<p>Kennedy proposed cutting capital gains tax from 25% to 19.5%. Part of that proposal was to recoup at death, however. Without that stipulation, he did not support the cut in capital gains tax.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a convenient correlation with no factual substance which could actually support any worthwhile conclusion.
To be fair… I could point out that 1983-2007 saw only one instance of negative growth, according to that chart. Lower average, but more stable?</p>
<p>Lol…</p>
<p>We have noticed that the beloved mantra “The rich should pay their fair share” usually turns out to mean couples earning >250k and singles earning >200k. It’s funny how the examples in all this rhetoric are about millionaires and billionaires but the reality of the proposed tax changes would hit lots and lots of small businesses and gazillions of double income couples with student loan debt (themselves and their kids), mortgages and retirements to fund — not to mention very uncertain job security themselves.</p>
<p>But it does sound good. Those evil bad rich people. Yeah. They need to start handing their money over because it really belongs to us (the people who aren’t rich).</p>
<p>It is pretty amazing what is going down right now. I think there is some truly irresponsible behavior on the part of thought leaders trying to foment this stuff. Puts me in mind of the Salem witch trials. Isn’t Roseanne calling for the guillotine?</p>
<p>Where is the real greed, the true covetous behavior going on right now? To me, it’s the turkeys in the “protests.”</p>
<p>Which of three is better?</p>
<p>We have a small country.:)</p>
<p>A gdp of $100 where $90 goes to one person and $10 goes to 9 people?</p>
<p>A gdp of $90 where $45 goes to one person and $45 goes to 9 people?</p>
<p>A gdp of $70 where everyone gets the same (10 people each get $7).</p>
<p>dstark - a country where the country did not distribute wealth but people instead generated wealth.</p>
<p>The united states redistributes wealth everyday…some of it to the most wealthy…this is a very hard concept to understand…</p>
<p>Our tax laws and regulations are not written by God.</p>
<p>And the way they are written helps decide how much everybody gets. </p>
<p>If we taxed capital more and didn’t tax labor…the wealthy would still be wealthy…but workers would have more…But this is not going to happen…and I don’t advocate this. It’s an extreme…like there aee only two choices capitalism…and socialism…it’s ridiculous…but I digress…</p>
<p>If the tax laws and/or regulaions change individusl wealth is affect. If there is a financial transaction tax…which any seem to advocate…my wealth is going to drop…quite a bit maybe.</p>
<p>So…you know this sewhappy, and spideygirl knows this and I know this and other posters know this…so let 's not pretend the current tax laws and regulations are god given…even though the chairman of goldman sachs thinks he does god’s work.</p>
<p>Maybe if we redistribute enough, we could be a socialist country</p>
<p>I would be happy if we just had some safety nets for our most vulnerable citizens. It would be cheaper to send people to college than to prison.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Get back to me when you can find ANYTHING that supports your fantasy that the rich only need a little more money in their pockets and then they will unleash the jobs.</p>
<p>ETA – That is, anything that you can back up with facts.</p>
<p>*The budget that provides a very generous package of benefits to city workers, assistance recipients, etc. Those of us who’ve lived here a long time know how scary downturns on Wall Street can be for things like the school system. *</p>
<p>And what about the 95% that are not gov’t employees. That is exactly what is happening in Greece, Portugal, Italy, etc., etc… And the same is just starting to happen here. </p>
<p>We have reached a point of "The HELL with what it costs everyone else! I want mine! I AM ENTITLED!!!"</p>
<p>How large and comfy should the safety nets be? I am of the opinion few people should collect benefits without some type of contribution on their part,be it litter patrol,volunteering at a food pantry,soup kitchen etc…exceptions would be for stay at home moms and the elderly…</p>
<p>I’m not talking about a welfare state. I don’t think our children and elderly should be going hungry. Can’t we do better than that?</p>
<p>^^^^I should hope so^^^</p>
<p>bethievt,</p>
<p>bless your heart . . . are you aware of actual hunger statistics in the United States? </p>
<p>This is not about starvation. It’s about coveting what other people have. I think we do need to be clear on that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I like your example.</p>
<p>But who has the right to give $90 to 1 person while everyone else $1.1 a piece?</p>
<p>The real question is who owns the 90 dollars? The government? Society? The people who earned it?</p>
<p>sewhappy–I don’t think there are people in the US literally starving, like kids in Africa, but I know there are hungry children and seniors. I could dig up numbers if you don’t believe me. This is not about everyone having an IPhone.</p>
<p>My husband and I make a good income as structural engineers. We run our two-person firm out of our home. We EARN our money. My husband is still working, at 10:15 on a Sunday night! 38% of our income already goes to taxes. We have to pay for unemployment insurance even though we are not eligible to collect unemployment! I don’t understand why any of our income should be “redistributed.” And yes, we donate money to our church and other charities. But that should be OUR decision, not the government’s.</p>
<p>
Glad you realized how ridiculous it is to draw random, convenient conclusions based on… nothing :)</p>