• 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
The cost of education, which is the primary cause behind class poverty, has held an incredibly pervasive seat within the economics of this country.

the "cost" of education is a cop out. if you are poor you qualify for govt grants. my best friend got his college degree paid for by the govt via pellgrants. there are any number of programs where a "poor" person can get an education at little or no cost....they just have to get off their ass and do it.

And that "what" is not to use fear of death as a tool for motivation.

well, that was your strawman, if you don't think it's valid...stop arguing with yourself over it.
 
the "cost" of education is a cop out. if you are poor you qualify for govt grants. my best friend got his college degree paid for by the govt via pellgrants. there are any number of programs where a "poor" person can get an education at little or no cost....they just have to get off their ass and do it.

There are also other limiting factors such as having to stay home and support the family(a friend of mine was in this position), the quality of the high school education as a result of location, health issues, quality of the college education as a result of cost, the flight of the middle class(employers included) from urban areas, and the increased influence of drugs in urban areas. But I don't think you need the premise of the class poverty argument explained to you.

well, that was your strawman, if you don't think it's valid...stop arguing with yourself over it.

Unless you believe a person can survive without food, I don't believe that was a straw man.
 
There are also other limiting factors such as having to stay home and support the family(a friend of mine was in this position),

another cop out. my wife stayed home with the kids while I worked two jobs and attended class at night. it just takes being willing to make short term sacrifice for long term gains. something being given a handout removes the incentive to do.

the quality of the high school education as a result of location,

another lame excuse. I attended one of the poorest rural high schools in one of the poorest counties in my state and that didn't stop me from getting a college education

quality of the college education as a result of cost,

again....scholarships and grants for low income people make this just another lame excuse

the flight of the middle class(employers included) from urban areas

and why do they flee? could it be because the oh so noble poor have turned urban areas into ****holes?

the increased influence of drugs in urban areas.

why would hard working people who are trying to better themselves do drugs?

But I don't think you need the premise of the class poverty argument explained to you.

no, I don't...since it is mostly nothing but one lame excuse after another



Unless you believe a person can survive without food, I don't believe that was a straw man.

maybe you need to look up the definition of strawman. I never said a person could live without food, and you were the one who brought the issue up and started arguing against it.
 
another cop out. my wife stayed home with the kids while I worked two jobs and attended class at night. it just takes being willing to make short term sacrifice for long term gains. something being given a handout removes the incentive to do.



another lame excuse. I attended one of the poorest rural high schools in one of the poorest counties in my state and that didn't stop me from getting a college education



again....scholarships and grants for low income people make this just another lame excuse



and why do they flee? could it be because the oh so noble poor have turned urban areas into ****holes?



why would hard working people who are trying to better themselves do drugs?



no, I don't...since it is mostly nothing but one lame excuse after another





maybe you need to look up the definition of strawman. I never said a person could live without food, and you were the one who brought the issue up and started arguing against it.

That's a load of crap and you know it. What you're doing is fundamentally challenging the idea of class poverty - something that's been a longstanding part of American public policy for decades. Call the various causes "lame excuses" and misunderstand their foundation all you'd like, but my point still stands: Historically, the poor, generally centered in urban areas, tend to stay poor. Not to mention the growing divide between rich and poor, only helped by the Republican advocacy of spending cuts.
 
I couldn't answer the poll. The answer is YES. Why? It is their ****ing duty.

so if the fleas say the dog should permit more biting and the fleas have more votes being parasatized is now the dog's duty
 
No, giving handouts to the poor doesn't create a strong middle class. What it does is allows American citizens to try and find work instead of starving to death.

actually in many cases what it does is creates less incentive to find work
 
That's a load of crap and you know it. What you're doing is fundamentally challenging the idea of class poverty - something that's been a longstanding part of American public policy for decades. Call the various causes "lame excuses" and misunderstand their foundation all you'd like, but my point still stands: Historically, the poor, generally centered in urban areas, tend to stay poor. Not to mention the growing divide between rich and poor, only helped by the Republican advocacy of spending cuts.

:2bigcry: if onwy dem ebbil greedy wepubwicans would gib those poor poor noble downtrodden poor people even more money they would all magically go to college and get jobs making 6 figures.

historically the poor tend to stay poor because they tend to make poor life choices.

hmmmm should I go to class and pay attention or should I cut and go smoke pot behind the gym......

should i restrain myself and not have sex with random guys or should i have 3 kids by the time i am 19....

should I sit on the front step of the project drinking a 40 and smoking newports or should I apply for a govt sponsored job program or join the military.....



face it, my friend, as long as we continue to make excuses for them....the poor are going to remain poor.


give a man a fish and he is going to expect you to give him another one tomorrow. insist a man learn to fish.....


yes, I am sure that there are some people who are poor through no fault of their own....but they are definitely not in the majority.
 
According to your rhetoric. :roll:

according to reality given that the dems have created a permanent welfare class and more people are on food stamps now than at any other time

its funny how so many leftwingers constantly crow about EVOLUTION and Darwin and don't want to apply it to HUMANS
 
:2bigcry: if onwy dem ebbil greedy wepubwicans would gib those poor poor noble downtrodden poor people even more money they would all magically go to college and get jobs making 6 figures.

historically the poor tend to stay poor because they tend to make poor life choices.

hmmmm should I go to class and pay attention or should I cut and go smoke pot behind the gym......

should i restrain myself and not have sex with random guys or should i have 3 kids by the time i am 19....

should I sit on the front step of the project drinking a 40 and smoking newports or should I apply for a govt sponsored job program or join the military.....



face it, my friend, as long as we continue to make excuses for them....the poor are going to remain poor.


give a man a fish and he is going to expect you to give him another one tomorrow. insist a man learn to fish.....


yes, I am sure that there are some people who are poor through no fault of their own....but they are definitely not in the majority.

Your opposition to welfare is pretty simple, as far as I see it: You're not willing to spare your income to help a group of people you feel detached from. To once again cite Harrington, the poor are invisible to you, something standard in this country.Step back a second and look at what you're saying: Refuse assistance to those in extreme poverty, as it will give them incentive to find work.

But you've just sunken to partisan driveling. Find someone else to debate.
 
according to reality given that the dems have created a permanent welfare class and more people are on food stamps now than at any other time

its funny how so many leftwingers constantly crow about EVOLUTION and Darwin and don't want to apply it to HUMANS

So let me get this straight. You want to apply natural selection to human beings, saying that if one can't find work, they will die?
 
according to reality given that the dems have created a permanent welfare class and more people are on food stamps now than at any other time

its funny how so many leftwingers constantly crow about EVOLUTION and Darwin and don't want to apply it to HUMANS

apparently waas thinks that the poor have no control over their own lives or destinies and that if the GOP would only stop holding them back and give them enough money everything would be peachy.

while those of us who live in the real world think that the poor need to take responsibility for their own lives and the choices they make
 
So let me get this straight. You want to apply natural selection to human beings, saying that if one can't find work, they will die?

NOpe but people will try harder to find work when they don't have a public tit to suck on

I am a big supporter of private charity and give tens of thousands to private charitable causes from funding the education of smart but poor kids to helping treat badly burned children
 
So let me get this straight. You want to apply natural selection to human beings, saying that if one can't find work, they will die?

it's not nice to fool with mother nature
 
NOpe but people will try harder to find work when they don't have a public tit to suck on

I am a big supporter of private charity and give tens of thousands to private charitable causes from funding the education of smart but poor kids to helping treat badly burned children

I have no problem helping people who cannot help themselves
I have a major problem with enabling people who will not help themselves
 
I have no problem helping people who cannot help themselves
I have a major problem with enabling people who will not help themselves

and who then claim we need to pay more and more while voting for politicians like Obama
 
And here I thought by the very nature of percentages, the rich WERE paying more than everyone else. Not only is their tax rate typically higher, 20-35% of a million is substantially higher than 0% of $30k. In my opinion, unless you're paying more than the rich are, in either percentage or net value, it's rather hypocritical to say they're not paying "enough". New taxes are always great unless you're the one who has to pay for it, right?

The funny thing is that more progressive taxes are good for all of us. The rich don't miss the money and when it gets spent by the Govt. it increases growth and GDP. A strong growing economy is good for all income levels. Once the balance is corrected we can look forward to a new growth period when wages go up for all and not just the few at the top. Isn't that what everyone should want?
 
I think a good compromise would have been zero corporate rate but then taxing capital gains like regular income on everything except when companies offer stock to fund growth and business operations plus meaningful spending cuts. That would get the rich to pay a more fair share and at same time provide great incentive for growth.
 
So let me get this straight. You want to apply natural selection to human beings, saying that if one can't find work, they will die?
Worse, he suggests that social Darwinism is a logical entailment of a belief in evolutionary theory.
 
The funny thing is that more progressive taxes are good for all of us. The rich don't miss the money and when it gets spent by the Govt. it increases growth and GDP. A strong growing economy is good for all income levels. Once the balance is corrected we can look forward to a new growth period when wages go up for all and not just the few at the top. Isn't that what everyone should want?

its hilarious that those who are undertaxed due to the buy the vote game pretend those who are overtaxed don't need the money
 
Worse, he suggests that social Darwinism is a logical entailment of a belief in evolutionary theory.

interesting libertarian position there
 
interesting libertarian position there
I'm a real libertarian, I really believe people have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Without food that becomes somewhat difficult.
 
I'm a real libertarian, I really believe people have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Without food that becomes somewhat difficult.

OK so you believe its permissible for the government to forcibly redistribute income to those unable or (usually) unwilling to take care of themselves. that is not a libertarian, that is a welfare socialist
 
I'm a real libertarian, I really believe people have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Without food that becomes somewhat difficult.

very poor understanding of the concepts there, brother. when the founders wrote about the right to life, I'm pretty sure they didn't mean that the government should provide everyone with food and shelter.
 
Back
Top Bottom