Quote Originally Posted by BigMat View Post

It is just backward entitlement-
I am poor, I need your money (in handouts) so you feel better
vs.
I am rich, I need your money (in tax breaks) so you feel better
same thing- different dress
We'll just have to disagree. While the top tier of US income earners are paying majority of the taxes, you cannot really argue for 'tax break' for the bottom half who doesn't even pay taxes. You have mentioned that the lower earners actually pay more taxes combined - that's not true. Fact is the top tier still pay much more taxes than the 95% of the people. Walmart comparison is flaw too - All walk of life shopped at Walmart. I am a cheap bastard, I shop there along with TJMaxx, Ross etc so are many middle income folks.

I know this is an extreme view, but I truly believe that the bottom 30% of the population will stay on the bottom 30% w/ very few expections. We have seen this in so many different countries who put so much effort to lift the bottom. Austria, Swiss, India are the top three to put so much money into social safety net. Germany recently pretty much said 'fuck it.'

During the reagonomics, the anti-reagan claimed that trickle down never worked because the poverty rate was steady at 30% - However, while the rate did stay the same, the US economy grew 30% during his 8 years, US federal income increased, eventhough by percentage to the GDP it drops or in short Reagan was able to increase Federal income by cutting down Taxes. I have yet seen one statistic where the federal income increases accordingly to the tax rate increase. Most of all, the middle folks enjoyed $4000 increase in median income (low inflation too). Yet, the 'poorest' of us were still on entitlement programs. The same unemployed were still unemployed while the US businesses were having hard time with hiring labor. So much so that US passed the 1986 Amnesty to the illegals to enlarge its labor pool.

Btw thanks for being the adult - I know I was being an ass. Thats just me when I argue.