Teenyuck,
Ah, yes....rich. Well, I am not going to give a precise definition, but I think that a person that makes $200,000 a year should be taxed SUBSTANTIALLY higher in terms of rate than some that makes, say, $20,000.
B.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...
by logansrun 53 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
teenyuck
*Sigh*
Because ostentatiousness in the sight of despair is immoral. That's why.
It's really all very simple.
Ah, yes....rich. Well, I am not going to give a precise definition, but I think that a person that makes $200,000 a year should be taxed SUBSTANTIALLY higher in terms of rate than some that makes, say, $20,000.
Bradley, I would guess that my husband and I are taxed SUBSTANTIALLY more than you. Does that make you happy? I would guess your income is more than $20,000....and less than $200,000. I won't disclose ours.
I'll let you decide why I'm a republican. All republicans are rich, right?
BTW, I don't act ostentatious....I like to keep people guessing. OTOH, I don't believe that hand outs are in any way shape or form the way to build character. Welfare should be for a limited time. When my mother went on welfare I was embarrassed. Taking food stamps to the store was not something to be taken lightly. I never wanted to be in that position. We are doing everything in our power to avoid that.
That the government takes 30% off the top for income tax is obscene. I also pay social security....that I will never see because the government cannot manage my money. That's right, they f*&cked up the management of my money. So for the last 24 years, I have been paying into a system that goes to pay disability benefits for people who have bunions and cannot work.
And you and your democratic asshole friends and cohorts support the looting of that system for *SOCIAL PROGRAMS*. Now, I will have no social security. Thanks democrats. You did a fine job.
The government is bloated. We need a smaller government. Less social programs. Lots less. I don't need the government to teach me how to breast feed.....oh, and a flat tax. That way, the rich all pay the same amount and all the rich pay.....make sense?
-
Satanus
Flattax, is that what you get after eating certain foods? Seriously though, it makes a lot of sense.
SS
-
Stacy Smith
God where do you guys get your information? Dreams? Saddem used primarily French contractors to build all his palaces and government buildings. I have a sneaky feeling we aren't going to sub out a dime to those surrender monkeys.
Flat tax is very fair but you'll never find a liberal politician who will really get behind that. They want to tax the rich to feed the poor.
Liberals will use big government to care for you from the moment you are born until the moment you are dead. I would prefer to pay my own way and be taxed only on what I spend. If I invest it will only help the economy.
What do you think people are doing with the latest Bush tax cuts? Hording the money? Of course not, they are spending it as quickly as they get it. I would venture to say that this helps the economy much more than if the government kept the money and doled it out to 3rd generation welfare abusers.
We need welfare but as far as I'm concerned it should have a time limit on it, maybe two years max. Then you work or live under an overpass. Tough luck. My parents have worked hard to get what they have. I intend to do the same. I do not require government help to stand on my own.
Fix the cracks Bradley? I've been called the queen of naive on this site but buddy you must be king.
SS I thought you were done on this thread? Go ahead, make up more crap.
-
bigboi
We need welfare but as far as I'm concerned it should have a time limit on it, maybe two years max.
According to most statistics, on average that's about how long anyone stays on welfare. The stories that are reported about ppl who abuse welfare often give us misleading perceptions about the system.
Besides that most social programs do benfit ppl, although politicos do indeed use a lot of money for frivolous programs, like farmer subsidies.
-
Euphemism
No, it's not myopic at all. Lets take your "pipe" illustration:
You've got a 16" pipe and three people. Does it make sense to give one guy 11" of it, one guy 4" and the other one only 1"?
First of all, Bradley, you may want to re-read my post, since there's a rather large difference between a "pipe" and a "pie"... not that it's terribly important, since either one would be an analogy.
But you completely ignored your own statement that I was responding to. You said that it was better to have a fair economy, even if it was smaller. We're not talking about a fixed amount of pie (or pipe) here. My point is that by making the economy growth, even if it is not distributed evenly, is still good because it means a larger amount of pie for everybody.
Let's abandon the analogies and go back to money. Say you and a friend are both making $20,000 a year. Your friend starts a business, and hires you for $25,000 a year. The business takes off, and soon your friend is making $100,000 a year. You're still making $25k. Is that fair? No. But are you better off than you were under a "smaller but fair" economy? Absolutely!
-
Satanus
Euph
But are you better off than you were under a "smaller but fair" economy?
Possibly. To carry on w the analogy depends on how much his friend has decided to charge, or increase the price of the product he sells to him. If the price went up enough so that it costs him 5000 more, then he is no further ahead, but of course his friend is.
Stacey
I feel like we're back on the school yard again.
SS
-
drwtsn32
I'd rather eat an 8" pie than a 16" pipe.
~ Doc (of the "I thought you said pipe, too" class)
-
Euphemism
SS... it's true that economic growth usually causes inflation. But when economists speak of growth, they are referring to post-inflation growth. So inflation doesn't really enter the picture here.
DrWtsn... is that a 16" pipe, or a 16" "pipe"?
Oh, and the important difference between pies and pipes (aside from edibility) is that doubling the radius quadruples the area. So my analogy was not a choice between equals. And yes, this is getting very nerdy, I know...
-
Satanus
Stacey
As a republican, riddle me this: why they would travel across the globe and start a war that costs hundreds of lives on their own side, as well as billions of dollars, on the claim of having at heart the best interests of a bunch of unappreciative arabs, yet object to spending on their own people, back home, who are less fortunate or less able or whatever?
SS