First of all, I think one or two of you are confusing socialism with communism. Socialism is about people getting paid what they work for and having the equality so everyone has an opportunity at that. It's not the laziest person getting paid the same as the hardest worker. This whole "redistributing wealth and taking it from the rich" is NOT socialism. Socialism helps pay for our highways, Police, firefighters, etc. Socialism is not a bad thing. Communism has proved itself to be in other countries, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the theory itself is bad.
However, because Klamath summed up everything I wanted to say regarding the American Dream quite nicely, I want to question those of you who feel that the rich people "deserve" the wealth and have "earned" it. Instead of focusing on the poor, why not focus on the rich?
Fox News just loves to call those on welfare "moochers," "takers," and even "parasites." Poor people are apparently abusing taxpayers. What? Because they live off of food stamps? It's clear to me that capitalists have assumed that money = hard work. No money = no hard work. What about the single mom working two jobs and raising a kid at the same time? Is she not working hard enough to break through the barrier? Capitalism has made it nearly impossible for the low class to "break through" to the middle class.
No one is suggesting that the rich simply give their money to the poor. But it is not unreasonable to ask them to STOP taking advantages of tax loopholes. Why are the rich--those who can afford to pay more taxes-- paying less than those who can barely afford to feed themselves? Many large corporations are actually paid money by the government instead of paying taxes. More than FOUR BILLION dollars in tax subsides that are given to (already profitable) oil companies alone. Are you seriously telling me that these CEOs making billions of dollars work that much harder than those who are poor?
I am from a very well off family. My parents don't do an insane amount of work and have a lot of free time. Instead of spending thousands of dollars on purses, shoes, and vacations, we could easily pay a higher percentage in taxes.
First bold: I have never seen Fox call someone like that a moocher. Fox calls people who live on food stamps, have no job, are not looking for a job, refuse offers of 10+ dollar an hour easy jobs, and eat lobster and surf all day moochers. Because theya re.
By the way, socialism is not paying for public services - that's called "paying for public services with taxpayer money" or "taxation". However, it is socialism when the government tries to take over what should be general charity's work - helping the poor, especially to the extent they do now.
Furthermore, how did those people become CEOs? Do you think they were "born" into being a CEO? Sure, their job now may not be super duper tough, but how did they
get there? They worked through the ranks, didn't do anything to make their superiors mad, and got promoted all the way. OR, they opened up their own company, which is already a hard thing to do with all these government regulations, and were able to make themselves successful. CEOs do not just pop out of thin air.
"But it is not unreasonable to ask them to STOP taking advantages of tax loopholes." This is already against at least 3 federal tax laws. If the IRS would spend their time auditing people instead of denying tax-exempt status for perfectly legal conservative organizations, maybe they'd catch more of the criminals and get them to pay their taxes.
"Many large corporations are actually
paid money by the government instead of paying taxes. More than FOUR BILLION dollars in tax subsides that are given to (already profitable) oil companies alone." - I'd love to see the statistic for anything other than the oil companies. But I'll also remind you that the federal government under the Obama administration has found some way to make the price of gas in the US rise from an average of <$2 per gallon to about $4 per gallon. But I definitely agree we should not be subsidizing large companies, or "stimulating" the economy (which stimulus=inflation in all reality, look at what the few Obama has pushed through have done to prices).
"we could easily pay a higher percentage in taxes." - My father is barely below a 6 figure salary (like, barely). We are strapped for cash - mainly
because we don't use tax loopholes, we don't move money around to try to trick the IRS, etc. If our tax rate went up from the already high percentage it is, we'd probably be faced with me having to drop out of college and not go to even community college.
----
That's really the problem with a progressive (sectored, partitioned, whatever you want to call it) tax scale. People who follow the system end up paying the taxes for those who don't. If we had one flat rate tax for everyone - rich, poor, middle, etc, plus an exemption (0 income tax rate) for those below a certain level, it'd be much much simpler, less hassle, and less opportunities to cheat. But the democrats on capitol hill will refuse to even acknowledge this as a viable solution, and instead push forward with their "raise the taxes on the 1% to pay for the people who wiggle their way out of taxes".
Overall I think we should just do what the Queen of England did in (i think) Australia many years ago - disband the entire parliament (our congress), and make them re-elect people. However we'll have to wait a few months for that to happen
-----
EDIT: I would also like to add that these hard-working, morally sound millionaires pay for lobbyists to continue to nudge (mostly Republican) members of Congress to continue passing laws and creating more tax policy that is only beneficial to them. You know that saying, "Get the money out of politics"?
-My edit:
Not really. Did you know that many many of the lobbyists on capitol hill are either union-affiliated (liberal leaning) or Obama lobbyists sent to push whatever he wants (cause his ideas aren't even popular with lots of his own party)? Furthermore, the Republicans don't own the senate, and have a relatively slim majority in the house, so they can't do anything on their own.
(like i said, flat rate tax would solve all of that - no need to lobby for any changes as the only changes that'd need made are "do we raise the tax a tenth of a percent this year to pay for nasa to send someone to neptune or something")
