posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 02:17 AM
Wow, there's so much ignorance in this thread. I feel like it's a gigantic troll reading it, but I have to point out where you're wrong on
Originally posted by Jobeycool
It is amazing we have 47% of people not paying income taxes.Massive unemployment that is not even told correctly.Real unemployment numbers are nearly
15%,Massive massive debt that will bankrupt the future of this country and yet the liberal dominated media and the government is somehow correct about
Lets start with the 47% not paying income taxes. 1/2 of that are made up of people getting SSI and SSDI, That income by law is tax free. It's also
quite low, people on disability for example get $680/month at full disability (they're considered unable to work and support themselves, even
partially). There's quite literally nothing there to tax. Some people are on welfare and refuse to work but that's as much a symptom of a bad
economy as anything else. You mention the unemployment numbers, and point out that the real unemployment rate is 15%. Simple logic says that's 15%
of the population that's not earning an income because they can't find work. Last on this subject, since since entitlements are set at certain
income levels, if it were to be taxed the payout would just be increased so that the take home remains equal. It's simplified bookkeeping that
there's no taxes on it. There's hardly some huge epidemic of people refusing to work and just live off of welfare. The job market is quite simply
Originally posted by ValhallNow, the "evilness" factor comes in from the rhetoric right here on this board. (And in other areas where
promotors of the liberal economic agenda are speaking and writing). Romney is bad because he's rich. That's the main issue...he's just a bad rich
man. So rich is bad (i.e. evil) and it apparently kicks in at $250,000 combined income annually.
It's at 250,000 because that's about the income level where peoples real tax rates start to go down while disposable income as a percentage of your
budget skyrockets. It's not about good/evil, it's that that's the point where most people can start to afford to pay more.
Originally posted by Valhall
So all the middle class with a combined income of $250,000 a year are bad and need to get on board and then all those people above them need to be
whipped into shape. God knows we can't have them running around continuing this evil behavior. Obamas included, by the way. Wonder if Obama would
be willing to reduce his evilness by doing what Bloomberg did and just take a buck a month for salary?
I also wonder if Romney would. So I wonder that for both of them. There's point where redistribution of wealth has to kick in according to Obama
and I think according to that philosophy he is being morally deficit in taking his salary when he's serving as a civil servant and his net worth is
as high as it is. Does wealth redistribution not apply to him?
This is one of the worst things a politician can do at any level of government. If you set the precedent of taking a very low salary it means anyone
who wants that job in the future will be expected to take that low salary, meaning the only people able to fill the position are people with so much
money they can afford to not bring in an income from working. You talk about evilness, that's one of the most evil things an individual can do
because it paves the way for rule by the rich as the only way of the future in government. And if someones not rich it guarantees corporations will
buy them out so they can afford to live. As for wealth redistribution, you still keep some of it, but the idea is that society as a whole (that same
society that allows you to be rich) is improved.
Continued in the next post.