Elissa Curlin: Things have to be paid for, services need to exist.In most countries people see things like roads, health care, the police, the armed forces, plus also the necessary regulation for things from food safety to stopping bankers stealing everyone's money as essential. The rich don't want to pay for it, understandable, but they get rich because of the stability of the system, so they should understand that they have to pay a little of what they get because the reality is, if they had to go in a system without govt, they'd end up pay more (even with high taxes).Russia in the 1990s, the Mafia was the only thing keeping the law, the Russian police was corrupt and unable to do anything. The Mafia demanded 30-40% of all profits from wealthy individuals. This "security" did not mean you would not die, if another mafia came along and was better than your mafia, say goodbye to life. So just that security would cost the rich at least 30% of their wages. How much do the r! ich pay for the police and armed forces to keep things relatively stable in the US? Not 30%.Then you'd have to remember that businessmen need employees. They's need people with an education to make lots of money, so they'd have to pay individuals to learn things, which in the US the employers have to turn up already qualified.Then you have the roads and rail and other infrastructure. They have to pay a lot more to ship things around, it would pump up prices and mean less profits. Why do liberals "love taxes", because they see a need for things. You look at the US and you see the problems that are caused by the drive for low taxes and ignoring problems that cost money and you must think there is something wrong in the US!!!...Show more
Tomi Vauters:
Coralie Goldsberry: Are you 85?
Felipa Nosis: If the claim to ownership has no statute of limitations and every country that ever annexed land through war were forced to return that land then they have a case. ! However, wouldn't that mean that the Mexicans would have ! to return Mexico to the indigenous population that resided there before them?
Cecil Derenzi: Evil, evil woman.
Norma Marsalis: And the Indians believe they own the rest.We stole everything.
Rona Espalin: they don't.why do you think they do?Ya fallin' for the Big Oil Propaganda again?
Bob Nakamoto: Eroticism
Lahoma Beadell: Yes they call it Aztlan.I know a illegal that says they are taught that in school in Mexico.
Ardell Luy: Yeah right. They sold it to us, we bought it at a fair price and, now that we made it successful, they want it back. Go figure.
Rebeca Mckin: They believe that the government knows how to spend your money better than you do. They don't care if you need to pay your mortgage. You're going to pay for that musical institute for the deaf whether you like it or not!
Geraldo Mccalla: she was a left wing politician pretending to be right wing and most english people believe she was a right wing conservative , y! et ALL her policies were socialist , bigger government , higher taxes, comprehensive education( she closed most of the selective schools, she then sold off publicly owned companies causing a recession as over $100 billion suddenly disappeared from the UK economy into the government's tax fund
Miguel Koczela: Because they don't have to pay them
Raelene Cunnick: with the aid of fact we understand issues which incorporate a militia, Police, hearth branch, faculties and Public Highways are no longer loose. Taxes are the cost of residing in a Democracy. we don't love paying taxes, yet we understand the will for it, and people that benifit the main could pay extra.
Rodolfo Merel:
Derick Kinnard: Many certain do.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista_(Mexico)A 2002 Zogby poll reported that 58% of Mexicans believe that the southwestern US belongs to Mexico.[17]http://www.proconservative.net/PCVol5Is002WardAztl......Show more
Caryl Mclaen: Never hear! d of her (I am American)
Bibi Tyron: Ok, question for you,why do ! conservatives tax the poor middle-man and the rich go off almost tax free?????? HUH? Seems to me that the conservatives love taxes even more... for that the poor man has to pay, of course. The conservatives, i.e. BUSH (8 years of hell) raised the taxes for the poor midde working class man whom didnt have any money to began with and left the rich with tax cuts.There wouldnt be any problems with the damn taxes if the conservatives paid more because they can afford the hike, and left the poor middle class alone!!!!! Look what happened during the French revolutionary war!!!!!!Conservatives would rather become richer and let the poor become poorer..... Just make the poor man pay his taxes plus mine.... I'd rather become even richer.. gotta afford that 3 month trip to europe... Cant the poor man get a break and go on a 3 month trip to europe?????Let me correct you, Thats why liberals HATE taxes, and why the conservatives are selfish!...Show more
Alonso Crehan: -Probably n! ot Much- seeing how She's been Dead for years now... :)
Amina Motzer: Sweden and Denmark have the highest taxes on Earth, and they are the best countries on Earth to live.
Vern Serratos: sorry thatcher
Nicolas Cooley: You seem to have each and every thing abit backwards. first of all, Mexico in basic terms owned the Southwestern states for 25 years, earlier that they were owned with the help of Spain and earlier that they were owned with the help of community human beings, and that does no longer mean those of Mayan or Aztec descent. Secondly, Why might want to we go back somehting we've owned for over one hundred sixty years? both California and Texas rebelled from Mexico and grew to develop into independant countries then joined the U.S. something of them were gained in a conflict adversarial to Mexico in which the U. S. forgave all Mexican debt and paid $15 million for them. then you have the gadsden purchase. So why might want to might want to provide! mexico something? They in no way had a right to it contained in the fi! rst position.... *edit* oh and btw this is no longer a incontrovertible actuality that american forces invaded mexico, Mexican forces invaded Texas and the U. S. intervened to assist their friends......Show more
Talisha Digrande: They don't. They are just smart enough to realize you need both revenue increase and spending cuts to balance the budget. The only thing that'll balance a nation with 0% tax is actual zero spending just like somalia.
Theresia Fashaw: How so? Ronald Reagan's taxes were FAR higher than any taxes you've seen since. Your party LOVED Reagan. We want to go back to the Clinton tax rates--lower than Reagan and Bush Sr.
Alden Soldano: No.They believe they SHOULD be given it.They believe they can take it.Apologists are giving it to them piece by piece.Your choice, folks. They are doing it right now and you are watching it....Show more
Clay Lipira: Your first poster is a prime example of failing anti-American liberal education in this! country.
Nancy Mansell: Oh ho, this is guaranteed to stir up a real can of worms! Anyone who was around in the 1980s is almost certain to have a highly polarised opinion one way or the other.But as I recall it, after five years of Labour, the unions were getting away with any unreasonable wage demand, inflation had gone through the roof, the top rate of income tax was 83%, and the country was STILL having to go to the IMF for a loan. Talk about deep doo-doo... anyway, she could have pussyfooted around, but she didn't. She hit it all hard with government spending cuts, limiting the power of the unions to call strikes, slashing tax rates to encourage business, and using monetarist policies (which just about everyone else thought was nuts) to control inflation. Monetarism, by the way, is the theory that limiting the growth of the money supply reduces the velocity of circulation of money and therefore stops prices rising. If that's lost you, read an economics textbo! ok! - but at any rate, I remember the news regularly reporting whether ! the Bank of England had hit or missed the money supply growth target.Basically she gave the UK a huge kick in the pants and it hurt. Oh boy it hurt. Harsh medicine never tastes nice, and for a while unemployment increased. People hated her with a passion. But over the years, it DID start to come right and no government since has done anything to significantly reverse her big changes. Which is rather remarkable! She changed Britain.I am not totally uncritical. If she thought she was right, nobody was going to tell her different and to start with, that was no bad thing. The Russians didn't call her the Iron Lady for nothing. But once the policies started working, even her own Cabinet found her a pain to work with because she wasn't listening, and that's what forced her out of the Conservative leadership and therefore out of being Prime Minister. The last straw was the community charge, a flat-rate replacement for local property tax that was so obviously unfair it ca! used riots. The idea that everyone should pay the same amount of tax whether they are a millionaire or on welfare is just stupid. It was time for "that bossy woman" to go. Rather like Winston Churchill - just what we needed in wartime, someone who just wouldn't give up, but in peacetime you need a different kind of leader, and historians are generally agreed that Churchill was not the man for the job when he got back into power in the 1950s.Likeable, no. No doubt her family will tell you different but in public, no, she had the personality of a robot. I remember her party conference speech when the Liberal Democrats had just come up with a new logo of a yellow bird, and one of her speechwriters thought it would be a bright idea for her to ridicule it using the words of the Monty Python parrot sketch ("it is a dead parrot, it has ceased to be, it has shuffled off this mortal coil and gone to meet its maker; bereft of life, it rests in peace...") and you have never hear! d a joke so badly told in your life.But she gave Britain a kick in the ! pants - and as the joke went, a good handbagging - when it needed it and we have reason to be grateful. Not that anyone who she caused to lose their job will ever forgive her....Show more
Stevie Goldey: Well, who is to say what is rightfully whose? It was theirs. Then it was ours. If they think they can take it back again...
Salvador Prchlik: Hey Krista........guess again. Clinton 39.6%.....Bush Sr 31%.......Reagan 28%.http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafa...
Thomas Riner: Reagan lowered taxes from the highest income tax bracket at 70% to about 38%, whether he raised a percent here or there is kind of inconsequential, I wish the liberals would stop spewing talking points about Reagan raising taxes and actually spend some time to look into the context.
Toshia Metzker: yes its.practicslky ran buy them they now our lawns and serve us food they clean for us jmanmanufacture things and smuggle drugs there busy bees
