Phatscotty wrote:Iliad wrote:rockfist wrote:Aradhus wrote:Roughly 70% of Americans wanted the bush tax cuts on the rich to expire. Roughly the same number wanted a public option. Unless you exert pressure on these guys, they'll never do what people want.
I doubt that is true in regards to the tax cuts or the public option, but if it is it is only because they were ill informed. People who support class warfare are low information voters.
People who use meaningless phrases that they have been taught like "class warfare" instead of analysing the situation are low information voters.
I find arid's statement highly unlikely. To single out a small part of the most successful people for punishment, when everyone else gets to keep their tax cuts, is very unfair. Given that those same people already pay a much higher rate and infinitely more total taxes than everyone else, it's even more harsh. Don't forget, these people get taxed again up to 50% when they die. LEAVE THEM AND THEIR FRUITS OF THEIR LABOR THE f*ck ALONE!
This Looter Class demand for more of other people's money makes me absolutely sick to my stomach. It's disgusting. These people earned that money!
I missed this post, what statement of mine do you find highly unlikely? That roughly 70% wanted the bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthy and roughly the same wanted the public option? The public option popularity dropped after Republicans and their dishonest partisan ideologue supporters in the media started demagoguing that it was a government takeover of healthcare. That it shouldn't be called a public option, it should be called the government option, the government run plan, the government takeover etc. All intended to mislead the uninformed and play on peoples fears. It worked, popularity dropped, but was still favoured by the majority.
With The bush tax cuts:
According to the Gallup poll in November, 57% wanted the tax cuts on the wealthy to expire. With 9% undecided.
Pew polling in December found 58% of tax cuts on the wealthy to expire, with 7% undecided.
Bloomberg polling in December found 59% wanted tax cuts on the wealthy to expire. With 3% undecided.
A CBS poll found that 67% wanted tax cuts on the wealthy to expire, with 7% undecided. That CBS poll actually shows 52% of republicans even wanted the tax cuts for those earning over 250k to expire.
I can’t be bothered trying to find polls on the public option, but I know that the majority of polls that were not misleadingly framed resulted in a majority wanting it. On average I think it was closer to 60%. And I very rarely saw it fall below a majority, only when the poll questions were misleading.
Night Strike wrote:Baron Von PWN wrote:If you are dating someone, and for every dollar your partner makes you make 100$. You and your partner go out to dinner, do you split it down the middle? I would suggest you probably wouldn't. I view Tax rates on the rich in a similar matter. Their wealth is so much greater it seems reasonable they should pick up a larger portion of the bill.
As long as income taxes are a percentage rate instead of a flat value (say $5000), the rich will ALWAYS be paying a larger portion of the bill. Why do we have a tax system were not only do the rich pay more in dollar value, but then they also have to pay more on top of that to cover the higher rates? If we have a flat tax of 15% on all income, the person earning $50k would pay $7.5k while the person paying $500k would pay $75k. They're still picking up a much larger person of the bill. But no, our system makes it so the $500k person has to pay up to 40% of their income in taxes, which is $200k in taxes. That means they are paying a MUCH larger portion of the bill, which makes no rational since other than to redistribute wealth.
The wealthy get more benefits of our society, they get more because of the many advantages they have, they should pay more as a result of that.
To people in general, if you’re not trying to piss me off, I prefer to be called Ara.
PScotty, TGD and others, the poor and lower middle class, spend all their money back into the economy, its has an multiplier effect. The more money they have the more it helps the economy. The less monsy they have, the less goods they can buy, the less products business sells, the more the economy suffers. A good economy is beneficial to all. The wealthy save their money. One of many good examples of this is how much wealth they have when they die. How can they be taxed on the estate tax when they’re dead. Their children, who did nothing to earn that money are taxed. If the argument is that we either don’t tax Paris Hilton a dime on her inheritance(because its somehow unfair..), or we tax her and use that revenue to improve the society that we live in. I vote for the latter, and I think a LOT of people would be on my side in this. There is no double taxation, it is a fruitless argument.
Under George W Bush, poverty rose dramatically
Under George HW Bush poverty rose
Under Ronald Reagan, poverty rose
Under Bill Clinton poverty dropped significantly
The median income for American families under Clinton rose 14%
The medain income for families under Geogre W Bush decreased 4.2%
Clinton created 21 million jobs, George W bush 3 million. That is a 7 times more successful economic policy.
The rich made record profits several years under the Bush administration. Big business is currently sitting on 2 trillion bucks. Yet median income fell, jobs were not created, and unemployment rose significantly.
Trickle down economics is a failed idea.
This is a long post, and there are lots of other things I want to include but I’m a little tired right now.
I just want to end on this: If the charge is that I want to steal from the rich(which is dishonest framing) to give to the poor. Then I stand guilty as charged. It is inarguable that it is an economically sound idea. Frankly I consider it somewhat noble to put your safety on the line to steal from the rich who are comfortable to give to the poor and most vulnerable of society.
In Summation: What of it?
