Why did Justice Roberts betray the Republic? He's drugged to the eyeballs!

I don't know, it seemed to work fine until the early 80's where the tax rate was lowered from 70% to 50% and then to 30% in the late 80's. It was 91% from the 40's to the 50's.

Oddly enough the economy has been going downhill since the tax rates have been lowered.

I suppose if you wanted to be really REALLY rich, under such high tax rates, you'd have to OPEN MORE FACTORIES AND CREATE MORE JOBS.

DUH!!!

But no, too many idiots have drunken the "trickle down" KoolAid and actually believe that this idiotic theory creates jobs

LOL!!!

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

That makes you a perfect volunteer. You should be proud of your selflessness and leave the others to do their bidding unencumbered.
However, remember that the burden of providing for your basic needs- rests with you.
Please do not expect that I will be obligated to do so.

For 2% of the population...

>>If the only people who want to redistribute wealth are those that have no wealth, then please explain why the only movement of wealth went to the people at the top, who already have most of the wealth.<<

The best predictor of a person's social class is that person's parents' social class.

>>oh, you're talking about an imaginary fantasy world than.<<

I am talking about what may come next. The current system has a lot of problems.

>>However, remember that the burden of providing for your basic needs- rests with you.<<

You are personalizing it. I was not talking about myself. I do fine between my professorship and my consulting work.

If you're one of those waiting for/ or depending on "trickle down" you are already a loser.
How about being a go getter. How about being aggressive and working hard and getting what you need in that manner.

Ok,
then what was your point professor?

>>Ok,
then what was your point professor?<<

My point is to express my views on the redistribution of wealth. Most American socialists are not poor people.

Then what is your ideal for the economic structure of this country?

Tax the successful people and support the less successful?

Take away the incentive for success?

The Communist manifesto?

human nature is a bit different from your fantasy

what may actually come next is blood on the streets

>>Then what is your ideal for the economic structure of this country?<<

The elimination of the idea "this country." I believe in a kind of socialist globalization, including the elimination of the present-day corporate state. That is pretty much the exact opposite of where we are headed.

>>Tax the successful people and support the less successful?<<

I do not define success in terms of wealth. That is capitalism.

>>Take away the incentive for success?<<

I reject the capitalist idea that people need an incentive.

>>The Communist manifesto?<<

No, I am not a Marxist.

>>what may actually come next is blood on the streets<<

I hope you are wrong.

"Utopian" comes to mind.
Reality begs you comes to terms.
A global "community" living in harmony reminds me of this:


Good luck with that.

>>"Utopian" comes to mind.<<

Most of what I have read on this forum is a kind of populist libertarian utopianism.

If I am a utopian, I am on the other end.

Oh ah oh ah surprise!!!

It must be true if the Weird Nut Daily says so and if the accredited, self-acclaimed Zionist posts this on the GLP.

*

There is always incentive:
capitalistic, whatever...

Even Mother Theresa was motivated. Without motivation and incentive there is no action.

but there would be no need or incentive to advertise a product
soon there would even be no incentive to make it

>>There is always incentive:
capitalistic, whatever...<<

Some people I have known work in low paying jobs in non-profit agencies. If they were working in the private sector, they could increase their salaries in multiples.

"Incentive" is not necessarily financial.

>>Even Mother Theresa was motivated. Without motivation and incentive there is no action.<<

Yes, but Mother Teresa was not motivated by a desire to make money.

I haven't read enough of of the forum postings to make an opinion on that, however, judging by general media opinion and news sites like CNN, MSNBS,FX,CBS,NBC etc.. I tend to get the impression that they favor generalizing topics and defining lines of separation amongst their audience to create an "us against them", in a broad sense, mentality which favors their political agenda.

yes but those people are already financially set
they don't need to worry about the next months water bill or whatever
they are free to follow their utopian dream
they are not the average, not the norm
they're an irrelevant special case
this argument proves nothing

>>CNN, MSNBS,FX,CBS,NBC etc.. I tend to get the impression that they favor generalizing topics and defining lines of separation amongst their audience to create an "us against them"<<

MSNBC (liberal), Fox News Channel (neoconservative), and Current TV (liberal) are very partisan. CNN tends to go down the middle.

Oh lord.

That's what I thought.

>>this argument proves nothing<<

My point is that people often work very hard for little (non-profit) or no (volunteer work) money - even where they could be making a lot of money doing something else.

These are the "Hollywood" elitists who endorse socialist principles while sitting on golden thrones and casting thousands of dollars to their favorite political causes.
I believe this satisfies their "need" to give back to the less fortunate while they enjoy multi-million dollar homes and jet set lifestyles.
Funny how the Hollywood crowd of multi millionares are always in favor of the party that wants to lay the burden on small business people and middle class people trying hard to get ahead and footing most of the tax burden in this country, crying out for the rights of illegal immigrants and yet not flinching in the leat over the fact that companies like APPLE and GE avoid their tax burden by shipping jobs overseas and using tax loopholes.
I don't see them as suffering or sacrificing to the degree that I am constantly being to. At least not based on percentage of income.
Sara Jessica Parker is such a "humanitarian" I am sincerely impressed by the fact that she is looking out for the "little people"

only if they don't have to worry about what to buy the next meal with

>>These are the "Hollywood" elitists who endorse socialist principles while sitting on golden thrones and casting thousands of dollars to their favorite political causes.<<

That is a straw man. As far as I know, no one in this discussion is a Hollywood elitist (if there is such a thing).

>>only if they don't have to worry about what to buy the next meal with<<

That is not true. People often do volunteer work when they have nothing.

Maybe Chief Justice Roberts is "falling on the sword" for
the nation to ensure BHO is defeated in November?

Taking medication to combat epilepsy is now considered being drugged up? Damn you people are sore losers. Argue shit based on merit, don't drag people through the dirt when you dont get what you want.