I think so (as in it's abused, unfair), and I think that's why liberals are upset (and so should be conservatives) because it hampers the ability of the free market to function properly.
Last edited by David D.; 08-24-11 at 11:06 AM.
"Fewer than one in seven individual income taxpayers reported taxable capital gains in 2006. Over half of taxpayers with gains had incomes below $75,000,..."
Who Pays Capital Gains Tax?
Also mentioned that both the left and right should be equally angry so I'm not sure how the 'fact that the left is as well represented' derails my argument. It's no secret that Obama gave $700 freaking billion dollars of our hard made cash to people who seemed not to care about anything else than making money through fraud and corruption. Garbage mortgage securities given "AAA" ratings? Give me a break. We need more accountability, not more regulation.
Last edited by David D.; 08-24-11 at 11:47 AM.
To restate my point, let me start with (one) definition of democracy:
"Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives"
I am frustrated by the fact that if you happen to have a boat-load of wealth and money, you have the ability to have a much more powerful say as to how laws are shaped. It's not the people we need to be mad at, it's the system. "Money" should not equal "a louder voice" in Washington. I don't have the answers on how to change this, perhaps we can start however by eliminating Super-PACs, limiting campaign funding, and encouraging new avenues that people can learn about and/or nominate candidates besides the national mainstream media. I think total transparency as to who's giving money to who is a good start.
Last edited by David D.; 08-24-11 at 01:33 PM.
You are assuming that wealthy people go around and hand out money to politicians for votes. I don't believe that most politicians vote that way. For example, take whichever side of abortion you want, do you think that someone as rich as Bill Gates could persuade you to vote the opposite of your beliefs. I doubt it. Or, how about the Affordable Health Care Act which was recently passed. Do you believe that the Democrats were bought and paid for because they voted for it? And, were the Republicans bought and paid for because they voted against it? I don't think that was the case. I believe that philosophical differences exist between the GOP and the Dems and that is why bipartisan votes are difficult to come by. If people with money could just walk in a bribe people to vote the way they wanted them to, there would be no gridlock in Washington. George Soros would have the GOP voting as if they were Dems and the Koch Brothers would have Dems voting for GOP items.
Yes, you were far too general in your initial statement, but I fear that you are far too jaded and cynical about politics and the wealthy.
Last edited by LesGovt; 08-24-11 at 04:19 PM.
"Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.
The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.
Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners."
Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says - New York Times
Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb