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 36 of 81 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 809

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

  1. #351
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,587

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cannuck View Post
    Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a capital GAINS tax, not a capital tax (which DOES exist in some countries - heck even some states). You only pay capital gains tax on money that was given to you because your asset was sold for more than you paid. Problem is, when that happens, someone else had a corresponding loss (either in cash or value) and zero wealth is created - it is merely being redistributed.

    Double taxation happens on DIVIDEND income - in which case the company pays its tax on earnings and then you pay again on your share of the tax paid profits of the company shared with you by paying a dividend.

    An intelligent tax system would tax the living crap out of capital gains - because when a capital gain occurs, there is zero wealth created. 99% of what Wall Street does is just that - capital gains in the world of Casino Capitalism - where everything is run for a capital gain and nobody is INVESTING any money into productive ventures. Of course, the balance is that dividend income should NEVER be taxed - driving money into productive assets.

    Now you know how I voted and why. Tax capital gains to death and kill of Wall Street's Casino Capitalism the creates zilch and bring CAPITALISM back into the world by leaving the field open for actual investment in businesses that make things and actually DO something. Most of the really wealthy people make very little of their money from wealth that is created - they instead live on capital gains from wealth that is re-distributed. No harm in taxing that back to discourage such horrid use of capital.

    Meanwhile, do I think it will make any difference to the debt crisis? Hell no! The US makes Greece look like a truly conservative country. It is spending far, far beyond its diminished means and is doing nothing to make the money it will need in the future to fund even a modest portion of that largess.
    This might be one of the most incorrect economic statements that I've ever read. The stock market is not a zero sum game.

    Let's imagine a scenario for an instant. You want to form a company, you'll call it "Cannuck's High Quality Tables". You how ever don't have the start up resources for all the woodworking equipment you need, so you go to the market to look for investors. Mr. Romney comes along and says "I will give you $2 million dollars for a 40% stake in your company". (Kind of like the show 'Shark Tank', if you've ever seen it) Considering you'll never even get the business off the ground without him, you think that's a great deal, so you agree. Romney is taking a risk on you, he's risking $2 million on you, an investment that may or may not come to fruition.

    You then go on to make the world's finest quality tables and sell each for thousands, and people far and wide travel to spend their money on your tables. You make massive profits, which you pay 40% to your investor, Romney, who helped get your business off the ground. Now, explain to me again where the victim is in this situation.

    You've so clearly deemed Romney a leach, I want to know how he's boning you in this situation, and who's being robbed?
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  2. #352
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,587

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Are you talking about corporate welfare and excessive taxpayer subsidy of the military industrial complex that only benefits one percent of the population?
    That is a good point, why DO you big government types like to hand out so much money to corporations and the military industrial complex, then complain about not getting enough for social programs?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Yea yea blah blah blah. "leftists blah blah blah" heard it, seen it from you TDp. Keep up the same ol talking points.
    You never ended up answering my question: How can you dub someone who pays substantially more both in real dollars and percentage in taxes than you, "not paying enough", while simultaneously labeling yourself as "paying enough"?
    Last edited by RabidAlpaca; 01-04-13 at 04:07 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  3. #353
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    i have a desire for other peoples money by wanting to raise taxes on the rich? Interesting premise..
    I certainly don't see you offering to give up more of your own money for whatever purposes you think you want to tax the rich.

    You show a clear desire to have other people's money taken from them, and used to your benefit. This is the definition of greed.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  4. #354
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    like I keep saying. it always seems to be those paying the least that complain someone else who is paying much more than they are is not paying enough.
    Fixed it for you.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  5. #355
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    I certainly don't see you offering to give up more of your own money for whatever purposes you think you want to tax the rich.

    You show a clear desire to have other people's money taken from them, and used to your benefit. This is the definition of greed.
    I have a desire for everyone to pay into a system (taxation)=greed?


  6. #356
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:16 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,306

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tu1 rtleDude View Post
    that is a silly attempt to justify others paying more than you do. the military has no duty to expend extra effort defending wealthy peoples' homes and the cost of the military has absolutely no relation with the cost of a house or a car

    PROPERTY! Stocks are property and the stockholders are owners of said Corporations. You can change my words, but I was crystal clear.

  7. #357
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-15-17 @ 05:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    424

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    This might be one of the most incorrect economic statements that I've ever read. The stock market is not a zero sum game.

    Let's imagine a scenario for an instant. You want to form a company, you'll call it "Cannuck's High Quality Tables". You how ever don't have the start up resources for all the woodworking equipment you need, so you go to the market to look for investors. Mr. Romney comes along and says "I will give you $2 million dollars for a 40% stake in your company". (Kind of like the show 'Shark Tank', if you've ever seen it) Considering you'll never even get the business off the ground without him, you think that's a great deal, so you agree. Romney is taking a risk on you, he's risking $2 million on you, an investment that may or may not come to fruition.

    You then go on to make the world's finest quality tables and sell each for thousands, and people far and wide travel to spend their money on your tables. You make massive profits, which you pay 40% to your investor, Romney, who helped get your business off the ground. Now, explain to me again where the victim is in this situation.

    You've so clearly deemed Romney a leach, I want to know how he's boning you in this situation, and who's being robbed?
    You are confusing the tiniest bit of "the stock market" - the use of capital to fund in IPOs and POs - with 99% of the actual activity on "the Street". Yes, raising capital to invest in "A" company is valid form of wealth creation and as I think I had already pointed out, productive use of capital. It is something called "capitalism". Thing is, you don't need to do that in the format of public offerings (I will address that in a minute). There will ALWAYS be capital markets, and they come about by equity investments from individuals, private equity funds (placements) and debt. We have come to believe that using public offerings is somehow the only way that capital is moved, and we will return to why that is not always a good thing.

    Problems come when we look at what we DO with those public issues AFTER the company is funded. As I said, 99% of everything that Wall Street does is NOT involved in investing (which is a capitalist activity) but in trading existing stock. THAT is the zero sum game, and THAT is where Wall Street makes its money. The people who play at that casino table can only "win" if someone else "loses" - and you are right, it is not a "zero sum" game. The house takes money out at every turn, so it is a constant negative sum game. The money that gets tossed around (many companies trade at 1000x book value - and not a red cent of that is INVESTMENT money, it is all purely inflationary casino chips).

    Why does any of this matter? Wall Street sticks its greedy nose into Main Street for one reason and one reason only: it is not that they really give a flying purple frick about the business that is to be funded, it is so that THEY are the conduit of the capital which they can now take to the casino and spin into multiples of 2x, 10x, 1000x the value of the actual investment. From this game the house makes not billions, but TRILLIONS every year of money taken out as inside trades (no other polite way to put what they do with stock issued to themselves during an underwriting) and fees for M&A, trading, etc. activities (euphemistically called "investment banking"...cough, hack!).

    With that game going on, what happens is companies themselves are a microcosm of "the market", but needed simply to provide the chips to the casino. Vast sums of this funny money (all pent up inflationary forces) result in companies coming to the casino at the behest of faceless financial pools who as institutional players have the right to place directors on boards who are "bank friendly" to put it bluntly, and who in turn hire managers who enjoy and incestuous relationship to rape the common shareholder (remember him, the poor bugger who put the REAL money into the IPO) by paying themselves (they are nothing but employees) MASSIVE stock option deals that dillute the shareholders (most of whom are long gone and now replaced by gamblers who hold stock strictly for the bet that it will change value to allow them to win a capital gain - so have little interest in how the COMPANY runs, just the stock value).

    What amazes me is not that this is happening, it is just that people such as yourself are totally blind to the observation that the way we have let speculative activity completely replace investment activity has run the entire economy into the ground. The only "recovery" is on Wall Street, not Main Street. The reason that some backwater country such as China can come out of NOWHERE within a couple of decades and bring the largest economy in the world to its knees is that everyone here is at the casino playing with "the market" and money is not being invested in the real companies run by REAL SHAREHOLDERS WITH THEIR OWN MONEY AT RISK, but by investment bankers who have their own agenda. In China, a huge proportion of the money in their economy is INVESTED in business (yes, they do have a huge stock market and are culturally inclined to gamble - and that in due course will stop their real growth as well) that actually makes things.

    Just so it is crystal clear: wealth is only created when you add value to a resource or deliver a service NECESSARY to support adding value to resources. ALL other "economic activity" is merely wealth redistribution - and that matters not if you are doing it in the name of "socialism" or "the market".

    As I said: we have been there before, and EVERYONE in 1930 knew exactly what this meant - and how to fix it.
    Last edited by cannuck; 01-04-13 at 09:33 AM.

  8. #358
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:16 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,306

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    I consider people becoming more and more dependent on government handouts and expecting others to continually pay for what they want to be bad for them in the long run


    Yes, indeedy! Especially the wealthy bankers and corporations that had to be bailed out since 2008. I didn't think you would admit that they were "on the dole." We have to quit supporting the wealthy at the expense of the worker bee.

  9. #359
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Yes, indeedy! Especially the wealthy bankers and corporations that had to be bailed out since 2008. I didn't think you would admit that they were "on the dole." We have to quit supporting the wealthy at the expense of the worker bee.
    I totally opposed bailing them out as well. but since the worker bee isn't paying as much as they use, it was other wealthy people who bailed out those failures

  10. #360
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cannuck View Post
    If you had any idea how the world works, you would realize that we have been here before. ANYONE with a half a brain would understand this clearly in 1930, but few today seem to have the ability to think beyond the pure BS handed to them by banks and the free ride crowd on Wall Street.

    So, you're telling me that rewarding the continuous re-distribution of wealth (be it from Wall Street or entitlements) while penalizing the hell out of creating wealth by using capital productively is brilliant??? You must be one of those genius types that has been advising the Uniparty for the last few decades. How's that working out for you again????
    you clearly do not understand what re-distribution means

Page 36 of 81 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... 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
  •