i don't get why you guys defend the upper class so much.
please explain.

The Paris hiltons of the world are few and far between. Like I said the highest tax bracket is income of 375k but top 15% is only like 100k. Most people in the top 10% would be people with advanced degrees. People like Lawyers, Doctors, Dentists, etc. So yes I think they worked hard. Other people with 100k jobs engineers, computer scientists, other tech fields etc.

the top one percent consists of very few people.
but their total worth is greater than the other ninety nine percent,
together.
just tax them.

The problem with that is that its not equal representation under the law. Thats why I believe in a flat tax system. 15% of 100k is more than 15% of 30k.

but what if they decide to tax a flat rate of ninety percent.
are you going to be happy then.
i'm sure the billionaires will still have plenty to live off of.
what about everyone else.

You're thinking is just broken!

how.

Just tax em! You have a job I imagine, perhaps we should tax you so we can give to a welfare brat...after all you have more than they do!

You are talking on something that would never pass. IF it ever did I just wouldn't return to the US. Simple as that. I am sure soon after all the other professionals would start to leave too and the US would collapse. That or it would end up in civil war. Citizens wouldn't stand for that.

i don't have a job actually.
i'm saying we should tax the top one percent more.
i highllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyy doubt anyone on this site belongs to that one percent.
do you think a child chooses to be born into poverty.
and have to rely on government aid to survive.

they were taxed around ninety percent in the fifties.
and the poverty rate was also at it's lowest.

We shouldn't tax anybody for being successful, tax corporations...ok!

so should we tax people for being unsuccessful.

What part of don't tax anybody don't ya get? How about expecting and requiring your elected official to not blow money on horse **** then we wouldn't need to talk about taxes.

no taxes.
then how will this nation run.

Because it is the upper class that owns the majority of the business that employ the people of this great country.You have any idea what would happen if Microsoft,Boeing,Caterpillar,and many of these massive companies took off and left town?Millions of people unemployed and billions of dollars in tax revenue gone.

I am no fan of the rich but I do not see how it is good for this country to take away 40% of their money in taxes for the Government to piss away paying illegals welfare.The more you tax them and the more money you take away the more they stop hiring,start laying off,and move to another country.A company making billions is a good thing for everyone.The more they make the more they can expand and the more they can hire and buy things.

You can say tax the rich to death.Guess what?The rich are going to give you a layoff notice and pack up and leave your town and move to some other country where they can grow instead of getting robbed every day.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm


The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is di sproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years ago.

HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT ECONOMIC GROWTH?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2001/03/The-Real-Reagan-Economic-Record

Despite the steep recession in 1982--brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s--by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth:
This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.10
The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy.11
From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.12

Pardon me, don't raise taxes on anyone and require your elected official to spend tax explicitly on running the country, not providing people a place to live, food on the table and money in they pocket.

Reps got the house but Dems keep the senate
and la di da di da di da and nobody learned a thing...



more gridlock, teeth gnashing, and legislative constipation in DC
keeps the fear alive!

Let's see if the Republicans can pull through and fix the country like they've been saying they would now that they have control of the house. I'm looking forward to seeing what they can do.