The governmental structure as currently constituted absolutely requires a subset of high-income earners (I should have said that, not the rich, 'cause as noted, they in many case don’t work) to shoulder 50% of the budget.
I would be perfectly happy in a society where everyone was pretty prosperous, everyone paid taxes, and everyone had a vote.
Would you be happier if their were a floor to the federal income tax (which you seem to confuse with ‘tax’)? Say, 2% on the poor bastards?
The debate here is over the federal income tax (check the OP title, Bush didn’t have the power to cut anything other than federal taxes). That is why I discuss the federal income tax. I’m not confusing anything.
I would have a very narrow (very low) band of zero percent. And yes, I’d be happy if someone working but earning very little paid as much as 2%. The difference between nothing and something is significant.
Wouldn’t that need be satsified if we valued other workers more than we value stockbrokers and salesmen? If we took the money paid to our most highly compensated, ah, “workers”, like the greedy financial piggies, and spread that out amongst lesser paid workers and taxed it accordingly, wouldn’t we end up with the same money? To fund our English as a second language program for gay whales?
But it looks like you’re throwing the rich under the bus, and now only want to protect the “earners”. Well, that’s some progress. Enough for one day, perhaps. See ya tomorrow.
Are you REALLY in favor of those who contribute nothing to funding our government deciding how much more of your money they should take? Just think about that for a minute. Is there ANY disincentive for them to take increasing amounts of your labor for their benefit? Are you at least somewhat concerned about this?
Hey, it’s the increased-tax crowd that started the misnomer of referring to $200k+ earners as “the rich” with their “Bush tax cuts for the wealthy” rhetoric. I’m fine saying my main interest is in not having ongoing earning disincentivized.
As the example of JR Rowling in England showed, it is not logical to assume that all those who are not contributing or contributing little will be like that forever.
Many who proposed and propose more help to the needy are not needy themselves. They are indeed willing to be taxed to see a better society.
The reason that Bush cut taxes was made clear by Nordquist. They were going to starve the beast. So he cut taxes and started 2 wars without paying for them. That went though the Clinton surplus in a hurry and plunged us into enormous deficit spending. Now all programs are on the table to be cut. That is what they wanted to do. Medicare, medicade, any programs to help the poor are suddenly too expensive to maintain. But eliminating tax cuts to the wealthy is just not fair. The rich have gobbled up a huge amount of Americas wealth since Bush got into office. They like it that way. But in case you did not notice, they have not been investing in business and jobs. They are sitting on 2 trillion dollars and have not created jobs. Now people think if they don’t have another 4 percent they will not invest in creation. They are not doing it now. The tax cuts will lower the deficit. Is that not one of the big problems the repubs are crying about? But they want it all fixed by the poor and middle classes. What a bunch of elitist crap.
The truth is the repubs do not want the budget fixed again. That would defuse their argument to kill all poor programs. When Clinton had a surplus, the repubs could not kill the poor programs without appearing to be the selfish thugs they are. Now they can. They won.
Sounds very Randian to me. She’d have loved you. Not something I’d want to brag about though.
And as far as “needing” you the French chopped off the heads of a vast swath of the rich in their country (French Revolution) and they did fine and were better off for it.
By your take France should have collapsed utterly since clearly the poor needed the rich. Didn’t work out that way though did it?
Like I already said, my brother who pays no federal income tax votes for Republicans and whines about how high taxes are. Y’all have your share of free-riders, don’t you worry.
I never thought I’d get someone to admit that the Reign of Terror was their preferred template for the tax code.
Ahem, you are partially correct.
Unfortunately the French revolution paved the way for Napoleon to take over.
Napoleon BTW still made the propaganda point that he was following the revolution, that lasted until he crowned himself emperor. Even cartoonists of the day had a field day showing the democratic guy crowning himself emperor.
It was so bad that democracy was discredited for more than a generation in Europe, paving the way to still powerful emperors calling the shots in WWI.
Only later did the French fully applied and celebrated the promises of the revolution.
Well keep holding your breath for it because I did not say that.
My point is more the notion of Huerta88 thinking the poor need the rich far more than the rich need the poor.
Quite the opposite really. The rich get rich from those below them (people buying their stuff for instance). The poor can be poor just fine without rich people.
Who do the rich guys think will pick their produce for them? Or muck out their sewer when it gets clogged? Or pick up their garbage? Sew their clothes? Clean their offices at night?
But they aren’t. Republican have a wider base of donations coming from individual contributors. The tea party folks aren’t rich, and the areas of the country dominated by Republicans are poorer than the more liberal states. Most of the republcan base would be better off with the policies that the Democrats propose.
So what? They pay into the system and certainly have a right to vote to pay more.
What’s your point?
Not quite true. Capital gains taxes, for example, have not been paid on stocks and real estate that has been inherited. In most cases, the inheritance tax system we have in place lowers the amount of taxes that would be paid if we treated the estate like we do other things. If you and you siblings inherit a million dollar estate that was bought for $100,000, sell it, and distribute the proceeds, then you will pay no taxes on it at all.
I asked a fair question and you refuse to answer it. I don’t care how people who are paying into the system decide to vote. They have the right to demand that the government take even more of their money if that is their desire. My problem is people who contribute nothing deciding how much comes out of my check.
As an aside, people who pay no taxes yet complain about high taxes are either convinced they are on their way up the earnings ladder, see the benefits of their employers not being taxed so much that it affects their job, or are idiots.
That therefore I’m not concerned about it.