I'm not talking about the tax cuts for businesses. I'm talking about money that ends up in the pocket of the average joe. That money is far more likely to go to Walmart than to... Ma & Pa's Market.
Then you're talking about the smallest percentage of the tax cuts. The tax cuts for the middle class were miniscule in comparison to the "tax cuts for the wealthy" that Al Gore referenced in his attempts at gaining the presidency. Bush implemented those "tax cuts for the wealthy" and the "wealthy" described are in fact small businesses.
Secondly, you have no idea where people's money goes. You're speaking completely from your own opinion and then passing it off as if it were well known, documented fact. The truth is you don't know where a person's money goes. The truth is you don't know what you're talking about and I will demonstrate that as I go.
Anyway, in response to your post, the people who make the most money SHOULD pay the most money.
Hold the proverbial phone of justice, Batman. Why? We automatically assume this to be the truth but we don't explain why. We don't defend why a person who makes more money pays more money in taxes. Since when does the government have the right to "Taxation without Representation?" You heard me.
To tax someone more than others and then not to give them extra representation in the government is a great evil and it is illegal, too. Yet it is done and the wealthy just take it because they feel its their duty as an American, it's a choice, not something the law can enforce. A wealthy man who pays double your taxes should have two votes, don't you agree? No, you don't? Why not you say???
Is that because we're all EQUAL under the law? See you want none of the responsibility and all of the privelages. Meanwhile, those who make more money are sucked dry by the federal income tax and they don't even complain. Well, unless they're Teresa Heinz Kerry who only pays 12% federal income tax but that's neither here nor there.
The important point you are missing is that there is no legal basis for taxation. It's completely voluntary and traditional. To legislate that the wealthy forfeit more of their money and the poor get to benefit from that money is unfair, evil and it is very communist. That's what this topic is about, after all.
Want to be communist? Take the wealthy's money and give it to the poor so everybody can have the same. Yeah, that'll spur economic growth.
The maximum amount anyone has to pay is 35% of taxable net income. Meaning, Mikey Millionaire, making $50 million a year, will give up $17.5 million at the most. Someone who has $50 million isn't going to miss $17.5 million as much as someone who has $20,000 will miss $7,000.
Why not? Who says he won't miss it? What if he wanted to purchase another building to expand his business? What if he wanted to use that money to buy everyone in his family a brand new Corvette? Why on earth is it your business what a person in this country of liberty and freedom does with his money?
I'll tell you one thing, that's a disgusting and horrible point of view. So a person has money. "They won't miss it, they're already rich". Hells bells, they won't miss it. You miss $20 bucks if I stole it from you, wouldn't you? You'd probably be pretty teed off over a dollar, too?
You are blinded by your hatred for those who have more than you and your pink colors are showing. What if the homeless tackled you and stole everything in your wallet. Hey, to them you're rich and you won't miss that money. Where does the madness end? At what percent taxation will you be happy? Can you explain that to me? Or is it one of those "hard to explain" fuzzy areas that liberals can't possibly convey to anyone else using words because all of their thoughts are expressed through advanced symbological processes inside the glorious theatres of their own minds?
Of course, thats the maximum. In reality, taxes are lower than that for low income families/individuals. 10 percent is the minimum.
So the rich pay not only more because they make more, they pay more because they just straight up pay a higher percent. There's no balance there. I hope you're seeing this by now.
By the way, your analogy is incorrect. It's more that those two people load the 80 bricks into thier $80,000 Hummer H2s and drive off to thier destination, while the other 8 set them in Honda Civics, bicycles, or just in thier hands as they walk.
The analogy I gave illustrates that those who are stronger are expected to work exponentially harder than those who are weaker. People don't use their Hummer H2's to help them pay taxes. Likewise, the poor don't have more trouble paying taxes because they don't own a car. Flawed and nonsensical is what your analogy is. The bricks represent tax burden, the strong and the weak man represent the wealthy and the poor.
What then do the vehicles represent but your own contempt and jealousy of those who have more then yourself.
Does this make sense to you?
No. And neither do you.
