steve jobs and steve wozniak started in a garage . Bill Gates break through came with IBM when Digital Research dragged it's feet on porting the the C\PM to the new pc platform .he started as a game tester .and he bought the the oregenal operating system and improved on it . any way has all business people all been like the three of them we will be in a good shape . the point is they cant do any thing to themselves or any body, alone .
why do big brother world need wall street he is wall street but with out the money shuffle .
why scary ? !. it never been tried , and probably we will be inside it before wee know it , gradually . and if you are scared call it IBM or Google or Halliburton . big brother is a virtual emperor you still have to elect people to run a small government but it will be open to scrutiny short , termed and non of it's component can do any thing alone . like a safe with 1000 keys electronically conected . as for "The rich people will still exist" that not so bad , but out of government as eqal partner to the government no body can get rich in the government the only chance is outside the government .The kind of power you look to give government is scary. It has been tried in the past and generally led to a ROBBERY of the people's wealth. The rich people will still exist- they'll just exist in government
That's true only of income taxes and that was a Repub idea.
Okay. But back to the fairness thing:
Obama loves to say that everyone needs to pay their fair share, but the truth is: The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul­dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent?those below the median income level?now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. (Source: www.american.com)
Now is that fair? The weathly pay almost all the federal income taxes, and 50% of wage earners pay practically none. And yet Obama keep screraming at those who pay all the taxes to hire more people, create more jobs, and, oh yah: Promised to raise their taxes more!!
Indeed but he has to pander to the base to get reelected same as the Repubs. Keep in mind that he's part of the upper-class, he'll never actually do anything of substance on taxing the rich. Closing loopholes is the best he'll ever do least he shoots himself in the proverbial foot.
Uh, no. That is a recipe for the collapse of modern civilization, even taxing the top 10% 100% couldn't pay for everything.
Ok let's forget Obama for a menute , when you say the bottom 50% earn 13 % of the income and pay only 3% of the tax that is not an accurate picture for those who actually pay this 3% may not earn as much as 3% of the income for the majority at the bottom don't pay income taxs or pay little more than nothing .this is deception logic even worse when you com to the expenditure part you cant say education is is expendeture on the poor , it is an investment for all so are the infrastructure it is used by the rich more than the poor .
Last edited:
No - not even capitalism, alas. These people are grabbing more every year, while the wages paid to working people fall. They can very well afford to pay.
Net income's a matter of opinion.
MYP, there?s little question regarding an enterprise?s gross revenues.
They are what they are and if any claims otherwise are incidences of lies, not differences of opinions.
Given the same set of account books, a room full of accountants and tax lawyers would provide a room full of differing net incomes for each entrepreneur and for each of their enterprises.
Determinations of net incomes are more subjective opinions and less objective facts. Taxing net incomes, particularly high net income tax rates have encouraged us to be less honest and more devious.
If we cease taxing enterprises or greatly reduce corporate tax rates, entrepreneurs will live off of their expense accounts in grand fashion while showing very little personal income.
While retaining any taxes upon individuals? net incomes, we should similarly retain corporate net income taxes at similar tax rates.
(The belief that customers, not the enterprises pay all of the enterprises? taxes is not correct with regard to taxing net incomes. It?s the enterprise?s owners that eventually pay enterprises? income taxes).
Simplifying taxes could enable reduction of IRS size and extent of intrusion but your hope of eliminating the IRS is nonsense.
Taxes require tax enforcement.
Respectfully, Supposn
MYP, there?s little question regarding an enterprise?s gross revenues.
They are what they are and if any claims otherwise are incidences of lies, not differences of opinions.
Given the same set of account books, a room full of accountants and tax lawyers would provide a room full of differing net incomes for each entrepreneur and for each of their enterprises.
Determinations of net incomes are more subjective opinions and less objective facts. Taxing net incomes, particularly high net income tax rates have encouraged us to be less honest and more devious.
If we cease taxing enterprises or greatly reduce corporate tax rates, entrepreneurs will live off of their expense accounts in grand fashion while showing very little personal income.
While retaining any taxes upon individuals? net incomes, we should similarly retain corporate net income taxes at similar tax rates.
(The belief that customers, not the enterprises pay all of the enterprises? taxes is not correct with regard to taxing net incomes. It?s the enterprise?s owners that eventually pay enterprises? income taxes).
Simplifying taxes could enable reduction of IRS size and extent of intrusion but your hope of eliminating the IRS is nonsense.
Taxes require tax enforcement.
Respectfully, Supposn
As I said, even if you taxed the top 10% 100% you'd come up short, math 101. It also goes without saying (well except for you it seems) hat if you take all their money he stop being rich. What are you going to do, keep taxing the top 10% as that threshold is lowered until you have everyone's money? The rich need to be taxed more (or rather they need to pa what the tax rate says the should be paying, you don't even need to raise the tax rate) but you can't put everything on them, it just won't work.
Let's try it and see. We could always down to the next nine per cent if it got difficult, or even - oh horror! - to the ten after that. It seems a bad plan - except to the very rich - for the poor to pay for their gamblings.
Would you rather have a country where everyone made $5000 a year or one where the poor made $6000 at the lower end of a bell curve that ended with the rich making $10000000?
that is really a stupid proposetion ! . in this system if I will get the $10000000 were is it , I want it . if in the other hand I will get only $5000 . i'l opt for a system that every body is equal even with $300 the money amount is not important rather what can I get for that amount .needless to say both propositions are impossible even if you impose a minimum wage .
It is a theoretical question. Some 3rd world nations have low income inequality, but their middle and upper classes are still sometimes worse off than even the poorest people in the United States, a country with relatively higher income inequality.
Be worth it, certainly, to be shot of those thieves. But they'd probably come to heel, unless they could bribe the Army, which would cost them almost as much.
Similar threads
