• 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!

What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

I am glad to see that you can say that. Now all that you have to do is avoid writing posts as if you do in the future.

I must be in some alter-universe. I am seeing posts that make no sense whatsoever
 
So you are saying that a company's profits are only to be reaped by the shareholders, never to be at least partially shared with the workers who created the profits, unless the workers can provide a higher quality of labor than they provided to create the profits in the first place?

Something doesn't seem fair about that TD.

I'm guessing that does not matter much to a person who has publicly stated they value money more than the lives of some people.
 
I'm guessing that does not matter much to a person who has publicly stated they value money more than the lives of some people.

most people believe that

if you went to the average american and said would you be willing to suffer complete bankruptcy to save the life of some internet troll or other person they have never met, I bet less than 5% would say yes.
 
well we know a few things

1) jacking up taxes on the rich won't increase jobs and the last I checked this thread was about the tax rates that were implemented by Bush as a reaction to the Clinton tax hikes and then extended by Obumble.

2) You labor under the idiotic delusion that more government actually helps the poor. What the poor get from more government is akin to what addicts get from Pushers.

but thanks for admitting that the rich really don't benefit as much from government as the poor and lower middle class. that bit of honesty is refreshing and is a major bitch slap to those who claim that the rich benefit from more and more government

Bitch slap???

Who's the majority in America the rich ,or the ones without jobs , the working poor, the poor.

A lot of people voting age .
How many poor, working poor and unemployed are going to support less taxes for the rich and more budget cuts for them?
 
most people believe that

if you went to the average american and said would you be willing to suffer complete bankruptcy to save the life of some internet troll or other person they have never met, I bet less than 5% would say yes.

We were discussing the Bush tax cuts when you made the statement that you valued your money more than the lives of some people, so please show us your calculations used to determine that the rich will suffer complete bankruptcy due to the elimination of the Bush tax cuts for the rich?

You also have not answered the question here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/106017-purpose-did-tax-cut-wealthiest-serve-85.html#post1059780646
 
Last edited:
fair is not a really relevant concept and it would be unfair to the owners of the corporation for management to pay too much for something that can be obtained for less

should the corporation pay its energy and steel and plastics and lumber suppliers more than the going rate as well to be "fair"

TD - I'm asking you a question; do you think the workers who help grow and make a company profitable should not share in any of the financial gain they helped create?
 
Bitch slap???

Who's the majority in America the rich ,or the ones without jobs , the working poor, the poor.

A lot of people voting age .
How many poor, working poor and unemployed are going to support less taxes for the rich and more budget cuts for them?

many of them are deluded into thinking that more and more government handouts are GOOD for them

just as junkies think more fixes are to their benefit
 
We were discussing the Bush tax cuts when you made the statement that you valued your money more than the lives of some people, so please show us your calculations used to determine that the rich will suffer complete bankruptcy due to the elimination of the Bush tax cuts for the rich?

You also have not answered the question here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/106017-purpose-did-tax-cut-wealthiest-serve-85.html#post1059780646

why are you again trying to divert this thread by obsessing over your misconstruction of what I said?
 
TD - I'm asking you a question; do you think the workers who help grow and make a company profitable should not share in any of the financial gain they helped create?

No. They are entitled to the terms of their contracts
 
No. They are entitled to the terms of their contracts

Well Turtle, congratulations.

You sir are exactly the reason why Capitalism gets a bad wrap.

To say that the employees who help make a company great, or who help make a company prosperous should not be able to share in any any of the profits they create is exactly the reason why people turn to alternate economic setups like Communism.

I think a company should be treated somewhat like a community (within reason, of course). Perhaps if all businesses could do this, maybe we wouldn't have such a huge wealth stratification problem right now and so many people bitching about taxes and welfare and all that other mumbo jumbo.

If we can treat a company like a community, and not just a big machine filled with labor that's treated like a commodity, perhaps people wouldn't need such a huge government to protect them and provide food stamps.

TurtleDude - you are your own worst enemy.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Well Turtle, congratulations.

You sir are exactly the reason why Capitalism gets a bad wrap.

To say that the employees who help make a company great, or who help make a company prosperous deserve not to see any of the profits they create is exactly the reason why people turn to alternate economic setups like Communism.

I think a company, within reason (of course), be treated somewhat like a community. If only businesses could do this, maybe we wouldn't have such a huge wealth stratification problem right now and so many people bitching about taxes and welfare and all that other mumbo jumbo.

If we can treat a company like a community, and not just a big machine filled with labor that's treated like a commodity, perhaps people wouldn't need such a huge government to protect them and provide food stamps.

TurtleDude - you are your own worst enemy.

emoting where thinking is needed is not helpful.
 
Well said David. You make some excellent points - especially about community.

and from Turtle on Davids excellent post

emoting where thinking is needed is not helpful.

Should I make a joke here about "thank you Mr. Spock"? I thought the post from David was filled with excellent thinking. To characterize it otherwise is simply attacking the ideas in the guise of trying to be clever.
 
Last edited:
Well said David. You make some excellent points - especially about community.

and from Turtle on Davids excellent post



Should I make a joke here about "thank you Mr. Spock"? I thought the post from David was filled with excellent thinking. To characterize it otherwise is simply attacking the ideas in the guise of trying to be clever.

Why thank you Haymarket.
 
To say that the employees who help make a company great, or who help make a company prosperous should not be able to share in any any of the profits they create is exactly the reason why people turn to alternate economic setups like Communism.

Why should they be able to do anything of the sort? The money they earn is merely the money of the employer. They have no right to any more money than they're given by the employer.
 
Last edited:
Well Turtle, congratulations.

You sir are exactly the reason why Capitalism gets a bad wrap.

To say that the employees who help make a company great, or who help make a company prosperous should not be able to share in any any of the profits they create is exactly the reason why people turn to alternate economic setups like Communism.

I think a company, within reason (of course), be treated somewhat like a community. If only businesses could do this, maybe we wouldn't have such a huge wealth stratification problem right now and so many people bitching about taxes and welfare and all that other mumbo jumbo.

If we can treat a company like a community, and not just a big machine filled with labor that's treated like a commodity, perhaps people wouldn't need such a huge government to protect them and provide food stamps.

TurtleDude - you are your own worst enemy.

I bet if we each ran a similar company within five years I'd own yours. Out of curiosity do you actually own or run a corporation? I was on the board of a not for profit retirement community many years ago. we were discussing the employment manual. I noted that we needed to change the names of those workers who passed probationary employment from permanent workers to REGULAR workers.

A PhD-a leader in her field of geriatrics asked why. The head of the corporation-both a pastor and an attorney noted that recent federal court decisions had indicated that in hire/fire at will states, workers had successfully "relied" on the term PERMANENT workers when fired for cause or lack of work. SO I noted we had to guard against that manual being interpreted as a quasi-contract that could be used to assert an estoppel argument. This PhD was upset and said it was "mean" to do that. So the president asked her if she wanted all the people suffering dementia but who were treated at no cost by this richly endowed corporation to lose their treatment due to some plaintiff's attorney suing the place for firing an abusive staff member. She finally realized that business reality trumps emotobabbling
 
Why should they be able to do anything of the sort? The money they earn is merely the money of the employer. They have no right to any more money than they given by the employer.

true

I noted he didn't answer my question as to whether the suppliers of other commodities should be paid a bonus beyond the contract price for the steel or energy they supply

Communitarianism sounds good in the ivory tower, in the real world its about as sensible as trying to fight fair with a mugger
 
Well said David. You make some excellent points - especially about community.

and from Turtle on Davids excellent post



Should I make a joke here about "thank you Mr. Spock"? I thought the post from David was filled with excellent thinking. To characterize it otherwise is simply attacking the ideas in the guise of trying to be clever.

An expected response from someone who admittedly has never run a business nor worked in the private sector.
 
Why should they be able to do anything of the sort? The money they earn is merely the money of the employer. They have no right to any more money than they given by the employer.

Henrin - As a company grows and becomes more profitable, I think it would be great if some of that wealth could be shared amongst the employees who helped grow the company.

After all, they helped created it. Right?

Why shouldn't they justifiably see any of that payoff?

And I'm not talking communism here and saying that all workers are the same. If an employee did a crappy job, fire him. If someone can't provide a good quality of labor, fire him. But if your employee did the job you asked of him, and your company reaped profits as a result, why not share a portion of it?
 
Is there no one among those who defend the wealth concentrated at the top, answer this question:

Tell us how a consumer economy can prosper when most of the wealth is concentrated at the top?
 
true

I noted he didn't answer my question as to whether the suppliers of other commodities should be paid a bonus beyond the contract price for the steel or energy they supply

Communitarianism sounds good in the ivory tower, in the real world its about as sensible as trying to fight fair with a mugger

TurtleDude, sorry for not answering all of your questions promptly - I was on my mobile device (and mobile).

I will respond by saying your question is completely nonsensical in the context of this discussion. NO - I would not pay the provider of the steel or energy a bonus because they are commodities.

My whole point is that Labor =/= Commodity.
 
Is there no one among those who defend the wealth concentrated at the top, answer this question:

Tell us how a consumer economy can prosper when most of the wealth is concentrated at the top?

70 years of progressive income taxes has insulated the very richest people. that is why many of them support a system that creates entitlement addicts sapped of ambition

you have failed to understand a progressive tax system creates rich elites who use that system to buy public office and the wealth that comes with it. massive taxes create massive government and massive government creates massive power and wealth for those who run it. want more diversity of wealth and power? seek to decentralize government and dissipate federal power and control
 
Henrin - As a company grows and becomes more profitable, I think it would be great if some of that wealth could be shared amongst the employees who helped grow the company.

After all, they helped created it. Right?

Why shouldn't they justifiably see any of that payoff?

And I'm not talking communism here and saying that all workers are the same. If an employee did a crappy job, fire him. If someone can't provide a good quality of labor, fire him. But if your employee did the job you asked of him, and your company reaped profits as a result, why not share a portion of it?

Because there is no reason to do so. They're already giving them part with the payment they already decided to give them. The payment they receive is not decided on how much success the company is having but by the fancy of the employers of the market. It hardly matters the relationship of who did what in the earning of that profit, it only matters who has the property that is being put out.
 
Last edited:
Is there no one among those who defend the wealth concentrated at the top, answer this question:

Tell us how a consumer economy can prosper when most of the wealth is concentrated at the top?


Such a consumer driven economy will not prosper ... interests will pay for the opinion, that there is prosperity. See Americas economy.


www.tobinproject.org/conference_economic/papers/BankFailures_ChartwithComments_Moss.pdf
Bank%20Failures.jpg
 
Moderator's Warning:
Some of you are getting too free with the personal stuff... everybody chill, discuss the topic not each other.
 
Back
Top Bottom