The idea that the rich owe the government is backwards

Discussion in 'Politics' started by miami_thomas, Oct 27, 2011.

  1. miami_thomas
    Offline

    miami_thomas VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,019
    Thanks Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +96
    This idea that the rich are only rich because of the government is dumb. I know that the liberals want to say that the manufacturer owes the government for the police, firefighters, roads, education of their employees, etcÂ….

    But this is totally backwards. Without the wealthy in this country we would have no roads. We would have no police, firefighters, or schools. The fact is Liberal live in a box. Look at Detroit the place is a ghost town. Look at California, Illinois, New York, and other heavy liberal states. They are suffering greatly because most of their business creators have left.

    Many of the wealthy have left. Liberals need to wake up and realize we need the wealthy more than the wealthy needs America. There was a time when America was head and feet above the rest of the world but that just is not the case anymore. If we continue to attack the rich, the rich will up and leave. We are competing for the rich to want to be here.

    Look we could tax the rich in a country full of the wealthy at 5% and still get more money than we would taxing a nation full of the poor at 100%. Plus the rich are the ones that create the middle class. Without the rich there is no middle class. Which is of course is the reason that when progressives get into power the rich start to leave and the middle class starts to dwindle.

    And guess what liberals you can not hire government workers if you have no money coming in through taxes. So believe what you want but in the end reality will always win. How difficult are these facts to understand????
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. Dragon
    Offline

    Dragon Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Messages:
    5,481
    Thanks Received:
    578
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +579
    Assertion contrary to fact. Assume for illustration that all wealth was exactly equally distributed. Everyone makes the same, no rich, no poor. Tax rates remain what they are. Tax revenues would actually increase at all levels of government.

    Although we have never actually had this situation, in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s we approached it much closer than we are today, with much narrower income gaps. Economic performance, measured by growth in per capita income per year, was more than twice as good as it has been since 1980. Higher economic performance = higher tax revenues.

    We don't need the rich at all.
     
  3. WatertheTree
    Offline

    WatertheTree Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,804
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +167
    Your opinions are totally false. Lets say the unrealistic thing happens and all the rich people leave, and they take all there capital with them. After we are done celebrating our liberty then we can just get to work creating new capital and new business to replace the market share that just opened up.

    Its like someone quitting a job, big deal, there is always more workers. In the same sense there are more people trying to get rich. This entire argument that we need to serve the rich and give them everything they want and more or less worship them, is fucking insane.

    RICH PEOPLE OWE US, WE DONT OWE THEM.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Mr. Shaman
    Offline

    Mr. Shaman Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Messages:
    23,892
    Thanks Received:
    817
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +819
    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIFGGcX1a5I]George Carlin : There's a Reason - YouTube[/ame]​
     
  5. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    Then why didnt these godlike CEOs chose some other country to make their trillions in?


    Heres a clue why.

    The American infrastructure.


    Now why didnt they just move to some other nation with such a great infrastructure?

    Oh there wasnt one?


    So now that our infrastructure has been ignored for a decade is is begining to crumble they are moving their shit over seas while they continued to live here.

    In places like China they are not asked to pay to maintain the infrastructure because China gives then breaks to move there.


    When they have used up chinas infrastructure they will move elsewhere.


    They could not have built the companies they built without the American infrastructure.


    Lie all you want about it , it wont change the real facts.
     
  6. miami_thomas
    Offline

    miami_thomas VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,019
    Thanks Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +96
    That assumption is based on fiction because if everyone had the same wealth inflation would go through the roof.

    What? What are you smoking exactly?
     
  7. miami_thomas
    Offline

    miami_thomas VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,019
    Thanks Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +96
    You really need to wake up and move into the real world. That is not what happened in Detroit. That is not what is happening in California.
     
  8. miami_thomas
    Offline

    miami_thomas VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,019
    Thanks Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +96
    Where do you live exactly that the infrastructure is crumbling? I have been around the world and we still have better roads, school buildings, etc... The problem is spending is not the answer for every single problem. In fact government spending most time is the problem. Because schools have been made to seem free is why no one cares about school. If parents had to pay for the children to go to school, then parents would care about what their kid is doing in school. When you make something seem free(it really isn't) people start to not care.
     
  9. WillowTree
    Offline

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,146
    Thanks Received:
    10,164
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,700
    then simply leave them alone and leave their money alone. easy smeasy.
     
  10. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    Everybody owes their govt something, at every level. The question is how much and how broad the tax base should be, and whether we should provide incentives in the tax code for certain behaviors, such as investing in our economy.

    These days it should be obvious that increased revenue is necessary, the issue here is what's the best way to do it. Do we focus more on growing the size of the economy, thereby geting more tax money through economic growth, or do we focus on raising the tax rates. Some say raising tax rates hinders economic growth in tough times like these. Bill Clinton said so recently, as did Barack Obama a couple of years ago.

    To me the real question is not how much we can take in but what we spend our money on. We simply cannot raise taxes enough to catch up with the rising costs of our entitlement programs. Democrats refuse to address the spending issue which is the larger problem. They fought tooth and nail up to the last minute in the debt ceiling debate over a 40 billion spending cut that turned out not to be nearly that much, and this is out of a 3.7 trillion budget presented by Obama this past spring.
     

Share This Page