My mistake on the $250,000 thing. My point though is that people often refer to those tax cuts as "tax cuts for the rich" and $250,000 is not rich. It is a nice income, but not rich. Rich is if you're making $250,000 a month. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but those tax cuts I believe brought in the highest amount of tax revenue in the history of the country, so I do not see how Hillary or Obama claim they can increase those taxes again, and then lower taxes for the middle class. If they increase them, they'll lower tax revenue for the government.
My understanding of taxes is this:
Tax cuts for people taxed at 50% or more: Increases tax revenue for the gov't through economic growth that occurs; such people spend more of their money and sales taxes account for most tax revenue overall, so increased spending increases revenue.
I also know a business owner who was able to hire some additional employees to his business b/c of those tax cuts; thus, when this happens on a national level, they create job growth, which creates more people buying things, and also more tax payers for the gov't, so the gov't is getting more revenue from both sales taxes and income taxes and all those other taxes.
Tax cuts for people taxed under 50%: Decreases tax revenue for the gov't because not enough economic growth can occur to pay for them
Tax increases for 50% or more: Decrease tax revenue b/c economic growth slows
Tax increase for under 50%: Increase tax revenue
Hillary and Obama claim they will lower taxes on the middle-class, but if they get rid of the Bush tax cuts, that alone will decrease tax revenue; if they also lower taxes for the middle-class, they will have to run a rather large deficit as well, because both measures will decrease revenue.
I would imagine that the way to cut taxes for the middle-class is, for example, if when the Bush Administration implemented his tax cuts, when the increased tax revenue started coming in, the gov't kept its spending in check, then reasoned, "Okay, now that we have more revenue, can we decrease taxes on the middle class b/c the economic growth from these tax cuts for the upper-class will offset any middle-class tax revenue decrease..."
Republicans and Democrats usually disagree on how to spend the revenue coming into the government, but one would think they'd be in agreement with the method that pleases people and also brings in more revenue.
Either Hillary and Obama don't know what they're saying, or they are just trying to promote class warfare to get into power.
How is a system which creates an equal playing field an immoral act?
You are confusing equality of outcome with equality of opportunity. You cannot enforce equality. It doesn't work. And also like said, government has no right to tell a business who they can or cannot hire.
Trying to enforce equality only increases inequality, resentment, and prejudice in the long-run; (for example, the white person wonders if their black doctor was really qualified for medical school or if it was just a quota that let them in; the black doctor experiences this and resents it). It can sometimes "fix" things temporarily, but in the long run, it only increases the problem greatly.
It's like a race. Suppose I am in much better physical condition then you. Both you and I can start at the same spot and race, but I outrace you and finish way far ahead.
We both started off equally (equality of opportunity), but the outcome was unequal. To Democrats/liberals, there is something wrong with this. Similarly, if one guy is wealthy and another guy isn't, why this is so doesn't matter. It's "immoral," so they say they will make things "more equal" through "wealth redistribution" (which in fact only increases inequality).
Now let's suppose some legislator comes to the race and says to me, in reference to you, "Alright, this guy is slower than you, so we are going to give him a 20-foot headstart." So you get the 20 foot headstart and we start racing. I am faster than you, but b/c of the headstart, we both cross the finish line at the same time. That is equality of outcome.
To get equality of outcome requires making things unequal from the get-go.
In Europe, they focus on equality of outcome, rather than equality of opportunity, though they love to claim America tolerates "much higher levels of inequality than any other nation." To me, it's that America tolerates much lower levels of entitlement spending then those other nations, and thus actually has much higher levels of equality, equality of opportunity, which allows people to be able to rise from poverty to any level a lot easier here.
Back in the old South, it obviously was tough for blacks and minorities to get jobs and so forth b/c of discrimination, or to get loans to start a business, etc...however they migrated to the North and other areas and began their own black communities, black businesses, etc...you might argue, "Well, legislation should have been temporarily needed to help blacks get jobs or businesses in the South..." but again, how exactly would one "enforce the equality" there? All you could do is make things more UN-equal from the get-go, for example, by creating quotas to hire blacks/give loans, or making standards for hiring minorities or minority loans less than those for whites, etc...it just doesn't work. You could say, "Blacks are more impoverished, so we'll give them each a a "free" governmetn check each month," but this will only subsidize poverty, and is like throwingbread crumbs on a piece of moldy bread.
Society has ways of working these things out itself. And in general, unless you are in an extremist area, a business would be very foolish to discriminate because it would mean lost business and possibly going out of business.
