Roadsterrider · 56-60, M
Becoming wealthy isn't risk free. Businesses rise and fall, companies come and go. Invention of new things has been a great boon for the world, patented medical procedures and medicines have saved countless lives. Travel from east to west coast in a matter of a few hours when it used to take months. Medical devices like walkers and pacemakers allow people mobility and add years to their lives. Cell phones, the internet, things we rely on today, the people who invented these things, who worked to make it happen, who got rich from their intellectual capacity and drive, would they do it if the government on a whim could wipe them out financially, what is the reason to risk everything if it can just randomly be taken away to be spread out among those who never risked anything?
I don't think there should be a redistribution of wealth. I would be in favor of a flat tax, 10-12% everybody pays, no deductions, no loopholes. I pay 10%, Bill Gates pays 10%, the kid working at McDonald's sweeping floors for min wage pays 10%. That would be fair. Nothing matters except how much you made, not whether you are married have 15 kids, just 10% of the gross.
I don't think there should be a redistribution of wealth. I would be in favor of a flat tax, 10-12% everybody pays, no deductions, no loopholes. I pay 10%, Bill Gates pays 10%, the kid working at McDonald's sweeping floors for min wage pays 10%. That would be fair. Nothing matters except how much you made, not whether you are married have 15 kids, just 10% of the gross.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
Not necessarily a full redistribution. Just a weighing down on the top end.
I'm not really for fully stifling the wealthy, yet it has gotten to the point where the wealth is exponential. Not just multiple times the average person.
There is simply no excuse for that type of wealth.
I'm not really for fully stifling the wealthy, yet it has gotten to the point where the wealth is exponential. Not just multiple times the average person.
There is simply no excuse for that type of wealth.
We have a graduated income tax. If the tax code was written as it was intended by the authors of the 16th amendment, that would be all we would need to redistribute wealth. Problem is all the rich people who dodge the impact of a graduated income tax with "loopholes."
The 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1913, is the amendment that allowed for a graduated income tax by granting Congress the power to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states based on population. This authorization made it possible for the government to tax individuals at different rates based on their income, leading to the progressive tax system used today.
The 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1913, is the amendment that allowed for a graduated income tax by granting Congress the power to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states based on population. This authorization made it possible for the government to tax individuals at different rates based on their income, leading to the progressive tax system used today.
vetguy1991 · 51-55, M
Not in my opinion
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
@jshm2 I don't think even they know what they are suggesting since many of the firings that were done under the photo op of the Doge chainsaw which were intended to represent savings to the government at the cost of jobs to the economy (not to mention the personal pain it caused) were reversed to balance the inefficiency that the chainsaw firings caused.
My question is more along the lines of Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wealth distribution where a wealth threshold is set by the government and money is taken in the form of a tax and redistributed to others through government programs.
My question is more along the lines of Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wealth distribution where a wealth threshold is set by the government and money is taken in the form of a tax and redistributed to others through government programs.