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 49 of 81 FirstFirst ... 39474849505159 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 490 of 809

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

  1. #481
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,715

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

    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    COC guess what that means? Does history back your claim up? What were the taxes under the Clinton Presidency? It does not matter who the President is very few politicians would back up protectionism. That means there will be a long period of time before manufacturers ever freely come back to the USA. The fastest way to promote job growth would be for Americans to realize that the government will not impose strict enough import tariffs on foreign goods, so buying products and using services that are made in the USA will promote job growth which will increase revenues without the need to raise taxes. Go back to the Clinton tax rates across the board the poor will still not have to pay and revenues will increase.
    that makes no sense.

  2. #482
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    04-26-13 @ 03:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,404
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    that makes no sense.
    What makes no sense is to go back to the same failed policies that have not worked, lowering taxes across the board during the Bush administration just ushered in the economic mess we are in and will be in for years to come.

  3. #483
    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 EarlzP View Post
    COC guess what that means? Does history back your claim up? What were the taxes under the Clinton Presidency? It does not matter who the President is very few politicians would back up protectionism. That means there will be a long period of time before manufacturers ever freely come back to the USA. The fastest way to promote job growth would be for Americans to realize that the government will not impose strict enough import tariffs on foreign goods, so buying products and using services that are made in the USA will promote job growth which will increase revenues without the need to raise taxes. Go back to the Clinton tax rates across the board the poor will still not have to pay and revenues will increase.
    You obviously ain't Abigail Beacher (the history teacher)!!!!

    Do you know WHY politicians don't back up protectionism? While the US government learned SOME lessons from the dirty '30s (they did forget all of those that brought us Glass-Steagal) not to repeat Smoot-Hawley is one they DID remember. Remember when Clinton campaigned against the Canada/US Free Trade Agreement, as did our PM Jean Chretien then both got elected and one of the first things they each did was sign the FTA into law? Even the PCLL (Politically Correct Looney Left) knows that trade protectionism is what will fail your economy in a hurry. Anyone with even a lick of economic sense knows that the GATT and subsequent WTO agreements are necessary for EVERYONE's prosperity (you DO realize that there are other people on this planet, don't you?).

    Now, the real problem is the US stepped up to the table at least PRETENDING to believe in the principles of the GATT, but in fact has no such good understanding and just assumed in the usual myopic and wildly over-confident US way that they could just shrug off reality. The US can NOT compete because it's regulatory and tax regimes are just not on a level playing field with other major trading partners (China being the obvious example). I dealt with that issue in post #409. Try to cover that bit of ignorance with trade sanctions, and you just repeat 1930 and crash your isolated economy.

    Simple solution: stop taxing wealth that is created (NOTE: I did NOT say wealth that is "earned" since it could be simply redistributed from capital gains) by income tax, and base ALL government revenue on consumption tax (VAT to most of the world, GST up here). In that way, every Chinese exporter has to carry the full burden of US overhead accumulated from tens of thousands of pages of regulation that China doesn't have, and they have no way to avoid it because it is imposed in YOUR jurisdiction. Do it with tariffs, and you are instead immediately under attack for being trade protectionist (and rightly so). Yeah, the Chinese cheat all to hell, so tax their goods HERE where YOU have full control and authority, but do it fairly, not discriminating and targeting (because cheaply bought politicians soon end up selling the privilege of exception if you let it be possible).

    The key is that you collect your tax on EVERY transaction (not as difficult as you might imagine, and works just fine in all of the VAT/GST countries - just that we have income tax ON TOP - which is stupid) so there is no way to avoid it. (If you do not know how it works, every time value is added, the gross sale is taxed and the input tax paid on the way in is deducted from balance owing).
    Last edited by cannuck; 01-06-13 at 09:33 AM.

  4. #484
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    15,276

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Only someone wanting to divert the issue suggest finding one single person makes the argument worthy. There has to be enough to make it a valid concern not to be bs.
    How about the Obama campaign video with the fictional woman--I forget here name--that highlighted how the state was there for her every step of the way through her entire life. You are either self-reliant or you are dependent upon others. The left wants people dependent upon them so that they can count on their votes. Independent people are the only threat to the omnipresent state.

  5. #485
    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 Fletch View Post
    How about the Obama campaign video with the fictional woman--I forget here name--that highlighted how the state was there for her every step of the way through her entire life. You are either self-reliant or you are dependent upon others. The left wants people dependent upon them so that they can count on their votes. Independent people are the only threat to the omnipresent state.
    I can sympathize with your emotion, but I can not agree with your logic. Typically the RRR (self-Righteous Religious Right) thinks everyone can just shake off their circumstance and pull themselves up by their bootstraps and be just like them. Never going to happen. On the other hand, the PCLL just LOVES to have a large, dependent population because it will employ a lot of their ilk, validate their twisted logic and the whole mess will keep voting them into office.

    With unfunded liabilities for entitlements far exceeding ANY potential tax revenue into perpetuity, there is no way the status quo is sustainable, not even by doubling or trebling all tax rates. If the US expects to avoid the fate of their Greek economic model (and that will happen as greenback hegemony fails and the pent-up inflationary forces of decades of Casino Capitalism bring Weimar back to the Republic) you have to stop being distracted by the endless, senseless partisan dogma, pull your collective head out of your axx and deal with the fundamental systemic flaws in the system.

  6. #486
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    15,276

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cannuck View Post
    I can sympathize with your emotion, but I can not agree with your logic. Typically the RRR (self-Righteous Religious Right) thinks everyone can just shake off their circumstance and pull themselves up by their bootstraps and be just like them. Never going to happen. On the other hand, the PCLL just LOVES to have a large, dependent population because it will employ a lot of their ilk, validate their twisted logic and the whole mess will keep voting them into office.

    With unfunded liabilities for entitlements far exceeding ANY potential tax revenue into perpetuity, there is no way the status quo is sustainable, not even by doubling or trebling all tax rates. If the US expects to avoid the fate of their Greek economic model (and that will happen as greenback hegemony fails and the pent-up inflationary forces of decades of Casino Capitalism bring Weimar back to the Republic) you have to stop being distracted by the endless, senseless partisan dogma, pull your collective head out of your axx and deal with the fundamental systemic flaws in the system.
    What the hell are you talking about? In what way does your post even remotely respond to mine?

  7. #487
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    04-26-13 @ 03:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,404
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cannuck View Post
    You obviously ain't Abigail Beacher (the history teacher)!!!!
    I don't need a history teacher to see the obvious outcome of the policies that led us to the place we are in right now

    Do you know WHY politicians don't back up protectionism? While the US government learned SOME lessons from the dirty '30s (they did forget all of those that brought us Glass-Steagal) not to repeat Smoot-Hawley is one they DID remember. Remember when Clinton campaigned against the Canada/US Free Trade Agreement, as did our PM Jean Chretien then both got elected and one of the first things they each did was sign the FTA into law? Even the PCLL (Politically Correct Looney Left) knows that trade protectionism is what will fail your economy in a hurry. Anyone with even a lick of economic sense knows that the GATT and subsequent WTO agreements are necessary for EVERYONE's prosperity (you DO realize that there are other people on this planet, don't you?).
    Let me start out this way if a person,a business, a country can not take care of their self than how can they take care of anyone else, please explain that to me? Apparently those with economic sense did not understand or did not GAC about what global trade would do to our ability to provide GOOD job opportunities to our citizens. If global trade had been brought in with an eye to the future the impact that it would have had would have been less severe. A global economy is coming for the good or the bad but it did not have to come as fast as it did. We could have protected some businesses while allowing some to go to other economies. The transition could have been regulated.

    Every one wants to make this a pissing contest about taxes, when what we really need is revenue, revenue produced by jobs that stimulate our economy not the economy of foreign competition.

    Now, the real problem is the US stepped up to the table at least PRETENDING to believe in the principles of the GATT, but in fact has no such good understanding and just assumed in the usual myopic and wildly over-confident US way that they could just shrug off reality. The US can NOT compete because it's regulatory and tax regimes are just not on a level playing field with other major trading partners (China being the obvious example). I dealt with that issue in post #409. Try to cover that bit of ignorance with trade sanctions, and you just repeat 1930 and crash your isolated economy.

    Simple solution: stop taxing wealth that is created (NOTE: I did NOT say wealth that is "earned" since it could be simply redistributed from capital gains) by income tax, and base ALL government revenue on consumption tax (VAT to most of the world, GST up here). In that way, every Chinese exporter has to carry the full burden of US overhead accumulated from tens of thousands of pages of regulation that China doesn't have, and they have no way to avoid it because it is imposed in YOUR jurisdiction. Do it with tariffs, and you are instead immediately under attack for being trade protectionist (and rightly so). Yeah, the Chinese cheat all to hell, so tax their goods HERE where YOU have full control and authority, but do it fairly, not discriminating and targeting (because cheaply bought politicians soon end up selling the privilege of exception if you let it be possible).

    The key is that you collect your tax on EVERY transaction (not as difficult as you might imagine, and works just fine in all of the VAT/GST countries - just that we have income tax ON TOP - which is stupid) so there is no way to avoid it. (If you do not know how it works, every time value is added, the gross sale is taxed and the input tax paid on the way in is deducted from balance owing).
    We all need to quit pointing the finger of blame and look at how we are going to survive as a country, you can come up with all of the rhetoric you want to but the truth is our country is not and may never recover economically because of PPM and some short sighted rush to a global economy

  8. #488
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

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

    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    COC guess what that means? Does history back your claim up? What were the taxes under the Clinton Presidency? It does not matter who the President is very few politicians would back up protectionism. That means there will be a long period of time before manufacturers ever freely come back to the USA. The fastest way to promote job growth would be for Americans to realize that the government will not impose strict enough import tariffs on foreign goods, so buying products and using services that are made in the USA will promote job growth which will increase revenues without the need to raise taxes. Go back to the Clinton tax rates across the board the poor will still not have to pay and revenues will increase.
    Clinton rode one of, if not THE largest economic bubble this country has ever seen. He raised the capital gains tax during unprecedented stock market growth. What he did was profitable, beneficial, and stupid. If you do that under normal times, you'd hurt more than you'd help. In essence, he got lucky.

    The fastest way to promote job growth in America is for workers to realize the inherent shift in today's American economy and adjust for it. Don't sit back and do nothing while you wait for an obsolete job that's gone forever to get back to you. Go out and gain some marketable skills and stop relying on glorified grunt work to put beans on your table. I mean, I'm sorry if you want to be some uneducated monkey punching a clock for the rest of your life, but those people will have to learn to deal. There are jobs out there that employers cannot fill because nobody is qualified to do them.

  9. #489
    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 Fletch View Post
    What the hell are you talking about? In what way does your post even remotely respond to mine?
    Without having to be quite so obvious, I expected the message was that the absolutes of self reliance and independence of partisan dogma are not attainable. Reality lies somewhere in between.

    Further is that all of that blather is just tilting at windmills. YOU ARE BROKE and have to figure out how to live within your means instead of worrying about the details.

  10. #490
    #NeverTrump
    a351's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Space Coast
    Last Seen
    09-09-17 @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,902

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    Clinton rode one of, if not THE largest economic bubble this country has ever seen. He raised the capital gains tax during unprecedented stock market growth. What he did was profitable, beneficial, and stupid. If you do that under normal times, you'd hurt more than you'd help. In essence, he got lucky.
    That's incorrect.

Page 49 of 81 FirstFirst ... 39474849505159 ... 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
  •