• 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!

AP POLL: Tax the rich to pay for health bill

RightinNYC said:
Can you point out where I mentioned "fairness"? My post was strictly limited to pointing out the flaws in yours and offering more useful data.
Click to expand...


I was refering to the "fair" I read throughout the string.

and YOU DID More than imply it was Unfair by using the old Mantra "the Richest 1% pay..... etc etc"
(""The richest 1% pay more than 40% of all federal income tax despite earning only 22% of all income."")

Clearly that was a demo BY YOU of "unfair".

You are welcome however (in fact still need) to respond to this conondrum of WHO IS going to pay/pay more (pay at all even without Obamacare) since you are against these higher rates for the rich.

Again.. there is only ONE answer.. you conveniently wanted No part of.
-
 
Last edited:
EpicDude86 said:
You're a Mod ffs, stop feeding the troll.
Click to expand...

:3oops:

In my defense, it seems like we're chock full of them lately.

mbig said:
I was refering to the "fair" I read throughout the string.

and YOU DID imply it was Unfair by using the old Mantra "the Richest 1%..... etc etc"
Click to expand...

I don't think it's about fairness so much as it is about good policy.

You are welcome however (in fact still need) to respond to this conondrum of WHO IS going to pay/pay more (pay at all even without Obamacare) since you are against these higher rates for the rich.
Click to expand...

Substantial budget cuts almost across the board and a simpler and more stratified tax system should do it.

Again.. there is only ONE answer.. you conveniently wanted No part of.
-
Click to expand...

All you had to do was ask.
 
RightinNYC said:
I don't think it's about fairness so much as it is about good policy.
Click to expand...
Not in your defense you DID imply++ it was unfair/Gave (the old 1% pay..") routine.

Substantial budget cuts almost across the board and a simpler and more stratified tax system should do it.
Click to expand...
Afraid NOT, entitlements, Debt service, (The Great Majority of the budget is NON-discretionary) and with even a meager national defense, that won't do it.


All you had to do was ask.
Click to expand...
I asked twice.
You still can't say it.. "The rich DO have to pay more"

Have a Good night ALL!
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
Not in your defense you DID imply++ it was unfair/Gave (the old 1% pay..") routine.
Click to expand...

Okay.

Afarid NOT, entitlements, Debt service, (The Great Majority of the budget is NON-discretionary) and with even a meager national defense, that won't do it.
Click to expand...

No, it's most certainly possible.

First, the "non-discretionary" thing is a load of ****. It's simply things that Congress gets to spend without having to go through the political rigmarole of enacting. Congress can cut whatever it wants.

I asked twice.
You still can't say it.. "The rich DO have to pay more"
Click to expand...

"The rich" as a collective don't have to, but they certainly could. Hence my comment about stratification.

I would have no problem with modest tax increases on those making over something like $1m/annually, with additional increases on those making over $10m or so.
 
Last edited:
Whip Comes Down said:
I know, hoss. It's up to the political process to determine if our money can be stolen and used to advance the general welfare.
Click to expand...

Whose welfare? It sure as **** isn't advancing mine or my family's. The more they take from me, the less I can give to my family and the more time I have to spend away from them working. ****ing wonderful idea. Give the government all of our money and let them take care of us? **** that ****.

Whip Comes Down said:
We know, hoss. That's how the health insurance cartel gained its tyrannical grip on us.
Click to expand...
They don't have a tyrannical grip on me.

Get rid of insurance and government involvement, and the problem goes away. But instead, ****tards want to increase insurance's foothold AND government involvement (the two things that got us into this "mess" to begin with) and on top of that, take more of our money away. Absolutely ****ing retarded.
 
Last edited:
epicdude86-albums-stuff-picture1227-troll-comes-down.png
 
The rich should pay more taxes, because the rich get more from the government. ​

For more than a century it's been generally recognized that the best taxes are progressive-- that is, proportionate to income.

Lately, however, it's become fashionable to question this. Various Republican leaders have trotted out the idea of a flat tax, meaning a fixed percentage of income tax levied on everyone. And in their hearts they may be anxious to emulate Maggie Thatcher's poll tax-- a single amount that everyone must pay.

Isn't that more fair? Shouldn't everyone pay the same amount?

In a word-- no. It's not more fair; it's appallingly unfair. Why? The rich should pay more taxes, because the rich get more from the government.

Consider defense, for example, which makes up 50% of the budget. Defending the country benefits everyone; but it benefits the rich more, because they have more to defend. It's the same principle as insurance: if you have a bigger house or a fancier car, you pay more to insure it.

Investments in the nation's infrastructure-- transportation, education, research & development, energy, police subsidies, the courts, etc.-- again are more useful the more you have. The interstates and airports benefit interstate commerce and people who can travel, not ghetto dwellers. Energy is used disproportionately by the rich and by industry.

As for public education, the better public schools are the ones attended by the moderately well off. The very well off ship their offspring off to private schools; but it is their companies that benefit from a well-educated public. (If you don't think that's a benefit, go start up an engineering firm, or even a factory, in El Salvador. Or Watts.)
 
Last edited:
Whip Comes Down said:
How do great concentrations of wealth make our form of government stronger?
Click to expand...

You made the argument that it makes our country weaker, I haven't yet made the argument that it makes it stronger. So defend yours first, and i will decide whether if I'm even gonna make an argument for concentrations of wealth.
 
Hypostrategos said:
You made the argument that it makes our country weaker, I haven't yet made the argument that it makes it stronger. So defend yours first, and i will decide whether if I'm even gonna make an argument for concentrations of wealth.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and the poor will willingly go to war to support the extravagance of those who possess the concentrations of wealth....
If the poor can't have equal opportunity to move up the food chain, they might just decide to eat some of the predators who are currently at the top of the food chain.

Madoff and mayo on rye, anybody?
 
What people don't understand is that the vast majority of rich people wouldn't be rich if it were not for their use of government services. They reap the most so they gotta give some back.
 
Neitzluber said:
What people don't understand is that the vast majority of rich people wouldn't be rich if it were not for their use of government services. They reap the most so they gotta give some back.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone would deny that. The question is how much constitutes "some."
 
Phoenix said:
Link Here

Seems this poll finds that a majority no longer believe in equality. Or don't care as long as they get their way.
Click to expand...

Actually, since many of the "rich" got that way by raping the middle class; I would say they are partially responsible and making them pay for their crime is only fair.
 
Forced and mandatory nobless oblige?

What's next? Forcing people to be nice? To smile? Yes, the rich should give back in a perfect world and I'm sure many do, through charity's, gifts, and donations. By the way, if, Vader, you can please identify those who have "raped the middle class", we can just go after them.
 
Of the rich that I know, a few extra percent paid out in taxes won't make a dent in their lifestyles. In fact, their spending tends to increase during hard times so their neighbors can keep their jobs. One has worked hard to keep from laying off employees, reducing everyone's hours rather than send someone home without a job. Another is spending money paying construction crews to renovate a building that he really doesn't need at this time.
I haven't heard any of them complaining about the new health bills. It is the middle class who are "struggling" to become rich who are complaining, and it probably won't affect them much at all.
It's like when congress duped us all on repealing the inheritance tax. It only affected the rich in the first place, but we were manipulated into thinking it was a good thing for all of us...
Being rich has its own problems, and I am pretty sure that I will never have those problems...:2razz:
 
UtahBill said:
Of the rich that I know, a few extra percent paid out in taxes won't make a dent in their lifestyles. In fact, their spending tends to increase during hard times so their neighbors can keep their jobs. One has worked hard to keep from laying off employees, reducing everyone's hours rather than send someone home without a job. Another is spending money paying construction crews to renovate a building that he really doesn't need at this time.
I haven't heard any of them complaining about the new health bills. It is the middle class who are "struggling" to become rich who are complaining, and it probably won't affect them much at all.
It's like when congress duped us all on repealing the inheritance tax. It only affected the rich in the first place, but we were manipulated into thinking it was a good thing for all of us...
Being rich has its own problems, and I am pretty sure that I will never have those problems...:2razz:
Click to expand...

Just a few observations --- if they can do it to the rich, they can do it to the middle class. There's much more middle class in this country - so they (we) are the cash cow, not the rich. I suggest the rich are the red herring. See the tactic is, get everyone possible to support those scabby rich bastards and while the lower and middle class cheer - the government comes out and says, "well guys, we tapped the rich but it's not enough... we'll have to tap the middle class now - sorry".

Hitting up the rich is just the warm up show.
 
Ockham said:
Just a few observations --- if they can do it to the rich, they can do it to the middle class. There's much more middle class in this country - so they (we) are the cash cow, not the rich. I suggest the rich are the red herring. See the tactic is, get everyone possible to support those scabby rich bastards and while the lower and middle class cheer - the government comes out and says, "well guys, we tapped the rich but it's not enough... we'll have to tap the middle class now - sorry".

Hitting up the rich is just the warm up show.
Click to expand...

True enough....and that is how it should be. WE pay for OUR expenses AS we incur them. We should not be leaving it to our grandkids to pay our expenses...
 
Whip Comes Down said:
Too bad Republicans don't subscribe to that principle.
Click to expand...

We should be balancing the budget every year, period. If some years need more money, taxes go up that year only. Allowing deficits and debt to accumulate is just plain stupid...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom