Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more

Adam Smith wrote:It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Adam Smith wrote:The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Adam Smith wrote:It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

89Hen wrote:

Adam Smith wrote:The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities

Acts of the Apostles wrote:There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Acts of the Apostles wrote:There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

citdog wrote: that's called CHARITY astroglide.....NOT free government lobster

citdog wrote:
that's called CHARITY astroglide.....NOT free government lobster

Skjellyfetti wrote:

89Hen wrote:

And the rich have a greater proportion they're able to contribute... that backs up progressive taxation as well, hen.

89Hen wrote: We have a progressive tax rate. Obama wants to increase it.

I say that at a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century

the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more

Skjellyfetti wrote:He just wants to roll it back where it was.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

citdog wrote: that's called CHARITY astroglide.....NOT free government lobster

Your dear ole CSA passed a PROGRESSIVE income tax on its citizens in 1863.



CSA Secretary of Treasury must have been a COMMUNIST. Whodda thunk it?!


He was born in Germany... an instituted a progressive tax only 15 years after Marx's Communist Manifesto. Obviously inspired by "From each according to his ability."

Bunch of reds in the CSA government. Where was McCarthy when he was needed?

Chizzang wrote:

citdog wrote:
that's called CHARITY astroglide.....NOT free government lobster

I don't really like Lobster
Can I have free government Prime Rib instead..?

blueballs wrote:But how much difference would raising taxes by 3-4% on those earning more than $250k/year really make in an annual deficit of about $1,250,000,000,000?

The answer, hardly any at all, which again underscores two things: First, raising taxes on the high income earners of this nation (which is different from wealthy- if you don't know the difference in wealth and being a high income earner you were educated in a public school and shouldn't be voting) is nothing more than a "wealth envy ploy" and is symbolic more than substantial (like many things politicians champion) and just a piece of red meat for the lower end of the bell curve. Secondly, the problem with our budget is not that the federal government- which raises over $2,500,000,000,000 annually- brings in too little, it is that politicians spend too much.

MEMO to all of you and especially you liberals: ALL politicians on the federal level are interested in three things: the acquisition, retention, and expansion of power. Taxation is the capital politicians use to accomplish those objectives. I'm worried about acquiring, expanding, and retaining money for me and my family- not to be used as a political pawn for some politician.

blueballs wrote:But how much difference would raising taxes by 3-4% on those earning more than $250k/year really make in an annual deficit of about $1,250,000,000,000?

The answer, hardly any at all, which again underscores two things: First, raising taxes on the high income earners of this nation (which is different from wealthy- if you don't know the difference in wealth and being a high income earner you were educated in a public school and shouldn't be voting) is nothing more than a "wealth envy ploy" and is symbolic more than substantial (like many things politicians champion) and just a piece of red meat for the lower end of the bell curve. Secondly, the problem with our budget is not that the federal government- which raises over $2,500,000,000,000 annually- brings in too little, it is that politicians spend too much.

MEMO to all of you and especially you liberals: ALL politicians on the federal level are interested in three things: the acquisition, retention, and expansion of power. Taxation is the capital politicians use to accomplish those objectives. I'm worried about acquiring, expanding, and retaining money for me and my family- not to be used as a political pawn for some politician.

Parkinson's Law wrote:
"Expenditure rises to meet income"

LeadBolt wrote:IMHO, there is no problem with progressive tax rates and redistribution of wealth within reason. A half century ago the top rate was a very unreasonable 91%.

I have no problem with taxing the top levels at 2 x's the percentage of government expenditures as a portion of GDP, or about where it is today. I don't think the government (all branches) should take away more of the marginal earnings of an individual to spend on others than it leaves for the individual to have.

With social security and state income taxes, unemployment tax, etc. that would mean that the top federal tax rate should not be raised above the low to mid 30's. It really doesn't do anyone in society good to take away the incentive to excel, innovate, invest or work for gain.

houndawg wrote:

LeadBolt wrote:IMHO, there is no problem with progressive tax rates and redistribution of wealth within reason. A half century ago the top rate was a very unreasonable 91%.

I have no problem with taxing the top levels at 2 x's the percentage of government expenditures as a portion of GDP, or about where it is today. I don't think the government (all branches) should take away more of the marginal earnings of an individual to spend on others than it leaves for the individual to have.

With social security and state income taxes, unemployment tax, etc. that would mean that the top federal tax rate should not be raised above the low to mid 30's. It really doesn't do anyone in society good to take away the incentive to excel, innovate, invest or work for gain.

Yeah all those wealthy folk would quit working if their tax rate went up.

blueballs wrote:But how much difference would raising taxes by 3-4% on those earning more than $250k/year really make in an annual deficit of about $1,250,000,000,000?

The answer, hardly any at all, which again underscores two things: First, raising taxes on the high income earners of this nation (which is different from wealthy- if you don't know the difference in wealth and being a high income earner you were educated in a public school and shouldn't be voting) is nothing more than a "wealth envy ploy" and is symbolic more than substantial (like many things politicians champion) and just a piece of red meat for the lower end of the bell curve. Secondly, the problem with our budget is not that the federal government- which raises over $2,500,000,000,000 annually- brings in too little, it is that politicians spend too much.

MEMO to all of you and especially you liberals: ALL politicians on the federal level are interested in three things: the acquisition, retention, and expansion of power. Taxation is the capital politicians use to accomplish those objectives. I'm worried about acquiring, expanding, and retaining money for me and my family- not to be used as a political pawn for some politician.

houndawg wrote:

LeadBolt wrote:IMHO, there is no problem with progressive tax rates and redistribution of wealth within reason. A half century ago the top rate was a very unreasonable 91%.

I have no problem with taxing the top levels at 2 x's the percentage of government expenditures as a portion of GDP, or about where it is today. I don't think the government (all branches) should take away more of the marginal earnings of an individual to spend on others than it leaves for the individual to have.

With social security and state income taxes, unemployment tax, etc. that would mean that the top federal tax rate should not be raised above the low to mid 30's. It really doesn't do anyone in society good to take away the incentive to excel, innovate, invest or work for gain.

Yeah all those wealthy folk would quit working if their tax rate went up.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Yeah all those wealthy folk would quit working if their tax rate went up.

just like they did in the 30's, 40's and 50's... clealry