Originally Posted by ScOoTeR
One thing you're forgetting is that a government that robs Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul. If there were not clear lines defining a level of poverty beneath which the taxes were reduced or even eliminated - ANYBODY supporting that "plan" would not get into office.
Since the minority of voting America pays the majority of the taxes, there will never be enough votes to back such a measure.
It seems politicians have got every. single. one. of us snowed: We sit here arguing about which tax is fair and whom should see increases levied. While we battle out in this, as you call it "Class Warfare", our employees in D.C. are continuing to embezzle and waste our money. We talk about budget and spending - when we should look at cost-to-benefit ratio.
Has anybody ever done a study to see how many of our tax dollars it takes to provide $1 of aid to someone that needs it? I'm almost willing to bet that number hovers around $100.
There is no debate that Government spends to much and is inefficient. But that's not the topic of this thread.
As I stated earlier, we could debate until the end of time about what taxes system would be fair. No tax. A set amount per sole. A flat tax. A 100% tax over a set amount. a 100% tax on all income with the government redistributing as it sees fit. You'll find someone out there that will support each of these as "fair". But again, it's not the topic of this thread.
Nor is this thread about welfare mom having to many babies, or who grew up poor, or any of the other strawmen built in this thread.
I find it ironic that some people think that high taxes on the rich will decrease their drive to succeed, but think high taxes on the poor will increase their drive to succeed. But that too is a strawman.
This thread is about the justification of those people protesting on Wall Street.
I'll re-post the article that Brods posted because it is exactly what I am talking about
And specifically this:
Over the past 30 years most people have seen only modest salary increases: the average annual salary in America, expressed in 1998 dollars (that is, adjusted for inflation), rose from $32,522 in 1970 to $35,864 in 1999. That's about a 10 percent increase over 29 years -- progress, but not much. Over the same period, however, according to Fortune magazine, the average real annual compensation of the top 100 C.E.O.'s went from $1.3 million -- 39 times the pay of an average worker -- to $37.5 million, more than 1,000 times the pay of ordinary workers.
Of course executives who are running the company should make more than those just working there. Of course hard work should be rewarded. Of course those who strive to improve their skills and knowledge through hard work and education should be rewarded. None of this is in debate. The question is how much. If a CEO in 1970 was worth 39 times the average worker, why is that same CEO in 1999 1000 times the average worker? Will that same CEO be worth 25,000 times the average worker in 2028? Where will it end?
It's not about the government robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's about at what point does the wealth and income disparity between Peter and Paul become so large that Paul is essentially an indentured servant to Peter and he decides to do the robbing himself. Will the USA still be a great place to be then?