SHRED
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-08-11 11:15 PM
Original message |
Obviously low tax rates on the wealthy,... |
|
...since Reagan, haven't produced good jobs. "Trickle-down" didn't work.
Time to tax the shit out of them.
---
|
msongs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-08-11 11:18 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Obama's f riends didnt take a hit so he's cool with it nor did dems in congress nt |
Angry Dragon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-08-11 11:21 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Time to tax the shit out of them.
|
Logical
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-08-11 11:22 PM
Response to Original message |
applegrove
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-08-11 11:56 PM
Response to Original message |
4. The business elite are sitting on their cash and not spending it. We should |
|
promise to take their tax cuts away from them..NOW! Since they are not creating jobs with the cash it is obvious they don't want the tax cuts. I mean they are just being lazy assed parasites to take a tax cut and not use it for anything.
|
Cresent City Kid
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-09-11 12:38 AM
Response to Original message |
5. I could never get a straight answer to this question |
|
Why don't the rich invest in the economy AND pay taxes? The theory is that if we take some amount away from them, via taxation, they'll invest less. Really? The exact amount? Is that an inevitable consequence or a threat? Why don't they just do both and just have less money?
Is there some kind of way we can have our own economy without them? That's too much of a pipe dream, we can't even muster up the appropriate level of outrage as a society after what happened leading up to the crash. Now we couldn't even get a modest 3% increase in the top rate after 10 years of proof that the theory threatens us all, with Democrats controlling Congress and the White House. And all they had to do was let a 3% cut expire, they didn't have to do anything, no filibuster threat, and in the lame duck session, no threat of having it affect the elections, they were lost.
Start reading Dickens to soften the upcoming culture shock.
|
Taitertots
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-09-11 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
8. The answer is that even if they invest less, there is no net loss of economic activity |
|
If anything taxing people benefits the economy, as long as the collected funds are spent.
|
aquart
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-09-11 02:57 AM
Response to Original message |
6. No man should be so rich he has nothing left to buy but his government. |
|
We need to prevent more Kochs. Which means punitive inheritance taxes to aggressively prevent the accumulation of huge fortunes. They hinder a free market and they destroy democracy.
|
ladjf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-09-11 07:41 AM
Response to Original message |
7. Tax the greedy bastards. They should pay their fair share. nt |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat Apr 20th 2024, 07:52 AM
Response to Original message |