How long would liberalism survive if there were no "rich" people to tax?

Question

Or would they redefine rich to mean anyone who makes over 200k? 100k?

Answer 1

In California, the Highest tax bracket is $45,000/ For the poor, it's the middle class who is the hated rich. The actually worship the filthy rich. The problem is that there are very few rich. Taxing them does not get as much as from teh middle class which is larger. The other thing is that our economic problem comes from being too dependent on the income of the rich. Their incom fluctuates heavily depending on our economy. IF the economy is good, the small businesses makes a lot of money, but when a recession comes, their income drops dramatically. THe reason California is in such trouble, taht the money from the rich is dried up. We need to stop spending large sums of money when income is good, and then refuse to cut back when times are bad. We need to find ways to save the money when times are good, to keep moving on during the bad times.

Answer 2

Even extra convenient, 'tax' their grades. whilst they get an A, provide ten factors to the baby who have been given a C. ok, that does no longer artwork the two. the baby who have been given the A could learn a efficient much less on the redistribution of wealth at an identical time as the baby who have been given the ten factors could have faith much extra contained in the ideals of liberalism and its linked socialism. So, yeah, i assume your concept is a extra useful one.

Answer 3

"How long would liberalism survive if there were no "rich" people to tax?"



The soviet union lasted for 70 years before it collapsed and they didnt have any rich people to tax. The liberals made Detroit collapse alot sooner.



Catherine writes: "You could throw all the money in the world at the rich, (and the GOP certainly has tried!)"



False. We dont try or believe in throwing money at the rich. We believe that everybody, especially productive people who create jobs, ought to be allowed to keep more of what they earn. To keep THEIR own money.



"and it still won't create jobs if the DEMAND for products and services is not there. When you strangle the middle class under a massive tax burden, when you cut vital services that are in place to help the poor and middle class, they are left with no money to SPEND, no money to go out and buy the products and services that the "big corporations" provide"



The poor and middle class are left with no money to spend because they are being taxed to pay for these so called "vital" (yeah, right) services.

Answer 4

Wait, you mean if there were no plutocrats hording a huge chunk of the countries wealth? Well Hell, there'd be a lot more to go around for the rest of us, wouldn't there?

Answer 5

There were no "rich people" comparable to what we have today when this country was founded and we did OK. With no "rich people", especially the corporate members of the military-industrial complex, suckling at the public trough, expenses should plummet.

Answer 6

It would depend on how long it took to deplete the "haves" to give to the "have nots" . On the campaign trail bo clearly said to Joe the plumber he wanted to "spread" the wealth around.



I think they will have to keep defining "rich" to keep the spreading of the wealth.

Answer 7

You mean like where I live. We have no income tax. A 15% consumption tax waived for businesses. No government interference with business. There is no budget for that. 150 dollar a month wages for workers who have a 6 day work week and the second poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. But we have a few people that are very very wealthy to tax, but we do not because they give a lot of people jobs.

Answer 8

You're asking the wrong question. Without revenue, our country will crumble.



The top 1% makes more income than the bottom 90%, so it makes sense to tax them more. Sadly, we tax the poor more than we do the rich.



Edit: Clearly, you are not asking a real question. You're just ranting.

Answer 9

A long time because they leach off the poor too. Jesus said we will always have the poor. Always having the poor means always having ignorant liberals.

Answer 10

the rich pay very little tsx. the middle class pays their share of taxes. time to stop this unfair taxation.

Answer 11

Funny thing about "liberals" (I call them statists) is that they're only "liberal" with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. They don't want equal prosperity. They want equal misery (unless you're part of the political elite class).

Answer 12

Naturally, if US corporate executives were not taking for themselves salaries of up to 500 times that of regular staff, and if those unbelievably exorbitant salaries were reduced to around merely double that of regular staff -- then regular staff salaries would increase significantly. This would not only greatly augment the spending power of regular staffers, but would also place them into higher tax brackets.



Just like in socialist Japan -- where unemployment rests at 4%.



Any more questions on this matter? I truly don't mind listing out the most base fundamentals of employment economics for those who don't understand.

Answer 13

That's the goal of liberalism.

Answer 14

Taxes right now are the LOWEST they have been in 50 years, and liberalism is thriving.

Answer 15

They would redefine rich to be anyone over 20K.