Didnt anyone watch Michelle Obama? Did anyone care?

[CA renter]

Personally, I would rather they have no income tax at all and just increase sales tax, property tax, etc. to compensate for the lost tax revenue. Lets tax the spender instead of the savers.
——————–
AN,

That would be a regressive tax, causing the rich to get richer (they spend far less of their income on necessities) and the poor to become poorer (most of their income goes to consumption). Since the majority of workers are not “rich,” work would be punished while gambling would be rewarded (trading/investing for a profit — taking money OUT of the economy and into the wealthy person’s account).

Exactly how does that make for a better society where the greatest number of people can live in a healthy, safe, productive environment?

“Taxing the rich” is not class warfare. It is trying to maintain a balance of power between capital and labor.

The “rich” control money flow, and always direct the flow back to themselves, leaving less for the productive workers.

By taxing the workers and not taxing the rich, you concentrate money/power into fewer and fewer hands — those with money will accumulate at staggering rates without cap gains and higher rates for higher incomes, while the workers will have nothing.

Sounds like a third-world country to me.

[greekfire]

Simple, you cut spending.

[greekfire]

Simple, you cut spending.

[greekfire]

Simple, you cut spending.

[greekfire]

Simple, you cut spending.

[greekfire]

Simple, you cut spending.

[greekfire]

[quote=CA renter]
Exactly how does that make for a better society where the greatest number of people can live in a healthy, safe, productive environment?
[/quote]

Simple, cut government SPENDING…next question?

[greekfire]

[quote=CA renter]
Exactly how does that make for a better society where the greatest number of people can live in a healthy, safe, productive environment?
[/quote]

Simple, cut government SPENDING…next question?

[greekfire]

[quote=CA renter]
Exactly how does that make for a better society where the greatest number of people can live in a healthy, safe, productive environment?
[/quote]

Simple, cut government SPENDING…next question?

[greekfire]

[quote=CA renter]
Exactly how does that make for a better society where the greatest number of people can live in a healthy, safe, productive environment?
[/quote]

Simple, cut government SPENDING…next question?

[greekfire]

[quote=CA renter]
Exactly how does that make for a better society where the greatest number of people can live in a healthy, safe, productive environment?
[/quote]

Simple, cut government SPENDING…next question?

[an]

[quote=CA renter]
AN,

That would be a regressive tax, causing the rich to get richer (they spend far less of their income on necessities) and the poor to become poorer (most of their income goes to consumption). Since the majority of workers are not “rich,” work would be punished while gambling would be rewarded (trading/investing for a profit — taking money OUT of the economy and into the wealthy person’s account).

Exactly how does that make for a better society where the greatest number of people can live in a healthy, safe, productive environment?

“Taxing the rich” is not class warfare. It is trying to maintain a balance of power between capital and labor.

The “rich” control money flow, and always direct the flow back to themselves, leaving less for the productive workers.

By taxing the workers and not taxing the rich, you concentrate money/power into fewer and fewer hands — those with money will accumulate at staggering rates without cap gains and higher rates for higher incomes, while the workers will have nothing.

Sounds like a third-world country to me.
[/quote]
Why would you consider this as regressive? Rich people will always spend more. So they will pay more taxes. How is that regressive? How many J6pack will you see buying unnecessary junk at the mall vs a millionaire? J6pack (and maybe your) definition of necessity is very out of whack. If you want to get ahead, you spend less and work more. It’s plain and simple. Many immigrants can do it, so why can’t the people who grew up here? It will reward the frugal and the hard worker and put the burden on the lavish spenders. I don’t see how you can say no income tax = taxing the workers.

When you increase income tax, you’re taxing the workers. Which would give them less incentive to work. Why should one work harder to make more when he/she would get taxed even more once he/she cross over to the next tax bracket? You’re getting a diminishing return on the work you do. Exactly how does that make for a better society?

We’re talking about income tax here, not cap gain. You’re making a big leap to connect your argument to a third-world country. Here in US, we reward capital much more than European countries like Sweden. Guess what? I rather live here than over there, where over 1/2 of my income would go to income tax and their sales tax is over 2X more than ours. But they do have a smaller gap between the rich and the poor. So I guess that’s a good thing in your eyes.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]
AN,

That would be a regressive tax, causing the rich to get richer (they spend far less of their income on necessities) and the poor to become poorer (most of their income goes to consumption). Since the majority of workers are not “rich,” work would be punished while gambling would be rewarded (trading/investing for a profit — taking money OUT of the economy and into the wealthy person’s account).

Exactly how does that make for a better society where the greatest number of people can live in a healthy, safe, productive environment?

“Taxing the rich” is not class warfare. It is trying to maintain a balance of power between capital and labor.

The “rich” control money flow, and always direct the flow back to themselves, leaving less for the productive workers.

By taxing the workers and not taxing the rich, you concentrate money/power into fewer and fewer hands — those with money will accumulate at staggering rates without cap gains and higher rates for higher incomes, while the workers will have nothing.

Sounds like a third-world country to me.
[/quote]
Why would you consider this as regressive? Rich people will always spend more. So they will pay more taxes. How is that regressive? How many J6pack will you see buying unnecessary junk at the mall vs a millionaire? J6pack (and maybe your) definition of necessity is very out of whack. If you want to get ahead, you spend less and work more. It’s plain and simple. Many immigrants can do it, so why can’t the people who grew up here? It will reward the frugal and the hard worker and put the burden on the lavish spenders. I don’t see how you can say no income tax = taxing the workers.

When you increase income tax, you’re taxing the workers. Which would give them less incentive to work. Why should one work harder to make more when he/she would get taxed even more once he/she cross over to the next tax bracket? You’re getting a diminishing return on the work you do. Exactly how does that make for a better society?

We’re talking about income tax here, not cap gain. You’re making a big leap to connect your argument to a third-world country. Here in US, we reward capital much more than European countries like Sweden. Guess what? I rather live here than over there, where over 1/2 of my income would go to income tax and their sales tax is over 2X more than ours. But they do have a smaller gap between the rich and the poor. So I guess that’s a good thing in your eyes.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]
AN,

That would be a regressive tax, causing the rich to get richer (they spend far less of their income on necessities) and the poor to become poorer (most of their income goes to consumption). Since the majority of workers are not “rich,” work would be punished while gambling would be rewarded (trading/investing for a profit — taking money OUT of the economy and into the wealthy person’s account).

Exactly how does that make for a better society where the greatest number of people can live in a healthy, safe, productive environment?

“Taxing the rich” is not class warfare. It is trying to maintain a balance of power between capital and labor.

The “rich” control money flow, and always direct the flow back to themselves, leaving less for the productive workers.

By taxing the workers and not taxing the rich, you concentrate money/power into fewer and fewer hands — those with money will accumulate at staggering rates without cap gains and higher rates for higher incomes, while the workers will have nothing.

Sounds like a third-world country to me.
[/quote]
Why would you consider this as regressive? Rich people will always spend more. So they will pay more taxes. How is that regressive? How many J6pack will you see buying unnecessary junk at the mall vs a millionaire? J6pack (and maybe your) definition of necessity is very out of whack. If you want to get ahead, you spend less and work more. It’s plain and simple. Many immigrants can do it, so why can’t the people who grew up here? It will reward the frugal and the hard worker and put the burden on the lavish spenders. I don’t see how you can say no income tax = taxing the workers.

When you increase income tax, you’re taxing the workers. Which would give them less incentive to work. Why should one work harder to make more when he/she would get taxed even more once he/she cross over to the next tax bracket? You’re getting a diminishing return on the work you do. Exactly how does that make for a better society?

We’re talking about income tax here, not cap gain. You’re making a big leap to connect your argument to a third-world country. Here in US, we reward capital much more than European countries like Sweden. Guess what? I rather live here than over there, where over 1/2 of my income would go to income tax and their sales tax is over 2X more than ours. But they do have a smaller gap between the rich and the poor. So I guess that’s a good thing in your eyes.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]
AN,

That would be a regressive tax, causing the rich to get richer (they spend far less of their income on necessities) and the poor to become poorer (most of their income goes to consumption). Since the majority of workers are not “rich,” work would be punished while gambling would be rewarded (trading/investing for a profit — taking money OUT of the economy and into the wealthy person’s account).

Exactly how does that make for a better society where the greatest number of people can live in a healthy, safe, productive environment?

“Taxing the rich” is not class warfare. It is trying to maintain a balance of power between capital and labor.

The “rich” control money flow, and always direct the flow back to themselves, leaving less for the productive workers.

By taxing the workers and not taxing the rich, you concentrate money/power into fewer and fewer hands — those with money will accumulate at staggering rates without cap gains and higher rates for higher incomes, while the workers will have nothing.

Sounds like a third-world country to me.
[/quote]
Why would you consider this as regressive? Rich people will always spend more. So they will pay more taxes. How is that regressive? How many J6pack will you see buying unnecessary junk at the mall vs a millionaire? J6pack (and maybe your) definition of necessity is very out of whack. If you want to get ahead, you spend less and work more. It’s plain and simple. Many immigrants can do it, so why can’t the people who grew up here? It will reward the frugal and the hard worker and put the burden on the lavish spenders. I don’t see how you can say no income tax = taxing the workers.

When you increase income tax, you’re taxing the workers. Which would give them less incentive to work. Why should one work harder to make more when he/she would get taxed even more once he/she cross over to the next tax bracket? You’re getting a diminishing return on the work you do. Exactly how does that make for a better society?

We’re talking about income tax here, not cap gain. You’re making a big leap to connect your argument to a third-world country. Here in US, we reward capital much more than European countries like Sweden. Guess what? I rather live here than over there, where over 1/2 of my income would go to income tax and their sales tax is over 2X more than ours. But they do have a smaller gap between the rich and the poor. So I guess that’s a good thing in your eyes.

[Author]

Posts