I understand the idea that wealthy people are able to pay more in taxes and therefore some think they are obligated to do so, but how much of a difference would it actually make if they were? If we are talking about the 1%, while they represent a lot of the wealth, does it really make up that much more than the taxes of the other 99%? Furthermore, many people (radical Republicans) deem Obama a Socialist because of his ideas of spreading the wealth. While I don’t support the view that Obama is a Socialist, there seems to be widespread consent (Occupy and other similar groups) that the wealth should be more spread out. However, wouldn’t every one of those people want to be part of the 1%? Isn’t the drive to be successful what makes the United States such an advanced country? If everyone made the same amount of money and were denied the ability to increase the earnings and wealth then they may not have the desire to progress themselves. I am not saying that I think the amount of poverty in the U.S. or any other country is justified, but I am also not saying that I think those who have succeeded should be forced to pay more than their share. The amount that is considered “their share” can then be debated. We all aspire to be successful and wealthy, how can we look down on those who have achieved this as holding out on the rest of us?
Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
Tags1% Campaigns and Elections Candidate current-events Economy Education Election election cycle Facebook Gingrich Government GPA Health Care Immigration informed voter Law Law school Law School Admission Test LSAT Mitt Romney Money news Newt Gingrich Obama Obamacare political views Politician Politics President Presidential Campaign Privatization Rick Perry Rick Santorum Romney Social media Supreme Court United States United States presidential primary