|
|
| Re: Portal … take two w/link (1470078) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Portal … take two w/link |
|
|
Posted by Bill West on Tue Mar 20 04:38:28 2018, in response to Re: Portal … take two w/link, posted by italianstallion on Mon Mar 19 19:41:43 2018. General-the outcome for redistributing the wealth of all the billionaires is a mere $37 per week per family. That would take them once a week to a restaurant that was just enough up from MacDonald's that it had a license so the adults could have a beer. In the meantime our industries would be in disarray. Jackson, Broadway -we're a bit off course here but just to acknowledge your posts: -have you allowed for the fact that non salary income has already been subjected to tax at the corporate level? As Social Security has a maximum payout of $xx is there a reason for collecting contributions on more than that? Looking beyond the surface for such details is part of factual advocacy. Neither the businesses nor the "rich" can evade anything here that the government hasn't provided for them to do, the IRS has accountants just as skilled at reading between the lines as the businesses. Taking the offered exemptions is no different than the "poor" taking all of their exceptions and deviations from base rates. -if you want to consider alternate schemes how about this: rich or poor, pay for what you actually take, no more no less -period. None of this "other people" dictating that you should subsidize someone else. After all this is what we already do for the three most important material things to life: food, clothing and shelter. Going to user pay for transit would remove any valid basis for non-users to obstruct any transit schemes. Olag -is this on course?: -half of the talk here is "new ideas" that rely on cross siphoning money to work, so I don't think suggesting ways for the advocates to improve their arguments is off topic. Bill |
|
|
|