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.
Government has been business dependent since the country was founded.More and more government has become the middle man in businesses compensating people since the mid 60's. So don't look for raises at lower level from companies; look to government. if you did get one then anther group did. that is the way it is in a politically based system. For many the subsidized ACA is a huge gain and likely to be it for some years to come.
Stay informed and pragmatic as there should be huge moneys there to be made!
While only half of those filing income tax forms actually owe net income tax, it is not "the rich" who is paying the bulk of the trillions of dollars needed to support the bureaucracy of Big Government plus all the redistribution. The truly rich don't have to work, and when they do, they aren't going to sacrifice half their earnings to the corrupt upper class that they belong to. They know full well that if they want to do something for the good of mankind, it should be done efficiently with charity rather than the sucker-game of taxes.
It is the WORKING CLASS who pay federal taxes--particularly, those who are in their peak income years, and who live in areas with a very high cost of living. Sadly, these people are not allowed to first save enough that they can retire and pay the health care costs that they will inevitably incur before they die--they instead are taxed more and more heavily, as if they don't "need" the extra money they earn.
It's time the working class realized what the upper classes are born knowing--that every dollar sent to Washington is a dollar burned and lost.
I've often wondered why the politicians from the high cost states (CA, NY, HI, AK, northeastern states) don't use different tax tables to adjust for their higher incomes. It seems only fair.
Why are they paying a much higher share of the federal income tax than their share of the income? Why doesn't everyone just pay according to what they earn, proportionately?
Largely because vast middle class tax breaks sharply reduce effective tax rates paid by much of the middle class, and because of child tax breaks that sharply reduce effective tax rates for non-rich families with children. Working class childless adults need not apply.
As an individual who has never enjoyed a federal tax benefit that's not universal - all I have ever enjoyed are the standard deduction and personal exemption - I strongly support the lower tax rates that fewer tax breaks could bring.
What do some of you feel about the theory regarding the amount of money that denotes what the middle class makes is rising? I mean at one point to be considered to be a "solid" middle class income earner you had to make about 75k and now it is argueably higher (250k+). Once a upon a time having a over a million dollars made you wealthy but a wealthy freind of mine told me that you have at least 30 million to fit that same category now.
Proably a better example is that in 1982 there were only 13 billionaires on the list and now you have to be a billionaire just to get on the list. The Forbes 400: The Richest People In America
No. The point I'm making is that a progressive federal income tax system creates the incentive for the federal government to enact policies that promote as wide of an income gap as possible.
I read the article that man's opinion is not supported by one fact, one stat, one anything.
It doesn't make any sense.
Again in factual reality, since the US has a progressive income tax income inequality has risen, then declined for many years, then rose, then declined slightly, and is now rising again.
This pattern doesn't support that one man's opinion.
Not since at least 1947. Federal government spending has ramped up exponentially, thereby creating the need for maximizing federal income tax revenue.
This is factually wrong. Income inequality was being reduced in the 1950's and part of the 1960's, as well as for a brief time in the 1990's when Clinton was president.
I read the article that man's opinion is not supported by one fact, one stat, one anything.
Has it completely escaped your attention that the income gap has been widening overall since at least 1947?
Enjoy your economic oppression. You're advocating for it.
By the way... the income gap is going to widen further still, because idiots don't understand that it's in the federal government's best interest to promote such to maximize income tax revenue. What are the lefties' words for that? Oh, yeah... "Embrace the suck."
This is factually wrong. Income inequality was being reduced in the 1950's and part of the 1960's, as well as for a brief time in the 1990's when Clinton was president.
You know a LOT of those people. And I know very few.
Ignorance is bliss
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.
