Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
Once again the right peddles the false notion that the poor 'pay no taxes.' 
When in fact, they pay a much higher % of their pay in taxes (ie: sales/gas/etc)...than higher wage earners.
Or did you forget that there are many other types of taxes... besides just 'personal income taxes?"
Poor Pay a Higher Percentage of Income in Taxes
And then of course there are the 'working poor,' who get paid so little that they qualify for welfare.
So let me get this straight, you have this hatred/haughty attitude toward the working poor getting help, but have no problem with the billions of dollars in profits companies make by paying low wages...knowing that the American Citizen will subsidize them when their workers qualify for welfare?
Why is that?
CNM |
Wow, you really need to go back to Economics 101.
Any flat sales tax represents a higher percentage of income to those with less money, BUT ONLY IF THEY PURCHASE THE SAME AMOUNT OF GOODS AND SERVICES. They can't and they don't, it is simply a matter of lifestyle. Is your argument that "the poor" "deserve" the same lifestyle as "the rich"? If so, YOU ARE A SOCIALIST!!!. Do you subscribe to the theory that you can make the poor rich by making the rich poorer? That's a fallacy. Remember, "the rich" are rich for a reason---
They may have been born into money: In that case I agree with you, they don't "deserve" that any more than anyone "deserves" a government handout. Other than a few million that we would like to hand down to our kids, I wouldn't object to a heavy tax on anything over that. Better yet, I would like to see a mandatory contribution to legitimate charities.
They may have been "lucky". There are 2 types of luck. The first is the guy who left his garbage can lid at the curb, so flung it back to his house---hence inventing the Frisbee. Good for him. The second is the guy who buys a fistful of lottery tickets instead of milk for his baby. No sympathy there, I would make him give 80% of the winnings to a children's and orphan's fund.
But the overwhelming majority EARNED it, through hard work, reasonably frugal lifestyle, and wise savings and investments. They are the one's who "deserve" what they have, and the concept of taking it away to give it to a bunch of do-nothing couch sitters is ridiculous.
Your second post is economically idiotic. If a "greedy company" is paying lower wages than it's competitors, they will have no workers. If the general economy orchestrated by Obama supports low wages for medium income workers across the board, well, "elections have consequences". I also strongly object to the term "haughty/hatred", I have no problem helping the WORKING POOR, I have a problem supporting the LAZY POOR, THE CRIMINAL POOR, THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT POOR, and the MOTHER OF 8 CHILDREN BY 8 DIFFERENT FATHERS POOR. Choices should have consequences too. Unfortunately, it seems the concept of individual accountability is rapidly fading from the American scene