Think outside the box for a minute Turquoise. What if, WHAT IF mind you, the financial builders of this country were allowed to keep their money, and invest it into greater manufacturing of better widgets. This would put more people to work and less dependent on govt. for money they did not earn. Lets say the govt. didn't tax the ever loving shit out of the rich and they actually kept work here in the states because they would have a greater profit margin. Wouldn't that be the more desirable solution? Instead of stealing form them because well, they have it to steal?Turquoise wrote:
Well, I support wealth redistribution because it is inevitable. There will always be rich and poor. Once that is accepted as an unavoidable truth, that necessitates the existence of a social safety net. The only way this can be maintained requires taxing the wealthy more than the working class and poor, especially in a country where the wealthy hold the vast majority of assets and wealth.lowing wrote:
now yer talkin'. However,Turquoise wrote:
It's impossible to support an income tax without also supporting wealth redistribution, unless you only support an income tax that is a flat fee (or you only support sales taxes and property taxes to an extent).
Nearly all income taxation is wealth redistribution.
I support a system of taxation that does not punish achievement or reward failure. Find me one of those taxes systems. I hear the "Fair Tax" is the closest to that, but I have not read it or fully comprehend it, so I really don't know, I am in favor of it however, because of the ideology of the authors.
Mathematically, that might seem unfair, but it's also what reality demands for the upkeep of a First World society.
Do you have any evidence supporting your theory? I'm pretty sure a lot of these rich people don't need a 500k+ salary a year, when the people actually building their products are making not even 10% of that.lowing wrote:
Think outside the box for a minute Turquoise. What if, WHAT IF mind you, the financial builders of this country were allowed to keep their money, and invest it into greater manufacturing of better widgets. This would put more people to work and less dependent on govt. for money they did not earn. Lets say the govt. didn't tax the ever loving shit out of the rich and they actually kept work here in the states because they would have a greater profit margin. Wouldn't that be the more desirable solution? Instead of stealing form them because well, they have it to steal?Turquoise wrote:
Well, I support wealth redistribution because it is inevitable. There will always be rich and poor. Once that is accepted as an unavoidable truth, that necessitates the existence of a social safety net. The only way this can be maintained requires taxing the wealthy more than the working class and poor, especially in a country where the wealthy hold the vast majority of assets and wealth.lowing wrote:
now yer talkin'. However,
I support a system of taxation that does not punish achievement or reward failure. Find me one of those taxes systems. I hear the "Fair Tax" is the closest to that, but I have not read it or fully comprehend it, so I really don't know, I am in favor of it however, because of the ideology of the authors.
Mathematically, that might seem unfair, but it's also what reality demands for the upkeep of a First World society.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
That's a nice idea, but I think the bailouts illustrate that the people on top -- at least in the banking industry and somewhat in the auto industry -- keep more than just what they earn but also what they normally would lose.lowing wrote:
Think outside the box for a minute Turquoise. What if, WHAT IF mind you, the financial builders of this country were allowed to keep their money, and invest it into greater manufacturing of better widgets. This would put more people to work and less dependent on govt. for money they did not earn. Lets say the govt. didn't tax the ever loving shit out of the rich and they actually kept work here in the states because they would have a greater profit margin. Wouldn't that be the more desirable solution? Instead of stealing form them because well, they have it to steal?Turquoise wrote:
Well, I support wealth redistribution because it is inevitable. There will always be rich and poor. Once that is accepted as an unavoidable truth, that necessitates the existence of a social safety net. The only way this can be maintained requires taxing the wealthy more than the working class and poor, especially in a country where the wealthy hold the vast majority of assets and wealth.lowing wrote:
now yer talkin'. However,
I support a system of taxation that does not punish achievement or reward failure. Find me one of those taxes systems. I hear the "Fair Tax" is the closest to that, but I have not read it or fully comprehend it, so I really don't know, I am in favor of it however, because of the ideology of the authors.
Mathematically, that might seem unfair, but it's also what reality demands for the upkeep of a First World society.
The amount we spend on entitlement programs is dwarfed by what we've thrown to corporations for bailouts. So, if we're just looking at this in terms of who sucks up the most government funds, it's not the poor.
Before we even think about eliminating the welfare state, we should eliminate bailouts and make sure that, if another major market failure occurs, the government won't prop banks and automakers up.
annnnnnddddd who are you to determine what people deserve for their efforts or not? If someone is not happy with their wage, they are free t ogo start their own company, and set their salary to whatever they desire, with no objection from me.UnkleRukus wrote:
Do you have any evidence supporting your theory? I'm pretty sure a lot of these rich people don't need a 500k+ salary a year, when the people actually building their products are making not even 10% of that.lowing wrote:
Think outside the box for a minute Turquoise. What if, WHAT IF mind you, the financial builders of this country were allowed to keep their money, and invest it into greater manufacturing of better widgets. This would put more people to work and less dependent on govt. for money they did not earn. Lets say the govt. didn't tax the ever loving shit out of the rich and they actually kept work here in the states because they would have a greater profit margin. Wouldn't that be the more desirable solution? Instead of stealing form them because well, they have it to steal?Turquoise wrote:
Well, I support wealth redistribution because it is inevitable. There will always be rich and poor. Once that is accepted as an unavoidable truth, that necessitates the existence of a social safety net. The only way this can be maintained requires taxing the wealthy more than the working class and poor, especially in a country where the wealthy hold the vast majority of assets and wealth.
Mathematically, that might seem unfair, but it's also what reality demands for the upkeep of a First World society.
Does the 1980s count ? Got us out of a Deep Recession pretty quick.UnkleRukus wrote:
Do you have any evidence supporting your theory? I'm pretty sure a lot of these rich people don't need a 500k+ salary a year, when the people actually building their products are making not even 10% of that.lowing wrote:
Think outside the box for a minute Turquoise. What if, WHAT IF mind you, the financial builders of this country were allowed to keep their money, and invest it into greater manufacturing of better widgets. This would put more people to work and less dependent on govt. for money they did not earn. Lets say the govt. didn't tax the ever loving shit out of the rich and they actually kept work here in the states because they would have a greater profit margin. Wouldn't that be the more desirable solution? Instead of stealing form them because well, they have it to steal?Turquoise wrote:
Well, I support wealth redistribution because it is inevitable. There will always be rich and poor. Once that is accepted as an unavoidable truth, that necessitates the existence of a social safety net. The only way this can be maintained requires taxing the wealthy more than the working class and poor, especially in a country where the wealthy hold the vast majority of assets and wealth.
Mathematically, that might seem unfair, but it's also what reality demands for the upkeep of a First World society.
Do you have any evidence supporting your theory? We are here for Debate and discussion, to put forth our ideas, are we not ?
We have talked Turquoise, you know that I am totally against any bailouts for any industry including my own. That said but if I say keep the govt. from bailing out companies, am I also fair to say keep the govt. from overly interfering in the free market?Turquoise wrote:
That's a nice idea, but I think the bailouts illustrate that the people on top -- at least in the banking industry and somewhat in the auto industry -- keep more than just what they earn but also what they normally would lose.lowing wrote:
Think outside the box for a minute Turquoise. What if, WHAT IF mind you, the financial builders of this country were allowed to keep their money, and invest it into greater manufacturing of better widgets. This would put more people to work and less dependent on govt. for money they did not earn. Lets say the govt. didn't tax the ever loving shit out of the rich and they actually kept work here in the states because they would have a greater profit margin. Wouldn't that be the more desirable solution? Instead of stealing form them because well, they have it to steal?Turquoise wrote:
Well, I support wealth redistribution because it is inevitable. There will always be rich and poor. Once that is accepted as an unavoidable truth, that necessitates the existence of a social safety net. The only way this can be maintained requires taxing the wealthy more than the working class and poor, especially in a country where the wealthy hold the vast majority of assets and wealth.
Mathematically, that might seem unfair, but it's also what reality demands for the upkeep of a First World society.
The amount we spend on entitlement programs is dwarfed by what we've thrown to corporations for bailouts. So, if we're just looking at this in terms of who sucks up the most government funds, it's not the poor.
Before we even think about eliminating the welfare state, we should eliminate bailouts and make sure that, if another major market failure occurs, the government won't prop banks and automakers up.
You're being consistent, but in order for the government to be, they would have to do the same.lowing wrote:
We have talked Turquoise, you know that I am totally against any bailouts for any industry including my own. That said but if I say keep the govt. from bailing out companies, am I also fair to say keep the govt. from overly interfering in the free market?Turquoise wrote:
That's a nice idea, but I think the bailouts illustrate that the people on top -- at least in the banking industry and somewhat in the auto industry -- keep more than just what they earn but also what they normally would lose.lowing wrote:
Think outside the box for a minute Turquoise. What if, WHAT IF mind you, the financial builders of this country were allowed to keep their money, and invest it into greater manufacturing of better widgets. This would put more people to work and less dependent on govt. for money they did not earn. Lets say the govt. didn't tax the ever loving shit out of the rich and they actually kept work here in the states because they would have a greater profit margin. Wouldn't that be the more desirable solution? Instead of stealing form them because well, they have it to steal?
The amount we spend on entitlement programs is dwarfed by what we've thrown to corporations for bailouts. So, if we're just looking at this in terms of who sucks up the most government funds, it's not the poor.
Before we even think about eliminating the welfare state, we should eliminate bailouts and make sure that, if another major market failure occurs, the government won't prop banks and automakers up.
As things currently stand, the government interferes to help the poor, but it also interferes to help the rich. That's also consistent -- although it's understandable that many would prefer this to change.
Turquoise does debate like an educated gentleman does he not ? So many others just act like juveniles with self esteem issues and foul mouths.
Pick your own examples
Pick your own examples
Thanks man. But emotions just run high sometimes. I've done it plenty of times myself too.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Turquoise does debate like an educated gentleman does he not ? So many others just act like juveniles with self esteem issues and foul mouths.
Pick your own examples
You are quite right, the other thing that is consistent is the fact that the govt. bails out the rich and the poor with money taken from mainly the rich and little to none from the poor.Turquoise wrote:
You're being consistent, but in order for the government to be, they would have to do the same.lowing wrote:
We have talked Turquoise, you know that I am totally against any bailouts for any industry including my own. That said but if I say keep the govt. from bailing out companies, am I also fair to say keep the govt. from overly interfering in the free market?Turquoise wrote:
That's a nice idea, but I think the bailouts illustrate that the people on top -- at least in the banking industry and somewhat in the auto industry -- keep more than just what they earn but also what they normally would lose.
The amount we spend on entitlement programs is dwarfed by what we've thrown to corporations for bailouts. So, if we're just looking at this in terms of who sucks up the most government funds, it's not the poor.
Before we even think about eliminating the welfare state, we should eliminate bailouts and make sure that, if another major market failure occurs, the government won't prop banks and automakers up.
As things currently stand, the government interferes to help the poor, but it also interferes to help the rich. That's also consistent -- although it's understandable that many would prefer this to change.
Well, yeah, but that's because there's not much to be taken from the poor. I understand what you're getting at, but I think it's fair to say that the wealthy get a lot more out of society than the poor. Taxation isn't the whole picture.lowing wrote:
You are quite right, the other thing that is consistent is the fact that the govt. bails out the rich and the poor with money taken from mainly the rich and little to none from the poor.Turquoise wrote:
You're being consistent, but in order for the government to be, they would have to do the same.lowing wrote:
We have talked Turquoise, you know that I am totally against any bailouts for any industry including my own. That said but if I say keep the govt. from bailing out companies, am I also fair to say keep the govt. from overly interfering in the free market?
As things currently stand, the government interferes to help the poor, but it also interferes to help the rich. That's also consistent -- although it's understandable that many would prefer this to change.
Think about the intangibles. With success comes influence and power. Inevitably, every society favors the wealthy over the poor, so the benefits of being wealthy more than make up for increased taxes IMHO. And as far as taxation goes, the wealthy pay considerably less here than in most of our peers. They have it pretty good here.
Yes, if you work hard and gain wealth, you should be able to keep most of it, but inevitably, you will be paying more in taxes than the average person. This is true even if the income tax didn't exist. You'd still pay more in sales taxes and property taxes than the poor do.
I guess what I'm getting at is that the fact that the rich pay more in taxes than the poor doesn't strike me as much of an argument because of the tautological nature of it.
but it does bring us full circle to the original point that, whatever the govt. does it does with money taken from someone else and not because of its own wealth. The rest of your point I never argued against.Turquoise wrote:
Well, yeah, but that's because there's not much to be taken from the poor. I understand what you're getting at, but I think it's fair to say that the wealthy get a lot more out of society than the poor. Taxation isn't the whole picture.lowing wrote:
You are quite right, the other thing that is consistent is the fact that the govt. bails out the rich and the poor with money taken from mainly the rich and little to none from the poor.Turquoise wrote:
You're being consistent, but in order for the government to be, they would have to do the same.
As things currently stand, the government interferes to help the poor, but it also interferes to help the rich. That's also consistent -- although it's understandable that many would prefer this to change.
Think about the intangibles. With success comes influence and power. Inevitably, every society favors the wealthy over the poor, so the benefits of being wealthy more than make up for increased taxes IMHO. And as far as taxation goes, the wealthy pay considerably less here than in most of our peers. They have it pretty good here.
Yes, if you work hard and gain wealth, you should be able to keep most of it, but inevitably, you will be paying more in taxes than the average person. This is true even if the income tax didn't exist. You'd still pay more in sales taxes and property taxes than the poor do.
I guess what I'm getting at is that the fact that the rich pay more in taxes than the poor doesn't strike me as much of an argument because of the tautological nature of it.
Would they do that? Or would they just build mansions for themselves and accumulate gold bars in Swiss banks?lowing wrote:
Think outside the box for a minute Turquoise. What if, WHAT IF mind you, the financial builders of this country were allowed to keep their money, and invest it into greater manufacturing of better widgets.
Fuck Israel
you mean would they spend their money having mansions built and maintained, their yachts built and crewed, or their airplanes built, flown and maintained employing hundreds of thousands of people?.......Oh probablyDilbert_X wrote:
Would they do that? Or would they just build mansions for themselves and accumulate gold bars in Swiss banks?lowing wrote:
Think outside the box for a minute Turquoise. What if, WHAT IF mind you, the financial builders of this country were allowed to keep their money, and invest it into greater manufacturing of better widgets.
They didn't get rich by spending money...
You know why when a government decides to stimulate the economy they give hand outs to the poor?
You know why when a government decides to stimulate the economy they give hand outs to the poor?
I see, so the rich do not own mansions, yachts and planes that need built crewed and maintained....my fault I must be wrong.AussieReaper wrote:
They didn't get rich by spending money...
You know why when a government decides to stimulate the economy they give hand outs to the poor?
They would spend a small fraction of their money employing a small number of people. They remainder stays locked up in vaults to insulate them from the pressures other people face, making them richer and everyone else poorer.lowing wrote:
you mean would they spend their money having mansions built and maintained, their yachts built and crewed, or their airplanes built, flown and maintained employing hundreds of thousands of people?.......Oh probablyDilbert_X wrote:
Would they do that? Or would they just build mansions for themselves and accumulate gold bars in Swiss banks?lowing wrote:
Think outside the box for a minute Turquoise. What if, WHAT IF mind you, the financial builders of this country were allowed to keep their money, and invest it into greater manufacturing of better widgets.
Thats the way the world has always worked.
Fuck Israel
Ohh we were talking about 1 rich guy, ya see I thought we were talking about all rich people. Ya know the ones that built the retail stores, the restaurant chains, the home depots, the car dealerships, the airlines, etc.....again I apologize for the mis-understanding.Dilbert_X wrote:
They would spend a small fraction of their money employing a small number of people. They remainder stays locked up in vaults to insulate them from the pressures other people face, making them richer and everyone else poorer.lowing wrote:
you mean would they spend their money having mansions built and maintained, their yachts built and crewed, or their airplanes built, flown and maintained employing hundreds of thousands of people?.......Oh probablyDilbert_X wrote:
Would they do that? Or would they just build mansions for themselves and accumulate gold bars in Swiss banks?
Thats the way the world has always worked.
Last edited by lowing (2011-01-19 14:54:11)
It's not the rich that support the rest of society, it's the lower classes that support the rich.lowing wrote:
I see, so the rich do not own mansions, yachts and planes that need built crewed and maintained....my fault I must be wrong.AussieReaper wrote:
They didn't get rich by spending money...
You know why when a government decides to stimulate the economy they give hand outs to the poor?
Anyone else notice that Glenn Beck has now adopted a school-teacher type persona?
Standing at a blackboard lecturing and writing slogans?
I guess the right wing really does need to be told what to think.
Standing at a blackboard lecturing and writing slogans?
I guess the right wing really does need to be told what to think.
Fuck Israel
We're talking about how the system works if unregulated and untaxed, we end up with a small number of plutocrats or oligarchs sitting on all the wealth.lowing wrote:
Ohh we were talking about 1 rich guy, ya see I thought we were talking about all rich people. Ya know the ones that built the retail stores, the restaurant chains, the home depots, the car dealerships, the airlines, etc.....again I apologize for the mis-understanding.
Fuck Israel
Aussie, the rich PAY the lower classes to support them. IE build their planes, manage their hotels and their stores, build their cars, build their boats etc.AussieReaper wrote:
It's not the rich that support the rest of society, it's the lower classes that support the rich.lowing wrote:
I see, so the rich do not own mansions, yachts and planes that need built crewed and maintained....my fault I must be wrong.AussieReaper wrote:
They didn't get rich by spending money...
You know why when a government decides to stimulate the economy they give hand outs to the poor?
THey even employ people to drive them around, fly them around, clean their houses landscape their yards install their pools etc...THAT is how a society is supported.
no one said a word about unregulated or untaxed society so find a different avenue to your point, that one ain't gunna work.Dilbert_X wrote:
We're talking about how the system works if unregulated and untaxed, we end up with a small number of plutocrats or oligarchs sitting on all the wealth.lowing wrote:
Ohh we were talking about 1 rich guy, ya see I thought we were talking about all rich people. Ya know the ones that built the retail stores, the restaurant chains, the home depots, the car dealerships, the airlines, etc.....again I apologize for the mis-understanding.
so please continue about how the rich doesn't build anything or employs anyone.
The rich pay the lower classes to work for them, not support them.lowing wrote:
Aussie, the rich PAY the lower classes to support them. IE build their planes, manage their hotels and their stores, build their cars, build their boats etc.
You're asking for taxes to be reduced to help the rich keep their money, which is exactly what they tend to do - keep it.no one said a word about unregulated or untaxed society so find a different avenue to your point, that one ain't gunna work
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-01-19 15:17:44)
Fuck Israel
So you're saying 1% are supporting 99% of the population by paying them?lowing wrote:
Aussie, the rich PAY the lower classes to support them. IE build their planes, manage their hotels and their stores, build their cars, build their boats etc.AussieReaper wrote:
It's not the rich that support the rest of society, it's the lower classes that support the rich.lowing wrote:
I see, so the rich do not own mansions, yachts and planes that need built crewed and maintained....my fault I must be wrong.
THey even employ people to drive them around, fly them around, clean their houses landscape their yards install their pools etc...THAT is how a society is supported.