• 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
Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a capital GAINS tax, not a capital tax (which DOES exist in some countries - heck even some states). You only pay capital gains tax on money that was given to you because your asset was sold for more than you paid. Problem is, when that happens, someone else had a corresponding loss (either in cash or value) and zero wealth is created - it is merely being redistributed.

Double taxation happens on DIVIDEND income - in which case the company pays its tax on earnings and then you pay again on your share of the tax paid profits of the company shared with you by paying a dividend.

An intelligent tax system would tax the living crap out of capital gains - because when a capital gain occurs, there is zero wealth created. 99% of what Wall Street does is just that - capital gains in the world of Casino Capitalism - where everything is run for a capital gain and nobody is INVESTING any money into productive ventures. Of course, the balance is that dividend income should NEVER be taxed - driving money into productive assets.

Now you know how I voted and why. Tax capital gains to death and kill of Wall Street's Casino Capitalism the creates zilch and bring CAPITALISM back into the world by leaving the field open for actual investment in businesses that make things and actually DO something. Most of the really wealthy people make very little of their money from wealth that is created - they instead live on capital gains from wealth that is re-distributed. No harm in taxing that back to discourage such horrid use of capital.

Meanwhile, do I think it will make any difference to the debt crisis? Hell no! The US makes Greece look like a truly conservative country. It is spending far, far beyond its diminished means and is doing nothing to make the money it will need in the future to fund even a modest portion of that largess.
This might be one of the most incorrect economic statements that I've ever read. The stock market is not a zero sum game.

Let's imagine a scenario for an instant. You want to form a company, you'll call it "Cannuck's High Quality Tables". You how ever don't have the start up resources for all the woodworking equipment you need, so you go to the market to look for investors. Mr. Romney comes along and says "I will give you $2 million dollars for a 40% stake in your company". (Kind of like the show 'Shark Tank', if you've ever seen it) Considering you'll never even get the business off the ground without him, you think that's a great deal, so you agree. Romney is taking a risk on you, he's risking $2 million on you, an investment that may or may not come to fruition.

You then go on to make the world's finest quality tables and sell each for thousands, and people far and wide travel to spend their money on your tables. You make massive profits, which you pay 40% to your investor, Romney, who helped get your business off the ground. Now, explain to me again where the victim is in this situation.

You've so clearly deemed Romney a leach, I want to know how he's boning you in this situation, and who's being robbed?
 
Are you talking about corporate welfare and excessive taxpayer subsidy of the military industrial complex that only benefits one percent of the population?

That is a good point, why DO you big government types like to hand out so much money to corporations and the military industrial complex, then complain about not getting enough for social programs?

Yea yea blah blah blah. "leftists blah blah blah" heard it, seen it from you TDp. Keep up the same ol talking points.

You never ended up answering my question: How can you dub someone who pays substantially more both in real dollars and percentage in taxes than you, "not paying enough", while simultaneously labeling yourself as "paying enough"?
 
Last edited:
i have a desire for other peoples money by wanting to raise taxes on the rich? Interesting premise..

I certainly don't see you offering to give up more of your own money for whatever purposes you think you want to tax the rich.

You show a clear desire to have other people's money taken from them, and used to your benefit. This is the definition of greed.
 
I certainly don't see you offering to give up more of your own money for whatever purposes you think you want to tax the rich.

You show a clear desire to have other people's money taken from them, and used to your benefit. This is the definition of greed.

I have a desire for everyone to pay into a system (taxation)=greed?
 
that is a silly attempt to justify others paying more than you do. the military has no duty to expend extra effort defending wealthy peoples' homes and the cost of the military has absolutely no relation with the cost of a house or a car


PROPERTY! Stocks are property and the stockholders are owners of said Corporations. You can change my words, but I was crystal clear.
 
This might be one of the most incorrect economic statements that I've ever read. The stock market is not a zero sum game.

Let's imagine a scenario for an instant. You want to form a company, you'll call it "Cannuck's High Quality Tables". You how ever don't have the start up resources for all the woodworking equipment you need, so you go to the market to look for investors. Mr. Romney comes along and says "I will give you $2 million dollars for a 40% stake in your company". (Kind of like the show 'Shark Tank', if you've ever seen it) Considering you'll never even get the business off the ground without him, you think that's a great deal, so you agree. Romney is taking a risk on you, he's risking $2 million on you, an investment that may or may not come to fruition.

You then go on to make the world's finest quality tables and sell each for thousands, and people far and wide travel to spend their money on your tables. You make massive profits, which you pay 40% to your investor, Romney, who helped get your business off the ground. Now, explain to me again where the victim is in this situation.

You've so clearly deemed Romney a leach, I want to know how he's boning you in this situation, and who's being robbed?
You are confusing the tiniest bit of "the stock market" - the use of capital to fund in IPOs and POs - with 99% of the actual activity on "the Street". Yes, raising capital to invest in "A" company is valid form of wealth creation and as I think I had already pointed out, productive use of capital. It is something called "capitalism". Thing is, you don't need to do that in the format of public offerings (I will address that in a minute). There will ALWAYS be capital markets, and they come about by equity investments from individuals, private equity funds (placements) and debt. We have come to believe that using public offerings is somehow the only way that capital is moved, and we will return to why that is not always a good thing.

Problems come when we look at what we DO with those public issues AFTER the company is funded. As I said, 99% of everything that Wall Street does is NOT involved in investing (which is a capitalist activity) but in trading existing stock. THAT is the zero sum game, and THAT is where Wall Street makes its money. The people who play at that casino table can only "win" if someone else "loses" - and you are right, it is not a "zero sum" game. The house takes money out at every turn, so it is a constant negative sum game. The money that gets tossed around (many companies trade at 1000x book value - and not a red cent of that is INVESTMENT money, it is all purely inflationary casino chips).

Why does any of this matter? Wall Street sticks its greedy nose into Main Street for one reason and one reason only: it is not that they really give a flying purple frick about the business that is to be funded, it is so that THEY are the conduit of the capital which they can now take to the casino and spin into multiples of 2x, 10x, 1000x the value of the actual investment. From this game the house makes not billions, but TRILLIONS every year of money taken out as inside trades (no other polite way to put what they do with stock issued to themselves during an underwriting) and fees for M&A, trading, etc. activities (euphemistically called "investment banking"...cough, hack!).

With that game going on, what happens is companies themselves are a microcosm of "the market", but needed simply to provide the chips to the casino. Vast sums of this funny money (all pent up inflationary forces) result in companies coming to the casino at the behest of faceless financial pools who as institutional players have the right to place directors on boards who are "bank friendly" to put it bluntly, and who in turn hire managers who enjoy and incestuous relationship to rape the common shareholder (remember him, the poor bugger who put the REAL money into the IPO) by paying themselves (they are nothing but employees) MASSIVE stock option deals that dillute the shareholders (most of whom are long gone and now replaced by gamblers who hold stock strictly for the bet that it will change value to allow them to win a capital gain - so have little interest in how the COMPANY runs, just the stock value).

What amazes me is not that this is happening, it is just that people such as yourself are totally blind to the observation that the way we have let speculative activity completely replace investment activity has run the entire economy into the ground. The only "recovery" is on Wall Street, not Main Street. The reason that some backwater country such as China can come out of NOWHERE within a couple of decades and bring the largest economy in the world to its knees is that everyone here is at the casino playing with "the market" and money is not being invested in the real companies run by REAL SHAREHOLDERS WITH THEIR OWN MONEY AT RISK, but by investment bankers who have their own agenda. In China, a huge proportion of the money in their economy is INVESTED in business (yes, they do have a huge stock market and are culturally inclined to gamble - and that in due course will stop their real growth as well) that actually makes things.

Just so it is crystal clear: wealth is only created when you add value to a resource or deliver a service NECESSARY to support adding value to resources. ALL other "economic activity" is merely wealth redistribution - and that matters not if you are doing it in the name of "socialism" or "the market".

As I said: we have been there before, and EVERYONE in 1930 knew exactly what this meant - and how to fix it.
 
Last edited:
I consider people becoming more and more dependent on government handouts and expecting others to continually pay for what they want to be bad for them in the long run



Yes, indeedy! Especially the wealthy bankers and corporations that had to be bailed out since 2008. I didn't think you would admit that they were "on the dole." We have to quit supporting the wealthy at the expense of the worker bee.
 
Yes, indeedy! Especially the wealthy bankers and corporations that had to be bailed out since 2008. I didn't think you would admit that they were "on the dole." We have to quit supporting the wealthy at the expense of the worker bee.

I totally opposed bailing them out as well. but since the worker bee isn't paying as much as they use, it was other wealthy people who bailed out those failures
 
If you had any idea how the world works, you would realize that we have been here before. ANYONE with a half a brain would understand this clearly in 1930, but few today seem to have the ability to think beyond the pure BS handed to them by banks and the free ride crowd on Wall Street.

So, you're telling me that rewarding the continuous re-distribution of wealth (be it from Wall Street or entitlements) while penalizing the hell out of creating wealth by using capital productively is brilliant??? You must be one of those genius types that has been advising the Uniparty for the last few decades. How's that working out for you again????

you clearly do not understand what re-distribution means
 
Are you talking about corporate welfare and excessive taxpayer subsidy of the military industrial complex that only benefits one percent of the population?

now that is a silly comment based on silly assumptions
 
a big DUH--and you seem to think that only Achieving socialism is steps towards socialism

Nope. I just know the actual definition of socialism. Some seem to work far too hard at seeing "steps"in everything. It's kind of silly.
 
Nope. I just know the actual definition of socialism. Some seem to work far too hard at seeing "steps"in everything. It's kind of silly.

the left has always used incremental steps in achieving its goals and then denies it. the expansion of the commerce clause, the rejection of the tenth amendment and the denial of procedural due process under FDR were major stepping stones towards a more socialist government as was the 16th Amendment a generation before
 
Technically, Marxism dictates taking over means of production - and Marxism CAN be an element of both socialist and communist systems. When you consider things such as TVA and the BLM, or even work done by the Corps of Engineers, that state ALREADY owns a substantial chunk of the property and means of production. Hell, doesn't the US still own it's stake in Government Motors??

There is no such thing as ANY government on this planet that does not contain some elements of socialism. Why do people think this is such a bad thing? Clearly, there must be merit or EVERYONE wouldn't do it. What baffles those of us in stable countries is the incredible bickering in the US over fundamental socialist policies that the rest of the developed world long ago dealt with - socialized universal sick care insurance being but one of many.

There are few to no pure forms of capitalism or socialism or much of any other kind of ism today. TD and others use the octal ism scare far too easily. It is a tired old tactic that lacks originality or imagination, let alone decidedly inaccurate.
 
I totally opposed bailing them out as well. but since the worker bee isn't paying as much as they use, it was other wealthy people who bailed out those failures
That would only be true if there was a BALANCED BUDGET. The money ended up ratcheting up the debt load, thus it is indeed the "worker bee" and his grandchildren who were handed the bill.

You could tax 100% of all income beyond exemptions, and still not come anywhere near retiring the existing debt and future unfunded liabilities from entitlements during the lifetime of any taxpayer today.

But, I guess since I don't understand about "wealth redistribution", that couldn't possibly be true.
 
the left has always used incremental steps in achieving its goals and then denies it. the expansion of the commerce clause, the rejection of the tenth amendment and the denial of procedural due process under FDR were major stepping stones towards a more socialist government as was the 16th Amendment a generation before

And yet, it's 2013, long after FDR and still your talking about "steps." :2funny::2funny::2funny:
 
And yet, it's 2013, long after FDR and still your talking about "steps." :2funny::2funny::2funny:

that is because those who understand constitutional law understand the FDR administration mutated and raped the constitution so as to allow the creeping crud of collectivism to get a major foothold in our society
 
that is because those who understand constitutional law understand the FDR administration mutated and raped the constitution so as to allow the creeping crud of collectivism to get a major foothold in our society

That's an awful slow creep. I repeat, it's 2013. :2funny::2funny::2funny::2funny:
 
You are confusing the tiniest bit of "the stock market" - the use of capital to fund in IPOs and POs - with 99% of the actual activity on "the Street". Yes, raising capital to invest in "A" company is valid form of wealth creation and as I think I had already pointed out, productive use of capital. It is something called "capitalism". Thing is, you don't need to do that in the format of public offerings (I will address that in a minute). There will ALWAYS be capital markets, and they come about by equity investments from individuals, private equity funds (placements) and debt. We have come to believe that using public offerings is somehow the only way that capital is moved, and we will return to why that is not always a good thing.

Problems come when we look at what we DO with those public issues AFTER the company is funded. As I said, 99% of everything that Wall Street does is NOT involved in investing (which is a capitalist activity) but in trading existing stock. THAT is the zero sum game, and THAT is where Wall Street makes its money. The people who play at that casino table can only "win" if someone else "loses" - and you are right, it is not a "zero sum" game. The house takes money out at every turn, so it is a constant negative sum game. The money that gets tossed around (many companies trade at 1000x book value - and not a red cent of that is INVESTMENT money, it is all purely inflationary casino chips).

Why does any of this matter? Wall Street sticks its greedy nose into Main Street for one reason and one reason only: it is not that they really give a flying purple frick about the business that is to be funded, it is so that THEY are the conduit of the capital which they can now take to the casino and spin into multiples of 2x, 10x, 1000x the value of the actual investment. From this game the house makes not billions, but TRILLIONS every year of money taken out as inside trades (no other polite way to put what they do with stock issued to themselves during an underwriting) and fees for M&A, trading, etc. activities (euphemistically called "investment banking"...cough, hack!).

With that game going on, what happens is companies themselves are a microcosm of "the market", but needed simply to provide the chips to the casino. Vast sums of this funny money (all pent up inflationary forces) result in companies coming to the casino at the behest of faceless financial pools who as institutional players have the right to place directors on boards who are "bank friendly" to put it bluntly, and who in turn hire managers who enjoy and incestuous relationship to rape the common shareholder (remember him, the poor bugger who put the REAL money into the IPO) by paying themselves (they are nothing but employees) MASSIVE stock option deals that dillute the shareholders (most of whom are long gone and now replaced by gamblers who hold stock strictly for the bet that it will change value to allow them to win a capital gain - so have little interest in how the COMPANY runs, just the stock value).

What amazes me is not that this is happening, it is just that people such as yourself are totally blind to the observation that the way we have let speculative activity completely replace investment activity has run the entire economy into the ground. The only "recovery" is on Wall Street, not Main Street. The reason that some backwater country such as China can come out of NOWHERE within a couple of decades and bring the largest economy in the world to its knees is that everyone here is at the casino playing with "the market" and money is not being invested in the real companies run by REAL SHAREHOLDERS WITH THEIR OWN MONEY AT RISK, but by investment bankers who have their own agenda. In China, a huge proportion of the money in their economy is INVESTED in business (yes, they do have a huge stock market and are culturally inclined to gamble - and that in due course will stop their real growth as well) that actually makes things.

Just so it is crystal clear: wealth is only created when you add value to a resource or deliver a service NECESSARY to support adding value to resources. ALL other "economic activity" is merely wealth redistribution - and that matters not if you are doing it in the name of "socialism" or "the market".

As I said: we have been there before, and EVERYONE in 1930 knew exactly what this meant - and how to fix it.
I think it's interesting that you despise so much the system you say you support. I've never seen anybody so disgusted with the free market as you, yet still claim to be a fan of capitalism. It takes some serious cojones to be that contradictory. Are you bitter because you made some poor investments? That was real money you lost, it's all real money. You claiming that the big investment firms are playing with fake money doesn't make it so. They simply have more than you do.

I don't think you have any idea what would happen if we shut the stock market down, as you're suggesting. The liquidity is there so that companies can do their business at a low cost, and so that they can attract funds from investors. The entirety of capitalism is dependent on this.

Speculation is also investment, it's just done for different purposes. The money goes to the same place regardless of what the intention of the investor was.
 
That's an awful slow creep. I repeat, it's 2013. :2funny::2funny::2funny::2funny:

so tell me-could Obamacare have happened without the jurisprudential actions of the New Deal occurring?
 
I don't know of anyone that supports your strawman there!



You do now. I do not want the government to have more money.
 
Totally agree, but there's two sides to this equation. We need new sources of revenue and spending cuts at the same time.

Revenue responds to growth. If you want to increase revenue, increase growth. It won't come from slapping higher rates on folks.

ED-AH556B_ranso_20080519194014.gif


We tried that. Wild variations in rates do not produce corresponding variations in revenue.

The government could start selling stuff.
 
You do now. I do not want the government to have more money.

anytime some wealth redistributionist starts whining that the rich need to pay more (usually defined as anyone making more than the redistributionist in question) the first question is WHY does the government deserve even another penny?
 
Used? people got rich. But, no, he did not take over the means of production. Sorry.

Boo, sit up straight in your chair, raise your right hand to eye level hold your fingers together perfectly do not move any muscle other than the ones I direct you to (explicitly or implicitly - for example the heart should continue beating), sit there for 15 seconds in that position and then rapidly bring your hand up and down so that you pat the top of your head with your palm.


Oh, and if you don't do this I will have you thrown in prison.

Don't worry. I'm not "taking over" your actions. I'm just directing them. Totally different, right? :)
 
I can only assume if you don't know anything when you go to bed, ya' ain't likely to know anything when ya' wakes up. I don't recollect who it was said that. Now speakin' at the empty chair, I bought my property when I was making money and I'm now retired. My property taxes, just by themselves area a little over 20% of my income. I spend $2500/yr. on gasoline, $2500/yr on utilities (gas and electric), $300/yr. on car registrations, $400/yr on inspections and the bullsheet repairs to get through those inspections, sales tax on everything and you can tell the empty chair representing the vapid sentient entity to do the math and then apologize and admit that ones cerebellum was deeply impacted when the rash and hubris statement was spewed. Proportionately, as I stated, I and many others in my income bracket, pay 30% to taxes.

Mere words. Not proof of anything. I'm not sure your lean is correct.
 
Back
Top Bottom