Comments on: Ending Tax Breaks for Billionaires

By: 666bushisnazi666

666bushisnazi666 — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 02:02:22 +0000

@konopelli

That’s what the top rate was in the late 50′s. I bet the republitards on here that cry about President Obama rolling back the top rate to a measly 39% don’t even know that.

By: stonescourt3

stonescourt3 — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 13:05:25 +0000

@searcherboy i agree. i didnt make that statement about the wealthy–SAGEBOT500 did.

By: stonescourt3

stonescourt3 — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 13:03:50 +0000

@Pellegrino80 dont forget to add obama

By: searcherboy

searcherboy — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 21:50:35 +0000

@stonescourt3 You’re absolutely wrong. A wealthy person with a multi-million dollar income, for all he buys, doesn’t spend as much on food, clothing, cars and housing for himself and his family as the 50 or 100 working people lower down the economic pole who collectively earn as much as he does. The wealthiest people buy nice lifestyles for themselves, and hoard the rest of their money in investments with a relatively low economic spinoff effect.

By: konopelli

konopelli — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:33:46 +0000

I support a 90% marginal tax rate on ALL ‘income’ in excess of $1 million/year.

By: armyveteran101st

armyveteran101st — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 18:56:59 +0000

@stonescourt3 Your premise of “depending on the wealthy to assist” is wrong. I never meant for the wealthy to carry the burden by themselves. I meant for them to carry a measure of the burden that is proportionate to their economic capability. As far as incentive goes, a big part of the Stimulus program is devoted to tax cuts for small and mid-size businesses. I just don’t see how gov’t gets in the way of people “working hard”, whatever that means in conservative/libertarian terms.

By: stonescourt3

stonescourt3 — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 17:12:49 +0000

@armyveteran101st the better way for society to sustain itself is just that–for it to sustain itself, not by depending on the wealthy to assist. the problem is that government does not provide incentives to corporations to hire people, nor do they fairly tax individuals at the same rate. if government allowed the people to succeed by working hard and taxed them the same rate as others, then they could make enough money to sustain themselves.

By: stonescourt3

stonescourt3 — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 17:00:34 +0000

@SAGEBOT500 i dont understand your argument. wealthy people buy more goods and consume more utilities, so they should be taxed more? i believe there is already taxes applied to those.

By: armyveteran101st

armyveteran101st — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 23:42:21 +0000

@stonescourt3 Perhaps it would be, and I’m not necessarily against it. I don’t think it matters how people acquire wealth, (as long as they do it within the bounds of the law). I think that the wealthy have a moral obligation to give something back to the system that allowed them to acquire their wealth in the first place. What better way for them to do that than by contributing to sustain the civilized society we live in and enjoy? Taxes are the price we pay for living in civilized society.

By: SAGEBOT500

SAGEBOT500 — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 19:29:53 +0000

@stonescourt3 Wealthy people benefit from society more than less-wealthy people because they live more lavish lifestyles. They buy more consumer goods, consume more water, heat, electricity, etc. From that perspective, it could be argued that taxing wealthier people at a higher rate is fair.