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.
I think the wealthy should pay for everything. I think we should confiscate Bill Gate's and Warren Buffett's wealth and the wealth of anyone with a net worth of over a billion dollars. They obviously stole it anyway!
Wow..it's so good to hear that "the rich" will be taxed to solve all our debt problems and fund all our social welfare problems. What happens when they are taxed so much that they are not rich anymore ?
Then maybe, if the taxes are spent correctly, our nation won't be in debt, and they'll still have houses bigger than the rest of us and more toys, just tiny stock portfolios.
The rich have been getting tax cuts left and right since Reagan, their salaries have gone up but wages at the bottom have been stagnant or declining because the wealthy drive up costs on everything. They've been getting great deals for 30 years while the rest of us have been paying for it. I think its time they pull their weight.
Here's a nice little thought. I read on Forbes website, the 400 richest Americans each have at least 900 million dollars. Collectively they're worth 1.57 trillion, thats only the 400 richest and they hold enough wealth that if they wanted to, they could pay off 1/6 of our debt.
Bush's tax cuts, done almost 10 years ago were for over a trillion. That didn't create many American jobs, did it?
Just imagine, all the tax cuts the wealthy have received since Reagan. Imagine if instead those had simply paid for our debt instead.
The wealthy whine like infants that they work so hard and suffer so much and they already pay so much in taxes. Well, they've been benefiting while all of our manufacturing went overseas, while all our bridges and roads crumble, and while we pay $4 dollar/gallon for gas.
I saw another thread talking about when there should be armed revolution. Imagine if all of those at the bottom realize who is benefiting while our country goes down the toilet and then then decide to revolt. I think the rich should be happy they would still have more than the rest of us and shut up and contribute more.
Again I'll repeat, they're benefitting and not sacrificing, its time they have to pay.
The best solution is to only tax Republicans for the wars that their moron leader got our nation into. Let the Republicans pay for it while the rest of America takes care of our nation. Republicans should never be allowed Medicare since they think it is "socialist." DUH!
Then maybe, if the taxes are spent correctly, our nation won't be in debt, and they'll still have houses bigger than the rest of us and more toys, just tiny stock portfolios.
We're a debtor nation. Every dollar you have is a debt. Our country will never be out of debt and if we ever were that would mean we were broke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odinloki1
The rich have been getting tax cuts left and right since Reagan, their salaries have gone up but wages at the bottom have been stagnant or declining because the wealthy drive up costs on everything. They've been getting great deals for 30 years while the rest of us have been paying for it. I think its time they pull their weight.
Maybe you should look and see who's tax rate is negative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odinloki1
Here's a nice little thought. I read on Forbes website, the 400 richest Americans each have at least 900 million dollars. Collectively they're worth 1.57 trillion, thats only the 400 richest and they hold enough wealth that if they wanted to, they could pay off 1/6 of our debt.
See the first response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odinloki1
Bush's tax cuts, done almost 10 years ago were for over a trillion. That didn't create many American jobs, did it?
The wealthy whine like infants that they work so hard and suffer so much and they already pay so much in taxes. Well, they've been benefiting while all of our manufacturing went overseas, while all our bridges and roads crumble, and while we pay $4 dollar/gallon for gas.
I doubt they're whining as much as you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odinloki1
I saw another thread talking about when there should be armed revolution. Imagine if all of those at the bottom realize who is benefiting while our country goes down the toilet and then then decide to revolt. I think the rich should be happy they would still have more than the rest of us and shut up and contribute more.
This would be an armed revolution that democrats wish for, at least until it happened or the people were enlightened as to how rich they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odinloki1
Again I'll repeat, they're benefiting and not sacrificing, its time they have to pay.
You apparently don't know why they are so rich either. Most of their "riches" are in capital.
Quote:
4: of or relating to capital; especially: relating to or being assets that add to the long-term net worth of a corporation <capital improvements>
That wasn't a nuclear war. If you're the only one with a nuclear bomb or bombs then yes, you win. It's not like that anymore though and mutually assured destruction is no longer the threat or did you miss that part of the thread.
Last edited by BigJon3475; 11-22-2009 at 03:09 PM..
Is that not what takes place? You think we only defend the wealthy, the poor dont get any protection? Another rediculous posting because many in the WTC were indeed "wealthy", what protection were they afforded to?
I am not saying that. I'm saying that IF we taxed only the wealthy, it would be akin to saying we just defend the wealthy and we don't. Defense is for all anytime we are defending the country. Therefore all should be taxed. But war should not be fought for aggression only defense, which hasn't occurred in the US in the last century or this. WW1, 2, Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, Iraq have all been fought as an offense, not defense. Defense in rhetoric, not actuality.
You misunderstood my post but that's ok. Is it that hard to understand? Help! Anyone know what I'm saying?
I am not saying that. I'm saying that IF we taxed only the wealthy, it would be akin to saying we just defend the wealthy and we don't. Defense is for all anytime we are defending the country. Therefore all should be taxed. But war should not be fought for aggression only defense, which hasn't occurred in the US in the last century or this. WW1, 2, Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, Iraq have all been fought as an offense, not defense. Defense in rhetoric, not actuality.
You misunderstood my post but that's ok. Is it that hard to understand? Help! Anyone know what I'm saying?
Only if you didn't understand the actual threat would you think those wars were an offensive move.
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.
