2007-12-25 06:02:38 · 19 answers · asked by . 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
After all, I cant imagine greed being eradicated any time soon.
2007-12-25 06:03:32 · update #1
people still forget the fact that the middle class and poor are the ones that go fight the wars that the ruling elite bring upon us!!!
and these ruling elite get even richer because of investments in the corporations that profit from war!!
so as they set back and get even richer as the bodycount goes up, they say that the poor and middle class need to cut down on benefits and programs that they say they need the money to pay for the war!!!
so its a win win situation for the rich, war or no war, actually they come out even further ahead during times of war!!!
sound fair to you??!!!
2007-12-25 06:33:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Since our society is still operating on the rules established in the cradle of civilization mixed with Greek Democracy, Yes is the answer.
This was first put to print in the Laws of Moses It has been the norm of society for thousands of years. Cultures the world over have practiced this system.
A few cultures have felt differently Gingis Khan for example; but the opposition to relative sharing has been small
2007-12-25 14:14:30 · answer #2 · answered by whirling W dervish 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
yes, but if you make or sell items or services, you really don't pay taxes...the taxes are paid by the people who buy them and the costs are added to the prices of the good and services....I would say that if a company bought and sold luxury items, then the rich would be paying taxes would they bought them....but then if the rich sell required goods and services, they can certainly jack up the price if they need to, as long as the market will bear it. So I believe that individuals should have less protection under the umbrella of a corporation and personal taxes increase as you make more....
I know that some people will argue that if you tax the rich, they will be less motivated to make more jobs by investing.....but I say, we need to make less billionaires and allow good hard working blue collar people to have more.....The blue collar people will spend their money while the very rich often sit on their wealth doing nothing....The wealthier are not necessarily more patriotic and will take their money to other countries, while the blue collar will spend most in the good old USA
2007-12-25 14:17:14 · answer #3 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Yes. And they already do in the United States, which follows a progressive income tax scheme. A progressive income tax is the best for everyone: the poor are not taxed into becoming even more poor, the middle class is not taxed into the lower class, and the upper class is taxed a lot more but they can afford to.
2007-12-25 14:08:10 · answer #4 · answered by Somebody else 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
"THEY DO NOW" !!!
If you don't know that... you've got your subjective collectivist watermelon [green on the outside, red to the core] up your you-know-what!!!
The top 1% pay 36.9% of the revenues to the government... top 5% pay 68.0%... top 50% pay 96.7%... while a significant portion of the bottom 50% are net receivers of money from the government.
Its an imparative... and a primary and solomn responsibility... that you have in exercizing your right to vote in this democratic-republic... in your loaning power to the government... as it effects the multitudes... that you do so with "INFORMED" consent.
Thesis... Antithesis... Synthesis !!!
All disfunctional behavior comes from fear... all fear comes from ignorance!
Become informed and validate!
Those who aren't doing so... are sinking the ship!
[it use to be a boat... now its a huge top heavy ship... and continuing to get bigger... too big for the common good]
If your question was not meant to be rhetorical... and my assumptions on your position on the subject are wrong... I appologize!
But thanks for getting my dander up anyways!
e7.2521
P.S. Its not the HAVES and the HAVE-NOTS as the democractic [neoprogressive] candidates are saying [useing classism to get elected]... but rather its the DOERS, the JUST-GET-BUYERS, and the NON-DOERS.
Whatever the government subsidizes... it gets more of it [That's the core principle of what a subsidy is supposed to achieve]! Whatever the government penalizes... it gets less of it [that's the core principle of what a penalty is supposed to achieve]!
Only an irrational subjectivist [as most leftists are] can simultaneously hold the view that raising taxes on cigarettes will result in less smoking... while raising taxes on income and commerce will not result in less economic activity.
GO FIGURE !!!
Moreover though... taxing labor is the worst and most regressive taxing method... but you'll never explain that to a socialist who is still keeping the FAITH in his or her BELIEFS in the religion of socialism. They refer to science to attack the faiths of others... but dismiss the science of economics regarding the dialectic contractions that exist between their BELIEFS and history.
The retained profits of Entrepreneurs pales in comparision to the contributions their ideas and innovations have made to economic growth and society... solving socioeconomic problem with profit as a private incentive [reward].
If the truth hurts... as I'm sure it does for many of those on the left... see a real therapist!
Not Dr. Phil or Oprah!
2007-12-26 11:41:15 · answer #5 · answered by . 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes,...Would it make sense for those who earn the least to contribute the most in taxation......
2007-12-25 14:10:00 · answer #6 · answered by mj 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Your Question-
Should those who earn the most also contribute the most in taxation?
My Answer-
They already do and will continue to do so
2007-12-25 14:39:56 · answer #7 · answered by clawdaddy314 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋
I am really tired of stupid questions from people that are clueless !for your clarification - from IRS statistics,top 50% of the top earners pay 97% of the federal income tax ! the poor pay no taxes and receive all the benefits.typical lib class envy warfare. thank the rich people you know!
2007-12-25 19:18:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
The richer you are, the more you rely on the government to protect that wealth and make more.
In the '50s the top rate was 91%, and the country was doing better than it is today.
2007-12-25 15:48:46 · answer #9 · answered by bettysdad 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Of course. If we are all truly equal, then we should all be taxed at the same rate, with no deductions.
Think about a flat 5% tax rate. The tax forms would be:
Write your income here:
Multiply by 5%
Pay this tax.
Nice, huh?
2007-12-25 14:06:53 · answer #10 · answered by Dan H 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋