rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 298,396
- 223,488
- 3,615
In a society where a small percentage dines on caviar and champagne while 50% fights over crumbs...you choose to attack the people fighting for crumbs
When Have You Made Enough Money?
- Thread starter Foxfyre
- Start date
In a society where a small percentage dines on caviar and champagne while 50% fights over crumbs...you choose to attack the people fighting for crumbs
Cuyo
Training a Guineapig army
I sure ain't. 10 times out of 10 the rich make their money off the poor, often by exploitation. Behind every great fortune is a great crime, and all that noise. Also worth mentioning they depend completely on the lower classes. One day we're going to wake up and the lower class will have nothing, then guess what? We're all going down.
Fair system? Life ain't fair. But a graduated progressive tax is the fairest I can think of. Regressive taxes like sin taxes, property taxes, sales tax, are the most unjust IMO.
people should look up huey p long and how close he was to being the next president before being killed. The first day in office he was going to cap annual income at 10 million (extremely rich for his time) and a billion other socialist programs. he nationalized almost every industry in Louisana during his time and already had plans and support to do it nationally.
What giant steaming pile of shit. HOW? Who is forcing me to give them their money (I would be considered poor, btw)? The rich aren't fleecing anyone. People like you just don't like the bitter truth. They are smarter and work harder than you. THAT is why they are rich.
Again, taxing one group a higher rate just because they have more fits no definition of fair I have ever heard. I guess we need to talk about that word because you don't seem to have clue one about what that word means. A higher tax rate on the rich would be fair, for example, if they used benefits derived from tax dollars in equal proportions to what they pay. THAT is the definition of fair.
A fair tax system? Lucky you there is one called just that. The FAIR tax. No more tax on income, instead an across the board tax on consumption. It doesn't get any more fair than that. Imagine how are economy would boom without a payroll tax.
but you are not taxing any person at a higher rate...you are taxing all the income the rich person makes, up to their highest bracket, at the precise same rate as the person below them pay for that amount of money earned....
as example:
the rich person pays 10% on the first $10 grand or so made as the poor person pays 10% on the first 10 grand they made in taxable income....
the poor person or the middle class person or the upper middle class person pays ONLY 10% on about the first 10 grand, as DOES THE RICH PERSON.
YOU ARE NOT making the rich person pay more than any other person in that tax bracket that their taxable income falls?
and so on and so forth for every tax bracket the rich person's income falls.
They are NOT being taxed their whole wad earned at this higher tax bracket, they are taxed THE SAME for all money earned as everyone else...and only for the amount of money that falls into the highest tax bracket, are they being taxed at the 35% rate or the highest rate?
soooooooo, why do you think the progressive tax system is sooooo terribly unfair Bern???
care
Cuyo
Training a Guineapig army
Precisely. Every single American is subject to the exact same tax table. Even I pay 35% of everything I earn in excess of $373,650. Of course, in my case, that's 35% of zero.
Cuyo
Training a Guineapig army
People who "Would be considered poor," yet aggressively whip to support and defend the system that keeps them that way. Never ceases to amaze me.
and people wonder why some call capitalism heartless
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
You need a class in economic, statistical interpretation.
. . . Meaning what? If you're so brilliant at statistical interpretation that you're recommending she go back for classes, it is now time for you to explain how she's wrong. "You need a class" translates into "I don't like what you said, but I can't refute it" to my ears if you don't say anything else.
Good grief, read post #17 again! You explain to me where the real world begins. Take a good look, and come back and defend it, but who knows what you'll find, boedicca has already been back in there re-editing! Clue; this is not university level economics!
I read her post. I'm now waiting for you to say something other than "That's crap, can't you see that it's crap, EVERYONE thinks like me, so they just KNOW what I'm talking about, how dare you ask me to explain it!"
If it's really that bad, it should be easy for you to tell me HOW, rather than telling me that you shouldn't have to. Right now, you're just convincing me further that you have nothing to say. Strike two.
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
Exploitation of the poor, huh? Let's hear some specifics. Exactly WHO among the rich is "exploiting the poor", and how? WHAT "great crime", precisely? Details, asshat. Let's have some.
And I really wish I could say that people like you that would rather play the victim card than hold themselves accountable for their lot in life amazed me. Sadly, I can't say that.
Last edited:
So even though we have what everyone agrees is a progressive system it isn't actually progressive? That is the richer you are you really don't pay a greater percentage of your gross income in taxes? Tell me another one care.
JWBooth
Diamond Member
Is there such a thing?
yes. once you get hotels on boardwalk and park place
Alpha1
NAVY
- Jun 3, 2007
- 1,719
- 193
- 48
Its truly astounding that you just can't explain "fairness" to a socialist....they have no concept of equal treatment for everyone regardless of race, creed, sex, or amount of riches.....Lady Justice stands with a blindfold for a reason, to reflect a concept of equal treatment, our Constitution mention is over and over, .....Socialists/Marxists just don't get it.....
I just watched a special about Che Guevara and how he is actually worshiped and prayed to by many, many people in South America like a God, and how they, to a person, mention how oppressive it is in the United States, .....and I felt the very same way.....
Some people just don't fuckin' get it....and they never ever will....
I just watched a special about Che Guevara and how he is actually worshiped and prayed to by many, many people in South America like a God, and how they, to a person, mention how oppressive it is in the United States, .....and I felt the very same way.....
Some people just don't fuckin' get it....and they never ever will....
Last edited:
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
Yeah, the billions of dollars this country puts out every year for charity here and around the world - REAL charity, not just government handouts - precisely BECAUSE of the capitalism that makes us prosperous is really "heartless". And to what do you think our having the richest poor in the world is attributable, if not that self-same capitalism? Find me a non-capitalistic country that's supporting as many poor, downtrodden, and outright freeloaders as we are, and then tell me about "heartless".
- Thread starter
- #77
You are coming from an abvious anti-conservative leftwing bias I think. Whatever you might think of Thomas Sowell, partisanship of any sort is not included in his repertoire of wisdom.
Thomas Sowell was not addressing President Obama at all in his essay. What he was doing was expressing the fact that if Standard Oil had been reined in, the American people would likely have never benefitted from the cost savings Standard Oil came up with. Standard Oil was being condemned as greedy and for accumulating excessive assets/wealth etc. (You obviously haven't read the book.) The author of that book failed to note the benefits Standard Oil produced for the country, however.
The lesson is that President Obama should be considering the downside that will certainly exist should he presume to rein in profits on Wall Street or anywhere else.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #78
I like this picture. Notice how high it was while we were fighting communism?
The tax rates themselves are misleading though. Those high tax rates aren't as bad as they look because there were so many way to shelter income; however, lowering those rates during the Reagan years ushered in an unprecedented unbroken succession of years of prosperity that made it all the way into the Clinton administration. The economy was losing some steam when Bush 43 took office and 9/11 threw us into a severe tailspin for a lot of months; but his specifically targeted tax cuts allowed us to recover nicely despite two wars in progress.
Then the housing bubble that had been building throughout the Clinton and Bush 43 administrations burst in late 2008; and we all are dealing with the results of that 19 months later and there is no end in sight.
And our current fearless leader doesn't seem to have a clue how a tax increase now will make that much much worse.
I was just pointing out the irony of how high the top rate was while our government was also railing against communism. Plus, I like how the Prezs are drawn.
If the top tax rate is raised a few percentage points, I'm not too worried. What bothers me more is inflation.
But why raise it at all when making the Bush administration tax cuts permanent or at least extending them for another ten years would give the economy a real shot in the arm when it is most needed and wouldn't take a dime out of the treasury? A tax increase of any kind will only prolong the recession and won't make a dent in the defficit. In fact, given the track record of Congress over the last four years, a tax increase will only give them incentive to increase the deficits because they can pretend they'll be 'mostly paid for'.
Madeline
Rookie
- Banned
- #79
The problem of "people who earn too much" CANNOT be adequately addressed by higher tax rates. For starters, those rates would apply to high earners we do not object to. But more importantly, the taxation of overly-rich compensation packages would do NOTHING to discourage the diversion of corporate wealth into them.
What Obama supports is better corporate governance, or say-to-pay. But as pointed out by Fortune Magazine, say-to-pay cannot work because far too much Fortune 500 stock is in the hands of institutional investors who align themselves with Corporate Management. Controls on the TYPES of compensation for Corporate Management is necessary as well as the levels, and once again, fiddling with the tax code will not work. Most Fortune 500 companies already employ compensation and benefit packages for Management that are not fully deductible to the corporation as "labor costs", etc. And, of course, many corporations engage in waste or fraud, including tax fraud, in order to funnel additional corporate monies to Management. E.g., Enron.
Corporate example - Enron
Then there are transfers of wealth that, under our system, cannot be taxed and may not even be easy to value. These include such things as stock options, preferred stock issues, opportunities to sit on the boards of directors of other corporations and receive Director's Compensation. (This is not a negligible item; the Fortune 500 Boards are extremely incestuous.)
When corporate wealth is stripped away needlessly for Management, the cost of goods and services produced by that corporation rises. The employees of that corporation have less secure futures. The stockholders receive lower dividends and stock prices may falter. The Corporate Management team does not have the stake in perpetuating the business that employees, suppliers, customers and shareholders have -- and they should NOT be left to their own devices to decide what to pay themselves.
What seems to be needed is a upper limit on Corporate Management Compensation and a ban on certain types of compensation altogether.
For starters.
What Obama supports is better corporate governance, or say-to-pay. But as pointed out by Fortune Magazine, say-to-pay cannot work because far too much Fortune 500 stock is in the hands of institutional investors who align themselves with Corporate Management. Controls on the TYPES of compensation for Corporate Management is necessary as well as the levels, and once again, fiddling with the tax code will not work. Most Fortune 500 companies already employ compensation and benefit packages for Management that are not fully deductible to the corporation as "labor costs", etc. And, of course, many corporations engage in waste or fraud, including tax fraud, in order to funnel additional corporate monies to Management. E.g., Enron.
Corporate example - Enron
Then there are transfers of wealth that, under our system, cannot be taxed and may not even be easy to value. These include such things as stock options, preferred stock issues, opportunities to sit on the boards of directors of other corporations and receive Director's Compensation. (This is not a negligible item; the Fortune 500 Boards are extremely incestuous.)
When corporate wealth is stripped away needlessly for Management, the cost of goods and services produced by that corporation rises. The employees of that corporation have less secure futures. The stockholders receive lower dividends and stock prices may falter. The Corporate Management team does not have the stake in perpetuating the business that employees, suppliers, customers and shareholders have -- and they should NOT be left to their own devices to decide what to pay themselves.
What seems to be needed is a upper limit on Corporate Management Compensation and a ban on certain types of compensation altogether.
For starters.
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
One of the central political strategies of Democrats since 2008 is to censor the truth. Conservatives should censor the left lies- Started by ColonelAngus
- Replies: 1
-
IDF KILLS 12 Year Old Witness To Paramedic Massacre- Started by MarcATL
- Replies: 2
-
-
