govetrnment, there is no freedom. The government should receive, courtesy of the people, only as much as is necessary to fund the Constitutional functions of government. Those on the right are not given to class envy but see the infinite possibilities in a social contract in which the people are not servants of the government.

The left however, sees everything belonging to the collective and, whether they fully think it through or not, philosophically see the government as the entity that determines what rights, including property, that we will be allowed to have. If you read carefully what they write, the left embraces the concept of a monarchal government with rightful power over the people. They seem unable to conceive of a government as the servant of the people and resist that concept when it is put before them. They see that the duty of the people is to serve the government who then takes care of everybody who isn't rich. Class envy is just one of the phenomenon that helps them justify their ideology in their own minds.

The Founders gave us a Constitution and philosophy of government in which the people can be free, unfettered by whatever circumstances into which they are born, and where opportunity is there for the taking for everybody. It is ever more obvious that we are losing the heart and soul of that Constitution, however, and if we do not constantly defend and fight for it, it will soon be too late to reverse that trend.

They aren't taxing the dead person. They're taxing the recipient of a large sum of money. That's how taxes work.

What did that money do to deserve to be taxed? It was earned and taxes were paid on it. It sat for maybe years in an interest bearing account and taxes were paid on the interest. Had the deceased kept on living, taxes would continue to be paid on the earnings, but suddenly, the person dies and the account goes into the name of a son or daughter and the government is first in line to tax the principal?

That's because the Democrats lied and pushed for the Big Pig Fed instead of the Constitution. "It takes a village" propaganda certainly idn't work for Communist Russia.

Truth is, unless we keep America as a land of opportunity with its intact constitution, it won't be one when leftists are done communizing and making people their property instead of the land.

From what I've read, it's hell to be somebody else's property, including the state's.

Out with the Democrats on their sorry cans.

 

[Ava]

Republicans ignore it as we feel that you need to earn it. Most of the poor are lazy and don't wish to pound the floor to advance them selfs.

Poor-think it should be handed to you=no wealth. You think life is a joke.
Rich-work hard and plan=more wealth!

Why should the people that work hard and are smart enough to save up give you their money?

Correct.

You don't strengthen an economy by taking what others have to give to those that haven't. Our taxes are "helping" you out enough already and actually doing more to harm you than help you, in most cases. The 1% created the middle-class. And still, all you want is more. That term "fair-share"......was invented to cause a change in the thinking of those that need to feel justified, in living off others...

 

[Foxfyre]

Somewhere along the way, a lot of folks on the left lost sight of an important American value: people who are free to govern themselves are also free to make the most of whatever opportunities exist for them or whatever opportunities they can create for themselves. Somewhere along the way those folks on the left got the idea that if they don't have it, somebody should give it to them.

They can't quite wrap their heads around the idea that when the millionaire is taxed at the same rate as the janitor, the milliionare DOES pay a whole lot more in taxes than the janitor does. 10% or whatever percent of a million is 90% more than 10% of $10,000.

They can't or won't see the dishonesty in the Warren Buffet and his secretary analogy for instance. President Obama used it again in his State of the Union speech last night, but failed to acknowledge that if the secretary puts her money into stocks and bonds, she is taxed on the gains at exactly the same rate he is. Or if he paid himself a salary instead of living off the stocks and bonds (of which tax has already been paid on the principle), he wouldn't be paying a lesser tax than she pays.

They don't want to appreciate how a parents can work hard and manage their money in order for their children to have a better life. The left thinks the government should assign to the children whatever they think the children should have; thus the clamor for a high estate tax which by the way helped create the demise of the family farm and has caused many a family business to have to close.

The idea should be how little can the government get by on in order to perform the absolute necessary functions of government rather than how much can the government get from the "rich" and transfer it to those who have neither the stomach nor invclination to do what they have to do to become rich themselves.

 

[Katzndogz]

The unintended consquences of raising taxes is that in an effort to get more taxes, the government gets less. Tax too much and citizens will just leave the country and renounce their citizenship. Now the government gets NO taxes.

 

[Foxfyre]

The unintended consquences of raising taxes is that in an effort to get more taxes, the government gets less. Tax too much and citizens will just leave the country and renounce their citizenship. Now the government gets NO taxes.

Naw, they don't have to leave the country. The rich will outsource and shelter their income if the risk becomes too reat to invest it for the benefit of others in the country, and of course higher taxes greatly increases that iinvestment risk. The rest of the people just have to be sure they don't make too much money so that they can supplement their income from the people's trreasury.

The entitlement mentality supports those who do not want to do what they need to do to prosper, rewards poor choices, punishes success.

 

[Iggy]

Because it's not a wealth inequality issue and there's nothing to ignore with regards to the generation of wealth and income in an capitalist society. Checks and balances need to be put into place AND overseen by as fully an independent council as possible.

However, this drive called 'wealth inequality' is the continued attempt to corral capitalism and mold it into socialism.

 

[Bern80]

I already told you I personally did not want their money. Again, it's arguably not their money if they didn't technically earn it.

Correct if I'm wrong, but my guess is by 'earn it' you mean monetary compensation for providing a skill or service. That would be 'earning it', right? But the reality is this; earning money is but one way to generate money. And what most people miss is that distinction and that the later is the real goal. Whether you generate $1000 in a week for providing a service or working for someone or if you generate $1000 net through gambling, either way the money is still yours. Saying the $1000 the gambler won isn't really his because of how he acquired it is simply false.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know.........I didn't spend 4 years going to college, following up and becoming an investment banker so that I could take advantage of lower tax brackets, nor will I ever have enough money to take advantage of something like that.

Why? Because by the time I'd retired out of the military, I was already 20 years too late to generate that kind of wealth, the only way I could get it now is to win the lottery.

Yes. I think the 1 percent should be taxed at at LEAST the same rate as the military. 28 percent withholding at the beginning and you file for your tax refund.

 

[Foxfyre]

You know.........I didn't spend 4 years going to college, following up and becoming an investment banker so that I could take advantage of lower tax brackets, nor will I ever have enough money to take advantage of something like that.

Why? Because by the time I'd retired out of the military, I was already 20 years too late to generate that kind of wealth, the only way I could get it now is to win the lottery.

Yes. I think the 1 percent should be taxed at at LEAST the same rate as the military. 28 percent withholding at the beginning and you file for your tax refund.

And they are. The rich are taxed at the maximum bracket for salaries, wages, and benefits. They are taxed on earnings from investments for which they have already paid taxes when they earned it. The military isn't taxed on 28% of earnings from their investments and neither should anybody else be taxed that much.

Hubby and I were well into our 50's before we got serious about saving for retirement. We, like you, went throught the phase that it was too late to start, so we delayed too long, but we got smart before it was too late, passed on most expensive luxury items, vacations etc. and put back as much as we could, carefully and conservatively investing it as we went. And now we enjoy a very modest income off of those investments and are not a burden to you and the rest of society.

It ain't over until it is over.

But don't buy into the lie that the 'rich' are somehow not paying their fair share. They are paying the huge lion's share of all the treasury revenues and if you kill the goose, you'll get a whole lot less from them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why do I ignore the wealth inequality issue?

Simple:
It's not the government's job to address this.

In the United States, you have the right to pursue hapiness; nowhere in that right is the idea that government will make sure you catch it.

 

[Bern80]

You know.........I didn't spend 4 years going to college, following up and becoming an investment banker so that I could take advantage of lower tax brackets, nor will I ever have enough money to take advantage of something like that.

Why? Because by the time I'd retired out of the military, I was already 20 years too late to generate that kind of wealth, the only way I could get it now is to win the lottery.

Yes. I think the 1 percent should be taxed at at LEAST the same rate as the military. 28 percent withholding at the beginning and you file for your tax refund.

That's another thing I don't get. Why does everyone argue that the tax rate of the rich should be as much as the poor or military. Why don't people instead argue that their tax rate be lowered to that of the rich?

 

[kwc57]

You know.........I didn't spend 4 years going to college, following up and becoming an investment banker so that I could take advantage of lower tax brackets, nor will I ever have enough money to take advantage of something like that.

Why? Because by the time I'd retired out of the military, I was already 20 years too late to generate that kind of wealth, the only way I could get it now is to win the lottery.

Yes. I think the 1 percent should be taxed at at LEAST the same rate as the military. 28 percent withholding at the beginning and you file for your tax refund.

That would be fair as long as the 1% get room, board, clothing and medical care like the military. I mean, fair is fair, right?

 

[Foxfyre]

You know.........I didn't spend 4 years going to college, following up and becoming an investment banker so that I could take advantage of lower tax brackets, nor will I ever have enough money to take advantage of something like that.

Why? Because by the time I'd retired out of the military, I was already 20 years too late to generate that kind of wealth, the only way I could get it now is to win the lottery.

Yes. I think the 1 percent should be taxed at at LEAST the same rate as the military. 28 percent withholding at the beginning and you file for your tax refund.

That's another thing I don't get. Why does everyone argue that the tax rate of the rich should be as much as the poor or military. Why don't people instead argue that their tax rate be lowered to that of the rich?

Excellent point though again the rich actually do pay the top bracket on earned wages and benefits and everybody, rich and poor, pays the same percentage on capital gains.

But yeah. Why not lower the rate for everybody to say 10% or so on ALL income from whatever source. The rich will still be paying the huge lion's share because they have big earnings. And a lot of those now being carried by everybody else will again have an investment in the tax code and will be voting for the best candidates again instead of the candidates who promise to keep them off the tax rolls. It is a dangerous thing when there are no consequences in the tax code for almost half of working Americans.

The problem is not that the rich are not paying their fair share. And every one of us should be booing those engaging in class envy to further their own political fortunes.

 

[tenthertoo]

Republicans ignoring the "Income Inequality Issue" (if there is one) - Is no kinkier than the Democrats ignoring the "Debt Issue" (and there is one).

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know.........I didn't spend 4 years going to college, following up and becoming an investment banker so that I could take advantage of lower tax brackets, nor will I ever have enough money to take advantage of something like that.

Why? Because by the time I'd retired out of the military, I was already 20 years too late to generate that kind of wealth, the only way I could get it now is to win the lottery.

Yes. I think the 1 percent should be taxed at at LEAST the same rate as the military. 28 percent withholding at the beginning and you file for your tax refund.

That's another thing I don't get. Why does everyone argue that the tax rate of the rich should be as much as the poor or military. Why don't people instead argue that their tax rate be lowered to that of the rich?

Probably because we have a deficit left to us by the last person in office before Obama, and we need to pay our debts.

 

[Bern80]

Probably because we have a deficit left to us by the last person in office before Obama, and we need to pay our debts.

No 'we' don't. I didn't choose to have the federal government spend beyond its means. That group of people on the hill are the ones that can not control their spending. They have zero right to hold you or me accountable for that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You know.........I didn't spend 4 years going to college, following up and becoming an investment banker so that I could take advantage of lower tax brackets, nor will I ever have enough money to take advantage of something like that.

Why? Because by the time I'd retired out of the military, I was already 20 years too late to generate that kind of wealth, the only way I could get it now is to win the lottery.

Yes. I think the 1 percent should be taxed at at LEAST the same rate as the military. 28 percent withholding at the beginning and you file for your tax refund.

That's another thing I don't get. Why does everyone argue that the tax rate of the rich should be as much as the poor or military. Why don't people instead argue that their tax rate be lowered to that of the rich?

Probably because we have a deficit left to us by the last person in office before Obama, and we need to pay our debts.

You do know that The Obama chose to run up -considerably- more debt in 4 years that GWB did in 8 - right?

 

[JoeB131]

I still havent seen a good reason why I should hate someone just because he has more money than me.

Let me splain it to you. Remember how back when you were a kid and Santa brought little Timmy across the street that sweet Schwinn Stingray bike and all you got was a stocking full of coal. It wasn't "fair" was it? Remember how much you hated Timmy for having that cool bike? Remember how he wouldn't let you ride it? Remember how you used to throw your coal at him when he rode by? Avie, it just isn't "fair" that some people have more and better stuff than others. I mean after all, they did absolutely nothing to get it. They were just lucky.....and greedy. Obviously Santa just liked them more than the others and that just isn't "fair". Do you understand now?

Naw, I just punched holes in little timmy's tires. And then a bunch of us beat the crap out of him for getting uppity.

Which is what's going to happen to rich don't get a clue really soon and realize wealth inequality is a real problem.