4 ms·

what technology and infrastructure was funded by the rich? I think you mean funded by the tax payer, rich and poor alike, but the poor pay a higher percentage o

what technology and infrastructure was funded by the rich? I think you mean funded by the tax payer, rich and poor alike, but the poor pay a higher percentage of income in tax.

shawnz 6y ago
> the poor pay a higher percentage of income in tax They certainly don't pay a higher absolute dollar value of the total taxes received by the government though.
- celticninja 6y ago
  and your point is what? paying a higher percentage of their income makes life harder for them, than it does for the rich paying a higher dollar value but lower percentage of total income.
  - shawnz 6y ago
    The point is that infrastructure was mainly paid by the rich, not that life is easier for the poor.
    - celticninja 6y ago
      the infrastructure was paid for by tax, the rich didn't altruistically pay for it, they paid tax, tax was used to fund it..very different kettle of fish to the rich paying for infrastructure directly.
      - shawnz 6y ago
        I never said they altruistically paid it. All I am saying is that without them, we couldn't have paid for it.
        celticninja 6y ago
        that's not necessarily true though is it. first off the government has no issue creating money to bailout corporations, thus the money could be created/borrowed to pay for infrastructure projects and repaid over the long term. Secondly 'without them' would mean without the multi-millionaires and billionaires. Well if we didn't have them it would be because of a more equal sharing of the wealth, thus the same tax revenue could be gained from a wider share of the population. The economy has the same value/size it is just currently concentrated in the hands of a few, there is no reason it could not be more equally spread out, except that those with money, get to buy those in power and lobby for rules that make them richer and make it harder for people to compete with them.
malandrew 6y ago
> I think you mean funded by the tax payer, rich and poor alike The rich pay disproportionately a lot more. Most technology is funded by the rich either directly or through the majority of the taxes they pay. 97% of taxes are paid by the top 50%.
- celticninja 6y ago
  >The rich pay disproportionately a lot more. And so they should. the top 50% has a lower band of $41k annual income in the US. they are not rich, in many places they would struggle to support a family on that. >The top 1 percent of American earners pay almost 40 percent of all federal income taxes. That’s more than the bottom 90 percent pay combined that fact should not be celebrated as how generous the top 1% are but rather how unequal the system is that this can be the case.
  - malandrew 6y ago
    I'm not arguing that they should or should not. I'm just pointing out that the people that are vilified are contributing a LOT more to keeping this ship we call a country afloat.

what technology and infrastructure was funded by the rich? I think you mean funded by the tax payer, rich and poor alike, but the poor pay a higher percentage of income in tax.

shawnz 6y ago

> the poor pay a higher percentage of income in tax They certainly don't pay a higher absolute dollar value of the total taxes received by the government though.

celticninja 6y ago
and your point is what? paying a higher percentage of their income makes life harder for them, than it does for the rich paying a higher dollar value but lower percentage of total income.
- shawnz 6y ago
  The point is that infrastructure was mainly paid by the rich, not that life is easier for the poor.
  - celticninja 6y ago
    the infrastructure was paid for by tax, the rich didn't altruistically pay for it, they paid tax, tax was used to fund it..very different kettle of fish to the rich paying for infrastructure directly.
    - shawnz 6y ago
      I never said they altruistically paid it. All I am saying is that without them, we couldn't have paid for it.
      - celticninja 6y ago
        that's not necessarily true though is it. first off the government has no issue creating money to bailout corporations, thus the money could be created/borrowed to pay for infrastructure projects and repaid over the long term. Secondly 'without them' would mean without the multi-millionaires and billionaires. Well if we didn't have them it would be because of a more equal sharing of the wealth, thus the same tax revenue could be gained from a wider share of the population. The economy has the same value/size it is just currently concentrated in the hands of a few, there is no reason it could not be more equally spread out, except that those with money, get to buy those in power and lobby for rules that make them richer and make it harder for people to compete with them.

malandrew 6y ago

> I think you mean funded by the tax payer, rich and poor alike The rich pay disproportionately a lot more. Most technology is funded by the rich either directly or through the majority of the taxes they pay. 97% of taxes are paid by the top 50%.

celticninja 6y ago
>The rich pay disproportionately a lot more. And so they should. the top 50% has a lower band of $41k annual income in the US. they are not rich, in many places they would struggle to support a family on that. >The top 1 percent of American earners pay almost 40 percent of all federal income taxes. That’s more than the bottom 90 percent pay combined that fact should not be celebrated as how generous the top 1% are but rather how unequal the system is that this can be the case.
- malandrew 6y ago
  I'm not arguing that they should or should not. I'm just pointing out that the people that are vilified are contributing a LOT more to keeping this ship we call a country afloat.