Love what? Comparing apples to oranges.? Since when does investing and creating jobs equate to taxing more to create less jobs. If consumptio
n were taxed instead of income, the wealthy would pay more for their lifestyles
..
If the richest already pay 71% of the taxes, what level works for you? 90%? 99%?
What insanity promotes ever more rapidly growing poor population
s that utilize more and more scarce resources in an ever-incre
asing societal death spiral?
Here's another one; let those who are rich(er) volunteer to pay as much as they want to support social programs. It wouldn't cover even 25% of the "tab" even if they gave up 99% of their income each year. It wouldn't help much, but they could "feel better" about their contributi
on.Without the already high tax rates on the middle class and wealthier households
, there would be no way to "pay the bills."
How about this? Let's levy a two percent surtax on the wealthiest to pay for population control incentives for minority, poor, and anyone who wants toparticip
ate. Five year birth control implants at age 13 for girls, and reversable vasectomie
s for boys, paid for with those funds, along with a $5,000 college incentive for HS grads as part of the deal, and another $5,000 grant at 18, with an implant renewal. Along with a one baby per family policy for a generation
.
A taste of higher standards of living and education might make a substantia
l difference in a few years.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment