Why don't some conservatives want anybody to have anything? (millionaires, how much, school)

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by Nepenthe

Oh, now we should only vote for our OWN best interest? Which is it?Your numbers and assessment are off a bit. $1450 / month net is a lot different than $6000 / month net in terms of maintenance level. But I've made $10K / year and $150K / year and never between the extremes did my worldview or desire to be left alone waver.

Not really, someone making $100k/year is nothing compared to a Mark Cuban or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates. More in common with the working poor than the wealthy

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

Why won't you let me have your stuff?


The Conservatives are right on this point. The problem is that they also take other people stuff by rentierism instead of direct transfer. So I suppose that they are hypocrites. If only liberals had any virtues other than stupidity.

Right, the strawman argument. I should have expected that. There is a difference between one person giving away all their money which wouldn't make one bit of difference and everyone chipping in a little bit, but you wouldn't know that, would you?

[Grizzly Addams]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

He paid about 40% of his profit in taxes, being a sole proprietor give or take with NY state as well as federal taxes factored in. A higher rate than those who make most of their money off of stocks. Again, didn't complain

So he paid the normal tax rate, which according to liberals isn't their "fair share". So maybe you should as your dad this question.

[Grizzly Addams]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

Not really, someone making $100k/year is nothing compared to a Mark Cuban or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates. More in common with the working poor than the wealthy

And each of those guys are liberal. So tell me again how the plutocrats convince us to vote republican.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Addams

So he paid the normal tax rate, which according to liberals isn't their "fair share". So maybe you should as your dad this question.

I can't, as my dad has been dead for two years. Anyways, he wasn't a plutocrat. He was barely a millionaire, and once he closed his business down, wasn't anymore. And which liberals? Sounds like a generalization. I thought that the graduated rates during the 40's and 50's were about right

[NY_refugee87]

I want a skid steer. If I secure the 5 jobs I quoted I will have the money to aquire a decent 2 year old used John Deere or BobCat. I want a Mini excavator and a tri axle peterbilt and land with a big shop to store my equipment. Tax payers should give me what I want interest free going by that logic. In reality Option 1 is go to the bank. Option 2 is to chew through profits to supply myself with the tools I want...

But because I work to aquire what I want, need, and desire, why should I pay more in taxes for someone else who won't support themselves? Why should I float the bill for someone who can't afford health insurance? Why should someone be paid $15 per hour with no skills other than asking would you like fries with that?

Can't afford to live? Guess you'd better learn and master a trade that pays that is in demand in the area which you live in... Thats fair is it not? I find it quite amusing those that argue with the mentality that conservatives don't want this or that and it's not fair, will research statistics, and research anything to prove their point as if its a highschool debate team argument...

Yet they won't research careers and paths to success... Or how to invest for their future. Claim anyone who has made it part of the "1%". Instead believe in a Robin Hood utopia of fair. Tax the rich and pay the poor.

When I reach the point I can hire people on, I will. I'll pay highschool/college aged kids 15 an hour to work for me and teach them valuable skills they wont learn in a college classroom... But they will work. Hold up production because of texting and phone calls... Buh bye. Cost my company's reputation with a poor work ethic, or sloppy sub quality work... buh bye.
But then again I am seen as evil, because if it were union work, well then I'd have to argue with a bunch of desk jockies over whats "fair" and deal with them protecting lazy lousy workers that I would want fired.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by NY_refugee87

I want a skid steer. If I secure the 5 jobs I quoted I will have the money to aquire a decent 2 year old used John Deere or BobCat. I want a Mini excavator and a tri axle peterbilt and land with a big shop to store my equipment. Tax payers should give me what I want interest free going by that logic. In reality Option 1 is go to the bank. Option 2 is to chew through profits to supply myself with the tools I want...

But because I work to aquire what I want, need, and desire, why should I pay more in taxes for someone else who won't support themselves? Why should I float the bill for someone who can't afford health insurance? Why should someone be paid $15 per hour with no skills other than asking would you like fries with that?

Can't afford to live? Guess you'd better learn and master a trade that pays that is in demand in the area which you live in... Thats fair is it not? I find it quite amusing those that argue with the mentality that conservatives don't want this or that and it's not fair, will research statistics, and research anything to prove their point as if its a highschool debate team argument...

Yet they won't research careers and paths to success... Or how to invest for their future. Claim anyone who has made it part of the "1%". Instead believe in a Robin Hood utopia of fair. Tax the rich and pay the poor.

When I reach the point I can hire people on, I will. I'll pay highschool/college aged kids 15 an hour to work for me and teach them valuable skills they wont learn in a college classroom... But they will work. Hold up production because of texting and phone calls... Buh bye. Cost my company's reputation with a poor work ethic, or sloppy sub quality work... buh bye.
But then again I am seen as evil, because if it were union work, well then I'd have to argue with a bunch of desk jockies over whats "fair" and deal with them protecting lazy lousy workers that I would want fired.

First paragraph is another strawman argument. No one (at least me) is asking for everything from the government. Hell, housing is one area where I think there should be almost no government involved.

And second, education and healthcare give great returns on investment for society, because healthy educated people are more productive than sick dumb people

[I love boots.]

The title of this thread should be Why don't conservatives want everyone to have everything they want free?

[Haakon]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

This is a serious question. Considering conservatives are against minimum wage, against redistribution of wealth, against the commons (i.e. publicly funded things like police, schools, fire, etc), against unions, against healthcare. Really, what are they 'for'? And don't use the old personal responsibility line, because that isn't the question.

Yes it is. What you're really asking is why conservatives don't want to give anything away. Why don't liberals want to earn what they have?

[parfleche]

It takes a village to have an Idiot.