Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbones
What you guys are talking about is that phrase that Spence hates: "redistribution of wealth". I'm not wealthy, but I don't believe that wealthy people should be taxed more just because they have more. They already pay the most, why should they have pay more.
|
I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but were talking an increase of 3% for take home pay and a change from 15% to roughly 36% on capital gains taxes - ballpark. I would hardly call that a disincentive but than again I dont buy into many of the assumptions of classical economics and human behavior.
I think before Reagan, the government took 80 cents of every $1.00 earned above the $3,000,000 income threshold - now that, one could argue, is a bit much. But then again, thats still 250,000 dollars, not exactly chump change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbones
Take the money from the politicians. I wonder if you'd hear any complaints from Congress if they were to have their "expense" money taken and redistributed to the needy. Or cut back on their car services and free meals. They certainly make enough to drive their own cars and pay for meals, don't they? I'm sure if that was proposed, it wouldn't get very far.
|
Agreed
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbones
And many of the "rich" aren't doing just fine. Ask a guy who has a lot of his assets in investments if he's doing "fine" right now. You might just get a tall chock in the gulliver.
|
Humans can get used to just about anything....why are the rich any different?
Threaded Mode