Originally posted by spaznational
Well, I don't think it is the Top 5% that bribes them. That is to say 1 out of 20 people. It's not even the Top 1%. It is the Top 0.001% (at most)
that has any sway.
The Top 0.001 can provide big money however it's bottom HALF that is mobilized to get the vote volume needed. The bottom half (48%) are net
tax recipients who profit from our current tax system. The rest PAY for their freeloading. But as long as people can vote themselves a raise
the system will never change.
And there's actually a reason for this. Because otherwise the system would #ing collapse
. That bottom 48%? They're hte ones buying all the crap
that makes it possible for that miniscule fraction at the top to exist. Reduce their buying ability, and what happens? Well, what happens when you cut
the bottom of a tree?
I disagree on another point: It is reasonable to state that the Top 5% create most of the jobs because these are the small
business owners, physicians, lawyers, restauranteurs, architects, and on and on. These are job creators. And you don't need to be a millionaire to
be in the top 5% of income... remember, 5% is 1 out of 20 people.
And this lie is the most vile, stupid, wrong-headed piece-of-# argument existing in modern America. Congratulations. No, the wealthy do not "create
creates jobs. Do you understand the basics of economics, chief? if a business is booming, THAT creates jobs. if a business is
contracting, THAT reduces jobs. Daddy Warbucks isn't out waving his cane and making employment appear, it's the people buying things and seeking
services that do that.
Who makes up the bulk of demand? It's certainly not the 5% you're rushing to the defense of. They respond
to the demand, if they are in a
position to do so.
These people quiet literally drive our economy, so I think it is not prudent to punish them with additional tax burdens. (I've never been
hired by a poor person, by the way.)
Wrong. Our economy is driven by the people who consume, the bulk of whom are logically on the "bottom." They stop consuming, the top percentile stops
making money. The opposite is not true - you could tax the top percentiles 110% and it would not affect the engine of our economy.
What would benefit EVERYONE is an across-the-board tax reduction. Perhaps something like the Fair Tax or a flat tax of some sort. This would
allow everyone to purchase more, and allow business owners to re-invest more into new assets and new hires.
It would not, in fact. All proposed "flat" or "fair" taxes are actually large tax hikes at the bottom and massive tax reductions at the top -
regressive taxation, and just another scheme for short-term plunder.
Also, the idea of a "weathholder" is a myth. Money is employed, not stashed. Rich people utilize their money to create more wealth through
investing, and this provides the capital necessary for business of all sizes to run and grow.
No, they don't, in fact. AIG execs do not invest in mom and pop stores. They invest in other Fortune 500's, who in turn invest back into AIG. it all
stays there at the top. These guys then do not go to Wal Mart for clothes, they don't eat at mcDonalds.
We've been following trickle-down economics for over thirty years. it hasn't worked. it never WILL work, because it ignores pretty much every basic
law of economics and instead tries to be a moral system, whereby we operate purely on faith that the people with their hands in the treasury will be
nice and return that money to the corner pharmacies, independent banks, and hotdog stands of hte nation.
edit on 19/10/2011 by TheWalkingFox
because: (no reason given)