« Back to story "The Obama Budget: A Return to Equality"

Story Comments

Posted by: Radiofreeeuropa 10 months ago

This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.

All Comments Share Story Report

82%
Radiofreeeuropa10 months ago

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

Even though 95% of the citizens have lost ground in favor of the 5% gaining dramatically. The spin machine will claim returning to a fair approach is "communist", The truth is they have unlimited wealth to blow buying up media to convince you to fight against your own interests. Don't be fooled.
These people are complaining about the "right" to cheat. To use their marked cards and loaded dice. Nothing more.

(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
Reply
2 Replies

loading ...
- 56%
  beavith110 months ago
  
  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
  
  thing is, 'wealth' is not unlimited. its an integral part of the aggregate economy.
  
  we, as a people, can tax, fee or otherwise confiscate the work of the fortunate/hard working/smarter members of our society.
  
  we do that at our collective peril.
  
  when being lucky, committed, more intelligent gets 'special treatment,' that is get stuck working for or paying more than the people around them, that's when they'll start playing games.
  
  you and the left can go on commenting on how unfair life is, but its a fact OF life.
  
  Ayn Rand is right. in both senses of the word.
  
  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
  Reply
  1 Reply
  
  loading ...
  - Neutral
    Radiofreeeuropa10 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    I disagree, Ayn Rand went insane. Her friend, Greenspan tried to put objectivism into action, and has admitted he was "wrong".
    The tax rate in the 1950s was arguably harsh on the wealthy.
    Your talking about personal incomes of over 250,000 a year being taxed at rates similar to the 1990s..It's obvious that the playing field was tilted very harshly in the favor of those who already had great abundances of wealth, The whole argument for this was they would create more wealth, jobs and industry. OBVIOUSLY beavith, THAT did not happen.
    They created nothing, played games that even children could tell would only be for suckers, Created bubbles with these games, hid their wealth in foreign "havens".
    Pursued a path of extreme profit taking, without any regard for investing in future viability.
    At least Henry Ford understood the basic concept that in order to sell his cars, people had to have to paid enough for their labors to buy them. I wouldn't be opposed to a flat tax if indeed it were fair. Let there be a minimal income that just isn't taxed, say the first 25K, then if everyone paid say 25% of anything above that (With no deductions and no "welfare" of any kind for the aristocrats). People like Steve Forbes and Jerry Brown have said the tax rate could drop to 13% or so under such a system.
    Warren Buffet said his maid pays more taxes than him. Losing the loopholes alone will go a long way to creating a fair and equitable system.
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
    Reply
    0 Replies
    
    loading ...