[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[Uncensored2008]

Is there anybody who cares what you think about anything?

I can't imagine it.

And you reiterate my point.

You are a troll, a shit flinging feral baboon. You are not here to "debate," you're here to fling poo.

Get thee to a baboonary.

 

[PMZ]

But, if I'm wrong, he's a fine example of businesses leaders who may have enriched themselves, but only at the expense of everyone else. Wealth sewers, not creators.

His problem is that he knows little about economics, and it's mostly wrong.

So people only get rich "at the expense of everyone else"?
Who did Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry **** in the ass after their wealth went over 100 million?

Wealth creates demand for that wealth and that creates jobs.
How else are jobs created?

Jobs are created by offering compelling, innovative goods and services. Better satisfying more customers.

Specific to your question, I have no idea. Do you?

 

[PMZ]

Is there anybody who cares what you think about anything?

I can't imagine it.

And you reiterate my point.

You are a troll, a shit flinging feral baboon. You are not here to "debate," you're here to fling poo.

Get thee to a baboonary.

Is this point your argument that your opinions are relevant or even interesting to someone? Anyone?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Jobs are created by offering compelling, innovative goods and services. Better satisfying more customers.

Specific to your question, I have no idea. Do you?

In John Kerry's case, I'd say it was Theresa Heinz he fucked in the ass. (as well as elsewhere.)

(Apparently she liked it...)

 

[Uncensored2008]

Is this point your argument that your opinions are relevant or even interesting to someone? Anyone?

Rather that Mr. Soros opinions, that you spew, are not....

 

[PMZ]

Jobs are created by offering compelling, innovative goods and services. Better satisfying more customers.

Specific to your question, I have no idea. Do you?

In John Kerry's case, I'd say it was Theresa Heinz he fucked in the ass. (as well as elsewhere.)

(Apparently she liked it...)

Certainly marrying wealth works for many people.

There's a big difference between having and creating wealth. Creating it comes from actually producing goods and services. That defines the pot that we all have to divide up. More and more the people who create wealth are not the ones that keep the major share of the value that they add. Lots of parasites living off of every worker. A few of them are politicians.

 

[PMZ]

Is this point your argument that your opinions are relevant or even interesting to someone? Anyone?

Rather that Mr. Soros opinions, that you spew, are not....

I don't believe that I've ever seen or heard or read him. Nor know anybody who has. Does he rely on mental telepathy?

 

[kaz]

There's a big difference between having and creating wealth. Creating it comes from actually producing goods and services.

Ah, you mean like government does?

 

[RKMBrown]

I told you, I don't need your money. I'm not for sale to anybody.

Retard. You accused me of lying about my personal credentials, twice now. Put your money where your mouth is jerk.

I said that I had my doubts from the evidence if your behavior. That’s a true statement.

That's understandable. I assure you I was understating my credentials, and my behavior is not representative. Just having fun venting back at you for your venting behavior, trying to make you feel at home so to speak

 

[PMZ]

There's a big difference between having and creating wealth. Creating it comes from actually producing goods and services.

Ah, you mean like government does?

Yes.

 

[Gadawg73]

Jobs are created by offering compelling, innovative goods and services. Better satisfying more customers.

Specific to your question, I have no idea. Do you?

In John Kerry's case, I'd say it was Theresa Heinz he fucked in the ass. (as well as elsewhere.)

(Apparently she liked it...)

Certainly marrying wealth works for many people.

There's a big difference between having and creating wealth. Creating it comes from actually producing goods and services. That defines the pot that we all have to divide up. More and more the people who create wealth are not the ones that keep the major share of the value that they add. Lots of parasites living off of every worker. A few of them are politicians.

My net worth is about 2 million give or take. I earned ALL OF IT.
Tell me specifically who I stole it from and who suffered as a result of me having a net worth of 2 million.
Specifics.

 

[kaz]

There's a big difference between having and creating wealth. Creating it comes from actually producing goods and services.

Ah, you mean like government does?

Yes.

And again, the word "Marxist" bothers you because...

 

[Gadawg73]

But, if I'm wrong, he's a fine example of businesses leaders who may have enriched themselves, but only at the expense of everyone else. Wealth sewers, not creators.

His problem is that he knows little about economics, and it's mostly wrong.

So people only get rich "at the expense of everyone else"?
Who did Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry **** in the ass after their wealth went over 100 million?

Wealth creates demand for that wealth and that creates jobs.
How else are jobs created?

Jobs are created by offering compelling, innovative goods and services. Better satisfying more customers.

Specific to your question, I have no idea. Do you?

LOL, so the consumer demand has nothing to do with it?
So when someone wipes their ass after taking a dump there is no demand for more shit paper when they run out.
Instead of that they seek "innovative goods and services".
Dude, you have no clue.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Haha this is what I encounter when I talk to my conservatives friends in person as well! There has to be some Republican out there who can explain to me why they think taxing the poor more than the rich would create more jobs and stimulate the economy!

No, there doesn't have to be a Repub that can offer an explanation that makes sense. Because the premise doesn't make sense.

But I like your optimism.

And you still have friends that are conservatives? I gave up on all those kinds of "friends" a long time ago. They went all bat shit crazy on me. It really started downhill when they wanted to invade Iraq.

It's way to hard to call someone a "friend" when the policies they (purported friend) support would harm your own family.

That's why I don't have liberal friends. I'm not on good terms with any family members who voted for Obama. I told them where to get off. Of course, now they all hate Obama as well.

My sister still posts Daily Kos quotes on Facebook, and then gets her panties in a bunch because I tear her apart like a pitbull with a hambone in front of everyone. Well, dimwit, you have my phone number. You COULD discuss this in private.

Sadly, even my superior DNA cannot overcome the overwhelming "stuck on stupid" that is liberalism.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The taxes were higher than 76% in the in the mid-1900s, when our economy was at its peak and America was experiencing the greatest boom it has ever had. Would there be some bosses who move to the Caribbean? I'm sure some would, but very few. The few that move are probably the bosses that are sending American jobs overseas by the thousands so they can make even more money and screw over the poor. The greed of the rich in our society today is disgusting. In the 1950s, the rich were happy too pay higher taxes for the good of the country. We could use that attitude right about now. And what happened to our economy when the rich's tax rate was 90%? Did our economy implode? No! Our middle class was huge which made our economy the strongest it had ever been and we were on top of the world.

Don't forget that even the lowest tax brackets were much higher so returning to the good old days would raise taxes on the lower incomes as well.

Get rid of the EIC, get rid of the home interest deduction, raise the tax rate on the top earners to 45%. Tax all income as earned income.( No cap gains no deferred comp) None of the bullshit mechanisms that the ultra rich use to avoid taxes. Cut government spending 10% across the board.

You want to do ANYTHING about the debt or is it better to have the debt as something to ***** about?

1) No matter how much you hate anyone who doesn't live hand-to-mouth on a minimum-wage job like you do, it doesn't make everyone who benefits from the current capital gains rates "ultra-rich". Being richer than you is likely not a high bar to clear. And vastly more people who are NOT rich by any stretch of the imagination invest, or sell property, or any of a number of other activities to which the capital gains tax is applied. Think 401k plans, teacher and police pension funds . . .

2) Even if we allowed you to confiscate all the wealth and income from the hated "ultra-rich", it wouldn't "do anything about the debt". Capital gains taxes right now raise less than five percent of federal revenue. Do the math, and you realize that raising them to 100 percent, even if no change in economic activity occurred (which, of course, it would) would only provide a drop in the bucket for our debt.

So what you're advocating is NOT "doing something about the debt". What you're advocating is doing something meaningless and symbolic that will harm other people, provide no benefit, but satisfy your jealousy and vindictiveness. Sorry, but that's not a good enough reason.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're the one who's not. Our entire debt came from Bush conservative policies. His wars. His refusal to collect taxes from wealthy friends and family. Recovery from his Great Recession. All instead of paying off, off, off the entire national debt as the CBO said would happen if he had continued Clintonomics.

Five years into Obama W is still responsible for our "entire debt."

On taxes, the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, the top 5% pay 60%, the bottom 50% get more money back than they paid in.

You're a kook-aid swilling dumb ass.

I'm sure that you'll avoid learning, but if I'm wrong here's how your whine came about.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Explain to me first why I should be any more interested in what a sociology professor has to say about economics than I am about any other dumbass on the street who isn't an economist.

I know you leftists are swooningly impressed with anyone who has a degree - especially if they work in academia as opposed to having a real job - but you DO realize that a degree in one field does NOT make one an expert in ALL fields, right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The reason that the wealthy pay the taxes that they do, and the same for the poor, is because the wealthy, as expected, have outplayed the poor in wealth redistribution.

20% of the people have 85% of the wealth.

Anybody who expects that the 80% who share the 15% of the wealth to have money to pay taxes doesn't do arithmetic very well.

That number is so cooked. And everyone should pay taxes, it's the difference between being a citizen who feels invested in our country and a leach who lives off it. And anyone can acquire wealth, you spend less than you earn. People need to take some personal responsibility. Not just run around saying it's not fair, government needs to redistribute money to them when they don't make good choices.

There is a solution. Business growth. No pay for executives without evidence that their performance caused the US economy to grow.

PMS, who do you think pays corporate executives? And how is it, precisely, that YOU fit into that group and thus have ****-all to say about what they're paid or why?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You often make good debating points but then ruin them by childish use of words like 'dipshit' and 'asshole'. Why do you do it? It just make you look stupid and deters potential friends from supporting you.

Why do you let words like that offend you?

Are you an "asshole" or a "dipshit"?

People like you are part of the problem. You're so worried about being offended that you disregard the message.

I use the same lingo as Bripat when talking with liberals because it has been my experience that most are assholes and/or dipshits.

Vulgarities don't offend me. But when they are used by people broadly on my side of an argument they worry me. Because they make my potential allies seem ignorant and linguistically challenged; quite unable to make a point in an interesting, intelligent or even amusing way. By using the same 'lingo' you drag down your apparent IQ by ten percentage points. You diminish yourself not the person you are addressing.

Sweet cheeks, I hope I'm not the first person to suggest this to you, but you're not the universal arbiter of intelligence or appropriateness. You DID know that, right?

It's one thing for your mommy to have told you that bad language makes you sound stupid when you were a child. It's another thing entirely for you to try to blindly impose those nursery-school standards on the adult world at large.

Let me kindly and gently suggest to you that it is time for you to grow up, butch up, and learn to hear something beyond, "He said a bad word!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

Think of how different this country would be if business leaders were accountable to we, the people, as government leaders are.

Businesses are accountable to their customers and stock holders. if you are not a customer or stock holder then that business owes you nothing and you have no say in how they operate.

Only if you are a country hating conservative. And that's why they fail so badly at governance.

Shareholders are people who gamble on stock prices. They really don't care or know anything about the company, or benefit it beyond their sell target.

Wow. You REALLY know nothing about how corporations are run. I'm just . . . wow.

Costumers can only choose to buy your product or from your competition or do without. They are the easiest people to fool with today's advertising.

Costumers?

I'm just going to let that one sit for everyone to stare at for a bit.

So CEOs today are really not accountable to anyone except their buddies on the board and that's a big reason why business has failed us so badly lately.

So what you're saying is that "the Board" - whose actual relationship to the company you apparently know nothing about - just decides to give millions of dollars to some guy and let him run the company into the ground because they play golf together on Saturdays? Is THAT the business theory you're expounding here?

And "business has failed us"? Who is this "us", and what precisely is it that you think "business" owed you all and failed at providing?

The Supreme Court says that they are American citizens just like you and I. If so they, like conservatives, are irresponsible citizens.

Kinda the same question. What "responsibility" is it that you seem to think businesses - or conservatives - have to you, exactly?

 

[Cecilie1200]

One of the many truths that Fox obscures is that we don't now have a government problem here, we have a business problem.

All of the problems argued here would be alleviated if business would return to growing, and provide a well paying job for every worker.

The fact that conservatives made shrink to success fashionable is the problem.

Business leaders should be rewarded for one thing. Growth of the economy. Their present performance in that measure today, on average, wouldn't earn them minimum wage

Society at large has no business rewarding or not rewarding businesses. You, as a third party, are not supposed to get a vote in agreed upon transactions between two parties.

And your shrink to success idea is laughable. There is no tenent of conservatism that says the best way to have a successful business is to cut out all unncessary costs.

As a big government type it's interesting that you mention the importance of a business growing seeing as how the ever expansion of government from its taxes to its regulations serve as direct impediments to that growth.

I'm sick of business excusing their failure by putting on the 'we can't be successful without the help of government' act, a typical conservative whine. And your 'There is no tenent of conservatism that says the best way to have a successful business is to cut out all unncessary costs' is laughable.

The reason that you can't fool me with your bullshit is that I've had too much experience with business. I've worked with intelligent CEOs with the ability to create growth and a recognition of the synergy between their company and the community in which they are permitted to operate. People who respect employees and customers and know where those people live and raise their families. People who know that innovative products and processes are what makes companies grow and they come from treating people like humans rather than interchangeable parts.

The abject failure of conservatism is their inability to see beyond today and focus on yesterday. That makes them parasitic to success and harbingers of failure.

Conservatives whine about the need to get government more involved in business? Really? WHICH conservatives? When? Show me quotes.