• 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!

What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

Henrin said:
Because there is no reason to do so. They're already giving them part with the payment they already decided to give them. The payment they receive is not decided on how much success the company is having but by the fancy of the employers of the market. It hardly matters the relationship of who did what in the earning of that profit, it only matters who has the property that is being put out.
Click to expand...

Henrin - I understand the words you are saying, and your point you are making, but I think that scenario eventually leads to an inevitable stratification of wealth, as the only people who reap the benefits of any positive value gains of a company are the employers and not the employees.

And when you have only the employers reaping the value of what is created by their employees, and continually working down their wages to whatever dirt cheap price they can find in India or whatever, the workers will eventually become poor and will demand that their government protect them and give them welfare, ect, ect.

This creates the need for BIG GOVERNMENT. That's why I referred to TurtleDude as his own worst enemy.
 
Last edited:
David D. said:
Henrin - I understand the words you are saying, and your point you are making, but I think that scenario eventually leads to an inevitable stratification of wealth, as the only people who reap the benefits of any positive value gains of a company are the employers and not the employees.

And when you have only the employers reaping the value of what is created by their employees, and continually working down their wages to whatever dirt cheap price they can find in India or whatever, the workers will eventually become poor and will demand that their government protect them and give them welfare, ect, ect.

People like you create the need for BIG GOVERNMENT. That's why I say TurtleDude is his own worst enemy, because he is.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. If my company engages in the warm fuzziness you want it will go out of business and those workers will lose their jobs or have to work for lower wages because the demand for their labor goes down and with that wages.

economic reality and the warm fuzzies are like count dracula and sunlight
 
TurtleDude said:
You are wrong. If my company engages in the warm fuzziness you want it will go out of business and those workers will lose their jobs or have to work for lower wages because the demand for their labor goes down and with that wages.

economic reality and the warm fuzzies are like count dracula and sunlight
Click to expand...

TD- I'm working within the realm of 'within reason' when I talk about profit sharing amongst the employees who helped make the company profitable through their hard work.

Sometimes the employees will see some profit in the form of higher salary, sometimes they won't, like when the employer thinks the company will need to keep some of that money for future investment in the company, ect. Or when the company's overall profit trend is headed south and they just had one good month, but it's not the norm.

This is why you need a strong company leader (who will have the highest salary of all).

You can't treat labor like a commodity and never share any of the new value created by the employees with the employees. That's all. It leads to bad things, namely inevitable wealth stratification.

Reasonable?
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
count dracula and sunlight
Click to expand...

Both of these things exist, by the way.

One's a delicious cereal and the other is the "total frequency spectrum of electromagnetic radiation given off by the Sun" (to quote Wikipedia).
 
David D. said:
TD- I'm working within the realm of 'within reason' when I talk about profit sharing amongst the employees. Sometimes the employees will see some profit in the form of higher salary, sometimes they won't when the employer thinks the company will need to keep some of that money for future investment in the company, ect.

I'm just saying that you can't treat labor like a commodity and never share any of the new value created by the employees with the employees. That's all.

Reasonable?
Click to expand...


Again, economic reality has proven you wrong. now if higher than market wages result in superior productivity or if profit sharing results in higher work standards than things change

now if you are a laborer-say at the USPS and the USPS is losing 9 billion should you expect to give up half your wages?
 
David D. said:
Both of these things exist, by the way.

One's a delicious cereal and the other is the "total frequency spectrum of electromagnetic radiation given off by the Sun" (to quote Wikipedia).
Click to expand...

Isn't that Count Chocula? admittedly its been about 40 something years
 
David D. said:
Henrin - I understand the words you are saying, and your point you are making, but I think that scenario eventually leads to an inevitable stratification of wealth, as the only people who reap the benefits of any positive value gains of a company are the employers and not the employees.

And when you have only the employers reaping the value of what is created by their employees, and continually working down their wages to whatever dirt cheap price they can find in India or whatever, the workers will eventually become poor and will demand that their government protect them and give them welfare, ect, ect.

This creates the need for BIG GOVERNMENT. That's why I referred to TurtleDude as his own worst enemy.
Click to expand...

Hogwash. The reason for the collecting of wealth at the top is two fold. One the government ensures the protection of the businesses, and two the workers do not practice the benefits of the market. Big government is the creator of both. The only reason it matters if anyone goes to india is because of those two things.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
70 years of progressive income taxes has insulated the very richest people. that is why many of them support a system that creates entitlement addicts sapped of ambition

you have failed to understand a progressive tax system creates rich elites who use that system to buy public office and the wealth that comes with it. massive taxes create massive government and massive government creates massive power and wealth for those who run it. want more diversity of wealth and power? seek to decentralize government and dissipate federal power and control
Click to expand...

Your solution is to tax the very richest people so much they don't have enough money left to buy politicians?
 
Catawba said:
Your solution is to tax the very richest people so much they don't have enough money left to buy politicians?
Click to expand...

Look for awhile at the China Cat Sunflower
 
TurtleDude said:
Again, economic reality has proven you wrong. now if higher than market wages result in superior productivity or if profit sharing results in higher work standards than things change

now if you are a laborer-say at the USPS and the USPS is losing 9 billion should you expect to give up half your wages?
Click to expand...

Think of it this way. If employees create value and profit during a specific period, they should be able to share in on that (at least some portion, if reasonable). Then things start over and this cycle repeats itself over and over.

If over time, they are no longer creating any value for the company and the company's business model begins to deteriorate, then sure, they should expect a cut in wages.

But the biggest cut should be at the person who runs the company.

I am going for an evening jog. I will be back to join in the fun later. Interesting discussion, I might say.
 
Last edited:
David D. said:
Think of it this way. Employees create values and profit, they should share in at least a portion of that, then things start over again.

If over time, they are no longer creating any value for the company and the company's business model begins to deteriorate, then sure, they should expect a cut in wages.

But the biggest cut should be at the person who runs the company.

I am going for an evening jog. I will be back to join in the fun later. Interesting discussion, I might say.
Click to expand...

I just don't understand your not understanding the concept of a contract. If the contract calls for a wage increase if X amount of profits are realized so be it
 
Catawba said:
Insult noted. Hardly a substitution for facts.
Click to expand...

Insult, I was listening to EUROPE 72 one of my favorite records and my favorite tune on that record. Its the most irrelevant thing I could post in response to utter irrelevance of your claim that I believe we should tax the uber rich at confiscatory rates
 
TurtleDude said:
Insult, I was listening to EUROPE 72 one of my favorite records and my favorite tune on that record. Its the most irrelevant thing I could post in response to utter irrelevance of your claim that I believe we should tax the uber rich at confiscatory rates
Click to expand...

How has concentrating the wealth at the top helped our economy?
 
Catawba said:
How has concentrating the wealth at the top helped our economy?
Click to expand...

How is taxing that wealth to grow government and enrich the dem politicians who use that wealth to buy the votes of people such as you helping the economy?

have you ever figured that maybe that the current progressive income tax and estate tax schemes are what causes such stratifications?
 
TurtleDude said:
70 years of progressive income taxes has insulated the very richest people. that is why many of them support a system that creates entitlement addicts sapped of ambition

you have failed to understand a progressive tax system creates rich elites who use that system to buy public office and the wealth that comes with it. massive taxes create massive government and massive government creates massive power and wealth for those who run it. want more diversity of wealth and power? seek to decentralize government and dissipate federal power and control
Click to expand...

Are you serious!?!? That is why 1% own about 50% of the wealth in this country!!! :lamo
 
TurtleDude said:
have you ever figured that maybe that the current progressive income tax and estate tax schemes are what causes such stratifications?
Click to expand...


Our current tax system is not as progressive now as it was 3 decades ago when we had the strongest middle class in our history.

And you evaded my question once again. How has concentrating the wealth at the top helped our economy?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Are you serious!?!? That is why 1% own about 50% of the wealth in this country!!! :lamo
Click to expand...

lets see my young apprentice

we have the highest concentration of wealth in the smallest group in 70 years

we also have had massive progressive income taxes that now feature the top one percent paying the highest share of the income tax burden in 70 years

makes you think doesn't it
 
Catawba said:
Our current tax system is not as progressive now as it was 3 decades ago when we had the strongest middle class in our history.

And you evaded my question once again. How has concentrating the wealth at the top helped our economy?
Click to expand...

You are not being truthful. The top one percent pay more of the income tax burden now than they did 30 years ago
 
TurtleDude said:
lets see my young apprentice

we have the highest concentration of wealth in the smallest group in 70 years

we also have had massive progressive income taxes that now feature the top one percent paying the highest share of the income tax burden in 70 years

makes you think doesn't it
Click to expand...

So what you are saying here is that progressive taxes help out the rich people? What are you trying to say? That income taxes are the highest they have been in 70 years? Because in 1940 taxes on the "rich" were at 68%
Turtle what are you trying to say?
 
TurtleDude said:
lets see my young apprentice

we have the highest concentration of wealth in the smallest group in 70 years

we also have had massive progressive income taxes that now feature the top one percent paying the highest share of the income tax burden in 70 years

makes you think doesn't it
Click to expand...

Yes, it does make me think. Makes me think your post shows a denial of reality. Our taxes are the least progressive they have been in the last 70 years.

That is not an opinion, it is a fact.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So what you are saying here is that progressive taxes help out the rich people? What are you trying to say? That income taxes are the highest they have been in 70 years? Because in 1940 taxes on the "rich" were at 68%
Turtle what are you trying to say?
Click to expand...

back in the 40's those affected by the top rates were far more able to avoid them and it was a far far smaller group and the middle class paid a far higher share of the income tax burden than they do today

You are unable to comprehend the difference between MARGINAL RATES and a group's SHARE OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX BURDEN

its a common mistake on those who really don't understand that rates are not really related to overall FIT burden.
 
TurtleDude said:
You are not being truthful. The top one percent pay more of the income tax burden now than they did 30 years ago
Click to expand...

Nice spin. They pay the smallest percentage of their total income since the inception of progressive taxes.


How has concentrating the wealth at the top helped our economy?
 
Catawba said:
Yes, it does make me think. Makes me think your post shows a denial of reality. Our taxes are the least progressive they have been in the last 70 years.

That is not an opinion, it is a fact.
Click to expand...

You are lying

you confuse marginal rates with share of the tax burden
 
TurtleDude said:
back in the 40's those affected by the top rates were far more able to avoid them and it was a far far smaller group and the middle class paid a far higher share of the income tax burden than they do today
Click to expand...

Completely unsubstantiated bull crap!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom