I mean do they really think that the government is going to increase the top 2% taxes and then turn around and give it to the "poor"? they allready plan on helping the "poor" by raising the minimum wage to $7.00 an hour.
2006-11-23 23:59:03 · 7 answers · asked by jtaylor 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
well first off, i dont talk about how much money i make. I support my family and take care of my own, like everyone should. The $7 an hour comment is a sarcastic one as thats what the Democrats wanted to promote for thier election. I dont understand how narrowing the gap between the rich and poor helps anyone, in fact it doesnt. It simply gives the government more of our money to squander.
2006-11-24 00:09:04 · update #1
the taxes they get from the top 2% will just go to more pork projects. The raise in the minimum wage will only raise all the price of the products sold and may even cause some small businesses to reduce their staffs. So it's not going to help anyone except the democrat politicians who are eager to again pick your pockets.
2006-11-24 00:09:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Narrowing the gap between the rich and poor would help the poor, would it not? A person earning $14000/year (which is what a person making $7/hour earns in a year) might have to spend 90% of their income on basic necesities (rent, food, etc.) which means even a 10% tax rate will cause financial hardship. But a person earning $140000/per year might only spend 30% of their income on basic necessities (rent, food, etc.) which means they can pay a higher tax rate without causing financial hardship. It's not about taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor but about taking less money from the poor.
The problem is getting government to use the money they collect in taxes properly. If they are going to squander money, wouldn't it be better if they sqandered the money of those who can afford it rather than those who can't?
2006-11-24 10:04:26 · answer #2 · answered by halleyk 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Beats the heck out of me. I was always taught, and now that I am an adult I can see for myself that the poor people of the world survive the way a dog survives at the knee of a master. The crumbs from the master get fewer? Who is the first to suffer? Yep, us poor dogs.
Resentment does not figure in when you always were a puppy. Fighting other pups does not work either or you will be placed outside and removed from the area that the crumbs fall. There are some bigger dogs around that say "bite the master and take all the supper" but to me that would account for only one big meal and sooner than you think the master will (A) kill us (B) find some other pups to take our place (C) die and then we will starve. Today's theory is damned the logic lets kill the master and take what we want.
You and me both know that the master needs us. (SOB that the master is) He does not want to go outside and be surounded by strange dogs, now does he/she?
OK all kidding aside, it does not make sense to anyone to pile more taxes on anyone. We need to use our combined brains to create, reconfigure, establish, build a combined lifestyle that works for the whole.... It is NOT us against THEM. As long as we strive for division we will only create division. Good grief, get a grip.... world peace? We can not get along with different stratus of financial spheres and we think we can deal with Mexico, Russia, the Middle East????? I perfer the Hang Together or Hang Alone story to the master and the crumbs from his table.
2006-11-24 08:23:29 · answer #3 · answered by chattanooga chip 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
". It's not about taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor but about taking less money from the poor."
Ok I about laughed outloud at this one. No... it's about taking from the rich and giving a tiny amount to the poor. If you make 14k a year how much do you really think they pay in taxes? Wake up and simply look it up!
This whole idea of narrowing the gap between the rich and poor is easy - it's called socialism. While those who support this may not be socialist per se they are obviously in training to be one.
I live in MN and between me and my wife we make about 140k a year. We don't live in a big house nor do we drive fancy cars. We also don't have a stock pile of money or tons of it left over. We live comfortably... invest in our 401k for retirement and try and save some for a vacation here and there. I don't have a college degree but have worked my butt off to achieve nominal success. However it seems we are taxed at one of the higher levels in the state.
WHY - should I pay more for my mediocre success?
Easy answer - because those that make less think I don't deserve it and should help pay for them.
Bottom of the line those that complain about the rich would be silenced once they had money and had it stole from them.
2006-11-24 11:59:50 · answer #4 · answered by seeing_funbelieving 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think it may not be that taxing the rich will help us but that it is a little fairer to not allow them to gather such huge amounts of money.
7 an hour now that's really a big help isn't it. I'm curious what do you make an hour and do you live at home sponging off your folks?
2006-11-24 08:04:03 · answer #5 · answered by madjer21755 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Profit is a tax; the corporations make their own distribution of the revenue produced by their employees. All power structures are governments, so why don't you ask why your boss took so much of what you produced?
2006-11-24 13:14:11 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, the effect will be just the opposite for all the obvious reasons.
2006-11-24 08:15:20 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋