Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="diesel96" data-source="post: 687617" data-attributes="member: 9859">Re: Obamanation here today&nbsp;<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece" target="_blank">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece</a> &nbsp;No matter how you spin it, Percentage-wise, the average American middle-class person pays more than the average American upper-class person. Though, one-on-one, number-wise it&#039;s less, percentage-wise, it&#039;s greater. So lets stop arguing this improbable hypothetical anomaly.... comparing a bricklayer&#039;s taxed earnings against a successfull stockbroker at the same rate. Not happening in this country. Not without factoring in the higher wage earner&#039;s tax shelters and hugh deductions.... &nbsp;&nbsp;As a whole, at the end of the day, not only is the middle class eventually taxed at a higher rate, they contribute a much more alarming percentage of their earnings directly into the economy ? ... Now imagine all that lost Federal revenue if those making significantly more than 250k paid their fair share as the bricklayer, or even Warren Buffet&#039;s receptionist. Because we all know, there&#039;s a discrepentcy which favors the upper crust compared to the bottom feeders.&nbsp; &nbsp;<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece" target="_blank">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;In a capitalist society, capital is rewarded more than labor, skill, expertise and knowledge... money earns money disproportionately...... as a result, once a person crosses the threshold and begins to save money, his saved money begins to multiply and create more savings, hence, an upward spiral is set in motion.... on the other hand, one whose income falls below his expenses, he has to borrow and pay disproportionately higher reward for the money borrowed which leads to the spiral downwards...... this is the key reason why in a capitalist economy, the distribution of wealth is more skewed then what is warranted by the natural differences in earning capabilities of various people.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="diesel96, post: 687617, member: 9859"] [b]Re: Obamanation here today[/b] [URL="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece"][/URL] No matter how you spin it, Percentage-wise, the average American middle-class person pays more than the average American upper-class person. Though, one-on-one, number-wise it's less, percentage-wise, it's greater. So lets stop arguing this improbable hypothetical anomaly.... comparing a bricklayer's taxed earnings against a successfull stockbroker at the same rate. Not happening in this country. Not without factoring in the higher wage earner's tax shelters and hugh deductions.... As a whole, at the end of the day, not only is the middle class eventually taxed at a higher rate, they contribute a much more alarming percentage of their earnings directly into the economy ? ... Now imagine all that lost Federal revenue if those making significantly more than 250k paid their fair share as the bricklayer, or even Warren Buffet's receptionist. Because we all know, there's a discrepentcy which favors the upper crust compared to the bottom feeders. [URL]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece[/URL] In a capitalist society, capital is rewarded more than labor, skill, expertise and knowledge... money earns money disproportionately...... as a result, once a person crosses the threshold and begins to save money, his saved money begins to multiply and create more savings, hence, an upward spiral is set in motion.... on the other hand, one whose income falls below his expenses, he has to borrow and pay disproportionately higher reward for the money borrowed which leads to the spiral downwards...... this is the key reason why in a capitalist economy, the distribution of wealth is more skewed then what is warranted by the natural differences in earning capabilities of various people. [/QUOTE]

Verification