Way to change the subject.

So if you have 2 businesses one is more successful than the other why should the one who is more successful pay a higher rate in taxes? Are they already not paying more in taxes because they are making more money than the other business?
If ALL businesses use all the same infrastructure and security and education why should one be punished more for being more successful?

Class division. We did it together but they have and we have not thus they owe us in the form of taxes. Consider this from the book Rules for Radicals.




According to Alinsky, the organizer — especially a paid organizer from outside — must first overcome suspicion and establish credibility. Next the organizer must begin the task of agitating: rubbing resentments, fanning hostilities, and searching out controversy. This is necessary to get people to participate. An organizer has to attack apathy and disturb the prevailing patterns of complacent community life where people have simply come to accept a situation. Alinsky would say, "The first step in community organization is community disorganization."
Through a process combining hope and resentment, the organizer tries to create a "mass army" that brings in as many recruits as possible from local organizations, churches, services groups, labor unions, corner gangs, and individuals.

I Thought the 'subject' was

"how stupid can someone be'?

well, that is a good question if we first agree that tax is a 'punishment', instead of a responsibility / contribution


as a parent, I am not PUNISHED by having to provide for family, it is a responsibilty / contribution that comes with privilege and authority implied by my 'position' in my family/community


the more people have (money) the more 'authority' and privilege they have,,and in return they are expected to contribute more

For one I believe the tax payers are providing for your family.
Second if taxes were equal in terms of percent then no it would not be a punishment, but if your percent is going up because you make more then yes it seems like a punishment. You also had a choice to have kids. You don't have a choice to pay taxes.

I agree with all of this Chaz...A persons tax obligation (percentage amount) should not be bracketed according to income...Tax should be the same percentage amount for all, based solely on income, and everyone , including welfare recipients and disabled who have ANY type of income should pay a percentage of that income...No deductions, no loopholes, no earned income credits...JUST A STRAIGHT OR FLAT TAX based on gross income and made evasion proof...If that were done, there would be plenty of money for charity, infrastructure, education, h*ll maybe even healthcare....

Where your comparison is flawed is that the more successful business is making more therefore they already are "contributing" more.

yep,the present Administration has borrowed the whole of Alinsky's Playbook,not just a few pages!


http://alinskydefeater.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/the-13-main-alinsky-tactics/

n view of what they hear from the experts, the people cannot be blamed for their ignorance and their helpless confusion. If an average housewife struggles with her incomprehensibly shrinking budget and sees a tycoon in a resplendent limousine, she might well think that just one of his diamond cuff links would solve all her problems. She has no way of knowing that if all the personal luxuries of all the tycoons were expropriated, it would not feed her family—and millions of other, similar families—for one week; and that the entire country would starve on the first morning of the week to follow . . . . How would she know it, if all the voices she hears are telling her that we must soak the rich?

No one tells her that higher taxes imposed on the rich (and the semi-rich) will not come out of their consumption expenditures, but out of their investment capital (i.e., their savings); that such taxes will mean less investment, i.e., less production, fewer jobs, higher prices for scarcer goods; and that by the time the rich have to lower their standard of living, hers will be gone, along with her savings and her husband’s job—and no power in the world (no economic power) will be able to revive the dead industries (there will be no such power left).



“The Inverted Moral Priorities,”
The Ayn Rand Letter, III, 21, 3


: that the government is not the owner of the citizens’ income and, therefore, cannot hold a blank check on that income—that the nature of the proper governmental services must be constitutionally defined and delimited, leaving the government no power to enlarge the scope of its services at its own arbitrary discretion. Consequently, the principle of voluntary government financing regards the government as the servant, not the ruler, of the citizens—as an agent who must be paid for his services, not as a benefactor whose services are gratuitous, who dispenses something for nothing.

Ayn Rand

“Government Financing in a Free Society,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 118

No one tells her that higher taxes imposed on the rich (and the semi-rich) will not come out of their consumption expenditures, but out of their investment capital (i.e., their savings); that such taxes will mean less investment, i.e., less production, fewer jobs, higher prices for scarcer goods; and that by the time the rich have to lower their standard of living, hers will be gone

I don care as long as mah wailfer check and f00d staumps r on t1m3.

Hey. More taxes. My 10 kids needs new nikies, hoodies and x-boxes.
They got last years models an they's pissed.
Said if ya'll don't come thru they gonna' bust up another wal-mart or dunkin' doughnuts shop.

yes, taxpayer money , part of the national budget, is used to help me with my family,,,,in return for my WORK, in lieu of a COMPANY being willing to pay me for it,,,,



as I will and have no doubt provided for someone elses throughout my lifetime in some wsy or another,,,


and will continue to

as it is part of being a part of a COMMUNITY, and not just living in an egotistical 'all for myself' tunnel,,,




you do have a choice to pay taxes, based upon what 'job' you hold and its pay

or

if you know the system and have the right accountant,,,,usually something more common amongst the wealthy than amongst the poor,,,

no, the top percent are actually making MORE AND MORE, and 'contributing' less and less,,,

and those whose wages are going down or staying stagnate are making up the difference

no one told me that, but they did teach me math which 'tells me' that is a popular, classist, load of crap

so ,, if more taxes means fewer jobs, than it should also be true that less taxes mean MORE JOBS

and yet

in the years we have had our LOWEST unemployment rates,,,the tax rates were MUCH higher on the top earners than they are now

(in 1953, the top rate was in the 90 percentile and our unemployment was less than THREE PERCENT)



and even looking at the years since the bottom dropped (2008)

the tax rate to unemployment rate looks like this

2008
38.3 / 5


2009
38.3 / 7.7


2010
37.9 / 9.7

2011
37.9 / 9.0


2012
37.9 / 8.3



also 1983 AND 1986 both had a 50 percent max tax rate

yet in one year the unemployment was 10.4 and in the other it was 6.7


apparently, PRODUCTION AND JOBS arent so directly tied to how much tax the rich pay,,,,


http://top-federal-tax-rates.findthedata.org/ ...TAX RATES BY YEAR

http://www.multpl.com/unemployment/table .....unemployment by year

boy, the stereotypes really tickle some folks,,,,