• 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
Yes thats what they want to do . Thats how they got rich right? Keep destroying the rich and see how long we last.
Lol, nobody is proposing anything that will "destroy" the rich. Last I checked, they are doing better than ever before in the history of mankind.
 
It is always unreasonable to force people to pay for goods and services they do not receive.

Tis true, but I'm sure many of the super rich would also not like to go to a completely free market-esk approach. The rules and regulations are written for them. Hell they can destroy the economy through reckless business practices and receive billions in tax payer bailouts (we don't extend this to our own poor, but to the rich...sure).

Ain't no such thing as a free lunch; they want the special treatment then they can pay for the special treatment. Otherwise, I'm fine with removing subsidy and protectionism and moving towards true free market movement.
 
Lol, nobody is proposing anything that will "destroy" the rich. Last I checked, they are doing better than ever before in the history of mankind.

As are we all thanks to them. And yes Obama wants to destroy the rich by redistributing their wealth
 
Youd like it if they left huh?
Better change that sig to very slightly conservative

No, I'd like it if they'd get off their asses and worked to improve their own situation rather than wanting to penalize those who actually have done that.
 
"Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?."

from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.....ring any bells?
 
No, I'd like it if they'd get off their asses and worked to improve their own situation rather than wanting to penalize those who actually have done that.

Yeah they got rich by sitting on their asses
 
Yeah they got rich by sitting on their asses

Nobody gets rich sitting on their ass. They work their asses off. They put in the time, they take the risks and they succeed on their own merits. Maybe the reason you don't understand this is because you don't live in the real world.
 
Nobody gets rich sitting on their ass. They work their asses off. They put in the time, they take the risks and they succeed on their own merits. Maybe the reason you don't understand this is because you don't live in the real world.

I was being sarcastic lol.

I think were misunderstanding eachother here somewhere :)

I thought you meant the middle class works while the rich rake it in.
 
Is it unreasonable to ask that the poor pay anything at all?
 
I was being sarcastic lol.

I think were misunderstanding eachother here somewhere :)

I thought you meant the middle class works while the rich rake it in.

Nope, the rich, the ones who are self-made at least, have worked themselves hard to get to that point. They have earned the money they've made and now the middle-class and the poor want to arbitrarily take away the money they worked hard to earn, while many, especially the poor, refuse to work at all. There's something wrong with that.
 
Is it unreasonable to ask that the poor pay anything at all?

Nope. Absolutely no one who uses public resources should be able to do so without paying into the system.
 
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.

Not wanting taxes to go up 4.6% when they can easily pay for it is greed.
 
Says the illiterate person who has never had anything to offer but cheap extreme left-wing hackery rhetoric.

5k0rxk.jpg
 
Not wanting taxes to go up 4.6% when they can easily pay for it is greed.

And you wanting their taxes to go up instead of yours when they already account for the lion's share in revenue is envy. See what I did there? Calling it greed is not your trump card. Saying "they can afford to pay more" says nothing about whether they should pay more.

As for the 1940-1970s, would you rather live then? Would you rather buy a car in the 1970s or a car today? Would you rather buy a phone in the 1970s, or a phone today? Would you rather be admitted to the hospital in the 1970s or today? Would you even be able to buy a computer? Would you rather be a minority in the 1970s than today? Would you feel safer working in a factory?

Talking about the 1940s-1970s as some golden age is a bunch of bull****, considering there is not a single person who would have a higher standard of living then today. Society may be more unequal, but even the poorest are better off today then they were in 1970. Or 1980. Or 1990.

Looking strictly at "inequality metrics" doesn't do justice for what money can buy then, and what it buys today in terms of price and quality.

But even as much as I gripe about our country, we are still better off then Europe. There is a reason our growth rates have exceeded theirs for the past 30 years. And there is a reason our PPP per capita then every country in the EU except Norway and Luxemberg and there is a reason we have the second median household income in the world behind Luxemberg. So despite all of Europe's rules, regulations, and unions; the average house hold is still better off then almost every single country in the world. But at this point that is subject to change.
 
Nope, the rich, the ones who are self-made at least, have worked themselves hard to get to that point. They have earned the money they've made and now the middle-class and the poor want to arbitrarily take away the money they worked hard to earn, while many, especially the poor, refuse to work at all. There's something wrong with that.

See what I mean, we agree.
 
Nope. Absolutely no one who uses public resources should be able to do so without paying into the system.

You dont see the problem with that? How does one who has nothing contribute to the system? But if you can work you should have to to get aid.
 
Not wanting taxes to go up 4.6% when they can easily pay for it is greed.

So let's raise your taxes 4.6% too. I'm sure you can find a way to manage. Otherwise, it's greed! :roll:
 
You dont see the problem with that? How does one who has nothing contribute to the system? But if you can work you should have to to get aid.

Whose fault is it that they have nothing? We offer free education. If you drop out of school, if you get involved in drugs and gangs, if you impregnate or get impregnated out of wedlock and can't afford to care for your children, if you break the law and end up in prison, whose fault is that again?
 
The recent planned tax increases won't even make a dent in our yearly deficit. It was never about reducing it, it's about making it seem like they're doing something by taxing the rich. Spending is bloated and needs to be cut, plain and simple.

Liberal response: "LALALALALALALALALALALALALA"
 
Whose fault is it that they have nothing? We offer free education. If you drop out of school, if you get involved in drugs and gangs, if you impregnate or get impregnated out of wedlock and can't afford to care for your children, whose fault is that again?
Im talking of those that nature has left helpless or who have been injured to the point they cannot contribute. Let me add that no charity should be given by the Federal government. Not even food stamps. Its a state and local matter.
 
Im talking of those that nature has left helpless or who have been injured to the point they cannot contribute. Let me add that no charity should be given by the Federal government. Not even food stamps. Its a state and local matter.

That's why I specifically excluded those people who were mentally or physically handicapped. Anyone who is able-bodied but who has screwed up their own life and now wants me to pay for them can kiss my curvy yellow backside. I'd say no money should be given by *ANY* government, it should be a wholly private charity matter.
 
yup it passed.

i'm sure you are relieved that your taxes won't go up...

I am relieved our economy will not be at risk now of going back into recession.
 
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.

You obviously have not studied single payer systems in the rest of the industrialized world. People do pay for their health care through a single payer system. And no one has proposed a health care system that cost less.
 
I am relieved our economy will not be at risk now of going back into recession.

How could that possibly happen? With our constant 40% federal deficits of over $1 trillion dollars/year what could go wrong? If we run short of "stimulus" funds then simply print more money and lower the interest rates to actually pay our banks to take it. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom