I know no one here will give a shit about the distinction, but taxing high-salaried people is not necessarily the same as taxing the 'rich' (though yes there is some overlap, so it's not cut and dried). If they really want to 'tax the rich' then they'd go after the capital gains tax rate. That is where the rich make their money.
If they raise the taxes on capital gains, won't the rich try to shelter their money in other countries more? I am not sure how that works exactly. Never had an economics class in college.
the busy bee has no time for sorrow.
Tell us more, amy.
http://www.smartmoney.com/taxes/inco...ts-affect-you/Right now, the maximum federal rate on long-term capital gains and dividends is only 15%. Starting next year, the maximum rate on long-term gains is scheduled to increase to 20% (or 18% on gains from assets acquired after Dec. 31, 2000, and held for over five years)
not that you're a piece of shit SD. you're fucking awesome. just talkin what I think
"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves."
- Abraham Lincoln
Who freed the slaves
And ran for president on the slogan "wage labor is slavery"
Last edited by VigoTheCarpathian; 11-15-2012 at 01:06 PM.
What about those that help themselves while obstructing others?
what about those who obstruct adolf hitler?
in what instances can we justify violence?
the problem, heart cooks brain, is that it isn't that simple
You know what's annoying? When dipshits like Vigo mention that Lincoln, who freed the slave, was a Republican. As if the Republican party he was a part of in any way resembles the current party.
Or Democrats who think a central power dictating its subjects to purchase , with their own money, insurance, of all the fucokted ponzai schemes ever invented, isn't the state subsidized capitalism that the left has always fought against.
1. Continue the system as it has been, and exclude 40+ million americans from having any health insurance at all.
2. Have a mandate
3. Have a single payer system funded through taxes rather than premiums.
There are no other choices. Any attempt to claim there are other choices is foolhardy claptrap and the mark of a blowhard who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Option 1 is no longer acceptable to the American people; the voters have spoken. Option 3 is favored by maybe half the Democratic party but none of the republicans. That leaves option 2. QED. Irrefutable.
Tom, you should amend #1 to read: "1. Continue the system as it has been, and exclude 40+ million americans from having any health insurance at all. Allow those persons to occasionally receive wildly expensive and inefficient emergency room care, pass exorbitant costs on to tax payers, hospitals, and insured consumers."