The idea that the rich owe the government is backwards

[miami_thomas]

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, etc….

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????

 

[Dragon]

Without the wealthy in this country we would have no roads. We would have no police, firefighters, or schools.

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.

 

[WatertheTree]

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.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

This idea that the rich are only rich because of the government is dumb.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIFGGcX1a5I]George Carlin : There's a Reason - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Truthmatters]

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.

 

[miami_thomas]

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.

That assumption is based on fiction because if everyone had the same wealth inflation would go through the roof.

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.

What? What are you smoking exactly?

 

[miami_thomas]

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.

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.

 

[miami_thomas]

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.

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.

 

[WillowTree]

Without the wealthy in this country we would have no roads. We would have no police, firefighters, or schools.

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.

then simply leave them alone and leave their money alone. easy smeasy.

 

[Wiseacre]

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.

 

[Lakhota]

George Carlin on the American Dream (with transcript) « Shoq Value

 

[Lakhota]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs&feature=player_detailpage]Elizabeth Warren on Debt Crisis, Fair Taxation - YouTube[/ame]

 

[WillowTree]

Elizabeth Warren on Debt Crisis, Fair Taxation - YouTube

You don't need the rich. Therefore you cannot tax them.. get over it.

 

[The T]

Elizabeth Warren on Debt Crisis, Fair Taxation - YouTube

You don't need the rich. Therefore you cannot tax them.. get over it.

Note who he quotes? A known Marxist that isn't shy about it...Lizzie Warren...

 

[The T]

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, etc….

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????

Without commerce...we'd have no government...and with that no roads, bridges, or anything else.

Bottome line? The Government is penalizing companies forcing them to downsize, close, or worse? Go overseas.

Commerce decreases, dries up...so does revenue stream.

Whom is more greedy? Corporations that by thier activities provide jobs...and increasing commerce by profits and as a result people paying taxes and thus revenue to government?

-Or- Greedy government whom in thier lust to control everything by regulation cuts thier own throat and kills thier own arguement by chasing away the very commerce they are demanding for 'social justice' 'equal outcome' ?

/Story.

 

[miami_thomas]

Elizabeth Warren on Debt Crisis, Fair Taxation

I only had to watch the first few minutes to know she is full of it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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, etc….

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????

OK, you don't want the rich to pay any more taxes, but we have a 14 trillion dollar debt.

Who, SPECIFICALLY, do you want to pay that off, once you've exempted the Rich from the bill?

 

[Brutus]

The idea that the rich owe the government is backwards

it sure is!!! the poor owe the government a lot more since they are 100% dependent on government! A child can understand this, just not a liberal.

 

[Katzndogz]

Ohhhh those CEOs are moving their companies out of this country at a record clip. I wish it were faster. Just dump those Americans until they get a CLUE.

 

[midcan5]

All knowledge has a past, all work requires educated people, all businesses require a means to communicate and transport, all business requires law, the idea that the rich can create wealth is one of the stupidest rationalizations of the contemporary right wing corporate puppet. Drop the rich off on a desert island and they'd look as stupid as Gilligan's Island and less entertaining.

"In 1929 Federal, state, and municipal governments accounted for about 8 percent of all economic activity in the United States. By the 1960s that figure was between 20 and 25 percent, far exceeding that in India, a socialist country. The National Science Foundation reckoned that federal funds were paying for 90 percent of research in aviation and space travel, 65 percent in electrical and electronic devices, 42 percent in Scientific Instruments, 31 percent in machinery, 28 percent in metal alloys, 24 percent in automobiles, and 20 percent in chemicals." William Manchester "The Glory and the Dream"