Why tax the wealthier Americans more? (legal, millionaires, election, elect)
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.
There was a famous bank robber who finally got caught, and thrown in jail. When he was asked why he had kept robbing bank after bank, he replied frankly, "Because that's where the money is!"
Today's liberals have the same reason for wanting to tax the wealthier Americans. Not because they deserve to lose more than other Americans, but because "that's where the money is". Some of the more fanatical liberals actually try to pretend that if you can make a law saying it's legal, that somehow makes it moral.
The only real differences between that bank robber and today's liberals, are:
1.) The bank robber never tried to claim the banks were eeevil for having the money;
2.) The bank robber never pretended it was moral for him to take the money;
3.) The bank robber never claimed that his taking the money, would benefit anybody beside himself.
In some ways, that bank robber was far more honest than today's liberals.
It makes some people feel better. It doesn't do all that much in terms of increasing revenue since the rich will just spend more time and energy hiding their money.
You know if you could take all of the cash and other valuables from every billionaire in the country, you would hardly even pay off 10% of the debt. I mean literally drain every one of their net worth down from $1.6T to $0.00 and we would still have made hardly a dent in our $16T+ debt.
There was a famous bank robber who finally got caught, and thrown in jail. When he was asked why he had kept robbing bank after bank, he replied frankly, "Because that's where the money is!"
Today's liberals have the same reason for wanting to tax the wealthier Americans.
And that's where they're making their mistake. MOST of the income is earned by the middle class. If the goal is really to increase tax revenue, THAT is where the income tax increases need to be.
Quote:
In some ways, that bank robber was far more honest than today's liberals.
The bank robber was honest. Liberals are not. Liberals have NO intention whatsoever of increasing income tax revenue in any meaningful way. If they did they would tax the group that earns MOST of the income: the middle class.
Instead, their goal is just to penalize sacrifice, hard work, and success.
There was a famous bank robber who finally got caught, and thrown in jail. When he was asked why he had kept robbing bank after bank, he replied frankly, "Because that's where the money is!"
Today's liberals have the same reason for wanting to tax the wealthier Americans. Not because they deserve to lose more than other Americans, but because "that's where the money is". Some of the more fanatical liberals actually try to pretend that if you can make a law saying it's legal, that somehow makes it moral.
The only real differences between that bank robber and today's liberals, are:
1.) The bank robber never tried to claim the banks were eeevil for having the money;
2.) The bank robber never pretended it was moral for him to take the money;
3.) The bank robber never claimed that his taking the money, would benefit anybody beside himself.
In some ways, that bank robber was far more honest than today's liberals.
It's absolutely not fair that rich people pay a penny more in taxes than anyone else. Having a tax based on income is inherently unfair and disincentivizes making more money. Every individual in this country should pay the same amount (say, $5000) and be charged perhaps half ($2500) for any dependents, whether you make $10,000 or $10,000,000 per year.
You know if you could take all of the cash and other valuables from every billionaire in the country, you would hardly even pay off 10% of the debt. I mean literally drain every one of their net worth down from $1.6T to $0.00 and we would still have made hardly a dent in our $16T+ debt.
And that's why you have to do it yearly. A one time heist isn't going to get you to the goal... speaking of which... who said the aim was to pay off the debt? Isn't the nature of debt that it is paid down over time? These endless threads with their flawed premise that greedy Liberals want to rob billionaires just because... its laughable. Is it sane that Romney should pay 13% on the majority of his income? Maybe if that were the rate for everyone else. Why is it closer to 25% for people that make much, much less money than he does? You cannot defend this. The attempt just makes you all look like strident nutcases. Instead of arguing for Tax Reform you argue for lowered taxes on the wealthy when taxes for the wealthy are at their lowest point in history. It doesn't make your side look rational. That was clear from the election. So now what? Do we go over that cliff? The middle class has nothing more to lose. Your move.
You can only confiscate all their wealth once, and it would barely make a dent. What would the plan be for after that? Confiscate all of the middle class's wealth? And after that, then what?
By now, you should recognize that we have a SPENDING problem, NOT a tax problem.
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.
