Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
THE MATRIX

Americans agree: The rich should pay higher

338 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Wookietim

Hmmm, considering that 1/2 of California's annual income is paid by illegal immigrants and we know they come here to work, this just another example of citizens of this country having absolutely no idea how it works or what is going on in it.

Again - since Ignus proudly declares he doesn't want to change the topic and therefore refuses to answer questions (That actually relate to the topic - they are just questions he doesn't want to answer because they destroy his argument) and defines the topic only as "Should the rich pay more in taxes", I submit the idea that him suddenly spinning off and discussing whether illegal immigrants are paying taxes proves that he is more than willing to go off topic... when it suits him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joshua Thorne

Hahaha...this is one of those discussions that cannot be won...ever. There will have to be a majority rule, a mandate or judgement passed and those on the losing side have to eat it...it's that simple. You cannot legislate morality, good will to men or integrity in society...things like greed, envy, anger, and over indulgence always fog the spectacles when trying to "see" the truth. (Guess who make up the majority tho?...the poor people that want the rich to pay more taxes!!)

Yes, I don't like it one bit that 1% of americans make 45% of all the money....no matter how you slice that, something seems broken there. I have to laugh at the people on here actually defending that 1% like they are entitled to it...like you think you are one day going to be among their numbers and you are "protecting" your "future" rights...I got bad news for you. If you have time to troll/fish an internet forum about USA politics...on an Unexplained mysteries website...you aren't going to be joining their numbers any time soon so stop defending them...they are fleecing the masses and killing the middle class.

I have not read this whole thing, 9 out 10 times it's the same liberal "tax and spend" versus the conservative "save the wealthy's money" argument.

What ever happened to the flat tax theory? whatever you make...you pay a flat percentage of...period (no deducts, no refunds, just pay it and move along)...sorry, I know that equates to "the more you make the more you pay" but a flat tax is the most fair of all...everyone pays the same percentage...the actual dollar value is irrelevant...set it at 10% and watch the coffers explode with surplus and then reel it back down to where the budget can stay balanced and allow for growth and development

and about the deducts and refunds...how much money does our country p!ss away every year by collecting too much and having to send out refunds? How much does that cost? A whole pile of money could be saved by just paying a flat tax right off the top and completely eliminating the expense of issuing refunds....think about it...

Edited by Joshua Thorne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

The rich in the USA or anywhere should not get a free ride. And they should not be PAID to get a free ride.

The poor in the USA or anywhere should not get a free ride. And they should not be PAID to get a free ride.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

The poor in the USA or anywhere should not get a free ride. And they should not be PAID to get a free ride.

Harte

You think that the poor are getting a free ride? Tell me - if you had a choice, even unde Clinton era tax levels, which would you prefer to be : Rich or poor? If you answer "Rich" then why woudl you answer that if you think that the poor are getting a "Free Ride"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

And as I specifically said, I have n problem with that either. But when the disparity of income becomes this extreme, that is where the problem creeps in.

Why is disparity of income such a big deal? People have a right to choose how they will live don't they? If someone wants to go to college, work hard hours, sacrifice leisure time to earn a higher income or to make their plans of financial success a reality and someone else decides it's too difficult to go to college (maybe they don't want to work that hard academically, or maybe they don't want to have to work and go to school), they prefer to spend time hanging out with friends and family, work only what is necessary to keep from being fired, aren't they each allowed to make that choice?
In order to maintain a free society we do need to maintain the ability of the poor to become middle class and rich. And that is obviously not what is happening - the mobility seems to be downward, not upward. And giving more perks to the rich while harming the middle class and poor is not the way to fix that.
How does dependence on the government dole make one move from poor to middle class? It has not worked in the decades that it's been around. The majority of people on the dole, like being on the dole (Note I said the majority, there are also great examples of people who pushed themselves, and sacrificed and worked hard and made it out, but they made it out by their efforts, not by government hand-outs), they are not interested in making the effort and sacrifices necessary to make it out.
Your own references show that fully half of the country is making less than 15% of the money.
And many of them are choosing to live that way. They like having the government give them money with little or no personal effort.

We have an active middle class that is on it's way to being poor rather than rich.

Can you present your evidence for this.
And that has nothing to do with Obama. That has to do with the fact that there is a section of the middle class and poor like you that will consistently argue against their own best interests and for handing more perks to the rich and punishing the middle class and poor to pay for them.
How is it in my best interest to steal money from those who work to earn it?
"Constitutional Mandate"? You think that the govt has a "Constitutional mandate" to coddle the rich?
Not at all. I believe the Constitution protects the rights, freedom and property of ALL Americans, rich or poor.

Last I saw, the constitution handed a mandate (as a whole) to provide for a level playing field in which the poor are upwardly mobile.

How does taking money away from one group of people who earned it and giving it to someone who did not provide a level playing field? A level playing field would require that everyone pay the same percentage of income in taxes.
Taking social services away from them in order to coddle the rich with tax breaks is not doing that.
Taking money away from someone who earned it and giving it to someone else is not a level playing field, is it?

The rich are big boys - they will not be destitute if they have to pay a minuscule amount more in taxes, nor will they suddenly stop employing people because of them.
Miniscule? 23% is miniscule? No, 3% is miniscule, 0% is miniscule. 23% is significant.
The rich were neither broke during the Clinton years (Before the recent tax cuts) nor was employment flatlining as it is now (After the tax cuts). Therefore your argument is null and void - the govt does have a responsibility to provide a level playing field and the consequences you seem to think will happen have not been borne out in historical data.
My argument was not that they were going broke. My argument is that the top 50% pay nearly 100% of the taxes, the bottom 47% pay no taxes, and that is not in any way fair. Fair is everyone paying an equal or at least more equitable percentage of taxes and no one gets to live off the government dole. That's fair.
Excuse me? My imagination? Is it my imagination that the rich are getting tax cuts and the poor are seeing social services that help them cut to pay for those cuts?
Yes it is your imagination.
Is it my imagination that unemployment has increased as we instituted tax cuts for the rich?
It's your imagination that one led to the other.
Is it my imagination that fully half the country makes less than 15% of the money?
It's your imagination that others are responsible for the fact that the bottom 50% have chosen not to make the efforts and sacrifices required to make more.
It seems that the only imagination at work here is yours - imagination that says that coddling the rich and punishing the poor will somehow make things better.

How is it coddling to point out the FACT that they already pay the majority of the taxes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

Why is disparity of income such a big deal? People have a right to choose how they will live don't they? If someone wants to go to college, work hard hours, sacrifice leisure time to earn a higher income or to make their plans of financial success a reality and someone else decides it's too difficult to go to college (maybe they don't want to work that hard academically, or maybe they don't want to have to work and go to school), they prefer to spend time hanging out with friends and family, work only what is necessary to keep from being fired, aren't they each allowed to make that choice?

Who "Chooses" to be poor? Aside from a few religious types, who chooses to live that way?

Let me ask a question of you : If we were to raise tax levels back to where Clinton had them, which would you choose - to be rich or to be poor?

If you answer "Rich" why is that? After all, you would have to pay an extra 7% of your income in taxes... wouldn't that make you utterly destitute in your right wing brain?

Apparently the conservative right wing actually believes that people choose to have to worry about how to pay their bills and afford food at the same time to a horrid life of dashing off to the Bahamas in a private plane whenever they want... based only on the fact that they may have to pay a minuscule amount more in taxes. right?

Edited by Wookietim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joshua Thorne

I'm not trying to quote history here...

It seems to me that modern tax law was basically created for people to get around the general law of the land...as if they were somehow "above" the laws that apply to everyone else...and that is pure pompous arrogance. The flat tax is the only fool proof and fair method. It was the greedy and selfish that invented a need for this ridiculous modern tax process to begin with. The IRS is one of those bureaucratic monstrosities that exists because of this moronic methodology...a flat tax would eliminate 50-70% of the IRS and the cost of operating the government as a whole.

Allow me to chafe some of you and to make some of your skin crawl, let's roll back time...waaay back to where people paid a "tithe" instead of a tax. Back then...you gave 10% back to "insert name here" for giving you life and the bounty of your harvest...there was never any "loopholes" or any reason to not "pay back" in like kind to what you had received. So you don't want to pay "insert name here"...that's fine, you don't have to...you send it to your Uncle now...Uncle Sam...so he can keep our roads, bridges and infrastructure intact...maybe make sure no one called an American goes hungry or homeless...but that's another topic altogether.

All the banter is ridiculous...a flat percentage of what you make is fair to all. You don't want to pay out so many dollars? Don't make so much money...How's that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

I'm not trying to quote history here...

It seems to me that modern tax law was basically created for people to get around the general law of the land...as if they were somehow "above" the laws that apply to everyone else...and that is pure pompous arrogance. The flat tax is the only fool proof and fair method. It was the greedy and selfish that invented a need for this ridiculous modern tax process to begin with. The IRS is one of those bureaucratic monstrosities that exists because of this moronic methodology...a flat tax would eliminate 50-70% of the IRS and the cost of operating the government as a whole.

Allow me to chafe some of you and to make some of your skin crawl, let's roll back time...waaay back to where people paid a "tithe" instead of a tax. Back then...you gave 10% back to "insert name here" for giving you life and the bounty of your harvest...there was never any "loopholes" or any reason to not "pay back" in like kind to what you had received. So you don't want to pay "insert name here"...that's fine, you don't have to...you send it to your Uncle now...Uncle Sam...so he can keep our roads, bridges and infrastructure intact...maybe make sure no one called an American goes hungry or homeless...but that's another topic altogether.

All the banter is ridiculous...a flat percentage of what you make is fair to all. You don't want to pay out so many dollars? Don't make so much money...How's that?

Actually th flat tax is far from fair.

One of the concepts of "Fair" would be that people who most benefit from the countries success are the ones that contribute more back to it. The poor, pretty much by definition, haven't benefited as much as the rich. Therefore asking them to contribute as much of their income as the rich do (As if the poor benefited from the country as much as the rich have) is inherently unfair.

The flat tax only sounds "Fair" until one actually looks at it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joshua Thorne

Actually th flat tax is far from fair.

One of the concepts of "Fair" would be that people who most benefit from the countries success are the ones that contribute more back to it. The poor, pretty much by definition, haven't benefited as much as the rich. Therefore asking them to contribute as much of their income as the rich do (As if the poor benefited from the country as much as the rich have) is inherently unfair.

The flat tax only sounds "Fair" until one actually looks at it...

I see your point to a point. I'm one of those "middle classers" in danger of extinction under current methods and regulations. However, I also realize for the good of the country, if I pay my 10% and "Joe Poor" pays his 10% and the wealthy pay their 10%, there will be excess money in the coffers to turn around and help "Joe Poor" with certain things, like food and shelter...if that makes sense. Trying to maintain a system of collection with variable percentages, exemptions and deductions is not going to be easy...thus the aforementioned "bureaucratic monstrosity" known as the IRS becomes necessary.

Those that don't see the need for social programs will never see the need for social programs until "they" are in a position to "need" social programs so I don't bother arguing the need for them. I only suggest they take some time, help someone disadvantaged and enjoy the good feeling that comes from it...which cannot have a price tag put on it.

It's called "humanitarian" and we send out billions of dollars to places that hate us every year. The difference is that "our" social programs are for "Americans" and are generally not as corrupted as the countries we send cash to for support of our military actions and profiteering off of them and their neighbors.

There is so many obvious ways to reduce spending in this country but because so many special interest groups and corporations have their hand in the bag, there is always reasons given as to why we cannot stop spending money here or there. The truth is, we spend waaay to much tax payer dollar to keep doors of trade open so a select few individuals or corporations can continue to profit from the substandard environmental and human right activities of said receiving countries. No really...

The corporations and special interest groupls that benefit from this third world trade laugh all the way to the bank because your tax dollars funded the "open door" that they profit through....how's that for a screwed up irony?

Edit:

The whole conversation of "raise taxes/cut spending" is about balancing the budget and reducing the deficit. I heard a laughable "conspiracy theory" that I have to paraphrase just because it applies to the foreign aid spending I mentioned above.

Here is is in a nutshell:

When a politician arranges a multi-million dollar foreign aid package to this impoverished or that famine stricken country...that country is so thankful they immediately cut a check for 5 to 10% payable to that politicians campaign fund...If it wasn't traceable, I'd almost buy it...it was funny tho.

Edited by Joshua Thorne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

I see your point to a point. I'm one of those "middle classers" in danger of extinction under current methods and regulations. However, I also realize for the good of the country, if I pay my 10% and "Joe Poor" pays his 10% and the wealthy pay their 10%, there will be excess money in the coffers to turn around and help "Joe Poor" with certain things, like food and shelter...if that makes sense. Trying to maintain a system of collection with variable percentages, exemptions and deductions is not going to be easy...thus the aforementioned "bureaucratic monstrosity" known as the IRS becomes necessary.

Those that don't see the need for social programs will never see the need for social programs until "they" are in a position to "need" social programs so I don't bother arguing the need for them. I only suggest they take some time, help someone disadvantaged and enjoy the good feeling that comes from it...which cannot have a price tag put on it.

It's called "humanitarian" and we send out billions of dollars to places that hate us every year. The difference is that "our" social programs are for "Americans" and are generally not as corrupted as the countries we send cash to for support of our military actions and profiteering off of them and their neighbors.

There is so many obvious ways to reduce spending in this country but because so many special interest groups and corporations have their hand in the bag, there is always reasons given as to why we cannot stop spending money here or there. The truth is, we spend waaay to much tax payer dollar to keep doors of trade open so a select few individuals or corporations can continue to profit from the substandard environmental and human right activities of said receiving countries. No really....

Except there won't be excess "money in the coffers" - 10% of everyone's income is not equal to 0% of the money held by the poor and 35% of the riches money. That is because the amount of money that the rich make is far out of proportion to the number of people that make it - and the percentage of people that are poor is far too big. Therefore we end up with less money than more. And that means that even more programs would be cut... leading to the poor having even less upward mobility... meaning that, essentially, the rich would get even richer, the poor even poorer, and the middle class would slide down the scale.

That is why the progressive tax structure works. It is actually more fair to expect those that benefit fom the success of the country to contribute more to it's future success and it brings in more money to ensure that success.

The flat tax simply is not fair - it treats the poor as if they have benefited as much as the rich (Which, pretty much by definition they haven't or they wouldn't still be poor) - and it is not economically feasible since taxing the poor 10% and the rich 10% brings in much less money... And dooms the country to a two class system or aristocratic rich and permanent poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Well, that is what I am driving at. And here's the funny thing - the higher tax rates neither caused a mass exodus from the US (The US was in a much better shape as far as employment went under them rather than after the tax cuts) nor did it cause the rich to financially suffer that much.

Yet these tax cuts did cause the debt to balloon out of control (And now, in order to continue handing more tax cuts to the rich, the middle class and poor are paying for it in the form of reduced services)... and if there is one thing that almost certainly will cause companies to flee a country it is financial instability that looks to be long term.

In other words, taxes didn't cause us that many problems... but the results of the tax cuts certainly are causing long term problems.

sorry, clinton ended his time in a recession. i know it was eclipsed by 9/11 but it was still a recession. oh and that balanced budget he got was from the gop in control of the house. since it is the house that sets up the budget, not the pres. or the senate, they just ok it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Except there won't be excess "money in the coffers" - 10% of everyone's income is not equal to 0% of the money held by the poor and 35% of the riches money. That is because the amount of money that the rich make is far out of proportion to the number of people that make it - and the percentage of people that are poor is far too big. Therefore we end up with less money than more. And that means that even more programs would be cut... leading to the poor having even less upward mobility... meaning that, essentially, the rich would get even richer, the poor even poorer, and the middle class would slide down the scale.

That is why the progressive tax structure works. It is actually more fair to expect those that benefit fom the success of the country to contribute more to it's future success and it brings in more money to ensure that success.

The flat tax simply is not fair - it treats the poor as if they have benefited as much as the rich (Which, pretty much by definition they haven't or they wouldn't still be poor) - and it is not economically feasible since taxing the poor 10% and the rich 10% brings in much less money... And dooms the country to a two class system or aristocratic rich and permanent poor.

this is true which is why i keep saying 2 20 percent sales tax. one for the state and one for the government. we already pay more than that. and yes i mean me too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

sorry, clinton ended his time in a recession. i know it was eclipsed by 9/11 but it was still a recession. oh and that balanced budget he got was from the gop in control of the house. since it is the house that sets up the budget, not the pres. or the senate, they just ok it.

I've got a question, since nobody else seems to want to answer it :

Which would you rather be : Rich under the Clinton tax structure or Poor under the Bush tax cuts? Because I suspect you would still rather be rich even if you had to pay more money in taxes than otherwise... and if so, why is it that you think that the Clinton tax structure was so bad? Were the rich utterly destitute under those taxes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

this is true which is why i keep saying 2 20 percent sales tax. one for the state and one for the government. we already pay more than that. and yes i mean me too.

Except all that does is mean that you put more of the tax burden on the poor and still end up getting less income for the govt (Meaning the govt ends social programs that allow upward mobility) and not taxing the rich - since the rich can simply avoid paying that sales tax by buying elsewhere.

Why is it that everyone is so opposed to those the see the most benefit paying the most taxes? Why is it that we have to coddle the rich as if they are fragile little ceramic figurines that might break into a million pieces if they are asked to contribute to the success of the country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joshua Thorne

Except all that does is mean that you put more of the tax burden on the poor and still end up getting less income for the govt (Meaning the govt ends social programs that allow upward mobility) and not taxing the rich - since the rich can simply avoid paying that sales tax by buying elsewhere.

Why is it that everyone is so opposed to those the see the most benefit paying the most taxes? Why is it that we have to coddle the rich as if they are fragile little ceramic figurines that might break into a million pieces if they are asked to contribute to the success of the country?

I'm not opposed at all. To answer...Yes I'd rather be rich and pay higher taxes than be poor and receive social assistance.

I'd love to see the rich pay more, but I'm rather pessimistic. My enthusiasm for a flat tax was to counter the inevitable cries and whines that raising taxes on the rich is not fair. I can come to agree with your point but I don't see it coming in any real beneficial form. The tax lawyers for the rich will continue to find ways for them to skirt around it and the money needed will still not be collected. "If" they institute a tax plan that cannot be avoided...then that might work...but as I said...I'm pessimistic about the rich ever being "generous" to the people or the country by which they made their fortunes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

I'm not opposed at all. To answer...Yes I'd rather be rich and pay higher taxes than be poor and receive social assistance.

I'd love to see the rich pay more, but I'm rather pessimistic. My enthusiasm for a flat tax was to counter the inevitable cries and whines that raising taxes on the rich is not fair. I can come to agree with your point but I don't see it coming in any real beneficial form. The tax lawyers for the rich will continue to find ways for them to skirt around it and the money needed will still not be collected. "If" they institute a tax plan that cannot be avoided...then that might work...but as I said...I'm pessimistic about the rich ever being "generous" to the people or the country by which they made their fortunes.

But that argument in favor of the flat tax doesn't work either... after all, if the lawyers can find loopholes around the progressive tax structure then they certainly can do the same for the flat tax structure...

And I have never figured out why a slight rise in taxes is so opposed by people. Think about this - CEO's are getting an average of something like 10,000 times the yearly pay of their lowest paid employee. And they are only being asked to pay an extra 20%. That's a pretty darn good deal!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

But that argument in favor of the flat tax doesn't work either... after all, if the lawyers can find loopholes around the progressive tax structure then they certainly can do the same for the flat tax structure...

And I have never figured out why a slight rise in taxes is so opposed by people. Think about this - CEO's are getting an average of something like 10,000 times the yearly pay of their lowest paid employee. And they are only being asked to pay an extra 20%. That's a pretty darn good deal!

"How much did you earn this calendar year? 10% of that thanks"

Not a lot of wiggle room there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

You think that the poor are getting a free ride? Tell me - if you had a choice, even unde Clinton era tax levels, which would you prefer to be : Rich or poor? If you answer "Rich" then why woudl you answer that if you think that the poor are getting a "Free Ride"?

I didn't say anyone was getting a free ride.

I was agreeing with Regeneratia, with the addition that nobody should get a free ride.

Is there some sort of problem with that idea?

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

I didn't say anyone was getting a free ride.

I was agreeing with Regeneratia, with the addition that nobody should get a free ride.

Is there some sort of problem with that idea?

Harte

It seems to me that there is a group that is getting a free ride right now - the rich.

Let's see... they had a good life already, even before the Bush tax cuts. Then they were handed more tax cuts (At the expense of anyone who is not rich), then they were handed trade regulations that make it easier for them to take that money and spend it outside the country (At the expense of anyone who is not rich) then they have people who are middle class and poor fighting their fight for them.

Seems to me that the rich are getting a pretty sweet deal here - all the perks, none of the downside and a group of zombie followers that are willing to argue on their behalf meaning they don't even have to be the ones asking for it.

Meanwhile the middle class and poor are seeing services cut in order to allow the rich to become richer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rashore

Flat taxes are fairly easy to get around, so is taxing the rich more, wiping out a bunch of tax loopholes, taxing the poor less... I'm not sure there would be any tax laws good enough to conquer human nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

Flat taxes are fairly easy to get around, so is taxing the rich more, wiping out a bunch of tax loopholes, taxing the poor less... I'm not sure there would be any tax laws good enough to conquer human nature.

True. However we can raise taxes to make them fair (Those that benefit the most pay the most taxes) and try to close loopholes. Nothing will ever be perfect but sometimes "Close enough" is worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

It seems to me that there is a group that is getting a free ride right now - the rich.

Let's see... they had a good life already, even before the Bush tax cuts. Then they were handed more tax cuts (At the expense of anyone who is not rich), then they were handed trade regulations that make it easier for them to take that money and spend it outside the country (At the expense of anyone who is not rich) then they have people who are middle class and poor fighting their fight for them.

Seems to me that the rich are getting a pretty sweet deal here - all the perks, none of the downside and a group of zombie followers that are willing to argue on their behalf meaning they don't even have to be the ones asking for it.

Meanwhile the middle class and poor are seeing services cut in order to allow the rich to become richer.

So, according to you, the rich are not paying for their own housing, their own groceries, their own entertainment, their own healthcare and their own retirement?

What a free ride those a-holes are getting!

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

So, according to you, the rich are not paying for their own housing, their own groceries, their own entertainment, their own healthcare and their own retirement?

What a free ride those a-holes are getting!

Harte

Yes - they are paying for it. And here's the funny thing - they are rich and can afford it yet there is a contingent of people that are arguing that we ought to punish the poor in order to let them pay for it even more.

Tell me something : Why are we willing to punish anyone who is poor in order to hand tax cuts to the rich? If we raised taxes on the rich even 7% would they suddenly become destitute? If you were making $1 million/year and your taxes went up woudl you say "Well, that's it - I want to be poor now"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

Yes - they are paying for it. And here's the funny thing - they are rich and can afford it yet there is a contingent of people that are arguing that we ought to punish the poor in order to let them pay for it even more.

How is arguing that people have a right to hold on to what they earn punishing the poor?

If I needed $5.00 and you had $20, could I go over and just take $5.00 from you? If you refused to give me $5.00 would you be punishing me? Do you have a right to hold on to your $20.00? Do I have a right to your $20.00? Would you be punishing me less if you had worked 1,000 hours digging ditches to earn that $20.00? Would you be punishing me more if someone walked over to you as you were sitting there watching TV and gave you $20.00?

Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

How is arguing that people have a right to hold on to what they earn punishing the poor?

If I needed $5.00 and you had $20, could I go over and just take $5.00 from you? If you refused to give me $5.00 would you be punishing me? Do you have a right to hold on to your $20.00? Do I have a right to your $20.00? Would you be punishing me less if you had worked 1,000 hours digging ditches to earn that $20.00? Would you be punishing me more if someone walked over to you as you were sitting there watching TV and gave you $20.00?

Because in order to do that one has to take services away from the middle class and poor. In other words, in order to let the rich get richer the poor have to get poorer. When we have to shut down Planned Parenthood (A service that the rich do not use) in order to fund tax cuts for the top 1% earners, that is punishing the poor to reward the rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.