• 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
put simply, we need to raise everyone's taxes and cut spending, and we need to phase in the changes properly.


No, we do not need to raise anyone's taxes. Government consumes far too much of our wealth as it is.

We do not need to give the drug addict even more and more of the same drug, while the rest of us fall further into poverty to support the addict.
 
Last edited:
No, we do not. Government consumes far too much of our wealth as it is.

We do not need to give the drug addict even more and more of the same drug, while the rest of us fall further into poverty to support the addict.

we certainly need to prioritize spending, but we also need more revenue. we all benefit from societal structure, and implying that government is the only problem is an oversimplification. any sustainable solution is going to have to involve spending cuts and revenue increases.
 
What? Is that not exactly what the current law, aka "fiscal cliff" bill, specifies along with real spending cuts, aka sequestration?


yes, I suppose so.... i'll just remind you that both sides are fighting to get away from that law.. neither Dems nor Reps want to increase taxes on everyone ( Reps want no increase, Dems only want increases on the rich)... hell, neither really wants to cut spending either.
 
we certainly need to prioritize spending, but we also need more revenue. we all benefit from societal structure, and implying that government is the only problem is an oversimplification. any sustainable solution is going to have to involve spending cuts and revenue increases.

When government actually makes real cuts (not cuts to proposed spending), and implements them so they are spending less money than they were yesterday, let us know.
 
we certainly need to prioritize spending, but we also need more revenue. we all benefit from societal structure, and implying that government is the only problem is an oversimplification. any sustainable solution is going to have to involve spending cuts and revenue increases.

we'll get a little bit more revenue from the rich folks... but spending cuts?.. nah, not gonna happen.
the best you can hope for is changes in accounting methods and decreases in the rate in which spending increases.
 
we'll get a little bit more revenue from the rich folks... but spending cuts?.. nah, not gonna happen.
the best you can hope for is changes in accounting methods and decreases in the rate in which spending increases.

It took 30 years to get us where we are. Its not going to be fixed overnight, no matter how hard you may wish it!
 
we certainly need to prioritize spending, but we also need more revenue. we all benefit from societal structure, and implying that government is the only problem is an oversimplification. any sustainable solution is going to have to involve spending cuts and revenue increases.

Having government consume as big a share as it does of this nation's wealth is unsustainable. Increasing it certainly is.
 
yes, I suppose so.... i'll just remind you that both sides are fighting to get away from that law.. neither Dems nor Reps want to increase taxes on everyone ( Reps want no increase, Dems only want increases on the rich)... hell, neither really wants to cut spending either.

I will offer a bar room analogy. Congress critters are in very unique position now. They may now order endless rounds for the house and may either place the cost on other (rich) people's tabs or simply use the "company" credit card to pay the tab. They used to have to either collect funds from the folks before hand and pay cash, but that was keeping them from being nearly so popular. The new system is thought to be better since 53% of the bar patrons will no longer have to ever pay for a drink again! The 12% that are occasioanlly hit with most of the congress critters' bar tabs, simply raise the prices of goods and services that they provide, allowing the patrons receiving their "free" drinks to feel good now but pay them back later (while not even realizing it).
 
we'll get a little bit more revenue from the rich folks... but spending cuts?.. nah, not gonna happen.
the best you can hope for is changes in accounting methods and decreases in the rate in which spending increases.

i think we'll see some cuts in a couple months, but not nearly enough. similarly, the increases will be insufficient. the only silver lining is that at least we're talking about it, and if we do something, we might not get downgraded again. as long as we continue to be the global reserve currency, we have a buffer against disaster. once that's gone, all bets are off.
 
Having government consume as big a share as it does of this nation's wealth is unsustainable. Increasing it certainly is.

How much are you prepared to cut military spending? Are you prepared to upgrade our health care system to UHC to reduce health care costs as every other industrialized nation has done?
 
It took 30 years to get us where we are. Its not going to be fixed overnight, no matter how hard you may wish it!

it took us much longer than 30 years to get here.

you are correct, it will not be fixed overnight.... it will not be fixed at all.... there is no will to fix it.
at 16 trillion in debt and climbing every second, there is not even a will to slow down, lets along reverse course.

the Red dolts won't budge on defense spending( they want more)... the Blue dolts wont budge on entitlements( they want more)... and the majority in the electorate cheers their team on to victory...rinse and repeat.
 
everyone needs to pay more, and we need to do a lot less on the global scale and a lot more on the local scale. put simply, the Bush model did not work long term.

And the Obama model is worse
 
it took us much longer than 30 years to get here.

you are correct, it will not be fixed overnight.... it will not be fixed at all.... there is no will to fix it.
at 16 trillion in debt and climbing every second, there is not even a will to slow down, lets along reverse course.

the Red dolts won't budge on defense spending( they want more)... the Blue dolts wont budge on entitlements( they want more)... and the majority in the electorate cheers their team on to victory...rinse and repeat.

You've got the sides right. That is the ideological divide in the country. Our representatives are representing us fairly accurately. Eventually people will realize that in order to address the debt problem, we will have to cut military spending and upgrade our health care system.
 
it took us much longer than 30 years to get here.

you are correct, it will not be fixed overnight.... it will not be fixed at all.... there is no will to fix it.
at 16 trillion in debt and climbing every second, there is not even a will to slow down, lets along reverse course.

the Red dolts won't budge on defense spending( they want more)... the Blue dolts wont budge on entitlements( they want more)... and the majority in the electorate cheers their team on to victory...rinse and repeat.
I don't for one second expect that it would, or even could, be fixed all at once. For one thing, that kind of reversal would be catastrophic.

Having said that, I do expect real progress. And real progress is having less money go out in a given year than what comes in. No smoke and mirrors, no IOUs, no Jedi-like mind tricks. Simple out vs in money counting. I really see no reason why we could not accomplish the goal of eliminating the deficit within four years... and then start working on the debt indefinitely.
 
You've got the sides right. That is the ideological divide in the country. Our representatives are representing us fairly accurately. Eventually people will realize that in order to address the debt problem, we will have to cut military spending and upgrade our health care system.

your idea will work fine.... for increasing our government's debt

not interested right now, thanks anyways.
 
I don't for one second expect that it would, or even could, be fixed all at once. For one thing, that kind of reversal would be catastrophic.

Having said that, I do expect real progress. And real progress is having less money go out in a given year than what comes in. No smoke and mirrors, no IOUs, no Jedi-like mind tricks. Simple out vs in money counting. I really see no reason why we could not accomplish the goal of eliminating the deficit within four years... and then start working on the debt indefinitely.

I don't think you have unreasonable expectations.... I just think it's unreasonable to expect that from our current teams.

both teams have shown themselves to be averse to the idea of compromising or even getting started down the right path...we get lip service , that's it.


from the man in the White House to the junior guy on the Hill... they simple cannot get it done... every single one of them is tied to their ideology or agenda and refuses to budge.
 
your idea will work fine.... for increasing our government's debt

not interested right now, thanks anyways.


Its not my idea, its reality. But like you say, you're not interested in that right now!
 
Its not my idea, its reality. But like you say, you're not interested in that right now!

reality you say?.. hmmph

so you are sitting here telling me that enacting UHC will mean the government will pay out less in healthcare costs than it does now? is that your argument?
 
reality you say?.. hmmph

so you are sitting here telling me that enacting UHC will mean the government will pay out less in healthcare costs than it does now? is that your argument?

Yes, UHC has lowered health care cost in most of the industrialized world. We have highest health care costs on the planet for equal or lesser outcomes.

We can no more afford that than we can to spend almost as much of the rest of the world combined on military. When enough people make that realization we will be able to address our debt.
 
You've got the sides right. That is the ideological divide in the country. Our representatives are representing us fairly accurately. Eventually people will realize that in order to address the debt problem, we will have to cut military spending and upgrade our health care system.

“Upgrade[ing] our health care system…” is not relevant to addressing the debt problem. In fact, the most current attempt to do so unarguably is going to make this problem much, much, much worse.
 
“Upgrade[ing] our health care system…” is not relevant to addressing the debt problem. In fact, the most current attempt to do so unarguably is going to make this problem much, much, much worse.


I don't know where you have been, but this country's health care costs and our excessive military spending will have to be addressed in addition to the wealthiest paying a little more whenever we get serious about our nations debt.
 
The "wealthy" pay enough. It's time for the government to do its part.
 
The "wealthy" pay enough. It's time for the government to do its part.

You mean, actually running a fiscally responsible nation instead of using tax money to buy votes?
 
The "wealthy" pay enough. It's time for the government to do its part.

Its all over but the crying now, the House vote is in. Both houses of Congress have now voted to make permanent the tax cuts for those households making under $450,000.

It took them long enough! :cool:
 
Yes, UHC has lowered health care cost in most of the industrialized world. We have highest health care costs on the planet for equal or lesser outcomes.

That's because we have likely the most unhealthy collective population on the planet. We eat, drink, smoke, and stress too much, and we expect to be taken care of, rather than seeing it as our responsibility to take care of ourselves. Out of all the nations on earth, we are probably the most childish and infantile in thinking (as a group), because we've had things far too easy for so long.
 
Back
Top Bottom