In the late 1920s the German economy collapsed....
-
answering for dave..... same amount
-
How would you decide the amount on that? I don't see any way it could work. Not to say it's not fair, it's just not realistic. A flat percentage would also be a better idea except plans like Dick Armey's wouldn't allow employers to get a deductions for employee benefits like health insurance, making it much less likely they'll offer it.
Sure looks simple though
-
Just do the personal income tax as a flat tax and leave the corporate taxes the way they are....that's my solution
-
2slo50h;214381 wrote:
I am glad I don't live in North Dakota anymore, not that your votes even matter.:icon_thumleft:LOL basically true...
Not that we don't matter, we just don't have a big impact on the end result.
Probably why both Hilary & Obama put about 1 days effort into the state for campaigning.
-
BlueSRT0483;214385 wrote:
LOL basically true...Not that we don't matter, we just don't have a big impact on the end result.
Probably why both Hilary & Obama put about 1 days effort into the state for campaigning.
We have no affect on the end result since we are a republican state and the electoral college does the actual voting for president based on majority of votes received. (If 51% vote repub and 49% dem, the entire electoral college goes to the republican party making the democrat vote worthless in the overall process)
Obama had more people vote for him in the primaries (In ND) than the entire republican party had voters for their primary election. The fact that a Democrat (much less the two leading democrats) campaigned here at all this early in the process is border line amazing.
-
tjamz;214044 wrote:
"richest 15 percent" pay the lions share of the taxes.....but hold what precentage of the wealth? 90%? not sure, but it bet its close..
-
GarageAlchemist;214432 wrote:
but hold what precentage of the wealth? 90%? not sure, but it bet its close..http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarageAlchemist
but hold what precentage of the wealth? 90%? not sure, but it bet its close..tjamz;214433 wrote:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.htmlWho cares what the top percent pay, and what percent of the wealth they have? We aren't in a socialistic system where we take from those who have and give to those who need. The US is set up to allow people to prosper if they want to work hard and make a lot of money. It's a bad practice to punish people for wanting to make money.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
In every other country in the world, as society becomes more advanced, income becomes more equally distributed. That is every country except ours. Do you not think it is a bit ridiculus that a person who plays a game for a living can make more money in a day than the average person makes in a year? Or in a year that player will make more than most people makes in their lives?
-
And that is why we are the greatest country in the world.
Why the FUCK should I have to share my hard earned dollars with some worthless fuck who chooses not to apply themselves and make a better life for themselves and their families?
-
GarageAlchemist;214710 wrote:
In every other country in the world, as society becomes more advanced, income becomes more equally distributed. That is every country except ours. Do you not think it is a bit ridiculus that a person who plays a game for a living can make more money in a day than the average person makes in a year? Or in a year that player will make more than most people makes in their lives?I'd hardly say that society is becoming more "advanced", it is becoming more socialistic tho. Capitalism allows you the freedom to bust your ass to become a professional ball player and make the kind of money they can bring in. It also allows you the freedom to work at McDonalds and barely make it by if you choose. In our country you get paid what you are worth, not what the government says you are worth. I like it that way, you have incentive to work hard and do well for yourself and your family.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Income is not distributed in this country. It is earned, most often by hard work.
The poorest people in America today typically have
- one or more televisions
- an automobile
- air-conditoining
- clean water
- electricity
Many of these amenities were unavailable to the richest people anywhere in the world even 100 years ago. In this country, they're commonplace, even for our poorest members of society.
The "distribution" (in the statistical sense) of wealth is irrelevant. How I fare compare to my neighbor is irrelevant. How I fare compared to my parents, their parents, etc etc, is what is important.
That assumes of course that "the goal" of society, insofar as there is or ought to be one, is that civilization makes progress. You appear to be concerned with a different goal: "everyone is equal". That goal sucks, and a great short story by Kurt Vonnegut details why. I suggest you read it if you have a few minutes:
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html
This is one of my favorite short stories. I used to have it printed out in a teeny tiny font on my office door, so people could complain that it was too hard for them to read. "That's the point", I'd tell them. "Not everyone has eyesight good enough to read this copy, and that's ok".
-
thrash;214715 wrote:
Income is not distributed in this country. It is earned, most often by hard work.The poorest people in America today typically have
- one or more televisions
- an automobile
- air-conditoining
- clean water
- electricity
This is one thing I love about the "poor" statistics. Many people don't realize what stipulates being poor...and like you said...the amenities that the "poor" often live with. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you should be able to have everything everyone else has. It says the PURSUIT of happiness, which is more than fairly provided to all if they'd actually try.
-
My mom used to work at the HRA back in Fergus... pretty much all of the people on rental assistance and low-income housing were driving a hell of a lot nicer cars and had a bunch of nicer stuff than my family had, and my parents worked hard for everything, while most of these ppl just sat around and got government hand outs...
-
DaveH;214714 wrote:
I'd hardly say that society is becoming more "advanced", it is becoming more socialistic tho. Capitalism allows you the freedom to bust your ass to become a professional ball player and make the kind of money they can bring in. It also allows you the freedom to work at McDonalds and barely make it by if you choose. In our country you get paid what you are worth, not what the government says you are worth. I like it that way, you have incentive to work hard and do well for yourself and your family.so you think that a professional baseball player is worth more than the person who teachers YOUR kids? that they worker harder than everyone on this board combined? because they make more than all of us combined.
-
From an economic standpoint it makes sense, supply and demand, there is short supply, high demand, so they get paid alot, but from a humanitarian standpoint it blows, because there is a large supply of people that are low skilled, and don't make enough money to live on.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login