War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[occupied]

Nothing wrong with being rich as long as you contribute to the society that supports you

The rich people contribute the most to society of any of us. Every product or service we value, and are willing to pay for, is a contribution to society. If all the rich left, we'd be in ruins.

I beg to differ, an economy is much better served by 1000 millionaires than one billionaire. The mega-rich only buy so many houses, cars and jet-skis. Increasingly concentrated wealth in a nation where wages really do not move up is a drag on the economy not a boon. People only think we need the mega-rich because they own everything worth owning.

 

[Discombobulated]

Nothing wrong with being rich as long as you contribute to the society that supports you

The rich people contribute the most to society of any of us. Every product or service we value, and are willing to pay for, is a contribution to society. If all the rich left, we'd be in ruins.

I beg to differ, an economy is much better served by 1000 millionaires than one billionaire. The mega-rich only buy so many houses, cars and jet-skis. Increasingly concentrated wealth in a nation where wages really do not move up is a drag on the economy not a boon. People only think we need the mega-rich because they own everything worth owning.

The nation's economy would be doing just fine under the old tax structure. Put an end to off shore tax havens, force billionaires to either invest in the US economy or pay a heavy tax penalty. They all used to pay much higher tax rates than they do now and they did just fine, they all made lots of money any way.

 

[Discombobulated]

Nothing wrong with being rich as long as you contribute to the society that supports you

The rich people contribute the most to society of any of us. Every product or service we value, and are willing to pay for, is a contribution to society. If all the rich left, we'd be in ruins.

Not one of them is indispensable, all easily replaced by hungrier people.

 

[Discombobulated]

Inheritance is wealth. We have fairly high taxes on it.

and how much of inherited wealth is exempt from taxes?

and what percentage of people actually inherit enough wealth to pay inheritance taxes.

it's my understanding that there are six families behind the fight against inheritance taxes. one of them is the hilton family.

Most people don't pay inheritance tax. It's not meant to generate much revenue. It's meant for social engineering. I believe that it was originally implemented because people thought it would discourage aristocracy.

I believe that most Western countries do not have an estate tax. Canada does not.

Yes, there was a time that practically no one disagreed with a high inheritance tax, of course that was the days that America had company towns galore and was personally familiar with the despair that came when some asshole controlled the local economy for his own benefit. America has become one giant company town and somehow we have forgotten why we used to hate multi-generational wealth.

What fantasy have you been reading?
The inheritance tax probably costs more to collect, and costs the economy more than it brings in. No reason to keep it other than to "stick it" to rich people. Which is the the reason for being for most leftists.

I suppose the anti-aristocracy sentiment is all but gone from conservative politics, you people deserve a plutocracy but not everyone is such a shameless ******* toady to the establishment wealthy.

And then we have the OP of this thread......anti populist.

 

[JoeNormal]

No, I just get tired of sociopathic douchebags criticizing people who help people besides themselves.

Hey, look around, dumbass... you're not "helping" anyone. The rich keep getting richer, the poor remain mired in poverty. We've spent 20-trillion dollars trying to bring them out of poverty to no avail. Not only do your policies FAIL, they cause even more dynamic problems... take student loans for example. You've artificially driven the price of education through the roof by doling out "free money" instead of letting capitalism work. Now we have kids who can never repay their massive student loans. Who did your policy help?

The same thing with the housing/financial collapse... It all started with Utopian dreams of poor people owning homes.... helping people! All the "free money" was doled out so poor people could buy homes and the price of homes went through the roof because free market capitalist forces were removed. Eventually, the poor can't afford their homes and default, then everything comes crashing down... you stick your index finger in your mouth and bite the tip, then blame it all on Republicans! The same thing is going to happen with health care.

All of your right wing fallacies have been proven wrong and it's the sociopathic douchebags who've turned the system on its ear (for their short term personal gain) who are to blame.

All you are doing is responding with baseless emotive rhetoric. You've not pointed out any fallacy or proven anything wrong, you just keep repeating the mindless nonsense you've read at some Marxist blog. When your policies utterly fail, you find some way to spin it and blame conservatives, republicans, right-wingers, anyone but yourself. The "solution" is always more of your stupidity.

Dude, that's what you're doing except with simpleminded Foxisms.

 

[JoeNormal]

As a reason to get rich? Or what? I've seen people complete an education after kids and some even start a business after kids but I haven't seen anyone get rich after kids unless the seeds were well sown beforehand.

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it can't be done.

I know people who started business while they had kids and they even had more kids after who never made excuses they way you people do and they actually became quite wealthy.

But people like you would rather say it can't be done so you can justify your own lack of initiative. The sad thing is that at least 80% of people will agree with you so it's quite a group of enablers.

Maybe you should associate with more ambitious people.

I've got all the material wealth I could ever want. If I had a lot more money, I'd buy time with it. That's the commodity that most rich people I know don't have.

more rationalization.

You have yet to tell me who made it harder or impossible for you to amass this material wealth.

Maybe that's because no one is stopping you or anyone else from improving their financial position

There's definitely a glass ceiling in my industry and if you're good at what you're doing currently, a move into a management position isn't going to happen. Now that the economy has stagnated, there are even fewer managers looking to move. I've stopped fighting it. I'm getting close enough to retirement that it wouldn't be worth the energy.

And all other industries are closed to you as are the countless ways one can create an additional revenue stream right?

I've already told you that I have enough money. What I'd like is more time and mobility.

 

[Dad2three]

Yes... they gave them land which they stole and made LOANS to them which were repaid with interest. Again.... Railroads were built by Capitalists.

Crony Capitalism and the Transcontinental Railroads

....a government program that in reality should be best remembered as a pioneering feat in government corruption, corporate welfare, and immense waste.

Sure, OR we could've waited another 50 or so years for the 'free market' to work. Hmm

Excuse me dingle berry,

"as the first transcontinentals took shape, there was no economic justification. This is why the first transcontinentals were all creatures, not of capitalism or the private markets, but of government. There simply were not enough people, capital, manufactured goods, or crops between Missouri and the West coast to support a private-sector railroad."

Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett: Face it, Obama is a conservative
Just look at the president's record, Bartlett says. This is no progressive

Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett Face it Obama is a conservative - Salon.com


Obama Is a Republican
He’s the heir to Richard Nixon, not Saul Alinsky.
By Bruce Bartlett • October 21, 2014

Obama Is a Republican The American Conservative

Excuse me dingle berry,

"as the first transcontinentals took shape, there was no economic justification. This is why the first transcontinentals were all creatures, not of capitalism or the private markets, but of government. There simply were not enough people, capital, manufactured goods, or crops between Missouri and the West coast to support a private-sector railroad."

Oh, opinion from Mises who are ALWAYS on the wrong side of history


Weird how the west BOOMED after the RR opened it up, right? lol

 

[Boss]

I suppose the anti-aristocracy sentiment is all but gone from conservative politics, you people deserve a plutocracy but not everyone is such a shameless ******* toady to the establishment wealthy.

Here's the thing... We can't have a plutocracy, aristocracy or theocracy here because we are a free constitutional republic. What you are regurgitating are memes of propagandists who promote Marxism. You see, the arguments for Marxism are all rooted in philosophy from 19th century Europe and Asia where free constitutional republics never existed.

That's why all of what you are saying is irrelevant rhetoric. It simply does not apply to a free constitutional republic like we have. In order to promote Marxism, you have to create this illusion, this fear of things that can never happen here because we are a free constitutional republic. Class warfare is yet another facet of the same thing, you have to create the illusion that America has established classes of people who can't escape what they are born into, when we all know that is not the case. It was the case in much of 19th century Europe and Asia where Marxism cut it's teeth.

 

[Dad2three]

How is readjusting the tax code so that it no longer favors the rich, a "war on the rich"?

The tax code does not matter to the rich. They do not have to earn incomes because they are rich. Many of them actually pay accountants fairly well to ensure they don't earn much taxable income. The ONLY thing you accomplish in messing with the tax code is to make it harder for people who are trying to get rich.

Every small business in America file taxes as an individual. What you mistakenly think of as "the rich" based on high income, is actually mostly small business. Many of these business owners are far from rich, they certainly aren't the uber-rich who you want to punish, but they are the ones bearing the brunt of your stupid policies.

Weird, YOU ARE SAYING INSTITUTING THE BUFFET RULE, MIN 30% TAX ON $1,000,00+ INCOMES, WILL NOT 'MATTER' TO THE RICH? Why are they and the GOP fighting it so hard then?

Uber rich (top 1/10th of 1%) who used to pay 60%-75% EFFECTIVE tax rates from 1945-1970's?

 

[Dad2three]

How is readjusting the tax code so that it no longer favors the rich, a "war on the rich"?

A flat tax doesn't favor anyone.

Weird, MOST economists say that it's regressive? Hmm

 

[rightwinger]

Nothing wrong with being rich as long as you contribute to the society that supports you

The rich people contribute the most to society of any of us. Every product or service we value, and are willing to pay for, is a contribution to society. If all the rich left, we'd be in ruins.

Thank you Ayn Rand

 

[francoHFW]

NOBODY is promoting Marxism, brainwashed dingbat. Taxing the rich and giant corporations their fair share and investing in America is normal and intelligent. Ay caramba.

 

[Dad2three]

to add to that Skull Pilot, you can't have people gaining wealth when their opportunities become limited by policies designed only to help that top 1%.

What policy exactly has stopped you from making more or adding to your net worth?

we are not talking about MY earnings or net wroth. I am fine. unlike you, I have a societal interest in assuring a strong middle class.

and you know very well what rightwing policies have destroyed the middle class and left people with the same wages they earned basically thirty years ago, while goods cost so much more.

I don't know any right wing anything.

All I know is for my entire life no one, no policies, no rich guy, no CEO has ever stopped me from earning more, saving more, or anything else i wanted to do to improve my financial position.

I guess I don't see cabals and conspiracies to use as excuses.

The battle lines are pretty much drawn at those who have benefited from the American economic/tax system, and those who have not. A lot of those who have benefited have such a knee-jerk, arrogant, and defensive reaction that there is just no getting through to them.

Those who benefit love to crow about how hard they worked.

If anything THAT is the great American myth.


There are so many variables in to financial success that I laugh when I hear people extolling the virtues of their “hard work”. Yes, hard work is necessary, but it is not the path to goodness and wealth.

Goodness?

showing up is 90% of the game. But you people are more concerned with time off and hand outs than you are with showing up.

And really the people who pay no income tax and get all kinds of refundable tax credits are benefiting from the tax code are they not?

If you people looked for reasons to succeed rather than excuses why you can't the country would be better off.

MORE right wing nonsense on the MYTH of pulling once self by the bootstrap, which at one time wasn't that difficult in the US, but thanks to 40+ years of conservative/libertarian think tanks/policy, it's one of the nations that is hardest in the developed world!!!

 

[Discombobulated]

I suppose the anti-aristocracy sentiment is all but gone from conservative politics, you people deserve a plutocracy but not everyone is such a shameless ******* toady to the establishment wealthy.

Here's the thing... We can't have a plutocracy, aristocracy or theocracy here because we are a free constitutional republic. What you are regurgitating are memes of propagandists who promote Marxism. You see, the arguments for Marxism are all rooted in philosophy from 19th century Europe and Asia where free constitutional republics never existed.

That's why all of what you are saying is irrelevant rhetoric. It simply does not apply to a free constitutional republic like we have. In order to promote Marxism, you have to create this illusion, this fear of things that can never happen here because we are a free constitutional republic. Class warfare is yet another facet of the same thing, you have to create the illusion that America has established classes of people who can't escape what they are born into, when we all know that is not the case. It was the case in much of 19th century Europe and Asia where Marxism cut it's teeth.

Funny to watch you talk about irrelevant rhetoric while droning on about Marxism. I think I'll stop watching "Father Knows Best" for a while, put on my "I Like Ike" button, crank up the Edsel and head down to the grange hall for a meeting......on my way out of the Twilight Zone.

 

[Dad2three]

.

The world has changed. International business competition has never been more intense, and it's becoming more so by the day.

Drop the corporate tax rate to 10%. Unleash a flood of repatriated capital and attract another flood of international capital.

Add two (although I'm beginning to think three) new marginal personal rates at the top end, 44.9%, 49.9%, 54.5%. Add minimum effective tax rates.

There, that should piss off both ends of this argument. But it's what I would do.

.

Corps have a problem with capital today? Last time we allowed Corps to bring back their money at near zero (5%, Dubya 2004) they cut jobs and R&d


Effective tax rates are 12% today, 40 year lows on RECORD profits. Corps that CAN move have. Corps like McD's, Walmarts, etc who make most of their income in the US, CAN'T offshore

 

[Dad2three]

There was no income tax at the founding of our country. Where do you think the money came from? Workers did not pay taxes

Import tariffs, mostly. There was also the inheritance tax.

We have NEVER taxed wealth.

"Import tariffs, mostly. There was also the inheritance tax.

We have NEVER taxed wealth"

WHO mainly used imported goods? Oh right the wealthy


ISN'T INHERITANCE TAX A TAX ON WEALTH? lol

 

[Dad2three]

I know, it must be the single payer H/C he pushed through and the tax burden on the 'job creators' right?


Oh wait, we don't have single payer, we have one modeled after right wing Heritage/Romney and taxes on the 'job creators' are at the lowest SUSTAINED level for 80+ years. Wow he's a horrible socialist/Marxist

The ONLY reason you don't have single payer is there weren't enough Socialist Democrats willing to vote for it. Republicans didn't vote for ANY of Obamacare.

Except when it was Romneycare.

Romneycare was a state program in the most liberal state of the country. I don't think Congressional Republicans had a vote there.

Had President Romney been in charge and implemented exactly the same program you and all the other Republicans would lauded it as a triumph of free market capitalism.

Uh, given Republicans criticized Romney for Romneycare that's an unfounded statement. Actually an outright lie.

Heritage Foundation Praised Romneycare For Building ‘Patient-Centered’ Health Care Market


FLASHBACK: Heritage Touted RomneyCare, Key Elements Of Health Reform Heritage Now Opposes

Heritage On Romney’s Individual Mandate: “Not an unreasonable position, and one that is clearly consistent with conservative values.” [Heritage, 1/28/06]
– Heritage On President Obama’s Individual Mandate: “Both unprecedented and unconstitutional.” [Heritage, 12/9/09]

– Heritage On Romney’s Insurance Exchange: An “innovative mechanism to promote real consumer choice.” [Heritage, 4/20/06]

– Heritage On President Obama’s Insurance Exchange: Creates a “de facto public option” by “grow[ing]” government control over healthcare.” [Heritage, 3/30/10]

– Heritage On Romney’s Medicaid Expansion: Reduced “the total cost to taxpayers” by taking people out of the “uncompensated care pool.” [Heritage, 1/28/06]

– Heritage On President Obama’s Medicaid Expansion: Expands a “broken entitlement program,” providing a “low-quality, poorly functioning program.” [Heritage, 3/30/10]

In fact, in 2007, Heritage again boasted that Romney’s plan is “already showing progress.” That same year, Heritage proudly posted a video of Romney gloating that Heritage officials had supported him in creating “ultimate conservatism” with the Massachusetts health plan. Watch it:


FLASHBACK Heritage Touted RomneyCare Key Elements Of Health Reform Heritage Now Opposes ThinkProgress

 

[Dad2three]

No, I just get tired of sociopathic douchebags criticizing people who help people besides themselves.

Could you occasionally "help" the needy with your own resources instead of taking from others by force to give to those you feel are more deserving?

Yes... Just how much of what I earn do you feel entitled to?

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

 

[Dad2three]

No, I just get tired of sociopathic douchebags criticizing people who help people besides themselves.

Could you occasionally "help" the needy with your own resources instead of taking from others by force to give to those you feel are more deserving?

Just as soon as bailouts for the rich come from the rich only. I will agree...

Wgat bailouts for the rich are you talking about?

Ronnie's S&L crisis, Clinton's Latin American/Asian debt crisis and Dubya's subprime crisis!


To name just a few

 

[Dad2three]

I'm probably in a better situation than you. Go sulk in your own failure. Or better yet, keep kissing the asses of the rich. It's bound to pay off some day, right?

I have never encountered an internet troll, particularly a far left troll, who was not fabulously wealthy.

It's almost as if one could make any claim they please on the interwebz...

Weird, it's usually right wingers being the Internets rich?

And he stated ONLY he was probably BETTER SITUATION than the dummy Rabbi