- Banned
- #101
You lamented not taxing the rich to the point where they "contribute to the society they have worked so hard to own". So yes, you did say that, vis a vis taxes, they do not contribute. And it's interesting that, in comparing those contributions, it would take several thousand of you to equal the contributions of one, and yet it is the one that you believe does or contribute.Not a dodge, if a guy buys an apartment block and jacks up the rent while refusing to fix any of the broken pipes or electrical shorts we would call him a scumbag, just a difference in scale, they bought a country and are letting it go to blight while whining like spoiled little bitches that it is too expensive to fix a damned thing.
What percent of federal tax revenue is generated by the 1%? The ones that, according to you, contribute nothing. And how do the non-existent contributions from this class compare to your own? From a tax perspective, are we better off with you or with some rich dude?
I do alright, the economy would be much better served by several thousand more of me and my modest success than by a billionaire stashing away another chunk in the Caymans. I never said they contribute nothing, I have been making the case that simple wealth accumulation in the hands of the super rich sucks money from the economy and that taxation is the only way to insure that at least some of it makes it back into circulation, being a billionaire means you accumulate wealth but it also means you occasionally destroy large chunks of wealth with your loses, if they had not stacked the deck to make sure that others cover those loses it would not be so bad. Show me a billionaire who was not a billionaire anymore after this mess. As long as we are expected to cover their asses when the shit hits the fan they should pay big for that kind of wealth insurance.
And by the way, at what level of taxation will you feel that the one per cent are finally contributing?