-
You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
The income tax should be eliminated and a consumption tax added to take its place. The basic essentials of life such as unprepared food and medicine should not be taxed at all. The tax should move up and down with the cost of federal government's business annually based on a balanced budget amendment.
-
1
-
3
-
1
- Show all
I don't think that at all. I see someone that can see that there is an issue with the nature of the distribution of wealth in the US. And, instead of trying to look at the actual causes of the extremely top-heavy distribution of wealth, they incorrectly think that the issue can be addressed by changes to the tax code. But, given that the bottom 50% pay nothing and those slightly above that pay very little, the "utility" of the tax code for this problem must not be very high or else the problem would have gotten better.
It is like treating pneumonia with Tylenol. Superficially, the fever is down so it seems to have helped some. The reality is it didn't and certainly more Tylenol is not the answer.
It is like treating pneumonia with Tylenol. Superficially, the fever is down so it seems to have helped some. The reality is it didn't and certainly more Tylenol is not the answer.
-
1
- Show all
I would agree with this statement IF the "rich" paid anywhere near their intended 'tax bracket percentage'.
There is a lot of problems with the tax code. On the surface it looks like RICH are paying more as a percent but it is so complicated with so many loop holes, they actually pay less as percentage than intended. At least the smart one do.
There is a lot of problems with the tax code. On the surface it looks like RICH are paying more as a percent but it is so complicated with so many loop holes, they actually pay less as percentage than intended. At least the smart one do.
I can't help but laugh whenever this tired old argument gets trotted out by the left. The top 5% of income earners routinely pay more than 50% of the tax revenue that gets taken in by the federal government every year. Meanwhile the bottom 50% of income earners routinely pay less than 5% of the tax revenue taken in by the federal government. To suggest that the rich are somehow not carrying a fair share of the tax burden is a level of ignorance and absurdity that is, quite frankly, hard to believe.
-
2
-
3
-
1
- Show all
I always find it interesting how often this board defends the rich. Must have a lot of high rollers on here.
Now if we're talking about the 'rich' as the Government defines it...which is actually middle to upper middle class in today's world...then I agree 100%. If we're taking about the actual, truly wealthy, I couldn't give two shits about how much they pay. When you're the top percentage of the top percentage, you could flush cash down the toilet all day, every day and it wouldn't make a single difference to you, your kids, your grandkids, etc. Forgive me if I don't feel sorry for them. They have benefitted from the system a million times more than the system could ever screw them over.
Now if we're talking about the 'rich' as the Government defines it...which is actually middle to upper middle class in today's world...then I agree 100%. If we're taking about the actual, truly wealthy, I couldn't give two shits about how much they pay. When you're the top percentage of the top percentage, you could flush cash down the toilet all day, every day and it wouldn't make a single difference to you, your kids, your grandkids, etc. Forgive me if I don't feel sorry for them. They have benefitted from the system a million times more than the system could ever screw them over.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I’m not suggesting it, I know it. Your limiting your definition of gvt benefits to direct handouts and while I disagree with that, I also disagree with the funds the gvt provides both direct and indirect to the ultra wealthy. So, in so far as it goes, your statement is correct but it’s misleading because it limits what is defined as a gvt benefit.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
You found me out everything I’ve posted since I joined has been a giant ruse that offered cover for my admiration for bho. Let’s just take a look at a few companies whose primary shareholders (ie ultra wealthy) are materially subsidized by the US taxpayers: I’m not talking about the Mom and pop restaurant success story, I’m referring to Solyndra, every Elon musk company, Walmart, Target big pharma the railroads, the military industrial complex and so on and so on.
Yes, they take more (in total) from the taxpayers than the individual handouts.
Yes, they take more (in total) from the taxpayers than the individual handouts.