• 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!

Democrats push $150B stock tax on Wall Street

Yeah, because lowering capital gains and eliminating the death tax did wonders... for Paris Hilton.

Some people on this board really have no concept of what true wealth really is and how it is spent... and misspent.

And, if the Libbos in Congress have their way, none of us ever will.
 
The only problem with that, is that today it will $250. Tomorrow, some genius will think it needs to be raised to a $1,000, then $5,000. You get the picture, I'm sure.

Bottom line, however, 250 bucks is 250 bucks. It has the same value to you as it does to anyone else.

So, because things might change, we should do nothing. Brilliant!
 
So, because things might change, we should do nothing. Brilliant!

No, because this tax can and probably will be increased and will only stifle economic growth, it shouldn't be inacted.

No matter how hard they try, the government isn't going to create wealth.
 
No, because this tax can and probably will be increased and will only stifle economic growth, it shouldn't be inacted.

No matter how hard they try, the government isn't going to create wealth.

So again, because things might change, nothing should be done. I do not ever want to hear you complain about the deficit, since whenever anything is proposed to cut the deficit, you get upset.
 
So again, because things might change, nothing should be done.

When you say, "things might change", what are you talking about, exactly?

I do not ever want to hear you complain about the deficit, since whenever anything is proposed to cut the deficit, you get upset.

Stop spending a gazillion dollars on **** that won't produce any return! perhaps the deficit wouldn't be so bad, if we didn't piss money down a rabbit hole.
 
When you say, "things might change", what are you talking about, exactly?

The tax rate, the reason for the tax, and so on. The list of things that might happen in the future is astronomical.

Stop spending a gazillion dollars on **** that won't produce any return! perhaps the deficit wouldn't be so bad, if we didn't piss money down a rabbit hole.

There are two ways to reduce the deficit, and both are probably needed. Reduced spending(which I have frequently referred to the need for), and increased revenue. Once we have at least a close to balanced budget and much lower debt, then we can look at what extras we can afford, and what taxes we might be able to live without. This particular tax is small enough to have no significant effect on people, and would raise revenue a notable amount.
 
The tax rate, the reason for the tax, and so on. The list of things that might happen in the future is astronomical.



There are two ways to reduce the deficit, and both are probably needed. Reduced spending(which I have frequently referred to the need for), and increased revenue. Once we have at least a close to balanced budget and much lower debt, then we can look at what extras we can afford, and what taxes we might be able to live without. This particular tax is small enough to have no significant effect on people, and would raise revenue a notable amount.

We're in a massive recession and the answer to lower tax revenues isn't to spur growth in the private sector, but rather impose more taxes on the private sector. Now, that is brilliant!
 
Sweet! More bail out money!

It's okay Fortune 500 companies, you can hit rock bottom. Spender in Chief will bail you out. Oh! Corrupt executives? Just give them bonuses more than the average American makes in his or her life-time! Morals? Bah! I slosh at your morals slosh slosh
 
Sweet! More bail out money!

It's okay Fortune 500 companies, you can hit rock bottom. Spender in Chief will bail you out. Oh! Corrupt executives? Just give them bonuses more than the average American makes in his or her life-time! Morals? Bah! I slosh at your morals slosh slosh

If you work for a company and in your job you make that company $1 million, would it be fair for you to get a $20,000 bonus?
 
We're in a massive recession and the answer to lower tax revenues isn't to spur growth in the private sector, but rather impose more taxes on the private sector. Now, that is brilliant!

I do not see this tax having any real significant negative effect on the economy.
 
If you work for a company and in your job you make that company $1 million, would it be fair for you to get a $20,000 bonus?

Not if the company tanked and had to be bought out by tax-payer money. No one deserves a bonus.
 
Not if the company tanked and had to be bought out by tax-payer money. No one deserves a bonus.

Well, if I work for you and we sign a contract agreeing to a specific bonus criteria, tank, or not, you're going to pay me my money.
 
If you work for a company and in your job you make that company $1 million, would it be fair for you to get a $20,000 bonus?

Most jobs don't pay based on the value of the employee. They pay based on what they employee is willing to work for.

There's also the issue of what does the company do when you lose the company $1 million? Does the employee pay the company money? Of course not. So even if salary was based on employee salary, you'd have to consider the bad years as well as the good to figure out how to give out bonuses.
 
Republican greed caused this economy. That bill aims to force the greedy to pay for the restoration of the economy.

I know you rightwingers hate being held responsible for your illicit actions.. but too bad.

You people did this and you can pay to fix it.

What a load of utter bull****!:rofl

Might want to go to a sports forum or something that moves a little slower.
 
Yeah, because lowering capital gains and eliminating the death tax did wonders... for Paris Hilton.

Some people on this board really have no concept of what true wealth really is and how it is spent... and misspent.

Yes, but I'm sure you're trying to figure it out. Some just don't understand how wealthy people got wealthy, and how they account for risk when they put their money on the line.

We let a bunch of people go at my company last year to account for what we expect is coming down the pike from Obama and his complete lack of business acumen. Stuff like this tax will lead to more layoffs, trust me.

Let me let you in on something. If you tax a wealthy person an extra $250,000, they just eliminate $250,000 worth of overhead. That's part of the reason they became rich in the first place; they know how to hedge themselves.
 
Good, go for it,less money our grand kids will have to pay.:2wave:
 
Most jobs don't pay based on the value of the employee. They pay based on what they employee is willing to work for.

All skilled labor jobs pay based on the value of the employee. Employing people is just like anything else, you get what you pay for.

There's also the issue of what does the company do when you lose the company $1 million? Does the employee pay the company money? Of course not. So even if salary was based on employee salary, you'd have to consider the bad years as well as the good to figure out how to give out bonuses.

If you sign a contract, agreeing to certain bonus requirements, then you're legally obligated to pay those bonuses, if the requirements are met, irregardless if you made money, or not.
 
Good, go for it,less money our grand kids will have to pay.:2wave:

Yeah, because with the direction these goofballs are headed in, our grandkids aren't going to have jobs.
 
What a load of utter bull****!:rofl

Might want to go to a sports forum or something that moves a little slower.

You may want to review the housing practices "Ownership Society" under the Bush Administration as well as the partial repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act under Clinton.

And if we simply look at the time table, it's pretty clear. The recession hit in late 2007. Subprime mortgages have generally 2-3 year introductory rates. So that's late 2004 and 2005 as to when most of these people got their mortgages, clearly all Republican years. Note, that's not saying they caused the mess, but it's rather hard to blame the Democrats who were a shut out minority from it. Did the Democrats fail to mitigate when they got into power? Absolutely. But did they plant the seeds? The time line says no.

Your extreme partisanism is showing.
 
All skilled labor jobs pay based on the value of the employee. Employing people is just like anything else, you get what you pay for.

Except that's not how it works. Why would you offer more money then the candidate is willing to work for when you could get them for cheaper? That makes no sense. Pay is based on what they are willing to work for. And if the CEOs of failed companies are any measure, value is quite irrelevant to their skill level and pay.
 
You may want to review the housing practices "Ownership Society" under the Bush Administration as well as the partial repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act under Clinton.

And if we simply look at the time table, it's pretty clear. The recession hit in late 2007. Subprime mortgages have generally 2-3 year introductory rates. So that's late 2004 and 2005 as to when most of these people got their mortgages, clearly all Republican years. Note, that's not saying they caused the mess, but it's rather hard to blame the Democrats who were a shut out minority from it. Did the Democrats fail to mitigate when they got into power? Absolutely. But did they plant the seeds? The time line says no.

Your extreme partisanism is showing.

Check out who was running Fannie and Freddie at the time. Check out Barney Frank and Chris Dodd's role in manipulating and threatening banks to lend to minorities.
 
No, because this tax can and probably will be increased and will only stifle economic growth, it shouldn't be inacted.

No matter how hard they try, the government isn't going to create wealth.

Heaven forbid tiny sacrifices now to reduce our massive liabilities so we don't have to be outrageous taxes in the future.

Apparently you'd rather avoid paying a tiny tax now but are for either massive taxes in the future or defaulting on our debt.

Wow. No wonder you loved Bush. Borrow, borrow, borrow, spend, spend, spend with no thought, plan or concept of ever repaying the obligations.

Screw our grandkids! They'll have to pay trillions we racked up!

Conservative you are not. And your stances are highly immoral.
 
Check out who was running Fannie and Freddie at the time. Check out Barney Frank and Chris Dodd's role in manipulating and threatening banks to lend to minorities.

Again, review Bush's ownership society. Furthermore, you ignore how CRA loans are a drop in the bucket and how the vast majority of subprime defaults were from private lenders.

Also, please review the Glass–Steagall Act.
 
Back
Top Bottom