The problem is primate psychology and framing. But running with your perspective instead, what's the problem with higher marginal tax rates? It's the best time ever from a wealth perspective.
; )
Pick your poison, social unrest, or...
- Thread starter Ricter
- Start date
; )
I considered a poll initially, but so many have me on ignore I was concerned the results would skew left.Ricter,
Why didn't you put a poll with this?
I pick "social unrest".
Or, lets go back to pre Reagan tax rates AND tax write offs
they don't work, that is why they are on strike, and their version of a strike is just to steal everything that is not nailed down. So, if you own the company, you are no longer bargaining with them on how much you will pay them, you are bargaining with them on how much they will steal. Just like bargaining with the mafia, just like we all bargain with the federal government. Not on how productive they are, just on how much they are going to steal.
The rich are getting away with it for now because the poor are not organized. Mostly it's just lone wolf attacks by crack addicts on liquor stores. But if you could ever get the poor off drugs and organize a night of terror in your hometown, then, a lot of poor people will have new tv's (not that there was anything wrong with their old tv) and if you are properly insured the rich insurers like Warren Buffet will finally have to pay up for creating a class of poor who got too skinny while he got too fat.
Were the poor better off when the tax rates were higher?
no kidding, were the poor better off when Warren was just a millionaire? The left defines progress not by how much better the poor are doing, but by how much more the government takes in taxes.
Give me a timeframe and at least a loose idea of what you mean by "better off".
Liberals live by the assumption that the only way to create income equality is by punishing those at the top through punitive tax rates, they would rather see everyone make less than some people making more, the fact of the matter is the worse the people on top are doing, the worse it is for people on the bottom.
Loook around at any predominantly run liberal state and the one thing that is common is that there is a much wider discrepancy between top income and lower income. This is the one thing i find commendable from Fiorina, atleast she was willing to defend such an obvious weakness in the liberal argument.
Loook around at any predominantly run liberal state and the one thing that is common is that there is a much wider discrepancy between top income and lower income. This is the one thing i find commendable from Fiorina, atleast she was willing to defend such an obvious weakness in the liberal argument.
Anytime in the U.S since 1930. Were there less people in poverty than now? Were the living conditions of the poor better? Did the poor have AC, TV, stoves, bathrooms, phones, and clothing when tax rates were high?