If you muzzle the oxes that plow the corn they will stop working for you. If you force people to work for you with limited reward you get limited effort. The only way to get poeple to commit to something with their whole heart, spirit and soul is REWARD, not legislation.
'[WOLF Ionizer;4288147']Is 232 years too soon for social upheaval and complete destruction and then rebuilding of the American Nation? Seriously, we need every single politician to get AIDS (we've have 100 cures within the month) and die. Then we can start over.
:rofl:Totally agree... not with the other stuff though!!! See, my whole thing is that we should tax consumption, not production. Reason being, its pretty pointless to tax businesses. They will simply pass that along to the consumer. They will never even feel it. And as I understand it, the top 1% of wage earners pay for 40% of all taxes...
Less taxes you put on the rich, the more money they'll have to put back into the economy, instead of into the hands of greedy, pork-bill loving politicians on both sides of the aisle. When asked if I'd trust a politician or a business man more, I'll always say the business man. Because, in the end, the success of the business man is directly associated with him giving me what I want. The success of a politician is only from him saying nice things that make the people think he's giving them what they want.
You've gotta love the "tax the rich" crowd.
The hang up happens, however, when the term "rich" is defined. We all have our own opinion on what it takes to be "rich". Personally, I think that someone needs a net worth of several million dollars to be considered rich. Some out there would probably consider someone who makes $100K or so a year as rich. While a recent letter to the editor in our local paper accused folks of making $30K a year as being rich?!?
So if we're taxing the "rich", who decides who is "rich".
Not to mention the old adage - have you ever asked a poor person for a job?