What should the wealthy do? Libs How should they be sharing there wealth?

[OnePercenter]

Right now, in the toxic financial climate of planned failure that obama gave us, rich people should be shoveling their money off shore into a more stable currency. That's what they are doing. And they should.

???? You say the rich should shovel money offshore. Why? If the rich are the job creators so we better not tax them so they can create jobs but then they should move their money offshore, then how can jobs be created? I don't buy into that philosopy anyway. I think money in the hands of average americans fuel the job growth by buying consumer goods.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

In a free society, no one is helped by the government to make money, either.

True---affirmative action employment practice should be illegal.

When you eliminate racism and sexism we won't need it.

When you no longer ask about race or sex on an application form but strictly go by that individual's qualifications, skills, and education, only then will sexism and racism be truly eliminated.

 

[OnePercenter]

Yeah, we know. That's counting food stamps as a "subsidy" to Walmart. It's pure horseshit, of course.

I've already answered this, but since your short term memory is failing;

Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch - brought to you by Good Jobs First

Wal-Mart's low wages cost taxpayers plenty- MSN Money

You're talking about tax abatements and such. If you don't like that, take it up with the local governments that give them. You can hardly blame Walmart for accepting gifts. Plenty of these local governments are liberal Democrats.

And, there's more:

Stacy Mitchell: New Data Show Walmart, Whole Foods Free Ride on Taxpayers at the Expense of Small Businesses

 

[Billo_Really]

You know if your going to be taxed 27% here and 15% there and you have 1 million people you are investing for
what are you going to do?
See what the problem is?
401Ks have allot to do where people are investing there wealth for us

First off, I think they should be paying 35% across the board (profits, capital gains, dividends, etc) and secondly, I'm not talking about their investments, I'm talking about them off-shoring their profits in order to reduce their tax liability. That's what I am objecting to. We need to close those loopholes and stop that bullshit!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Two reasons:

1) You'll screw the middle class and poor.

2) The rich won't go for it.

So you are fine with screwing the rich, but the poor should have no skin in the game with respect to taxes. What you are in fact saying is that you are ok with the government wasting taxpayer dollars, so long as you are the one being rewarded from its benefits without having to contribute to the overall debt burden of cost (you want your cake and eat it too, in other words). The problem is, if everyone contributed the same percentage in taxes without exception, there would be more of an overall concern regarding the spending that goes on in Washington. However seeing that you believe some are entitled to a pass, or a free ride as it were, there is no real concern for the amount of Debt our nation racks up.... so long as your not the one getting stuck with the bill. Now the left could learn a thing or two from those immortal words "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

I am 'the rich'. I'm very happy with 3% effective/Federal.

If the poor and middle class want equality, quit voting Republican......

The Democrats want more of the people to live off of and depend upon the government as a part of their daily lives. If you want the government to blame others for its growing debt, while they add more entitlements without regard to the burden of debt, then using class warfare as the only answer to its own reckless spending plans, vote Democrat.

 

[OnePercenter]

So you are fine with screwing the rich, but the poor should have no skin in the game with respect to taxes. What you are in fact saying is that you are ok with the government wasting taxpayer dollars, so long as you are the one being rewarded from its benefits without having to contribute to the overall debt burden of cost (you want your cake and eat it too, in other words). The problem is, if everyone contributed the same percentage in taxes without exception, there would be more of an overall concern regarding the spending that goes on in Washington. However seeing that you believe some are entitled to a pass, or a free ride as it were, there is no real concern for the amount of Debt our nation racks up.... so long as your not the one getting stuck with the bill. Now the left could learn a thing or two from those immortal words "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

I am 'the rich'. I'm very happy with 3% effective/Federal.

If the poor and middle class want equality, quit voting Republican......

The Democrats want more of the people to live off of and depend upon the government as a part of their daily lives. If you want the government to blame others for its growing debt, while they add more entitlements without regard to the burden of debt, then using class warfare as the only answer to its own reckless spending plans, vote Democrat.

Democrats are for the poor and middle class. Republicans are for the rich.

I'm a registered Republican that votes Democrat because I'm pro middle class.

 

[OnePercenter]

You know if your going to be taxed 27% here and 15% there and you have 1 million people you are investing for
what are you going to do?
See what the problem is?
401Ks have allot to do where people are investing there wealth for us

First off, I think they should be paying 35% across the board (profits, capital gains, dividends, etc) and secondly, I'm not talking about their investments, I'm talking about them off-shoring their profits in order to reduce their tax liability. That's what I am objecting to. We need to close those loopholes and stop that bullshit!

For businesses, about we raise the minimum wage to $23.50/hr, double the Social Security payments, and eliminate all deductions except for labor expenses?

 

[bripat9643]

Yes. I don't know, why don't you ask her/him.

I already know the reason: He lost his ass when the stock market tanked. But according to you, making money is easy. It's almost guaranteed.

Making money IS easy, and when your investing $100k vs $1k it's faster too.

So your friend put all of his eggs in one basket, made a bet, and lost. Stupid move.

If it's so easy, then why isn't everyone rich? Why did my friend lose his ass in the market? Why isn't he a billionaire?

There are about 10 million households in the country earning over $100,000. Why aren't they all billionaires?

 

[bripat9643]

In a free society, no one is helped by the government to make money, either.

True---affirmative action employment practice should be illegal.

When you eliminate racism and sexism we won't need it.

Whether we "need" it is irrelevant. The constitution doesn't allow it.

 

[bripat9643]

You know if your going to be taxed 27% here and 15% there and you have 1 million people you are investing for
what are you going to do?
See what the problem is?
401Ks have allot to do where people are investing there wealth for us

First off, I think they should be paying 35% across the board (profits, capital gains, dividends, etc) and secondly, I'm not talking about their investments, I'm talking about them off-shoring their profits in order to reduce their tax liability. That's what I am objecting to. We need to close those loopholes and stop that bullshit!

For businesses, about we raise the minimum wage to $23.50/hr, double the Social Security payments, and eliminate all deductions except for labor expenses?

 

[bripat9643]

I've already answered this, but since your short term memory is failing;

Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch - brought to you by Good Jobs First

Wal-Mart's low wages cost taxpayers plenty- MSN Money

You're talking about tax abatements and such. If you don't like that, take it up with the local governments that give them. You can hardly blame Walmart for accepting gifts. Plenty of these local governments are liberal Democrats.

And, there's more:

Stacy Mitchell: New Data Show Walmart, Whole Foods Free Ride on Taxpayers at the Expense of Small Businesses

Turds like you in state and local governments are the ones who give them a free ride. I certainly don't approve of such giveaways.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I am 'the rich'. I'm very happy with 3% effective/Federal.

If the poor and middle class want equality, quit voting Republican......

The Democrats want more of the people to live off of and depend upon the government as a part of their daily lives. If you want the government to blame others for its growing debt, while they add more entitlements without regard to the burden of debt, then using class warfare as the only answer to its own reckless spending plans, vote Democrat.

Democrats are for the poor and middle class. Republicans are for the rich.

I'm a registered Republican that votes Democrat because I'm pro middle class.

I used to believe that was the case, until I saw the dependency that feeds into and empowers a bigger form of government. Offering more government incentives as a new form of "drug" to entice votes, over the need to take on more personal responsibility.

 

[OnePercenter]

I already know the reason: He lost his ass when the stock market tanked. But according to you, making money is easy. It's almost guaranteed.

Making money IS easy, and when your investing $100k vs $1k it's faster too.

So your friend put all of his eggs in one basket, made a bet, and lost. Stupid move.

If it's so easy, then why isn't everyone rich? Why did my friend lose his ass in the market? Why isn't he a billionaire?

There are about 10 million households in the country earning over $100,000. Why aren't they all billionaires?

I've already why your friend failed. As far as the '10 million households in the country earning over $100,000', you'll have to ask them.

 

[OnePercenter]

True---affirmative action employment practice should be illegal.

When you eliminate racism and sexism we won't need it.

Whether we "need" it is irrelevant. The constitution doesn't allow it.

It's called reality.

 

[jasonnfree]

The Democrats want more of the people to live off of and depend upon the government as a part of their daily lives. If you want the government to blame others for its growing debt, while they add more entitlements without regard to the burden of debt, then using class warfare as the only answer to its own reckless spending plans, vote Democrat.

Democrats are for the poor and middle class. Republicans are for the rich.

I'm a registered Republican that votes Democrat because I'm pro middle class.

I used to believe that was the case, until I saw the dependency that feeds into and empowers a bigger form of government. Offering more government incentives as a new form of "drug" to entice votes, over the need to take on more personal responsibility.

There are people in this country with real needs that some of the programs mostly started by democrats address. Social Security, medicare, medi-cal, food stamps. There's probably a small amount of fraud. Reagan who really got the right wing moving about free stuff from the government, could never produce that chicago welfare queen he talked about.
Strange I never see working stiff republicans complain about welfare for those that are not in need. All the lobbyists influencing politicians, the billions for the bloated "defense' industries, reagan himself jacked up the debt, our military has been providing protection for oil companies for decades in the middle east courtesy of taxpayers. corporate welfare all. However, a typical republican trucker or punch press operator has been programmed to worry more about how the country will collapse if a multi billionaire has his taxes increased so maybe we can have some education and nutrition programs for needy children.

 

[OnePercenter]

Democrats are for the poor and middle class. Republicans are for the rich.

I'm a registered Republican that votes Democrat because I'm pro middle class.

I used to believe that was the case, until I saw the dependency that feeds into and empowers a bigger form of government. Offering more government incentives as a new form of "drug" to entice votes, over the need to take on more personal responsibility.

There are people in this country with real needs that some of the programs mostly started by democrats address. Social Security, medicare, medi-cal, food stamps. There's probably a small amount of fraud. Reagan who really got the right wing moving about free stuff from the government, could never produce that chicago welfare queen he talked about.
Strange I never see working stiff republicans complain about welfare for those that are not in need. All the lobbyists influencing politicians, the billions for the bloated "defense' industries, reagan himself jacked up the debt, our military has been providing protection for oil companies for decades in the middle east courtesy of taxpayers. corporate welfare all. However, a typical republican trucker or punch press operator has been programmed to worry more about how the country will collapse if a multi billionaire has his taxes increased so maybe we can have some education and nutrition programs for needy children.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Our system is called CAPITAList. not LABORist.

It is designed to benefit those who accumulate CAPITAL, not those who LABOR.

Our tax codes mirror that accordingly.

If YOU WORK and make a 1,000,000 a year you are on the hook to the IRS at the rate of about 35%

If YOUR CAPITAL WORKS for you and makes a $1,000,000 a year, you are on the hook to the IRS at the rate of 15%

Now...based on that what does our society really value?

Work or capital?

You wrongly assume that those who labor cannot accumulate capital.

Hey maybe you want to correct that assumption and tell all just how much "capital" those that labor can accumulate. Is it 500 dollars? Is 500 dollars a LOT of capital to you? How much "capital" you think you could put together on a 15 dollar an hour job? Or even 20 dollars an hour.

If you put 200 a month into a mutual fund that averages 8% over a working career you would have close to a million dollars.

That's a nice accumulation of capital is it not?

Yes sir, need 2 million dollars capital to start a business, just get a 15 dollar an hour job........and buy lottery tickets. That will be the only way you might get close to 2 million dollars.

Sorry but not that many small business start ups need 2 million.

Even a 2 million dollar franchise only needs a fraction of that for start up money.

And since when does capital have to be used to start a business.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You wrongly assume that those who labor cannot accumulate capital.

Hey maybe you want to correct that assumption and tell all just how much "capital" those that labor can accumulate. Is it 500 dollars? Is 500 dollars a LOT of capital to you? How much "capital" you think you could put together on a 15 dollar an hour job? Or even 20 dollars an hour.

Yes sir, need 2 million dollars capital to start a business, just get a 15 dollar an hour job........and buy lottery tickets. That will be the only way you might get close to 2 million dollars.

he is talking about somebody making a million a year by working - that guy CAN accumulate capital. Somebody working on 15$ an hour is not, probably, paying ANY income taxes.

Stop bullshitting

No I am talking about anyone earning anything.

Tell me if you saved 200 a month for 50 years would you not have accumulated a substantial amount of capital?

In fact if you only got an 8% return (less than the DJIA) you would have 1.5 million

Even as a 16 year old I could save 200 a month so why can't you?

The problem here is you people that constantly whine about other people's money don't understand money at all.

 

[The Rabbi]

Income disparity is a problem batted back and forth between Conservatives and Liberals like a shuttlecock. But the problem isn't merely a parlor game nor is it something easily dismissed as envy or resentment.

The actual problem leads to s lowing economy. If the wealth is held by the very few and the very many are not compensated adequately, there is less money flowing through the economy. Economic growth is defined as the exchange of capitol for goods and services. If those goods and services are outside the budgets of the majority, those goods and services will not be utilized and the exchange of capital stops.

When a CEO can run a business into the ditch and then get a bonus for doing so, the values have been warped to something unidentifiable as Capitalism. If the workers who are actually producing the wealth for the few are under compensated, there is less and less opportunity open for those workers because the flow of cash is so constricted.

Looking for a working paradigm for this disparity? Read the story of the goose that laid golden eggs.

Why dont you outline the exact problem with wealth disparity.

As many times as I've challenged posters to do this they never rise to it. I sometimes get nonsense like, "Well in South America...". This isnt South America. The problem in those countries is crony capitalism and protectionism that yields those results. We dont have a lot of that here. Yet.

 

[zeke]

Hey maybe you want to correct that assumption and tell all just how much "capital" those that labor can accumulate. Is it 500 dollars? Is 500 dollars a LOT of capital to you? How much "capital" you think you could put together on a 15 dollar an hour job? Or even 20 dollars an hour.

Yes sir, need 2 million dollars capital to start a business, just get a 15 dollar an hour job........and buy lottery tickets. That will be the only way you might get close to 2 million dollars.

he is talking about somebody making a million a year by working - that guy CAN accumulate capital. Somebody working on 15$ an hour is not, probably, paying ANY income taxes.

Stop bullshitting

No I am talking about anyone earning anything.

Tell me if you saved 200 a month for 50 years would you not have accumulated a substantial amount of capital?

In fact if you only got an 8% return (less than the DJIA) you would have 1.5 million

Even as a 16 year old I could save 200 a month so why can't you?

The problem here is you people that constantly whine about other people's money don't understand money at all.

Why hells bells, the can man can make and save 200 a month.

If it is so simple to wait 50 years to become a millionaire, are you not surprised that we aren't all millionaires? I mean EVERYBODY can save 200 dollars a month. Well.....not everybody........but enough can to prove your point. If only they understood money like you do.

But really, here you have millions in the bank and make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and you hang out here? Why is that? Just curious.