![]() |
Quote:
|
I cannot think of any reason why I would like the government to take my property in order to give it back to me if I follow their rules, paper work, and regulation, with interest. Let me just keep my money.
|
Hey Tater, "means testing"???????
Can I point you back to the bit about cutting expenses being very expensive? Quote:
|
Quote:
so when it comes down to it, me making 5,000 for school and having somwhere around $900.00 taken out has more effect than a rich man having his 35% top rate taken. |
Quote:
Yeah, "means testing." SS/Medicare should be a safety net ONLY. So only people who will literally starve to death without it should get it. Once that is set, the FICA tax rates can be dropped (or the cap lowered). Regarding overseas commitments, the current % spent—~25% of GDP—would be fine without entitlements. Then the total is more like 10% of GDP, of which the military is ~ half. So with virtually no entitlements (nothing but a safety net for the most poor), we could maintain our military, etc, and still spend a fraction of what we do now. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The problem with money isn't this country isn't the bloated individuals with "too much money" - it's the bloated government that keeps spending other people's money to expand its own wasteline (and yes, I misspelled that intentionally). Yes, taxes are necessary. But they are still a necessary evil, and until you see it that way you will continue to think that government is the answer to all our problems, when in fact it is the creator of most of them. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
As a related anecdote, I have always found the class warfare endorsed by the Left to be just as repugnant as the ethnocentric fear endorsed by the Right.
|
When the government asks for personal property (money) it is deemed necessary. If a person asks the same question it is deemed a crime.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The difference between the rich and the poor is that the rich can move to the Virgin Islands, or Jersey or the UAE or at the very least move their money around. The poor often don't have that luxury, they are static cash flows which makes them easier to extract funds from than the rich who can be adept at hiding it. By rich, of course, I mean those with six figure salaries, the extremely rich, the kind of people that most people think of when the terms 'fat cat' get thrown around.
Eh, capitalism is an awkward thing, some places it works, others it doesn't, and it depends on how you look at it really. No way that everyone is going to be treated the same, not on this planet, not in any of our lifetimes, so you just have to live within the system you live in. Grass isn't always greener...after all, look what happened after Lenin. :dead: |
Quote:
also steve, I was not talking about taxing the rich for a "HA! sucks to you" sort of approach, Im talking about how our government is in a money crunch, and the bush tax cuts helped put us there. We need that extra revenue. It will be an unpopular move for sure, But it's not unprecedented. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.