• 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!

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

Is it unreasonable to pay a little more?

  • Yes. I'm a greedy bastard!! I need MORE!!!

    Votes: 21 27.6%

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

    Votes: 48 63.2%

  • I'm not sure.

    Votes: 7 9.2%
  • Total voters
    76
cannuck said:
You speak as if trading equities and derivates on Wall Street is the only game in town. First of all, most of those retirement funds are based on wildly inflated values that simply do not reflect book value of the underlying assets at all - so they are really worthless right now. Just that the loss has not yet been realized because the Greenback lives in a la-la land where inflationary pressures are masked by the temporary phenomenon of singular hegemony.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't make such a statement without at least providing some evidence.
 
Catawba said:
When the rich convinced the working class to agree to deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy to create jobs, they expected the jobs to be in this country, and they expected the economy to improve rather than getting worse.

People seem to forget what James Carville observed, "Its the economy, stupid!"
Click to expand...

The economy was growing up until the financial crisis. And it is recovering slowly back to where it was, but we are still recovering faster then countries like France or Greece.
 
Catawba said:
There is no need for a graph. We just had an election where people got to choose whether they wanted a leader that would continue trickle down economics and deregulation, and they rejected him.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you poo poo a graph using real data, saying there is 'more data' out there, but refuse to produce the data. Instead you take the road of emotion. Go f'n figure.. you identify as a liberal, and that's what liberals do. Emotion over data.
 
Catawba said:
When the rich convinced the working class to agree to deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy to create jobs, they expected the jobs to be in this country, and they expected the economy to improve rather than getting worse.

People seem to forget what James Carville observed, "Its the economy, stupid!"
Click to expand...



the stupid apparently forgot that and voted for the clown who was clearly less qualified to improve the economy.

why should the rich pay more other than they have less votes than the others?
 
TurtleDude said:
the stupid apparently forgot that and voted for the clown who was clearly less qualified to improve the economy.

why should the rich pay more other than they have less votes than the others?
Click to expand...

Don't know about the stupid, but there was likely some doubt Romney was a better option.
 
Arbo said:
Feel free to make us a graph showing all taxes included. Otherwise you are doing nothing other than spouting opinion.
Click to expand...

ask him to explain to you how there are more people in the bottom 20% than there are in the top 20% of the population. :lamo
 
Catawba said:
When the rich convinced the working class to agree to deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy to create jobs, they expected the jobs to be in this country, and they expected the economy to improve rather than getting worse.

People seem to forget what James Carville observed, "Its the economy, stupid!"
Click to expand...

when the rich agreed to fund welfare with their $$$$$, they expected people to use welfare as a step up to better themselves....not as a way of life
 
Catawba said:
There is no need for a graph. We just had an election where people got to choose whether they wanted a leader that would continue trickle down economics and deregulation, and they rejected him.
Click to expand...

the unwashed masses voted for the guy who promised to keep the handouts coming at the expense of someone else..... shocking I tell you, absolutely shocking
 
OscarB63 said:
ask him to explain to you how there are more people in the bottom 20% than there are in the top 20% of the population. :lamo
Click to expand...

I'm afraid to ask about that one... but sadly it doesn't come as shocking such a statement might come from him.
 
OscarB63 said:
the unwashed masses voted for the guy who promised to keep the handouts coming at the expense of someone else..... shocking I tell you, absolutely shocking
Click to expand...

Maybe if the rich funneled some of the money they stole from the poor and middle class wage earners the unwashed masses would be able to go to work and earn a decent living. Till then grab all you can 2014 is coming and your conservative and tea bagging buddies will be looking for new jobs
 
OscarB63 said:
when the rich agreed to fund welfare with their $$$$$, they expected people to use welfare as a step up to better themselves....not as a way of life
Click to expand...

The only thing the rich anticipated doing was to continue their plunder of the poor and middle class workers
 
Djoop said:
I'm a real libertarian, I really believe people have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Without food that becomes somewhat difficult.
Click to expand...

A lack of food isn't a problem in our country at least, too much food and the wrong kinds of food are the problems.
 
EarlzP said:
The only thing the rich anticipated doing was to continue their plunder of the poor and middle class workers
Click to expand...

Do these partisan hacks ever get old after awhile?
 
ReformCollege said:
Meanwhile, on a global scale BILLIONS of people have moved out of absolute poverty, and BILLIONS of people are moving into the middle class.
Click to expand...
That is in no way attributed to "trickle down economics" but to liberalized international trade and opening formally closed economies to the miracle of entrepreneurialism. A massive amount of the success of developing nations is genuinely "bottom up" driven.
 
ReformCollege said:
Do these partisan hacks ever get old after awhile?
Click to expand...

It would seem they don't. For it's just some of the rehashed anti-rich crap the hippies would putting out in the 60's..
 
I say the higher end ought to help out more.

I'm in no means rich. This is just a difficult question... And bias at that! Just saying, rich people aren't the only one's who can be greedy. Of course the poor want the higher end to help out, but the one thing you have to remember is that the rich weren't always rich. It came a time where hard work payed off. You can't reward a population of laziness.. Success stories are so popular now-a-days. It's not like poor people can't become successful. It just takes hard work and dedication. As Americans we all have equal opportunity.

In saying all of this, there definitely is a hierarchy where money stops being a problem. Only at that point do I agree with the above statement. Overall though, being equal citizens with equal rights and expectations I think we should all pay the same percentage of taxes. It's only fair. It's only America.
 
Boo Radley said:
Don't know about the stupid, but there was likely some doubt Romney was a better option.
Click to expand...

He was certainly more qualified in the economy, but whether or not he would've done things better, we will never know.
 
Arbo said:
It would seem they don't. For it's just some of the rehashed anti-rich crap the hippies would putting out in the 60's..
Click to expand...

you can't fix stupid
 
ReformCollege said:
He was certainly more qualified in the economy, but whether or not he would've done things better, we will never know.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. He had more experience running a company, but neither a country nor a national economy is a business. The president has far less control than a CEO, and the government sells no product.
 
There is nothing wrong with asking the wealthy to pay a little more. However, taxing the rich more must be done in addition to cutting the budget. Our spending is out of control, and there is no way we can balance the budget by taxing the rich. If we do not address our spending problems, there will be a point where the level at which we tax the wealthy will be out of control.

Both spending cuts and taxing the rich a little more side by side is the best way to do things.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't think so. He had more experience running a company, but neither a country nor a national economy is a business. The president has far less control than a CEO, and the government sells no product.
Click to expand...

Well, 200+ years of running the country unlike a business as certainly lead us to a great spot in terms of the economy and the debt on our kids shoulders. eh?
 
cannuck said:
That is in no way attributed to "trickle down economics" but to liberalized international trade and opening formally closed economies to the miracle of entrepreneurialism. A massive amount of the success of developing nations is genuinely "bottom up" driven.
Click to expand...

My point is, the rich getting richer usually implicates that they are employing more people and producing more products/services.

Billions and billions of dollars have been invested in these countries that otherwise would not have. That investment was not by people who were poor, nor did it spontaneously appear in countries so poor their citizens would dig through dumpsters for food.

We invest in their countries, we use their cheap labor, their citizens have money, their economies flourish.

Perhaps it is merely a difference of definitions. I don't consider "trickle down" as the give the rich money and somehow it'll trickle down. I say a strong economy will inevitably make the rich richer, while making the poor richer as well. The things consider most important are strong business fundamentals, free trade, capital investment and large profits for future reinvestment, all of this usually causes wages to rise and everyone to be better off. If what you mean by "bottom up" to be rising wages of those formerly in poverty creating flourishing markets, then yes I agree. But I see the second as being an inevitable result of the first.
 
ReformCollege said:
Do these partisan hacks ever get old after awhile?
Click to expand...

Partisan Hacks? Please explain the transfer of wealth, where have the jobs gone, where did the rich get their new found wealth from? What's your version? It had to come from some where right? My explanation is simple and obvious they stole it from the poor and middle class.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't think so. He had more experience running a company, but neither a country nor a national economy is a business. The president has far less control than a CEO, and the government sells no product.
Click to expand...

The key phrase is more qualified. Maybe running a business isn't like running a country. But there has to be some skills he acquired that overlap the two, which is more then our President could say.
 
BassDrop said:
There is nothing wrong with asking the wealthy to pay a little more. However, taxing the rich more must be done in addition to cutting the budget. Our spending is out of control, and there is no way we can balance the budget by taxing the rich. If we do not address our spending problems, there will be a point where the level at which we tax the wealthy will be out of control.

Both spending cuts and taxing the rich a little more side by side is the best way to do things.
Click to expand...

OPPS You may have over looked some thing like revenue created by American workers, what do you think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom