View Poll Results: Do The Rich Need Saving?

Voters
70. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    7 10.00%
  • No

    59 84.29%
  • Not Sure

    0 0%
  • Other/explain

    4 5.71%
Page 29 of 45 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 443

Thread: Do The Rich Need Saving?

  1. #281
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You missed the point. Those were just the first few sites in a search. Go back to corporate welfare. Go back to bailouts. Go back breaks. Then continue on to use of courts, benefiting from an educated work force, and continue on. And try to come up with a comparison that is in someway equal.

    Links already given:

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-33.pdf

    Corporate Welfare | OurFuture.org

    Distribution of wealth? A pittance for poor, Corporate Welfare should offend more | redblueamerica.com

    9 Things The Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes

    9 Things The Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes

    While Barb is at it, I would also be interested to know how the working class benefitted from our 8 year war in Iraq, that the majority of Democrats voted against?
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  2. #282
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by U.S. Socialist. View Post
    This post is slightly off topic from the current discussion in this thread,but it is relevant and it's something I've been wondering. The more conservative posters have argued that it isn't right to tax the rich, because they earned it and the rich shouldn't have to give up their money. However the right-wing are also the group that likes to talk the most about patriotism and how much they love their country and honor the sacrifice of the men in uniform.

    My question is why can't we ask the rich to sacrifice some of their wealth for the good of the country they claim to love so much? The country needs more revenue and the working class doesn't have the means to provide so why don't the patriotic rich of America agree to have their taxes raised for the good of the country? This is a very emotional based argument I'll admit, I just find it strange that the group that talks the most about patriotism is unwilling to ask the rich to pay more for the good of the country they love. Perhaps Jefferson was right when he said "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."
    Excellent question! I would be interested to hear how they defend that position as well!
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  3. #283
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    03-23-13 @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,265

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You missed the point. Those were just the first few sites in a search. Go back to corporate welfare. Go back to bailouts. Go back breaks. Then continue on to use of courts, benefiting from an educated work force, and continue on. And try to come up with a comparison that is in someway equal.

    Links already given:

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-33.pdf

    Corporate Welfare | OurFuture.org

    Distribution of wealth? A pittance for poor, Corporate Welfare should offend more | redblueamerica.com

    http://wweek.com/portland/article-17...out_taxes.html

    http://wweek.com/portland/article-17...out_taxes.html
    okay so you are admitting that you were wrong about the highway usage .... so we can eliminate that one .... right ?

  4. #284
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    okay so you are admitting that you were wrong about the highway usage .... so we can eliminate that one .... right ?
    No, I saying I won't spend a lot of time on your diversion. It simply is a wrong headed attempt a miscomparion.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #285
    Educator U.S. Socialist.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    04-18-12 @ 04:55 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    913

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    okay so you are admitting that you were wrong about the highway usage .... so we can eliminate that one .... right ?
    Assuming you can eliminate that one which you can't. You still have the others to deal with. I'm assuming you decided to instead focus on the one he omitted simply because you don't have an answer, but if you do then by all means correct me.

  6. #286
    Educator DemonMyst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Seattle WA.
    Last Seen
    02-11-13 @ 12:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    727

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    NO.

    They don't deserve our help or votes.

    Why should we vote to help the rich person who neither knows nor cares about you???

    They buy the better food and clothes. They live high on the hog. They have huge houses. They have the better cars. They DON'T DESERVE OUR HELP.

    They're proud, selfish, and materialistic. They deserve greater taxes.

    No, I am NOT playing Devil's Advocate on this issue.

    ___

    I don't like how proud, selfish, and vain rich people can be. Don't even dare to think the rich don't primarily embody these behaviors. Those people don't deserve their mansions and expensive houses.

    I'm still conservative in the social sector and the belief in working had to earn money... but that was warped and perverted into CEOs earning obscene bonuses and the rich living lavishly; well above what is necessary.

    There should be a cap on total wage. Bring it down. Business profits should not be used for personal gratification. It's materialism at its finest.

    They live in such posh houses and live so far above people who are struggling. How can a conservative who can barely pay for insurance have the audacity to vote for the rich and wealthy... to enrich them further... while you take further cuts and suffer?

    Many perverted conservatives and Republicans actually dare to use the Bible to support their vain and materialistic lifestyle.

    Are you broke? Were your benefits cut? Lost your insurance? How could you vote for Republicans who vote to further enrich the poor????

    If you're frugal and you work for what you earn, then I have no problem so long as you don't spend money on things you don't need, like a Hummer or a huge house. It's obscene, materialistic decadence. Get them to understand by taxing them painfully.

    ___

    Simply put, we're suffering while we cut their taxes. It is injustice.
    Wow!! Dude!! Well stated!!

    I will just add that I just want everyone including the rich to pay their fair share of taxes.. Again, nicely stated there Wake!!

  7. #287
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    okay so you are admitting that you were wrong about the highway usage .... so we can eliminate that one .... right ?
    From all my reading, the interstate highway system was put in to benefit industry and the economy primarily, and the benefit has been huge. Here is a 2006 report on the economic benefits of the system:

    THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY
    SYSTEM


    Key findings
    include the following:

    "Industry Costs: Interstate highway investments have lowered production and distribution
    costs in virtually every industry sector. Cost elasticities – the percentage change in industry
    costs for a given percentage change in highway capital -- for each of the 35 industry sectors
    indicated that an increase in highway capital reduced costs in all but three industry sectors.
    On average, U.S. industries realized production and distribution cost savings averaging 24
    cents annually for each dollar invested in the non-local road system.

    Productivity: The term refers to the value of output per dollar of input for all factors of
    production. Interstate highway investments have made significant contributions to U.S.
    productivity growth, but the magnitude of the impacts have declined over time. During the
    1950s, highway network investments’ contribution to annual productivity growth was 31
    percent; it averaged 25 percent in the 60s; by the 1980s, it contributed 7 percent to U.S.
    productivity growth in the 1980s.

    Net Social Rate of Return: This term refers to the net benefits to private industries (net of
    depreciation of highway capital stock) that share use of the public highway or non-local road
    network. The term “social” refers to the fact that the highway network is a shared
    investment by all industries in the economy. Net rate of social return on highway capital was
    about 35% in the 1950s and 60s; it declined to about 10% in the 1980s, or just about equal
    to rates of return on private capital. Nonetheless, the overall contribution to social welfare
    from Interstate highway investment has been enormous over the life cycle of the interstate
    system."
    Last edited by Catawba; 07-28-11 at 03:59 AM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  8. #288
    Educator U.S. Socialist.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    04-18-12 @ 04:55 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    913

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    From all my reading, the interstate highway system was put in to benefit industry and the economy primarily, and the benefit has been huge. Here is a 2006 report on the economic benefits of the system:

    THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY
    SYSTEM


    Key findings
    include the following:

    "Industry Costs: Interstate highway investments have lowered production and distribution
    costs in virtually every industry sector. Cost elasticities – the percentage change in industry
    costs for a given percentage change in highway capital -- for each of the 35 industry sectors
    indicated that an increase in highway capital reduced costs in all but three industry sectors.
    On average, U.S. industries realized production and distribution cost savings averaging 24
    cents annually for each dollar invested in the non-local road system.

    Productivity: The term refers to the value of output per dollar of input for all factors of
    production. Interstate highway investments have made significant contributions to U.S.
    productivity growth, but the magnitude of the impacts have declined over time. During the
    1950s, highway network investments’ contribution to annual productivity growth was 31
    percent; it averaged 25 percent in the 60s; by the 1980s, it contributed 7 percent to U.S.
    productivity growth in the 1980s.

    Net Social Rate of Return: This term refers to the net benefits to private industries (net of
    depreciation of highway capital stock) that share use of the public highway or non-local road
    network. The term “social” refers to the fact that the highway network is a shared
    investment by all industries in the economy. Net rate of social return on highway capital was
    about 35% in the 1950s and 60s; it declined to about 10% in the 1980s, or just about equal
    to rates of return on private capital. Nonetheless, the overall contribution to social welfare
    from Interstate highway investment has been enormous over the life cycle of the interstate
    system."
    We could also look at the other means of transportation. For instance I'd be very interested to see how much air shipping has helped business, because the airports they fly into are ran by the government and the air traffic controllers are government employees.

  9. #289
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    NO.

    They don't deserve our help or votes.

    Why should we vote to help the rich person who neither knows nor cares about you???

    They buy the better food and clothes. They live high on the hog. They have huge houses. They have the better cars. They DON'T DESERVE OUR HELP.

    They're proud, selfish, and materialistic. They deserve greater taxes.

    No, I am NOT playing Devil's Advocate on this issue.

    ___

    I don't like how proud, selfish, and vain rich people can be. Don't even dare to think the rich don't primarily embody these behaviors. Those people don't deserve their mansions and expensive houses.

    I'm still conservative in the social sector and the belief in working had to earn money... but that was warped and perverted into CEOs earning obscene bonuses and the rich living lavishly; well above what is necessary.

    There should be a cap on total wage. Bring it down. Business profits should not be used for personal gratification. It's materialism at its finest.

    They live in such posh houses and live so far above people who are struggling. How can a conservative who can barely pay for insurance have the audacity to vote for the rich and wealthy... to enrich them further... while you take further cuts and suffer?

    Many perverted conservatives and Republicans actually dare to use the Bible to support their vain and materialistic lifestyle.

    Are you broke? Were your benefits cut? Lost your insurance? How could you vote for Republicans who vote to further enrich the poor????

    If you're frugal and you work for what you earn, then I have no problem so long as you don't spend money on things you don't need, like a Hummer or a huge house. It's obscene, materialistic decadence. Get them to understand by taxing them painfully.

    ___

    Simply put, we're suffering while we cut their taxes. It is injustice.
    That is even more extreme than my position Wake, but I think your heart is in exactly the right place, and I commend you for your honesty and bravery in making your position known!

    I have greater respect for you, for whatever that is worth.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  10. #290
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    03-23-13 @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,265

    Re: Do The Rich Need Saving?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You missed the point. Those were just the first few sites in a search. Go back to corporate welfare. Go back to bailouts. Go back breaks. Then continue on to use of courts, benefiting from an educated work force, and continue on. And try to come up with a comparison that is in someway equal.

    Links already given:

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-33.pdf

    Corporate Welfare | OurFuture.org

    Distribution of wealth? A pittance for poor, Corporate Welfare should offend more | redblueamerica.com

    http://wweek.com/portland/article-17...out_taxes.html

    http://wweek.com/portland/article-17...out_taxes.html

    Now lets move on to corporate welfare and I will agee that some of it needs to stop, but lets look at the misconceptions we are constantly being given … you surely heard the fabled “fact” that we give 8 or 9 billion in corporate welfare to the oil companies right ? I suggest you look into this, because all the research I've been able to find .. just doesn't add up to that number at all ..
    here are just a few facts I've found so far .

    Section 199 Deduction.*This tax deduction, under Internal Revenue Code Section 199, goes to all domestic manufacturing. Producers of clothing, roads, electricity, water, and many other goods produced in the United States are all eligible for the manufacturer’s tax deduction. The Section 199 deduction is unavailable to the service sector, and even that is a stretch, as the tax deduction includes music and movie production. Removing oil and gas production eligibility for this tax break is not removing a subsidy or closing a tax loophole but imposing a targeted tax hike. In fact, Congress already imposed a tax hike on oil and natural gas companies by freezing the deduction at 6 percent when other manufacturers receive a 9 percent deduction.

    So what this is really saying is that gas and oil companies pay 3% more then other manufacturers, and removing it completely on only gas and oil companies is a targeted tax hike on only oil and gas companies … that could hardly be classified as a tax break for just oil companies or a subsidy of any kind.

    The Department of Energy (DOE) has spent taxpayer dollars on oil research and development, including funding for unconventional oil, gas, and coal. Although President Obama’s FY 2012 budget request significantly cuts funding for the Office of Fossil Energy, decreasing its size by $417.8 million below the FY 2010 appropriation, it does not go far enough. The only funding in this area should maintain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, for which the President’s budget requests an appropriate $121.7 million. Eliminating all other fossil energy funding would save $399 million.

    Now I can find a divide of how much the DOE spent themselves and how much they passed on to oil and gas companies … so I'll be more then fair and give it all as a subsidy that would amount to 400 million dollars today. A nice tidy sum .. and I'm all for cutting it.


    Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Tax Credit.*Oil producers receive a 15 percent tax credit for costlier methods and technologies, such as injecting liquids and carbon dioxide into the earth. Many EOR processes are no longer in use, and the tax credit applies only when the price of oil falls below a certain level.
    Only “qualified costs” will generate the tax credit.* There are three general types of qualified costs - tangible property, intangible drilling and development costs (IDC), and tertiary injectants.* Qualified EOR projects must be located within the U.S. and have commenced after 12-31-1990.* The regulations provide an exception for the post-1990 "significant expansion” of projects that had begun before that date. The amount of the credit is 15% of qualified costs for tax years 1991-2005.* According to Notice 2006-62 the credit is completely phased out for 2006 due to high oil prices.* A notice is issued each year, and based on oil prices a determination is made on whether or not the credit is* available.
    Industry Director Directive #1 on Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit
    Basically saying that no oil company has be able to claim this credit since the 90's

    Marginal Well Production Credit.*Marginal wells produce 15 or fewer barrels of oil per day, produce heavy oil, or produce mostly water and fewer than 25 barrels of oil per day.
    http://www.ipaa.org/issues/factsheet...tFactSheet.pdf

    Now from what I can find is there are 650,000 of this wells … they get a 3 dollar per barrel credit for the first 3 barrels which would be a maxim of roughly 650 million dollars. But here is something interresting .. The Dept. of Energy has evaluated the benefits of a tax credit and believes that it could prevent the loss of 140,000 barrels per day of production if fully employed during times of low oil prices like those of 1998 and 1999.

    http://www.ipaa.org/issues/factsheet...tFactSheet.pdf

    This site is saying that there is a phase out when the price of oil reaches a certain point … and I'm thinking its around 20 dollars a barrel, Quickly I can't find that for sure .. but when comparing what the two web sites are saying .. using the 1998 and 1999 prices it seems that is true .. so in all probability we will never see prices in the 20 range again .. this subsidy may not even be in effect.

    Now . I haven't found anything that amounts to the 8 or 9 billion figure being thrown around . Even if the marginal tax credit was in effect I can see only about 1 billion given to the oil companies.

    For a better explanation try this site .. I realize it's a conservative site … but it gives numbers and facts .. that you can try to disprove. It's worth a read and you are more then welcome to disprove the figures and statements they give.

    Archived-Articles: About Those Oil Subsidies

    What I am saying, is before you go taking the talking points of what your party is giving you, s it's better to look up the “facts” from reliable sites.

    The facts in this case say the oil companies don't get 8 or 9 billion in tax breaks or subsidies but that the figure is closer to 1 billion ….. Now .. I'm all for stopping even a billion dollars in subsidies, but at least lets be honest in the discussion of what we are cutting.

    Oil and Gas Company Tax Breaks | FactCheck.org

    just another site to educate you on what is "said" to be given .. and what is “actually” being given.

    Now just as an added question to your logic .. most subsidies are given for one of two reasons ... one is to keep the price of a product lower ... who benefits from that the most ? Can't the rich better afford higher prices ? The other reason a subsidy is given, is because a company can give a product .. like certain insurances at a better price then the government can if a company is able to give a certain insurance for 100 dollars .... and the government funds that for them ... because it will cost them 125 dollars to supply the same benefit isn't it kinda stupid not to give the company that subsidy ?

Page 29 of 45 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •