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 81 of 81 FirstFirst ... 3171798081
Results 801 to 809 of 809

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

  1. #801
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    05-01-14 @ 03:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    12,879

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cannuck View Post
    Trying not to drift TOO far from the thread topic: this is one part of US politics and policy that leaves me totally baffled - EVERYONE in the developed world has universal sick care coverage. Why in the name of anything reasonable would you deny people such a basic service (the insurance that is) - or worse yet deny it is their "right" ("it" being adequate, basic sick care) ????????? It is one of the economic advantages enjoyed by every one of the US's competitors (except China).
    See, here in the United States we have this little thing called the Constitution. It tells (ore is supposed to tell) the Government what it can and cannot do. Healthcare is NOT on that list. Even if I believed healthcare was a Right and not a Privilege, the US Constitution does not allow the Government to LEGALLY be involved in it.

    Quote Originally Posted by cannuck View Post
    That said, I think it is idiotic to have a minimum wage so low - or conversely government benefits so HIGH - that someone could find themselves able to choose between work and a free ride. And, before anyone thinks that through, I consider adequate sick care a basic right, not a benefit.
    There shuoldn't be a minimum wage or government benefits. The removal of both would solve the problem rather quickly.

  2. #802
    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 Tigger View Post
    See, here in the United States we have this little thing called the Constitution. It tells (ore is supposed to tell) the Government what it can and cannot do. Healthcare is NOT on that list. Even if I believed healthcare was a Right and not a Privilege, the US Constitution does not allow the Government to LEGALLY be involved in it.

    There shuoldn't be a minimum wage or government benefits. The removal of both would solve the problem rather quickly.
    Since virtually everything that happens inside of the Beltway ignores the constitution, I wouldn't loose any sleep over that. Besides, are there not some "general welfare" or whatever type provisions?

    To ignore the fundamentals of what makes other economies and societies function while adhering to some kind of dogma is precisely how and why the Uniparty has lead the USA down to the very end of the road of self destruction. The notion that ANY country in this world can function without social programmes is naiive in the extreme, to say the least. What HAS to be learned, though, is the balance between social programmes that cause people to seek work vs. social programmes that facilitate them NOT seeking or needing to seek work. That and the understanding of what a balanced budget is.

    IMHO the road to salvation can be found by writing legislation and policy that removes special privilege (killing rule-by-special-interest) and learns from what does and does NOT work in other countries (as well as in USA).
    Last edited by cannuck; 01-31-13 at 11:22 AM.

  3. #803
    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 274ina View Post
    glutten for punishment............

    2 and 4% to 8% of pay never change. Read HR 3590

    The cut off for medicaid is 133% of poverty, not current ultra low levels. Above that you pay 4% of pay......
    133% to 400% of poverty (8% of pay).

    And yes we will all get by on a low wage job, with Full HC, its all the bourgeois have to offer in USA...........
    Well I know the tax penalties are on an increasing scale, so it would not shock me whatsoever if the actual cost of coverage will not scale, outside of inflation (which it already stated would happen).

    And as far as I'm concerned, 133% of poverty is an "ultra low" level. If you make 8 bucks an hour full-time, you're past 133% of PL.

    Poor you and all the uneducated proles, huh? Cry some tears for me.

  4. #804
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    05-01-14 @ 03:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    12,879

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cannuck View Post
    Since virtually everything that happens inside of the Beltway ignores the constitution, I wouldn't loose any sleep over that. Besides, are there not some "general welfare" or whatever type provisions?
    I lose a whole lot of sleep over all of those times the Constitution is ignored. The "Common Defense and General Welfare" clause does not do what most people believe it does. It is related to the COUNTRY, not the individual citizens. Unfortunately that's been totally bastardized in the last century.

    Quote Originally Posted by cannuck View Post
    To ignore the fundamentals of what makes other economies and societies function while adhering to some kind of dogma is precisely how and why the Uniparty has lead the USA down to the very end of the road of self destruction. The notion that ANY country in this world can function without social programmes is naiive in the extreme, to say the least. What HAS to be learned, though, is the balance between social programmes that cause people to seek work vs. social programmes that facilitate them NOT seeking or needing to seek work. That and the understanding of what a balanced budget is.
    Not at all. In fact it is the ignoring of that dogma, and the attempts to be like and interact with other countries and economies that has brought us to the brink of destruction.

    You are correct that social programs are necessary. You're also correct that they need to focus on getting people off of the program rather than keeping them in it for extended periods of time. Where you're wrong is that the US Government has any legal or legitimate mandate to be involved in them. It has none. Right down to the concept of public education. As for the budget.... nobody in DC knows what a budget is, balanced or otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by cannuck View Post
    IMHO the road to salvation can be found by writing legislation and policy that removes special privilege (killing rule-by-special-interest) and learns from what does and does NOT work in other countries (as well as in USA).
    I will respectfully disagree with the second half of your sentence. I do agree that the special interst lobbies need to die a quick and brutal death, but I believe it needs to occur by going back to the Constitution, thereby removing the Government from the social structure welfare entirely.

  5. #805
    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 274ina View Post
    And Loius the 16th said screw the fleas and ticks........LMAO.....guess what happened to him.........
    exactly. if you let the parasites get out of control..they always kill the host
    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.

  6. #806
    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 Tigger View Post
    I lose a whole lot of sleep over all of those times the Constitution is ignored. The "Common Defense and General Welfare" clause does not do what most people believe it does. It is related to the COUNTRY, not the individual citizens. Unfortunately that's been totally bastardized in the last century.
    Here is something that such abstract interpretation of the Constitution seems to miss: Having a healthy, educated and "content" society IS for the general welfare of the nation. Ignorant, sick, injured and pissed off citizens aren't all that productive or conducive to a stable, productive society and government.

    Not at all. In fact it is the ignoring of that dogma, and the attempts to be like and interact with other countries and economies that has brought us to the brink of destruction.
    That is PRECISELY the kind of reactionary, dogmatic politics that changed a very good thing (the 1929 stock market crash) into the dirty thirties. Isolationism, protectionism and bootstrap economics simply don't work.

    You are correct that social programs are necessary. You're also correct that they need to focus on getting people off of the program rather than keeping them in it for extended periods of time. Where you're wrong is that the US Government has any legal or legitimate mandate to be involved in them. It has none. Right down to the concept of public education. As for the budget.... nobody in DC knows what a budget is, balanced or otherwise.

    I will respectfully disagree with the second half of your sentence. I do agree that the special interst lobbies need to die a quick and brutal death, but I believe it needs to occur by going back to the Constitution, thereby removing the Government from the social structure welfare entirely.
    I understand your sentiments, and don't totally disagree, but reality and the experience of EVERY developed nation is telling you that what you want is simply not possible or practical any more.

  7. #807
    Professor
    sKiTzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    OC California
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 01:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,213

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 274ina View Post
    The rich make an AVERAGE of $365 million per year.

    They can pay 80% taxes and live just fine ..................

    See when the rich PAY Gov taxes instead of PROFITING from Gov Via the MIC, then they will be on our side to
    reduce waste like the MIC.
    I would like to enshrine this statement as the most defining statement of the thread. This is exactly what I was trying to get across. Many don't necessarily agree with this, but I posit that if we go back and take out all of the MIC spending that has taken place to fund all the fabricated wars on drugs and "terror" which fatten only the rich with vested interests, we would not be in this predicament. We have never had too big of a problem with the staples like social security and welfare, and even if there was, I don't think it would run us into the trillions.
    This is insanity. He's not stopping either - he's still trying to collapse our economy. Any commentary on why he is not facing impeachment for recently signing away a billion dollars "aid" to Egypt, that includes a squadron of jet fighters, all as a "gift"?? How is he allowed to continue to do this?
    When we, as a people who elected this guy, say we must cut spending drastically to save us from total economic collapse, and he responds by giving away more billions, isn't he basically saying "FK U American people, I'm going to collapse the dollar and cause total economic failure so that total chaos and civil unrest occurs, so that we can implement martial law, fill up the FEMA prisons (that we have built with your money and are now waiting to go operational), so that we can carry out the genocide that my puppetmasters have been planning so meticulously because they feel it is their duty to save the earth from having all of its resources depleted by too many people BLAH BLAH". Meanwhile, THEY are the ones suppressing the technologies that would allow us to not have to use any of earths resources.

  8. #808
    Professor
    sKiTzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    OC California
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 01:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,213

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

    By the way, I learned something about the MIC today that is somewhat disturbing but I'm going to start a different thread with it as it veers away from this topic.

  9. #809
    Guru
    Cyrylek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Boston
    Last Seen
    02-05-17 @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,467

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

    "The wealthiest" are not feeding their money to hogs - their money is invested in the economy.

    Is it reasonable to assume that this money, taken by government from where it is, pumped through the sticky pipes of bureaucracy, diminished by misallocation, transaction costs and just plain corruption - and then reinjected into the same economy - will do a better job now than it did before?

    Sure, sure, there are proper and efficient ways to spend revenues, and there are things that governments are better positioned to handle that anyone in the private sector, but what makes anyone think that at this point those areas of "positive multiplier" are not covered by the already available revenues?

    Look at the budget pie, look at the details. Contrary to what Obama and Co. say, we most definitely do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem of hellish proportions.

    You want to tax "the rich" more, out of simple envy, or for whatever other reason? Fine. But do it in a minimally intelligent way. How about eliminating loopholes, targeted tax breaks and subsidies? That will show 'em dastardly tycoons - especially those who are eager to manipulate the political machine to their advantage.

    But wait a sec - isn't this exactly what the evil, evil GOP just had proposed - and the Administration had swiftly rejected, because....because...ahm, you see, "the wealthiest" is a great Straw Man to bayonet in public, for fun and political profit. But when the circus curtain is down, you want to diminish wealth and influence of your opponents, not of the "wealthiest" you are connected to and feeding off. Slap a higher marginal rate on "everyone wealthy", then engineer ways for your clientele to dodge the bullet. The oldest trick in the book, really.
    Last edited by Cyrylek; 02-07-13 at 04:14 AM.

Page 81 of 81 FirstFirst ... 3171798081

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •