Joe the Plumber (Page 2)

Yeah, Joe who has enough money to buy a company that makes >$250K is really going to have to put his nose to the grind stone to make up that $1500. 

Espcially when only 2% of business make >$250K.  Man...we are just taxing the hell out of those poor small business people.

Do you honestly think that poor people made some conscious decision to be poor? That there's no societal/cultural influence that led people down a certain socioeconomic road and that everyone actually gets the same opportunities in this country?

So what should the poor do? Starve? Die? Please tell me what the solution is. Let's just chop funding for all those poor people. Let's not give them health care, education, or any means to escape their situation. I mean, if they all just die off it was their choice to be poor, wasn't it?

You didn't. You asked me what else to call it, and I told you what some have used in the past.

All irrelavant.  The whole "the rich can afford it" crap is a logical fallacy, because you may be richer than some people, so why dont you pay more taxes?  And who considers what is rich?  What happens if they decide someday that level is 50K? 

But noooo, we will just keep saying it's ok for all of us to expect more from those higher than us because society as a whole are jealous fools.

x2. How can small businesses possibly survive this assault?

Where did I say those chose to be poor?  Some make bad decisions to become poor, but not everyone chooses to be poor.  But it is irrelavant.  The government has no right to say "we need more money to give to poor people and you are rich, so give us more and more."  Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the rich has to support the poor. 

Move to China, you'd be blissful.

Republicans nowadays are Democrats that are against abortion and gay marriage.  That's about it.

They have more to lose, and therefore more to gain, from Government protection of their property(ie, wealth).  Since you at least agree that government should maintain an army and police to protect the interests of it's citizens, then there's more effort/cost.

Not that I actually think that is a sole justification, but trying to find a premise that you won't just discard with "OMG that's Socialist!".

Personally, I think a progressive tax structure is fair.  Even though I'm on the upper end of that and will end up paying more.  I'd like to be part of an educated and healthy populace, but you consider those to be socialist programs, so we'll just have to disagree there.

what's ludicrous is to charge him 1,3, 5 or whatever % the actual tax increase is to reallocate it, redistribute it or just be so kind to share some of his income (pick the word you want) with 42% of people who don't pay any income tax at all. why is that fair?

The rich have earned their money.  If they want to buy their 4th BMW, so be it.  If they want to donate it to charity, so be it.  It's their money, shouldnt it be their choice?

It still is socialist.  THe justification of "more to lose" is incorrect.  You are only thinking in terms of money, but the government isnt responsible for your money.  It is responsible for defending the rights of it's citizens.  Funny how it now tries to be responsible for money, and tramples on people's rights.

This is probably off topic, but I don't agree with the premis that if you don't pay taxes you get a refund check.  I feel that if you manage tohave a $0 tax burned, then you shouldn't be getting extra money.

You've already 'earned' your entire paycheck.  I also don't think that you should be getting extra money just because you chose to have a child. 

Dont get me wrong, I would hope that rich people would donate money and support those less fortunate, but it is still their choice, period.  And I agree, we function as a whole with all of our parts, but it isnt the rich's responsbility, and even more important, not the government's right to take money from people just because they have more. 

I agree with both those points.

You're right, it isnt fair.  That's why the government shouldnt steal money from rich people to give it to people that life hasnt been so fair to.

Think about it.  If we decreased or eliminated government programs and handouts...I am POSITIVE you would see special interest groups and charities pop up left and right to help the poor/uneducated/etc.

Let people decide how they want to allocate their money.  The government has no right to take from the rich to give to the poor.  That is not the American way. 

Then, instead of all of those celebrities raising funds for Africa or China....maybe they'd start doing some charity work in their own country (that would be nice to see).

As the economy worsens, more people will be losing their jobs, losing their homes, etc., and it's going to get harder and harder to blow off the fact that there are people suffering in this country and it's in everyone's best interest to alleviate that suffering. Clearly it just hasn't hit close enough to home for some people yet.

Yeah, I'm sure the people on this forum referring to the poor as "jealous" and "leeches" will just hop right onto that bandwagon...

Freakin' poor people. They're just jealous because I have a job, my family has health care, and I have a place to live with food on the table. I mean, really. Why do they have to be so petty?

Trusting in the goodness of the wealthy is a big reason why so many companies don't offer health care to their employees as a basic benefit.