Quote:
Originally Posted by Demongod86
And frankly, I am ticked off that the government is allowing exorbitant salaries such as half a billion a year while there are homeless people...hell, put a 50% tax bracket on every dollar above $100 million and wham, how much money will that generate?
|
the odds ANYONE will earn 1/2 a billion dollars is slim to none. That'll only affect like 0.1% of the US population. Althetes don't even earn 1/2 a billion dollars. Sheesh. Don't you think Bill Gates has enough crap going for him? So to answer your question, probably not very much. But still more than what you're going to pay in taxes your entire life and probably my life combined, if I continue to do what I'm doing.
By the way, the top 10% of the wealth already pays for 60% of the federal taxes collected by the entire US. You also forget all the charities they help pay for, donations, stimulating the economy much more than what you or I can do.
Also the percent of income the rich keeps much lower income than one that gets paid less. For example if I made 100 dollars, and in the tax bracket of 30%. I'll pay 30 dollars in taxes. Lets say you're earning 50 dollars and in the 15% bracket. You get to pay $7.50 in taxes. Which means you have 40.25 dollars left to spend.
I may still have 30 dollars more than you do, but you pay less taxes than I do. This is how the US government taxation system works. You argue that should I be taxed even more so I also only get $40.25 of disposable income, since now we're equals, and me being richer I should pay more. Which leads me to my next point:
Exactly what incentive would anyone have to be rich, if the government forces taxes on you until you earn nearly as much as a middle class worker? Who would want to be bothered with all the extra work? For example, lets take a doctor, a fairly good postion, which is earning 100k+ (And this is really low).
Would you honestly regulate a doctors wages so the doctor gets as much as a nurse?
What about people in poverty? I say, don't do things you can't afford. Which includes, pumping out an extra kid, getting married at 15, run away, do drugs, drink, etc.
It's like people that get into credit card debt. They're techincally in poverty, since they have negitive disposible income. But you don't help people in CC debt (i.e pay for their bills, food, etc). It's not your fault they like to spend so much. And if you do, you're a moron.
Quote:
|
Message here? We wouldn't go nuts if there was no more Sunday football or Britney Spears CDs. We don't need to pay our entertainers millions and millions of dollars to fuel their TV shows or "my life the drama" BS. Hell, just look at Terell Owens going WAAAH WAAH WAAH with the eagles because of pay. At heart, I bet most entertainers think they deserve every single penny of the millions and millions that they earn, even though no other society pays its entertainers that damn much. I remember Troy Aikman said that teachers should be paid more than athletes. I never really forgot that, and the man's right. He's one of the very few respectable athletes in my book.
|
Look at Mrs. Spears now, nobody is buying her CDs, her career is finished, she's fat, pregant, and nobody really likes her. She'll be incredibly resourceful if she can maintain her life style. Look at Michael Jackson, he's in debt.
And they do deserve it. Lets take a look at the Beatles. Even if they only make 10 cents for every CD they sell, they deserve it. (Which is more or less what artists do make... for recordings and such...). It's incredibly hard to sell CDs. Look at all the failed bands that couldn't make it. You never hear anythign about them. They're just not good enough to sell. Their contract is terminated and they're off doing something else. So saying that these people don't deserve it is rediculous.
Hell I'll bet if you're a entertainer right now, making millions. You'll change your stance.