I'd actually be fine with wealth redistribution.
"Half full or half empty doesn't matter. What matters is, you've only got half a glass...so what are you going to do about it?" - Me
The message sent to the poor is that the rich in America have more money than they can even spend - way to rub it in.
So? Something doesn't have to be a perfect system, it just needs to be better than what we already have.Playing Robin Hood with the tax code to achieve balance between rock/sports stars, those with extremely high incomes, and the average workers will result in more "loopholes" to protect those like HRC.
I'm not sure what concept you are refering to, but if we eliminated income taxes for the 99%, that in itself would be a huge tax code simplification - effecting 99% of us for the better.If such a concept were ever actually proposed as law you can rest assured that it would not include tax code simplification - even Obama dared not alter 98.6% of the "Bush" income tax rates. Trying to finance a nation by taxing only the 1% more will never actually be implemented and everyone, including HRC, knows that.
You know why poor people sometimes spend money on tatoos? Because it's the one thing that you can get for a hundred dollars (or less) that you will have for the rest of your life, if a tattoo makes them happy, it's literally the best investment they can make, a lifetime of happyness for less than a paycheck.
"...[politicians] are increasingly adopting anti-Wall Street rhetoric... [to] appeal to voters’ distrust of the financial sector.
In recent weeks, [one politician] declared he is "fed up" with Wall Street's antics, [another politician] slammed Goldman Sachs and [yet another politician] derided the banking industry as rife with greed.
"We have more banks with more concentrated assets in the United States, and the systematic risk is perhaps greater now...." [one politician] told reporters this month.
The observation from [that politician], .... is not unlike remarks made by from bank basher Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass), with both politicians noting that the largest financial institutions have grown in size since Congress passed Dodd-Frank....
"I think Americans are fed up — I am — with Wall Street getting treated specially," said [one politician] "There is nothing too big to fail in my opinion, when it comes to big banks, big corporate entities."....
[another politician] told Bloomberg TV in March that Goldman Sachs "is one of the biggest banks on Wall Street, and my criticism with Washington is they engage in crony capitalism."
"They give favors to Wall Street and big businesses,” [that politician] said on Bloomberg TV. .....
[yet another politician] said on NBC's "Meet The Press" in April that "there's too much greed" on Wall Street."
"I’ll tell you the problem with Wall Street: it is too much about ‘I gotta make money’,” [that politician] said on NBC."
original article with the names of the politicians
The idea that two folks working side by side for the same gross income should pay different FIT amounts based on how (or upon who) that income was later spent makes absolutely no sense at all. We managed to create (and still support?) a very regressive SS/Medicare tax (insurance?) system but somehow many insist on having a very much more progressive FIT system - that also makes no sense at all.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
Why? The mean average amount of value created by the America workers is around $130k. Placing an income tax on any income below that amount is counter productive to any real need for income redistribution (assuming that such need even exists). For that matter, I don't see why we would want to tax people who make over the mean average but less than the amount of value which can be reasonably created by a human being. I would propose a standard per income earner tax deduction of $400k (about where our top tax rate starts now), and as low of a tax as possible on any income above that amount.
I fully agree that the first few (lets say $20K to $30K) dollars of annual income should be federal income tax free but after that I would like to see a fixed rate applied to the balance (excess?).
I totally agree. That's part of the reason that I suggest we exempt most people and most income from income tax.The idea that two folks working side by side for the same gross income should pay different FIT amounts based on how (or upon who) that income was later spent makes absolutely no sense at all.
I agree. SS/medicare should be paid out of the general fund, and benefits shouldn't be linked to ones income.We managed to create (and still support?) a very regressive SS/Medicare tax (insurance?) system but somehow many insist on having a very much more progressive FIT system - that also makes no sense at all.