• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

I'd say it means that Americans are waking up to the fact that, since they actually like a lot of what the government does, they may actually have to pony up for it.
What do you think anyone can do to prevent the entire system from crashing? What will we call what comes after the experiment in self government has failed?
 
See, what you miss in your "fairness" analysis is that a middle class person who pays at a 17% rate is actually being taxed at close to 100% of his DISPOSABLE income, whereas a rich person being taxed at a 22% rate is being taxed at 22% of HIS disposable income. Does that seem fair?
I have seen this somewhere before...let me see...who wrote that down..From each according to his abilities...oh yeah...Radical Karl...

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.[1] The phrase summarizes the principles that, in a communist society, every person should contribute to society to the best of his or her ability and consume from society in proportion to his or her needs. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist society will produce; the idea is that there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.​


And a half dozen of you on the wrong side of history right here in our little utopia agree with him.
 
Disposable income leaves too much to the imagination. Income is the key. Income period. When you take more % wise from a person it does become unfair. That is a penalty for being successful. Its discrimination. Treating a person of a certain class differently. Every person should be responsible for themselves. If they want more money, they need to earn more money. Not continually try to take money from those that do. All things equal, that is fair. Divisions amongst different groups of people is not.

We could see it more clearly if we used race to determine the progressiveness of the income taxes. Let's say if you are black you pay a larger percentage than if you are Hispanic than if you are Asian than if you are white. Suddenly people on the left would wonder why we are penalizing people for their skin color. Those same people cannot imagine there is anything wrong based on penalizing them for their success.
 
Disposable income leaves too much to the imagination.

Hardly. Disposable income is what you have after you pay for basic food, shelter, transportation, and health care.

I suggest you give this a read. It's pretty revealing: Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Some of the highlights:

* The top 5% of income earners control 62% of the country's net wealth;

* The bottom 80% of income earners control only 15% of the country's net wealth;

* The top 5% control 72% of the country's financial wealth;

* The top 10% control virtually all of the financial wealth;

* The top 1% control 43% of the financial wealth;

So, why do the wealthy pay so much in taxes? A: because they have all the money.

And you know what? If you're carrying around a suitcase loaded up with gold bars, don't expect people to feel sorry for you because your suitcase is so heavy.
 
Hardly. Disposable income is what you have after you pay for basic food, shelter, transportation, and health care.

I suggest you give this a read. It's pretty revealing: Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Some of the highlights:

* The top 5% of income earners control 62% of the country's net wealth;

* The bottom 80% of income earners control only 15% of the country's net wealth;

* The top 5% control 72% of the country's financial wealth;

* The top 10% control virtually all of the financial wealth;

* The top 1% control 43% of the financial wealth;

So, why do the wealthy pay so much in taxes? A: because they have all the money.

And you know what? If you're carrying around a suitcase loaded up with gold bars, don't expect people to feel sorry for you because your suitcase is so heavy.

Does the fact that someone else has more than you inhibit your ability to gain success like them?

J-mac
 
Does the fact that someone else has more than you inhibit your ability to gain success like them?

J-mac

I do think you miss his point.

But let me ask you this. If the game is set to help those withmore the most, and it is with corporate welfare and other perks, and this leads to a small percentage having most everything, do the odds increase that you'll likely reach the top or decrease?
 
* The top 5% of income earners control 62% of the country's net wealth;

* The bottom 80% of income earners control only 15% of the country's net wealth;

* The top 5% control 72% of the country's financial wealth;

* The top 10% control virtually all of the financial wealth;

* The top 1% control 43% of the financial wealth;

So, why do the wealthy pay so much in taxes? A: because they have all the money.

And you know what? If you're carrying around a suitcase loaded up with gold bars, don't expect people to feel sorry for you because your suitcase is so heavy.

Have you ever stopped to consider why any of this is? Because I seriously doubt it. So many people are very upset about these numbers and never look at why. Instead they whine and cry and throw little hissy fits about the facts. The top 5% control the countries wealth right? Why not focus on the other 95% (or more) who are lining up the give the top 5% even more money? These guys are rich because they have hundreds of millions of people who can't throw money at them fast enough. 95% of the population or more who are upset about these discrepancies are sitting back waiting for the government to force these guys to stop making money. Rather than do anything themselves like people should be doing they are going to keep crying and whining and all the time they are doing that they continue to throw money at these people they supposedly don't like. How can you blame the rich for accepting the money you cant stop yourself from giving them?
 
Does the fact that someone else has more than you inhibit your ability to gain success like them?

J-mac

Not at all. Not that it has the slightly relevance to the topic at hand.
 
Have you ever stopped to consider why any of this is? Because I seriously doubt it. So many people are very upset about these numbers and never look at why. Instead they whine and cry and throw little hissy fits about the facts. The top 5% control the countries wealth right? Why not focus on the other 95% (or more) who are lining up the give the top 5% even more money? These guys are rich because they have hundreds of millions of people who can't throw money at them fast enough. 95% of the population or more who are upset about these discrepancies are sitting back waiting for the government to force these guys to stop making money. Rather than do anything themselves like people should be doing they are going to keep crying and whining and all the time they are doing that they continue to throw money at these people they supposedly don't like. How can you blame the rich for accepting the money you cant stop yourself from giving them?

Wow, what an elitist attitude! 95% of Americans are lazy slackers who just aren't trying to get ahead! Amazing that you have so little regard for your fellow countrymen.

But aside from that, this isn't about BLAMING anyone. It is, once again, a pragmatic argument. We ned to collect more revenue. The best place to look for it is the place where all the money is.
 
But aside from that, this isn't about BLAMING anyone. It is, once again, a pragmatic argument. We ned to collect more revenue. The best place to look for it is the place where all the money is.

I might buy into the bolded part of your statement if it also contained a statement of cutting waste. My personal view is not to throw more money at a group (Congress) who seems to be bent on funding every little request. Cutting loopholes, pork barrell projects, is a place to start. Congress needs to let the taxpayer know what it wants to fund within a balanced budget under current tax structure. Then tell us what more they would like to do and the costs. Then hold them to it.
 
I might buy into the bolded part of your statement if it also contained a statement of cutting waste. My personal view is not to throw more money at a group (Congress) who seems to be bent on funding every little request. Cutting loopholes, pork barrell projects, is a place to start. Congress needs to let the taxpayer know what it wants to fund within a balanced budget under current tax structure. Then tell us what more they would like to do and the costs. Then hold them to it.

Oh yeah, it's given that we need to cut spending, too. We should always seek to eliminate waste, but as a practical matter you just don't save that much that way. Reagan tried and failed miserably. What we absolutely have to do is reform Medicare and cut military spending. That's where the fat is.
 
Wow, what an elitist attitude! 95% of Americans are lazy slackers who just aren't trying to get ahead! Amazing that you have so little regard for your fellow countrymen.

But aside from that, this isn't about BLAMING anyone. It is, once again, a pragmatic argument. We ned to collect more revenue. The best place to look for it is the place where all the money is.

It is about blaming. How do I have so little regard for my countrymen? Because I think if they want change they should do it themselves rather than just whine and cry? Did you not read what I wrote or do you just not understand it? To simplify that for you, if you don't like a few people controlling the money, give your money to more people.
 
It is about blaming. How do I have so little regard for my countrymen? Because I think if they want change they should do it themselves rather than just whine and cry? Did you not read what I wrote or do you just not understand it? To simplify that for you, if you don't like a few people controlling the money, give your money to more people.

No, sorry, it is not about blaming. I'm not making a value judgment about the rich or poor. I'm simply pointing out the if you want to collect more revenue, the best place to look is the place where you will find the money.
 
The better solution would be to increase the number of taxpayers by job creation. Stealing from the rich is a short term, poor solution. What we need is less government waste, more jobs, more self sufficient adults, less people reliant on state care. Those jobs would help more than anything. Also, increasing tourism to this country would help immensely. Or stopping this ARRA bull**** and letting BAA be significant. Or if you want more taxes, tax the hell out imports. Increase exports so other countries money is coming in rather than our countries money always going out.
 
Ok, so are you saying that people should be limited as to the wealth, or the rate at which they can amass said wealth?

No, nowhere do I say they should be limited to how much they can make and how much they can amass, it seems you missed the part about the taxes. ​The middle class didn't fare as well as the top 1%.

"In other words, the top 1% share of income grew nearly five times faster than their share of taxes".




The Tax Foundation reported in July 2009 that between 2000 and 2007, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent of tax returns grew by 50 percent, while pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 29 percent (not adjusted for inflation) ...

Since 2001, the average tax rate has fallen from 4.09 percent to 2.99 percent for the bottom 50 percent of tax returns and has fallen from 28.20 percent to 21.46 percent for the top 0.1 percent and 27.5 percent to 22.45 percent for the top 1 percent. TAXFOUNDATION
 
Why?


j-mac

Because the middle-class did. Let me ask you this. Why do you think it is fair for the middle-class rate's to not fluctuate accordingly (either up or down) as it does with the top 1%?

Since 2001, the average tax rate has fallen from 4.09 percent to 2.99 percent for the bottom 50 percent of tax returns and has fallen from 28.20 percent to 21.46 percent for the top 0.1 percent and 27.5 percent to 22.45 percent for the top 1 percent. TAXFOUNDATION
 
I do think you miss his point.

But let me ask you this. If the game is set to help those withmore the most, and it is with corporate welfare and other perks, and this leads to a small percentage having most everything, do the odds increase that you'll likely reach the top or decrease?

I thought about this post all day yesterday Joe, as I was driving back home from Indy. The way you framed this really bothered me for a number of reasons.

You lay the premise that the game is rigged which is simply not so. The wealth in this country is not static, nor is it limited. So to say that the pursuit of financial success is limited, and your socio-economic status is etched in stone where you are at in any point in time is pure Bull.

For there to be a truly fair, and free market that has propelled this country to be the greatest engine of wealth creation in the worlds history, the dream of success on your own merits and hard work have to be in place.

What you advocate is a tenant of Marx where redistribution has to be equal which has never worked to advance anyone.


j-mac
 
Last edited:
No, sorry, it is not about blaming. I'm not making a value judgment about the rich or poor. I'm simply pointing out the if you want to collect more revenue, the best place to look is the place where you will find the money.

In order to make this statement true from you, then you'd have to be looking at incomes in the middle class as a whole. The only way you are arriving at your class war mantra is to take individual incomes as a percentage compared to other individuals and what they make. That is dishonest, and wrong.

j-mac
 
Because the middle-class did. Let me ask you this. Why do you think it is fair for the middle-class rate's to not fluctuate accordingly (either up or down) as it does with the top 1%?

Since 2001, the average tax rate has fallen from 4.09 percent to 2.99 percent for the bottom 50 percent of tax returns and has fallen from 28.20 percent to 21.46 percent for the top 0.1 percent and 27.5 percent to 22.45 percent for the top 1 percent. TAXFOUNDATION


The more money you are talking about the greater the increase or decrease. It isn't surprising that those that don't make a whole lot of money actually have more even tax rates. There just isn't much to go after there. Not to mention comparing someone who makes say $1000.00 per week and someone who derives their income from investment return and pays quarterly with ever differing deductions as well as fluctuations in actual gain or loss, is deceptive to say the least. However, if you are advocating for a broader, fairer tax that simplifies the differences and brings everyone into the mix fairly as they should be then I would welcome you to the fold.

However, I don't think that is the case.


j-mac
 
In order to make this statement true from you, then you'd have to be looking at incomes in the middle class as a whole. The only way you are arriving at your class war mantra is to take individual incomes as a percentage compared to other individuals and what they make. That is dishonest, and wrong.

j-mac

Could you restate that in English?
 
Simple...You could take 100% of the wealthy you've declared have "too much" and it wouldn't matter at all.


j-mac

Well, I never said that anyone had "too much", but if you took 100% of the assets of the wealthy it would obviously take care of the deficit immediately. If you take just the top 400 Americans you would net $1.4 trillion.
 
Well, I never said that anyone had "too much", but if you took 100% of the assets of the wealthy it would obviously take care of the deficit immediately. If you take just the top 400 Americans you would net $1.4 trillion.


All of the wealth, that means everything they have, all for one damned year of deficit? Wow, great plan.....Here is a hint for you, It isn't your money!!! This country has topped $15 Trillion in debt! And Obama's responsible for a third of that in just three years! pathetic. You libs are just too much!


j-mac
 
All of the wealth, that means everything they have, all for one damned year of deficit? Wow, great plan.....Here is a hint for you, It isn't your money!!! This country has topped $15 Trillion in debt! And Obama's responsible for a third of that in just three years! pathetic. You libs are just too much!
j-mac

I didn't propose that we should take their wealth. I was simply correcting your hypothetical.

In other words, you set up a straw man argument, I knocked him down, and then you attack me because of the straw man you set up. :lol:
 

this is due to the clear fact, that OWS is claiming to speak for the 99%, without actually consulting the 99% on what they want, what they desire, and what their grievences are.

They simply, and arrogantly, decide that THEY and only ONLY THEY speak for the 99%.

But of course, they don't. They speak for themselves and maybe another 10-15% of the population.
 
Back
Top Bottom