• 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!

Warren Buffet: 'Trickle Down' Theory Doesn't Work

TurtleDude said:
nothing shouts out spiteful envy like a post you just made. But thanks, I always knew what motivated you
Click to expand...

Not envy at all. I just find it rather ironic how concerned you are about the wealthy in this country. The point being.....they will do just fine without more government handouts. Oh...and BTW....don't worry....they'll still be able to buy their caviar and truffles....(it was just a joke).
 
TurtleDude said:
I understand that socialism and income redistribution end up destroying countries by creating massive amounts of entitlement addicted slugs who are kept addicted by those who gain power from their votes.
Click to expand...

In other words, no.. you think trickle down is only capitalism, all else is socialism..

Redistribution of wealth isn't all progressive, it can be regressive as well
 
disneydude said:
Not envy at all. I just find it rather ironic how concerned you are about the wealthy in this country. The point being.....they will do just fine without more government handouts. Oh...and BTW....don't worry....they'll still be able to buy their caviar and truffles....(it was just a joke).
Click to expand...

Yea.. the wealthy has had their share of handouts and bailouts, so wtf.. why shouldn't they pay a little more in taxes, holding them up financially shouldn't be just my responsibility
 
disneydude said:
Not envy at all. I just find it rather ironic how concerned you are about the wealthy in this country. The point being.....they will do just fine without more government handouts. Oh...and BTW....don't worry....they'll still be able to buy their caviar and truffles....(it was just a joke).
Click to expand...

I am concerned about freedom and the attempts by the dems to restrict that.
 
SheWolf said:
Yea.. the wealthy has had their share of handouts and bailouts, so wtf.. why shouldn't they pay a little more in taxes, holding them up financially shouldn't be just my responsibility
Click to expand...

do you really believe that the majority of people in the top 2% are ones who received bailouts? and you are aware of the fact that they right now pay far more in taxes than their share of the national income
 
TurtleDude said:
do you really believe that the majority of people in the top 2% are ones who received bailouts? and you are aware of the fact that they right now pay far more in taxes than their share of the national income
Click to expand...

No 100% of the top 2%, but I think a lot of them are in the top 2%.. CEO's of investment banks I am sure up in there in the 2%
 
TurtleDude said:
I am concerned about freedom and the attempts by the dems to restrict that.
Click to expand...

Yes....because the Democrats are going to pass laws preventing them from getting their caviar and truffles.....riiiiiiiiiiight.
 
disneydude said:
Yes....because the Democrats are going to pass laws preventing them from getting their caviar and truffles.....riiiiiiiiiiight.
Click to expand...

you do understand that there are more than a few leftwingers who operate under the belief that if someone is poor its unfair for others to have "frivolous" luxuries. after all that is the mentality you push-from each according to their ability to each according to their needs.


maybe you can explain why people have different responsibilities in funding the government when they don't get any additional benefits from the government

its easy to make the practical argument that the rich have to pay more to make up for the many who cannot pay their fair share but I have yet to see a rational or logical argument why the wealthy have a moral duty to be taxed at higher rates
 
SheWolf said:
No 100% of the top 2%, but I think a lot of them are in the top 2%.. CEO's of investment banks I am sure up in there in the 2%
Click to expand...

do you know who makes up most of the top 2%? its not people like BUffett or Gates. its your doctor, your CPA, your lawyer, the guy who owns the dealership where you buy your car.
 
TurtleDude said:
you do understand that there are more than a few leftwingers who operate under the belief that if someone is poor its unfair for others to have "frivolous" luxuries. after all that is the mentality you push-from each according to their ability to each according to their needs.


maybe you can explain why people have different responsibilities in funding the government when they don't get any additional benefits from the government

its easy to make the practical argument that the rich have to pay more to make up for the many who cannot pay their fair share but I have yet to see a rational or logical argument why the wealthy have a moral duty to be taxed at higher rates
Click to expand...

I have seen you have these conversations a few other times, and the thing that always bothers me is that you seem to think it's about class warfare or hate. You really don't understand that a lot of people who are not well off, don't want to make other people poor. They want to also be well off too.. so you can try to think of ways to make them well off, get an education and have access to better schools or you can keep playing Richie Rich is the victim and the evil socialist government driven by the poor is out to punish his success. How many people actually want to punish the wealthy and want them to be poor too? How many Americans want this to be a poor country?

What you are arguing really isn't a debate..


And for there to be poor people lining up for soup kitchens while others to have "frivolous" luxuries isn't a question of socialism or capitalism, it's a question of morality and what you should do as a human being. I don't morally think the wealthy are justified to throw hundreds of dollars of food away and spend thousands of dollars on BS impractical consumerism like pet rocks while people starve, but it's their right.. It's not morally righteous, but it's not crime except within my personal faith. I am not the one pounding the drum that this nation was build on my religion or anything..

So what you are arguing, is really pointless..
 
TurtleDude said:
do you know who makes up most of the top 2%? its not people like BUffett or Gates. its your doctor, your CPA, your lawyer, the guy who owns the dealership where you buy your car.
Click to expand...

People like my uncle, my sister, and myself then.. lol.. No sorry.. CPAs who are also CFOs, yes.. maybe. I know lots of CPAs, lawyers, and doctors. And I also know somebody who lived next to Martha Stewart.. big difference
 
I am far from clueless about wealth Turtledude.. I know a lot of really wealthy people in my own family. People who go on vacations in Africa and go on hunting safaris and take private planes to Alaska for hunting expeditions. I also know that there is a limited number of people who can actually do those things, and a far more limited number of people who can fly everywhere on a private jet and have basketball courts and private movie theaters inside their house.... and own several houses

Yep.. there are a lot of wealthy people in America... and I read that something like 40% of them think they are in the top 2%.. seems they don't have a grasp of their own wealth. I have a grasp of wealth and I have seen a lot of it, so I am not clueless but to act like the average CPA, doctor, or lawyer has more $$$ than Buffet isn't reality..
 
SheWolf said:
I have seen you have these conversations a few other times, and the thing that always bothers me is that you seem to think it's about class warfare or hate. You really don't understand that a lot of people who are not well off, don't want to make other people poor. They want to also be well off too.. so you can try to think of ways to make them well off, get an education and have access to better schools or you can keep playing Richie Rich is the victim and the evil socialist government driven by the poor is out to punish his success. How many people actually want to punish the wealthy and want them to be poor too? How many Americans want this to be a poor country?

What you are arguing really isn't a debate..


And for there to be poor people lining up for soup kitchens while others to have "frivolous" luxuries isn't a question of socialism or capitalism, it's a question of morality and what you should do as a human being. I don't morally think the wealthy are justified to throw hundreds of dollars of food away and spend thousands of dollars on BS impractical consumerism like pet rocks while people starve, but it's their right.. It's not morally righteous, but it's not crime except within my personal faith. I am not the one pounding the drum that this nation was build on my religion or anything..

So what you are arguing, is really pointless..
Click to expand...

you do understand that charity does not involve the government taking from some to buy the votes of others. YOu do realize that those who are against socialist governments tend to be far more generous than those who support forced income redistribution. You do realize that when dealing with politicians, maintaining power is always a factor so pardon me if I don't buy into the BS that liberal polticians are operating from an altruistic position
 
SheWolf said:
I am far from clueless about wealth Turtledude.. I know a lot of really wealthy people in my own family. People who go on vacations in Africa and go on hunting safaris and take private planes to Alaska for hunting expeditions. I also know that there is a limited number of people who can actually do those things, and a far more limited number of people who can fly everywhere on a private jet and have basketball courts and private movie theaters inside their house.... and own several houses

Yep.. there are a lot of wealthy people in America... and I read that something like 40% of them think they are in the top 2%.. seems they don't have a grasp of their own wealth. I have a grasp of wealth and I have seen a lot of it, so I am not clueless but to act like the average CPA, doctor, or lawyer has more $$$ than Buffet isn't reality..
Click to expand...

that really has no relevance to anything I have said. I was pointing out that most of those in the top 2% are NOT like Buffett
 
TurtleDude said:
you do understand that charity does not involve the government taking from some to buy the votes of others. YOu do realize that those who are against socialist governments tend to be far more generous than those who support forced income redistribution. You do realize that when dealing with politicians, maintaining power is always a factor so pardon me if I don't buy into the BS that liberal polticians are operating from an altruistic position
Click to expand...

Did you read what I said? Did you happen to read what I said? Maybe you should reread what I said!!!! Maybe you should reread my above post. Did you read what I said? Did you read what I said? Reread what I said. Did you read what I said? Did you read what I said? Did you read what I said? Did you read what I said? Reread please. Did you read what I said? Did you read what I said? Did you read what I said? Did you read what I said? Reread please. Did you read what I said? Did you read what I said? Did you read what I said? Did you read what I said? Did you happen to read what I said? Did you read what I said?
 
TurtleDude said:
that really has no relevance to anything I have said. I was pointing out that most of those in the top 2% are NOT like Buffett
Click to expand...

I was pointing out that I have a grasp of who is in the top two percent and it's not the avg CPA, doctor, or lawyer..
 
SheWolf said:
I was pointing out that I have a grasp of who is in the top two percent and it's not the avg CPA, doctor, or lawyer..
Click to expand...

so enlighten me as to where what amount of income puts someone in the top 2%
 
TurtleDude said:
so enlighten me as to where what amount of income puts someone in the top 2%
Click to expand...

**Raises arm**

SheWolf, lemme guess!

How about Wall Street Executives that make hundreds of millions? I think there are more of them than we think.
 
Middleground said:
**Raises arm**

SheWolf, lemme guess!

How about Wall Street Executives that make hundreds of millions? I think there are more of them than we think.
Click to expand...

Fail

try again-the question was what is the boundary

for the top one percent its around 360K
 
TurtleDude said:
so enlighten me as to where what amount of income puts someone in the top 2%
Click to expand...

People worth billions of dollars
The Richest People in America - Forbes.com

Here is 400 hundred of them, and my richest uncle and friends who take private jets to Alaska and around Africa aren't even among the richest.. My richest uncle takes expensive vacations without his wive and kids, but his house isn't magnificent.. nothing Robin Leach would pop out of. I know about wealthy lifestyles.. I am not a idiot about this s**t..
 
TurtleDude said:
Fail

try again-the question was what is the boundary

for the top one percent its around 360K
Click to expand...

I guess I am in the top 2 to 5 percent then, and I don't even consider myself rich in comparison..

No try again.. according to this website the top 1% was projected to earn $719,000 in 1995.. and is pretax income..

U.S. Income Tax Burden
 
TurtleDude said:
you do understand that there are more than a few leftwingers who operate under the belief that if someone is poor its unfair for others to have "frivolous" luxuries.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. :roll:

Rightwingers operate under the belief that if someone is poor, they should be denied even the remotest semblance of "frivolous luxuries."

Their definition of a "frivolous luxury?" An occasional freakin' soda.

:doh
 
TurtleDude said:
you do understand that there are more than a few leftwingers who operate under the belief that if someone is poor its unfair for others to have "frivolous" luxuries. after all that is the mentality you push-from each according to their ability to each according to their needs.


maybe you can explain why people have different responsibilities in funding the government when they don't get any additional benefits from the government

its easy to make the practical argument that the rich have to pay more to make up for the many who cannot pay their fair share but I have yet to see a rational or logical argument why the wealthy have a moral duty to be taxed at higher rates
Click to expand...

First off...I strongly believe in the ideal of "From each according to their means...to each according to their needs"....However, unlike your projection....I don't think its unfair for the wealthy to have "frivilous luxuries"....of course they can. However, I also believe that those who have benefitted the most from what this country has to offer, have an obligation to give back....profiting from American resources is not free....it comes with a price.

That is why people with different backgrounds and access to the wealth of America have different obligations to pay America back.

Its really quite simple. In other words....you pay back according to what this great nation has allowed you to achieve. The morality comes into not wanting to pay back and selfishly believing that THAT which has been achieved has come simply as a result of one's "hard work". You can have all the "hard work" you want, but without the greatness of this Country and what it offers, the wealthy could never have achieved even a fraction of what they have. Its not FREE.....and that is why it is immoral not to pay back to the Country that in large part help achieve that wealth.
 
Glinda said:
Oh, please. :roll:

Rightwingers operate under the belief that if someone is poor, they should be denied even the remotest semblance of "frivolous luxuries."

Their definition of a "frivolous luxury?" An occasional freakin' soda.

:doh
Click to expand...

If they're so poor, that they have to get welfare, then they can't afford a soda water. Besides, as the Libbos tell us, it's bad for them and as long as the goverment is picking up the tab for their healthcare, they have to live a 100% healthy lifestyle.

Don't like it? Get the **** off welfare and pay for your own soda waters and your own healthcare, you own self.
 
disneydude said:
First off...I strongly believe in the ideal of "From each according to their means...to each according to their needs"....However, unlike your projection....I don't think its unfair for the wealthy to have "frivilous luxuries"....of course they can. However, I also believe that those who have benefitted the most from what this country has to offer, have an obligation to give back....profiting from American resources is not free....it comes with a price.

That is why people with different backgrounds and access to the wealth of America have different obligations to pay America back.

Its really quite simple. In other words....you pay back according to what this great nation has allowed you to achieve. The morality comes into not wanting to pay back and selfishly believing that THAT which has been achieved has come simply as a result of one's "hard work". You can have all the "hard work" you want, but without the greatness of this Country and what it offers, the wealthy could never have achieved even a fraction of what they have. Its not FREE.....and that is why it is immoral not to pay back to the Country that in large part help achieve that wealth.
Click to expand...

So, you're a Communist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom