American Politics in One Easy Lesson

[Apache]

Give me a number, or go away.

Look at his sig line...

“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
-Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

He only wants to be moderately unreasonable. To that end he wants only conservative rich to pay more than in that proportion. The communist Left can have all theirs no questions, or demands for that matter, asked...

[Odysseus]

Look at his sig line...

He only wants to be moderately unreasonable. To that end he wants only conservative rich to pay more than in that proportion. The communist Left can have all theirs no questions, or demands for that matter, asked...

He will never provide a number because he can't, just as Arroyo can't. Once they admit that people own what they create, then they lose the argument. Once they admit that the purpose of taxation is to fund the necessary functions of government, then they cannot continue to argue for using the power of government to impose equality. Redistribution of wealth from rich to poor isn't a legitimate government function, any more than redistribution of food away from obese people, or redistribution of sex away from attractive people is.

[Rockntractor]

, or redistribution of sex away from attractive people is.

Perhaps this one could be discussed a little more, I think there is room to compromise.

[fettpett]

Perhaps this one could be discussed a little more, I think there is room to compromise.

isn't that what beer is for though?

[AmPat]

[QUOTE]

You're looking a specific percentage but the correct answer is they should be taxed however much it takes.

"Takes" for what comrade?

You state that the wealthy pay the lions share of certain taxes, which is true, but that's because they also own the vast majority of the nation's wealth. This would be like a guy going to dinner with five friends, and being outraged that he has to pay a larger percentage of the bill, because he ordered $80 worth of steak and lobster with a $300 bottle of wine, while the five friends ate $10 appetizers and water. Of course he has to pay more back.

They also create the entire amount of wealth and jobs.

If the system were modestly different, resulting in a more equitable distribution of wealth (and no this does not mean everyone is paid the exact same),

Then what does it mean comrade? Just a little more equity? How about just a little more followed by a little more? Who determines the "CORRECT" state approved amount?

These are fairly modest ideas that most nations consider rather conservative in nature.

Not me comrade. I consider it extreme and moving the nation toward communism and degradation.

It's only within an extremely desperate far-right ideological framework that these ideas appear radical.

Those same "extremely desperate far-right ideologues" that want to honor the actual words in the Constitution? How radical? The nerve of those people to actually want to preserve the nation.

Nationalizing all property in the country and executing the wealthy to permanently change the very coordinates of the system as we know it is an extreme radical proposal. Adjusting tax rates and expanding social programs so that the system that currently exists can continue to function is actually conservative in nature.

No, continuing progressive socialism is not the original state of the Union. Expanding those stupid and unconstitutional programs is more socialism. As for "adjusting tax rates?" How about we tax everybody at the same rate as the top 1% Would that suit you?

[Hawkgirl]

You're looking a specific percentage but the correct answer is they should be taxed however much it takes.

If we take a scientific look at what works and what doesn't, focus on efficiency and effectiveness rather than profit, we can have robust social programs that work for not much more than we are paying now. Adam Smith, in his foundational text on free market economics, The Wealth of Nations, explained that the wealthy should pay more than their proportional share of their wealth in taxes to sustain the social needs of the society within which they come upon their wealth.

.

WW3, You contradict yourself. You can not have "robust social programs" without the wealthy, who become wealthy through PROFITS. Without profits, something you seem to dislike with a passion, there would be no social programs. If you continue to chop the wealthy at the knees and PUNISH them for being profitable, you will cease to receive the BENEFIT they provide. You seem to think money falls from the sky and not that it is EARNED. You basically want to reward success with pain. What do you think the outcome of that will be?

[NJCardFan]

WW3, You contradict yourself. You can not have "robust social programs" without the wealthy, who become wealthy through PROFITS. Without profits, something you seem to dislike with a passion, there would be no social programs. If you continue to chop the wealthy at the knees and PUNISH them for being profitable, you will cease to receive the BENEFIT they provide. You seem to think money falls from the sky and not that it is EARNED. You basically want to reward success with pain. What do you think the outcome of that will be?

This reminds me of an old saying about what happens when there's no one left to pull the cart.