• 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
:2funny::2funny::2funny::2funny:

so you deny that some of what FDR did was based on socialism? that is different than saying he was a socialist
 
FDR infected this country with some socialist germs.

Yep that is what libertarians believe! Sure is a good thing they represent less than 1% of the country. LOL!
 
yep. let the fleas vote to tax the dog to death. then the fleas starve and everybody is dead

fleas have low IQs and don't live long-they aren't smart enough to think that far ahead
 
Yep that is what libertarians believe! Sure is a good thing they represent less than 1% of the country. LOL!

you seem to think quantity is more important than quality

its like saying you should adopt the training methods of all the guys who cannot make a college team because there are far more of them than those who make the Olympic medal rounds

but then again when one is content to never win it makes sense
 
so you deny that some of what FDR did was based on socialism? that is different than saying he was a socialist

You deem socialism to be whatever is best for the majority of Americans.
 
You deem socialism to be whatever is best for the majority of Americans.

actually that is stupid again

you seem to think that giving addicts drugs is best for them
 
so you deny that some of what FDR did was based on socialism? that is different than saying he was a socialist

Did he take over means of production? Perhaps he made land ownership illegal? Yeah, I think you're loose with the actual definition of socialism.
 
you seem to think quantity is more important than quality

its like saying you should adopt the training methods of all the guys who cannot make a college team because there are far more of them than those who make the Olympic medal rounds

but then again when one is content to never win it makes sense

The best quality for the most people is what the majority of the country want. If only the 1% wins and everyone else loses that is no victory for the country.
 
Did he take over means of production? Perhaps he made land ownership illegal? Yeah, I think you're loose with the actual definition of socialism.

actually the government took steps in that direction, companies were used for the war effort on direction of the government.
 
The best quality for the most people is what the majority of the country want. If only the 1% wins and everyone else loses that is no victory for the country.

that is stupid. if that were true, students would determine the course of study and the amount of homework
 
actually that is stupid again

you seem to think that giving addicts drugs is best for them

You consider a better standard of living for more people and better economy to be drugs?
 
actually the government took steps in that direction, companies were used for the war effort on direction of the government.

And which nation unequivocally won the war?
 
You consider a better standard of living for more people and better economy to be drugs?

I consider people becoming more and more dependent on government handouts and expecting others to continually pay for what they want to be bad for them in the long run
 
actually the government took steps in that direction, companies were used for the war effort on direction of the government.

Used? people got rich. But, no, he did not take over the means of production. Sorry.
 
Oh, about those moochers:

Over 60% of those who don't pay income tax are working; they pay payroll tax, which goes to support Social Security and Medicare. Another 22% of those who don't pay income tax are the elderly; most of them don't work.

In fact, only about 8% of Americans pay neither federal income tax nor payroll tax, because they are unemployed, are students, or are disabled.

What is missing from all this talk about tax is the fact that although the rich pay higher taxes than the poor, middle-class people actually pay a higher percentage of their income in total taxes. True, federal income tax rates are progressive, with rates going to 35% for the top earners. But deductions and special treatment of capital gains reduce actual tax rates for the top earners. So what we end up with is upper-middle-class taxpayers paying the highest actual percentage of their income, over 31%, according to a 2010 study by the group Citizens for Tax Justice.

(snip)

Digging deeper into why 47% don't pay federal income tax, what we find are many former taxpayers: Twenty-two percent are the elderly, living mostly on Social Security, a benefit they got by working and paying payroll taxes. Others are unemployed or are paid close to the minimum wage, so they don't have enough income to file any taxes.

What about Romney's claim that these people believe they have a right to government assistance? Our research shows that over 50% of older people looking for work (but who are too young to collect Social Security) do not receive unemployment insurance or any other government assistance. They are living close to the poverty line with no help other than family.

Far fewer poor Americans get government assistance for low incomes. For the last 30 years, less than 4% of the U.S. population has received a full year's worth of payments, like food stamps, which are based on level of income.

Americans are not moochers - CNN.com
 
Used? people got rich. But, no, he did not take over the means of production. Sorry.


a big DUH--and you seem to think that only Achieving socialism is steps towards socialism
 
I consider people becoming more and more dependent on government handouts and expecting others to continually pay for what they want to be bad for them in the long run

Are you talking about corporate welfare and excessive taxpayer subsidy of the military industrial complex that only benefits one percent of the population?
 
Last edited:
this is one of the most moronic suggestions that I have seen on this board in over 7 years
If you had any idea how the world works, you would realize that we have been here before. ANYONE with a half a brain would understand this clearly in 1930, but few today seem to have the ability to think beyond the pure BS handed to them by banks and the free ride crowd on Wall Street.

So, you're telling me that rewarding the continuous re-distribution of wealth (be it from Wall Street or entitlements) while penalizing the hell out of creating wealth by using capital productively is brilliant??? You must be one of those genius types that has been advising the Uniparty for the last few decades. How's that working out for you again????
 
Last edited:
Says the guy who thinks the country has been socialist since FDR. :cool:


says the guy who thinks there are more people in the bottom 20% of the population than in the top 20% of the population :lol:
 
says the guy who thinks there are more people in the bottom 20% of the population than in the top 20% of the population :lol:

More lies from the Oscar. Big surprise there! LOL!
 
Did he take over means of production? Perhaps he made land ownership illegal? Yeah, I think you're loose with the actual definition of socialism.
Technically, Marxism dictates taking over means of production - and Marxism CAN be an element of both socialist and communist systems. When you consider things such as TVA and the BLM, or even work done by the Corps of Engineers, that state ALREADY owns a substantial chunk of the property and means of production. Hell, doesn't the US still own it's stake in Government Motors??

There is no such thing as ANY government on this planet that does not contain some elements of socialism. Why do people think this is such a bad thing? Clearly, there must be merit or EVERYONE wouldn't do it. What baffles those of us in stable countries is the incredible bickering in the US over fundamental socialist policies that the rest of the developed world long ago dealt with - socialized universal sick care insurance being but one of many.
 
the question then becomes...how much does someone really "need"? i would be much more generous towards "the poor" if I didn't routinely see people driving up to walmart in a shiny new car, wearing designer clothes and jewelry, talking on a smart phone and then pay for their groceries with food stamps. the govt robs from the rich to pay for food and shelter for the poor so the poor can spend their paycheck on wants instead of needs.
I would love to see the poor people you see!






but if your going on the point that people will take advantage of the system then i agree, people do take advantage of the system. But do you know that the average time someone is on welfare is only 36 months? I mean Reagans "welfare queen" turned out to be made up. A very small amount take advantage of the system, but that will always happen with any gov assistance system. No gov or system is perfect.
 
if people want something and are unwilling to pay for it but instead demand others pay more taxes I don't find their attitude to be any different than that off a thief. they are merely outsourcing thievery and of course, outsourcing something one can do for themselves is the Sine qua non of the leftwing mindset

Yea yea blah blah blah. "leftists blah blah blah" heard it, seen it from you TDp. Keep up the same ol talking points.
 
Back
Top Bottom