Carbon Tax, timing is everything

[fishbones]

What you guys are talking about is that phrase that Spence hates: "redistribution of wealth". I'm not wealthy, but I don't believe that wealthy people should be taxed more just because they have more. They already pay the most, why should they have pay more.

Take the money from the politicians. I wonder if you'd hear any complaints from Congress if they were to have their "expense" money taken and redistributed to the needy. Or cut back on their car services and free meals. They certainly make enough to drive their own cars and pay for meals, don't they? I'm sure if that was proposed, it wouldn't get very far.

Keep in mind that many of the high wage earners are business owners who employ and provide benefits to others. If they have no incentive to grow their businesses, the can't create more jobs. This is just a way to discourage people from trying to grow businesses and by extension, the economy.

And many of the "rich" aren't doing just fine. Ask a guy who has a lot of his assets in investments if he's doing "fine" right now. You might just get a tall chock in the gulliver.

[EarnedStripes44]

Originally Posted by fishbones

What you guys are talking about is that phrase that Spence hates: "redistribution of wealth". I'm not wealthy, but I don't believe that wealthy people should be taxed more just because they have more. They already pay the most, why should they have pay more.

I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but were talking an increase of 3% for take home pay and a change from 15% to roughly 36% on capital gains taxes - ballpark. I would hardly call that a disincentive but than again I dont buy into many of the assumptions of classical economics and human behavior.

I think before Reagan, the government took 80 cents of every $1.00 earned above the $3,000,000 income threshold - now that, one could argue, is a bit much. But then again, thats still 250,000 dollars, not exactly chump change.

Originally Posted by fishbones

Take the money from the politicians. I wonder if you'd hear any complaints from Congress if they were to have their "expense" money taken and redistributed to the needy. Or cut back on their car services and free meals. They certainly make enough to drive their own cars and pay for meals, don't they? I'm sure if that was proposed, it wouldn't get very far.

Agreed

Originally Posted by fishbones

And many of the "rich" aren't doing just fine. Ask a guy who has a lot of his assets in investments if he's doing "fine" right now. You might just get a tall chock in the gulliver.

Humans can get used to just about anything....why are the rich any different?

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

Humans can get used to just about anything....why are the rich any different?

Yes they can, but they shouldn't be forced by the government to.

Why don't we just take your theory on economics and apply it to other areas of life.

In high schools, lets take all of the students who get A's and knock them down to B's. We can then give all the C students B's. That way, they can get into the same colleges as the hard working, more intelligent A students. Hey, the A students can still get into college so what's the harm?

In the Olympics, lets take away some Gold Medals from the US team because they won too many. Give a few to Lithuania and Bolivia because they don't have any. It's ok though because even though the US athletes worked hard and trained for years for their medals, the team still has the most.

I know these examples are far fetched, but hopefully you can see where your logic is flawed.

People who work hard should not be forced to give up what they earned when they are already giving a lot more than their fair share.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Take the money from the politicians. I wonder if you'd hear any complaints from Congress if they were to have their "expense" money taken and redistributed to the needy. Or cut back on their car services and free meals. They certainly make enough to drive their own cars and pay for meals, don't they? I'm sure if that was proposed, it wouldn't get very far.

I agree completely. Some people aren't aware that Congress gets an automatic $4,700 pay increase yearly unless they vote not to. How many people here would vote *against* them getting more money? Ron Paul is one of the very few people that has been for preventing the pay increase, he has also been for reducing the amount of paid expenses that should be covered. Realistically though, the problem with the system is that the people who vote on Congressional salaries and budgets are the people who benefit from them.