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.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,602,372 times
Reputation: 5697
Advertisements
Yes (as I voted), IF you define "owe" as "an obligation to make sure other members of society are at the very least NOT living in substandard housing, starving, or denied basic education opportunities". I also voted "Yes" on the basis that increasing wealth gaps tend to create serious power imbalances in government, society, and so forth - which is toxic to democracy (widespread poverty or not).
Yes (as I voted), IF you define "owe" as "an obligation to make sure other members of society are at the very least NOT living in substandard housing, starving, or denied basic education opportunities". I also voted "Yes" on the basis that increasing wealth gaps tend to create serious power imbalances in government, society, and so forth - which is toxic to democracy (widespread poverty or not).
Yes (as I voted), IF you define "owe" as "an obligation to make sure other members of society are at the very least NOT living in substandard housing, starving, or denied basic education opportunities". I also voted "Yes" on the basis that increasing wealth gaps tend to create serious power imbalances in government, society, and so forth - which is toxic to democracy (widespread poverty or not).
That's a useful argument, you hire an electrician and tell them that their services are free because you are poor, you go to grocery and get free groceries because the grocery owner is wealthy, you go and buy a house but tell the bank they are rich and you don't have to pay mortgage, it's really nice to take from someone else while they can't... that's a fantastic world you have there...
I figure most of the very rich got rich by using market manipulation and crooked deals. So they can repatriate some of their ill-gotten gold back to the people they stole it from. The tax rate should be zero for those under the 90th percentile and 90% for those in the 99th percentile. Even with that tax rate they will still make a lot more then the rest of us.
I figure most of the very rich got rich by using market manipulation and crooked deals. So they can repatriate some of their ill-gotten gold back to the people they stole it from. The tax rate should be zero for those under the 90th percentile and 90% for those in the 99th percentile. Even with that tax rate they will still make a lot more then the rest of us.
typical liberal thinking. most of the rich got where they are by working for their money, taking the big risks of starting their own business, working the long hours to make the business successful, etc.
I figure most of the very rich got rich by using market manipulation and crooked deals. So they can repatriate some of their ill-gotten gold back to the people they stole it from. The tax rate should be zero for those under the 90th percentile and 90% for those in the 99th percentile.
All of us are under duress since we don't have capitalism. Instead we have socialism and if you try otherwise the government has armed agents at the ready.
Don't hate the player, hate the game. Regardless of your lot in life if you are for capitalism, freedom to associate, freedom to use whatever currency you want, free to use contract law minus involuntary third party intervention...I'm going to be on your side.
Most of the rich and poor don't believe in any of what I just described. The rich just manipulated the game better. If the poor could have a choice between being rich in this rigged game or the freedom to compete (actual capitalism) that I described I suspect the overwhelming would choose the rigged game.
Should they? I think that is a moral issue, and I think they should. Perhaps not always financial, but they should give something back to the world that has allowed them to become so wealthy. This is a philosophical discussion for me. As someone who is not that wealthy, I give back as much as I can. I set aside what I need to live, a bit for savings, and the rest goes to others. I realize this isn't what everyone does.
Now should this be mandated? No, I don't think so. I do believe everyone who has the means should, however. Just as I believe we should always do what is right (even if most of those things are not mandated or legally-binding - for example, I think it is wrong to cheat on your spouse (assuming it is a traditional monogamous relationship), but it is not illegal to do so).
The wealthy do pay more in taxes (something I agree with), so even if they don't give back willingly, they still do so through the paying of their taxes.
Moral issue indeed. Why would people like you always covet other people’s money? Mind your own business, would you please?
I figure most of the very rich got rich by using market manipulation and crooked deals. So they can repatriate some of their ill-gotten gold back to the people they stole it from. The tax rate should be zero for those under the 90th percentile and 90% for those in the 99th percentile. Even with that tax rate they will still make a lot more then the rest of us.
Gee, that’s a pretty harsh accusation! Do you have anything to back that up or just your default assumption?
But what about Americans who are systemically oppressed?
You mean people like Ben Carson, Muhamed Ali, O. Simpson, Kaepernick, Kareem Abdul Jabar, Maxine Waters, George Foreman, Shirley Chisholm, Condi Rice, Will Smith, Morgan Freeman, etc.
THOSE "oppressed" people?
I figure most of the very rich got rich by using market manipulation and crooked deals. So they can repatriate some of their ill-gotten gold back to the people they stole it from. The tax rate should be zero for those under the 90th percentile and 90% for those in the 99th percentile. Even with that tax rate they will still make a lot more then the rest of us.
Not much has really changed today as the Rich still gets richer and the poor get aura like back pre depression of the 1930's.
But what different today is those rich folks use different data and new technology to rip off gullible ones who gets duped and end up with NADDA when that Bull Markets moves to bear market!! The gullible buy into it.. BUT marketeer's HEDGE everything ( thus get protected ) BUT normal folks LOOSE!!
Back in those days most had NO Clue.. Today MORE become aware ( like myself) and steered clear of speculative false promises by BS'ers!!
Meanwhile.. Fairfax.. The premier Company that maintains ALL who have our every detail financially and CONTACT info gets HACKED!! SMH.. then after weeks+++ High ranking folks sell off shares.. and yet claim knew NADDA?? SORRY!! Who's going to buy that and meanwhile IDENTITY can and will be stolen right into those Higher ups who profited already!!
Many distrust Government.. and for some unknown reason trust Capitolism and Corporations and yet No one seems to recall the many disasters of CORPORATE greed and mega losses caused by it in the past few decades!!
Meanwhile... Fed's want to de-regulate???????? Just how could that go wrong?????? Just WHO do people really believe will BENEFIT??? It sure won't be regular people!! IMO!!
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.
