• 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!

Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

Is it unreasonable to pay a little more?

  • Yes. I'm a greedy bastard!! I need MORE!!!

    Votes: 21 27.6%

  • No. There's comes a point in wealthiness where it just doesn't even matter anymore.

    Votes: 48 63.2%

  • I'm not sure.

    Votes: 7 9.2%
  • Total voters
    76
cannuck said:
But, let's do remember that the kickoff to this round of truly irresponsible de-regulation was the repeal of Glass-Steagall by Clinton. Further, we witnessed your favourite miracle working saviour show up on camera even before being sworn in with the same economic advisory team the Goldman Sucks ran BushII with. Obama has had 5 years to actually DO something, but all we have seen is more Reagan-size tax and spend idiocy - not to mention the Wall Street bailouts of rewarding his masters for their treachery and incompetence - that has run the debt of the nation through the roof.

Heck, if I was a RRR strategist, I would WANT the PCLL to put their sacrificial lamb back in office to take the fall. IMHO, that is why they ran such totally inappropriate candidates for the last two elections (I mean, have you forgotten Sarah already?????)
Click to expand...

You are referring to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act:

"Respective versions of the legislation were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001.

During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government."
Gramm


You'll get no argument from me that many of the conservative Democrats went along with the GOP, but the way I see it is the liberal Democrats are the only ones in Congress that have spoke out against it. Its still the same today, its only a group of Democrats that have proposed reestablishing the separation of commercial banks and investment banks once provided under Glass-Stegall. Full Text of H.R. 1489: Return to Prudent Banking Act of 2011 - GovTrack.us

We just need more liberal Democrats in Congress!
 
Arbo said:
Wow, mr. this 20% is more than that 20% is for real. FICA taxes are taken out for social security and medicare. If you paid a damn bit of attention to the original graph, you would have READ that it included social security and medicare taxes (um... FICA!)... here it is again:

View attachment 67140478

See it up there? So now that you've railed on saying the chart wasn't accurate, and came up with the 'missing' FICA that wasn't missing... What's the new spin we will see next? And you show how you can't even read a pie chart. Even with SS taxes back up to 6.2% as of January 1, that comes nowhere close to the 'revenue' brought in by normal FIT in terms of individuals. When you add in the employer paying the same amount to cover the employees lame ass, the numbers still aren't there in total.



Again, ignorance is no excuse. The 'rich' in general provide for themselves, they don't need government to do so, thus it they most often don't use SS or medicare, yet pay into it to support the system. Why should they pay MORE into a system they will never use? Don't they pay for enough stuff to take care of you already?
Click to expand...



First you pretend you never heard of FICA taxes, an now you pretend not to know that SS receipts go into the General Fund? Tell you what, bring it up for the people to vote on again in 2014! :cool:
 
EarlzP said:
President Obama is not a dictator, he is a president, he has to work with the senate and congress. The USA economy was in free fall when he took office, it's nothing short of a miracle that the USA is not in a depression dragging along Canada and half of the world along. It's apparent that you do not care for him so who among the other party candidates would you have cast your vote for?
Click to expand...
Fair comments. The US and the world are not in a full blown depression (although many in Europe would disagree) because Washington long ago abdicated full control of the economy to Wall Street, and if the analysts say that it ain't so, the world believes it ain't so. A depression would have been much better because it would have brought some positive control over Wall Street as it did in the '30s and the required change in our individual and collective economic behaviour. Today, we are all still worshiping speculation as a genuine economic accomplishment rather than what it actually is - pent up inflation.

The end result is trillions more in debt, but instead of correcting anything, more than another hundred T of unfunded liabilities for entitlements are still going to rack up and bankrupt the next several generations. The resulting collapse will be far worse than getting things sorted out now would have been.

Who would I have voted for: simple, Ron Paul. He seems to be the only person inside of the Beltway who will take on the banks (and probably the only one they don't outright own). Now if only his party could move into a reasonable, practical and achievable platform, that might result in something that could work. Clearly, what the Uniparty is doing does not.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
You are referring to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act:
Click to expand...
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to educate an ignorant furriner. I wish I had the time to be a lot better informed about the political history leading up to today's debacle.
 
ecofarm said:
Ooooh oooh! Me, me, Mr. Carta!

Human rights, labor rights, environmental rights and a free and fair market. You know, the stuff that separates them from anarchists.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
TurtleDude said:
why do so many people make excuses for their own failures?
Click to expand...

Because it's much easier than doing the hard work needed to not be a failure... unfortunate for them and the whole country.
 
Catawba said:
First you pretend you never heard of FICA taxes, an now you pretend not to know that SS receipts go into the General Fund? Tell you what, bring it up for the people to vote on again in 2014! :cool:
Click to expand...

Man, you simply can not stick to a single point without some seriously off the wall dodges and twists. You have yet again, by yet another person, been called out, and have NOTHING. It's clear as day.

The bottom 20% is more than the top 20% because there are more poor people. Simply astounding logic in that misfiring brain dude..... and it just keeps coming.
 
Gipper said:
You've proven that all too well.
Click to expand...

Alright ala- f'n- bama what is it that you and your libertarian and conservatives buddies want to do with the masses of people that your policies will put on the street. Are you going to give them tents to raise their children in or let me guess you don't care what happens to them. Their children should have been able to pick better parents to be born to.
 
ecofarm said:
Ooooh oooh! Me, me, Mr. Carta!

Human rights, labor rights, environmental rights and a free and fair market. You know, the stuff that separates them from anarchists.
Click to expand...

Human rights and labour rights are two things that can be handled fairly, or, in most cases, become an orgy of granting special privilege to some groups at the expense of others. In other words, pretty much social Darwinism expressed through the institutions of power. For example: when I hear the term "labour rights" that usually means special privilege for organized labour at the expense of the personal freedoms of non-union workers.

"free and fair market" - now you are right in my bailiwick. To begin with, there are no "free" markets. ALL markets exist under some kind of rules and enforcement, whether by the participants, outside forces or government. The closest I have ever encountered to a truly free marketplace was Russia shortly after the USSR fell apart. In that free market, the rulemakers very quickly became the criminals who had access to communications, command and control strategies (and weapons), and as soon as someone gets the power to make and enforce the rules, human nature dictates that they immediately begin to dispense the privilege to KEEP themselves in that position. Today we know them as the Oligarchs and government.

So, tell me: how do Libertarians expect to produce these "free and fair" markets anyhow???
 
Last edited:
EarlzP said:
Alright ala- f'n- bama what is it that you and your libertarian and conservatives buddies want to do with the masses of people that your policies will put on the street. Are you going to give them tents to raise their children in or let me guess you don't care what happens to them. Their children should have been able to pick better parents to be born to.
Click to expand...

It happens around the world. Why should America be any different? If I thought the vast majority of people were good, hard-working people willing to save but just caught some bad luck, I'd be empathetic. However, the rampant stupidity that infests the poverty crowd makes me less inclined to do anything.

My policies would put the poor who truly wanted to work and give back off the street. However, those seeking a free ride would get shoved into the gutter to hopefully die quietly and without a scene. Welfare reform needs an overhaul like nothing else. You receive money, you also work somehow - either on your own, or some form of community service. Random, mandatory drug tests. Either birth control is required, or an understanding is put in place that if you get pregnant, your assistance is immediately and irrevocably terminated.

I would help people who help themselves. Anyone looking to skate on another's work...they can be shot in the street, for all I care. They're a burden to real humans, and I consider them subhuman crap.
 
cannuck said:
Human rights and labour rights are two things that can be handled fairly, or, in most cases, become an orgy of granting special privilege to some groups at the expense of others. In other words, pretty much social Darwinism expressed through the institutions of power. For example: when I hear the term "labour rights" that usually means special privilege for organized labour at the expense of the personal freedoms of non-union workers.
Click to expand...

I don't really care about your opinion of "labor rights". Fact is, they are necessary to some extent and all intellectually mature 'libertarians' accept this facet. Libertarians are not anarchists.

"free and fair market" - now you are right in my bailiwick. To begin with, there are no "free" markets. ALL markets exist under some kind of rules and enforcement, whether by the participants, outside forces or government. The closest I have ever encountered to a truly free marketplace was Russia shortly after the USSR fell apart. In that free market, the rulemakers very quickly became the criminals who had access to communications, command and control strategies (and weapons), and as soon as someone gets the power to make and enforce the rules, human nature dictates that they immediately begin to dispense the privilege to KEEP themselves in that position. Today we know them as the Oligarchs and government.

So, tell me: how do Libertarians expect to produce these "free and fair" markets anyhow???
Click to expand...

First, I'm not doing the absolute thing. We end up with no free market, no capitalism, no socialism, well, nothing. So, you can take that crap elsewhere.

To create a free and fair market (terminology normal parlance, not sopohmoric babbling), one needs human, labor, and environmental rights in addition to standard stuff like 'no fraud', 'no coercion'... you know, basic regulations required for a market to be free and fair (and preferably without externalities).


Of course, if the market is free and fair, and those rights exist, then a "superior group" cannot take advantage over "those unable to support themselves" (see: Social Darwinism).



This is not rocket science. This is Politics 101. Or HS level.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
I don't really care about your opinion of "labor rights". Fact is, they are necessary to some extent and all intellectually mature 'libertarians' accept this facet. Libertarians are not anarchists.



First, I'm not doing the absolute thing. We end up with no free market, no capitalism, no socialism, well, nothing. So, you can take that crap elsewhere.

To create a free and fair market (terminology normal parlance, not sopohmoric babbling), one needs human, labor, and environmental rights in addition to standard stuff like 'no fraud', 'no coercion'... you know, basic regulations required for a market to be free and fair (and preferably without externalities).


Of course, if the market is free and fair, and those rights exist, then a "superior group" cannot take advantage over "those unable to support themselves" (see: Social Darwinism).



This is not rocket science. This is Politics 101. Or HS level.
Click to expand...
I am just baffled by your defensiveness over what should be a very simple and civil discussion.

What, then, do YOU take "labour rights" to mean - from a intellectually mature Libertarian frame of reference?

I do not profess to understand US Libertarian philosophy, but I do understand human behaviour to some extent. How do you propose to see these "free and fair" rules written, and by whom?
 
cannuck said:
I am just baffled by your defensiveness over what should be a very simple and civil discussion.
Click to expand...

I am baffled by the lack of debate.

I do not profess to understand US Libertarian philosophy, but I do understand human behaviour to some extent.
Click to expand...

Well, then I guess we have a basis for discussion! hah

You might want to note, however, that there is no "US Libertarian" and "Other Libertarian". That whole "libertarian left" thing is nonsense created by Chomsky via Che-tshirts and Castro worship. It's a farce.

How do you propose to see these "free and fair" rules written, and by whom?
Click to expand...

You want me to explain modern society and then how I think things could be done better?
 
EarlzP said:
Alright ala- f'n- bama what is it that you and your libertarian and conservatives buddies want to do with the masses of people that your policies will put on the street. Are you going to give them tents to raise their children in or let me guess you don't care what happens to them. Their children should have been able to pick better parents to be born to.
Click to expand...
Why...nothing at all. We are going to let all the very caring and concerned and committed liberals that really really really really really really really 'care' about them offer of their own free will their wealth and largess to pay for them. We are going to let socialism and the 'caring' people step up and do it without the the government forcing them. It shouldnt be a problem. After all...there are a whole lot of rich democrat politicians, actors, musicians, even some businessmen that talk about how much they care, so we are going to let them fore-go their multimillion dollar parties and yachts and awards shows, and put their money where their mouth is. Because...you know...they really really really really really really really really REALLY really really do 'care'.
 
Gipper said:
It happens around the world. Why should America be any different? If I thought the vast majority of people were good, hard-working people willing to save but just caught some bad luck, I'd be empathetic. However, the rampant stupidity that infests the poverty crowd makes me less inclined to do anything.
Click to expand...

Lets see we go to war supposedly with other countries to save their people and that's okay we can spend billions fighting wars and more billions aiding the poor of other countries but when it comes to our citizens our poor the children the elderly the working poor and those that are just plain lazy we have to place conditions on their receiving aid is that it?

My policies would put the poor who truly wanted to work and give back off the street. However, those seeking a free ride would get shoved into the gutter to hopefully die quietly and without a scene. Welfare reform needs an overhaul like nothing else. You receive money, you also work somehow - either on your own, or some form of community service. Random, mandatory drug tests. Either birth control is required, or an understanding is put in place that if you get pregnant, your assistance is immediately and irrevocably terminated.

I would help people who help themselves. Anyone looking to skate on another's work...they can be shot in the street, for all I care. They're a burden to real humans, and I consider them subhuman crap.
Click to expand...

Well, who would have ever guessed it? When you stop being insulting we can actually find things we mostly agree on, I don't believe that able bodied and minded people should be drawing government aid. Welfare should be workfare, unemployment insurance should be connected to job training. We need to provide good role models "working parents" for the next generation, we need to make sure that our policies don't just fuel another generation of children that believe that sitting around drawing a check is the way life is along with that we have to make sure that those children born into poverty and raised in poverty have at least the basic needs required to grow healthy body and mind, we have to make sure that educational opportunities are available to all.
 
Arbo said:
The bottom 20% is more than the top 20% because there are more poor people. Simply astounding logic in that misfiring brain dude..... and it just keeps coming.
Click to expand...

Can you translate that sentence into something that makes sense?
 
Tell me this much why should the people who made themselves a living and who employ people have to pay more, so that the government can redistribute to someone who has done nothing? Just because someone has more money then you doesn't mean you are poor, and just because someone has more money doesn't mean they have to pay more because you think they owe it to society.
 
cado20 said:
Tell me this much why should the people who made themselves a living and who employ people have to pay more, so that the government can redistribute to someone who has done nothing? Just because someone has more money then you doesn't mean you are poor, and just because someone has more money doesn't mean they have to pay more because you think they owe it to society.
Click to expand...

Actually, they pay less over all. We're only talking about a return to pre-Bush tax cuts and a few minor adjustments. Not one single wealthy person will trade places with any poor person.
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, they pay less over all. We're only talking about a return to pre-Bush tax cuts and a few minor adjustments. Not one single wealthy person will trade places with any poor person.
Click to expand...
stop lying-they pay far more money overall

and you try to use non progressive taxes to claim that the poor pay more overall

on progressive taxes the rich pay far far more

on non progressive taxes the rich pay more actual dollars
 
TurtleDude said:
stop lying-they pay far more money overall

and you try to use non progressive taxes to claim that the poor pay more overall

on progressive taxes the rich pay far far more

on non progressive taxes the rich pay more actual dollars
Click to expand...

Not over what thy paid in the past, no. And they make more in actual dollars. I'm sorry, but the whining by the wealthy is largely hollow.
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, they pay less over all. We're only talking about a return to pre-Bush tax cuts and a few minor adjustments. Not one single wealthy person will trade places with any poor person.
Click to expand...

How do you figure that they pay less over all?
 
Boo Radley said:
Not over what thy paid in the past, no. And they make more in actual dollars. I'm sorry, but the whining by the wealthy is largely hollow.
Click to expand...

its easy to claim that taxing other people who are more successful than you are is justified and that when they complain they are "whining"

until you start paying the same amounts as those making 400K or more a year, you really have no credibility on this issue
 
Laura80L said:
How do you figure that they pay less over all?
Click to expand...

they pretend that when you add up sales taxes, smokes taxes, dog licenses, car registration etc they overall rate of the poor is about the same as the rich

in actual dollars its not even close but they ignore that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom