FDR had horrible ideas. They’ve had the worst ideas for years, none worked.
Typical liberal bullshit.
You can bet it will not be HIS money that gets taken.
It’ll be YOUR money that gets taken.
Libtards never pay for a damn thing.
I will give a thought to wealth redistribution when Soros, Clinton, Gates, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Bloomberg, etc. give away 90% (heck, even 50%) of their wealth.
But even then it would be a brief thought.
Some of them are. It's a challenge from another billionaire.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gates-foundation-giving-away-a-fortune/
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/14-...-gates-and-warren-buffetts-giving-pledge.html
Bill Gates is buying influence and a legacy. He’s using his money to shape the world as he sees fit. Which is his right. However, I think it’s motivated by vanity and a lust for power.
...Gates.....thieving SOB...
Respectfully, feel free to give away your own "speculative earnings"; however, leave your hands off my "speculative earnings" and out of my actual wallet. :cheers:I'll get lambasted and harangued for thus but....
Under the present graduated income tax law if you personally make $10 million dollars in one year you get to keep about $6 million.
If one makes $30 million in a year they get to bank around $18 million.
A hypothetical proposal has been made by the Dems (AOC) to raise taxes only on your $11th million and up, such that the individual making $30,000,000.00 would get to keep only $12 million (only!!!).
Your first $10,000,000.00 would be unaffected.
This would not apply to corporations.
It would not tax or discourage growth or reinvestment as has been alleged.
Now in my fantasy......
Were I to personally make $30 million in one year I would say "This country has been good to me" and be pretty happy with my $12 million net after taxes!!!
Somewhere we need to tax more and/or spend less and cease ignoring the grisly deficit.
Painting that as "redistribution" is wrong. Our USA needs the money for roads and infrastructure and military and a border wall, eh??
Where to start???
Respectfully, feel free to give away your own "speculative earnings"; however, leave your hands off my "speculative earnings" and out of my actual wallet. :cheers:
A hypothetical proposal ...?
Somewhere we need to tax more and/or spend less and cease ignoring the grisly deficit.
Painting that as "redistribution" is wrong.
It most surely is.That 44% of eligible tax payers will not pay the employee side of income tax or get refunded 100% of tax withheld, yet will still participate in receiving federal goods, services, and benefits is wealth redistribution.
I actually believe in localized wealth redistribution!!! YES I DO. In fact, I think everyone on the board needs to redistribute JUST 10 Dollars to me and I will purchase a new gun that everyone will be allowed to enjoy.
Our nation is not great because we give shîttonnes of money in taxes to the federal government. Our nation is great because of the actions of those who have gone before--laying the foundation, crafting our Constitution, serving at all levels, and respecting the beautiful framework that has been built--and dying for its preservation when that has been required.OK.
Though it's not about "my hands" and it's not giving it away. It's about funding our great nation.
I'm vexed. How can we brag about how marvelous we and our nation are without wanting to fairly pay our expenditures.
Our top-earner income tax rate has been higher that 70% in the past....when we needed money to pay for WWII. It was 94% over $0.2 million.
https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx
We need more money now or we need to spend a great deal less. No-one likes either, though.
Our nation is not great because we give shîttonnes of money in taxes to the federal government. Our nation is great because of the actions of those who have gone before--laying the foundation, crafting our Constitution, serving at all levels, and respecting the beautiful framework that has been built--and dying for its preservation when that has been required.
And yes, we need (at the federal level) to spend a great deal less. A good start would be the elimination of the US Dept. of Education, elimination of fed.gov-supported housing projects, walking back certain entitlement programs, and permitting folks to manage their own SocSecurity investments. If it were up to me, Social Security would never exist, as I believe the Helvering decision was horribly decided in 1937, under the threat of FDR carrying out his "court packing" plan. Yep, Cardozo blew it, in my opinion.
Most of the social welfare programs that exist should ONLY exist--if at all--at the state and local level and NOT at the federal level. Promoting the general welfare does NOT equate to providing individual welfare . . . it means taking actions that promote EVERYONE'S welfare. As an example--the fed.gov using money to support the American Cancer Society to cure cancer as opposed to the fed.gov creating/operating the Centers for Disease Control. The former would not be appropriate, as you can't catch cancer from another person, whereas the latter would be appropriate as it deals with contagion and communicable diseases. I firmly believe in keeping the fed.gov within the metes & bounds laid out for it as enumerated powers in Art. I., Sec. 8. The abuse of the Commerce Clause and disregard for Amendment X are both never-ending cesspool of fed.gov power grabs and mission creep.