steal from the rich to give to the......(not poor)

[imbalance]

The Forbes 400 billionaires are paying taxes at a lower rate than the rest of us.

Is that fair?

Listen man I give you credit for your ability to see and understand Tebow's greatness, but what is it about capital gains and why they shouldn't be highly taxed that you don't get? Capital investment is critical in creating wealth and economic growth.

 

[imbalance]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGL-Ex1CD1c&feature=share]Peter Schiff Speaks for 1 Percent at Occupy Wall Street - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fCHy5ixaGE&feature=share]Peter Schiff full Testimony before Congress on Obama jobs bill (13-Sept-11)(POLITICS IN ACTION) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[thereisnospoon]

Businesses pay appropriate wages.

That's either a tautology or a meaningless statement, depending on what you mean by "appropriate." Either way, it has nothing to do with this conversation.

Tell ya what....I challenge you or anyone else on your side to use your own money to start and operate a business.

LOL I am a business owner you presumptuous twit. But of course that's not really what you meant.

Pay your people what you now on the outside looking in believe should be an appropriate wage.

The problem is in the system, of course, not in the adaptation to it made by any individual business. Or did you think any ONE small business had the power to set the rules of the economic game for the entire country?

You stated you believed people worked hard and should have been paid more.
It was you who opened the door. Now you're attempting to run away from your comment?
I don't think so.
You're a business owner? Yeah and I am CEO of a major corporation. No business owner would think like you. So cut the bullshit.

"The system" That blanket undefinable term used when someone has no clue.
What system?
OH, your decision to start name calling? Leaves you absent of credibility.
Your argument is empty. You have nothing.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Forbes 400 billionaires are paying taxes at a lower rate than the rest of us.

Is that fair?

Link?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Inthemiddle you really should change your name for the sake of honesty.

For the sake of honesty, you shouldn't define someone based on whether they fall lockstep into perfect agreement with your political views.

I don't define you. You do with your left of center responses.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I don't define you. You do with your left of center responses.

Left of center, or left of you? And even if it's left of center, so what? This is one issue. What will you say when the subject of immigration comes up and I say that we need to build a border fence, set the military on the southern border at arm's length apart, strongly crack down on companies that hire illegals, and amend the constitution to eliminate the anchor baby loophole? What will you say when the subject turns to protesting the government and I say that in my opinion, the best way to control the government, other than free elections, is for a well armed populace to assemble and protest at the steps of Congress?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I am all for a flat tax. But individual tax plans put forth by any candidate is moot as congress writes tax law not the president.

Of course Congress would have to legislate it before it could ever happen. But that's not really the point. So you support a flat tax. Implementing such a plan would increase taxation on lower earners in favor of "giving" more back to higher earners. So, as it turns out, you don't object to all instances of taxing someone more so that someone else can be taxed less.

Look bud, this thread is about targeted tax cuts at the expense of another group. And of course a flat tax would be an increase for many but that's only because many pay nothing or next to nothing to begin with. While there clearly is merit to your post that is for another subject.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Look bud, this thread is about targeted tax cuts at the expense of another group. And of course a flat tax would be an increase for many but that's only because many pay nothing or next to nothing to begin with. While there clearly is merit to your post that is for another subject.

Any change is going to be a targeted cut at the expense of another group. So you don't oppose all such actions, just some that don't conform to your personal ideological bend. Don't get me wrong, I'm not busting your chops for it. I'm just trying to point out that any change is going to "target" one area or another. It's all a matter of perspective. The same effect targeted at different people, and you'll agree with it.

BTW, and maybe I'm just being absent minded for a moment (it's been a long weekend), but I don't recall that there is anything about all of this that is going to raise taxes on anyone. It's just extending an already in place tax cut. So how is this taking anything away from the rich?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Look bud, this thread is about targeted tax cuts at the expense of another group. And of course a flat tax would be an increase for many but that's only because many pay nothing or next to nothing to begin with. While there clearly is merit to your post that is for another subject.

Any change is going to be a targeted cut at the expense of another group. So you don't oppose all such actions, just some that don't conform to your personal ideological bend. Don't get me wrong, I'm not busting your chops for it. I'm just trying to point out that any change is going to "target" one area or another. It's all a matter of perspective. The same effect targeted at different people, and you'll agree with it.

BTW, and maybe I'm just being absent minded for a moment (it's been a long weekend), but I don't recall that there is anything about all of this that is going to raise taxes on anyone. It's just extending an already in place tax cut. So how is this taking anything away from the rich?

so you've been arguing with me this entire time and you don't even know the basics of the topic were arguing about? How very liberal of you.

Senate democrats proposed a bill to pay for the extended payroll tax cuts with a tax increase to the wealthy. Classical attempt to pit one against another. And that's all it was because of 2 reasons.
1. Tax bills originate in the house not the senate. So this was all for show.

2. They knew it wouldn't pass.

 

[Immanuel]

Look bud, this thread is about targeted tax cuts at the expense of another group. And of course a flat tax would be an increase for many but that's only because many pay nothing or next to nothing to begin with. While there clearly is merit to your post that is for another subject.

Any change is going to be a targeted cut at the expense of another group. So you don't oppose all such actions, just some that don't conform to your personal ideological bend. Don't get me wrong, I'm not busting your chops for it. I'm just trying to point out that any change is going to "target" one area or another. It's all a matter of perspective. The same effect targeted at different people, and you'll agree with it.

BTW, and maybe I'm just being absent minded for a moment (it's been a long weekend), but I don't recall that there is anything about all of this that is going to raise taxes on anyone. It's just extending an already in place tax cut. So how is this taking anything away from the rich?

As far as I am concerned, I am not opposed to a tax increase on me or others in the middle or upper class. The problem that always seems to bug me is the throwing around of blame by the left. Why do they always have to make it sound like those who are rich (and believe me, I am not in that category) are to blame for all the problems we are facing? That is simply ridiculous.

Taxes need to go up and/or expenses need to be cut. There is no if's, and's or but's about it. But, it sickens me to see so many on the left basically say, "raise the taxes of everyone that makes a dollar more than me". When I read such writings, I have to wonder if the person who wrote it loves this country or not.

Immie

 

[rightwinger]

Look bud, this thread is about targeted tax cuts at the expense of another group. And of course a flat tax would be an increase for many but that's only because many pay nothing or next to nothing to begin with. While there clearly is merit to your post that is for another subject.

Any change is going to be a targeted cut at the expense of another group. So you don't oppose all such actions, just some that don't conform to your personal ideological bend. Don't get me wrong, I'm not busting your chops for it. I'm just trying to point out that any change is going to "target" one area or another. It's all a matter of perspective. The same effect targeted at different people, and you'll agree with it.

BTW, and maybe I'm just being absent minded for a moment (it's been a long weekend), but I don't recall that there is anything about all of this that is going to raise taxes on anyone. It's just extending an already in place tax cut. So how is this taking anything away from the rich?

As far as I am concerned, I am not opposed to a tax increase on me or others in the middle or upper class. The problem that always seems to bug me is the throwing around of blame by the left. Why do they always have to make it sound like those who are rich (and believe me, I am not in that category) are to blame for all the problems we are facing? That is simply ridiculous.

Taxes need to go up and/or expenses need to be cut. There is no if's, and's or but's about it. But, it sickens me to see so many on the left basically say, "raise the taxes of everyone that makes a dollar more than me". When I read such writings, I have to wonder if the person who wrote it loves this country or not.

Immie

Actually, The super rich are responsible for the problems we are facing. It was their greed, their poor decisions and their arrogance that led to the financial collapse of 2008.

Now......guess who was the first to be bailed out and who paid the price for their ineptness?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Any change is going to be a targeted cut at the expense of another group. So you don't oppose all such actions, just some that don't conform to your personal ideological bend. Don't get me wrong, I'm not busting your chops for it. I'm just trying to point out that any change is going to "target" one area or another. It's all a matter of perspective. The same effect targeted at different people, and you'll agree with it.

BTW, and maybe I'm just being absent minded for a moment (it's been a long weekend), but I don't recall that there is anything about all of this that is going to raise taxes on anyone. It's just extending an already in place tax cut. So how is this taking anything away from the rich?

As far as I am concerned, I am not opposed to a tax increase on me or others in the middle or upper class. The problem that always seems to bug me is the throwing around of blame by the left. Why do they always have to make it sound like those who are rich (and believe me, I am not in that category) are to blame for all the problems we are facing? That is simply ridiculous.

Taxes need to go up and/or expenses need to be cut. There is no if's, and's or but's about it. But, it sickens me to see so many on the left basically say, "raise the taxes of everyone that makes a dollar more than me". When I read such writings, I have to wonder if the person who wrote it loves this country or not.

Immie

Actually, The super rich are responsible for the problems we are facing. It was their greed, their poor decisions and their arrogance that led to the financial collapse of 2008.

Now......guess who was the first to be bailed out and who paid the price for their ineptness?

Or you could say it was the poor and middle class buying shit they couldn't afford with money they didn't have.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I don't believe Democrats hate the rich.

First of all every one of them is rich, or became rich from insider trading while in office.

Secondly, all of their friends are rich. George Soros, Steven Speilberg, the late Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, 70% percent of Hollywood, Oprah, David Letterman, etc.

Thirdly, under their watch the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

Last of all, in a free country there will always be wealth inequality. In a communist country the leaders are the rich, everyone else is poor. There is no country on Earth where there isn't inequality. Anyone who believes this Marxist drivel is ether living in denial or hopelessly stupid.

I note that all of the rich you posted earned their wealth; two examples of the rich that are not liberals are the Kock Brothers and the Walton siblings who inherited their wealth.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I am all for a flat tax. But individual tax plans put forth by any candidate is moot as congress writes tax law not the president.

Of course Congress would have to legislate it before it could ever happen. But that's not really the point. So you support a flat tax. Implementing such a plan would increase taxation on lower earners in favor of "giving" more back to higher earners. So, as it turns out, you don't object to all instances of taxing someone more so that someone else can be taxed less.

Look bud, this thread is about targeted tax cuts at the expense of another group. And of course a flat tax would be an increase for many but that's only because many pay nothing or next to nothing to begin with. While there clearly is merit to your post that is for another subject.

Look troll, this thread is your (very weak) effort to put forth a policy sure to speed up the demise of our unique form of democracy and replace it with a plutocracy. Only really stupid people and those ruled by emotion and not reason support such a radical policy change.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Of course Congress would have to legislate it before it could ever happen. But that's not really the point. So you support a flat tax. Implementing such a plan would increase taxation on lower earners in favor of "giving" more back to higher earners. So, as it turns out, you don't object to all instances of taxing someone more so that someone else can be taxed less.

Look bud, this thread is about targeted tax cuts at the expense of another group. And of course a flat tax would be an increase for many but that's only because many pay nothing or next to nothing to begin with. While there clearly is merit to your post that is for another subject.

Look troll, this thread is your (very weak) effort to put forth a policy sure to speed up the demise of our unique form of democracy and replace it with a plutocracy. Only really stupid people and those ruled by emotion and not reason support such a radical policy change.

Isn't that sweet. One of my fans opined but failed to make a dent.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Look bud, this thread is about targeted tax cuts at the expense of another group. And of course a flat tax would be an increase for many but that's only because many pay nothing or next to nothing to begin with. While there clearly is merit to your post that is for another subject.

Look troll, this thread is your (very weak) effort to put forth a policy sure to speed up the demise of our unique form of democracy and replace it with a plutocracy. Only really stupid people and those ruled by emotion and not reason support such a radical policy change.

Isn't that sweet. One of my fans opined but failed to make a dent.

I'm not your fan. That you're not bright enough to understand the consequences of what you support makes you pitiful. Who is a fan of the pitiful? Only Cub fans and only because they are ruled by their emoitions. Just like you.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Look troll, this thread is your (very weak) effort to put forth a policy sure to speed up the demise of our unique form of democracy and replace it with a plutocracy. Only really stupid people and those ruled by emotion and not reason support such a radical policy change.

Isn't that sweet. One of my fans opined but failed to make a dent.

I'm not your fan. That you're not bright enough to understand the consequences of what you support makes you pitiful. Who is a fan of the pitiful? Only Cub fans and only because they are ruled by their emoitions. Just like you.

Democrats rule by emotion. Hence the entitlment state.

Get a clue