The Question Conservatives Can't Answer

[Toddsterpatriot]

Back to the patented CON$ervative dumb act.

Income is income, and to give special treatment to the main income of one class over another is "class warfare."
Get it????

I already said I want income, capital gains and corporate taxes to all be 15%.
No more special treatment.

But you obviously didn't mean it or you wouldn't have asked "So what?"

I do mean it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The questions conservatives don't like to answer are....

Why should the Forbes 400 pay taxes at a lower rate then the rest of us?

And the majority of the federal budget is Social Security, Medicare, and defense....

Which one of those would you cut?

My first choice would be the one with cost-plus contracts.

A WPA-II program would be administered like the original with the military assuming operational command. Do you think it's possible over the next generation (at least) to put military and civilians to work rebuilding US infrastructure instead of bombing infrastructure on the opposite side of the planet?

State banks like the one in North Dakota could provide some of the financing without any help from Wall Street.

Why is a state bank superior?
Spell it out.

 

[SaneVoice]

I wonder how many factories Germany lost between 2001 and 2009?

"When looking at the declining American middle class, a good number to start with is 42,400. That's the total number of factories that the U.S. lost between 2001 and the end of 2009.

"Put another way, this translates into the outsourcing of 32% of all manufacturing jobs in America."

You want those jobs back?

Compete for them. Lower the corporate tax to zero, and you'll see an almost immediate reversal of these trends. It really is as simple as that...

 

[Skull Pilot]

As a welfare queen investing nothing, you obviously don't know that investment income is not taxed as "earned income" like wages are. They are taxed as "capital gains" which means they are not taxed as they grow year after year. Cap gains are like an unlimited IRA for the wealthy, with NO penalty for early withdrawal. When the increase in value is finally taken after it has grown tax free, it is then taxed at a lower rate than wages. But this special treatment is not good enough for the greedy tycoons, these elitists believe they are just too good for any taxes and want cap gains taxes reduced to $0.00. Taxes are only good for the common wage earner, investors are too special for taxes.

It's true that capital gains are taxed at a different rate than wages.

It's also true that unrealized gains are not taxed.

So what?

Back to the patented CON$ervative dumb act.

Income is income, and to give special treatment to the main income of one class over another is "class warfare."
Get it????

It's not income until you realize it.


If you want to tax unrealized capital gains then you also have to allow a write off for unrealized losses.

 

[Contumacious]

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer

1- Why do the parasites believe that they can enslave taxpayers and the producers

2- why do the parasites believe that the government owes them a living

3- why can't the parasites understand that if they do not want to be poor they have to learn a marketable skill

4- why can't the parasites understand that they must move to wherever the jobs are


.

 

[SaneVoice]

That trillion dollars would not be going to the government.
It would be going to the other 99% of US taxpayers.

Now... crawl back into Hillary's nose.
And die.

Okay, stop the presses...this is the liberal person's flawed thinking in plain sight for all to see.

You seem to think if top earners made a trillion less, it somehow would go to other US taxpayers. You forget a small step, though - if the top earners made less, where would this trillion dollars come from? In truth, if top earners made a trillion less, our entire economy would be a trillion dollars smaller.

Of course, the rich would still get their percentage of this smaller pie - and so would you...but in point of fact, your slice would shrink too. it's not like there's money just floating around in search of a home. This is the sort of thinking that gets those on the left in trouble.

Truth is, you want more prosperity, you should be doing everything you possibly can to help those nasty rich people make every dime that they can, instead of opposing them at every turn.

 

[edthecynic]

It's true that capital gains are taxed at a different rate than wages.

It's also true that unrealized gains are not taxed.

So what?

Back to the patented CON$ervative dumb act.

Income is income, and to give special treatment to the main income of one class over another is "class warfare."
Get it????

It's not income until you realize it.

If you want to tax unrealized capital gains then you also have to allow a write off for unrealized losses.

And that is the loophole that allows wealth to grow tax free.

And just as realized losses are deductible, so would unrealized losses. No special treatment in any way.

 

[SaneVoice]

The questions conservatives don't like to answer are....

Why should the Forbes 400 pay taxes at a lower rate then the rest of us?

And the majority of the federal budget is Social Security, Medicare, and defense....

Which one of those would you cut?

My first choice would be the one with cost-plus contracts.

A WPA-II program would be administered like the original with the military assuming operational command. Do you think it's possible over the next generation (at least) to put military and civilians to work rebuilding US infrastructure instead of bombing infrastructure on the opposite side of the planet?

State banks like the one in North Dakota could provide some of the financing without any help from Wall Street.

My first choice would be that people wake up and recognize that intervening in free markets is not the role of the Government.

Governments can't help but make political decisions that favor one group over another. Look at the recent NASA cutbacks...does is not occur to folks that most of the tens of thousands of jobs lost are "red state" jobs?

Does it also not occur to you that Social Security is a scam designed to keep mostly poor people down?

If you pay into the program, you need to live to be about 72 to break even, and even if you live to be 80, your return is only about 2% on a lifetime of investing from you and your employers.

Compare that to nearly any other investment - on a broad scale, US investment return since 1900 is about 9.8%, and that includes the depression, two world wars and so on. The Government forces people to accept lower rates of return on their retirement savings than they deserve.

Social Security is also an inherently racist system, in that it penalizes minority groups because they have lower life expectancies. Imagine you're a black male in today's society...your life expectancy is only about 67. You pay into Social Security your whole life, and on average, you don't get to see a penny returned.

Worse, even if you put all that money - and don't forget, it's nearly 15% of all wages ever earned - under your mattress, at least you'd have a tidy sum to leave to your kids. Not so with Social Security - not only do you not benefit from it, neither do your heirs.

Now you want to go build a "WPA-II" or some other nonsensical infrastructure building company. No thanks - it's not the Government's role.

 

[edthecynic]

That trillion dollars would not be going to the government.
It would be going to the other 99% of US taxpayers.

Now... crawl back into Hillary's nose.
And die.

Okay, stop the presses...this is the liberal person's flawed thinking in plain sight for all to see.

You seem to think if top earners made a trillion less, it somehow would go to other US taxpayers. You forget a small step, though - if the top earners made less, where would this trillion dollars come from? In truth, if top earners made a trillion less, our entire economy would be a trillion dollars smaller.

Of course, the rich would still get their percentage of this smaller pie - and so would you...but in point of fact, your slice would shrink too. it's not like there's money just floating around in search of a home. This is the sort of thinking that gets those on the left in trouble.

Truth is, you want more prosperity, you should be doing everything you possibly can to help those nasty rich people make every dime that they can, instead of opposing them at every turn.

That's not necessarily true.

What he is saying is if that 1 trillion in profit was not pocketed by the rich and paid out in wages, the economy would grow more by the spending of the 1 trillion by the wage earners than by the banking of the 1 trillion by the rich. Money spent by the wage earners stimulated demand and growth, but money banked by the wealthy stimulates almost nothing. They are not going to invest in increased production if the public does not have the money to buy the extra production.

 

[georgephillip]

Hey Georgie boy

You still haven't answered my earlier question.

Do you truly believe a guy who makes 200K a year should have an additional 90K confiscated from him via taxes?

Sorry, Skull.
Cyberspace can be confusing.

I don't think someone earning $250,000 a year should be taxed at 90%.
I do believe someone earning $250,000,000 a year should be.

Robert Reich has proposed some additional tax brackets starting at $500,000 a year and progressing through $15,000,000 per.

"Under my proposal, incomes between $5 million and $15 million would be subjected to a 60 percent rate, and incomes between $500,000 and $5 million to a 50 percent rate."

Reich proposes to tax incomes of $15,000,000 per year or more at 70%.

Robert Reich (The Growing Desperation of the Don't-Raise-Taxes-on-the-Rich Crowd)

You believe in outright theft of another's property.

That's a great way for government to run.

Do you think private property exists without government?
Would you find it more or less expensive to defend your property without government?

While taxes are outright theft and governments often function like a crime family, my point is the crimes of government are what allow oligarchies to mature into aristocracies.

The solution is to reinvent government, and, imo, that will require jailing thousands of politicians and other parasites.

 

[edthecynic]

The questions conservatives don't like to answer are....

Why should the Forbes 400 pay taxes at a lower rate then the rest of us?

And the majority of the federal budget is Social Security, Medicare, and defense....

Which one of those would you cut?

My first choice would be the one with cost-plus contracts.

A WPA-II program would be administered like the original with the military assuming operational command. Do you think it's possible over the next generation (at least) to put military and civilians to work rebuilding US infrastructure instead of bombing infrastructure on the opposite side of the planet?

State banks like the one in North Dakota could provide some of the financing without any help from Wall Street.

My first choice would be that people wake up and recognize that intervening in free markets is not the role of the Government.

Governments can't help but make political decisions that favor one group over another. Look at the recent NASA cutbacks...does is not occur to folks that most of the tens of thousands of jobs lost are "red state" jobs?

Does it also not occur to you that Social Security is a scam designed to keep mostly poor people down?

If you pay into the program, you need to live to be about 72 to break even, and even if you live to be 80, your return is only about 2% on a lifetime of investing from you and your employers.

Compare that to nearly any other investment - on a broad scale, US investment return since 1900 is about 9.8%, and that includes the depression, two world wars and so on. The Government forces people to accept lower rates of return on their retirement savings than they deserve.

Social Security is also an inherently racist system, in that it penalizes minority groups because they have lower life expectancies. Imagine you're a black male in today's society...your life expectancy is only about 67. You pay into Social Security your whole life, and on average, you don't get to see a penny returned.

Worse, even if you put all that money - and don't forget, it's nearly 15% of all wages ever earned - under your mattress, at least you'd have a tidy sum to leave to your kids. Not so with Social Security - not only do you not benefit from it, neither do your heirs.

Now you want to go build a "WPA-II" or some other nonsensical infrastructure building company. No thanks - it's not the Government's role.

There are no "free markets!"

 

[Mr.Nick]

"The following fact was sent to numerous conservative pundits, politicians, and profit-seekers:

"Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of America's income over the past 30 years. Much of the gain came from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments.

"If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy.

"And a question was posed:

"In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?

"This question was not posed in sarcasm.

"A factual answer is genuinely sought.

"It seems unlikely that 1% of the population worked three times harder than the rest of us, or contributed three times as much to American productivity.

"Money earned from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments is not productive income."

Any takers, Cons?

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

The rich kept on investing money - you know the money you don't have to invest.

Now, why don't you have money to invest?? because you're a greedy dumb person.

Thats honesty...

Oh and quit worrying about what others have - focus on yourself. Generally the rich have absolutely nothing to do with your financial position.

 

[SaneVoice]

Back to the patented CON$ervative dumb act.

Income is income, and to give special treatment to the main income of one class over another is "class warfare."
Get it????

It's not income until you realize it.

If you want to tax unrealized capital gains then you also have to allow a write off for unrealized losses.

And that is the loophole that allows wealth to grow tax free.

And just as realized losses are deductible, so would unrealized losses. No special treatment in any way.

No disrespect, but what an idiotic idea.

Are you going to tax grandma's home, simply because the shack she bought thirty years ago has gone up in value? And when we have those boom years in real estate where a community might increase in value more than grandma earns in income, are you going to throw her out on the street?

How about small businesses? Sign up a few new customers, raise the enterprise value of your business - and then what? Shut it down so Uncle Sam can take their share?

Is this really the behavior you want?

 

[edthecynic]

It's not income until you realize it.

If you want to tax unrealized capital gains then you also have to allow a write off for unrealized losses.

And that is the loophole that allows wealth to grow tax free.

And just as realized losses are deductible, so would unrealized losses. No special treatment in any way.

No disrespect, but what an idiotic idea.

Are you going to tax grandma's home, simply because the shack she bought thirty years ago has gone up in value? And when we have those boom years in real estate where a community might increase in value more than grandma earns in income, are you going to throw her out on the street?

How about small businesses? Sign up a few new customers, raise the enterprise value of your business - and then what? Shut it down so Uncle Sam can take their share?

Is this really the behavior you want?

First of all, I was talking about the investment income that Toadstool brought up, not grandma's house.
And Gramdma is already being taxed out of her house by local property taxes!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's not income until you realize it.

If you want to tax unrealized capital gains then you also have to allow a write off for unrealized losses.

And that is the loophole that allows wealth to grow tax free.

And just as realized losses are deductible, so would unrealized losses. No special treatment in any way.

No disrespect, but what an idiotic idea.

Are you going to tax grandma's home, simply because the shack she bought thirty years ago has gone up in value? And when we have those boom years in real estate where a community might increase in value more than grandma earns in income, are you going to throw her out on the street?

How about small businesses? Sign up a few new customers, raise the enterprise value of your business - and then what? Shut it down so Uncle Sam can take their share?

Is this really the behavior you want?

As long as government gets a big cut, that's all the libs care about.

 

[Ame®icano]

It was their money to begin with. They earned it.

When are you on the left going to realize that taxes burden the American people with labor they have to pay the government before they can take care of themselves? The money is theirs.

At what point have they paid their fair share?

Did you bother reading the link?

"It seems unlikely that 1% of the population worked three times harder than the rest of us, or contributed three times as much to American productivity.

"Money earned from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments is not productive income..."

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

What does that mean, "worked 3 times harder?" I can go get a tractor and move 5 yards of gravel and grade it out level in 2 hours or so... I can also do it with a shovel and wheel barrow... One is harder than the other, does that mean I should get paid more because I decided to take 3 days of busting my ass over sitting on a tractor and busting ass for 2 hours?

I’m not even sure how your logic works… Do you feel a doctor should make the same as someone working at Subway just because they both put in a 40 hour week?

Some people make poor investments or run their company into the ground… Some invest very well and run a company great. Why should someone that does great in their work/life be penalized more? I honestly don’t understand the logic… Imagine 30 or 40… maybe 50% of all the money you make simply being removed/taken by Government… And some people wonder why outsourcing is such a viable option.

Let's say you don't have a tractor but your neighbor does. He can let you use his tractor if you pay him some money. Now, you don't think it's fair that you pay him anything, since he's already rich and vote for thy guy who will take that tractor from him and give it to you. Now you do have a tractor, but no money to fuel it and repair it. You demand from guy you voted for to force your rich neighbor to pay fair share and give you money for gas and repairs, or you will not vote for him again. Is that a logic you understand?

 

[Chris]

The questions conservatives don't like to answer are....

Why should the Forbes 400 pay taxes at a lower rate then the rest of us?

And the majority of the federal budget is Social Security, Medicare, and defense....

Which one of those would you cut?

My first choice would be the one with cost-plus contracts.

A WPA-II program would be administered like the original with the military assuming operational command. Do you think it's possible over the next generation (at least) to put military and civilians to work rebuilding US infrastructure instead of bombing infrastructure on the opposite side of the planet?

State banks like the one in North Dakota could provide some of the financing without any help from Wall Street.

My first choice would be that people wake up and recognize that intervening in free markets is not the role of the Government.

Governments can't help but make political decisions that favor one group over another. Look at the recent NASA cutbacks...does is not occur to folks that most of the tens of thousands of jobs lost are "red state" jobs?

Does it also not occur to you that Social Security is a scam designed to keep mostly poor people down?

If you pay into the program, you need to live to be about 72 to break even, and even if you live to be 80, your return is only about 2% on a lifetime of investing from you and your employers.

Compare that to nearly any other investment - on a broad scale, US investment return since 1900 is about 9.8%, and that includes the depression, two world wars and so on. The Government forces people to accept lower rates of return on their retirement savings than they deserve.

Social Security is also an inherently racist system, in that it penalizes minority groups because they have lower life expectancies. Imagine you're a black male in today's society...your life expectancy is only about 67. You pay into Social Security your whole life, and on average, you don't get to see a penny returned.

Worse, even if you put all that money - and don't forget, it's nearly 15% of all wages ever earned - under your mattress, at least you'd have a tidy sum to leave to your kids. Not so with Social Security - not only do you not benefit from it, neither do your heirs.

Now you want to go build a "WPA-II" or some other nonsensical infrastructure building company. No thanks - it's not the Government's role.

This is one of the most bizzare posts I have ever seen.

People won't save. You know they won't. It's human nature.

Therefore, it is better to have a government program that takes care of the old and the sick. The richest country in the world should be able to take care of its old and sick.

But modern day conservatism is the political codification of selfishness.

 

[georgephillip]

The questions conservatives don't like to answer are....

Why should the Forbes 400 pay taxes at a lower rate then the rest of us?

And the majority of the federal budget is Social Security, Medicare, and defense....

Which one of those would you cut?

My first choice would be the one with cost-plus contracts.

A WPA-II program would be administered like the original with the military assuming operational command. Do you think it's possible over the next generation (at least) to put military and civilians to work rebuilding US infrastructure instead of bombing infrastructure on the opposite side of the planet?

State banks like the one in North Dakota could provide some of the financing without any help from Wall Street.

Why is a state bank superior?
Spell it out.

Let's ask Ellen!

"Cut spending, raise taxes, sell off public assets—these are the unsatisfactory solutions being debated across the nation, but the budget crises that nearly all the states are now suffering did not arise from too much spending or too little taxation.

"The crises arose from a credit freeze on Wall Street.

"In the wake of the 2009 financial market collapse, banks curtailed their lending more sharply than in any year since 1942, driving massive unemployment and causing local tax revenues to plummet."

State-Owned Banks: A Win-Win for State Budgets and Local Economies by Ellen Brown

Based on the North Dakota model, state banks don't invest in gambling.
Unlike Wall Street.

 

[georgephillip]

Conservatives can answer it. The federal government doesn't generate income.

And the free market is incapable of using it in ways that dont rape cancer patients of their life savings or force the price of american labor down by demanding cheap foreign made goods.

We can get into semantics all day long. Why dont you answer the question in the first place.

Theres no reason that the top 1% should benefit three times more than the rest of the population. If they do, so be it. But then we shouldnt be arguing about giving them more tax cuts. The fact is the government is necessary to some extent. Someone has to pay for the police, and there is no reason an insurance company should be making money on someones medicine. So if the rich are already doing better than the rest of us, you'd be crazy to vote to give them more tax cuts now.

Ok, one who does not see the entire picture.
Look, businesses operate to turn a profit.
There is no doubt that the more a business produces, the more it needs labor to assist in that production.
Your argument is steeped in the progressive notion that "it just isn't fair that so few people have so much"...That notion is based on the false premise of a zero sum game. That is the perception that if one has more therefore another must have less. Or that because one is wealthy they must have "taken" from someone else. Georgephillip bleats out this in every thread in which he participates. He is blatant about it. He simply states that the wealthy have "stolen" from the rest of us. Nonsense.

BBLLEEEAATTT!

The progressive notion "it just isn't fair that so few have so much" comes from the feudal dependence upon military conquest to acquire wealth. (land, labor and capital) Today, finance capitalism serves the rich the same way military conquest established the Ulster plantation in 1609 or the Jewish state of Israel in 1948.

If conservatives weren't afraid to confront "legitimate" authority, Wall Street would be just as dead as Charles I or Avraham Stern.

 

[georgephillip]

"The following fact was sent to numerous conservative pundits, politicians, and profit-seekers:

"Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of America's income over the past 30 years. Much of the gain came from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments.

"If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy.

"And a question was posed:

"In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?

"This question was not posed in sarcasm.

"A factual answer is genuinely sought.

"It seems unlikely that 1% of the population worked three times harder than the rest of us, or contributed three times as much to American productivity.

"Money earned from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments is not productive income."

Any takers, Cons?

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

The problem is 45% of the working American public pay no federal income tax what-so-ever and receive the same government benefits--off of other peoples backs. The top 10% in this country pay 70% of the entire tax base--and 45% of the public only pays 2.7%.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance,and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."Winston Churchill

The problem is 45% of working Americans don't earn enough to pay income taxes or drive 70% of US GDP:

"...the top 20% of the American populace holds roughly 93% of the country's financial wealth, and the top 1% of the country holds approximately 43% of the money in the U.S.

"Meanwhile, the middle 20% of the population -- what would, officially, be called the middle class -- holds only 6% of the country's total assets.

"While disturbing, even this minuscule share of the wealth pie dwarfs the bottom 40% of the country, who control less than 1%."

America has never been richer than it is today.
The distribution of that wealth has never been more unequal.
The solution does not require cutting Social Security.
It requires taxing the rich.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/10/17/disturbing-statistics-on-the-decline-of-americas-middle-class/