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.
You keep saying this, but no one really cares about taxing wealth...and won't buy into to this crap.
the thing is, that revenue is going to come from somewhere, because it has already been spent, and the GOP won't cut medicare down to a sustainable size.
so y'all can talk about "cutting spending" until the cows come home, but as long as the focus is on knick-knacks, instead of Medicare and Military cuts, then we're going to have to find a way to generate more dollars for the government to spend whether you like it or not. Defaulting is not a realistic choice.
Quote:
.sounds like what the masses in Greece want...
the masses in greece want higher levels of government spending, which is completely different from restructuring tax revenues.
funny you should mention greece, because that's a place where the rich really do get off easy. That's why they are going bankrupt. You can't keep creating financial obligations and tax cuts at the same time.
the US is more fortunate that we have our own currency, and that people still take it seriously despite the levels of money we print. I think it is reasonable to stop printing money, which will leave a huge hole in the budget, and fill that gap by taxing the wealth of ALL americans. I do not consider this to be a liberal idea, in fact, I think this is an extremely conservative idea.
the thing is, that revenue is going to come from somewhere, because it has already been spent
I have an idea, why doesnt it come from where it went? You know, places like that $300B in the stimulus package that went directly to FOOD STAMPS.. The fact that you Democrats keep giving money away to person A, doesnt mean person B should pay for your incompetent plans...
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
and the GOP won't cut medicare down to a sustainable size.
Actually the GOP's proposal was to abolish medicare as we know it, it was Democrats that wouldnt make changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
so y'all can talk about "cutting spending" until the cows come home, but as long as the focus is on knick-knacks, instead of Medicare and Military cuts, then we're going to have to find a way to generate more dollars for the government to spend whether you like it or not.
Increasing taxes does NOT generate more dollars.. Increasing the GDP does. Do you not understand this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
the masses in greece want higher levels of government spending, which is completely different from restructuring tax revenues.
Um, news flash, liberals here also call for higher levels of government spending. hell, how many want government to take over the healthcare industry completely?
The fact that 6M americans can control 98% of what you see, is because that 6M americans took advantage of the opportunities afforded to them while the others sat back and moaned and groaned about what they were "entitled" to..
The fact that 6M americans can control 98% of what you see, is because that 6M americans took advantage of the opportunities afforded to them while the others sat back and moaned and groaned about what they were "entitled" to..
Thank god you arent my realtor because you'd be fired if you came to that conclusion in regards to one of my deals. I never said only 2% "deserved" anything. I said they took advantage of the opportunities the 98% of americans didnt.
that's no justification for them paying less than their fair share, which is the point that you failed to address.
you are right, the rich should pay their fair share of taxes, in which case they should get a tax CUT since they already pay double their fair share.
Quote:
No, I'm telling you I want to use wealth instead of income as the basis for taxation.
yes i know you do. but taxing wealth in this country will make it hard for anyone to create wealth, and as such those that are wealthy, or even middle class, will move their money, and their residence, to other countries where the tax code is more favorable. it has happened many times over the decades. remember britain in the 60s and 70s? many of their wealthy moved their residence, and their wealth, to the US and canada so they could pay a far lower tax rate. tax the rich too much here, and the same thing will happen here as well.
Quote:
the democrats tend to use men, white people, rednecks, and christians to vilify. Rich people donate too much to be criticized.
the democrats vilify the rich particularly, or dont you ever listen to what the democrats say?
Quote:
no, since it isn't your death that is being taxed, it is your inheritance.
actually it is the estate of the person who dies that is being taxed, after all that wealth generated over a lifetime has already been taxed. this is done BEFORE the estate is distributed to the heirs.
Quote:
i am not pushing their plan. in fact i don't even know what their plan is.
really now? so calling for higher taxes on the rich means you are not supporting the democrats agenda? rubbish. pure rubbish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lithium
That's the thing. Whenever people talk about cheap labor, they mention how without it, you would have to pay more. No, if the already rich executives running the company wouldn't take so much, you could have it both ways. People could get paid, and the price of an iPhone wouldn't have to be ridiculously high. It could work here...
i wont get into CEO compensation except to say that in the old days CEOs made far less than today because corporations were not generally multinational in scope. today however a CEO has responsibilities not just in the US, but in many other countries as well. take ford motor company for instance. you see ford as being an american company, but it is truly international these days as there is ford of europe, ford of australia, ford of china, ford of india, etc. not to mention any and all subsidiaries of ford motor company. that means allan mullaly is running a multinational conglomerate, and as such should be compensated accordingly.
but there is far more than just a CEOs compensation, which is broken down nicely in a later post, that affects the companies bottom line. in fact take away the CEOs compensation package and you increase the bottom by less that 1% at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mco65
I say Tax Corporations to the brink of bancruptcy.. that will teach them.
oh yeah, lets just kill the worlds economy shall we? could you possibly suggest anything more stupid?
the democrats vilify the rich particularly, or dont you ever listen to what the democrats say?
i see it if its in the newspaper. local and state democrats where i'm from are horrid. local and state democrats where i currently live are a hair better than the republicans, but it varies widely by the individual. National democrats are pretty awful, especially the house democrats. However, I like Obama, despite being strongly against him on several issues. as to whether democrats vility the rich or not, i'd say the voters might think that way but the politicians typically don't vote that way.
i'm not so much concerned about the democrats as i am the republicans, who i think should have a good head on their shoulders when it comes to fair taxation and fiscal responsibility. I don't see that at all, not in this thread, and not from the politicians.
Even the point that we're arguing -- who funds the gov't -- is not the question in my mind. The question in my mind is, does everyone pay a similar % of their overall net worth and income to the government? That would mean adding a component to one's "income" that did a better job of taxing wealth as well as wages. Maybe it can replace capital gains. No liberal agenda, just want to know that if I'm paying 35%, that the guy in my town who owns 6 beach houses is also paying 35% rather than using them as tax shelters.
If, when net worth and assets and wages are fairly taken into account, that he's actually paying more in total federal taxes (SS & Medicare included), than I'd be fine with raising my taxes. I just do not believe that would be the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
really now? so calling for higher taxes on the rich means you are not supporting the democrats agenda? rubbish. pure rubbish.
so you're calling me a liar. been real nice talking to you.
The fact that 6M americans can control 98% of what you see, is because that 6M americans took advantage of the opportunities afforded to them while the others sat back and moaned and groaned about what they were "entitled" to..
6M americans can control 98% of what you see, because that 6M americans took advantage of the opportunities afforded to them while 302,745,538 Americans sat back and moaned and groaned about what they were "entitled" to..
i see it if its in the newspaper. local and state democrats where i'm from are horrid. local and state democrats where i currently live are better than the republicans. National democrats are pretty terrible, but I like Obama, despite being strongly against him on several issues. as to whether democrats vility the rich or not, i'd say the voters might think that way but the politicians typically don't vote that way.
i'm not so much concerned about the democrats as i am the republicans, who i think should have a good head on their shoulders when it comes to fair taxation and fiscal responsibility. I don't see that at all, not in this thread, and not from the politicians. I see very little hope.
so then you think that republicans, who are in fact trying to solve the nations fiscal problems, should in fact raise taxes on the rich? and you somehow dont believe that the democrats are the ones vilifying the rich through their call for higher taxes on them? calling them greedy and self serving? when was the last time you heard a republican make those remarks?
Quote:
so you're calling me a liar. been real nice talking to you.
no i am not calling you a liar. what i am saying is that you seem to be conflicted in what you are saying.
6M americans can control 98% of what you see, because that 6M americans took advantage of the opportunities afforded to them while 302,745,538 Americans sat back and moaned and groaned about what they were "entitled" to..
wow.
wow, realtors get 7% of the sales price of a property while many sellers get zero because they have mortgages. I bet you have no problem with realtors getting compensated for your work, do you, but now you sit here and moan and groan at the 2% who get compensated. Really, whats your point other than to point out that 302,745,538 americans (which is a pathetic figure because it counts children) dont take advantage of the opportunities afforded to them?
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.
Interesting.
