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 63 of 81 FirstFirst ... 1353616263646573 ... LastLast
Results 621 to 630 of 809

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

  1. #621
    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 Gipper View Post
    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.
    This is the internet it takes no intellect, it takes nothing but arrogance to call people names and treat others with disrespect, so I will place you on my ignore list

  2. #622
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sKiTzo View Post

    This whole "fiscal cliff" thing, IMO, is really about one thing. GREED. The same people who are pushing to raise the debt ceiling are the same ones who don't want to pay a little more, and being such an elite small sliver, are probably the same ones who have been benefitting from these overexpenditures. If you are one of the small sliver of wealthiest at the top, you make obscene amounts of money. You live vastly beyond comfortably, and anything you want, you can easily afford ten thousandfold. So what's REALLY going on?
    Instead of accusing others of being greedy... why don't YOU pay a little more?

  3. #623
    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
    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
    "moronic comment" Is that comment a little below your intellectual level? The rich steal from the poor, think what you want to but when you have the money to buy the laws that you want, to elect those you want in office, when you can influence the law makers, when you can speculate driving up the costs of life essential items, when you can manipulate the stock market, what would you call that? The deck is stacked against most of those who are not born into wealth.

  4. #624
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,571

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

    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    "moronic comment" Is that comment a little below your intellectual level? The rich steal from the poor, think what you want to but when you have the money to buy the laws that you want, to elect those you want in office, when you can influence the law makers, when you can speculate driving up the costs of life essential items, when you can manipulate the stock market, what would you call that? The deck is stacked against most of those who are not born into wealth.

    your rant is silly. why would the rich steal from the poor. the poor don't have money.

    why do so many people make excuses for their own failures?

  5. #625
    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
    your rant is silly. why would the rich steal from the poor. the poor don't have money.

    why do so many people make excuses for their own failures?
    Most of the poor do not live in tents, they need food, shelter, health care, transportation. When those with money drive up prices through speculation and stock manipulation some of that money comes from the poor and elderly, now you can label it any way you want to but I call it stealing

  6. #626
    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 cannuck View Post
    But, let's do remember that the kickoff to this round of truly irresponsible de-regulation was the repeal of Glass-Steagall by Clinton. Further, we witnessed your favourite miracle working saviour show up on camera even before being sworn in with the same economic advisory team the Goldman Sucks ran BushII with. Obama has had 5 years to actually DO something, but all we have seen is more Reagan-size tax and spend idiocy - not to mention the Wall Street bailouts of rewarding his masters for their treachery and incompetence - that has run the debt of the nation through the roof.

    Heck, if I was a RRR strategist, I would WANT the PCLL to put their sacrificial lamb back in office to take the fall. IMHO, that is why they ran such totally inappropriate candidates for the last two elections (I mean, have you forgotten Sarah already?????)
    You are referring to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act:

    "Respective versions of the legislation were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001.

    During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government."
    Gramm


    You'll get no argument from me that many of the conservative Democrats went along with the GOP, but the way I see it is the liberal Democrats are the only ones in Congress that have spoke out against it. Its still the same today, its only a group of Democrats that have proposed reestablishing the separation of commercial banks and investment banks once provided under Glass-Stegall. Full Text of H.R. 1489: Return to Prudent Banking Act of 2011 - GovTrack.us

    We just need more liberal Democrats in Congress!
    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. #627
    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 Arbo View Post
    Wow, mr. this 20% is more than that 20% is for real. FICA taxes are taken out for social security and medicare. If you paid a damn bit of attention to the original graph, you would have READ that it included social security and medicare taxes (um... FICA!)... here it is again:

    Attachment 67140478

    See it up there? So now that you've railed on saying the chart wasn't accurate, and came up with the 'missing' FICA that wasn't missing... What's the new spin we will see next? And you show how you can't even read a pie chart. Even with SS taxes back up to 6.2% as of January 1, that comes nowhere close to the 'revenue' brought in by normal FIT in terms of individuals. When you add in the employer paying the same amount to cover the employees lame ass, the numbers still aren't there in total.



    Again, ignorance is no excuse. The 'rich' in general provide for themselves, they don't need government to do so, thus it they most often don't use SS or medicare, yet pay into it to support the system. Why should they pay MORE into a system they will never use? Don't they pay for enough stuff to take care of you already?


    First you pretend you never heard of FICA taxes, an now you pretend not to know that SS receipts go into the General Fund? Tell you what, bring it up for the people to vote on again in 2014!
    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

  8. #628
    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
    President Obama is not a dictator, he is a president, he has to work with the senate and congress. The USA economy was in free fall when he took office, it's nothing short of a miracle that the USA is not in a depression dragging along Canada and half of the world along. It's apparent that you do not care for him so who among the other party candidates would you have cast your vote for?
    Fair comments. The US and the world are not in a full blown depression (although many in Europe would disagree) because Washington long ago abdicated full control of the economy to Wall Street, and if the analysts say that it ain't so, the world believes it ain't so. A depression would have been much better because it would have brought some positive control over Wall Street as it did in the '30s and the required change in our individual and collective economic behaviour. Today, we are all still worshiping speculation as a genuine economic accomplishment rather than what it actually is - pent up inflation.

    The end result is trillions more in debt, but instead of correcting anything, more than another hundred T of unfunded liabilities for entitlements are still going to rack up and bankrupt the next several generations. The resulting collapse will be far worse than getting things sorted out now would have been.

    Who would I have voted for: simple, Ron Paul. He seems to be the only person inside of the Beltway who will take on the banks (and probably the only one they don't outright own). Now if only his party could move into a reasonable, practical and achievable platform, that might result in something that could work. Clearly, what the Uniparty is doing does not.
    Last edited by cannuck; 01-08-13 at 12:52 AM.

  9. #629
    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 Catawba View Post
    You are referring to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act:
    Thanks for taking the time and trouble to educate an ignorant furriner. I wish I had the time to be a lot better informed about the political history leading up to today's debacle.

  10. #630
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-13 @ 08:21 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,932

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    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.
    Exactly.

Page 63 of 81 FirstFirst ... 1353616263646573 ... 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
  •