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 61 of 81 FirstFirst ... 1151596061626371 ... LastLast
Results 601 to 610 of 809

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

  1. #601
    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
    You asked me how corporations steal from the poor I told you and then you reverted to your name calling. So you think that it is okay for the rich to steal from the poor, your opinion and your juvenile name calling says a lot about you.
    Fine. Just say "Toby" and I'll stop whipping you.

    You resort to this because your argument has zero intellectual, economic, or financial merit. If you want to come here and argue, bring facts and leave opinion behind.

  2. #602
    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
    Glass-Steagall was amended by 3 republicans Gramm–Leach–Bliley, President Clinton did sign the amended act into law, remember that the amended law had to be voted on and passed by the senate and congress before arriving on the president's desk, so there are a lot of hands stirring the pot. President Obama and or no other President will ever be able to put the economic humpdy dumpty back to together again
    I am painfully aware of the other side of the Uniparty, but your side has done diddly squat about reigning in Wall Street - except to reward them for their treachery and failure. That is the exact opposite of trying to fix things.

    I agree with you the conservative party did not want to be in the oval office, they preferred to be on the outside where they could hold up or prevent any efforts being made towards recovery.
    Sorry, that is just nonsense. There is no way ANYONE in North America - ESPECIALLY North American business - does not want to see the economy recover.

  3. #603
    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
    It's easy to say should of and leave it at that, what is it that President Obama should have done that he did not do?
    If Oscar will forgive me: there are about a million things that he SHOULD have done, but did not do. First of all, NOT bailing out failed banks. When a business fails, it FAILS. Rewarding failure by handing them BILLIONS with no strings attached was idiotic in the extreme. Regulating banks was the top priority: stop conflicts of interest where depository institutions are also brokerages, investment banks, insurance companies and so on. If a bank is a depository and lending institution, that is what it should be. No way that the company selling you a common stock should also own stock that it gives itself by the boatload and then churn the public shares to pump up the value - mostly set by IT'S OWN ANALYSTS by the constant stream of pure BS about "markets". Sign on to Basel II - simple thing - any responsible country did so back in Basel I days (did it never occur to Americans why Canadian banks - who drank from all of the same fountains as US banks - had no failures or even serious losses??? - answer = properly regulated and enforced). In other words, our banks do not sit at the table with - or in your case OWN - our legislators and rulemakers, and neither should yours. Not bailing out GM - same deal, if you fail, you fail. That is what business does and how it learns to stop doing stupid things. He should have increased capital gains tax. He should have eliminated double taxation on dividends. He should have kicked lobbyists out of Washington. He should have made derivative trading illegal. He should have operated with a balanced budget that included debt service provisions.

    Ah, heck...HE SHOULD HAVE DONE HIS FRIGGING JOB.
    Last edited by cannuck; 01-07-13 at 09:33 PM.

  4. #604
    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
    I am painfully aware of the other side of the Uniparty, but your side has done diddly squat about reigning in Wall Street - except to reward them for their treachery and failure. That is the exact opposite of trying to fix things.
    Precisely how would you reign in Wall Street? My opinion is that wall street should be burned to the ground but what would happen to the economy?

    Sorry, that is just nonsense. There is no way ANYONE in North America - ESPECIALLY North American business - does not want to see the economy recover.
    Really, why would any business want to have seen President Obama re-elected? Why would the tea baggers and the conservative party want to see the economy recover, what happens if in 2014 our economy "it won't be" is in full recovery?

  5. #605
    Sage
    Quag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,987

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

    Actually CIBC took a bath, but that was because they were the most exposed to the US markets, didnt bring them to the brink of failure just lost a crapload. Your point that Canadian banks were/are better regulated is true though.
    A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
    Winston Churchill



    A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
    Winston Churchill

  6. #606
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,574

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Are you serious that you have never heard of FICA taxes?

    "The US government imposes two direct Income taxes. The FIT tax is imposed on almost everything that breathes. The FICA income tax is imposed EXCLUSIVELY on wages up to capped amounts (2008 - $102,000), that are increased annually. Middle-class Workers pay both income taxes, the total of which may significantly exceed the single FIT rate on highly compensated individuals and wealthy pensioners whose capital gains and dividend incomes are taxed at flat rate of only 15%"
    Two Direct Income Taxes on Wages: FIT & FICA

    As you can see from the graph below, FICA makes up an almost equal percentage of federal taxes as FIT:



    The working class has to pay FICA taxes on 100% of their income, but the wealthy who earn most of their income on capital gains, like Romney, pay almost no FICA taxes. That is why the average middle class worker pays a higher percentage of their income on total federal taxes than do people like Romney.

    Do you still maintain you were completely unaware of this?

    the wealthy also don't use much of the stuff that FICA was supposed to pay for and if the wealthy pay almost no FICA they don't get much back in SS.

  7. #607
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,574

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    The economy was growing slower after the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation than it was in the 90's, and there were less new jobs created in 8 years under Bush than were created in 4 years under the Obama administration. And as the non-partisan CBO testified before Congress, unemployment would have been worse with out the stimulus that conservatives opposed.

    That is why we reelected the president instead of electing Romney who just proposed a continuation of the tax cuts for the wealthy and more deregulation.
    cause and effect failure

    you all reelected a failure because he promised all the little children ice cream and candy

  8. #608
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,574

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Djoop View Post
    That comment was made in response to some fool who suggested that libertarians ought to promote social darwinism.
    what part of the libertarian agenda guards against social darwinism>

  9. #609
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,574

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

    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    Your are right ignorance is no excuse The "rich" do provide for their selves by stealing from the poor, how? By buying elected officials who pass laws that protect them. So I hope you are not shedding to many tears for them.
    what a moronic comment claiming the "rich steal from the poor. If we rich really did what you claim we'd be paying less than one percent of the taxes rather than 40% of the income taxes and all the death taxes

  10. #610
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,313

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    what part of the libertarian agenda guards against social darwinism>
    Ooooh oooh! Me, me, Mr. Carta!

    Human rights, labor rights, environmental rights and a free and fair market. You know, the stuff that separates them from anarchists.

Page 61 of 81 FirstFirst ... 1151596061626371 ... 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
  •