(04-08-2010 11:47 AM)moe24 Wrote:  

(04-08-2010 11:45 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-08-2010 10:55 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(04-08-2010 10:50 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-08-2010 09:53 AM)moe24 Wrote:  

(04-07-2010 02:48 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-07-2010 02:14 PM)moe24 Wrote:  

(04-07-2010 01:49 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  The 14th also needs to be revised.

What specifically?

Anchor babies

I get where you're coming from. Would you just delete that line, or would you rewrite it somehow?

He would re-write it to say if you are not white and not a Christian, you can't be a citizen of the US.

You really are a retarded f--k.

Can't handle the truth?

You never posted the truth.

Yes I did.

(04-08-2010 10:50 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-08-2010 09:53 AM)moe24 Wrote:  

(04-07-2010 02:48 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-07-2010 02:14 PM)moe24 Wrote:  

(04-07-2010 01:49 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  The 14th also needs to be revised.

What specifically?

Anchor babies

I get where you're coming from. Would you just delete that line, or would you rewrite it somehow?

He would re-write it to say if you are not white and not a Christian, you can't be a citizen of the US.

smn's an atheist dumb***.

Can't people see both sides of this argument? On one hand when someone doesn't have skin in the game. There's something fundamentally wrong about that. On the other hand it's hard to move up social classes in a generation. I would classify my upbringing as middle to lower class. I was the first college graduate in my family. I owe my college education to the UAW. Unions gave the middle class a fighting chance. It's a *** **** shame the destruction of the unions. When you read that plutonomy memo I linked. That's who pays the taxes because that's where the money is at!! I can't remember the specifics I'll go back and look but 2% of the population control 90% of the money. Where do you think the money is going to come from?

Quote:The top 10%, whose mean annual income level was U$302,000 in 2004 have lost out a little
in terms of their share of income, with this falling from a peak of 45% of national income in
2001 to “just” 43% of total US income, in 2004. Meanwhile, the fortunes of the next 10%
improved modestly, to 15% of total income. The top 20% account in aggregate for 58% of
total income (down from 59% in 2001). By contrast, the bottom 40% account for only 10%
of total income. The top 10% earn over four times as much as the bottom 40% combined.
The share of the wealth continues to be even more aggressively skewed, with the top 10%
accounting for 57% of the national wealth, as they did in 2001. In total, the top 20% account
for 68% of total income; the bottom 40%, for just 9%.
The overall point here is that the rich continue to be in great shape, in relative terms. Indeed,
their net wealth to income ratio (Figure 3) has risen since the 2001 survey was published. It
now stands at 8.4, in other words, net wealth is over eight times annual income. In 1995 this
ratio was a relatively meager 6.2.We think this rising wealth is the real reason why the rich
are happy to keep consuming, and are behaving rationally in so doing.

How can they pay taxes? The bottom 40% make 9%.

(04-08-2010 01:35 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

Quote:The top 10%, whose mean annual income level was U$302,000 in 2004 have lost out a little
in terms of their share of income, with this falling from a peak of 45% of national income in
2001 to “just” 43% of total US income, in 2004. Meanwhile, the fortunes of the next 10%
improved modestly, to 15% of total income. The top 20% account in aggregate for 58% of
total income (down from 59% in 2001). By contrast, the bottom 40% account for only 10%
of total income. The top 10% earn over four times as much as the bottom 40% combined.
The share of the wealth continues to be even more aggressively skewed, with the top 10%
accounting for 57% of the national wealth, as they did in 2001. In total, the top 20% account
for 68% of total income; the bottom 40%, for just 9%.
The overall point here is that the rich continue to be in great shape, in relative terms. Indeed,
their net wealth to income ratio (Figure 3) has risen since the 2001 survey was published. It
now stands at 8.4, in other words, net wealth is over eight times annual income. In 1995 this
ratio was a relatively meager 6.2.We think this rising wealth is the real reason why the rich
are happy to keep consuming, and are behaving rationally in so doing.

How can they pay taxes? The bottom 40% make 9%.

so have them pay 9% of the taxes.

I GET that the wealthy should pay more... I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with that. What I have a problem with is people who will never have to pay a dime for something are voting themselves to a better life. If a 1% increase in "community" spending meant a 1% decline in their personal after tax income, they might be more careful to insure that the 1% increase in spending netted them a 2% (or 10%) increase in income. As it is now, every dime is gravy.

Exempt some necessities just like we do from sales tax... but tax EVERYONE something. Otherwise, we're just counting on taxing 49% of the population and letting the 51% write themselves a blank check... and then the 49% wonders why the 51% tries to use the influence that their money buys them to keep the check from being too big.