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 39 of 81 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 809

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

  1. #381
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    I just can't wrap my head around how some people seem to think it is greedy to want to keep more of what you make, but it is not greedy to want the gov't to give you more of what someone else makes.
    Because they want the government to give it to them because they are greedy and incapable. It is simple Orwellian rhetoric at its finest.

  2. #382
    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
    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.
    First of all, there is not now, never has been, and never will be any "free" markets. ALL markets exist under some rules an enforcement, be it from within or imposed from outside. Those rules are what determine how a market works and who benefits from its operation. What we have now is an extreme imabalance in how risk is rewarded, and how privilege is dispensed.

    You may not be old enough to remember what "investment" was several decades back. People put their money on the line in expectation of sharing profit. PEOPLE developed and owned companies to a much greater extent that "funds" did. Corporate governance consisted of people who had their OWN money at risk, and they represented themselves and their fellow shareholders from that frame of reference.

    Today, boards are stuffed with employees who control large blocks of someone else's money and are subservient to their masters - financiers - who put them there. Similarly true for management. As I am implying: companies are run for the speculative gain of manipulating stock values, not for the purpose of running the COMPANY to profit from making its products or delivering its service. Frankly, bank's employees have no business whatsoever in the world of business.

    This happens because we have granted them the privilege of being able to work with extreme conflict of interest where the institution that sold you your stock controls not only that transaction, but often the entire company behind it. The true test is to look at corporate governance from a compensation point of view. Executive compensation in the USA is several to hundreds of orders of magnitude greater than it is in the rest of the world. These are EMPLOYEES for crying out loud. They not only rob shareholders by ridiculous compensation, they also dilute shareholders to a state of insignificance by (with full cooperation of the financial managers who put them there and keep them there). Of course, since those shareholders are usually only tiny fractions of some fund, and also there not as investors, but purely as speculators, they neither know nor care what is happening to their equity.

    You seem unable to appreciate that my opinions have nothing to do with my own personal situation. You (and 99% of the world of finance and economics) are so blinded by the religion of greed you can't even fathom that maybe my worries are for the world around me, not myself.

    No, I do NOT use public funds, we are 100% private equity. Yes, I have been inside of the world of public corporations - and I have witnessed all of these things first hand - along with the destruction of the greatest economy the world had ever seen.

    I do not wish to "shut stock markets down", merely to return accountability and ethics to their regulation and operation. All one has to do is reward those who take risk to CREATE wealth and stop rewarding those who merely speculate to redistribute wealth.

    Once it becomes more favourable (and a hint for you: taxation is the most powerful tool in the world at influencing financial behaviour) to INVEST money in profitable, wealth creating ventures, that is what will happen.

    What really, REALLY surprises me and kind of ticks me off is that most of the world has bought into the greed thing so hard that they are just not willing to THINK for ten seconds and look at what is going on around them. Even a mess of half-wits in the protest movements know that something is really, really wrong. They don't know what, nor what to do about it, but it is obvious even to someone so unproductive and idle that they can stand around for weeks on end with placards in their hand instead of getting off of their ass and going to work for a living that something in this system is broken, and broken very badly.

    Your solution (and I mean more than just you individually - pretty much everyone in Manhattan and inside the beltway) is to simply do more of the same thing that crashed the economy not once, but many times and then racked up a debt that will NEVER be paid and somehow expect a different outcome.

  3. #383
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    anytime some wealth redistributionist starts whining that the rich need to pay more (usually defined as anyone making more than the redistributionist in question) the first question is WHY does the government deserve even another penny?

    It goes beyond that for me. Its not even about deserving it or not. I believe more government is harmful to people - individually and collectively - harmful to the world, harmful in more ways than I can count. I do not want more federal police. I do not want more social programs. I do not want a bigger military. I do not want more regulators and more inspectors. I do not want more government forms.

    I do not want more government. I want less government. Particularly less federal government. Therefore, I do not want the government to have more money. I want it to have less money. I wanted the government to "go off the fiscal cliff." I want the government to either reduce itself or be reduced by going broke if it can't control itself. The government is like a heroin addict in terms of power. It must always have more, even though more comes to destroy it - converting government from a "good" to a "bad."

    Therefore, I do not want the government to have more money. I want it to have less money. Not for economic considerations, but because I want the government to have less power over people.

  4. #384
    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 joko104 View Post
    It goes beyond that for me. Its not even about deserving it or not. I believe more government is harmful to people - individually and collectively - harmful to the world, harmful in more ways than I can count. I do not want more federal police. I do not want more social programs. I do not want a bigger military. I do not want more regulators and more inspectors. I do not want more government forms.

    I do not want more government. I want less government. Particularly less federal government. Therefore, I do not want the government to have more money. I want it to have less money. I wanted the government to "go off the fiscal cliff." I want the government to either reduce itself or be reduced by going broke if it can't control itself. The government is like a heroin addict in terms of power. It must always have more, even though more comes to destroy it - converting government from a "good" to a "bad."

    Therefore, I do not want the government to have more money. I want it to have less money. Not for economic considerations, but because I want the government to have less power over people.
    the beast must go on a diet and prove it can eat far less before we are forced to feed it more food

  5. #385
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    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?
    I think you have me confused with someone else. I support those that voted against the optional wars in Vietnam and Iraq, and with those that voted last year against spending almost as much this year as the rest of the world combined on military.


    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"
    Romney and others who make most of their income from capital gains pay a lower percentage of their total income in taxes than do I.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  6. #386
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    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.
    Indeed, the tax rates for the rich are less now than were during FDR's 3 terms as president. Would that be backwards creep?
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  7. #387
    Farts in Elevators
    OscarB63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    09-06-14 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,526

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post

    Romney and others who make most of their income from capital gains pay a lower percentage of their total income in taxes than do I.
    and again i point out that the govt runs on actual dollars...not percentages and romeny and his fat cat rich buddies still pay WAY more taxes than you do
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

  8. #388
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    and again i point out that the govt runs on actual dollars...not percentages

    With fairness and the economy, percentages are more important. Why don't you hold an election and let the people decide if the wealthy should pay a little more in taxes. Oh, that's right, we just had an election and we the people decided the rich should pay a little more.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  9. #389
    Farts in Elevators
    OscarB63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    09-06-14 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,526

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    With fairness and the economy, percentages are more important.
    again...the economy doesn't run on percentages.

    Why don't you hold an election and let the people decide if the wealthy should pay a little more in taxes. Oh, that's right, we just had an election and we the people decided the rich should pay a little more.


    classic logical phallusy. funny how you guys always appeal to the masses when the masses agree with your position, but if you disagree then what the masses want becomes irrelevent. 300 years ago "the people" thought slavery was a good idea. 50 years ago "the people" thought homosexuality was an abomination, 50 years ago "the people" thought women should have the right to choose. and the list goes on and on.
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

  10. #390
    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 OscarB63 View Post
    and again i point out that the govt runs on actual dollars...not percentages and romeny and his fat cat rich buddies still pay WAY more taxes than you do
    Actually, it runs on debt. The dollars collected come no where near expenditures. The Fed then just prints the money, so it matters not if you call it percentages, dollars or notes - it is all money that the government doesn't have and will never pay.

Page 39 of 81 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... 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
  •