So rich going to have to accept less or have it taken from them?

originally posted by: Xeven
Seems people have decided enough is enough and now either wealthy can put money back in the economy or people will elect people to come and take it? What do you think. I mean it is silly to allow the wealthy to have so much while people working 8 hours a day cannot pay for shelter and food.

You can scream capitalism all you want but fact is there are more people who need more than there are people to defend the rigged capitalism and the 1% will lose when the people decide enough is enough.

You may not know it, maybe you do, but this idea of frozen asset retrieval is really decades old and the primary target was retired folks with a fair amount of cash or better in their accounts with nothing to spend it on.

It simply demonstrates how little socialists understand how all this paper money thing really works. Its also greedy really at its very base. Its sells well to dumbasses in college because....well they are dumbasses. Its sells well to libs because they don't understand economics from their ass or a hole in the ground. And...AND....its really the sweat hog bankers of the fiat money machine and their stooge socialist politicians that realize the game is in danger with all these large piles of cash laying around.

a reply to: Indigent

And what is so righteous about a representative government that has been bought by rich lobbyists? Do you have direct contact with law makers? You know, the people who construct laws and tax schedules.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: DBCowboy

Can you guarantee a tax that allows the bottom paid enough left over to live, and if you can, is it a high enough tax to cover costs anymore from those who actually have the nation's wealth?

It doesn't matter if you make 200K or 20K a year. The government already, ALREADY taxes you in witholdings, FICA, etc.

It's just that some get a check back after the government has earned interest off the money for a year.

If everyone paid a lower flat tax, then even the poor would have MORE MONEY, MORE MONEY at every pay day.

But please, continue with the class warfare and hatred of the successful.

And stay broke.

So rich going to have to accept less or have it taken from them?

Wouldn't be the first time between the 90% tax rate, and people like FDR confiscating the 'richs' gold and silver.

History repeats because NO want wants to learn from it.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Flat taxes penalize the poorer people more than the richer people. That is an aspect of percentages that I'm not sure you understand completely.

a reply to: MOMof3

Oh man how I wish you all could experience a few years in Venezuela to really know a government that wants to destroy you.

Ill trade the corrupt US for the peoples government of Venezuela any day, if only you could knew

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DBCowboy

Flat taxes penalize the poorer people more than the richer people. That is an aspect of percentages that I'm not sure you understand completely.

If you make 10/hr, you are still getting taxes withheld.

Under a flat tax, you'd actually have MORE per paycheck than you do now.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DBCowboy

Flat taxes penalize the poorer people more than the richer people. That is an aspect of percentages that I'm not sure you understand completely.

Most flat tax proponents don't have an issue with credits to zero out tax liability for the poorest earners. However, at some point, people need to contribute.

I don't care if the poor only have to give $5 bucks, I believe EVERYONE should have to pay into the system. We all need skin in the game so we understand what our government costs us.

Be careful what you wish for. Plenty of loop holes out there. Raise the tax enough and the rich will simply change their home and/or business address to the country with the lowest tax rate. Plenty already do just that. Then we get 0% of their income.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DBCowboy

Flat taxes penalize the poorer people more than the richer people. That is an aspect of percentages that I'm not sure you understand completely.

Why not abolish the income tax altother.

Would that be so bad?

People actually NOT working 6 months out a year to pay their 'tax' bill before they start working for themselves?

The income tax needs to go the way of the dodo.

originally posted by: stosh64

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Indigent

Poor people always complaining on how hard they work and how the lazy one percenters got rich by being corrupt.

And you don't become one percent without being corrupt that's common knowledge.

Get real people, hard work and big risk still gets you big rewards some times, working for a paycheck 40 hours a week will get you the same paycheck every week

So you admit even Bernie is corrupt?

Bernie is far from one percent. He's worth barely over a couple hundred grand.
That's what happens when you're not crooked and just accept your pay as a public servant.

originally posted by: jellyrev

Also quick question how much is fair?
top 1% pay pay 45% of federal income tax
bottom 60% pay 2% of federal income tax

While I seriously doubt that you & I will ever reach full agreement on what is "fair," I will offer this food for thought;

Is it "fair" that 20 families in America control more of this nation's wealth & income than the bottom 60% of Americans combined? (That's around 180 million Americans)

Is it "fair that the top 0.1%, (one tenth of one percent) control over 90% of our nation's wealth & income?

You know, there's an old saying; "You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip!"

Well, you can't collect money from people who don't have any money either, that's a no-brainer.

With that in mind, is it fair to ask the poor to pay the same rate as those who control the vast majority of this nation's income & wealth?

Wouldn't doing so just drive them further into poverty, thereby exasperating the wealth inequality problem even further?

And what would you pay for with all this money you CAN'T collect?

IMO, A "Fair" system would be one where the tax rate is somewhat relative to the percentage of wealth & income they control.

Not only would it be "fair," it's the only approach that has a realistic chance of actually producing the revenue needed to sustain our governmental obligations.

a reply to: the owlbear


Who do you suppose is paying for his campaign?

The quickest way to a tax revolution would be to have everyone keep their entire paycheck for the entire year and just pay everything at once.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DBCowboy

Flat taxes penalize the poorer people more than the richer people. That is an aspect of percentages that I'm not sure you understand completely.

If you make 10/hr, you are still getting taxes withheld.

Under a flat tax, you'd actually have MORE per paycheck than you do now.

Let me give a real world example...
I live in a state that doesn't take income disparity into consideration when it comes to child support.
My ex makes over $150,000/yr...I make $15,000.
Child support is 30%. 30% of $150,000 still leaves $100,000 to live off of. 30% of $15,000 leaves me with $10,000 to live off of.

Yeah...

It's a pinch for those at the bottom.

originally posted by: Rapha
This is the world revolution that the current top 1% elite fear the most.

Well, as I recall, every time they tried a major socialist revolution it wasn't only the "elites" who had something to fear. I think a lot of the people who are cheering for socialism are just morons who have no idea what they're talking about. The people who will assume control of a socialist system will be the new "elites" and they have a history of unparalleled brutality in dealing with anyone who becomes an obstacle to their goals. Because they demand absolute power in order to force things that will not work without brute force, they will have the power to crush you like an ant if you so much as blink when they forbid it. They've done it before and there's no reason to believe they have changed one bit.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
The quickest way to a tax revolution would be to have everyone keep their entire paycheck for the entire year and just pay everything at once.

I've always said elections should be on April 16th and we should not have paycheck withholdings.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: the owlbear


Who do you suppose is paying for his campaign?

WE are! Willingly. Freely.

Oh, and he has NEVER asked us for more money. NEVER.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: the owlbear


Who do you suppose is paying for his campaign?

Considering he has millions of donations and still has yet to come close to the Clinton coffers...
Quite a few people of all economic levels that believes in his message.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

We who?