• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Is it unreasonable to pay a little more?

  • Yes. I'm a greedy bastard!! I need MORE!!!

    Votes: 21 27.6%

  • No. There's comes a point in wealthiness where it just doesn't even matter anymore.

    Votes: 48 63.2%

  • I'm not sure.

    Votes: 7 9.2%
  • Total voters
    76
I love the way you worded the "yes" but let me help you the the "No" ............No, I am a lazy bastard and I want someone elses hard earned money
 
sawyerloggingon said:
The greed is government greed, they just want more and more money to spend. Taxing the rich a little more won't hurt them but it won't help America, we need to spend less not tax more.
Click to expand...

Leftists and statists have a different definition of “greed” than everyone else.

To most of us, “greed” refers to a desire to take what belongs to someone else, to be used in a manner not consistent with the wishes of he from whom it was taken. Liberalism/statism is almost entirely based on greed.

To those on the left, however, “greed” refers to a desire to keep what one has rightfully earned.

Most of us think a thief is greedy. Theft is a direct manifestation of greed as most understand it. Liberals are thieves who think that their victims are “greedy”, for not wanting to be stolen from.
 
Wiseone said:
Totally agree, but there's two sides to this equation. We need new sources of revenue and spending cuts at the same time.
Click to expand...

No, we do not. Government consumes far too much of the nation's wealth as it is. Allowing government to consume even more of our wealth (which is what you clearly mean by “We need new sources of revenue”) is the exact opposite of a solution to our current fiscal problems. It will only make things worse.

The only genuine solution has to begin with cutting government spending to a level below its current revenues. We need government to “live within its means”, just as you and I must.
 
Wiseone said:
Totally agree, but there's two sides to this equation. We need new sources of revenue and spending cuts at the same time.
Click to expand...

What we really need to do is stop spending more than we bring in. Common sense, I know, but something entirely foreign to the government.
 
sKiTzo said:


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?
Click to expand...

Great opinion but the total income of everyone who makes more than $200k is right around $2 Trillion and our federal spending alone is right about $3.5 Trillion so eve if we too all of their income we still would be about $1.5 Trillion short every year BEFORE we got to state and local spending which is another $2.4 Trillion.

Now, maybe it's just me but if someone takes all of my income one year I'm not going to try very hard to make a buck the next year.

Seriously, if you want to raise taxes on the "wealthy" then go ahead and do it to your hearts content but unless you cut something out of all that spending you will come up short every single year and the only thing you will have accomplished is to make absolutely everybody poor.
 
to put 'tax hikes on the rich' into perspective, and see it's not 'taking more' that is going to resolve the issues.....

541874_582348145113986_1088863554_n.jpg
 
Bob Blaylock said:
No, we do not. Government consumes far too much of the nation's wealth as it is. Allowing government to consume even more of our wealth (which is what you clearly mean by “We need new sources of revenue”) is the exact opposite of a solution to our current fiscal problems. It will only make things worse.

The only genuine solution has to begin with cutting government spending to a level below its current revenues. We need government to “live within its means”, just as you and I must.
Click to expand...

You would have to cut it by about a third and that's just to break even today, and depending on how you would change social security or medicare they would have to be cut again in the future to not go over cost.

What would you cut to get us below our current revenue levels?
 
Cephus said:
What we really need to do is stop spending more than we bring in. Common sense, I know, but something entirely foreign to the government.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with some debt, its actually helpful to the economy for the government to be in a constant state of borrowing money. They just can't go too far as they have now.
 
sKiTzo said:


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?
Click to expand...

Whats really going on is that the government is deliberately putting us further into debt and are conning retarded idiots into thinking we just need to tax the **** out of the rich to solve our debt instead of drastically cutting spending.
 
Last edited:
Wiseone said:
It doesn't hurt, we just need to combine it with other things.
Click to expand...

Oh BS. Our government, across all levels, has run unconstrained for a long long time, it has never seriously limited itself to it's purpose or intent or to act responsibly with our money, and the majority of our citizens are either too lazy or too stupid to hold them accountable and force them to be fiscally responsible.

What have we heard over and over from the president? A 'balanced approach'... and what is the latest deal? 1 dollar in 'cuts' for every 41 in NEW spending. Sorry, but the MATH doesn't work.

It would be nice if people quit being so selfish and greedy and thought about future generations.
 
Wiseone said:
Totally agree, but there's two sides to this equation. We need new sources of revenue and spending cuts at the same time.
Click to expand...
Giving people who have a serious spending problem more money when they haven't made any actual serious cuts is a horrible idea. What is reasonable is that they make drastic cuts and if that doesn't pay off the debt then ask for more money.
 
Wiseone said:
There's nothing wrong with some debt, its actually helpful to the economy for the government to be in a constant state of borrowing money. They just can't go too far as they have now.
Click to expand...

Borrowing some money and paying it back, no. Borrowing tons of money that they can never pay back, yes. In real life, people who do the former are good credit risks. People who do the second are bankrupt.
 
Arbo said:
Oh BS. Our government, across all levels, has run unconstrained for a long long time, it has never seriously limited itself to it's purpose or intent or to act responsibly with our money, and the majority of our citizens are either too lazy or too stupid to hold them accountable and force them to be fiscally responsible.

What have we heard over and over from the president? A 'balanced approach'... and what is the latest deal? 1 dollar in 'cuts' for every 41 in NEW spending. Sorry, but the MATH doesn't work.

It would be nice if people quit being so selfish and greedy and thought about future generations.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree we need serious cuts, and we need better governance over the money the government does have, but I think new revenue is also as must as well.

Nobody seriously wants to cut government down to the level where no new revenue would be required to reduce the deficit, not even Republicans, so lets stop pretending that's a feasible outcome or a real solution.
 
Wiseone said:
It doesn't hurt, we just need to combine it with other things.
Click to expand...

Ok, so we have raised taxes, now what? We are still $1,000,000,000,000 each year.
 
Nope, I also don't think it's unreasonable to require the poorest to work a little more and receive a little less government aid.
 
Wiseone said:
Yes I agree we need serious cuts, and we need better governance over the money the government does have, but I think new revenue is also as must as well.

Nobody seriously wants to cut government down to the level where no new revenue would be required to reduce the deficit, not even Republicans, so lets stop pretending that's a feasible outcome or a real solution.
Click to expand...

When the requested 'new revenue' is going to new spending, and there are no REAL cuts in spending, no real working to get things balanced, screw every single one of them in DC, they don't need a dime more until they can come up with REAL cuts, and put them into action. We've been lied to about cuts in the past that never materialized. Make real cuts first, put them in place to show they are serious about fixing things, then we can talk about new revenues.

Hell, if they just cut there spending and worked on reducing their intrusion into the free market, they'd get a revenue increase because there's a good chance millions and millions of people that are out of work might get back into the workforce as things improve.
 
A) A person making 100K whose skill set is worth 100K
B) A person making 50K whose skill set is worth 25K

If you think person A is the greedy one, it makes you a jealous have-not. Period.

That's our society. Instead of trying to get more for ourselves, we do nothing but bellyache about how someone else has it better. F'n whiners.
 
Arbo said:
When the requested 'new revenue' is going to new spending, and there are no REAL cuts in spending, no real working to get things balanced, screw every single one of them in DC, they don't need a dime more until they can come up with REAL cuts, and put them into action. We've been lied to about cuts in the past that never materialized. Make real cuts first, put them in place to show they are serious about fixing things, then we can talk about new revenues.

Hell, if they just cut there spending and worked on reducing their intrusion into the free market, they'd get a revenue increase because there's a good chance millions and millions of people that are out of work might get back into the workforce as things improve.
Click to expand...

I totally agree we need spending cuts, and that the folks in DC aren't doing enough of that at all. But you may be in for a rude surprise, a huge amount of jobs are dependent on government spending
 
Wiseone said:
I totally agree we need spending cuts, and that the folks in DC aren't doing enough of that at all. But you may be in for a rude surprise, a huge amount of jobs are dependent on government spending
Click to expand...

And they shouldn't be. That makes a false economy that is not sustainable.
 
Wiseone said:
You would have to cut it by about a third and that's just to break even today, and depending on how you would change social security or medicare they would have to be cut again in the future to not go over cost.

What would you cut to get us below our current revenue levels?
Click to expand...

Although your question wasn't directed at me I'll answer anyway.

Military spending. In absolute terms we spend more on our military than than anyone else - 711 billion in 2012. That's actually more than twice what the #2 through 5 countries combines and about 41% of military spending worldwide. In terms of percentage o GDP we're #2 at 4.7% - the Saudi's are #1. We don't need nor can we afford such a huge military.

(stats courtesy of wikipedia)
 
Gaius46 said:
Although your question wasn't directed at me I'll answer anyway.

Military spending. In absolute terms we spend more on our military than than anyone else - 711 billion in 2012. That's actually more than twice what the #2 through 5 countries combines and about 41% of military spending worldwide. In terms of percentage o GDP we're #2 at 4.7% - the Saudi's are #1. We don't need nor can we afford such a huge military.

(stats courtesy of wikipedia)
Click to expand...

I agree with libertarians on this. Any debt reduction would have to include cuts in military spending. We need to get back to a defensive force to help get our fiscal house in order.
 
Helix said:
everyone needs to pay more, and we need to do a lot less on the global scale and a lot more on the local scale. put simply, the Bush model did not work long term.
Click to expand...

sorry.. "everyone paying more" is not on the table.. it never was.

if you are successful, well, I guess you get to join us in helping out ....if not, just ignore the problems, they are none of your concern.
 
Thrilla said:
sorry.. "everyone paying more" is not on the table.. it never was.

if you are successful, well, I guess you get to join us in helping out ....if not, just ignore the problems, they are none of your concern.
Click to expand...

technically, it was. going over the fiscal cliff would have had that effect, though the instant implementation would have been idiotic.

put simply, we need to raise everyone's taxes and cut spending, and we need to phase in the changes properly.
 
Thrilla said:
sorry.. "everyone paying more" is not on the table.. it never was.

if you are successful, well, I guess you get to join us in helping out ....if not, just ignore the problems, they are none of your concern.
Click to expand...

What? Is that not exactly what the current law, aka "fiscal cliff" bill, specifies along with real spending cuts, aka sequestration?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom