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.
The major "social safety net" I would like to see eliminated is the right of business owners and managers to retain any wealth whatsoever when their business fail. anyone involved with a private business should be liable for all business debts to the full extent of their personal and family wealth until the debt is fully paid.
That would make investors and managers much more careful about risky schemes like below prime mortgage bonds or casino/hotel frauds.
That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard on CD. Obviously you are referring to Trump and Wall Street in your comments.
Funny part is there is already a provision for this. Apparently you are not aware of "piercing the corporate veil". It is designed to work when fraud is involved.
Piercing the Corporate Veil: When LLCs and Corporations May be at Risk | Nolo.com
If a court pierces a company's corporate veil, the owners, shareholders, or members of a corporation or LLC can be held personally liable for corporate debts. This means creditors can go after the owners' home, bank account, investments, and other assets to satisfy the corporate debt.
You realize most businesses are small businesses. Most people get into business to succeed and having to shut down their business is enough incentive to do the right thing. Lots of reasons businesses fail, fraud or risky schemes are not a big part of that. How about things like Obamacare, employee theft, lawsuits, etc. Or just the anti-business environment Obama fostered for 8 years.
See this is what was one of the biggest problems of the Obama Administration and the Sanders campaign. They equated the business world with fraud or avarice. Its easy to get votes through class warfare but so misleading. Gullible people on the left believed the rhetoric and you end up with posts like the one I am commenting on.
On top of all that, you want business managers to be personally responsible for the risk of the business they are managing. Assuming you mean someone hired to run a business not a member of the corporation who would receive all the profits of the business but be liable if it failed. So if Denny's went out of business, the restaurant managers would have their cars, houses and money taken away?
You don't need to cut assistance. You just need to ensure that billionaires pay taxes.
The IRS is pretty good at making sure that everyone pays their taxes or face serious consequences.
If you don't like the rules, change the tax code. Obama was there for 8 years including two years where both houses were democrat and nothing much changed.
I don't have numbers on billionaires but people who make at least 10 million a year pay an average of a 26% tax rate. In fact people who make more than 250K a year (5 percent of the population) pay 51% of the taxes.
Last edited by Oklazona Bound; 12-31-2016 at 09:49 AM..
Do you honestly think charities could take care of our entire elderly, poor, and sick population? If you do then I want some of whatever it is you're smoking because that's some good s**t.
Right wingers like this guy just can't see the real world beyond their noses. How they even come to these asinine conclusions is beyond me.
These people generally dont believe that they will ever need a safety net. That is my impression. They talk big but simply fail to understand what they will do if they have children, their partner dies and they become blind. They fail to understand the consequences of no child protection agencies. They fail to understand the cost of old age or early onset dementia. These right wingers simply can not imagine that they will ever need help, so they support eliminating help for the less fortunate. They sing another tune whenever their luck run out. I find these people very hypocritical.
Why shouldn't we be allowed to leave our wealth to our children? The wealth that we have earned legally and have already paid taxes for.
You can. No problem. Dont pretend you have to pay any federal estate tax with your 15 million dollar estate. You dont have that and never will have that.
What smart governments do is that they try to prevent a permanent inherited aristocracy from being established in the country which will hijack the political system, monopolize the economy and make the country weak and stagnant.
You can. No problem. Dont pretend you have to pay any federal estate tax with your 15 million dollar estate. You dont have that and never will have that.
What smart governments do is that they try to prevent a permanent inherited aristocracy from being established in the country which will hijack the political system, monopolize the economy and make the country weak and stagnant.
Total BS. Sweden has more billionaires per capita than the US, and has NO estate/inheritance tax.
Don't leave it like that, please... a link to some further information, a book, etc... something please?
The country experienced famine, plus very bad agricultural and economic policies which exacerbated the famine. On top of that, there were bad political policies that resulted in "premature" deaths.
Mao said, "When there is not enough to eat people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill."
That's true. You cannot save everyone, so you need to save those who are most deserving.
Frank Dikötter puts deaths from famine at about ~20 to 30 Million and another 15 Million "premature" deaths due to policies.
These people generally dont believe that they will ever need a safety net. That is my impression. They talk big but simply fail to understand what they will do if they have children, their partner dies and they become blind. They fail to understand the consequences of no child protection agencies. They fail to understand the cost of old age or early onset dementia. These right wingers simply can not imagine that they will ever need help, so they support eliminating help for the less fortunate. They sing another tune whenever their luck run out. I find these people very hypocritical.
I really don't think that's the case for almost anyone. The people against the welfare state are almost always against it because a) they don't believe it's acceptable to take money from others by force to fund it, and b) they think it's destructive to the people who the programs are supposed to help. It isn't about "well I don't think I'll ever need it, so screw everyone else". I think that's projecting selfishness onto others that doesn't exist.
For me personally, I would never go up to anyone and FORCE them to fund my cause against their will. That's still theft. I only feel justified in asking, persuading, or even guilting people into donating to causes I support, but never resorting to force, ever.
It also creates a situation where people's compassion is taken advantage of. It's like having a family member that you care about and want to help, but you know they'll never get better if they know everyone will keep bailing them out. You might stand up and say "I'm sorry, but we're just enabling them, not helping" and other family members might take that as you not caring, but you're doing it BECAUSE you care.
For me personally, I would never go up to anyone and FORCE them to fund my cause against their will. That's still theft. I only feel justified in asking, persuading, or even guilting people into donating to causes I support, but never resorting to force, ever.
This is dumb, and goes against the very notion of government and taxation. Yes, people need to be forced to pay taxes. I don't support the military-industrial complex, farm subsidies or aid for Israel. Some people don't support medical research or public education. We don't get government ala carte. We pay for it all, and frankly, that's a good thing.
This is dumb, and goes against the very notion of government and taxation. Yes, people need to be forced to pay taxes. I don't support the military-industrial complex, farm subsidies or aid for Israel. Some people don't support medical research or public education. We don't get government ala carte. We pay for it all, and frankly, that's a good thing.
Do you feel justified in doing it yourself, or is it only okay if the government does it for you?
I really don't think that's the case for almost anyone.
Thats not my impression after talking to some social darwinists. Their motivations are generally that they dont believe they will need it themselves. They are often healthy individuals, not necessarily wealthy at all, who simply cant fathom what horrors can strike them and their family without any safety net. As soon as their first severely disabled child is born and when they go blind, they tend to soften up and see another perspective of life. Societies will always have a certain group clinging to social darwinism, its just that in America it is heavily funded by a few ultra rich donors as part of a broader propaganda effort.
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.
Sweden has more billionaires per capita than the US, and has NO estate/inheritance tax.
