• 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
lizzie said:
That's because we have likely the most unhealthy collective population on the planet. We eat, drink, smoke, and stress too much, and we expect to be taken care of, rather than seeing it as our responsibility to take care of ourselves. Out of all the nations on earth, we are probably the most childish and infantile in thinking (as a group), because we've had things far too easy for so long.
Click to expand...

That may be true to a certain degree, but it doesn't negate the higher scoring of UHC in almost every category for the most people at the most affordable cost. Aren't you from Canada? Are the Canadians ready to give up their UHC to go back to our system?

It is said that our current health care system will bankrupt the country. And, no one has suggested a better alternative for lowering health care cost than that used in the rest of the industrialized world. Health care reform was just a bandaid, eventually we will have to upgrade.
 
Catawba said:
Its all over but the crying now, the House vote is in. Both houses of Congress have now voted to make permanent the tax cuts for those households making under $450,000.

It took them long enough! :cool:
Click to expand...
Excellent. Let's hope they also curb their spending and close some dead weight departments.
 
Dooble said:
Excellent. Let's hope they also curb their spending and close some dead weight departments.
Click to expand...

I also hope, when both sides realize we have a debt problem, they will cut our most wasteful spending, our excessive military spending and unaffordable health care costs.
 
Catawba said:
Yes, UHC has lowered health care cost in most of the industrialized world. We have highest health care costs on the planet for equal or lesser outcomes.

We can no more afford that than we can to spend almost as much of the rest of the world combined on military. When enough people make that realization we will be able to address our debt.
Click to expand...
total healthcare spending in the US is about 2.5 trillion bucks... when you combine all the money spent by government, corporations, and private citizens.

and you are going to sit her and lie to me and say if we had UHC it would cost less than what the government.. and government alone.... pays out now?

you would be adding to the debt and deficit substantially... and you would be forced to increase taxes substantially (not even your beloved middle class would be exempt from substantially increased taxes)

sorry, your social agenda is not compatible with the goal of debt reduction...
 
ReformCollege said:
And envy, I see.
Click to expand...

Yup im very envious. So envious. So many people must of been "envious" from the 40's-late 80's. Lots of "envious" people. I have so much "envy" in me.
Call it what you wont, but loose you cheap right wing hackery rhetoric.
 
Thrilla said:
total healthcare spending in the US is about 2.5 trillion bucks... when you combine all the money spent by government, corporations, and private citizens.

and you are going to sit her and lie to me and say if we had UHC it would cost less than what the government.. and government alone.... pays out now?

you would be adding to the debt and deficit substantially... and you would be forced to increase taxes substantially (not even your beloved middle class would be exempt from substantially increased taxes)

sorry, your social agenda is not compatible with the goal of debt reduction...
Click to expand...


Nope, switching to a single payer system would reduce total health care costs in the country:

Single Payer System Cost? | Physicians for a National Health Program


What's the alternative?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Yup im very envious. So envious. So many people must of been "envious" from the 40's-late 80's. Lots of "envious" people. I have so much "envy" in me.
Call it what you wont, but loose you cheap right wing hackery rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Yawn. Are you done yet?

I'm merely pointing out that flip side of calling the rich greedy is calling you envious.

And if I'm spewing right wing hackery, you're spewing left wing hackery.

If you think arguing is trading labels back and forth, I can play this game all day.
 
Catawba said:
Its all over but the crying now, the House vote is in. Both houses of Congress have now voted to make permanent the tax cuts for those households making under $450,000.

It took them long enough! :cool:
Click to expand...

yup it passed.

i'm sure you are relieved that your taxes won't go up...
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Yup im [sic] very envious. So envious. So many people must of [sic] been "envious" from the 40's-late 80's. Lots of "envious" people. I have so much "envy" in me.
Call it what you wont [sic], but loose [sic] you [sic] cheap right wing hackery rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Says the illiterate person who has never had anything to offer but cheap extreme left-wing hackery rhetoric.
 
Tax all the wealthiest at 100% and we wouldn't come close to meeting our obligations.
 
Catawba said:
Nope, switching to a single payer system would reduce total health care costs in the country:
Click to expand...

It means having government pay for people's health care, instead of having people pay for their own health care. No matter how you spin it, it means more government spending, not less; which is not compatible with reducing the deficit, nor with any other notion of improving the efficiency and accountability with which government manages its finances.
 
Catawba said:
Nope, switching to a single payer system would reduce total health care costs in the country:

Single Payer System Cost? | Physicians for a National Health Program


What's the alternative?
Click to expand...

go back and look at your sources... they all call for addition taxes to pay for the program.... which is exactly what i said would be necessary.:roll:

UHC might do lots of things.. debt reduction is not one of them.
without additional taxes to cover it, UHC would add to the deficit/debt... i'm not sure why you are disputing this very simple fact.
 
Quag said:
There is already a progressive tax system. so the poll is silly. The options are silly.
Just curious why do certain people always make extremely biased polls?
This happens on pretty much every side of every issue.

Better poll would be should rates for the highest earners increase and why?
Yes
No
Not sure

Simple unbiased and less likely to start off with personal attacks (though those always seem to come in eventually)
Click to expand...

Sorry Quag, I just couldn't resist. To answer "yes", you don't necessarily have to be a greedy bastard, but it would be difficult to argue that there is some other reason you wouldn't want to give up 25% of the 100 freakin' million you made that year. You're right though - for poll integrity, it should just be "yes", "no", and "not sure".
 
The rich are making money not by working harder than in the past, but by harnessing cheap labor overseas and increasing technology, at the expense of American workers and their wages. Then they howl at the government for redistributing a percentage of those gains back to those people. It's greed, pure and simple. If they want people to work to earn their money, they should stop firing them.
 
sKiTzo said:
Sorry Quag, I just couldn't resist. To answer "yes", you don't necessarily have to be a greedy bastard, but it would be difficult to argue that there is some other reason you wouldn't want to give up 25% of the 100 freakin' million you made that year. You're right though - for poll integrity, it should just be "yes", "no", and "not sure".
Click to expand...

Actually I dont see wanting to keep the money you make as greedy. Escpecially when the major problem facing the USA is not revenue but out of control spending. Yes I believe tax increases will be necessary to help dig yourselves out of the hole. That is only because the hole is so deep and the cuts needed are so huge (fiscal cliff) a balanced approach is necessary. However once spending is under control (doubt that will ever happen) and the DEBT (not the deficit) is shrinking to manegable proportions, then you can reduce taxes again.
When I hear people complain that Romney is paying 14% rate and that makes them angry because they are paying 11% I think its fairly obvious Romney is not the greedy one.
 
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...

The problem is we have zero reason to believe that an increase in revenue will be followed by a decrease in spending. On the contrary, history tells us that when revenue increases government CONTINUES to spend more.

But, not shockingly, the administration and the Democrats focus is raising taxes with half hearted promises to cut spending later with the vast majority of their specifics for cutting spending being cuts from things that are inevitable to happen (war ending). Indeed, the President during his campaign was happy to say that we needed to stop spending money on Wars.........to instead spend it here. Key word, SPEND.

You could, naively, suggest that "they have to deal with taxes first, they're what's currently happening." This is nothing but a shell game however. There is NOTHING stopping them from extending all the tax cuts for another year or two years and then turning back around and passing a new bill later that raises the taxes on a particular bracket. Taxes don't HAVE to be dealt with first, in terms of raising them....it's just EASIER for them to do it now.

If we had a reasonable expectation that the either side would legitimately and seriously deal with the obscene amount of spending we're doing you'd likely find more people at least open to compromising on taxes. More so, if they actually were ENGAGING inthose serious and legitimate measures, you'd find even more willing.

Instead...all you see is obtuse notions that "spending needs to be looked at" while yelling "GREEDY GREEDY RICH! TAX THEM"
 
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...


what a silly poll. why is it greedy for those who actually pay the lion's share of the taxes saying its time those who pay less than their fair share (i.e. the 95% who pay less than the top 5%) and yet are the ones who demand more and more and more government, and not greedy for everyone else to demand they keep their tax cuts (so they won't vote against the deems)

what stupid loaded questions

it is not necessary given all it does is encourage the middle and lower classes to demand more spending and more government. Obama kept howling that everyone should do their part to pay down the deficit-all that has been done is pander to the masses and tell them they are not going to have to do anything to pay down a deficit that is mainly caused by them
 
earthworm said:
Of course the higher taxes will "make a dent"....every little bit helps....It angers me that Romney's, or any wealthy man's, real tax percentage was 13%, while mine at one tenth the income was 11%...
Fairness over greed.
The Bush tax cuts should never have been allowed.
I do agree that spending is out of hand...this applies to both private and public sectors, in a great many areas.
Salaries to "bosses" - way out of hand...
Truth over propaganda.
Click to expand...

it angers me that Romney pays more in actual tax dollars than you will in forty lifetimes and yet you whine about his rates when he gets absolutely no additional benefits from government
 
NoC_T said:
I perceive a difference between the hostility of those whose wealth is created (by themselves and within their own lifetimes), as opposed to those whose wealth is hereditary. Regarding the latter, I have no pity at all. They are bloated and unproductive, offering nothing to their country. As to the former, I can sympathise to a certain extent. Though I recognise the necessity of addressing the imbalance. Arguments for the 'trickle down effect' are stillborn. In practical terms, there is no visible impact for the average joe.

In fairness, we should remind ourselves that being wealthy isn't a crime. Only those with little to nothing would describe it thus. If it is, then we make admission of Capitalism's obsolescence, and that any pursuit tailored towards personal profit is undesirable.

That said, a fundamental redistribution may be the only means of stimulating an economic recovery, that won't take decades to achieve. So, I dunno. I'm in two minds about it, really. One thing I do reject is the good guys and bad guys perspective. It was always nonsensical. Fit only for school children, picking 'sides'. There is only self-interest and competition; those unable to compete tend to a certain belligerence.
Click to expand...

moronic class envy at its best based on silly stereotypes that have no basis in fact.
 
Krhazy said:
The rich are making money not by working harder than in the past, but by harnessing cheap labor overseas and increasing technology, at the expense of American workers and their wages. Then they howl at the government for redistributing a percentage of those gains back to those people. It's greed, pure and simple. If they want people to work to earn their money, they should stop firing them.
Click to expand...

its funny that you whine about the wealthy and then support giving money to people who did even less to deserve it than the rich you whine about
 
Krhazy said:
The rich are making money not by working harder than in the past, but by harnessing cheap labor overseas and increasing technology, at the expense of American workers and their wages. Then they howl at the government for redistributing a percentage of those gains back to those people. It's greed, pure and simple. If they want people to work to earn their money, they should stop firing them.
Click to expand...

Who are these rich people you speak of?
 
Gaius46 said:
Who are these rich people you speak of?
Click to expand...

its the typical stereotype the left uses to justify grabbing the wealth of others
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom