Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: Reuters/Ipsos poll

[Preacher]

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - The idea of imposing a wealth tax on the richest Americans has elicited sharply divergent views across a spectrum of politicians, with President Donald Trump branding it socialist and progressive Democratic presidential contenders Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders prominently endorsing it.

snip

Among the 4,441 respondents to the poll, 64% strongly or somewhat agreed that “the very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs” - the essence of a wealth tax. Results were similar across gender, race and household income. While support among Democrats was stronger, at 77%, a majority of Republicans, 53%, also agreed with the idea.

Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: Reuters/Ipsos poll

If this is true, then the experiment called the United States of America as we know it is done....

Bullshit. We had high taxes on the filthy rich in the 50's and America was prospering for EVERYONE not the rich pieces of shit who get rich off of OTHERS hard work.

 

[bripat9643]

Is it the politicians fault or ours? I'll quite economist Dr. Walter E Williams:

"I'm going to run for a federal political office. My platform will be that I will bring nothing back to our state. I will vote every spending bill down. Would you vote for me?"

It is 100% our fault. We vote them into office and we allow them to do this.

Right and wrong. It is 100% our fault, but only because if they actually did cut spending, it would end their political career, because then nobody would vote for them again.

i would

Maybe, but most won't. That's the point. You said you spent 20 years in the military. What if that politician wanted to cut military funding including benefits and pay? What about equipment that protects the lives of our men and women in war?

We could easily cut 10 to 15 percent from the DOD budget without any affect on readiness and troop welfare. The amount of waste in the DOD is staggering. The stories I could tell about being told to spend money by a certain date or else...hell if we could just change the "use it or lose it" mentality we could cut 5% off the top.

The amount of waste in Medicare is staggering. The same goes for almost every government program.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

They already have one. Nobody will vote them out for spending too much or adding too much to the debt. How is that not a blank check.

ROFL! It's pointless to argue with you about this issue.

You are right it is. As long as you keep voting for the people adding to the debt and increasing spending you have no leg to stand on.

You claim one thing and do another.

I say it is immoral to keep adding to the debt and making future generations pay for it...you say "**** em if they cannot take a joke".

Is it the politicians fault or ours? I'll quite economist Dr. Walter E Williams:

"I'm going to run for a federal political office. My platform will be that I will bring nothing back to our state. I will vote every spending bill down. Would you vote for me?"

It is 100% our fault. We vote them into office and we allow them to do this.

The system is rigged so that you only get a choice of two thieves.

Democracy is a con.

Seems wrong to blame democracy

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Our taxation system should NOT be used for democrats' social justice schemes. That is not what it is all about, and that is not what America is all about.

Wrong. That is exactly what taxes are for, and exactly what America is about.

What our taxes are not for is subsidies to oil companies, and defense contractors.

That is not what our taxes are for, or what America is about.

And just so you know, the general welfare of the people is not a scheme. Taking away the general welfare of the people to enrich a few is a scheme.

Wrong. Taxes are to fund the very few things the govt is allowed to do by the Constitution.

They have been hijacked.

Wrong again. The founders did not believe in a standing army. To them that was a form of tyranny. The founders would never have supported or authorized defense spending as we are today. The Constitution very specifically lays out the role for Congress to collect and lay taxes for the common defense and general welfare of the people. General welfare doesn’t mean multi billion dollar subsidies For Exxon Mobil, DuPont, Lockheed Martin, or Northrop Grumman. But then again Dwight Eisenhower warned of this as did FDR before him. The latter who was popularly elected four times by the people for a reason. Which wasnt tax cuts for the rich, bank deregulation’s, or corporate subsidies.

The tax policy of the United States that supported the largest middle class expanse occurred between 1945-1980. Whatever the tax policy and regulatory policy was then, is what it needs to be returned to now. The policies that were enacted after that is what had led to the debt, and inequality we have today. Voo Doo economics I believe they were referred to by a modern era President. What is unfondly known today as supply side trickle down economics. The biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American people.

Then get your people elected, raise taxes to what they were in the 50's, and see what happens to jobs and the economy. I think you'll be surprised. After all, DumBama had the House and Senate. Why didn't he raise taxes that high?

The founders wrote they did not want a standing army because they could never imagine the equipment, training, technology that it takes to defend the country today. If they could come back to life, know what our potential enemies have, do you think they would have kept that idea?

Correct, the founders didn't mean the general welfare to be bailouts and subsidies. But they also didn't mean it for food stamps, HUD, TANF, Planned Parenthood support, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SCHIPs and the other eighty plus social programs we have today. Those were the born from the Great Society. General Welfare meant for those items listed in the Constitution, not what's in the Democrat playbook.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Thinking of our 23 trillion dollar debt, imagine what that would be today if we only listened to Madison back then.

That 23 trillion was less than 1 trillion before Reagan. Before Reagan, the income inequality of today didn't exist. I can make that list a long one, culminating in what we have today with trillion dollar corporations getting tax refunds, while 40% of Americans can't afford a $400 emergency.

The failure of Reaganomics is the biggest problem that faces America. What the 1% have or does not have is irrelevant to America.

The Abject Failure of Reaganomics

If you made the tax rate for the wealthy at 80%, it's not going to help one person who can't pay for a $400.00 emergency.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It is 100% our fault. We vote them into office and we allow them to do this.

Right and wrong. It is 100% our fault, but only because if they actually did cut spending, it would end their political career, because then nobody would vote for them again.

i would

Maybe, but most won't. That's the point. You said you spent 20 years in the military. What if that politician wanted to cut military funding including benefits and pay? What about equipment that protects the lives of our men and women in war?

We could easily cut 10 to 15 percent from the DOD budget without any affect on readiness and troop welfare. The amount of waste in the DOD is staggering. The stories I could tell about being told to spend money by a certain date or else...hell if we could just change the "use it or lose it" mentality we could cut 5% off the top.

The amount of waste in Medicare is staggering. The same goes for almost every government program.

exactly. And yet we still cannot even agree to fix that problem,

 

[bripat9643]

ROFL! It's pointless to argue with you about this issue.

You are right it is. As long as you keep voting for the people adding to the debt and increasing spending you have no leg to stand on.

You claim one thing and do another.

I say it is immoral to keep adding to the debt and making future generations pay for it...you say "**** em if they cannot take a joke".

Is it the politicians fault or ours? I'll quite economist Dr. Walter E Williams:

"I'm going to run for a federal political office. My platform will be that I will bring nothing back to our state. I will vote every spending bill down. Would you vote for me?"

It is 100% our fault. We vote them into office and we allow them to do this.

The system is rigged so that you only get a choice of two thieves.

Democracy is a con.

Seems wrong to blame democracy

Why? Look at every democracy in the world. They all have massive debt.

 

[bripat9643]

Right and wrong. It is 100% our fault, but only because if they actually did cut spending, it would end their political career, because then nobody would vote for them again.

i would

Maybe, but most won't. That's the point. You said you spent 20 years in the military. What if that politician wanted to cut military funding including benefits and pay? What about equipment that protects the lives of our men and women in war?

We could easily cut 10 to 15 percent from the DOD budget without any affect on readiness and troop welfare. The amount of waste in the DOD is staggering. The stories I could tell about being told to spend money by a certain date or else...hell if we could just change the "use it or lose it" mentality we could cut 5% off the top.

The amount of waste in Medicare is staggering. The same goes for almost every government program.

exactly. And yet we still cannot even agree to fix that problem,

And we never will.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You are right it is. As long as you keep voting for the people adding to the debt and increasing spending you have no leg to stand on.

You claim one thing and do another.

I say it is immoral to keep adding to the debt and making future generations pay for it...you say "**** em if they cannot take a joke".

Is it the politicians fault or ours? I'll quite economist Dr. Walter E Williams:

"I'm going to run for a federal political office. My platform will be that I will bring nothing back to our state. I will vote every spending bill down. Would you vote for me?"

It is 100% our fault. We vote them into office and we allow them to do this.

The system is rigged so that you only get a choice of two thieves.

Democracy is a con.

Seems wrong to blame democracy

Why? Look at every democracy in the world. They all have massive debt.

Blame the people, not the system.

What's the alternative?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - The idea of imposing a wealth tax on the richest Americans has elicited sharply divergent views across a spectrum of politicians, with President Donald Trump branding it socialist and progressive Democratic presidential contenders Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders prominently endorsing it.

snip

Among the 4,441 respondents to the poll, 64% strongly or somewhat agreed that “the very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs” - the essence of a wealth tax. Results were similar across gender, race and household income. While support among Democrats was stronger, at 77%, a majority of Republicans, 53%, also agreed with the idea.

Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: Reuters/Ipsos poll

If this is true, then the experiment called the United States of America as we know it is done....

Bullshit. We had high taxes on the filthy rich in the 50's and America was prospering for EVERYONE not the rich pieces of shit who get rich off of OTHERS hard work.

So how did high taxes on the rich accomplish what you claim?

 

[bripat9643]

Is it the politicians fault or ours? I'll quite economist Dr. Walter E Williams:

"I'm going to run for a federal political office. My platform will be that I will bring nothing back to our state. I will vote every spending bill down. Would you vote for me?"

It is 100% our fault. We vote them into office and we allow them to do this.

The system is rigged so that you only get a choice of two thieves.

Democracy is a con.

Seems wrong to blame democracy

Why? Look at every democracy in the world. They all have massive debt.

Blame the people, not the system.

What's the alternative?

Why should we do that? Why do you believe democracy can't be inherently flawed?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Is it the politicians fault or ours? I'll quite economist Dr. Walter E Williams:

"I'm going to run for a federal political office. My platform will be that I will bring nothing back to our state. I will vote every spending bill down. Would you vote for me?"

It is 100% our fault. We vote them into office and we allow them to do this.

Right and wrong. It is 100% our fault, but only because if they actually did cut spending, it would end their political career, because then nobody would vote for them again.

i would

Maybe, but most won't. That's the point. You said you spent 20 years in the military. What if that politician wanted to cut military funding including benefits and pay? What about equipment that protects the lives of our men and women in war?

We could easily cut 10 to 15 percent from the DOD budget without any affect on readiness and troop welfare. The amount of waste in the DOD is staggering. The stories I could tell about being told to spend money by a certain date or else...hell if we could just change the "use it or lose it" mentality we could cut 5% off the top.

Okay, so let's say you're correct. Is that 5% going to get us out of deficit spending?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It is 100% our fault. We vote them into office and we allow them to do this.

Right and wrong. It is 100% our fault, but only because if they actually did cut spending, it would end their political career, because then nobody would vote for them again.

i would

Maybe, but most won't. That's the point. You said you spent 20 years in the military. What if that politician wanted to cut military funding including benefits and pay? What about equipment that protects the lives of our men and women in war?

We could easily cut 10 to 15 percent from the DOD budget without any affect on readiness and troop welfare. The amount of waste in the DOD is staggering. The stories I could tell about being told to spend money by a certain date or else...hell if we could just change the "use it or lose it" mentality we could cut 5% off the top.

Okay, so let's say you're correct. Is that 5% going to get us out of deficit spending?

It is a start...we have to start somewhere.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It is 100% our fault. We vote them into office and we allow them to do this.

The system is rigged so that you only get a choice of two thieves.

Democracy is a con.

Seems wrong to blame democracy

Why? Look at every democracy in the world. They all have massive debt.

Blame the people, not the system.

What's the alternative?

Why should we do that? Why do you believe democracy can't be inherently flawed?

Because it is humans that are inherently flawed, not any system of government. The same reasons that socialism fails are the same reasons that democracy does...humans are greedy and lazy as a species. If you are a religious person it is pretty much one of the main themes of the Bible, it is why we need God.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Right and wrong. It is 100% our fault, but only because if they actually did cut spending, it would end their political career, because then nobody would vote for them again.

i would

Maybe, but most won't. That's the point. You said you spent 20 years in the military. What if that politician wanted to cut military funding including benefits and pay? What about equipment that protects the lives of our men and women in war?

We could easily cut 10 to 15 percent from the DOD budget without any affect on readiness and troop welfare. The amount of waste in the DOD is staggering. The stories I could tell about being told to spend money by a certain date or else...hell if we could just change the "use it or lose it" mentality we could cut 5% off the top.

Okay, so let's say you're correct. Is that 5% going to get us out of deficit spending?

It is a start...we have to start somewhere.

Yes we do. But if it's not enough, and a certain politician wants to cut military spending even more, such as benefits, retirement, and less than top of the line equipment, you would probably object to that.

The point I'm trying to make here is that many of us want to stop government spending, but only the spending of other people. We all have our own goodies we are not willing to do away with.

If you are living comfortably in your suburban HUD house, you want to keep that spending. If you are retired and living on Social Security, you certainly want no cuts there. If you are living on food stamps, you don't want to cancel that program. If you are a mother of three and actually work, you don't want to see government daycare spending cut.

Bottom line is, there are very few places to cut where at least some group of Americans won't object to.

 

[Markle]

Given the manner, the question was posed, "Americans agree with the statement 'the very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs'". It isn't surprising that 64% said yes but why 34% answered no.

 

[bripat9643]

The system is rigged so that you only get a choice of two thieves.

Democracy is a con.

Seems wrong to blame democracy

Why? Look at every democracy in the world. They all have massive debt.

Blame the people, not the system.

What's the alternative?

Why should we do that? Why do you believe democracy can't be inherently flawed?

Because it is humans that are inherently flawed, not any system of government. The same reasons that socialism fails are the same reasons that democracy does...humans are greedy and lazy as a species. If you are a religious person it is pretty much one of the main themes of the Bible, it is why we need God.

Wrong. Is dictatorship flawed? Is communism flawed? The fact is that democracy is fatally flawed. It always implodes. The parasites and irresponsible always take advantage of the system. Giving morons, swindlers and parasites the right to make decisions about how the output of productive people is disposed of is a prescription for disaster.

 

[bripat9643]

Given the manner, the question was posed, "Americans agree with the statement 'the very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs'". It isn't surprising that 64% said yes but why did 34% answered no.

The rich already do.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Given the manner, the question was posed, "Americans agree with the statement 'the very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs'". It isn't surprising that 64% said yes but why did 34% answered no.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, the Paul's of your society generally have no objection.

Why did the 34% answer no? Probably because most of them hope to be in that bracket sometime in their lives if not already are.

We used to play a lotto game at work when the jackpot hit a certain high point. We would all pitch in our money, and then daydream of what we would do if we won. A coworker used to read to us about the lottery in the paper after nobody hit. The article would include what the jackpot was, what the fast cash value was (that we planned to take) and what was left after taxes from the fast cash gross.

Several coworkers were pissed about how much the government would take of our win if we actually did win the jackpot. None of them conservative of course.

So there is the other 34%.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Wrong. Is dictatorship flawed? Is communism flawed? The fact is that democracy is fatally flawed. It always implodes. The parasites and irresponsible always take advantage of the system. Giving morons, swindlers and parasites the right to make decisions about how the output of productive people is disposed of is a prescription for disaster.

Yes a dictatorship is flawed. It gives too much power to one person and that person always ends up abusing it. It is flawed by the lack of freedom and ends in revolution as the people rise up. Also, there is no dictatorship in the world today that has thrived, all belong to backwards 3rd world nations.

Yes, communism is flawed for the same reason that democracy and socialism are, human nature. Communism failed in the Soviet Union because those in power abused their positions and lived higher than the workers, which is not the nature of communism. Even China no longer practices pure communism.

The problem is not with the system, it is humans.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. Is dictatorship flawed? Is communism flawed? The fact is that democracy is fatally flawed. It always implodes. The parasites and irresponsible always take advantage of the system. Giving morons, swindlers and parasites the right to make decisions about how the output of productive people is disposed of is a prescription for disaster.

Yes a dictatorship is flawed. It gives too much power to one person and that person always ends up abusing it. It is flawed by the lack of freedom and ends in revolution as the people rise up. Also, there is no dictatorship in the world today that has thrived, all belong to backwards 3rd world nations.

Yes, communism is flawed for the same reason that democracy and socialism are, human nature. Communism failed in the Soviet Union because those in power abused their positions and lived higher than the workers, which is not the nature of communism. Even China no longer practices pure communism.

The problem is not with the system, it is humans.

You just agreed that two systems are a problem. Now explain why democracy isn't also a problem.