Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're right. As you know, I'm a liberal. I'm also a taxpayer and hard worker who has never taken any money from public assistance. In a way, we're in the same "class." I don't like people who game the system anymore than you do. But look at the numbers. It's not welfare that is costing taxpayers bundles -- it's defense, social security and medicare. Why do you go on and on about a small piece of the problem?
Of course it is. Why not cut all three and balance the budget? While we are at it, why not eliminate about half of the federal departments and programs that are doing little, if anything, for the American people and are duplicated at state level?
Informed, the "three times more" figure does no impress me at all. I would like to see them pay more like 200 times more since they have more than 200 times the wealth.
Yeah a 1,600% tax rate will definitely boost the economy.
You're right. As you know, I'm a liberal. I'm also a taxpayer and hard worker who has never taken any money from public assistance. In a way, we're in the same "class." I don't like people who game the system anymore than you do. But look at the numbers. It's not welfare that is costing taxpayers bundles -- it's defense, social security and medicare. Why do you go on and on about a small piece of the problem?
Well then. You're not a member of the recipient class then, are you?
It's a huge problem when you have a nation where most of it's citizens are on some sort of assistance.
Well then. You're not a member of the recipient class then, are you?
It's a huge problem when you have a nation where most of it's citizens are on some sort of assistance.
No, I'm not a member of the recipient class. I just don't understand why folks like you get so angry about small potatoes. We need to tackle defense, social security and medicare. Why do you bother with a pittance?
Informed, the "three times more" figure does no impress me at all. I would like to see them pay more like 200 times more since they have more than 200 times the wealth.
Ahhh yes, the old fallback of the extreme left: When talking about what THEY contribute, base it on what their income is. When talking about what OTHERS should contribute, base it upon their accumulated wealth.
Informed, the "three times more" figure does no impress me at all. I would like to see them pay more like 200 times more since they have more than 200 times the wealth.
It's an income tax, not a wealth tax. If you want to tax wealth, you'd be taxing the equity everyone has in their homes, cars, personal possessions, checking accounts, 401k's, IRA's, etc., etc. Hell, the bottom 90% would owe MUCH MORE under a wealth tax system because so many are overextended on credit/debt to buy things they couldn't afford to pay for in cash. All those things are accumulated wealth.
Do you really want to tax everyone's wealth? If so, be prepared to pay a hell of a lot more in taxes than you already do.
It's an income tax, not a wealth tax. If you want to tax wealth, you'd be taxing the equity everyone has in their homes, cars, personal possessions, checking accounts, 401k's, IRA's, etc., etc. Hell, the bottom 90% would owe MUCH MORE under a wealth tax system because so many are overextended on credit/debt to buy things they couldn't afford to pay for in cash. All those things are accumulated wealth.
Do you really want to tax everyone's wealth? If so, be prepared to pay a hell of a lot more in taxes than you already do.
I'm not talking about wealth. I'm talking about a CEO making 247 times (on average) more than a common worker. Yet, he only pays three times more a percentage of his taxes than said worker. And you are about how unfair it is? Spare me.
I'm not talking about wealth. I'm talking about a CEO making 247 times (on average) more than a common worker. Yet, he only pays three times more a percentage of his taxes than said worker. And you are about how unfair it is? Spare me.
Oh goody! Someone who is going to spout some ridiculous, idiotic, and completely wrong thing they saw on Facebook as fact. Let's do some remedial math (I wouldn't want to confuse anybody).
-Assuming an average salary of $30,000 per year per individual and
-Understanding that the "average" CEO does not only include Fortune 500 companies, but also small businesses that happen to have incorporated - which outnumber large companies by an exponential amount....that means the "average" CEO will make:
30000*247=$7,410,000
According to CEO Watch, CEO's of the world's largest companies only turned, on average, 11 million a year. This number is skewed by exceptionally high one time payouts to people such as Oracle CEO Larry Ellison and the like. So if only the largest companies pay their CEO's 11 million a year, and most CEO's are actually in charge of smaller companies and earning in the neighbourhood of 200-600K per year, how could the average be 247 times the worker? Assuming the high end:
600,000/247=$2,429.15.
So the average worker salary is 2400 bucks a year?
Try again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
