This fairy tale against greed and envy is becoming more realized every day as unemployment rises along with the national deficit and debt—only instead of an old couple, we have disgruntled Americans (specifically economically-illiterate moonbats), and instead of a goose, we have “the rich” (a term moonbats often say with the same disgust as a normal person would say “the Devil” or an anti-Semite would say “the Jews”).
More and more Americans, disillusioned by the recession, are demanding that “the rich” pay their “fair share.” According to one survey, over 60% of Americans want to tax “the rich” in order to reduce the deficit. Still others like moonbat propagandist Michael Moore propose more radical solutions—like eating “the rich.” (Knowing Michael, he’d probably be able to eat the rich in one sitting!)
But if more Americans didn’t allow the current economic crisis to get the best of them, and thus thought more with their heads and less with their emotions, they’d learn that moonbat claims concerning “the rich” are completely bunk.
“The rich” aren’t paying their fair share in taxes? Wrong. The richest 1% pays nearly 40% in total income tax while the richest 10% pays over 70%. Meanwhile, the lowest 20% pay less than 2%.
“The rich” are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer? Not true. While the lowest 20% do have a lower level of shared income, their real income is actually higher, and income of individual households has gradually risen over time.
Soaking “the rich” will solve our economic woes? No it won’t. Even if we confiscated all of their wealth, we would only be able to run the country for one measly year.
Tax cuts to “the rich” caused Wisconsin’s budget shortfall? False. Scott Walker’s tax cuts weren’t even in effect when the shortfall occurred.
In short, moonbat talking points like “the rich are getting richer” and “the rich don’t pay their fair share” are as credible as claims like “9/11 was an inside job” or “Obama was born in Kenya.”
If moonbats truly cared about taxpayers paying their fair share, they would opt for a flat tax system where everyone paid at the same rate regardless of their income. Instead, they continue to advocate for their “progressive” tax system where, the more you earn, the more you pay in taxes, thus unfairly shoving the entire tax burden on the rich.
But then again, moonbats don’t care about paying fair taxes. They only care about class warfare and wealth redistribution. Their only desire is to drain the evil, evil rich of their hard-earned money; and if they get what they want, they’ll end up like the old couple in the fairy tale: with no eggs, no goose, and a bloody hatchet.
If that Richest 1-10%, Receive over 70% of the income, then yes they aren't paying their fair share. simple math.---Ie: If the bottom 20% received only 2% of total income, than 2% of the income tax is fair if steep for people for whom that income may be their sole liquid assets. If the top 10% received 80-90% of the total income then their taxes should be 80-90% of the total regardless of any tax loopholes. remember TAXES don't take more than a Percentage of the total income, so if 70% is in any way a lower percentage than what the took in income, then the 'rich' are indeed Not paying a 'Fair' share.
Even if it is fair, there is still the fact that the rich 1-10% are MORE likely/easily able to dodge reporting taxable income, simply because they can move their money oversea's.
It's funny because the ones who support increased and higher taxation for the "rich" are generally more often than not people who have little to nothing to begin with. Seems like a case of jealousy that the rich have something that the poor want a piece of. We have a similar problem in the UK except the tax burden falls upon the minority of us working class folk, given our enormous welfare state. Rich elites move their money offshore, and the "poor" take, and ever day there's more of them since people know they can make a living in this nation by doing nothing.
Isn't this just plain old supply and demand? Of course the rich have to pay more money than the poor because they can afford to pay more for goods, so the markets can drive the price up and so the stuff the rich buys naturally costs more than it does for the poor. Part of being a capitalist society is that everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it. And if you're rich, why buy a $5 hat when you can buy a $5000 hat?
I admit I'm not some kind of economic expert, but I think it's taken as read that a diamond-encrusted I-Pod is going to cost more than a plastic-cover I-Pod, or what have you.
I hope you don't think I'm attacking you; I just want to better understand where you're coming from.
1%- Elderly couple
Government- The bloody hatchet
the goose is constantly attacked by the hatchet to feed the elderly couple so they can continue to attack the goose (The US government is controlled by the 1% which constantly attempts (if not succeeds) in doing things that harm the 99% to gain more money for themselves). Harming others to progress oneself, isn't that basically the definition of greed?
In 2010 alone you guys spent £698,105,000,000, the second highest military budget that year was China, who spent 114,000,000,000. That's 500,000,000 more than the runner up.
So, maybe it won't completely save your economy, but it will help a lot to at least half your military spending.
Now I'm not saying we should tax the rich more....But we should look into other strategies like maybe pulling the federal government out of some things to cut back spending. Don't bit my head off please, I'm just my opinion.
Eat the rich? YES!
The progressive tax system is much more logical, since the money doesn't appear out of nowhere. So to keep the money in work, insetad of letting them be a dead weight on the bank accounts of "10%" of "taxpayers" makes sense. The very idea is not to confiscate the already existing amount of the money, but to take form the income. "The rich" will not get poorer, because of this. Progressive tax existed in US in 1950s and nobody thought that was a problem for the economy. What period is commonly called the golden age?
You say, that "moonbatters" should pay their share, but from what exactly they should pay it. Most americans spend their income to pay for the different credits to the banks (the very same ones, responsible for the 2008 finansical crisis). Now you want to burden them with more tax?
It's just that simple, there's a finite amount of money, when "the rich" are increasing their money, that amount should decrease somewhere. Can you guess where can that somewhere be? And how to return the money to work? ("Print more money" isn't really an answer).
I will not deny, some of those "rich" are sensible people, who create workplaces in the US, investing in new technologies e.t.c. But there are also those, who move the production outsde of their own countries, to lessen the production cost. Now, how do you return those money back to the US budget? And you guys are not the world's biggest exporter. How much US's "rich" invests every year in China's economy, and how much they return to the budget by taxes?
I had this same discussion with a friend of mine ... well he's a multi millionaire and I am ... well very far from being able to own or even rent my own home :/
He's paying in excess of 50% and they still want to take more ... he worked bloody hard for his money and that little dipsh*t down the hall who lazily works the tele lines with 5 half hour tea breaks and a half dozen water breaks pays far less and still applauds governing bodies efforts to tax the rich more. I would rather see a flat tax rate, because honestly ... the people who earn a lot are often doing a hell of a lot more to get their money (they earned and deserve their money ... in a lot of cases ... sometimes they are the nephews of presidents and suck the public dry for high gains )