• 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!

Are you willing to pay higher taxes, and if so, for what?

Are you willing to pay higher taxes, and if so, for what?

  • Yes, across the board.

    Votes: 10 15.4%

  • Yes, for infrastructure.

    Votes: 27 41.5%

  • Yes, for education. (K-12)

    Votes: 18 27.7%

  • Yes, for job creation.

    Votes: 16 24.6%

  • Yes, for social programs.

    Votes: 15 23.1%

  • Yes, for medical care.

    Votes: 21 32.3%

  • Yes, for the environment.

    Votes: 16 24.6%

  • Yes, but... not for some particular programs (please elaborate).

    Votes: 8 12.3%

  • No. None. Not for anything at all.

    Votes: 23 35.4%

  • Undecided. Convince me either way.

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Total voters
    65
Thunder said:
i can afford to pay a little more in taxes.

but not for wars. I wont do that.
Click to expand...

Not for needless, reckless and unnecessary wars.

I have no problem at all paying for education, healthcare or even to help create jobs.
 
apdst said:
If those are your answer to those question, you to google your butt off. :rofl
Click to expand...

Why? You do not believe CEOs manage? Is that not basically the definition of what a CEO does? Also, companies do lots of different things with income, so I don't know what kind of answer you want. They reinvest in capital, they pay dividends, they expand, they give bonuses, they hire more people, etc. You want me to list every one.

Apdst, the day you are able lecture anyone on answering questions and being knowledgeable will be a cold day in hell.
 
whysoserious said:
Why? You do not believe CEOs manage? Is that not basically the definition of what a CEO does? Also, companies do lots of different things with income, so I don't know what kind of answer you want. They reinvest in capital, they pay dividends, they expand, they give bonuses, they hire more people, etc. You want me to list every one.
Click to expand...


The vaguery of your answers illustrates your lack of knowledge on the subject.




Apdst, the day you are able lecture anyone on answering questions and being knowledgeable will be a cold day in hell.
Click to expand...

Hope you got your coat handy. ;)
 
kamikaze483 said:
I intended to have the discussion with the person who posted the comments I listed. Each of them were rhetorical comments, not based on fact, but based on a misunderstanding of the way things work. It is clear that he (or she) and many other people, many of whom are active in the Occupy Movement just don't have a lot of facts to work with- they work on feeling. That is not how problems are solved. Now to deal with the facts YOU listed, which I find hard to believe, but because I don't live there I'll assume they are correct.

I list this one first because it will be the simplest one to deal with. The Federal Minimum Wage is higher than this, which usually is accounted for by companies utilizing the labor of illegal immigrants, contrary to Federal Law. It also means that companies reported average wages at below the FMW. That would just be dumb, because it would expose their illegal activities. There is an agreesive US Department of Labor that will entertain any claims of minimum wage violations for American Citizens.

This is just a broader statistic of the one we just discussed, so illegal labor also dilutes the numbers. I will concede that is is highly possible that Rio Grande has a very low median wage due to the volume of agriculture business. The great thing about a capitalistic economy is that it is capitalitic for all. Wages are set by the market- just as prices for goods and services are set by the market. A company will pay a worker based also on the value of that worker to the company. The employee has the opportunity to either make themselves more valuable (and less disposable) to the company. If they do that and still are underpaid based on the market, they should look for another job. You get to choose where you work, just as companies get to choose who they hire. The economy is very difficult right now for businesses as well as employees.

And I don't disagree with your statement about 20 percent of people below the FPL, but that and these other statistics are not the fault of corporations and businesses, generally, and are impertinent to the argument I was making that debates have to commence at some basis of fact, not feeling- in order to result in compromise or solutions.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I was surprised when I found them as well (though it is apparently true - just Google "Rick Perry low wage jobs"), and I stumbled on them by accident. All I wanted to know, and still want to know as I can't seem to find it, is what the average American makes - excluding outliers. I'd also like to know what percentage of Americans earn what - so say 40% of Americans make $40,000 a year or less. Those statistics are eluding me. I just find it funny that many conservatives and libertarians today have no problem calling hundreds of thousands of low-wage workers "lazy" and incompetent. These jobs, which America could not continue growing without, are apparently occupied by useless individuals, according to people such as yourself.

It's a smug way to go through life.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Not for needless, reckless and unnecessary wars.

I have no problem at all paying for education, healthcare or even to help create jobs.
Click to expand...

It's my patriotic duty to deny the government as many tax dollars as possible, because the more money they have, the more they will waste. I have to save them from themselves.
 
apdst said:
The vaguery of your answers illustrates your lack of knowledge on the subject.


Hope you got your coat handy. ;)
Click to expand...

Broad questions deserve broad answers. You pick a topic any day and I'll be glad to run circles around you. :)
 
yes, and the law currently says that if your business goes bankrupt, you should not go banktrupt with it.

the law says that you AND your corporation, have seperate rights to freedom of speech.

this, is insane.
Click to expand...

You must be talking only of privately held businesses. No public ones. Because otherwise you are attributing ownership to the CEO. But earlier you said you were only talking about companies like AIG, Bank of America, etc. If they go bankrupt are you saying that the CEO should also have to bankrupt personally? If so, and if we took your idea of distributing the profits of the company among all the workers, shouldn't all the workers have to bankrupt as well? Why only the owner or CEO?
 
apdst said:
Why is it wrong to apply laws equally to everyone? I don't want to get screwed by the government, just because I'm self employed. That ain't right. What about MY rights? Do I give those up, when I start my own business?
Click to expand...
I have to disagree on this point. You as an individual still have rights. Always will, so I don't understand where the point of view comes from that an individual gives up rights when they start a business. A business is a thing or an entity that is owned, either by a single person or a group of people. Owning a business is not unlike owning a car. As a car is merely a tool to get from Point A to Point B, a business is merely a tool to make money.

Now, IMO, we can have laws that allow business to do things that individual people cannot necessarily do, and these would also... conceivably... be in the best interests of the people as well, but I would stop short at referring to them as 'rights'. Only living breathing humans should have rights. Rights shouldn't change (much) with time. Business laws can and should change and evolve as necessary.

Just my opinion of how it should be, not saying this is how they are.
 
To be honest, I was surprised when I found them as well (though it is apparently true - just Google "Rick Perry low wage jobs"), and I stumbled on them by accident. All I wanted to know, and still want to know as I can't seem to find it, is what the average American makes - excluding outliers. I'd also like to know what percentage of Americans earn what - so say 40% of Americans make $40,000 a year or less. Those statistics are eluding me. I just find it funny that many conservatives and libertarians today have no problem calling hundreds of thousands of low-wage workers "lazy" and incompetent. These jobs, which America could not continue growing without, are apparently occupied by useless individuals, according to people such as yourself.
Click to expand...

And again, you hit and run. You didn't address any of arguments. And to be honest and fair, I have never made any inference or comment that low wage workers are lazy and incompetent. Earlier you inferred that I held those beliefs. Just more rhetoric. You assume that people of a certian political bias hold certain beliefs that just simply is not the case.
 
Last edited:
Will someone please explain to me the logic behind giving a business, freedom of speech?

how about the ability of a businessman to drive his business into the ground, forcing the layoff of hundreds of employees, yet he faces no fiscal penalty?
 
Will someone please explain to me the logic behind giving a business, freedom of speech?

how about the ability of a businessman to drive his business into the ground, forcing the layoff of hundreds of employees, yet he faces no fiscal penalty?
Click to expand...

CEO's are employees. They perform a job for pay. They either excel or they fail, just like any retail store clerk or cocktail waitress. If he makes bad decisions that hurt the company, the board of directors will fire him- and thus he will suffer financially. He has no other investment in the buisiness other than that of an employee- unless he has profit sharing or stock options, in which case he FURTHER suffers financially.
 
kamikaze483 said:
And again, you hit and run. You didn't address any of arguments. And to be honest and fair, I have never made any inference or comment that low wage workers are lazy and incompetent. Earlier you inferred that I held those beliefs. Just more rhetoric. You assume that people of a certian political bias hold certain beliefs that just simply is not the case.
Click to expand...

I took your statement about the "ignorant and stupid masses" as your opinion on the poor. Who do you think is working these jobs? Yeah, those guys. What question did you want me to answer? The ones where you said, "I don't believe that data since it is below federal minimum wage"? Look, I have done enough arguing on this subject to know both sides very well. You want the libertarian one? Sure, I got it:

1) The jobs are dime a dozen
2) Anyone could do the job so why should it pay well
3) If these people would apply themselves they could move up in the company
4) If these people wanted better pay, they should get an education
5) Paying low-income workers better ranges is bad for companies and would hurt growth
6) Anyone who thinks low wage workers should be paid better wages doesn't know anything about business
7) Low wage workers don't pay their fair share of taxes anyway

Should I continue, or did I sum it up well enough?
 
I took your statement about the "ignorant and stupid masses" as your opinion on the poor
Click to expand...

Because you FEEL more than you THINK. That is not who I was referring to. I was referring to the Occupy Movement and to people, liberals and conservatives alike, who make arguments but do not know what in the hell they are talking about. Those are the ignorant, stupid masses

What question did you want me to answer? The ones where you said, "I don't believe that data since it is below federal minimum wage"? Look, I have done enough arguing on this subject to know both sides very well. You want the libertarian one? Sure, I got it:

1) The jobs are dime a dozen
2) Anyone could do the job so why should it pay well
3) If these people would apply themselves they could move up in the company
4) If these people wanted better pay, they should get an education
5) Paying low-income workers better ranges is bad for companies and would hurt growth
6) Anyone who thinks low wage workers should be paid better wages doesn't know anything about business
7) Low wage workers don't pay their fair share of taxes anyway

Should I continue, or did I sum it up well enough?
Click to expand...

Some of those things factor into my argument, sure. I do not believe that low wage worker's pay too little in taxes. I don't think taxes need to be increased at all. I do, absolutely believe in the American Dream and personal responsibility. The house with the white picket fence and the 2.5 kids or whatever- people are not entitled to this. This is an attainable ideal, though, in this country, only because of capitalism. People get fed up working for the man, and go work their asses off starting a small business from the ground up- so that they can be the boss and control the money. This is what our wonderful melting pot of American immigrants did- and what people still have the ability to do if they stop making excuses and start accepting responsibility for where they are and crafting a plan to make things better for themselves. If you don't like where you work, look toward finding another job, or starting your own business- but don't make the argument that capitalistic markets don't function well, because they do. Almost always.
 
kamikaze483 said:
Because you FEEL more than you THINK. That is not who I was referring to. I was referring to the Occupy Movement and to people, liberals and conservatives alike, who make arguments but do not know what in the hell they are talking about. Those are the ignorant, stupid masses
Click to expand...

Who do you think those masses are composed of?


kamikaze483 said:
Some of those things factor into my argument, sure. I do not believe that low wage worker's pay too little in taxes. I don't think taxes need to be increased at all. I do, absolutely believe in the American Dream and personal responsibility. The house with the white picket fence and the 2.5 kids or whatever- people are not entitled to this. This is an attainable ideal, though, in this country, only because of capitalism. People get fed up working for the man, and go work their asses off starting a small business from the ground up- so that they can be the boss and control the money. This is what our wonderful melting pot of American immigrants did- and what people still have the ability to do if they stop making excuses and start accepting responsibility for where they are and crafting a plan to make things better for themselves. If you don't like where you work, look toward finding another job, or starting your own business- but don't make the argument that capitalistic markets don't function well, because they do. Almost always.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter! Those jobs have to be filled! Okay, so Joe Blow quits his job "working for the man" and starts a new company up. Fine, but first, someone else will have to take his place because that low-wage job has to be filled by someone. Second, he probably just created at least a few more low-wage jobs as well, each that needs to be filled.

No one is arguing with you that there is not opportunity for advancement, only that that opportunity is available to everyone. It's not physically possible for everyone to advance. Someone has to have that job.
 
DaveFagan said:
Sometimes one must ignore political axioms and resort to tried and true methods of utility. Some of the best suggestions go unnoticed for their plain simplicity. The following was a suggestion to one of my most beloved children when he was having trouble learning to drop anchor in reality. He was explaining to me that many of the rich folks were just a result of Divine Providence,.

"Put your right hand on your right cheek, your left hand on your left cheek, and yank real hard. Repeat as necessary to pull your head out of your ass!" I think he tried it because he doin' well now. Perhaps it should be posted on each chair in Congress, don't you think?
Click to expand...

you need to lay off the acid. that's neither responsive nor intelligent
 
whysoserious said:
Are you saying McDonalds is a viable company without people flipping burgers and working the drive-thru?
Click to expand...

do you libs even read what I write before you post in response.
 
It doesn't matter! Those jobs have to be filled! Okay, so Joe Blow quits his job "working for the man" and starts a new company up. Fine, but first, someone else will have to take his place because that low-wage job has to be filled by someone. Second, he probably just created at least a few more low-wage jobs as well, each that needs to be filled.

No one is arguing with you that there is not opportunity for advancement, only that that opportunity is available to everyone. It's not physically possible for everyone to advance. Someone has to have that job.
Click to expand...

How is he going to create a high wage job, when he is just starting a business? There is a minimum wage for a reason. When there are not enough low wage workers (because they all started their own businesses) the markets will correct themselves and the wages will increase because, as you said, the job has to be filled. :)

Who do you think those masses are composed of?
Click to expand...

I didn't say they were lazy and incompetent. I said they were ignorant.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
yes, business-owners have invested time and money into their company. but that doesn't change the fact that its the labor of the workers who are making the products or services that earn the money that accounts for the profits.

a fairer system of dividing profits between owners & workers, should be devised.
Click to expand...

try as you might you cannot fashion such a system. a job is nothing more than an entity filling its need for a commodity known as labor. It pays the going rate for that labor. fair is a silly term but if the wage it offers obtains a sufficient quantity and quality of labor, then the wage rate is objectively fair
 
kamikaze483 said:
How is he going to create a high wage job, when he is just starting a business? There is a minimum wage for a reason. When there are not enough low wage workers (because they all started their own businesses) the markets will correct themselves and the wages will increase because, as you said, the job has to be filled. :)
Click to expand...

I am not saying anything in relation to his ability to pay people high wages. It may not be possible. I am simply speaking to the idea that everyone has a shot at making lots of money and that only the "lazy" are low income workers. Those jobs will always exist, and will always need to be filled, and they are just as important, if not more important, than any other jobs in the company.

And personally, I don't appreciate being called ignorant because I think those people deserve food on the table, health care, a roof over their heads, et al. The problem I see with libertarians and conservatives on this board is that they believe they are actually better than people who earn low wages and that anyone in that position deserves to be - and they aren't ashamed to admit it either.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Oh - but you don't spend time on the forum, do you?
Click to expand...

Not when I am at work, I don't. When I am at work, I am being paid to move product. And when I am at work, that is what I am doing. To do otherwise would be to steal from my employer. When my employer is paying me to do work, my employer has every right to expect that I am doing that work; not playing on this forum or otherwise spending it on non-work pursuits.


Aunt Spiker said:
So you don't intend on retiring or ever being unemployed? Can I hold you to that?
Click to expand...

Unemployed, retired, on vacation, on holidays, on furlough, or otherwise outside of work hours, my time is my own to do with as I will. During work hours, that time is my employer's. When my employer is paying me for my time, my employer has every right to expect that that time will be spent doing the work that my employer is paying me to do.
 
Last edited:
Bob Blaylock said:
Not when I am at work, I don't. When I am at work, I am being paid to move product. And when I am at work, that is what I am doing. To do otherwise would be to steal from my employer. When my employer is paying me to do work, my employer has every right to expect that I am doing that work; not playing on this forum or otherwise spending it on non-work pursuits....
Click to expand...

what does this have to do with the thread?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom