• 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

cool beans-but this place crawls with people who claim that tax cuts are giving the rich money

Well I can tell you that working 60 plus hour weeks is hard work.
 
I want the country to prosper where others seam to only be concerned about themselves.

That's a pretty far-reaching generalization. You assume that my lack of trust in the government and their use of tax dollars necessarily means that I have no concern for others? Since I believe that government welfare programs keep the poor from advancing from their position, can I then say that you are evil and want to keep the poor in their place so that you don't have to compete with them?

New money comment. Its not true for all. I did make a generality. Look at the Gates family. They are new money but look at all of the good they are doing. I have also dealt with people who have old money. They seam to be much more calculated and calm regarding finances. When you make a comment that 450K is not enough to live on and that if taxes go up people are stealing from you then you come off sounding selfesh and uncaring. One out of seven Americans makes less than 20k. Maybe a little gratitude for the go a long way.

I don't have to show gratitude to the government (or to you, for that matter) for my hard work. Maybe that's why you think new money people are bitter, because they don't show gratitude to everyone else for allowing them to work hard. Maybe old money is not bitter about having their wealth taken from them because they either didn't have to work for it in the first place (Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John McCain), or because they don't have to work for it any more (Bill Gates, Oprah). 1-in-7 Americans making less than 20k means nothing to me. I was working 50-60 hours/week and had a salary of 21,000/year at one time. My parents were the only ones who gave me anything and that pretty much ended when I was 20. Speaking of the Gates family, do you think they are doing more good with their charity work, or with their tax dollars?

Putting them together: Trickle-down being bunk does not mean that nobody got rich. The number of wealthy people has gone up consistantly over the last two decades. That does not give validation to trickle down.

How has the number of wealthy people gone up over the last two decades? People in the middle and lower class provided a good or service to someone who had more money than they did. If not trickle-down, what do you call it?
 
That's a pretty far-reaching generalization. You assume that my lack of trust in the government and their use of tax dollars necessarily means that I have no concern for others? Since I believe that government welfare programs keep the poor from advancing from their position, can I then say that you are evil and want to keep the poor in their place so that you don't have to compete with them?
I do not agree with the current model of our welfare system either.

The whole "If the tax rate goes up I am leaving the country" statement I beleive justifies my statement regarding the prior statment. Um yeah.

I don't have to show gratitude to the government (or to you, for that matter) for my hard work. Maybe that's why you think new money people are bitter, because they don't show gratitude to everyone else for allowing them to work hard. Maybe old money is not bitter about having their wealth taken from them because they either didn't have to work for it in the first place (Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John McCain), or because they don't have to work for it any more (Bill Gates, Oprah). 1-in-7 Americans making less than 20k means nothing to me. I was working 50-60 hours/week and had a salary of 21,000/year at one time. My parents were the only ones who gave me anything and that pretty much ended when I was 20. Speaking of the Gates family, do you think they are doing more good with their charity work, or with their tax dollars?
[/QUOTE]
Good for you for working hard.

Charity work. I beleive our taxes are not well spent.

How has the number of wealthy people gone up over the last two decades? People in the middle and lower class provided a good or service to someone who had more money than they did. If not trickle-down, what do you call it?

Either that statement is fuzzy or I need to stop drinking my Jack and Coke and go to bed. Maybe its the question marks. I think your answering your question and asking another. While I do agree that there are more wealthy I do not agree that the middle class is stronger under a trickle down economic model. In fact it widens the gap between wealthy and poor. As seen by receint data.
 
I do not agree with the current model of our welfare system either.

The whole "If the tax rate goes up I am leaving the country" statement I beleive justifies my statement regarding the prior statment. Um yeah.
Good for you for working hard.

Charity work. I beleive our taxes are not well spent.

Either that statement is fuzzy or I need to stop drinking my Jack and Coke and go to bed. Maybe its the question marks. I think your answering your question and asking another. While I do agree that there are more wealthy I do not agree that the middle class is stronger under a trickle down economic model. In fact it widens the gap between wealthy and poor. As seen by receint data.[/QUOTE]

Let me get this straight. You don't agree with our current welfare system, but you do think we need to forcibly take money from the rich and give it to the poor in order to increase the size of the middle class. You believe that our taxes are not well spent, yet you don't understand why someone would be bitter about being asked to have more of their money wasted. You don't agree that the trickle down economic model works for the middle class, so I have to assume that you are perfectly ok with having the government decide who the winners and losers will be by how they spend the additional tax dollars that your are ok with them taking.

I'm thoroughly confused.
 
So how would you describe trickle down economics?

You said "'Give the money to the wealthy so that they can hire others' was tried and where did that lead us."

Seventeen minutes later, you said "I never claimed they did (gave the rich money). I have a great deal of respect for anyone who takes a chance and opens a business. That is to me the American dream. Far to few people try."

I could swear you have an alter ego. Regardless, I'll ask this question: Why do far too few people take a chance and open a business? Could it be they feel the risks outweigh the rewards? Why do you feel that arbitrarily increasing the risks and decreasing the rewards will encourage more of the behavior you are looking for?
 
So how would you describe trickle down economics?

On second thought, I'll just use your description..."Macro Economics"


....Macro econ. Whenever you have a high per capita income country trading with a low per capita income in a free trade system then things will try to ballance out. Jobs and income will flow from the wealthy country to the less wealthy one....
 
You said "'Give the money to the wealthy so that they can hire others' was tried and where did that lead us."

Seventeen minutes later, you said "I never claimed they did (gave the rich money). I have a great deal of respect for anyone who takes a chance and opens a business. That is to me the American dream. Far to few people try."

I could swear you have an alter ego. Regardless, I'll ask this question: Why do far too few people take a chance and open a business? Could it be they feel the risks outweigh the rewards? Why do you feel that arbitrarily increasing the risks and decreasing the rewards will encourage more of the behavior you are looking for?

Since you have an issue with my quote for Trickle down I will use another. "Horse and sparrow", of course thats equally offencive.

I do not beleive it is easy to start a business and make it successful. It is in fact very hard. I commend anyone who does it. I am a supporter of everyone opening up a business and beleive it is the true american dream. It is very difficult for anyone to make true wealth working for someone else. But, if you make 450k and complain about paying taxes when we are at historic lows then you come off sounding selfish. So here is a simple question. With a rising debt that is now over 13 trillion how would YOU pay for it?

Your post after this one says "Macro Economics". It shows that you struggle with the concept of the issue. Your second quote from me was in regards to our current trade policy not trickle down economics. If you want to discuss that I will be happy to educate you.
 
Good for you for working hard.

Charity work. I beleive our taxes are not well spent.

Either that statement is fuzzy or I need to stop drinking my Jack and Coke and go to bed. Maybe its the question marks. I think your answering your question and asking another. While I do agree that there are more wealthy I do not agree that the middle class is stronger under a trickle down economic model. In fact it widens the gap between wealthy and poor. As seen by receint data.

Let me get this straight. You don't agree with our current welfare system, but you do think we need to forcibly take money from the rich and give it to the poor in order to increase the size of the middle class. You believe that our taxes are not well spent, yet you don't understand why someone would be bitter about being asked to have more of their money wasted. You don't agree that the trickle down economic model works for the middle class, so I have to assume that you are perfectly ok with having the government decide who the winners and losers will be by how they spend the additional tax dollars that your are ok with them taking.

I'm thoroughly confused.[/QUOTE]

nice destruction of what appears to be a disengenuous argument
 
Let me get this straight. You don't agree with our current welfare system, but you do think we need to forcibly take money from the rich and give it to the poor in order to increase the size of the middle class. You believe that our taxes are not well spent, yet you don't understand why someone would be bitter about being asked to have more of their money wasted. You don't agree that the trickle down economic model works for the middle class, so I have to assume that you are perfectly ok with having the government decide who the winners and losers will be by how they spend the additional tax dollars that your are ok with them taking.

I'm thoroughly confused.

Hey Turtle,

I do not agree with our welfare system as it is. There are better ways of providing a stop gap for people who need short term help.

I do not agree with taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. I agree with a progressive tax and sensible speding that does not enable people who can work but choose not to.

I do believe there is waist in government and everyone should be bitter about that.

I do not agree with trickle down economics as a way to strengthen the middle class. I 100% do not want the government deciding who wins and looses.

We need to cut spending, review our traid agreements, truely collect all of the taxes owed, stop giving big business money and have serious campaign finance reform. That would be a great start.
 
Hey Turtle,

I do not agree with our welfare system as it is. There are better ways of providing a stop gap for people who need short term help.

I do not agree with taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. I agree with a progressive tax and sensible speding that does not enable people who can work but choose not to.

I do believe there is waist in government and everyone should be bitter about that.

I do not agree with trickle down economics as a way to strengthen the middle class. I 100% do not want the government deciding who wins and looses.

We need to cut spending, review our traid agreements, truely collect all of the taxes owed, stop giving big business money and have serious campaign finance reform. That would be a great start.

you miss the main problem with a progressive income tax-that it allows politicians to continue to buy the votes of the many by raising the taxes on those who already pay too much leading to more government and an unsustainable house of cards.

to get rid of the mess we have to get rid of the tax system that encourages more and more government

as long as most people don't think they are going to have to be taxed more they never will have any incentive to stop voting in those who give them what they want-paid for by others
 
you miss the main problem with a progressive income tax-that it allows politicians to continue to buy the votes of the many by raising the taxes on those who already pay too much leading to more government and an unsustainable house of cards.

to get rid of the mess we have to get rid of the tax system that encourages more and more government

as long as most people don't think they are going to have to be taxed more they never will have any incentive to stop voting in those who give them what they want-paid for by others

Most economists agree that if we moved to a consumption tax that it would need to be about 20%. How then does somoene who makes 20k afford the new 5k in taxes presuming they need to spend 100% of thier income to live. Its not a far fetched situation. Today they would pay about $2,750 so their taxes have just about doubled.
 
Most economists agree that if we moved to a consumption tax that it would need to be about 20%. How then does somoene who makes 20k afford the new 5k in taxes presuming they need to spend 100% of thier income to live. Its not a far fetched situation. Today they would pay about $2,750 so their taxes have just about doubled.

well most consumption tax proposals exempt necessities

still beats the current system and the fact that it is unsustainable

we make it way too comfortable to be an underachiever in this society
 
well most consumption tax proposals exempt necessities

still beats the current system and the fact that it is unsustainable

we make it way too comfortable to be an underachiever in this society

A forty-cent Federal tax, in addition to state and local taxes, on a two-dollar loaf of bread would sure get the underachievers humping wouldn’t it?:2wave:
 
A forty-cent Federal tax, in addition to state and local taxes, on a two-dollar loaf of bread would sure get the underachievers humping wouldn’t it?:2wave:

you favor the rich paying 40% rates
 
you favor the rich paying 40% rates

Frankly I think that we could get a better tax system then we have now. The one we have is just too damn confusing,I’m open to some kind of flat tax… with a lot of tinkering.

There could be a ton of savings if we simplified it but what I have seen, imo of the so-called “fair tax” that is being touted, is anything but fair.
 
Since you have an issue with my quote for Trickle down I will use another. "Horse and sparrow", of course thats equally offencive.

I do not beleive it is easy to start a business and make it successful. It is in fact very hard. I commend anyone who does it. I am a supporter of everyone opening up a business and beleive it is the true american dream. It is very difficult for anyone to make true wealth working for someone else. But, if you make 450k and complain about paying taxes when we are at historic lows then you come off sounding selfish. So here is a simple question. With a rising debt that is now over 13 trillion how would YOU pay for it?

Your post after this one says "Macro Economics". It shows that you struggle with the concept of the issue. Your second quote from me was in regards to our current trade policy not trickle down economics. If you want to discuss that I will be happy to educate you.

If I thought there were any chance in hell of any increased taxes being used to pay down the debt, I would be much less bitter about it. Who are you kidding?

Yes, my quote from you was in regards to our current trade policy..."Whenever you have a high per capita income country trading with a low per capita income in a free trade system then things will try to ballance out. Jobs and income will flow from the wealthy country to the less wealthy one...."

"Whenever you have a high income person trading with a low income person in a free trade system, then things will try to balance out. Jobs and income will flow from the wealthy person to the less wealthy one...." You're the one who called it macro economics. What's fundamentally different about this statement? Are you saying that private individuals and businesses behave more selfishly than politicians? I think you may be the one having some trouble with concepts.
 
A forty-cent Federal tax, in addition to state and local taxes, on a two-dollar loaf of bread would sure get the underachievers humping wouldn’t it?:2wave:

If your state and local authorities have a tax on bread, you should probably move. Who is advocating a 20% tax on bread?
 
You're being disingenuous. I wasn't calling this country socialist. I was calling those programs socialist because their defense comes from socialist ideas.

No, that is being disingenuous. No one we're talking about is socalist. Nor are their ideas. It is simply a poor scare tactic that isn't even orginal.



History. Would you like to link you to a good history book?



I don't care that both parties have socialist leanings.

Neither have socalist leanings. Again, saying they do is nothing more than a very unoriganl and poor political tactic that shows a glaring ignorance of both socialism and history.
 
If your state and local authorities have a tax on bread, you should probably move. Who is advocating a 20% tax on bread?

I would suggest that you go back and read the threads that I was responding to. Starting at #838, then it might sink in. Then again,perhaps it won’t.:shrug:
 
No, that is being disingenuous. No one we're talking about is socalist. Nor are their ideas. It is simply a poor scare tactic that isn't even orginal.

The ideals of socialism are the failings of the capitalist system and the institution of top-heavy control to fix those problems and bring about a fairer distribution of resources. We have many programs that try to do this.


History. Would you like to link you to a good history book?


Prove that capitalism needs regulation, don't be vague.


Neither have socalist leanings. Again, saying they do is nothing more than a very unoriganl and poor political tactic that shows a glaring ignorance of both socialism and history.

Look at it more closely and the economic ideals are based on the very ideology.
 
The ideals of socialism are the failings of the capitalist system and the institution of top-heavy control to fix those problems and bring about a fairer distribution of resources. We have many programs that try to do this.

That do what? Not following you.


Prove that capitalism needs regulation, don't be vague.

Wall Street ran riot, enthusing that the boom would never end and that share prices would never fall. Levels of debt, leverage and of so-called margin trading (buying shares with borrowed money) rose to astonishing levels - fuelling yet more demand and more confidence. But, partly because recession-hit Europe could not pay its international bills with the gold that was the anchor of the financial system and partly because the banks were overstretched, suddenly optimism turned to wariness - and then panic. Stocks were sold; depositors hoarded their cash; and banks toppled in the United States and Europe like ninepins.

This was the father and mother of credit crunches. The US fell into depression - and Europe was not immune. Britain left the gold standard and launched the imperial preference system of tariffs for countries in the British empire.

A short history of capitalism's rise and fall | Business | The Observer

And so — here is the part libertarians will hate — markets, entirely of their own accord, will sometimes capsize and be unable to right themselves completely for years at a stretch. (See: Japan, “lost decade” of.) Nor can monetary policy be counted on to counteract markets’ tippy tendencies, as so many economists had come to believe.

Alas, economists and policy makers got cocksure. They thought they had consigned depressions to history. As a result, they missed warning signs and failed to prepare for the worst. “We are learning,” Posner writes, “that we need a more active and intelligent government to keep our model of a capitalist economy from running off the rails.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/books/review/Rauch-t.html

The trouble with capitalism: an ... - Google Books

Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I still recommend you get a good history book.



Look at it more closely and the economic ideals are based on the very ideology.

In partisan fanasty land.
 
Census finds record gap between rich and poor



Even if the release of this was timed, it's still relevant to the midterms and taxes.

Now is not the time to give an additional tax break to the wealthy and super-wealthy.

So what is your solution? How about sending your entire paycheck to the govt. and let them send back to you what they think you need?

Amazing how many people today demonize the rich as if they didn't earn the money. How many individual millionaires did rich enterprenuers( Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc) create vs how many individual millionaires has the govt. created?

What a crock, penalize the rich as if that will make a difference to the trillions Obama has added to the debt. Typical liberal diversion to promote our Liar in Chief's agenda.
 
So what is your solution? How about sending your entire paycheck to the govt. and let them send back to you what they think you need?

Amazing how many people today demonize the rich as if they didn't earn the money. How many individual millionaires did rich enterprenuers( Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc) create vs how many individual millionaires has the govt. created?

What a crock, penalize the rich as if that will make a difference to the trillions Obama has added to the debt. Typical liberal diversion to promote our Liar in Chief's agenda.
The government creates a lot of millionaires. Look at my city-and this goes around the whole nation-my mayor gives construction jobs to her friends. Who then charge the city a large amount for the job being done even though it would not cost that by any other construction company. Then the mayor gets bribes from the job done and her friends all end up being rich.
 
Back
Top Bottom