View Poll Results: Is it unreasonable to pay a little more?

Voters
97. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. I'm a greedy bastard!! I need MORE!!!

    28 28.87%
  • No. There's comes a point in wealthiness where it just doesn't even matter anymore.

    61 62.89%
  • I'm not sure.

    8 8.25%
Page 22 of 81 FirstFirst ... 1220212223243272 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 809

Thread: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

  1. #211
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    I tried, but i was outnumbered by those who wanted to vote themselves more 'free" stuff from the gubbermint
    No, that's just the pin some are using. You picked a poor candidate, did some silly stuff, and didn't present a balanced plan.

    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.

  2. #212
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,277

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    Quote Originally Posted by gmeyers1944 View Post
    I cannot give myself a raise like government can, but I can control my spending.
    .......like govt can't.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  3. #213
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    But Obama insists on "balance", meaning that for each $1 in federal spending cut, that $1 (or more) be raised by increasing federal taxes. With an annual federal deficit of $1 trillion that means $500 billion in spending cuts and $500 billion in new federal tax revenue. What are those odds? Remember that federal spending is 40% more than federal taxes now, so tax revenue must go up about 25% to balance the budget (assuming 1 to 1 spending cuts to increased taxes).
    Congress and not the president do these things.

    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.

  4. #214
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    NY
    Last Seen
    04-17-14 @ 12:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    503

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Because you really can't cut it enough without devastating the big three. Not only will you never get the support to do that, we shouldn't. We can cut them some, but not enough to eliminate the debt with cuts alone. We need both.
    If the big three include Welfare and SS then they should be cut as their unconstitutional. This is insanity. Entitlements are what driving us broke and we just added the biggest one ever.

  5. #215
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    NY
    Last Seen
    04-17-14 @ 12:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    503

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Congress and not the president do these things.
    And what do you think the chances are that they will?

  6. #216
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,566

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Congress and not the president do these things.
    Earth to Boo. Obama can veto things and the Senate is demorat majority. You see the "shame" placed upon the House if they do not undo that "bipartisan" deal passed in both the House and the Senate, and signed by Obama, aka "fiscal cliff" law. That was the law, but did that matter? NO, becuase Obama, not congress, played hardball and "demanded" that the House reduce taxes for 98%+ of the people with no "pay for" in spending cuts at all. That was Obama. Get real!
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  7. #217
    Student Vapor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Last Seen
    03-18-13 @ 01:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    150

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gawain View Post
    Is that you Obama? Can you tell me what percentage of ones income is enough for you?
    Oh, I don't know, I think that nice ol' Republican man - Eisenhower, was it? - had the right idea, but at this point, 90% is unrealistic. But if a man earning $20 million a year paid a 50% rate, I think he could easily survive on that measly $10 million, when one considers the average family's net worth is somewhere in the $100,000 range. And consider that many of the wealthiest Americans are big business owners and bankers - men and women who owe their success to society...and before you go compare me to Obama again, allow me to elaborate. A business requires three main things for success: capital, labor, and customers. Yes, the investor can provide the first, but he would never see a return on his investment without middle and lower class Americans willing to work for his company and buy his product or service. How long would Wal-Mart have lasted if they had never hired an employee or sold a single item? Business relies on people to succeed; I don't think it's too much to ask for those businesses to pay into the system that enabled their success. It's simple logic.

    But hey, if you ever take over a nation, feel free to set everyone's tax rate at 1%. Let me know how that works out for you.

  8. #218
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    NY
    Last Seen
    04-17-14 @ 12:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    503

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Earth to Boo. Obama can veto things and the Senate is demorat majority. You see the "shame" placed upon the House if they do not undo that "bipartisan" deal passed in both the House and the Senate, and signed by Obama, aka "fiscal cliff" law. That was the law, but did that matter? NO, becuase Obama, not congress, played hardball and "demanded" that the House reduce taxes for 98%+ of the people with no "pay for" in spending cuts at all. That was Obama. Get real!
    Plus Obama must sign it into law

    Bye the way it was just on the news that the top 1% no longer pay 40% of the income taxes with this new deal. Now the top .7% pay 40% of them.

    Well thats fair

  9. #219
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    NY
    Last Seen
    04-17-14 @ 12:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    503

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vapor View Post
    Oh, I don't know, I think that nice ol' Republican man - Eisenhower, was it? - had the right idea, but at this point, 90% is unrealistic. But if a man earning $20 million a year paid a 50% rate, I think he could easily survive on that measly $10 million, when one considers the average family's net worth is somewhere in the $100,000 range. And consider that many of the wealthiest Americans are big business owners and bankers - men and women who owe their success to society...and before you go compare me to Obama again, allow me to elaborate. A business requires three main things for success: capital, labor, and customers. Yes, the investor can provide the first, but he would never see a return on his investment without middle and lower class Americans willing to work for his company and buy his product or service. How long would Wal-Mart have lasted if they had never hired an employee or sold a single item? Business relies on people to succeed; I don't think it's too much to ask for those businesses to pay into the system that enabled their success. It's simple logic.

    But hey, if you ever take over a nation, feel free to set everyone's tax rate at 1%. Let me know how that works out for you.

    Why stop at 50%. Im sure we could all survive well on a million. Why not just take anything anyone makes over a milliion ? If I were in charge there would be no income tax . We survived very well without it.

  10. #220
    Student Vapor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Last Seen
    03-18-13 @ 01:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    150

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gawain View Post
    Why stop at 50%. Im sure we could all survive well on a million. Why not just take anything anyone makes over a milliion ? If I were in charge there would be no income tax . We survived very well without it.
    Because communism doesn't work, and liberalism =/= communism, no matter what FOX and Limbaugh might say. We didn't have an income tax in the 19th century, when government was relatively small, when military spending wasn't greater than that of the next ten nations combined, when we did not have military bases in more than 100 nations worldwide, and when we did not have so many social programs. It is the 21st century now, and try as we might, we won't be rid of all these developments. Times change, and we must change with them. Old policies don't work, so we don't use them. Now, if Wilson had never enacted the income tax, we would never have this argument, but the tax was enacted, and revenue increased. When revenue rises, so does spending. If we abolished the income tax, we would have to undergo draconian spending cuts that would put hundreds of thousands of soldiers out of work, increasing unemployment, and welfare cuts would see people already below the poverty level sink even lower.

    In an ideal world, we would pay no taxes whatsoever, but we do not live in an ideal world. If you want to see how society functions without government or taxation, hop on an oil tanker and head to Somalia. It seems to be working really well for them.

Page 22 of 81 FirstFirst ... 1220212223243272 ... 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
  •