Shrink the Rich; Not Government

[Avatar4321]

I find it down right embarrassing that We, The People collect taxes on a retail level - Imagine how much money we'd save on the IRS bureaucracy alone if we instead collected on the wholesale level.

We wouldn't collect much at all. We would just see alot of people skipping the wholesale level altogether. It's much easier with the internet.

We would also not recieve taxes for foreign products that sell here.

 

[Avatar4321]

If there were no rich people, there would be no companies. If there were no companies, you wouldn't have a job. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

Two-thirds of all jobs in the US are created AND destroyed by small businesses.

No rich people needed.

And who do those small businessmen borrow the money from to start their business?

 

[Two Thumbs]

If there were no rich people, there would be no companies. If there were no companies, you wouldn't have a job. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

Two-thirds of all jobs in the US are created AND destroyed by small businesses.

No rich people needed.

That could be true.

And may be a good thing.

Considering rich people own large corps and must hire union, getting rid of the rich and closing down 1/3 of our jobs would kill many unions.


pfft

Damn you are one dumb ******* moron. you wanna toss 1/3 of all jobs and put millions on Ui and welfare.

 

[georgephillip]

One moron asks the other Moron:

"How have you done financially since 1978?"

The richest 0.01% of Americans (about 10,000 people) have seen their annual incomes and total assets increase by 550% according to Phil's Stock World.

Private union members, the few that are left, have not seen their incomes and assets increase by 550%.

Neither have government workers seen their incomes and assets increase by such a margin.

Maybe we first have to decide at what level of income and assets does "rich" begin in this country?

And then determine what percentage of total campaign contributions to Republicans AND Democrats come from the "rich?"

 

[georgephillip]

If there were no rich people, there would be no companies. If there were no companies, you wouldn't have a job. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

Two-thirds of all jobs in the US are created AND destroyed by small businesses.

No rich people needed.

And who do those small businessmen borrow the money from to start their business?

Good point.

I guess my response would start with private bankers who are probably part of a cartel called the Federal Reserve System.

There are alternatives like the one the State of North Dakota found in 1919 when it stated doing business as the State Bank of North Dakota.

Currently, North Dakota has more jobs than job seekers and no budget deficit.

 

[daveman]

I was working before you were born.

And I'm still not brainwashed enough to think I was ever compensated fully for my labor.

I'm sure you are.

Sooo...what kept you from negotiating better compensation for your effort?

Again: Nothing.

Your current situation is no one's fault but your own. Stop blaming others and insisting they pay you because you failed.

How many jobs in the private sector have you held?

Let's see...construction worker several times, shoe factory, cabinet maker, pet store.

Ever been fired for trying to negotiate better compensation for voting to join a union?

No. Have you?

I've been in two unions. All they did for me was take money out of my paycheck. At the shoe factory, I had a legitimate complaint I took to the shop steward. She told me to get back to work.

 

[daveman]

If there were no rich people, there would be no companies. If there were no companies, you wouldn't have a job. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

Two-thirds of all jobs in the US are created AND destroyed by small businesses.

No rich people needed.

So you want to add another third of the work force to the unemployment line?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Class warfare: The linchpin of of the Democrat's political philosophy.

 

[Sallow]

Really? Are you one of those idiots who thinks the military spending is socialism?

That wouldn't surprise me much, actually.

Well since it is..by definition socialism..yep. And it's not idiotic. Not any more idiotic then thinking spending on the Post Office is socialism too. As well as Medicare.

There is a difference between the military and, day, welfare, which is undeniably socialism.

The military member earns his pay and benefits. The welfare recipient does not.

Doesn't matter. Socialism is not about earning pay or not. It's about who is providing the goods and services. With Socialism..it's the public sector..with Capitalism..it's the private sector.

You're looking at this through a biased lens..instead of squarely.

 

[Gadawg73]

Apparently, we here at USMB have the pleasure of being in a community comprised of very wealthy folks, folks who truly believe that they will attain great wealth while they're still young enough to enjoy it and/or folks who have bought the whole trickle down theory sold by the wealthy hook, line, and bobber.

I am impressed, waiting to be impressed and not really surprised - it is a pretty good sales pitch, especially when driven home by fear.

If you are one of the very wealthy, do the economy a favor by going out and buying 35 cars and 112 refrigerators (please look for the "Made in USA" label for maximum effect).

If you're a wannabe or just one of the many out there waiting for the trickle to start, keep voting republican and praying - eventually your prayers will be answered yes and you'll be a multi-millionaire or they'll be answered with mind opening truth and you'll understand that true liberalism is not interested in higher or lower taxes, true liberalism is interested in fair taxes.

That was very good.
You forgot that the very wealthy employ enough folks to surpass your "buying 35 cars and 112 refrigerotors".
A fair tax is never an income tax. You get less of what you punish.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Been there.
Done that.
Really sucked at it.

So why should everyone else have to pay for your failure?

You been on vacation?

Nope. I work for a living. Try it sometime.

I was working before you were born.

And I'm still not brainwashed enough to think I was ever compensated fully for my labor.

I'm sure you are.

I personally doubt you were working before I was born. It is conceivable, but unlikely. As for never being properly compensated for your labor, maybe you shouldn't have been in a union all that time. I have never stayed at any job that did not properly compensate me for my labor, and have never been in a union.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I would think that if the government has the right to draft a citizen into the military and send him off to die for 'the greater good',

than it's hardly unreasonable that the government might asked a larger financial contribution to 'the greater good' from those in the country who can most easily afford it.

Let me try this again since you ignored me the last time I said it.

The government has no rights.

 

[daveman]

Well since it is..by definition socialism..yep. And it's not idiotic. Not any more idiotic then thinking spending on the Post Office is socialism too. As well as Medicare.

There is a difference between the military and, day, welfare, which is undeniably socialism.

The military member earns his pay and benefits. The welfare recipient does not.

Doesn't matter. Socialism is not about earning pay or not. It's about who is providing the goods and services. With Socialism..it's the public sector..with Capitalism..it's the private sector.

You're looking at this through a biased lens..instead of squarely.

Well, there's also that Constitutional lens I'm looking through.

 

[Toro]

"The vast middle class no longer has the purchasing power to keep the economy going. (The rich spend a much lower portion of their incomes.)

That's because they're being taxed into the poor house, asswipe.

How are they being taxed into the poorhouse? Where is the thread that says half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes? The tax take by the government is something like the lowest since 1940.

I disagree with the OP but purchasing power has been rising for the better part of six decades while the middle class paid more in taxes than today, so our problems are not because of taxes.

 

[Toro]

FTR The solution is to get everyone's income growing again. The economy isn't going to start growing by increasing taxes on the rich and increasing social programs.

 

[Bern80]

"The vast middle class no longer has the purchasing power to keep the economy going. (The rich spend a much lower portion of their incomes.)

That's because they're being taxed into the poor house, asswipe.

You apparently think the richest 1% of US earners actually deserve 25% of total income?

Is that because they work so hard?

Or is it tax bias Republicans AND Democrats continually provide for their political base?

Any problem with exempting the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes?

Many of them did work very hard for it. In general however they figured out how to accumulate wealth......and YOU didn't. Yes shame on them for YOUR ******* incompetence.

 

[Toro]

This class warfare thinking by Democrats is wearisome. One of the things that makes America great is that it venerates success. Punishing success seems antithetical to America, it seems to me.

I think that non-liberal Americans understand this. I remember reading a poll a decade or so ago whereby 20% of Americans think they are in the top 2% in income, and another 20% want to be in the top 2%. Assuming that there are an insignificant amount of liberals in this group, that means fully half of all Americans who aren't liberals are fundamentally hostile to the liberal's sirensong of class envy.

This is why it is somewhat futile to be a liberal. If 40% of the people are already opposed to your agenda, that means you have to convince at least 75% of the remaining 40% who aren't liberals and who aren't fundamentally opposed to your agenda.

Being a liberal means being constantly frustrated.

 

[Bern80]

This class warefare thing is so ******* old. I really dont wonder why the people who piss and moan about the wealthy, aren't wealthy. I wonder why not.

Being wealthy isn't about this politcal advantage or that economic advantage. Attaining wealth takes a mind set that most people simply don't have. It isn't one of greed, or back stabbing or evil. It is about what they want out of life and how to get it. It's about goal setting. I want as much time to do what I want to do on this earth as I can possibly get. There are two other terms synonomous with time; freedom and money. More time equal more freedom. More money equals more freedom. More money equals more time. If I want time to experience all life has to offer that costs money so the goal is how do I acquire money so I have more time so I have more freedom. Isn't that what everyone wants? Life is short. You have to chalk up a third of it to sleeping alone. I would rather not chalk up another quarter to a fifth working 60 hours a week. Now I might earn money doing that, but making money that way doesn't translate into more time. The goal is to earn more money to attain more time. Not to work more time to attain money.

The wealthy understand a couple of things about attaining wealth; It isnt' about working hard. It's about working smart and it isn't about working for money, it's about money working for you. It's about wealth increasing without having to do anything. There is nothing inherently noble or righteous about working your fingers to the bone to earn money. Conversely there is nothing inherently evil about entering into voluntary contracts with people (i.e. being landlord, stock dividends, owning a business) that generate cash flow for you.

THAT is the difference between the haves and the have nots. Robert Kioysaki said the game of money is about who is indebted to whom. If you want to accumulate wealth you have to not only minimize who you are indebted to but also maximize who is indebted to you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"The vast middle class no longer has the purchasing power to keep the economy going. (The rich spend a much lower portion of their incomes.)

That's because they're being taxed into the poor house, asswipe.

How are they being taxed into the poorhouse? Where is the thread that says half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes? The tax take by the government is something like the lowest since 1940.

I disagree with the OP but purchasing power has been rising for the better part of six decades while the middle class paid more in taxes than today, so our problems are not because of taxes.

People pay more than just federal income tax. I don't know of anyone, including homeless people that live on the street, that pay no taxes at all.

 

[The T]

Class warfare: The linchpin of of the Democrat's political philosophy.

Bolstered by Union thuggery.