I know, I guess if I had gradutated from a better university than SWT, then I'd be a Republican. I don't know Major's problem though, maybe he didn't get that good of an education at UT.
Rocketman95, Now don't go knocking the greatest college in Texas. I am a proud SWT graduate. I think what makes people a conservative or liberal is money. The more money one makes the more the government takes as a tax or penalty so to speak, they quickly switch to a more conservative side of politics. I mean why should people who are successful pay a greater percentage of tax? Isn't that punishing those that are acheiving? Do you realize that people in the top tax bracket pay over 60% of every dollar earned to our government. 60% !!!! That is terrible. Meanwhile we have a ton of people that live off our own government and have no inclination to get on their own feet. I am for a flat tax that has a low end around 10% for the people in the low end and 25% for those at the top of the earning scale. At least this way people at the top that actually GENERATE the jobs have a greater incentive to continue to hire people rather then find a way to horde all their cash. DD
<B>Do you realize that people in the top tax bracket pay over 60% of every dollar earned to our government. 60% !!!! That is terrible. </B> That's not true -- or at least, it shouldn't be. I was in tax hell in 2000 and paying the worst possible rates with no deductions and came out at about a net of 40-45% (with self-employment taxes). Most people in the top brackets also have plenty of deduction options to reduce their tax load. The top tax bracket in 2000 was 39.6% (or close to) and has come down since then, I assume, with the Bush tax cut. <B>I am for a flat tax that has a low end around 10% for the people in the low end and 25% for those at the top of the earning scale. </B> If the low-end is paying 10% and the high-end is at 25%, then it's not a flat tax. Seriously, though, our government would go broke with these rates. Right now, the top pay 40% in income taxes and we still run deficits. Raising the amount the bottom pays isn't going to do anything due to the wealth-concentration issues we have right now.
I don't think it is education or money (speaking as someone who has plenty of both). I think it is more of natural predisposition and environment, whether it be ubringing or experiences, etc. People with more money can also hire better people to ensure that they pay fewer taxes than they should, the lower people usually don't have such luxury and have to pay full. Also, look at all of those hollywood beautiful people types...they are loaded and are mindless-follow-the-party-line Democrats. Anyway, I guess I think that money is too simplistic - there are too many other factors.
Major, Now add Property taxes, sales tax and many other taxes and you are soon over 60% tax. I think money is a big factor, I would favor a complete flat tax rate but I think that is a bit unfair to the poor. I think a sliding scale like I presented above would work fine. Rimmy, I do agree that environment has a factor in your allegiance, however, I think that the more you make the less you want to pay, I mean the rich don't get more services for their money then the poor, and they are carrying the weight. DaDakota
TIMING- I'm not arguing with you, but would like to know where you obtained the statistic "a average white family is 11 times more wealthier than that of a black family."
The 60% figures other taxes into the equation, not just federal income tax. It counts sales tax, gasoline taxes, phone taxes, etc. In fact, if the average American were to put all of his/her income into paying the various local, state, and national taxes he/she would receive no wages until May 3 every year. In other words, 123 of ever 365 days you work you receive no income, you just pay taxes. They sure would. Guess they'd just have to reduce spending, eh?
<B>Now add Property taxes, sales tax and many other taxes and you are soon over 60% tax. </B> OK, that's true -- but those other types of taxes aren't really related to your income levels. That's more lifestyle choices. But I see where you got the 60% figure from now. <B>They sure would. Guess they'd just have to reduce spending, eh?</B> dylan, unfortunately, that's much easier said than done. I would fear any plan that reduces taxes with the intent to also reduce spending -- the spending cuts would have to come first or it would never work.
Why I don't shed a ****ing tear for people with money (myself included). Most of us already have more money than we know what to do with.
RM95, Then donate it to a charity, or better yet, employ some people, participate in the economy. If you have more then enough spread it around a bit. The point is that the people WITH the most money are the employers of most people and are the underappreciated driving force behind the economy. Just because people have money does not mean they should pay MORE then their share. DaDakota
I can't find the info from an official site like the Census because they only deal with medians and don't list the total wealth. I've seen the number at 11 times and 10 times being thrown about in articles and news programs but I can't find it on the Census site. The graph I posted shows the median wealth at 7 times that of blacks so I guess that's about what I can prove from official sources. Sorry...
That's where we disagree. I don't think this country can survive without the better off helping to support those less fortunate. While we may disagree on why these people are on welfare or receiving government assistance, let's assume your position that those on welfare are too lazy to get real jobs like you or me is correct. What is the harm that's been done? Is this country worse off because there are people that abuse the welfare system? This country's problems (problems I really don't think we have...those who hate us, mostly hate us for illogical reasons) aren't due to people making $9000 or so off our government. If anything, our nation suffers much more from the corporate welfare our esteemed businesses like Enron recieve. I'm much more pissed off about them not paying taxes for four of the past five years than I am about some single mother of five receiving barely receiving enough cash to feed, clothe and shelter her kids. I'd also like to know what programs you'd like to cut with your at least 40% reduction in spending and taxes? At my other law firm job, they're taking out 13% from my gross, assuming I'll make $10,400 at that job, you're giving me 3% more and yourself 35% more. So, what do you want to cut? Especially since about 1% of the social welfare budget goes to the poor, what do you want to cut?
I have a problem with a single female having 5 kids then wanting taxpayers to pay for her sexual lifestyle. Yes I know there are deadbeat dads that walk off from their duties as a parent, and for those situations welfare is desperately needed. I just don't think this country should reward already signle mothers receiving assistance, while continuing to have MORE kids.
so are you guys saying that the guy who made the comment is a racist or an astronaut...i dont get it?
You know, you're right. I think the government should institue mandatory abortions, hysterectomies or vasectomies for those who make less than $24,000 a year. Or, better yet, we could just kill them all...oh wait, who would we have to clean the toilets and offices?
Rather than take your extreme measure of mass murder, how about making them get a job, or two. Restraint and work seems to hard huh?
