• 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!

Census finds record gap between rich and poor

you income redistributionists keep making that claim yet there is absolutely no proof of it
Our laws that protect ideas, patents, contracts, and everything else involved in Capitalism are more beneficial to the rich company owners than the measly amount a poor family gets on welfare.
Direct aid to the poor and middle class is much higher than to the rich

That is too funny! Since when do the rich get direct "aid" from the government?
What they get is not aid, they get benefits, tax breaks, tax cuts, not too mention all the many different ways the government protects their ideas, contracts, patents, etc., which far outdo what the poor get.

your crap and yes its steaming crap-that the rich benefit more from the government is nonsense.
Oh, because you say so? You haven't produced an ounce of information to back up your moronic assumptions, but we are to believe that because you say so! :lol:
 
Our laws that protect ideas, patents, contracts, and everything else involved in Capitalism are more beneficial to the rich company owners than the measly amount a poor family gets on welfare.


That is too funny! Since when do the rich get direct "aid" from the government?
What they get is not aid, they get benefits, tax breaks, tax cuts, not too mention all the many different ways the government protects their ideas, contracts, patents, etc., which far outdo what the poor get.


Oh, because you say so? You haven't produced an ounce of information to back up your moronic assumptions, but we are to believe that because you say so! :lol:

I don't see any proof and if you are smart enough to call my assumptions moronic why is it that you are the one who needs a socialist government and I don't.

you lie out of your six with the crap that the rich "benefit more" In reality the government benefits from the rich not the other way around. its the poor who benefit from the government from the stuff the rich have taken by the government.

only a COMPLETE MORON would claim that tax cuts are gifts to the rich by the government
 
Let's try to be a little original. We don't have a socialist government and there is no call for one.
 
Let's try to be a little original. We don't have a socialist government and there is no call for one.

we have a government that is infected to its very core with socialist germs and this place crawls with people who want that disease to spread
 
we have a government that is infected to its very core with socialist germs and this place crawls with people who want that disease to spread

Hyperbolic nonsense doesn't equal fact. Sorry. But no one who uses thie tired old tactic has any credibility.
 
Our laws that protect ideas, patents, contracts, and everything else involved in Capitalism are more beneficial to the rich company owners than the measly amount a poor family gets on welfare.


Well **** the prison benefits the poor. Most people in prison are not wealthy and they get a cot plus three square aday! :mrgreen:
 
Well **** the prison benefits the poor. Most people in prison are not wealthy and they get a cot plus three square aday! :mrgreen:
And all the anal sex they could ever want, too!
 
Hyperbolic nonsense doesn't equal fact. Sorry. But no one who uses thie tired old tactic has any credibility.

your credibility does not exist with me so your claims have no merit to me

I realize that socialists try to pretend that this country isn't socialist enough

but this country oozes the scum of socialism
 
your credibility does not exist with me so your claims have no merit to me

I realize that socialists try to pretend that this country isn't socialist enough

but this country oozes the scum of socialism

Says the one who pukes out Beckish hyperbolic nonsense. I hear ya. :lamo :lamo
 
Says the one who pukes out Beckish hyperbolic nonsense. I hear ya. :lamo :lamo

yawn-why do you spend so much time wanting people like me to pay more taxes when I get nothing additional over what you get

envy and spite is clearly what motivates such nastiness

you need to work more and stop whining that others need to be looted more
 
yawn-why do you spend so much time wanting people like me to pay more taxes when I get nothing additional over what you get

envy and spite is clearly what motivates such nastiness

you need to work more and stop whining that others need to be looted more

First, I showed the wealthy do get more. And second, I don't whine because others pay less than I do, so why should you whine because you pay more (while getting more-assuming you are rich).
 
The rich benefit more from it. Progressive tax is the most fair.

Do you think you could say why that is so instead of just saying that it is? I mean, the rich do benefit more, but they pay the same proportion of their income, so a higher total amount. Mind proving why that is not enough?
 
No, it really doesn't. That's why your information didn't convince. And no, some are becoming richer, as the wealthier class is growing. no one's really disoputing that. And some are getting poorer. What is vanishing is the middle. That is the problem.

I also see above someone questioned Sowell. I told you I have read him before. He tends to let ideaology color his analysis. This tends to make him have different conclusions than others make. I have avoided mentioning this and simply tried to show you that what he claims isn't so, and by giving you a variety of sources showing the same thing. I suspect this won't convince you. Whether you suffer from the same problem as Sowell, I can't say. But the problenm you suuggest doesn't equal the conclusion you've drawn. More rich and more poor, and less middle means there is a gap between rich and poor.

I'm done with this. You're not even responding to the criticisms I am putting forward.
 
First, I showed the wealthy do get more. And second, I don't whine because others pay less than I do, so why should you whine because you pay more (while getting more-assuming you are rich).

no you didn't

you claimed that the rich got tax breaks

the top 1% pay 40% of the income taxes--are you claiming they get more than 40% of the benefits provided by those taxes

you didn't

you fail
 
Do you think you could say why that is so instead of just saying that it is? I mean, the rich do benefit more, but they pay the same proportion of their income, so a higher total amount. Mind proving why that is not enough?

the rich don't benefit more-they get more benefits because they have more to trade for those benefits-and those benefits are not from the government but rather "indirect" benefits that are not based on tax revenue
 
Let's try to be a little original. We don't have a socialist government and there is no call for one.

Opposition in principle to Socialism there is none. Today no influential party would dare openly to advocate Private Property in the Means of Production. The word "Capitalism" expresses, for our age, the sum of all evil. Even the opponents of Socialism are dominated by socialist ideas. In seeking to combat Socialism from the standpoint of their special class interest these opponents—the parties which particularly call themselves "bourgeois" or "peasant"—admit indirectly the validity of all the essentials of socialist thought. For if it is only possible to argue against the socialist programme that it endangers the particular interests of one part of humanity, one has really affirmed Socialism. If one complains that the system of economic and social organization which is based on private property in the means of production does not sufficiently consider the interests of the community, that it serves only the purposes of single strata, and that it limits productivity; and if therefore one demands with the supporters of the various "social-political" and "social-reform" movements, state interference in all fields of economic life, then one has fundamentally accepted the principle of the socialist programme. Or again, if one can only argue against socialism that the imperfections of human nature make its realization impossible, or that it is inexpedient under existing economic conditions to proceed at once to socialization, then one merely confesses that one has capitulated to socialist ideas. The nationalist, too, affirms socialism, and objects only to its Internationalism. He wishes to combine Socialism with the ideas of Imperialism and the struggle against foreign nations. He is a national, not an international socialist; but he, also, approves of the essential principles of Socialism. [2]

The supporters of Socialism therefore are not confined to the Bolshevists and their friends outside Russia or to the members of the numerous socialist parties: all are socialists who consider the socialistic order of society economically and ethically superior to that based on private ownership of the means of production, even though they may try for one reason or another to make a temporary or permanent compromise between their socialistic ideal and the particular interests which they believe themselves to represent. If we define Socialism as broadly as this we see that the great majority of people are with Socialism today. Those who confess to the principles of Liberalism and who see the only possible form of economic society in an order based on private ownership of the means of production are few indeed.

One striking fact illustrates the success of socialist ideas: namely, that we have grown accustomed to designating as Socialism only that policy which aims to enact the socialist programme immediately and completely, while we call by other names all the movements directed towards the same goal with more moderation and reserve, and even describe these as the enemies of Socialism. This can only have come about because few real opponents of Socialism are left. Even in England, the home of Liberalism, a nation which has grown rich and great through its liberal policy, people no longer know what Liberalism really means. The English "Liberals" of today are more or less moderate socialists.[3] In Germany, which never really knew Liberalism and which has become impotent and impoverished through its anti-liberal policy, people have hardly a conception of what Liberalism may be.

Mises makes a good point in Socialism. If it is based on socialist ideals, then just because it is not the swift enactment of socialism does not mean that it is not in and of itself socialistic.
 
the rich don't benefit more-they get more benefits because they have more to trade for those benefits-and those benefits are not from the government but rather "indirect" benefits that are not based on tax revenue

The rich benefit more from police protectionism. A robber is more likely to rob a rich man than a poor man. That said, I'm in favor of a flat tax, but no one has proven that direct proportionality is inadequate.
 
The rich benefit more from police protectionism. A robber is more likely to rob a rich man than a poor man. That said, I'm in favor of a flat tax, but no one has proven that direct proportionality is inadequate.

you are wrong

poor people are overwhelmingly the target of thieves, Rich people live in well protected homes with alarms and private security. We have dogs, and in my case black belts and people who constantly train with firearms. the poorest areas in cincinnati are the places that have by far the most police calls
 
The rich benefit more from police protectionism. A robber is more likely to rob a rich man than a poor man. That said, I'm in favor of a flat tax, but no one has proven that direct proportionality is inadequate.

police protection is not paid for with federal income taxes for the most part. the FBI mostly deals with insitutional crime such as bank robbery and extortion of major insitutions.
 
police protection is not paid for with federal income taxes for the most part. the FBI mostly deals with insitutional crime such as bank robbery and extortion of major insitutions.

So the rich do get robbed?

Look, what you're basically arguing is that the rich should be paying a lower proportion of their income because the poor get relatively more protection. I'm not arguing for a progressive tax, just saying that services provided a proportional to income, hence a flat tax. You're arguing for a regressive tax, in case you didn't realize it.
 
the rich don't benefit more-they get more benefits because they have more to trade for those benefits-and those benefits are not from the government but rather "indirect" benefits that are not based on tax revenue

How about the fact that the rich live in a country that gives them the stability, opportunity and security to aquire that awsome wealth. Your also saying the bottom 99% dont work hard enough. Maybe people get upset because instead of being greatful for having a life where you earn fantastic wealth you complain. It just comes across gready, selfesh and uncaring.
 
So the rich do get robbed?

Look, what you're basically arguing is that the rich should be paying a lower proportion of their income because the poor get relatively more protection. I'm not arguing for a progressive tax, just saying that services provided a proportional to income, hence a flat tax. You're arguing for a regressive tax, in case you didn't realize it.

More spacificly he wants a consumption tax. Which is silly. He knows its a regressive tax and does not care. He wants to keep more and have those that are just making it pay more. Lumping anyone who is not in the top 1% as lazy.
 
So the rich do get robbed?

Look, what you're basically arguing is that the rich should be paying a lower proportion of their income because the poor get relatively more protection. I'm not arguing for a progressive tax, just saying that services provided a proportional to income, hence a flat tax. You're arguing for a regressive tax, in case you didn't realize it.

yeah I know-I want people to pay for what they use as the base line. life is regressive. I pay less of my income for a 20K car than most people or a cheeseburger but I get the same value. that is the starting point for government services as well

but I understand there are people who through no fault of their own cannot pay their bills so others have to pay for them

but the top 2% pay way too much and that is because of the progressive tax allows the many to shirk their duties and make others assume more of a burden

I oppose that
 
How about the fact that the rich live in a country that gives them the stability, opportunity and security to aquire that awsome wealth. Your also saying the bottom 99% dont work hard enough. Maybe people get upset because instead of being greatful for having a life where you earn fantastic wealth you complain. It just comes across gready, selfesh and uncaring.

we had that before income taxes and the country was quite well

what comes off as greedy is people saying the rich had a duty to fund them

I say that those who vote up the taxes on the rich don't pay enough taxes themselves.

everyone should suffer when taxes are increased

and you again are a fraudulent libertarian, you are more a communitarian
 
Back
Top Bottom