• 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!

Do The Rich Need Saving?

Do The Rich Need Saving?

  • Total voters
    54
Catawba said:
As the rich pay less percentage of their total income in total taxes than the working class, they have a smaller burden. That is what you do not get.



That sense of entitlement appears to have been bred by decades of tax breaks for the wealthy.
Click to expand...

massive lie on your part. the rich pay a higher total federal tax rate than the poor-many of whom are GIVEN money by the government. If someone gives you 20,000 dollars and you use that to pay say 4000 dollars of taxes your effective tax rate is not 20%. Its still ZERO since those taxes were actually paid by those whose money was given to you.

When the rich pay almost twice as much of the tax burden than their share of the income, you lose what little credibility you might have had by claiming that being taxed more than everyone else is a sense of entitlement

the entitlement is evidenced by people like you who think that you should not even pay the same share of the income tax as your share of the income

Your rant is based on the assumption that the rich should pay far more taxes because you think they should rather than any objective comparison of income received and taxes paid

the top few percent ARE THE ONLY GROUP that pay more of the federal income tax burden than their share of the income
 
apdst said:
If there aren't anymore rich people, what do we have? A nation full of poor people?

Someone want to tell me how that's a good thing?
Click to expand...

everyone (save the rich elites) being miserable is the main goal of socialism
 
TurtleDude said:
everyone (save the rich elites) being miserable is the main goal of socialism
Click to expand...

Or, you know, comfort and prosperity for all... But I suppose if not being able to abuse others makes you miserable, then I can see how you'd think that.
 
TurtleDude said:
NO the real weakness that you won't make a rational counter argument to what I have said



Do you admit or deny that Obama said

1) everyone should sacrifice

2) the rich need to pay more taxes

3) that cutting spending will cause others to sacrifice

the only logical conclusion from this is either

a) the rich need to sacrifice MORE than the others or

b) the rich don't sacrifice by spending cuts so their share of the sacrifice is paying more taxes

argue against that
Click to expand...

That doesn't say what you think it says. he is not saying the rich don't benefit from government. The things that will be cut are nto those they benefit. Corporate welfare, for example isn't on the block even though it is more that the welfare you whine about.

The fact is, you can't make an argument against a reality based on what you think Obama believes. It just can't be done dude.
 
Paschendale said:
Or, you know, comfort and prosperity for all... But I suppose if not being able to abuse others makes you miserable, then I can see how you'd think that.
Click to expand...

socialism and similar diseases have killed more people in the last 100 years than any other system or religion combined

because after all the only way to truly make people equal is to put them in their graves

I want to be left alone. I am not the one demanding government take stuff from others to give to me or to prevent them from having it. that is your game, not mine
 
Boo Radley said:
That doesn't say what you think it says. he is not saying the rich don't benefit from government. The things that will be cut are nto those they benefit. Corporate welfare, for example isn't on the block even though it is more that the welfare you whine about.

The fact is, you can't make an argument against a reality based on what you think Obama believes. It just can't be done dude.
Click to expand...

In other words you are going to evade that obvious;

thanks for playing but if you cannot honestly address obvious points than you are just wasting both our our time
 
TurtleDude said:
the rich pay a higher total federal tax rate than the poor
Click to expand...

Carefull here... remember that the poor pay a much higher percentage of thier income to payroll taxes as well as those obscenely regressive sales taxes. And therefore, since the poor spend a far, far higher percentage of thier income on things like food, shelter and sales taxes than the wealthy (nevermind cigarettes and the lottery!), we have a progressive (as opposed to regressive) tax rate. Is that wrong? Should we tax the poor into a state of malnutrition? death?
 
TurtleDude said:
socialism and similar diseases have killed more people in the last 100 years than any other system or religion combined
Click to expand...


Manifest Destiny committed genocide.
 
Paschendale said:
Or, you know, comfort and prosperity for all... But I suppose if not being able to abuse others makes you miserable, then I can see how you'd think that.
Click to expand...

That's failed in every other socialistic country. Why is it miraculously going to start working, now? Care to explain that one?
 
TurtleDude said:
raising taxes won't help. all it does is give your dear leaders more "reasons" to spend more money to buy more votes
Click to expand...

Raising taxes increase revenues which are needed to help reduce the deficit caused by wasteful spending during the last decade.

how can we pay living wages as you call them if they make businesses that are forced to pay them uncompetitive?
Click to expand...

As we can clearly see from history, businesses remained competitive when the effective tax rates were much higher than they are today.
 
apdst said:
If there aren't anymore rich people, what do we have? A nation full of poor people?

Someone want to tell me how that's a good thing?
Click to expand...

Should you ever decide to crack open a history book, you will learn there were rich people when the effective tax rates were much higher for the wealthy, and also had the strongest middle class in our history. But, we don't want any of that do we?
 
I'm still not sure what the rich need saving from. Isn't that kinda the point of being rich? Power, influence, safety, control over one's environment... The rich, by definition, seem like the last ones who'll need saving. Unless there's a violent rebellion, in which case they'll need the Scarlet Pimpernel to save them.
 
Catawba said:
Should you ever decide to crack open a history book, you will learn there were rich people when the effective tax rates were much higher for the wealthy, and also had the strongest middle class in our history. But, we don't want any of that do we?
Click to expand...

Dude dont talk about that, because we all know that History books are written by pinko commie liberal professors...
 
TurtleDude said:
massive lie on your part. the rich pay a higher total federal tax rate than the poor-many of whom are GIVEN money by the government. If someone gives you 20,000 dollars and you use that to pay say 4000 dollars of taxes your effective tax rate is not 20%. Its still ZERO since those taxes were actually paid by those whose money was given to you.

When the rich pay almost twice as much of the tax burden than their share of the income, you lose what little credibility you might have had by claiming that being taxed more than everyone else is a sense of entitlement

the entitlement is evidenced by people like you who think that you should not even pay the same share of the income tax as your share of the income

Your rant is based on the assumption that the rich should pay far more taxes because you think they should rather than any objective comparison of income received and taxes paid

the top few percent ARE THE ONLY GROUP that pay more of the federal income tax burden than their share of the income
Click to expand...


I'm glad it is your opinion the Bush tax breaks did not reduce the tax rates for the wealthy. That way you won't miss them when they are eliminated. :sun
 
Catawba said:
Should you ever decide to crack open a history book, you will learn there were rich people when the effective tax rates were much higher for the wealthy, and also had the strongest middle class in our history. But, we don't want any of that do we?
Click to expand...

There weren't all thse EPA regulations, either. Nor were local governments using traffic lights to generate income. And not nearly as much welfare, either. But hey, only use the historical facts that best support your lame ass argument.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Dude dont talk about that, because we all know that History books are written by pinko commie liberal professors...
Click to expand...

Only the ones that are written by college professors. If you manage to pick up one that was written by an actual historian, you'll find out the real facts.
 
apdst said:
Only the ones that are written by college professors. If you manage to pick up one that was written by an actual historian, you'll find out the real facts.
Click to expand...


By actual historians do you mean people who did things like go to graduate school? and maybe got a Phd?
 
TurtleDude said:
In other words you are going to evade that obvious;

thanks for playing but if you cannot honestly address obvious points than you are just wasting both our our time
Click to expand...

Tell yourself whatever you need to in order to save face, but it won't work. You failed, big time. :coffeepap
 
apdst said:
Only the ones that are written by college professors. If you manage to pick up one that was written by an actual historian, you'll find out the real facts.
Click to expand...

hahaha right................
 
winston53660 said:
By actual historians do you mean people who did things like go to graduate school? and maybe got a Phd?
Click to expand...

Some did, some didn't. Most real historians aren't career college profs, to be sure.
 
apdst said:
Some did, some didn't. Most real historians aren't career college profs, to be sure.
Click to expand...


Oh so you just make it up as you go as to what a real historian is.....I see.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
Oh so you just make it up as you go as what a real historian is.....I see.
Click to expand...

I like this one cuz this one agrees with "my view" but i dont like this one cuz this one makes me look crazy.
 
TurtleDude said:
socialism and similar diseases have killed more people in the last 100 years than any other system or religion combined

because after all the only way to truly make people equal is to put them in their graves

I want to be left alone. I am not the one demanding government take stuff from others to give to me or to prevent them from having it. that is your game, not mine
Click to expand...

Except that you are. The system that made you rich is one that the government spends a lot of time and money protecting. Your way is not some kind of perfect natural default. Being left alone is the last thing you are actually advocating, even if you truly believe it is. You benefit from millions of laws and regulations. Don't play ignorant. We both know better. You're a lawyer aren't you? The kind that, unlike me, actually makes the big bucks. You know all about how to twist and turn the rules to your own benefit. Just like I do, probably better since you've been at it way longer.

Why do you keep pretending that the truth is something other than what you and I both know it to be?
 
apdst said:
There weren't all thse EPA regulations, either. Nor were local governments using traffic lights to generate income. And not nearly as much welfare, either. But hey, only use the historical facts that best support your lame ass argument.
Click to expand...

Let's see your analysis that made you come to the conclusion that modern pollution control has hurt our economy rather than helped it? Increased welfare is result of trickle down economics and the recession which was brought about by cutting regulation of the banking industry. We have not had such a wide disparity of wealth since the 1920s.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom