Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, Obama states he would leave the top bracket at 35% much higher than all the other brackets.I don't know what makes you think Obama of all people favours a flat income tax. He doesn't.
You are correct, democrats have successfully associated a "flat tax" to "a tax cut for the rich" but almost any across the board tax cut can be argued as a tax cut for the rich, they paid more in taxes in a year than many people made in a year
Originally posted by Bardock42
Where have we seen trickle down again? In no western country I know of do the rich actual pay the same or even less in percentage than the poorer. What are you referring to?
trickle down actually refers to lowering the operating costs of those who invest large sums into the economy, thus creating more jobs etc.
The rich do not actually have to be paying less of a percentile of their wage (which imho is a ridiculous way to talk about wages), rather, government policy just has to be aimed at reducing their costs of operation.
Originally posted by Hunkajunk
You are correct, democrats have successfully associated a "flat tax" to "a tax cut for the rich" but almost any across the board tax cut can be argued as a tax cut for the rich, they paid more in taxes in a year than many people made in a year
I really don't think it's because the "poor" folks want to be paid that meager salary.
Originally posted by inimalist
trickle down actually refers to lowering the operating costs of those who invest large sums into the economy, thus creating more jobs etc.The rich do not actually have to be paying less of a percentile of their wage (which imho is a ridiculous way to talk about wages), rather, government policy just has to be aimed at reducing their costs of operation.
Which very well might make more jobs, but what it does for certain is put more money into their pockets.
Originally posted by inimalist
trickle down actually refers to lowering the operating costs of those who invest large sums into the economy, thus creating more jobs etc.The rich do not actually have to be paying less of a percentile of their wage (which imho is a ridiculous way to talk about wages), rather, government policy just has to be aimed at reducing their costs of operation.
So, what is your point?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Fair enough. I don't really think the argument is about them being oppressed, just being used unfairly.
I might argue that they are being treated unfairly.
If we look at taxation in terms of relative impact to purchasing power, especially with regards to staple goods, taxing the rich is much more fair.
I hear what you are saying, and do in fact support a flat tax, if tax is necessary. Just sayin, if we want an unfair tax system that benefits people...
The bipartisan committee just ruled that Palin abused her power as Govorner: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/10/lawmakers-emerge-from-ses_n_133800.html
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/10/panel-palin-abused-power-firing-commissioner/
Originally posted by chithappensPeople are paid the value to which society has deemed their occupation.
I really don't think it's because the "poor" folks want to be paid that meager salary.
The egalitarian side of me says that the millionaire can afford to pay more tax to fund things for the minimum wage worker; the "logical" side of me says why should the millionaire pay more tax to fund things for the minimum wage worker that the millionaire will never use.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
People are paid the value to which society has deemed their occupation.The egalitarian side of me says that the millionaire can afford to pay more tax to fund things for the minimum wage worker; the utilitarian side of me says why should the millionaire pay more tax to fund things for the minimum wage worker that the millionaire will never use.
What if that minium wage worker works for that millionaire, ie that millionaire is a millionaire because he/she pays employees that bare-wage and saves on overhead that way?