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 37 of 81 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 809

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

  1. #361
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,549

    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?
    now that is a silly comment based on silly assumptions

  2. #362
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    a big DUH--and you seem to think that only Achieving socialism is steps towards socialism
    Nope. I just know the actual definition of socialism. Some seem to work far too hard at seeing "steps"in everything. It's kind of silly.

    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.

  3. #363
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,549

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Nope. I just know the actual definition of socialism. Some seem to work far too hard at seeing "steps"in everything. It's kind of silly.
    the left has always used incremental steps in achieving its goals and then denies it. the expansion of the commerce clause, the rejection of the tenth amendment and the denial of procedural due process under FDR were major stepping stones towards a more socialist government as was the 16th Amendment a generation before

  4. #364
    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 cannuck View Post
    Technically, Marxism dictates taking over means of production - and Marxism CAN be an element of both socialist and communist systems. When you consider things such as TVA and the BLM, or even work done by the Corps of Engineers, that state ALREADY owns a substantial chunk of the property and means of production. Hell, doesn't the US still own it's stake in Government Motors??

    There is no such thing as ANY government on this planet that does not contain some elements of socialism. Why do people think this is such a bad thing? Clearly, there must be merit or EVERYONE wouldn't do it. What baffles those of us in stable countries is the incredible bickering in the US over fundamental socialist policies that the rest of the developed world long ago dealt with - socialized universal sick care insurance being but one of many.
    There are few to no pure forms of capitalism or socialism or much of any other kind of ism today. TD and others use the octal ism scare far too easily. It is a tired old tactic that lacks originality or imagination, let alone decidedly inaccurate.

    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.

  5. #365
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    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
    That would only be true if there was a BALANCED BUDGET. The money ended up ratcheting up the debt load, thus it is indeed the "worker bee" and his grandchildren who were handed the bill.

    You could tax 100% of all income beyond exemptions, and still not come anywhere near retiring the existing debt and future unfunded liabilities from entitlements during the lifetime of any taxpayer today.

    But, I guess since I don't understand about "wealth redistribution", that couldn't possibly be true.

  6. #366
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    the left has always used incremental steps in achieving its goals and then denies it. the expansion of the commerce clause, the rejection of the tenth amendment and the denial of procedural due process under FDR were major stepping stones towards a more socialist government as was the 16th Amendment a generation before
    And yet, it's 2013, long after FDR and still your talking about "steps."

    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.

  7. #367
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,549

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    And yet, it's 2013, long after FDR and still your talking about "steps."
    that is because those who understand constitutional law understand the FDR administration mutated and raped the constitution so as to allow the creeping crud of collectivism to get a major foothold in our society

  8. #368
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    that is because those who understand constitutional law understand the FDR administration mutated and raped the constitution so as to allow the creeping crud of collectivism to get a major foothold in our society
    That's an awful slow creep. I repeat, it's 2013.

    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.

  9. #369
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,552

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cannuck View Post
    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.
    I think it's interesting that you despise so much the system you say you support. I've never seen anybody so disgusted with the free market as you, yet still claim to be a fan of capitalism. It takes some serious cojones to be that contradictory. Are you bitter because you made some poor investments? That was real money you lost, it's all real money. You claiming that the big investment firms are playing with fake money doesn't make it so. They simply have more than you do.

    I don't think you have any idea what would happen if we shut the stock market down, as you're suggesting. The liquidity is there so that companies can do their business at a low cost, and so that they can attract funds from investors. The entirety of capitalism is dependent on this.

    Speculation is also investment, it's just done for different purposes. The money goes to the same place regardless of what the intention of the investor was.
    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.

  10. #370
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,549

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    That's an awful slow creep. I repeat, it's 2013.
    so tell me-could Obamacare have happened without the jurisprudential actions of the New Deal occurring?

Page 37 of 81 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... 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
  •