"Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. The first generation to receive SS paid little or nothing into the system"
I do know what I am talking about, and think I have mentioned a few times that SS is a rip. I have my statement right here in my files that say what I will get compared to what I have put it. Maybe me and you can AGREE to GET RID OF IT. You seemed to be implying we should keep it, but the poor folk shouldn't have to contribute. Correct me if I'm wrong.
"the government doesn't hold your money"
I've acknolwedged that they don't hold it. The purpose is to provide for people in the later years. One of the 1st demo entitlement package, wasn't it?
"If 43% of the nation's income is generating only 36% of the income tax, that would be a regressive tax. Do you think that's fair?"
Yes, I do. Money ain't free. You WORK for it. Work should be rewarded, and laziness should not. Nothing wrong with laziness imo, I just don't want to pay for someone else's laziness. That is why I equate it to one person's fair share of the services. We have a progressive tax code that requires a HIGHER tax bracket the more you make, with a cap of 35%. That means these guys pay for 3,500% of the services they use. Higher actually because they don't use as many services. That is MORE THAN FAIR to me, and it is an asanine strategy imo to disincentive these people by penalizing them further. It's bad business, and it is against the American spirit of capitilism. You think is should be 43% it seems. The there is a 4 or 5% percent for FICA (depending on what they make) if you are in CA there is another 10%, then there is 1% plus annually for your property, etc.etc., etc.
And you guys call this REGRESSIVE. You are right that it does piss me off. It not only is a dishonest tactic, it is an ingrateful attitude that is greedy and un-fair.
"I haven't vilified anyone. I just think taxes should be paid in proportion to wealth.
Yet for some reason i disgust you."
I'll try not to make it so personal. Don't want to hurt your feelings. Even though you have called me stupid a couple of times. My paragraph above your statement says why I think it is villifiying these people.
"The top 20% own 84% of the wealth whereas the bottom 40% own less than 1% of the nation's wealth"
You still haven't said how you would divy the tax bill up. And me and you think far differently about these groups of people. I have no problem with whatever people want to do or how much money they make. But to suggest the bottom 40% pay a total of 1% of the taxes when they use most of the discretionary resources is absolutely asanine. Why should they get a free ride? Why should they benefit so much more than they already do on the sweat of other's hard work? This is a form of scialism you describe, and I think it is pretty un-American and creepy.
"And yet you're going to vote for him and i won't. What do you think that means?"
I think it means that you probably do not care about National security, and that you have a far different view of what our government is supposed to do. You clearly think it is to proportianately take HUGE sums of wealth from our succesful citizens and give it to another group. I think it is to protect our physical beings and the way of life that allows people to prosper without taking most of their wealth for re-distribultion.
Now tell me how you are going to take 84% of the taxes from the top 20%. Note that this is not too far from what is already being done with our "regressisve" tax code, as you dishonestly like to call it. |
