Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
"punishing the rich"
God this republican talking point is stupid. Half of Major Tom's posts must consist of stuffing this phrase into the mouths of his opponents so he can attack strawmen.
Since when did paying your dues become "punishment"? Of course the rich should be paying more in taxes. They're rich. They're not spending their ENTIRE income on food, clothing, shelter and insurance. They derive their wealth from the backs of others, why should they keep near all of it?
Anyone notice that most of the time when someone points out Tom is strawmanning and putting words into people's mouths he stops posting all the sudden?
Since when did paying your dues become "punishment"? Of course the rich should be paying more in taxes. They're rich. They're not spending their ENTIRE income on food, clothing, shelter and insurance. They derive their wealth from the backs of others, why should they keep near all of it?
Anyone notice that most of the time when someone points out Tom is strawmanning and putting words into people's mouths he stops posting all the sudden?
Comments
Why aren't they, when merely having more will cause more taxes on you?
So people who got their wealth thanks to a stable, well-functioning, well-maintained society (including a well-capitalized economy with people who are willing to spend money to keep it going) ought to just say "haha, suckers, I'm leaving and taking my money with me!" and leaving the aftermath for everyone else to deal with?
> exactly everybody spenduing my tax money on your4self stop it.
Stop using those roads. Go build yourself a house from your own materials, and no looking at our society-established safety standards. Dig your own well; invent your own pump if you need one. Also chop your own firewood. And figure out your own remedies when you get sick.
...or you can thank the fact that civilization exists, and realize that it doesn't exist for free, just like everything else in this world. (Sadly.)
> Why aren't they, when merely having more will cause more taxes on you?
There's also a difference between property taxes and income taxes. Your complaint is directed to the first. I'm not saying it's valid or not; I'm just pointing out this distinction.
> I swear to gog this thread is this close to fixing the economy.
I swear to gog that IJBM enjoys political threads.
Things like public infrastructure and civil and criminal legal systems are necessary for growing successful businesses.
Because they provide the stability in which people can actually do business. Without, say, fear of being cheated of their money, being robbed, buying lemons, etc..
If Bob on Main Street pays 30% of his income to the government, then Bill Gates should pay 30% of his income to the government. That's the only fair solution.
If you, say, made the person with the pre-tax million-dollar salary pay, say, an extra $21,000 in taxes, he/she would still have $679,000, while another three people who make $50,000 pre-tax would see an effective income increase of 20%.
The person who makes $679,000 is probably pretty maxed out at what he/she can spend it on, aside from charitable giving and financial investments. There's only so many vacations, mansions, and big screen TVs that one can realistically enjoy having. On the other hand, those three people who each now have an extra $7,000 are much more likely to spend the money on making life just a little big better for themselves.
So if you were to consider which would be better for the economy as a whole, in spurring up economic activity, then...yeah.
Second,
> or you could I don't know lower taxes and get rid of waste via unnecessary government handouts and programs?
How do you decide what is "unnecessary"?
Unnecessary for what?
There is no definition of "unnecessary" unless you have a purpose in mind.
> Not this bullshit living text argument.
Tell that to Chief Justice John Marshall.