• 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!

I'm poor myself and I could not care less if someone else is rich.

eman926 said:
Sorry, I still don't agree.
Click to expand...

I mean some people don't think the earth is round. I really don't care whether they agree with me on the shape of the earth.
 
CaughtInThe said:
people just want a level playing field and for wealthy people to NOT be able to buy politicians.
Click to expand...

Politicians write the laws. Not the rich. If politicians want to be sold like a whore , that's on them.
 
Aurora said:
Politicians write the laws. Not the rich. If politicians want to be sold like a whore , that's on them.
Click to expand...

Really? The person giving a bribe doesn't count?
 
You could take all of Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates's money, stocks, houses, cars, jewlery, and intelleticual rights. And this is the two most wealthiest people to ever live and you can run just the federal government for maybe 25 days.
Power has never been in the hands of rich people, the power is in the goverment. The government contracts they give out, who they let compete in the USA's command economy (we are no longer a free market). This is why politicians are bribed by the rich but yet pander to the votes.
 
jdog21 said:
You could take all of Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates's money, stocks, houses, cars, jewlery, and intelleticual rights. And this is the two most wealthiest people to ever live and you can run just the federal government for maybe 25 days.
Power has never been in the hands of rich people, the power is in the goverment. The government contracts they give out, who they let compete in the USA's command economy (we are no longer a free market). This is why politicians are bribed by the rich but yet pander to the votes.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous. We only need to seize Oprah's wealth, whatever that may be. Then, as you suggest, we sell it off, to run the government for however many days that may be. You know what we do next? We seize the property again, and sell it off, running the country for another many of days. It's brilliant. You've solved all of our problems. Dumb argument based on a fallacy. If the government seized the wealth of those two men, it would then receive the income from that wealth, running the government for however many days that is, as long as the wealth continued to earn income.

Saying the wealthy have no power is nonsense. This graph indicates the wealthy hold (damn near) all the power.

View attachment 67289232
 
Drawdown said:
Flat taxes are theoretically "fair" but completely inadequate to fund the government if done at any level that does not put most of America into cardboard houses.
Click to expand...

They are the opposite of fair. they represent a tax increase to the poor, and a tax cut to the rich, and would result in massive deficits ( more than what Trump is doing now)
 
OscarLevant said:
They are the opposite of fair. they represent a tax increase to the poor, and a tax cut to the rich, and would result in massive deficits ( more than what Trump is doing now)
Click to expand...

The touchstone of fairness is equality and there is nothing more equal than everybody being taxed at the same rate. It has nothing to do with relative increases and decreases. As for the rest, I already pointed out that they would be inadequate to fund the government.
 
Aurora said:
The congress critter signs off on it by voting for it. Or they may be the sponsor or co-sponsor. Agreed , these bills may be so huge, no congressman knows what's in it.
Click to expand...

This is a serious problem, no? Don't mistake my post as support for Congress. We don't even know whether third parties are involved. Lots of nods and winks, apparently. This isn't high-profile entertainment, though. Who cares? What's a co-sponsor? Government has become a TV series, and when we watch a TV series, we're asking to be manipulated. In fact, we're disappointed when we're not.

Too many sound bites, one minute ads, tweets, facebook and now riots. You can't tell me this isn't all made for TV.

A very disjointed post, lol but I hope you agree.
 
jdog21 said:
You could take all of Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates's money, stocks, houses, cars, jewlery, and intelleticual rights. And this is the two most wealthiest people to ever live and you can run just the federal government for maybe 25 days.
Power has never been in the hands of rich people, the power is in the goverment. The government contracts they give out, who they let compete in the USA's command economy (we are no longer a free market). This is why politicians are bribed by the rich but yet pander to the votes.
Click to expand...



Misleading.

As of Q3 2019, the bottom 50% of households had $1.67 trillion or 1.6% of the net worth, versus $74.5 trillion or 70% for the top 10%.
(source Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia )

And, the top 1% had $30.5 trillion for 40% of the nation's wealth This years's fiscal budget is close to $4.8 trillion.
Federal Budget: Breaking down the US Federal Budget | Charts and Graphs
So, the wealth of the top 1% could fund the gov for about 6 years and a quarter.
But, no one is suggesting 'confiscating' anything, but a wealth tax would help, and I'd like to see religion that operates business enterprise pay taxes, as they receive gov services for free, and that puts the burden on everyone else. Take Scientology headquarters in Clearwater Fla -- they own a lot of downtown Clearwater, but use city services, and pay no property tax. That shifts the burden to everyone else that lives there. I think this kind of thing, where there is an unfair situation affecting taxpayers, something should be done about it.



The 'government' is the House and Senate, where there are more lobbyists than congresspersons or senators, who wield a lot of influence, over 'the people'.
 
Last edited:
Michael Cole said:
This is a serious problem, no? Don't mistake my post as support for Congress. We don't even know whether third parties are involved. Lots of nods and winks, apparently. This isn't high-profile entertainment, though. Who cares? What's a co-sponsor? Government has become a TV series, and when we watch a TV series, we're asking to be manipulated. In fact, we're disappointed when we're not.

Too many sound bites, one minute ads, tweets, facebook and now riots. You can't tell me this isn't all made for TV.

A very disjointed post, lol but I hope you agree.
Click to expand...

It's a battle for people's minds. Media is not in the news business anymore. It's propaganda. They want Biden in the White House. CNN, MSNBC, newspapers, Google , Facebook want Trump out, Biden in. They control the flow of information.
 
Drawdown said:
The touchstone of fairness is equality and there is nothing more equal than everybody being taxed at the same rate. It has nothing to do with relative increases and decreases. As for the rest, I already pointed out that they would be inadequate to fund the government.
Click to expand...

Please. There's something more equal than that. Everybody earning the same rate. They don't, and because of the structure of our free economy, are taxed progressively. It's not a new idea, and is usually covered the first week in polisci 101. That was my experience, anyway.
 
Aurora said:
It's a battle for people's minds. Media is not in the news business anymore. It's propaganda. They want Biden in the White House. CNN, MSNBC, newspapers, Google , Facebook want Trump out, Biden in. They control the flow of information.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but the other side has its own media operation as well. Can't forget them.

I really don't want this to be a Trump thing, but I want to ask you something. Please try to separate the question from Trump's actual words. Go ahead and use Obama. Whataboutisms are fine here; Obama did the same, although in a much different way. Just answer the question honestly.

Do you think it's healthy, for democracy and the country, for a president to focus on TV ratings for a supposed national emergency briefing? My answer is no. (Pretty much for the reasons I already stated.) Before you second guess me, I'll say that I can see other sides of the argument, and there is reason behind them. Just wondering where you stood.
 
Last edited:
OscarLevant said:
They are the opposite of fair. they represent a tax increase to the poor, and a tax cut to the rich, and would result in massive deficits ( more than what Trump is doing now)
Click to expand...

While yes, it would be a tax cut for the rich, I do not believe it would be a tax increase for the poor. We just have to eliminate all other forms of federal taxes. There should be only one form anyways. But didn’t I already say the best system would be a consumption tax?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
OscarLevant said:
Misleading.

As of Q3 2019, the bottom 50% of households had $1.67 trillion or 1.6% of the net worth, versus $74.5 trillion or 70% for the top 10%.
(source Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia )

And, the top 1% had $30.5 trillion for 40% of the nation's wealth This years's fiscal budget is close to $4.8 trillion.
Federal Budget: Breaking down the US Federal Budget | Charts and Graphs
So, the wealth of the top 1% could fund the gov for about 6 years and a quarter.
But, no one is suggesting 'confiscating' anything, but a wealth tax would help, and I'd like to see religion that operates business enterprise pay taxes, as they receive gov services for free, and that puts the burden on everyone else. Take Scientology headquarters in Clearwater Fla -- they own a lot of downtown Clearwater, but use city services, and pay no property tax. That shifts the burden to everyone else that lives there. I think this kind of thing, where there is an unfair situation affecting taxpayers, something should be done about it.



The 'government' is the House and Senate, where there are more lobbyists than congresspersons or senators, who wield a lot of influence, over 'the people'.
Click to expand...

1% is still a lot of people, what 3 million. So ya combining their wealth could possbily fund the federal gov for a few years.
Comparing what the tip of the top richest people have to what a burger fliper does is irrelevant. Why even bring it up, seems to me like all it does is make you seem like you hate rich people cause they worked hard and smart and found a way to make it and your just bitter.
This isnt a personal jab at what you do but the personification you give off in your statements.

The power is still in the governments hands and these are people who are elected by those poor people.
 
jdog21 said:
1% is still a lot of people, what 3 million. So ya combining their wealth could possbily fund the federal gov for a few years.
Comparing what the tip of the top richest people have to what a burger fliper does is irrelevant. Why even bring it up, seems to me like all it does is make you seem like you hate rich people cause they worked hard and smart and found a way to make it and your just bitter.
This isnt a personal jab at what you do but the personification you give off in your statements.

The power is still in the governments hands and these are people who are elected by those poor people.
Click to expand...

Power is held by government and producers. The power to employ thousands of people is held both by the government and the private sector, and although government's 36.6% of GDP is too high in my opinion, the other 63.4% is in private hands.
 
Michael Cole said:
Power is held by government and producers. The power to employ thousands of people is held both by the government and the private sector, and although government's 36.6% of GDP is too high in my opinion, the other 63.4% is in private hands.
Click to expand...

Private hands means power is spread out through all private people. Thats why the government holds the power cause its a concentrated heiracrchy
 
eman926 said:
First off, I don't envy the rich. Yes, someday I'd aspire to get a career that would get me there, but I focus on the now. I don't blame any of the rich for my problems, and I don't think they should have to give up any of their income to support me. I still support either a flat tax, a fair tax, but the best option I think would be a basic consumption tax (not a fair tax). I think any of those would be the best options. I do have a disability, and I get some aid. But I'm striving to work my way out of it, unlike some. I think privatization of my aid would still be better. I plan to go to a different state to go to school someday, but for privacy reasons (I already told you enough) I won't share what those are. I will tell you it's a liberal dominated field though.
Click to expand...


"Rich and poor are merely states of mind."

- Dave Chappelle
 
Deuce said:
Good for you. But let's not pretend the wealthy don't have an effect on your life.
Click to expand...

Lets not pretend that the 44% of Americans that pay NO Fed income tax have no effect on the other tax payers lives?
 
Drawdown said:
The cost of manufacturing an iphone is like $12. The rest of the "costs" are licenses to people like Bill Gates. I get your point, but at the same time, for most people things like cellphones, cable, and internet that flow to the gazillionaires really is why the rich are getting richer. There is no need to make or invent or produce when you have intellectual property rights bringing you big checks every quarter.
Click to expand...

i get it, they make money when i buy their services or products

who cares?

that is my choice to buy that phone...which by the way i havent bought a new phone in 9 years

it is my choice what services i choose to buy....

some people will make money no matter what choices we make....i choose for the most part not to try and keep up with other people

my wife and i drive one vehicle that is now 7 years old, and we paid cash....

life is always about choices...but the wealthy really dont affect many people....never have, and never will
 
eman926 said:
First off, I don't envy the rich. Yes, someday I'd aspire to get a career that would get me there, but I focus on the now. I don't blame any of the rich for my problems, and I don't think they should have to give up any of their income to support me. I still support either a flat tax, a fair tax, but the best option I think would be a basic consumption tax (not a fair tax). I think any of those would be the best options. I do have a disability, and I get some aid. But I'm striving to work my way out of it, unlike some. I think privatization of my aid would still be better. I plan to go to a different state to go to school someday, but for privacy reasons (I already told you enough) I won't share what those are. I will tell you it's a liberal dominated field though.
Click to expand...


I assume you are getting financial support from the government. Now if that was privatized would the money go from the government to the private org to dole out to people. Or do you mean fully private, as in only funded by people giving money to the org.

Do you honestly expect that would cover all the people who currently get aid from the government?
 
Aurora said:
Politicians write the laws. Not the rich. If politicians want to be sold like a whore , that's on them.
Click to expand...

or, you know, we could actually have transparency laws that are more harsh and punish both the buyer and seller (when they break the law).
 
Michael Cole said:
Agreed, but the other side has its own media operation as well. Can't forget them.

I really don't want this to be a Trump thing, but I want to ask you something. Please try to separate the question from Trump's actual words. Go ahead and use Obama. Whataboutisms are fine here; Obama did the same, although in a much different way. Just answer the question honestly.

Do you think it's healthy, for democracy and the country, for a president to focus on TV ratings for a supposed national emergency briefing? My answer is no. (Pretty much for the reasons I already stated.) Before you second guess me, I'll say that I can see other sides of the argument, and there is reason behind them. Just wondering where you stood.
Click to expand...

TV ratings are meaningless. Just tend to business. Unfortunately much of media is working for the DNC to remove Trump to install Biden. Media propaganda is to form people's thinking, not to inform. That has to take a toll on a president to some degree. Now Facebook and Google are in on the propaganda and information flow. Social media has the ability to incite people to riot and protest. George Floyd a drug addict felon is now a national hero. Where others who have died by police are a nobody. That is the power of media and big tech information.
 
OscarLevant said:
Misleading.

As of Q3 2019, the bottom 50% of households had $1.67 trillion or 1.6% of the net worth, versus $74.5 trillion or 70% for the top 10%.
(source Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia )

And, the top 1% had $30.5 trillion for 40% of the nation's wealth This years's fiscal budget is close to $4.8 trillion.
Federal Budget: Breaking down the US Federal Budget | Charts and Graphs
So, the wealth of the top 1% could fund the gov for about 6 years and a quarter.
But, no one is suggesting 'confiscating' anything, but a wealth tax would help, and I'd like to see religion that operates business enterprise pay taxes, as they receive gov services for free, and that puts the burden on everyone else. Take Scientology headquarters in Clearwater Fla -- they own a lot of downtown Clearwater, but use city services, and pay no property tax. That shifts the burden to everyone else that lives there. I think this kind of thing, where there is an unfair situation affecting taxpayers, something should be done about it.



The 'government' is the House and Senate, where there are more lobbyists than congresspersons or senators, who wield a lot of influence, over 'the people'.
Click to expand...

Should wealth be based on merit and achievement ? There is equality under the law(in theory) there isn't equality in outcomes of achievement and abilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom