Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
to use an analogy, we need to detect the bomb before it explodes, not afterwards.
That is a private business. It is up to all those that have an investment in the profit or loss aspect. It is no business of the federal government.
Sell it at a loss or fix it. If it fails, someone will pick up the market they dropped.
What I don't like with corporations, is there is not an owner/s of the business, to be held accountable, like with small business. Stockholders?
CEO, COO, C-that and C-this.... Where does the buck stop?
That is a private business. It is up to all those that have an investment in the profit or loss aspect. It is no business of the federal government. Sell it at a loss or fix it. If it fails, someone will pick up the market they dropped.
it don't work that way no mo'
that's what I used to think, before the Republican Party brain trust -- the party I thought at the time had some supposed sanity on fiscal matters -- show up on television telling me that we need to give a trillion dollars to the banks, or we're all going to be eating cat food after the nuclear war. (Or something similar.)
So as it turns out this whole capitalism thing DOESN'T work quite the same way as we thought it did back in 2007, or 1997, or 1987, or basically at any time in American history. We need new rules that take these new realities into account, that taxpayers WILL be expected to bail out companies instead of letting them fail, so therefore we should have the ability to dismantle them while they are technically still "healthy" but pose a systemic risk if they do fail.
Or --- and here's a good alternative -- we can just break up all of the major financial companies deemed "too big to fail" sometime in the next few months, and call it even.
No wealth tax, but just a higher income tax rate. With all of the loopholes that people like Warren Buffet get, they are paying about an 18% tax rate. I'd be happy if that was equal to my tax rate.
The key is, no they didn't earn it. Most wealth that is pooled like that has come from inheritance, not earned. And those taxes were lowered by the previous administration.
actually the majority of the rich in this country DID earn their wealth. they went out and took the big risks and made something of themselves.
Quote:
And no, people wouldn't massively leave the country or move their wealth to other countries. Mainly because there are even more taxes in place for doing that.
they would if it would cost less to move their wealth out of the country than to remain here. it has happened around the world. remember the beatles? they changed their country of residence from england to the US because tax rates were LOWER here.
Quote:
I point out that 98% of everything that is owned in America is controlled by the top 2% for one reason, not to tax their wealth away, but to tax them more fairly in line with what they control. If someone can buy 98% of everything in this country through hard work and with no special government favors, I'm all for it. If you got there through tax breaks and inheritance from your grandfather, then I think there is something wrong with that.
owning and controlling are two different things. as for inheritance taxes, that is in fact double taxation and technically illegal, because that wealth has already been taxed several times. but the reality is that the rich dont even pay an inheritance tax either in most cases. they put their money into a trust fund, and that trust fund pays the heirs. those that do lose their family wealth to government taxes, did so because they didnt work with in the system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
but alas, i'm driving on state roads and crapping in state sewer systems. i incur costs upon society, i admit it, and i must pay something to mitigate that. the question is why don't i pay a share of my assets, instead of a share of my wages?
this isn't Dr. Phil time about envy and personal psychology. this is taxation equity, and whether or not they pay their fair share.
i am in now way suggesting that taxes be eliminated for anyone. however even our government has to live within its means. they need to control spending first and foremost, for if they fail to do that, then we get right where we are now. maintaining the infrastructure is in fact important, and that is what the government is tasked to do for public roads, and sewers, and other public utilities. but our government should NOT be funding garbage projects like putting shrimp on a treadmill, or creating a new fish atlas, or any of the other things that are not allowed by the constitution.
as for fair taxation, the rich already pay more in taxes than the bottom 50% of the people in this country. remember that the top 1% pay nearly 40% of the taxes collected by the government. so how much is enough? the reality is that calling for tax increases on the rich is merely class warfare, and everyone knows it. according to the democrats in congress, the amount of money that will be generated by higher taxes on the rich, assuming that everything in fact goes like they suggest it will, will add $700 billion in new tax revenue over ten years. that means a mere $70 billion each year, and with a $1.6 trillion deficit, sorry but $70 billion will not even make a dent, and you know congress, give them more money and they will spend it, NOT apply it to the debt or the deficit.
Raising taxes on businesses = higher prices and job cuts
Are you good with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozzie679
BS! Historical facts tell us otherwise. How do you feel about tax loopholes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
What historical facts tell us that you can increase taxes, and not increase costs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozzie679
How was the initial statement worded? I think the poster said something about employment....
Chain of the conversation so you can follow along.. So now you are only discussing the "job cuts".. fine, lets play along.. Tell me what historical facts say tax increases equate to job increases?
I own a retail operation and I know what I'm talking about. You are living in a talking point fantasy land. There is plenty of money concentrated in the top 1% of the country and they are not paying their fair share. And yes, I believe everybody should be paying federal income taxes.
LOL senior citizen "roomies"? Holy **** this country has gone to Hell.
Undeniably proof right here, that there is plenty of money in the top 1% to solve our problem, because you own a retail operation..
as for fair taxation, the rich already pay more in taxes than the bottom 50% of the people in this country.
so what? they have far more wealth than the bottom 50% of people in this country.
Quote:
remember that the top 1% pay nearly 40% of the taxes collected by the government. so how much is enough?
enough would be equal to the share of american wealth they own: real estate, stocks, bonds, etc.
Quote:
the reality is that calling for tax increases on the rich is merely class warfare, and everyone knows it.
See, i always thought of the term "class warfare" as republican propaganda to "shame" people into getting the rich to pay their fair share.
It's a lot like how they don't call the inheritance tax the "inheritance tax", they call it the "death tax" to make it sound really evil.
Quote:
according to the democrats in congress, the amount of money that will be generated by higher taxes on the rich, assuming that everything in fact goes like they suggest it will, will add $700 billion in new tax revenue over ten years. that means a mere $70 billion each year, and with a $1.6 trillion deficit, sorry but $70 billion will not even make a dent, and you know congress, give them more money and they will spend it, NOT apply it to the debt or the deficit.
i don't give a f*@% about what the democrats in congress say about their plan. i'm not talking about them.
so what? they have far more wealth than the bottom 50% of people in this country.
I had to stop here laughing so hard.. DAH.. They of course have more wealth, if they didnt, they wouldnt be wealthy
So its the fault of the wealthy, that the bottom 50% who pay ZERO are BROKE? The wealthy are to blame because so many people live on welfare and are too incompetent to make adaquate living?
and DAMMIT WE ARE SAYING IT IN ALL CAPS SO THAT IS HOW ITS GONNA STAY.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
