posted
Except the dems are talking about letting the Bush tax cuts expire... all of them. including the $300 tax cut all tax payers received. (10% tax bracket)
My thoughts are; everyone pays income tax if you are employed. 10% of all earnings would be fair to everyone. If you make $2,000 a year, you pay $200 in income tax. If you make $20,000,000 a year, you pay $2,000,000 in income tax.
There is no reason to penalize one class of citizens and give preferential treatment to another class of citizens. We all live here, we all should contribute to the financing of our government.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not accurate, Ocala. From 1980 to 1988, federal income tax revenue rose from $885 billion to $1,676 billion, almost doubling in 8 short years. The problem Reagan had was the congressional democrats promised to cut spending and, as usual, they lied.
The only fair way to raise the money for our Federal government is to tax everyone at the same rate. We are all supposed to be equal, right?
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike I think what you are overlooking is the fact that $100 to one family may be the difference between food and medicine to another. the lower the income the harder it is to get by. Plus which it seems to me if we were all really equal everyone wwould make the same amt. of salary.Please correct me if I am wrong but isn't that what socialism is suppoed to be?
Posts: 1577 | From: virginia | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Train Lady, none of us are equal, but we should all be equal under the law. If you pay 10% of your pay, then I should pay 10% of my pay to maintain our government. If you get 10 years in jail for robbing a bank, I should get 10 years for robbing that same bank.
I have been poor and there are resources I have tapped into to get food on the table. Someone that is poor should not be relieved of their duty to help finance our government.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike I ssee your point but I don't agree with you which makes neither of us right or wrong.
Posts: 1577 | From: virginia | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not true, Train Lady. I can easily be 70% right and you can easily be 30% right. Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You could be but you're not/ The heat has probably made your figures reverse!!
Posts: 1577 | From: virginia | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mike Smith wrote: we should all be equal under the law
Careful with that statement. It was made explicit in the USSR's constitution, but we all know how "equal" they were there — a fulfillment of Churchill's prediction of "equal sharing of misery".
quote:Article 34. Citizens of the USSR are equal before the law, without distinction of origin, social or property status, race or nationality, (gender), education, language, attitude to religion, type and nature of occupation, domicile, or other status.
The equal rights of citizens of the USSR are guaranteed in all fields of economic, political, social, and cultural life.
The European Union also has that "equal before the law" clause in the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 20), made binding by the Treaty of Lisbon. (And their government in Brussels is a carbon copy of the Soviet government.) Both the USSR and EU grant rights through the government, as opposed to the Bill of Rights recognizing that the people retain their rights.
Posts: 566 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not equal "before the law"; equal "under the law". There is a subtle distinction between the two. Our US Constitution is supposed to be the Supreme law of the land and we all should be treated the same under that Constitution.
And yes, I understand some of us are more equal than others.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There should be no subtleties in distinction, since subtleties imply vagueness. Is there a blatant distinction? because a lot of self-professed and even legal authorities regard the two phrases as exactly synonymous, per the other phrase "legal egalitarianism" which is itself vague. (The state seal of Nebraska has "Equality before the law" on a banner within its field.)
As far as the Constitution goes, the Bill of Rights is the chief denominator between it and the constitutions of tyrannies. The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 guarantees equal protection of the laws.
Posts: 566 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
