So rich going to have to accept less or have it taken from them?

I don't really care. I have nothing of value and require nothing of value. Greed at the top of the economy is bad for the whole economy no matter what ideology you follow.

a reply to: TheTory

Yup, ya know; I was actually going to post a rant about folks who have this same vision. There are T O N S of jobs out there; for Gods sakes, my neighbor has a masters degree- he gave the finger to Corp. America 2 yrs ago, opened a landscape/lawn business, hes making 6 digits

I will leave it at that

a reply to: woodwardjnr

Greed at the bottom is what is sucking the country dry.

The Top 20% Earners Pay 83% Of The Taxes

a reply to: TheTory

The top 20% earners have more than 80% of the nations wealth. So no # Sherlock.

a reply to: WeRpeons

Before attacking socialism

At least someone is finally calling it what it is.

A flat tax across the board would solve the issue. However, a tax that (was much, much higher) punished those who actually became successful, for simply becoming successful is not an even playing field. Again... If folks worked hard to earn their money, I feel that suddenly 99% of those people would change their minds fairly quickly about this.

Let's also not pretend that there aren't plenty of folks that fall well below the upper class, that con the system as much as the big wigs do. They receive every penny they pay in taxes back and then some. So someone is already having to cover that loss.

A flat tax for everyone would be fair IMO. But we can't tax/penalize companies for making money to the point that the businesses that are left, choose to go the way of the dodo like so many others prior.

This is America. We have always said that folks can come here "To Make It".... Now we want to turn around and punish the ones that actually do and reward the folks that simply did/do the bare minimum?

I am glad that there is help out there for those that truly need it. Some folks can't work or can't do better, that is when we should step in. For the rest? We simply can't reward that or else we will soon wind up with many, many folks who would rather take a handout than work, or rather drop out of school than continue on in their education because they can get the same amount of pay or live the same way Bill Gates does.

Why strive for success if you don't have to? And why strive for success when you are just going to have to give most of it to those who never strive for more than couch surfing and Call Of Duty?

a reply to: Puppylove

They pay a higher percentage of their earnings.

a reply to: TheTory

Because they own more wealth than the rest combined.

If I have 300000 dollars I get a week and you tax me 80%

And you have 300 Dollars and tax you 80%

I have 60000 dollars to get through the week

You have 60 dollars to get through the week

You can't tax both people the same and expect them both to survive. One will while taxed a lot more, STILL make the other person look like a pauper even though they worked 40 hours a week for that 300 dollars.

To tax the person who makes three hundred dollars 80% is to pretty much murder them, damn near literally, can you say the same for the other guy?

I think that if we got rid of tax loopholes and taxed everyone, and I mean everyone the same, then there'd be no need for a bigger government or a socialist government.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Can you guarantee a tax that allows the bottom paid enough left over to live, and if you can, is it a high enough tax to cover costs anymore from those who actually have the nation's wealth?

a reply to: ReadLeader

Yeah, neither one of you know what the hell you are talking about.

College degree - Done
Lucrative job - Done
Debts paid - Done
Relocate - Not necessary, my job is such that my physical location is irrelevant.
In a 40 year span in my career, I have been unemployed for maybe one year. Typical length of being unemployed: < 2 months.
I've heard of the notion of a 40 hour work week, but have not experienced it for many years.

No, boys, the problem is that the majority of the wealth my work has produced has gone to the upper economic echelon, due to the tax system in place.

In the same span of time that my salary has increased by < 10%, the ceo of the company where I work has seen his/hers increase > 1000% (based on publicly available data). So now I can hear you saying that he/she deserves that, because without them, there would be no company, hence no job, etc... The usual blather. On the other side of that, without me and my colleagues, the company would also not exist. The ceo, while definitely a smart person, is not qualified to do the work I do. So without me and my colleagues, the ceo would not have any income to take the majority of. See how that works? Mutual dependence for everybody to succeed.

One prevalent myth seems to be that people who want a more equitable situation want somebody to give them / us everything for free. This is just another aspect of the excellence of the right-wing propaganda machine. No connection to reality, but boy it sure sounds good, eh boys?

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: peter_kandra

People know how to fish, the problem is they aren't being paid enough for the fishing they do.

So the answer is wealth redistribution? Throughout my life and career, if I felt I wasn't making enough money, or wanted to provide my family with a better quality of life, I would increase my earnings potential. I think part of the problem is that some people expect things to fall into their lap and some aren't willing to make the sacrifices to get ahead. Note that I said some, not all.

a reply to: peter_kandra

There's billions of people on this planet competing for jobs, even if every single person was the hardest worker ever to grace mankind, most of those people would be relegated to working at the bottom. I really wish the "work harder you can make it happen" myth would die already. Only so many of us can get ahead. Most of humanity is in the bottom jobs by necessity. Is BS, to regulate the bulk of humanity to a meager living simply because a few people, which overall is very small percentage of humanity can get a few steps ahead.

Also I'm not asking for wealth redistribution, I'm asking for people to be paid what they're worth. I'm asking for balanced, fair and ethical distribution. Where wealth doesn't disappear into a void in some off seas bank account to never be seen again while people bust their ass just to make rent working for these people.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: peter_kandra

There's billions of people on this planet competing for jobs, even if every single person was the hardest worker ever to grace mankind, most of those people would be relegated to working at the bottom. I really wish the "work harder you can make it happen" myth would die already. Only so many of us can get ahead. Most of humanity is in the bottom jobs by necessity. Is BS, to regulate the bulk of humanity to a meager living simply because a few people, which overall is very small percentage of humanity can get a few steps ahead.

Yes there are. Over 30% of them are in India and China. I'm more concerned with the 350 million or so in the USA. Thank god the immigrants and hard workers that helped build this country don't have your "only so many of us can get ahead" attitude. Maybe we should be advocating for population control instead? That way these billions of people wouldn't have to compete for the few meager jobs tossed down from the 1%'rs.

a reply to: peter_kandra

So your for mass murder and genocide over simply paying people a reasonable amount for their time and effort? Remember we're talking about people actually working here. Not just sitting at home doing jack #. These aren't worthless layabouts. These are contributors to society.

Notice how so many on this thread and other similar threads are always here on ATS, day in and day out, some all day long complaining about how poor they are. I'm sure they are not typing these complaints on an old second-hand Royal typewriter.

The problem is that today too many people have a different definition of what poor is.

In this country, we have always taken care of the very poor....the REAL poor. We have so many programs in government, private, and churches, that there is ample assistance for those who truly need it.

Yeah, people are crying all the time about being too poor and how the fat cats are holding all the money and we need to tax the wealthy and give it to them. They complain about greedy businesses holding on to profits while their workers barely get by.

Most of you know one or more of these whiners:

She is always on Facebook complaining about how she can't afford this and that and her poor poor kids don't have this or that while the rest of their friends go on nice vacations and blah blah blah blah blah.

Then in a few days, she posts the "beautiful" experience of spending time with her two sweet daughters while she and they get mani-pedis then afterwards spend the day shopping, eating out, and going to a movie.

In a few days, she is posting how she is looking for a second job because she just can stretch her paycheck to pay for basic things like utilities and groceries and how this country sucks because all the fat cats are getting wealthier and wealthier and she and others are scrabbling to barely get by.

Yet....she and both her daughters have smart phones, iPads, laptops, and did I mention a ginormous flat screen TV? But, she is pissed because somebody else has saved, invested, and made good choices to make sure their kids went to a decent college and they actually paid for it with those savings and investments. But, she is the first to raise her fist in the air and say, "Go, Bernie...free tuition of everybody! Let the "fat cats" pay for it".

In this country, we have always taken care of the very poor and disadvantaged. The ones complaining are generally the ones that want the cushy life without doing the hard stuff it takes to have it. They would rather complain about somebody else's success and good choices to excuse their own wastefulness and stupid choices.

originally posted by: ReadLeader
a reply to: Xeven

I'm making it just fine and I'm far from wealthy. Maybe people need to learn how to A. Save
B. Do not go into debt C. Quit spending their income on worthless material de·tri·tus.

Still not enough? Get a second job, boost education level, move to a more lucrative area for your craft...

Or, just live off the system, your call.....

What makes you think that people who support wealth equity don't have enough money or want to "live off the system"? It's a very narrow and incorrect way of thinking.

I have everything I could ever want and more. But it isn't just about ME, ME, ME... We have more than enough, yet we support a more equitable system FOR THE PEOPLE. It isn't just about ME.

originally posted by: queenofswords
Notice how so many on this thread and other similar threads are always here on ATS, day in and day out, some all day long complaining about how poor they are.

I don't see ANYONE complaining about how poor they are!

originally posted by: Indigent
What a nice communist though you got there comrade

That's not what communism is, but keep fear-mongering, ol' senator McCarthy would be proud.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: peter_kandra

So your for mass murder and genocide over simply paying people a reasonable amount for their time and effort? Remember we're talking about people actually working here. Not just sitting at home doing jack #. These aren't worthless layabouts. These are contributors to society.

No, I said population control, not mass murder or genocide. One problem (as I believe I said in another thread with you), is that everyone's definition of a reasonable amount for their time and effort is different. Once most people attain that level, the goal posts move. What I consider reasonable at 47 is far different than what I considered reasonable (or expected) at 27.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No one has an issue with getting ahead. It's getting so far ahead at everyone else expense they have a problem with.

If the rich weren't hoarding more and more wealth and were actually using it and putting it back into the economy we wouldn't be where we are now. There's a breaking point where too much has been hoarded away, too little has gone back into the economy, and something must be done, by force if necessary.

No one wants things to go the way of war and revolution. All that's needed to prevent it is for the rich to practice a bit of responsibility. This is a problem of their own creation.

The problem with this line of thinking is that the 1% are in power BECAUSE of corporatism, meaning they along with big Government are all part of the oligarchy. If redistribution ever actually got to the point of taking wealth directly via force from the wealthy, guess what? They would just up and leave this country via their private jets and the 'revolution' would get shut down by feds, the UN, or fall apart with infighting and chaos.

I also wonder how far this "redistribution" should go. If you are for redistribution in this country, but ignore redistribution on a global scale (i.e. even poor people here live in relative opulence to many other people on this planet) then you are espousing hypocrisy.

It kind of boils down to what one defines as "rich"...