Delta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 7 Reply 1, posted (11 years 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1363 times:
What is your point -- that upper income people are unfairly taxed?
If so, read an Economics 101 textbook on the subject of "principles of tax equity" paying particular attention to the "ability to pay" and "equal sacrifice" principles. Consideration should also be given to indirect and other taxation that is paid by consumers irregardless of personal income -- such as sales taxes and taxes included in the cost of goods and services, all of which are disproportionately borne by lower income people.
MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8475 posts, RR: 13 Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1338 times:
It's called socialistic redistribution of wealth.
I don't know how it was when you took Economics 101, but now it's divided into Macroeconomics and Microeconomics, and I've only taken macroecon so far, and as an aerospace engineering it is extremely doubtful I'll ever take micro.
PHX-LJU From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1334 times:
"It's called socialistic redistribution of wealth."
Absolutely. And Bill Clinton was a closet socialist, the Democrats are all Marxist revolutionaries at heart, the EU will transform Europe into a far-left dictatorship, a UN-backed One World Government will take away our sovereignty, the rich will be taken out and shot, and unpatriotic liberals and will take over the world, right? Give me a break.
Seriously, the US, with its long history of free market policies, has far fewer "wealth redistribution" programs than most other countries. Depending on your point of view, this may be good or bad (I see it both ways), but the US is definitely not socialist... not even close. You may disagree with the current tax system, but calling it something that it is clearly not doesn't help your cause.
Delta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 7 Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1324 times:
MD-90 -- it's Macroeconomics, and you would probably have learned this concept had you been reading the book and/or paying attention.
It has nothing to do with redistributing wealth! It has only to do with fairness and ability to pay. How much can you tax someone making $20K a year? 200K? $2M?
I am an aerospace engineer, and I took the trouble to get an MBA just so I would be aware of what makes our world go around. You should read up on economics before you make statements like "It's called socialistic redistribution of wealth." This goes for PHX also.
I know it's popular in Mississippi (before you get all wound up, I live here, too) to call everything you don't like "socialism" but that does not necessarily make it so!
MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8475 posts, RR: 13 Reply 10, posted (11 years 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1302 times:
Bah, we may not be choking on socialistic economic policies like Sweden or Germany is, but if it ain't socialism, then what is it? Fair, I suppose? Or maybe, fairer, back when the income tax on the highest wage earners was 90%?
MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8475 posts, RR: 13 Reply 11, posted (11 years 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1280 times:
KLAX, of course not.
And Delta-Flyer, I don't know about you, but if I made $500,000/year, and the government wanted to tax me at a rate of 50%, while the $20,000/year worker is only taxed at $1,000 (which is a 5% tax rate), I'd be upset if I was the guy making half a million. Unless you're born with a trust fund, it's dang hard to make half a million a year. What if you're a doctor, who has shelled out great amounts of money for medical school, and now has to pay for malpractice insurance? How much do you think he'll have left after that 50% tax?