Well geez, Josh, could that be because Bush reduced the total tax revenue? The rich could pay 99% of the total tax revenue; if that total is only a dollar then the tax cut is less progressive. This is the kind of doublespeak that, when believed, leads directly to dictatorship. 52% of Americans, the Republicans, lap it up. I fear for our country. Being that my country is the superpower, I fear for the world. What do you think?
why don't we just shoot rich people?... I still don't know why you think you're entited to take a higher percentage of people's money just because they have it. I mean... if we were in a huge war, then fine... but otherwise... A flat tax is the only thing that's fair... with the poor obviously excluded from paying anything. Love and peace, Karmashock.
The rich got rich by paying less tax to begin with. Now they want the best of both worlds. That alone would be enough to make a flat tax unfair.
During their conversation the telescreen announces that the chocolate ration has been risen to 20 g a week, whereas yesterday it was cut down to 20 g a week. Winston wonders if he's the only person with memory that isn't inflicted by Doublethink.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yeah, a letter to the editor of my local paper noted how Bush touted in his State of the Union address the 2.3 million jobs created during his reign, conveniently neglecting to factor in the 2.8 million jobs lost. Another reader noted that Social Security is not secure when the money is subject to the vagaries of the stock market, and pointed out that the Social Security Administration was created in response to a stock market crash. Too bad only liberals can grasp these things.
Not paying taxes doesn't make you rich if you aren't making money to begin with, it simply allows you to keep what you earned. A flat tax with no deductions would probably result in the rich paying MORE since they're the ones who can afford to pay a team of accountants and pay off congressmen to avoid paying under our current insanely complex system.
Yeah, those evil conservatives, wanting to reform social security. Too bad the idea originated with FDR!
What liberals never explain is how, if a wide index of stocks, bonds and government securities is a "risky scheme" where will they get taxes to pay Social Security benefits? If the markets tank and corporate America goes under, there will be few wages to levy SS taxes on. Liberals also ignore that nearly 7 million government workers are out of Social Security entirely. These are the same union members who lobby to keep everyone else in. They can have 100% of their money in the markets but we can't take a fraction of our SS bite out. Doesn't seen fair to me.
They stole the term from what we now call classic liberalism. And they made it a dirty word. So let them keep it. They'll change their name again anways. See "progressive" has made a comeback. Greens hide what they are fairly well. The New Left has been pretty much exposed for the Soviet operation it was but still has some cache. Get a kick out of Schumer claiming his in "in the mainstream." Calling them socialists only leads to debate about the means of production. "Liberal" has a nice FDR/LBJ/Ted Kennedy ring to it.
f' that, I want it back Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! . They get to be called socialists. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I want to call my self a liberal... and as I republican, while we're discussiong things that have been stolen from us, I want my party's old color back. That's blue. You guys can have any color you want... you can go back to confederate gray if you like, but the Union blue is ours... you can french blue, navy blue, aquamarine... I don't care. We get the old Union blue back. I don't know when we lost it... but it was recent... and I feel robbed. Love and peace (unless you don't give me the damn color back), Karmashock.
That’s only part of it. Another part is the tax rate they paid while they amassed their wealth. The lower the rate, the easier it is to become wealthy. If someone reaches billionaire status at age 40 and then wants to implement a change in the tax rate such that someone else who is equal (same hard work, talent, luck etc.) cannot reach billionaire status until age 70 due to a higher tax rate, that is unfair. A giant change in the tax rate needs to be phased in over generations to approach fairness.
Not true if the flat tax rate is more than the rate the average rich person pays now after paying their team of accountants. The purpose of the flat tax proposals I’ve seen is obviously to lower the taxes that the rich pay, shifting that burden to the rest. For example, a 17% flat tax when those with an income of a $million annually pay an average of 25%, say, after all their deductions.
I used Google to get your source for this. FDR is obviously referring to fiscally responsible reform, not reckless divergence from the program's core principle. Let’s dissect some other sentences therein: Well, duh, that’s because Social Security has less risk. Less risk, less gain. That is not worse. Social Security is all about minimizing risk to virtually guarantee a payout, so that seniors have a roof over their head if all else fails. Again, nothing amiss with that. I do have a problem embracing a plan that will put seniors back on the streets begging for alms, like happened during 1930s. That is why Social Security was founded! In summary, the article is a bunch of conservative crap that is easily ripped apart logically.
Talk to your buddies in the Democratic party. They are the ones who levied punitive taxes the people they claimed to be for. Think Bill Gates paid income taxes on the bulk of his fortune? Why taxes must be lowered on high income earners is because many of them put it right back in their businesses to get the big return some day (or even to have a business next year). Ever file a quarterly return? Not may who do are in favor of a graudated income tax. And fewer are who start from nothing.
the progressive tax structure is one of the biggest things hold people down. It doesn't peak at billionare level... it gets nasty once you start taking in a few hundred thousand... which is hardest on small buisness people.
This liberal will enlighten you. A wide index of stocks has a lot more risk than a CD (certificate of deposit), say. In some decades since 1930 the major stock indexes went nowhere or even down, whereas a CD always goes up. Social Security benefits are paid from the taxes you put in, plus interest accrued from guaranteed (CD-like) investments. If your Social Security taxes were invested in the stock market then in some decades seniors would be begging for alms because they are not paid enough from Social Security to put a roof over their heads. If a big asteroid hits Earth, there will be few wages to levy SS taxes on. Both are irrelevant. Government workers make less salary compared to a comparable private sector job, partly in return for a pension plan that works like Social Security. They don’t come out ahead. My Dad made 50K in a government job that would have easily paid 100K in the private sector. He made less because he was a public servant.
It’s not punitive if it’s necessary to pay the bills and otherwise fair. How was it not fair? Sure. He pays a hefty tax on all monies that become available to him by his salary or by selling his stock. That’s an illogical argument. Why not lower the tax to zero then? And then give them a billion dollars a year. They’ll put it right back into their business! I have filed a quarterly return and I am in favor of a graduated income tax. Why shouldn’t I be?
Zanket, Government jobs give you security that you don't get in the private sector. People working for governments or universities say they would pull down 100k jobs if they went out and competed for them, but I really doubt it. Perhaps the science professors, but that's about it. The simple fact is this, in business there is a bottom line. There are budget pressures that just don't exist in the federal and state systems. Why do you think that unions have been getting destroyed and minimized in EVERY business and at EVERY level in the economy EXCEPT the government? You're not subject to market pressures. You're existing in an economic fantasy land like many of our large airlines. United is a good example. They've been on the government dole more or less forever... and their whole business model makes no sense now that they're being taken off of it. The union is getting hammered because the benefits are way too generous and they've hired far too many people. If the government were run like a business, they'd have half the staff working twice as hard... and that's without endless taxpayer backed benefits that go on forever. Don’t kid yourself… government jobs are cherry.
