So a "millionaire or billionaire" in Wisconsin pays a total of 35% + 8%, or a total of 43% of their income in taxes. How much *should* they be paying, kt? What would be "fair" in your mind?
Edit, add:
Wisconsin Income Tax Comparison A Minimum Wage worker earning $15,000/year pays $900.00 A worker earning the median salary of $45,000 pays $3,150.00 An upper class worker earning $100,000/year pays $7,000.00
That means the people making over $100,000 a year pay TWICE what a "middle class worker" makes, and over SEVEN TIMES what a minimum wage worker pays.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 02-27-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:02 PM
86GT3.4DOHC Member
Posts: 10007 From: Marion Ohio Registered: Apr 2004
Yea I dont understand why there isnt, or cant be an executive order of sorts that says once they are absent for so many days, they no longer count as a required vote. Let that pass then let the Republicans have a hay day with any legislation they want, see how long it takes them to come running back.
Its ridiculous they can hold the government hostage like this. I mean its almost like one of those things where all of the people who work for a company stop coming to work unless they get their way, holding a corporation hostage at their whims. You know, what are those called?
Holy crap! The democratic party is a UNION LMAO. Democrats on strike.
Im proud to work for a company, that while not anti-union, has no unions, and we purchase a LOT of smaller companies and operations and its pretty obvious they have no intention of touching one that has a union. Coincidentally enough, its a fortune 500 company that was roaring before the recession, and still holding steady in a recession that has a very hard impact on the industry we are in. We also have AMAZING healthcare and other benefits, good pay, and a lot of production based incentives. Additionally the entire corporation has NEVER laid a single person off for 'lack of work'. Now we're not a union shop, so yea when the company feels pain, we share in the hurt by reduction of productivity bonuses which is %50+ of some of the people's pay. Lets see that in a union shop, they'd burn the place down before they gave up a penny.
Personally, if I owned a company and they tried crap like Ive seen, Id just take the hit, fire the lot of them, and hire anew. You'd be down for a while, hurting for probably 6 months, but the ROI would come around, and not being held hostage by a bunch of union thugs would be worth it. Of course knowing those types, you'd likely end up with some slashed tires, broken windows, and plenty of threats of physical harm.
Once more, what's behind the whole sending troopers to collect them? I mean if a government entity send police to 'collect' me and I willingly fled and hid, you know damn well there would be criminal charges.
IP: Logged
01:03 PM
86GT3.4DOHC Member
Posts: 10007 From: Marion Ohio Registered: Apr 2004
They could urge Walker to repeal the $117 mil tax cuts for them, saying Wisconsin needs the money more than they do.
Wanna place any bets if they will do that? Or only look out for themselves?
That's some dangerous thinking right there...
First off, facing millions in losses, and wondering why the hell they are freezing their butts off in Wisconsin in the first place, said 'millionaires' are just going to pack up and move someplace friendlier.
Secondly, while Im not saying its a bad idea in concept, that's heavily socialistic thinking, the last thing we need at this juncture in our countries current demise is more socialism. I wont even go into the dozens of ways that would be unfair, unethical and unamerican, as well as collectively damaging to the entire economic system.
IP: Logged
01:10 PM
D B Cooper Member
Posts: 3141 From: East Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2005
What I don't undestand is if we all have to make sacrifices and take cuts, why don't billionaires and corporations have to do the same?
They could urge Walker to repeal the $117 mil tax cuts for them, saying Wisconsin needs the money more than they do.
Wanna place any bets if they will do that? Or only look out for themselves?
Wisconsin is a tax hell with a bad reputation for union gooning (and their new hippie commune in the capitol building isn't helping that any), a rep for frivolous lawsuit expenses, and a DNR with a rep for shooting down everything productive that does decide to locate there. Hello ! That's why everyone who doesn't work for the government can't find decent jobs. And that, in turn, is why the government isn't bringing in enough money to fund the overpaid piggie union thugs they have working for them already. Cranking the tax rates up further is like pissing in the well you have to drink out of tomorrow.
Walker is working toward breaking the cycle and pulling the state out of its downward spiral. And the union piggies might not be able to stay up in that upper 10% bracket with the rest of the privileged elite; even the ones who do work more than 9 months a year.
So yeah, Walker is cutting red tape, lightening the load of government, and backing off on tax rates a little to attract business to his state, so people can get jobs working at those businesses. That's how the real world works.
IP: Logged
06:07 PM
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
So a "millionaire or billionaire" in Wisconsin pays a total of 35% + 8%, or a total of 43% of their income in taxes. How much *should* they be paying, kt? What would be "fair" in your mind?
Edit, add:
Wisconsin Income Tax Comparison A Minimum Wage worker earning $15,000/year pays $900.00 A worker earning the median salary of $45,000 pays $3,150.00 An upper class worker earning $100,000/year pays $7,000.00
That means the people making over $100,000 a year pay TWICE what a "middle class worker" makes, and over SEVEN TIMES what a minimum wage worker pays.
So that means people making twice as much pay twice as much tax. That's a regressive tax rate, since rich people pay the same amount for food gas, etc. as the rest of us pay.
So what would be fair? I say 50%. Which is still 40% less than during Eisenhower's administration. He was a repub BTW.
IP: Logged
11:30 AM
ktthecarguy Member
Posts: 2076 From: Livonia, MI USA Registered: Jun 2007
First off, facing millions in losses, and wondering why the hell they are freezing their butts off in Wisconsin in the first place, said 'millionaires' are just going to pack up and move someplace friendlier.
Secondly, while Im not saying its a bad idea in concept, that's heavily socialistic thinking, the last thing we need at this juncture in our countries current demise is more socialism. I wont even go into the dozens of ways that would be unfair, unethical and unamerican, as well as collectively damaging to the entire economic system.
They want to leave? Freeze their assets and penalize them for taking their money out of WI. It can be done.
Dangerous thinking? This "kill the middle class" attitude is dangerous thinking. We are heading for a French-style revolution if people like the Kochs keep this up. Just like in France in the 1790's, it won't be the poor people who will revolt (since they have nothing to lose) it will be the middle class who will revolt (since they have EVERYTHING to lose).
This is the road we are on. That is our destination up ahead. Don't like that destination? Better tell the Kochs to back the hell off, or their heads will roll.
IP: Logged
11:38 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27104 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
So that means people making twice as much pay twice as much tax. That's a regressive tax rate, since rich people pay the same amount for food gas, etc. as the rest of us pay.
So what would be fair? I say 50%. Which is still 40% less than during Eisenhower's administration. He was a repub BTW.
So you would feel good if the rich paid 50%? That's all it would take?
IP: Logged
11:46 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27104 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
They want to leave? Freeze their assets and penalize them for taking their money out of WI. It can be done.
What's dangerous is that you actually conceived of this thought and didn't immediately realize how outrageously insane it is. The really scary part is, I think you're serious.
IP: Logged
12:15 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 37753 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by ktthecarguy: They want to leave? Freeze their assets and penalize them for taking their money out of WI. It can be done.
Wow, ! Wow, ! Then after we take out those who can defend themselves, we can steam roll over the masses.
quote
Originally posted by ktthecarguy: What I don't undestand is if we all have to make sacrifices and take cuts, why don't billionaires and corporations have to do the same? They could urge Walker to repeal the $117 mil tax cuts for them, saying Wisconsin needs the money more than they do. Wanna place any bets if they will do that? Or only look out for themselves?
This thread is about taxpayers, who can not support union expectations. Expectations which have the unions making more money than the private sector and being paid by the private sector. Hello ? Businesses are taxpayers too. Do you have an argument that businesses have not had to make sacrifices and cuts to weather theses times ? I didn't think so. In fact, many have incurred losses. Would you plant a garden on a rock ? Wisconsin needs to attract business with fertile ground.
They want to leave? Freeze their assets and penalize them for taking their money out of WI. It can be done.
Dangerous thinking? This "kill the middle class" attitude is dangerous thinking. We are heading for a French-style revolution if people like the Kochs keep this up. Just like in France in the 1790's, it won't be the poor people who will revolt (since they have nothing to lose) it will be the middle class who will revolt (since they have EVERYTHING to lose).
This is the road we are on. That is our destination up ahead. Don't like that destination? Better tell the Kochs to back the hell off, or their heads will roll.
Class warfare.
I can see that. The spoiled children of upper middle class thinking that the world owes them something.
Be careful, once the middle class overturns the rich they become the rich, then the poor become the middle class, and the super poor become the poor. The new middle class then go after the new rich (you).
Brad
IP: Logged
12:54 PM
86GT3.4DOHC Member
Posts: 10007 From: Marion Ohio Registered: Apr 2004
What's dangerous is that you actually conceived of this thought and didn't immediately realize how outrageously insane it is. The really scary part is, I think you're serious.
Yea, thats pretty up there with the worst ideas I've ever heard in my life, right next to 'I wonder what will happen if I pee on this electric fence'...
No, whats really scary, if this guy is serious, is that he can vote!
Democratic Senator Juan Vargas of San Diego has proposed a bill that aims to ban "big-box" retailers from the state, as he contends they are a hindrance to small businesses and the local economy. A similar measure was previously suggested in his district, but city council members and residents turned it down.
Larry Andre (R), a former California congressional candidate, tells OneNewsNow the unions are concerned that Wal-Mart is entering the food business as a non-union shop.
"It is so much based upon power and control," Andre points out. "Obviously, they want to do what they believe is in the best interest of their union members, which would be to have as many union members as possible and to get them the best benefit packages and the most money they could possibly get them."
Vargas' bill targets stores that measure at least 90,000 square feet and dedicate at least ten percent of their space to groceries. According to the former congressional hopeful, the unions' main goal is to preserve their jobs at the expense of taxpayers.
"We suffer from high unemployment currently, we are suffering from high costs of living in this state [and] our fuel costs are much higher than many other states," he explains. "By the elimination of Wal-Mart, you relegate a whole class of people into poverty, because they are not able to purchase goods and services at a very fair price."
But as long as unions support politicians, Andre concludes that politicians will cater to the special interests that keep unions thriving.
IP: Logged
07:33 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27104 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says he won't cave in to union and Democratic demands that he compromise on his effort to curb employee benefit programs. He also vows he won't "kick the can down the street" when it comes to dealing with his state's fiscal woes.
Appearing Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" with David Gregory, Walker laid out his plan to save his state from fiscal bankruptcy while destroying several false claims about his legislation, which Senate Democrats are delaying by refusing to appear for a final vote.
Among the significant issues covered during his "Meet the Press" interview, Walker:
Denied he is destroying public employee unions. His proposed law still allows public employee unions to exist and engage in collective bargaining for their wages. The state denies the unions the use of collective bargaining to seek pension and health benefits.
Claimed that unions are not acting in good faith. Public employee unions have been claiming they will accept cutbacks in their benefits, but Walker says they can't be trusted and have been rushing through contracts that give their members extravagant benefit packages.
Walker told Gregory: "We [have] seen that actions speak louder than words. For us to balance the $3.6 billion deficit we have — but not only now, but to ensure we can continue to do that in the future so our kids don't inherit these same dire consequences — we've got to have assurances. And over the past two weeks, even after they made those promises, we've seen local union after local union rush to their school boards, their city councils, their technical school boards and rush through contracts in the past two weeks that had no contributions to the pension and no contribution to health care. And, in fact, in one case in Janesville, they actually were pushing through a pay increase. Actions do speak louder than words."
Explained that the law helps local governments curb union demands. Walker said: "This bill precisely helps local governments, and it's effective once it passes. In fact, we're, we're facing a $3.6 billion deficit. Like nearly every other state across the country, we're going to have to cut more than a billion dollars from our schools and local governments. You know, in New York and California, where there are Democrats for governors, they're doing that. The difference here is, with this budget repair bill, we give those schools and local governments more — almost a billion and a half dollars worth of savings. So the savings they get from our budget repair bill exceed the amount."
Said public employee unions are making unusual demands on taxpayers. Walker said: "In Wisconsin, a great example of that is, we have, in many of our school districts, a requirement through collective bargaining contracts that they have to buy their health insurance from a company that's owned by our state teacher's union, WA Trust. Because of that, it costs them up to $68 million more than if they could just buy it from the state employee healthcare plan. Those are real costs about putting real money in the classroom instead of into these collective bargaining agreements."
Pointed out his new plan is consistent with how the federal government handles many employees. Walker explained: "Well, our proposal is less restrictive than the federal government is today. Under Barack Obama, he presides over a federal government where most federal employees do not have collective bargaining for, for benefits, nor for pay. So what we're asking for is something less restrictive than what the federal government has."
Explained why police and firemen are exempt from his new law. Walker said: "We saw two weeks ago, when this debate first started, teachers here in Madison walked off the job for three days. Now, that was an inconvenience for a lot of parents. I know I've got two public — kids in public school. Anytime you have a disturbance like that, it's an inconvenience. But that, contrasted to the fact that even if there was one jurisdiction across the state where firefighters or police officers weren't on the job in full force, I can't afford to have a fire or crime committed where there's a gap in service. And it ultimately just boils down to public safety."
Walker concluded by telling Gregory that he stands by his statement, "This is our moment, this is our time to change the course of history."
Walker told Gregory: "It's one of those where, for year after year after year, not just the last governor, but governors before, legislatures before, have kicked the can. They've taken one-time fixes to push the budget problems off into the future. We can't do that. We're broke. Like nearly every other state across the country, we're broke. And it's about time somebody stood up and told the truth in this state and said, 'Here's our problem. Here's the solution,' and acted on it. Because, if we don't, we fail to make a commitment to the future. Our children will face even more dire consequences than what we face today."
IP: Logged
07:57 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35468 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Thousands of protesters left the state capitol Sunday, but hundreds remained inside, defying an order by state officials to end nearly two weeks of raucous occupation over a bill that would strip many unionized state workers of collective-bargaining rights.
The removal of the protesters developed peacefully over the course of the day as police allowed fewer protesters to enter the building than those who left. In the end, a 4 p.m. deadline to clear the capitol passed with hundreds still inside, though they were confined to a smaller area.
Already Wisconsin teachers have begun receiving layoff notices, and more public employees could be warned of possible layoffs this week, as the standoff continues over Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s bill that would strip most of the state’s 170,000 public employees of most collective-bargaining rights.
Mr. Walker says the changes are needed to shore up a $137 million shortfall in the current budget and a $3.6 billion gap in the upcoming two-year budget. Democratic state senators remained at large, refusing to return to the state until collective-bargaining restrictions are removed from the bill.
“If we do not get these changes, and the Senate Democrats don’t come back, we’re going to be forced to make up the savings in layoffs and that to me is just unacceptable,” Mr. Walker said in an appearance Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press.
If the bill doesn’t pass, lawmakers and local governments will have to find savings elsewhere in the budget to eliminate deficits.
The bill passed the state Assembly in a rushed vote Friday morning. It removes most collective-bargaining rights for most of Wisconsin’s 170,000 public workers.
The state Senate remains at an impasse after 14 Democrats fled to Illinois on Feb. 17 to avert a vote on the bill. At least one Democrat needs to return to give the Senate a quorum to hold a vote. Senate Democrats did not return phone calls seeking comment on Sunday.
IP: Logged
08:05 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35468 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
It only takes one state senator to stand up and do his job to balance the budget and avoid a $165 million loss in savings to the state, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said Sunday, challenging any of the 14 Democratic senators who fled the state more than a week ago to return to vote on a budget.
Democrats "need to come back and do what they were elected to do. They don't have to vote for it, they don't have to support it," Walker said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Walker is trying to close a $3.6 billion budget gap in his state for the coming two years in part by cutting $1 billion to local governments. That means cutting health benefits and pensions to the state's unionized workers.
But while state worker unions have agreed to increase their contributions to their pensions and health benefits to 5 percent and 12.8 percent, respectively, Walker said the one-time fix won't do much good if big labor can just resort to collective bargaining in the next budget and drive up state expenses again.
"We want to be unique in Wisconsin to give those local government the tools beyond the 5 and 12 percent," he said.
Related Video
Wisconsin Law Enforcement Keeping Busy
Law enforcement impressed by peacefulness Saying defecting lawmakers must make hard choices, even if it won't turn out their way, Walker said without a budget, Wisconsin's debt will increase and state workers will lose their jobs.
"I would go to almost any ends to avoid that and my hope is at least one of those 14 senators would feel the same way," he said.
But AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said Walker keeps changing the markers in his argument.
"This isn't about the budget crisis. Let's look at how his arguments migrated," Trumka said on the same show. "The members out there said, 'We'll accept their cuts.' He said, 'No, we won't accept accepting our cuts.' The most outrageous thing he did is (say) ... you have to accept the loss of your rights or we're going to lay you off."
Trumka argued that public employees are taking responsibility for their contributions to the debt, but to say collective bargaining is the chief driver of budget deficits is wrong since the five states in the country that ban collective bargaining have a "collective debt right now of $222 billion. So this is not about economics."
State budgets are a chief concern facing governors, who were in Washington, D.C., for the weekend at the National Governors Association winter meeting. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour said Walker is doing what every governor must do to get a hold of his deficit.
Sitting down and saying, 'Let's make a very narrow agreement about wages for one year,' isn't going to solve the problem," Barbour said.
"It's about time somebody stood up and told the truth about the state," said Walker, who did no attend the NGA conference. "I make no apology for the fact that this is an historic moment in time."
IP: Logged
08:07 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35468 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Have you seen the television pictures of the tens of thousands of demonstrators at the Wisconsin State Capitol who are protesting proposed budget cuts for state employees? If so, you've had an advance peek at the sort of demonstrations that will take place if state legislatures are foolish enough to pass resolutions asking Congress to call a national convention to consider amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Barack Obama's political arm, "Organizing for America," swelled the crowds by busing in protesters from Wisconsin and from other states, too. A national convention to amend the U.S. Constitution would become the media event of the century, with 24/7 TV coverage, giving us every reason to anticipate that "Organizing for America" would flood the process of electing delegates and then demonstrate to hurl demands on their deliberations.
All of a sudden, as though someone gave the signal, resolutions are pending in several state legislatures to use the never-before-used power set forth in Article V to petition Congress to "call a Convention for proposing Amendments." This campaign exploits the frustration of many Americans with Congress's out-of-control spending, increase in the national debt (with much of it borrowed from China), and passage of laws, such as ObamaCare, that severely limit our freedoms.
Many state legislators are promising that a Convention would be limited to consideration of only one specific amendment. No way. Article V clearly specifies that a Convention is for the purpose of "proposing Amendments" (note the plural).
Furthermore, various state resolutions support different Amendments. Some specify that the one Amendment to be considered must be the Repeal Amendment (to allow states to repeal an act of Congress), others want the one Amendment to be Debt Limitation, others want a Balanced Budget Amendment, others want a change in the Electoral College, others want to abolish the 17th Amendment, and one proposal is for a list of ten Amendments. When the protesters assemble, we can be sure that many special-interest groups will be pushing their own agendas. You can bet that a once-in-a-lifetime Convention will attract activists demanding union rights (like the Wisconsin demonstrators), gay rights, gun control, abortion rights, ERA, and D.C. Statehood.
Calling a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution would be a plunge into darkness because the only rules to govern it are those specified in Article V. It takes two-thirds (34) of the states to pull the trigger, Congress controls and issues the Call, and the Convention must consider Amendments (in the plural).
Anyone who has attended a national political convention knows very well that the guy with the gavel exercises ruthless power. I've attended 15 Republican National Conventions plus many other national, state and district political conventions, and I've seen every kind of high-handed tactic and rules broken with the bang of the gavel, including cutting off mikes, recognizing only pre-chosen delegates, expelling unwanted delegates, cheating on credentials and rules, fixing the voting machines, etc., etc.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a national hero for winning the case that persuaded a judge to declare ObamaCare unconstitutional, stated on the steps of the Capitol in Richmond on January 17: "What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything they want."
That blows away the silly claims by advocates of a new Convention, such as the so-called Goldwater Institute in Arizona (which was never known by Barry Goldwater), that the state legislatures can "define the agenda of an Amendments Convention," restricting it to a specific Amendment or a single subject.
The Goldwater Institute cites Article V language that no state can "be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate" to allegedly prove that an Amendments Convention cannot "rewrite the entire Constitution." Au contraire. Saying that a Convention cannot do one thing actually means that the Convention can do everything else except that one thing.
Goldwater Institute spokesmen try to predict what procedures would be followed by an Amendments Convention, but in fact nobody knows what procedures would be used. Congress has defeated all bills that tried to establish rules, so we don't know how the delegates would be chosen, whether they would be paid, how they would be apportioned among the states, whether they would have to have a super-majority to vote out a new Amendment, etc., etc.
Goldwater Institute spokesmen try to claim James Madison is on their side, but their history is as faulty as their arguments. Madison wrote: "Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second."
IP: Logged
08:24 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35468 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Here is my deal with States that don't allow "right to work"
Here, in Missouri, if I want to get a job welding, and I can weld, I get a job welding. If I want to get a job as a plumber, and I know plumbing, I get a job as a plumber. If I want to be a light bulb installer, and can do that, I get a job doing that. I can also do all of this in a Union if I wish.
In a Union state, if I want to get a job welding, and I can weld, I go to a Union, and wait for them to find an opening, train for years to "learn the ropes", pay them a percentage of what I make, and then I may become a welder. If I want to get a job as a plumber, and I know plumbing, I go to a Union, and wait for them to find an opening, pay them a percentage of what I make, work under some other Union guy for years, and if I am lucky one day be a plumber. If I want to be a light bulb installer, and can do that, I go to a Union, and wait for them to find an opening, pay them a percentage of what I make, train under some head light bulb installer, and then someday I may get to actually become an installer. I have no choice, if I want to work I must pay the Union.
See the difference here?
Brad
IP: Logged
09:00 PM
TommyRocker Member
Posts: 2808 From: Woodstock, IL Registered: Dec 2009
They want to leave? Freeze their assets and penalize them for taking their money out of WI. It can be done.
Wow. This is unbelievable. I mean, I understand people out there want a free ride, its all over the news about the dudes in Wisconsin, but blatantly saying you actually want to just steal someones assets just so you can be a lazy piece of **** ? That is pretty bold...I wish all the liberals were that bold.
IP: Logged
09:08 PM
css9450 Member
Posts: 5557 From: Glen Ellyn, Illinois, USA Registered: Nov 2002
Originally posted by twofatguys: In a Union state, if I want to get a job welding, and I can weld, I go to a Union, and wait for them to find an opening, train for years to "learn the ropes", pay them a percentage of what I make, and then I may become a welder. If I want to get a job as a plumber, and I know plumbing, I go to a Union, and wait for them to find an opening, pay them a percentage of what I make, work under some other Union guy for years, and if I am lucky one day be a plumber. If I want to be a light bulb installer, and can do that, I go to a Union, and wait for them to find an opening, pay them a percentage of what I make, train under some head light bulb installer, and then someday I may get to actually become an installer. I have no choice, if I want to work I must pay the Union.
Sounds about right.
My firm (and all our competitors) went union back in 2004. Its been a train wreck ever since.
IP: Logged
09:18 PM
D B Cooper Member
Posts: 3141 From: East Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2005
Want to hear a nice twistie spin move ? Ask KT why he opposes tax breaks for businesses to move to Wisconsin, but undoubtedly supports taxpayer subsidies (corporate welfare) for the film industry in Michigan...
IP: Logged
09:24 PM
Mar 1st, 2011
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
I can see that. The spoiled children of upper middle class thinking that the world owes them something.
Be careful, once the middle class overturns the rich they become the rich, then the poor become the middle class, and the super poor become the poor. The new middle class then go after the new rich (you).
Brad
I take it you are rich, and that is why you object to rich people (like you) paying their fair share of taxes. That's why you keep screaming about class warfare - a war you are so far winning.
IP: Logged
01:05 AM
ktthecarguy Member
Posts: 2076 From: Livonia, MI USA Registered: Jun 2007
Originally posted by ktthecarguy: I take it you are rich, and that is why you object to rich people (like you) paying their fair share of taxes. That's why you keep screaming about class warfare - a war you are so far winning.
You caught me. I don't want to lose my wealth.
Brad
IP: Logged
01:40 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27104 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
I didn't say I wanted it to happen. I said that this is the road we are on. Don't like this road, or the destination? Change directions!
The road is changing, no more I am entitled to other people's money. They have hit the brick wall and the crying has just begun. What part of the country is hurting and has become fed up with the entitled crowd do they not understand. Our fifty years of socialism has flamed out.
Originally posted by ktthecarguy: I take it you are rich, and that is why you object to rich people (like you) paying their fair share of taxes. That's why you keep screaming about class warfare - a war you are so far winning.
I know what they say about when folks assume, but in this case I think we can leave the "ME" part out of it.
I am worried about what might happen if I read the previous 4 pages of this thread if this is what it has consisted of.
Just for the record, I'm a poor college student and I really don't think that the super wealthy should have to give away half of their income to the poor/government.
edit: Hey Brad, since you're obviously more wealthy than me, think you could pay off my school bills?
[This message has been edited by 1988holleyformula (edited 03-01-2011).]
OK...I asked you how much they should pay, and you said 50%. Then you said "it's a start". So...where does it stop?
I think he's made his point clear Bear, it stops when I lose My wealth.
He's right, I've been rich for far too long, and squandered way too much. Tomorrow I am going to rid myself of every bit of my wealth*. I shall learn to suffer with the commoners.
Brad
*I'm going to pay the water bill, and if I have enough left get a dozen eggs.
[This message has been edited by twofatguys (edited 03-01-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:56 AM
ktthecarguy Member
Posts: 2076 From: Livonia, MI USA Registered: Jun 2007
OK...I asked you how much they should pay, and you said 50%. Then you said "it's a start". So...where does it stop?
How about corporations that currently pay no taxes whatsoever (due to tax loopholes) start paying SOME tax? If all corporations paid 3%, that would probably generate more revenue than today. Now, does 3% sound outragious? If so, why?
IP: Logged
03:20 AM
ktthecarguy Member
Posts: 2076 From: Livonia, MI USA Registered: Jun 2007
The road is changing, no more I am entitled to other people's money. They have hit the brick wall and the crying has just begun. What part of the country is hurting and has become fed up with the entitled crowd do they not understand. Our fifty years of socialism has flamed out.
Hi there, welcome to planet Earth. What planet are you from, originally? Are you staying, or just here for a visit?
Are you serious? 
! Wow, 
!
