Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
"The rich are in a better position to afford it."
I'm sorry but that's absolutely classic liberal arrogance. First you label someone earning "x" amount as "rich" and then pass laws to confiscate his wealth all under the guise that he can "afford it"! Unsaid, of course, is that if the rich are "allowed" to keep their earnings, they'll hoard it or waste it. Liberals believe society will be better served by redistributing those earnings to make things "fair".
Concerning the quoted second point, I'm happy you've achieved "some modicum of success". As gently as possible, I suggest your success likely does NOT include paying the highest tax rate in the nation or being subjected to "special taxes" aimed at punishing "the rich" like the "Additional Medicare" (Obamacare) tax, does it? After one enjoys being singled out for multiple "soak the rich taxes" your tune of not being punished might change.
Here's a thought - REDUCE THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT! Less government = less burdensome taxes. See the problem is that the liberal masses vote in favor of heavy tax burdens because they know they will likely NEVER be subjected to them. It's easy to pass a tax on someone else knowing you'll never be subject to it. The "rich", like "big corporations", are demonized and become an easy target for confiscation by the masses who are simply looking for more goodies like "Obama-phones" (FREE cell phones to low-income citizens, and likely many illegal aliens too!)
|
Regardless of what you may think, I'm not liberal or arrogant. I simply understand that people who have more money are better able to pay higher taxes than those who make less money. Pretty simple stuff, really. I'm sorry but your position is absolutely classic conservative arrogance. First you label someone earning "x" amount as "lazy" and then pass laws to confiscate what little he has since he's not a "job creator"! Unsaid, of course, is that if the poor are "allowed" to keep their earnings, they'll spend them on cigarettes and booze.
Reducing the size of government, it is true, would probably reduce the tax burden. But that wasn't the point of the post I originally quoted. That post wanted to reallocate the "confiscation" from the "relatively wealthy" to the "relatively poor" through the use of regressive tax policies.
See the problem is that conservatives vote in favor of heavy tax burdens on the poor because they know they will likely NEVER be subjected to them. It's easy to pass a tax on someone else knowing you'll never be subject to it.
Your arguments make just as much sense against you as they did in support of you. (That's not the sign of a good argument)