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 51 of 81 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 809

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

  1. #501
    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
    Which brings me to wonder WHY you believe the solution is to implement more of the same policies?????

    The "Global Economy" has been there for several centuries. The US just didn't understand that very well when THE REST OF THE WORLD opened up and your leadership did not have the vision to look outside of its own borders. Trying to "regulate" things to "protect" yourself from the outside world is exactly what you would NOT want to do. Instead, you needed to "have your crap together" with respect to INTERNAL structure. In other words, you had to do exactly what you proposed to avoid - be competitive.

    Which is precisely why I wrote what I did about HOW to tax to make that happen. BUT: it is about a lot more than revenue. It is about living within your means.



    The US will NEVER return to its relative status of the post-war decades because it did so when the rest of the world was lagging far behind. That is no longer the case, and hopefully never will be again. However, instead of learning to compete with those growing economies, you are suggesting (and the US is doing) exactly the opposite and trying to figure out how to hide from the challenges that you MUST meet to even maintain the shambles of an economy that you still have. THAT will not happen until everyone wakes up and realizes that you need to employ capital productively instead of following the idiotic idea that everyone can just live off of pure speculation (everyone's favourite "the Market").

    In short, people have to get off their fat arse and actually PRODUCE something. You can't regulate and protect what is not even happening.
    Let me start you out on the right foot, without the USA you would have no economy. I spent several years in your beautiful country, the ladies are great the scenery beautiful Canada's immigration policy is/was much more PROTECTIVE then the immigration policy of the USA, Your trade deficit even taking in account your smaller population is nothing compared to the trade deficit that the United States has.

    Get some facts the war of 1812 is over, you lost

  2. #502
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Riding a tapir
    Last Seen
    01-27-13 @ 10:21 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,432
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    It is never either or. Most on your side missed the point. The person was self reliant, but also got some help. That's true of all of us. No man is an island. Things we have done collectively benefit all. Here, in this country, we are the state and hold the power to overthrow ten government peacefully any election cycle we choose to. For some the problem for them is that they were unable to get enough people to share their views. It happens to all sides from time to time.
    I disagree on a few counts. For one, the bulk of American citizens don't control the state. We're a polyarchy, boo - elections are bought in this country.

  3. #503
    Professor
    Capster78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    08-24-15 @ 02:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,253

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

    I don't think it is to much to ask the wealthy to shoulder a larger burden seeing as they are generally the ones with the most power in our society. However, I do have a problem with so many middle class and poorer individuals skirting taxes all together. There is a large portion of the population that not only does not pay taxes, but gets more back from taxes than they pay in. I just don't find that acceptable in the current situation we are in. There should be no one profiting from the tax system when we have such a massive deficit. Almost everyone uses state and federal services and because of that almost everyone should be contributing in some way to taxes for the use of government services.
    - There was never a good war, or a bad peace.
    - Idealistically, everything should work as you planed it to. Realistically, it depends on how idealistic you are as to the measure of success.
    - Better to be a pessimist before, and an optimist afterwords.

  4. #504
    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
    Get some facts the war of 1812 is over, you lost
    Yeah, just like Vietnam and Iraq, I suppose.

    You would have to have been educated by a very revisionist system to come to the conclusion that the US "won" the war of 1812-14, as the goal was to invade and conquer Canada and that obviously did NOT happen. On the other hand, there was no clear "victory" for Britain (we were not a country then, just a colony). Below is what others have to say on the matter:

    Who Won or Lost the War of 1812?
    Washington had expected the largely American population of Upper Canada to throw off the "British yoke" as soon as its army crossed the border. This did not happen. Lured northwards by free land and low taxes, the settlers wanted to be left alone. Thus the British and Loyalist elite were able to set Canadians on a different course from that of their former enemy. And the growing belief that they, the civilian soldiers, and not the First Nations and British regulars, had won the war - more mythic than real - helped to germinate the seeds of nationalism in the Canadas. Canada owes its present shape to negotiations that grew out of the peace, while the war itself - or the myths created by the war - gave Canadians their first sense of community and laid the foundation for their future nationhood. To this extent the Canadians were the real winners of the War of 1812.
    For the Americans, the outcome was more ambiguous. Since the issues of impressment and maritime rights were not dealt with in the peace, that motivation for war could be considered a failure, despite some spectacular victories at sea, which were indicators of the future potential of American power. Also, the war was a failure for the "War Hawks," who coveted the annexation of Canada. This proved not to be militarily feasible. The conclusions that the war was a "second war of independence" or a war of honour and respect are less easy to judge.
    If the winners are qualified, the losers are easier to identify. The death of Tecumseh and the defeat of the First Nations at the Battle of the Thames broke apart Tecumseh's confederacy. Similarly, in the related defeat of the Creek Nation, the hope of halting American expansion into First Nations territory effectively ended. While in Canada the First Nations fared better in preserving their land and culture, in the end the British abandoned their Aboriginal allies in the peace, just as they had several times before.

    "Let me start you out on the right foot, without the USA you would have no economy. I spent several years in your beautiful country, the ladies are great the scenery beautiful Canada's immigration policy is/was much more PROTECTIVE then the immigration policy of the USA, Your trade deficit even taking in account your smaller population is nothing compared to the trade deficit that the United States has.
    I would hardly say that Canada would "have no economy", but you are very correct in noting that the US definitely dominates ALL factions of the Canadian economy, and even a great deal of popular culture (I can hear Canadian teeth gritting as I post this). That is very much a matter of geography, as it would be idiotic to pursue trade and economic cooperation with any country other than the one with which we share the world's longest undefended border. Which is precisely why we (and I) are so interested in just how US politics, economic and trade policy work

  5. #505
    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 waas View Post
    I disagree on a few counts. For one, the bulk of American citizens don't control the state. We're a polyarchy, boo - elections are bought in this country.
    We do have a problem with money being too closely link to elections and politicians, but we do still hold the power to remove people. We just have to use it.

    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.

  6. #506
    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 Boo Radley View Post
    We do have a problem with money being too closely link to elections and politicians, but we do still hold the power to remove people. We just have to use it.
    But, for that to happen, the people would have to have a leader, instead of the Uniparty uniformly representing rule-by-special-interest. Let's face it, Goldman-Sucks is by far the most influential entity within the Beltway.

  7. #507
    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
    But, for that to happen, the people would have to have a leader, instead of the Uniparty uniformly representing rule-by-special-interest. Let's face it, Goldman-Sucks is by far the most influential entity within the Beltway.
    People could have voted any number of third party candidates. They could work at the grass roots level and find a leader. Nothing important is easy. We have the power, but are too pacified (tv, wealth, Video games, drugs) to do our civic duty.

    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.

  8. #508
    ˇSelah!
    Alyssa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism is dominant
    Last Seen
    05-07-14 @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,648
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    It's quite simple, really. If you do the work of a pack mule, expect a pack mule's pay. This country was ruined by unions protecting people who could eek through high school and settle into a 60K+ job putting peg A into hole B.

    Now that you have to be competitive and mentally useful to earn a wage, the cretins can't handle it. They want their cake and eat it too. They long for the days when they could moron around and perform mouth-breather work for an unsustainable wage.

    I'm not all that good at violin, but if you want, I can attempt to play it for you and your plight.
    Quoted for truth.

    Economies change. As societies adapt and evolve, some people do get left behind. It's a matter of adaptation.

  9. #509
    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 Boo Radley View Post
    People could have voted any number of third party candidates. They could work at the grass roots level and find a leader. Nothing important is easy. We have the power, but are too pacified (tv, wealth, Video games, drugs) to do our civic duty.
    Sadly, for the most part, I have to agree. IF I were forced to choose (I am a US taxpayer corporately, but a Canadian citizen and resident, so I don't have to) I would put Ron Paul at the top of the list of potential real leaders, but his age and the off-the-wall party would make even that one tough.

  10. #510
    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 ReformCollege View Post
    You have it completely backwards. A strong middle class, is the byproduct of economic growth. Sustained full employment and robust economic growth causes wages to rise, which move people who used to be in the "lower class" into the middle class. This isn't the result of government, this is the result of industry. Government plays a role in education, infrastructure, in specific cases capital investment, etc., but these should ideally be tailored to what the economy needs, not what the "middle class needs." You cannot just make rules that say to protect the middle class and expect it to be fine and dandy. The middle class has to be built by the economy, and in some cases rebuilt when certain industries become obsolete and new industries must emerge. The middle class on a global scale is booming, it is expected to double by 2020, and nearly triple by 2030, and that will have enormous dividends for our sectors as wages start to rise in those countries and our workers become more competitive.

    If trickle down economics and deregulation of Wall Street had worked over the last ten years, you may have been able to sell that to the American public. All it brought us was massive unemployment and more debt, and people said enough.
    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

Page 51 of 81 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361 ... 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
  •