raise taxes on the rich to support free college? Y not?

[Morpheus]

I did list a legitimate reason: the rich get the most out of society, in gross excess, and thus should put the most back into society. Their success is completely dependent upon society; without it - their money is worthless.

The poor, on the other hand, give far more to society than they get, generally speaking. They are the backbone of society that keeps everything turning - taking on all the menial labor that we are too 'good' for, with wages that barely keep them off the street.

Here you go:

Mark 12:41-44

The Widow’s Mite
41 And He sat down opposite the treasury, and began observing how the people were putting money into the treasury; and many rich people were putting in large sums. 42 A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which amount to a cent. 43 Calling His disciples to Him, He said to them, “Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the contributors to the treasury; 44 for they all put in out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, put in all she owned, all she had to live on.”

The principle is no different even when considering the middle class. When most of us pay taxes it affects our funds necessary for daily living. The wealthy pays out of their surplus. Then we need to consider that over the past 35 years the majority of us have been squeezed tighter and tighter to put more and more into the pockets of those with the most. It isn't being partial to the poor when you end the partiality to the rich.

 

[Delmar]

I think the poor should have access to a college education. I just think that we could take money out of one of the wasteful programs we already have and there is a plethora of them... to fund it

Don't they?

 

[Ktoyou]

Don't they?

Yes they can.
Here is how. Go to a community college, apply for student aid, then study hard and you get into a four year college with no student loans.

It is good hard working people who have to pay off student loans.

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Hey Anon Y Mouse; Give Me A Kiss!!!

Muah!

LOL!!!

I knew you were a Girl, who "Sleeps Around"!!! LOL!!!


=M=


You do not have the right to NOT be offended on these forums. We have a diverse group of members and we do not control the things they post (within reason) including things that might offend you.


I love this place!!! LOL!!!

Also see: My Personal other "Favorite Rule" here!!!

The owners of TheologyOnline reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.

That's so like Life, I give it a 10 out of 10.

: D

 

[Nick M]

I did list a legitimate reason: the rich get the most out of society

No, this is invalid. Much like you. Society is not a grab bag of goodies. The producers do the most for society by employing them in their businesses.

Obama added 8 trillion to the debt in his 6 years. Just thought I would add some info to this idiotic thread.

 

[Nick M]

Here is the poor getting richer with Bush's tax cuts, then getting poor with Obama. The source is those who think the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes.

View attachment 19174

 

[Morpheus]

Here is the poor getting richer with Bush's tax cuts, then getting poor with Obama. The source is those who think the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes.

View attachment 19174

Since you didn't post a source it is hard to evaluate statistical parameters. Next, Bush tax cuts are somewhat irrelevant when considering a chart of division of GLOBAL wealth since the U.S has the highest wealth gap, by far, among the industrialized nations. U.S. wealth distribution looks quite different than global distribution. Third, the chart is exaggerated since it is drawn showing a fairly narrow percentage range. It's a 4% point drift, and again I emphasize, globally. And fourth, it demonstrates a global bubble that built in the first years of the chart, then returned to prior levels after the bubble burst. Context and comprehension.

Even with that said, globally the upper 1% holds nearly half of the total wealth while the other half is (unevenly) distributed over the remaining 99%. And most economists anticipate that those lines will cross in 2016.