• 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!

Billionaires: free to romp or responsible to fellow citizens?

Should a multi-billionaire settle for 2 jets instead of 3, 7 homes instead of 10 etc?

  • Yes (if it means serving the greater good)

    Votes: 10 34.5%

  • No (no one has the right to decide how much wealth is too much)

    Votes: 19 65.5%
  • Total voters
    29
MusicAdventurer said:
Fair means a wage that will avoid undue hardship on the worker .. not whatever wage is agreed upon so that a family can suffer in debt, malnutrition, unrewarding work etc.
Click to expand...

WOW, that is just funny. So it is the employeers responsibility to provide everything the families of his workers need, regardless of what kind of job it is.

Like I said, funny.
 
LesGovt said:
So, when I was laid off from a company and I then went to work for another company for 1/3 less, I was not receiving a "fair" wage? Our family's lifestyle was built around the higher income. Did we suffer? Yes. Malnutrition? No. Unrewarding work? Yes and no. Did I piss and moan? No. Did I rebound? Yes. Must be genetics. I think I should get a lot of credit for what I have accomplished. I have more on this to provide, but I have to leave to meet my daughter at a car dealer. I'll be back.
Click to expand...

It sounds like MusicAdventurers opinion is that second employeer should have gotten your financials and paid you what you needed to pay all your bills, and whatever else you needed.

That is not the real world.
 
LesGovt said:
Wow! What happened to our friendly discussion? Where in the world did I say that I don't care about suffering. Sheesh! All I said is that I give to relieve suffering in Africa, but my main focus is on the U.S. I cannot take care of the world nor can the United States. I know you have seen our deficit and our debt and surely you agree with me on this. I have taken many political tests or quizes and I always find that I am a conservative.
Click to expand...

If there was no suffering in the world there would be less successful people.

Most of the rags to riches stories you hear are about people that suffered through one thing or another giving them the fire to change their life.
 
LesGovt said:
I'm sure that some think it is impossible. There are many stories of rags to riches. Also, I find it interesting how many legal immigrants do so well here.
Click to expand...

I was of course being sarcastic.

Nobody ever gave me anything and people like MusicAdventure just get to me.

I would bet a lot of money he has never been an employeer.
 
Mason66 said:
WOW, that is just funny. So it is the employeers responsibility to provide everything the families of his workers need, regardless of what kind of job it is.

Like I said, funny.
Click to expand...


this board is full of posters who think the purpose of a company is first to provide jobs to people and then tax dollars to government. And these same people then whine that the corporations saddled with that sort of nonsense leave
 
evanescence said:
Another generalization. I think most people here realize that corporations exist to profit. That's fairly obvious.
Click to expand...

Not totally correct. Many businesses are established to produce a great product or service. Someone, like Fred Smith, had a great idea, initiated it, and it worked. At the time, it was totally unique and the competition of that day is practically non-existent today. Profit now needs to be maintained just to keep innovating, but profit was not necessarily the motive. A grand idea was. There are other examples. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates would be two others. So was Mr. Carrier. The list is quite lengthy.
 
LesGovt said:
Not totally correct. Many businesses are established to produce a great product or service. Someone, like Fred Smith, had a great idea, initiated it, and it worked. At the time, it was totally unique and the competition of that day is practically non-existent today. Profit now needs to be maintained just to keep innovating, but profit was not necessarily the motive. A grand idea was. There are other examples. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates would be two others. So was Mr. Carrier. The list is quite lengthy.
Click to expand...
Well, OK... but the "great idea" was realized and then produced in order to turn a profit.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
Well, OK... but the "great idea" was realized and then produced in order to turn a profit.
Click to expand...

The profit is a necessity. It is often not the motivator either to start or to continue. We may be saying the same thing, but I believe strongly in the motivation part of it. Great products most often do not come from the concept of being motivated by profit. It comes from being motivated to offer make something new or better. It continues to be great because of the motivation to maintain a great product or service.
 
Last edited:
LesGovt said:
The profit is a necessity. It is often not the motivator either to start or to continue. We may be saying the same thing, but I believe strongly in the motivation part of it. Great products most often do not come from the concept of being motivated by profit. It comes from being motivated to offer make something new or better.
Click to expand...
If the people that came up with these great ideas and then marketed them to the public donated away the money they made from said ideas, you'd stand on more solid ground. I'm reasonably sure that Jobs, Gates, et al, didn't establish their companies as a means to bestow upon the world the proginy of their brilliance.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
If the people that came up with these great ideas and then marketed them to the public donated away the money they made from said ideas, you'd stand on more solid ground. I'm reasonably sure that Jobs, Gates, et al, didn't establish their companies as a means to bestow upon the world the proginy of their brilliance.
Click to expand...

Wow! I think they did. May I suggest a business-related book to you, "In Search of Excellence." The author is Tom Peters. He had a follow-up to that book called, "A Passion for Excellence." Both are great reads and offer great explanations why company A has phenomenal success, when company B fails. The company that succeeds always has its eyes on the product or services and keeping it excellent. The company that fails watches the profit and then the loss numbers.
 
LesGovt said:
Wow! I think they did. May I suggest a business-related book to you, "In Search of Excellence." The author is Tom Peters. He had a follow-up to that book called, "A Passion for Excellence." Both are great reads and offer great explanations why company A has phenomenal success, when company B fails. The company that succeeds always has its eyes on the product or services and keeping it excellent. The company that fails watches the profit and then the loss numbers.
Click to expand...

And, why would they have to give away their money? Their passion is still the product or service and the money is a reward for their passion. It's not what motivates them, it's the result of the motivation.
 
LesGovt said:
And, why would they have to give away their money? Their passion is still the product or service and the money is a reward for their passion. It's not what motivates them, it's the result of the motivation.
Click to expand...
Nah. They do it to make money so they can live the life they want.
 
evanescence said:
Another generalization. I think most people here realize that corporations exist to profit. That's fairly obvious.
Click to expand...

yet we have so many that are ignorant of that fact
 
LesGovt said:
Actually, I was not trying to insult; although, I see why you would think so. It was more of just how I observe you. I apologize.

I am the first Y or N/then you
Click to expand...

1.)Do you believe that vouchers to pay for k-12 education would provide for more competition if it included public, charter, private and parochial schools? Y/Y
2.) Is competition a good thing? Y/Y
3.) Do you support the concept of "gay marriages?" N/Y
4.) We should privatize SS - Y/Depends - why do you think this is a good idea? What safeguards would be in place?
5.) We should stop all 3rd payers (companies and govt) for healthcare insurance - Y/If you mean stopping healthcare for the poor, No. Otherwise, please explain what you mean.
6.) Banning lightbulbs is not free enterprise and is not a good idea - Y/Depends on why said light-bulbs are being banned
7.) The Bush tax cuts were taxes for the wealthy - N/Partially true
8.) We should close down the Dept of Education - Y/Depends .. why do you think this would benefit .. how would its services be replaced?
9.) Abortion is morally wrong - Y/This depends on the situation of the abortion
10.) It is proven that there is global warming and that it is man-made - N/Nothings is ever proven .. however, there is evidence that global warming occurs natural and that our contributions are speeding the process up
11.) Support President Obama's healthcare plan - N/Partially - I believe all people need healthcare, however, I believe it should be privatized to the extent possible.
12.) If the debt ceiling is not lifted, it will be the fault of the GOP - N/No, It will be both parties fault
13.) Drilling for oil and gas should be allowed in many more places - Y/Yes, temporarily and only if there is a plan to begin using more cost effective fuels
14.) There are far too many Federal regulations - Y/Y (yet we may disagree as to which ones are unnecessary)
15.) If we had no taxes on companies, we would not have an unemployment problem - Y/N
16.) The tax code should be gutted and replaced with a flat tax - Y/N - the current progressive tax system is good, but the loopholes for the wealthy need to be cut
17.) The tax code should be gutted and replaced with a Natl Sales Tax - N/N

So the results thus far are: on 6/17 (35%) we agree, on 3/17 (18%) we disagree and on 8/17 (47%) our position relative to the other is uncertain. Therefore it can be said as of now, that we agree on twice as many things than we disagree on.

Any more questions or clarifications?
 
MusicAdventurer said:
1.)Do you believe that vouchers to pay for k-12 education would provide for more competition if it included public, charter, private and parochial schools? Y/Y
2.) Is competition a good thing? Y/Y
3.) Do you support the concept of "gay marriages?" N/Y
4.) We should privatize SS - Y/Depends - why do you think this is a good idea? What safeguards would be in place?
5.) We should stop all 3rd payers (companies and govt) for healthcare insurance - Y/If you mean stopping healthcare for the poor, No. Otherwise, please explain what you mean.
6.) Banning lightbulbs is not free enterprise and is not a good idea - Y/Depends on why said light-bulbs are being banned
7.) The Bush tax cuts were taxes for the wealthy - N/Partially true
8.) We should close down the Dept of Education - Y/Depends .. why do you think this would benefit .. how would its services be replaced?
9.) Abortion is morally wrong - Y/This depends on the situation of the abortion
10.) It is proven that there is global warming and that it is man-made - N/Nothings is ever proven .. however, there is evidence that global warming occurs natural and that our contributions are speeding the process up
11.) Support President Obama's healthcare plan - N/Partially - I believe all people need healthcare, however, I believe it should be privatized to the extent possible.
12.) If the debt ceiling is not lifted, it will be the fault of the GOP - N/No, It will be both parties fault
13.) Drilling for oil and gas should be allowed in many more places - Y/Yes, temporarily and only if there is a plan to begin using more cost effective fuels
14.) There are far too many Federal regulations - Y/Y (yet we may disagree as to which ones are unnecessary)
15.) If we had no taxes on companies, we would not have an unemployment problem - Y/N
16.) The tax code should be gutted and replaced with a flat tax - Y/N - the current progressive tax system is good, but the loopholes for the wealthy need to be cut
17.) The tax code should be gutted and replaced with a Natl Sales Tax - N/N

So the results thus far are: on 6/17 (35%) we agree, on 3/17 (18%) we disagree and on 8/17 (47%) our position relative to the other is uncertain. Therefore it can be said as of now, that we agree on twice as many things than we disagree on.

Any more questions or clarifications?
Click to expand...

Not sure that we agree on twice a many things, but we can probe thes a little deeper. Let's go through the ones that are uncertain:

4.) We should privatize SS - Y/Depends - why do you think this is a good idea? What safeguards would be in place?

Safeguards would be that only certain types of financial instruments could be used. They would include, Treasury Bills, Certificates of Deposits, and Mutual Funds. If mutual funds, they need to slide into no less than 3 categories of risk and be with no less than 3 different firms. It would not be mandatory and those who want to stay in the current program could and those opting out pay 1% of their wages for the people staying in. Yes or No?

5.) We should stop all 3rd payers (companies and govt) for healthcare insurance - Y/If you mean stopping healthcare for the poor, No. Otherwise, please explain what you mean.

Medicaid would be moved to the States and each State would decide on how to manage and fund the program. Other individuals would purchase insurance and not companies or government. The consumer is the one who is most concerned about themselves. A Senator in NY or CA does not know what a person in the Ozarks wants or needs. The State would also take over Medicare and should provide seniors with vouchers to purchase insurance and the amount of the vouchers should be based on income.

6.) Banning lightbulbs is not free enterprise and is not a good idea - Y/Depends on why said light-bulbs are being banned

The reason given is energy efficiency. Yes or No?

7.) The Bush tax cuts were taxes for the wealthy - N/Partially true

I think we can call this one an agreement if you agree that most went to those who are not "wealthy."

8.) We should close down the Dept of Education - Y/Depends .. why do you think this would benefit .. how would its services be replaced?

It would be up to the individual States to handle as they thought best. I believe that 50 ideas are better than 1. Secondly, per the Constitution, education belongs to the States. Yes or No?

9.) Abortion is morally wrong - Y/This depends on the situation of the abortion

I believe it is immoral unless the unborn has to be taken to save the life of the mother. While I personally do not support abortion for rape or incest, I would consider compromise on that, but nothing else. Yes or No?

10.) It is proven that there is global warming and that it is man-made - N/Nothings is ever proven .. however, there is evidence that global warming occurs natural and that our contributions are speeding the process up

I think this one could have been answered thusly: Y/N

11.) Support President Obama's healthcare plan - N/Partially - I believe all people need healthcare, however, I believe it should be privatized to the extent possible.

Okay, now I need to ask you what you mean.

14.) There are far too many Federal regulations - Y/Y (yet we may disagree as to which ones are unnecessary)

We might disagree, but at least we both agree that there are far too many Federal regulations. Any thoughts on where you think we might disagree?

15.) If we had no taxes on companies, we would not have an unemployment problem - Y/N

We differ on this one, so it is settled, but my curiosity is getting me here. Why do you think we would have an unemployment problem if business paid no taxes?

Let's see if you can decide on these or need additional info or you can turn the question so it fits you better.
 
TurtleDude said:
yet we have so many that are ignorant of that fact
Click to expand...

I have no problem with businesses making a profit. I do, however, resent everyone not paying their fair share as a percentage of their income. I believe that a flat tax for all brackets of income, including investment income, would really help this country.
 
evanescence said:
I have no problem with businesses making a profit. I do, however, resent everyone not paying their fair share as a percentage of their income. I believe that a flat tax for all brackets of income, including investment income, would really help this country.
Click to expand...

ah from each according to their ability. those in the 350k to 5million range pay the highest percentage of federal income taxes

The Very Rich Are Different–They Pay A Lower Tax Rate - Janet Novack - Taxing Matters - Forbes

Taxpayers earning $1 million to $5 million, who get more of their income from salary and other “ordinary” income taxed at a top 35% rate, paid an effective tax rate of 24%

that's the highest percentage of any group. the uber rich pay lower because few have a high percentage of salary income. anyone less than the top 1% (ie under about 375K) pay lower percentage rates of federal income taxes. these figures don't include the surcharge on the rich-the death tax which is one of the reasons why the top one percent have the highest total combined federal tax rate which is around 30% according to a post Oldreliable67 (one of the most objective posters on economic issues)
 
evanescence said:
I have no problem with businesses making a profit. I do, however, resent everyone not paying their fair share as a percentage of their income. I believe that a flat tax for all brackets of income, including investment income, would really help this country.
Click to expand...

a flat tax would certainly prevent politicians playing Us against them tax games for sure
 
TurtleDude said:
ah from each according to their ability. those in the 350k to 5million range pay the highest percentage of federal income taxes

The Very Rich Are Different–They Pay A Lower Tax Rate - Janet Novack - Taxing Matters - Forbes

Taxpayers earning $1 million to $5 million, who get more of their income from salary and other “ordinary” income taxed at a top 35% rate, paid an effective tax rate of 24%
Click to expand...

That's not entirely accurate. Millionaires definitely get a significant percentage of their income through investments which are taxed at lower rates.

He was also following an analysis by Thomas Piketty, a widely followed economist at the Paris School of Economics, and Emmanuel Saez at the University of California, Berkeley. Their study on economic equality showed that the rich have gotten richer — income for the top 1 percent rose by $261,930, or 30 percent, from 2002 to 2008 — while the bottom 90 percent saw their incomes drop by $1,170, or 4 percent, on an inflation adjusted basis.

The economists concluded: “We need to decide as a society whether this increase in income inequality is efficient and acceptable and, if not, what mix of institutional reforms should be developed to counter it.”

Whatever the policy debates, households at President Obama’s dividing line might be wealthy, but that doesn’t mean they feel wealthy.

On a Yahoo message board, a poster named Mason, who lives in Manhattan with two young children, said his household income was $262,000. “I understand the need to raise taxes,” he wrote, “but I don’t understand why people like us are lumped in with millionaires and billionaires.”

On one level, Mason is feeling the effects of inflation; $250,000 isn’t what it used to be. If Mr. Obama were really trying to return to Mr. Clinton’s 1993 levels, he would have to adjust the bracket for inflation, moving it up to about $386,075. In fact, in Mr. Clinton’s last year in office, the top bracket had risen to $288,350 from $250,000.

Then there is the problem of keeping up with the Joneses. In 1993, earning $250,000 was a more exclusive club, making it easier to feel like one of the wealthy. Back then, households making more than $200,000 represented about .08 percent of the country.

And today, $250,000 households tend to be clustered on the coasts, where there are often better-paying jobs.

The Fiscal Times, a publication financed by Peter G. Peterson, the very public deficit hawk and former commerce secretary under President Richard Nixon, commissioned BDO, an accounting firm, to look at how households that make $250,000 fared in different parts of the country, mostly in middle- to upper-class neighborhoods.

The takeaway, according to the study: “It’s not exactly Easy Street for our $250,000-a-year family, especially when they live in high-tax areas on either coast.”

Even when including in its estimates an additional $3,000 from investment income, the report said, families “end up in the red — after taxes, saving for retirement and their children’s education, and a middle-of-the-road cost of living — in seven out of the eight communities in the analysis.”

There is also an issue of fairness, say some economists and advocates of tax reform. The truly rich — the “millionaires and billionaires” — often pay much less in taxes. The wealthiest 400 Americans in the country paid, on average, a rate of only 16.6 percent, according to the latest report from the I.R.S. that examined returns from 2007. That is because much of the income of the country’s wealthiest people comes from investments, which is taxed at the long-term capital gains rate of just 15 percent.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/weekinreview/15tax250copy.html

In the USA, those earning $1 million or more derived 40 percent of their income from capital gains. The figure was similar in Australia, with those earning $1 million or more deriving 30 percent of their income from capital gains. Those on average incomes gain negligible income from capital gains.



TurtleDude said:
that's the highest percentage of any group. the uber rich pay lower because few have a high percentage of salary income. anyone less than the top 1% (ie under about 375K) pay lower percentage rates of federal income taxes. these figures don't include the surcharge on the rich-the death tax which is one of the reasons why the top one percent have the highest total combined federal tax rate which is around 30% according to a post Oldreliable67 (one of the most objective posters on economic issues)
Click to expand...

Yes which is why capital gains should be the exact same percentage as the income tax.

TurtleDude said:
a flat tax would certainly prevent politicians playing Us against them tax games for sure
Click to expand...

It would also prevent certain sectors of society from accumulating to much power.
 
LesGovt said:
Not sure that we agree on twice a many things, but we can probe thes a little deeper. Let's go through the ones that are uncertain:

4.) We should privatize SS - Y/Depends - why do you think this is a good idea? What safeguards would be in place?

Safeguards would be that only certain types of financial instruments could be used. They would include, Treasury Bills, Certificates of Deposits, and Mutual Funds. If mutual funds, they need to slide into no less than 3 categories of risk and be with no less than 3 different firms. It would not be mandatory and those who want to stay in the current program could and those opting out pay 1% of their wages for the people staying in. Yes or No?
Click to expand...

As I am not very familiar with both sides to this issue, I would have to hear the pros and cons for the other side before I could make a Yes or No Decision. As you have stated it though, it doesn't sound so bad.

LesGovt said:
5.) We should stop all 3rd payers (companies and govt) for healthcare insurance - Y/If you mean stopping healthcare for the poor, No. Otherwise, please explain what you mean.

Medicaid would be moved to the States and each State would decide on how to manage and fund the program. Other individuals would purchase insurance and not companies or government. The consumer is the one who is most concerned about themselves. A Senator in NY or CA does not know what a person in the Ozarks wants or needs. The State would also take over Medicare and should provide seniors with vouchers to purchase insurance and the amount of the vouchers should be based on income.
Click to expand...

So long as everyone still receives adequate healthcare, I think providing vouchers is the best idea; so I think this is a Yes (but only if ...). What this means is that the government would have to define what adequate healthcare is and healthcare providers would have to provide such care to those with vouchers at no extra cost. If this were the case, my answer would be Yes.

LesGovt said:
6.) Banning lightbulbs is not free enterprise and is not a good idea - Y/Depends on why said light-bulbs are being banned

The reason given is energy efficiency. Yes or No?
Click to expand...

Yes I agree with this; conserving energy affects everyone, not just the consumer and the seller.

LesGovt said:
7.) The Bush tax cuts were taxes for the wealthy - N/Partially true

I think we can call this one an agreement if you agree that most went to those who are not "wealthy."
Click to expand...

There are arguments that (regardless of your definition of most) these tax cuts were for the wealthy and there are arguments that they are for those who are not wealthy. So in that sense my answer is No, as usually in disputes were both parties claim completely different things, one side it partially correct and so it the other.

LesGovt said:
8.) We should close down the Dept of Education - Y/Depends .. why do you think this would benefit .. how would its services be replaced?

It would be up to the individual States to handle as they thought best. I believe that 50 ideas are better than 1. Secondly, per the Constitution, education belongs to the States. Yes or No?
Click to expand...

As I am not very familiar with both sides to this issue, I would have to hear the pros and cons for the other side before I could make a Yes or No Decision. As you have stated it though, it doesn't sound so bad.

LesGovt said:
9.) Abortion is morally wrong - Y/This depends on the situation of the abortion

I believe it is immoral unless the unborn has to be taken to save the life of the mother. While I personally do not support abortion for rape or incest, I would consider compromise on that, but nothing else. Yes or No?
Click to expand...

I actually have to say that on this one, there are few situations where I would think that the mother should not have the right to choose. So we disagree on this one.

LesGovt said:
10.) It is proven that there is global warming and that it is man-made - N/Nothings is ever proven .. however, there is evidence that global warming occurs natural and that our contributions are speeding the process up

I think this one could have been answered thusly: Y/N
Click to expand...

O.K., if you do not believe we are assisting to warm the planet at all, then we do disagree (at least on this one)

LesGovt said:
11.) Support President Obama's healthcare plan - N/Partially - I believe all people need healthcare, however, I believe it should be privatized to the extent possible.

Okay, now I need to ask you what you mean.
Click to expand...

I am referring to what I was talking about in my answer to #5 regarding healthcare insurance. So my answer is that I support his plan until a privatized plan (as described above) allows all citizens adequate healthcare.

LesGovt said:
14.) There are far too many Federal regulations - Y/Y (yet we may disagree as to which ones are unnecessary)

We might disagree, but at least we both agree that there are far too many Federal regulations. Any thoughts on where you think we might disagree?
Click to expand...

Get back to you on this ...

So ... it appears that we disagree on 2 more and do not definitively disagree or agree on any of the others ... unless I have cleared things up ... ?
 
Last edited:
evanescence said:
That's not entirely accurate. Millionaires definitely get a significant percentage of their income through investments which are taxed at lower rates.



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/weekinreview/15tax250copy.html

In the USA, those earning $1 million or more derived 40 percent of their income from capital gains. The figure was similar in Australia, with those earning $1 million or more deriving 30 percent of their income from capital gains. Those on average incomes gain negligible income from capital gains.





Yes which is why capital gains should be the exact same percentage as the income tax.



It would also prevent certain sectors of society from accumulating to much power.
Click to expand...

That article took the investment income into account. that's way those making a billion a year pay less income tax than the most heavily taxed (in terms of overall income tax rates)-those in the 375K-5M range

and what is left out of the equation are the following

1) the rich pay the highest rates on every form of income.

2) the rich who pay an overall lower rate because they have mainly investment income still pay many of millions of dollars a year-far more actual money that 70 Million or more americans combined
 
the progressive tax system allows congress to accumulate way too much power
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom