And I can't think of any, anywhere.
More and more, I'm reading people posting the idea that "the rich" have wealth and we should just take it from them to give to the government, so it can continue to spend and redistribute as it has.
I continue to read how people are complaining Warren Buffet and assorted other rich people pay too little in taxes. I see nothing about respecting what belongs to someone else... just a "once they get rich, they're targets to confiscate what they have" as a philosophy for governance.
This has never worked, anywhere. The idea is abhorrent to a free society.
I see people complaining about the mortgage interest deduction... Fine. Remove it. It was put there by people just like you, wanting to encourage people to borrow money to buy real estate... to drive up the price of real estate, which would raise the valuation of real estate, so it would raise the TAXES from real estate.
But, go ahead, remove it. Reduce the demand for real estate, and thereby its value and thereby the tax revenue from it. Works for me. I'm wanting to buy some, therefore, I'd like the price to fall... a LONG ways.
Someone else complained "how many bentleys can you drive at one time, anyway?", as if what someone else made was of any concern to you. And, why do you think that anything someone has, rightfully can be taken and given to someone else? Who is God, and can determine who is "too rich"?
I see people advocating raising the top rates to 70 80 90 percent or more. To what purpose? To get money from them? It won't work. Wealthy people can adjust their money streams to prevent paying those punitive rates. Those who earn their own will simply stop doing whatever it is they do, that earns them that kind of money and will stop earning to the point that they don't pay insane rates.
Buffett pays little in taxes, because he did a Perot, (and what many wealthy people did) they pulled their money from risky investments and put it into tax free government debt. Thus, the millionaires get to make more millons at the expense of the taxpayers who remain, and the loss of their investment in the economy is multiplied over and over, as unemployment and a lack of investment continues on and on.
Why do you continue to advocate harmful things?
Any history buffs?
In the last century, what were the best decades for the middle class? By any objective measure, it was the 20 years following WWII.
Education (GI bill), jobs (Union jobs), Social Security (socialism), homes (GI bill). It was the best time for a working family.
Now consider this. The national debt then (as a percent of GDP) was higher then than it is now. The tax rate for the ultra-RICH was 93%. And business and the middle class thrived. The rich didn't miss any meals.
Now we are looking at a new philosophy from Randian conservatives and teabaggers who can't add. "Take from the poor and give to the rich."
That's what the Ryan plan does. Privatize Medicare which will reduce medical benefits to seniors by 25% net. And make insurance companies rich. Slash medicaid by 30%.
You should know what's being sold by the teabaggers by the. smell. And it ain't perfume.
You're the 'teabagger' in your rude, hatefilled rants.
And, how is that you consider his post "hatefilled"? Do explain?
This should be great to hear...
I don't have to "consider", it is. Nobody, except someone with anger and prejudice would write what he writes about other people.
And how about you? What about your anger and prejudice, or are you exempt from the normal mores of decency?
Sir, read your own forum posts - who is angry here?
I wouldn't exactly cry if people stole from the mega-rich, the expression "all is fair in love and war" comes to mind. I wouldn't participate in the mass looting, but I certainly wouldn't show any empathy to the situation.
I don't think taxing them to death will do anything, because as you said, they would just find methods around the taxation, and in the end all the small businesses would get screwed.
I don't have any respect for the super rich of 2011 though. Why? Unlike the rich of the past, the rich of today don't produce anything. There are exceptions, but in general, most of the rich in the modern era got to where they were through manipulation, outsourcing, off shoring, government kickbacks, globalization, dubbing a mass of people to follow a useless cult, etc. Basically, unethical cheating slimes buckets that don't create jobs and produce nothing good for society.
Keep in mind, there's a difference between the "super-rich", the globalist slime sucking parasites, and the "petit bourgeoisie."
"Thus, the millionaires get to make more millons at the expense of the taxpayers"
who pay a great deal to the infrastucture
i.e. socilism of the country that the rich use to get rich whining all the way.
Your inability to see cause and effect does not validate your emotional rants.
Why is the government borrowing? Socialists in control. Who does it benefit? The rich. Who will always benefit from government manipulating the economy? The rich.
Who gets hurt by ALL of it, especially what socialists want? The poor.
It's borrowing money because it's broke. Duh!
There are no socialists in Washington, but there are plenty of thieves.
The distribution of wealth, via Washington isn't help other people than the rich. So please.
Exactly. The government's approach to the Economy is nothing but a fools path. It always has been.
Again, no socialists in Washington. Just thieves who will take from everyone.
Thief, socialist... same thing.
No, it's borrowing becuase it wants to spend more than it has, and for some stupid reason I can't imagine, people are still buying the debt.
Well, there happens to be plenty of stupid people who haven't a clue what they are doing on the market. Buy debt is just one aspect.
As long as the U.S. maintains a AAA rating, then the debt would be worth buying. Until it loses that rating, it will always have buyers of debt markers. It's leverage.
As for you saying No, to America being broke? I think you need to re-establish what you consider broke. The Federal Reserve Bank was put in place, only because (a) the U.S. needed more leveraging power and (b) it has no money(gold). Thus, the debt system continues.
by rhamson3 years ago
With the implementation of the Affordable Healthcare Act what are your reasons for not getting the government mandated insurance?
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
in fact, wealth is a positive thing which enhances and elevates one's standard of living? Do these people realize that wealth means more socioeconomic choices? When will they realize that being poor...
by Sekharg6 years ago
I see lot of houses for sale.I heard interest rates are lowest.Is it a good idea to buy a house now?What do you think?
by kerryg6 years ago
Thought some of you right wingers might be interested in seeing what some ACTUAL socialists think of the health care bill. Not that I expect any of you to admit that Obama isn't socialist by any definition of the word...
by Holle Abee6 years ago
Four Democrats and Lieberman voted with the Republicans. I have mixed feelings about this, according to the research I've done. It seems that "economy experts" are split on their views. Some argue that...
by Amanda S4 years ago
I would love to have my own business some day but have no idea where to begin. Any suggestions for a beginner? I do not have a lot of disposable income yet, so I would need to start small. I would love business venture...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.