View Poll Results: Should our money be going to the rich?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    2 5.88%
  • No

    25 73.53%
  • Other (please explain)

    7 20.59%
Page 1 of 21 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 210

Thread: Should we be paying for the rich?

  1. #1
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    01-25-18 @ 03:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    366

    Should we be paying for the rich?

    Shocking Report Shows America's Top 1% Now Richer than Bottom 90% COMBINED

    Of course, becoming rich is no reason for alarm. Many people work very hard to save money and acquire wealth. This is the beauty of the free market. However, it is how these few people gain such vast amounts of wealth, that is cause for concern.

    The ruling elite in the United States quite literally hand-pick politicians and pay for their campaigns to put them in office. More than half of all donations provided to the 2016 presidential candidates in the year 2015, in both parties, proves this notion as they came from a mere 158 families.

    The 158 families, who’ve donated billions of dollars to these candidates, have entirely different reasons for choosing their politicians versus Joe Sixpack. Consequently, it is for this reason that Joe Sixpack’s requests are completely ignored by the next puppet to be placed in office who claims to represent him.
    David Brunori, a Forbes contributor, noted three years ago concerning a report titled, “Subsidizing the Corporate One Percent,” that “three-quarters of all state economic development subsidies went to just 965 corporations since the beginning of the study in 1976. The Fortune 500 corporations alone accounted for more than 16,000 subsidy awards, worth $63 billion – mostly in the form of tax breaks.

    “Think about that. The largest, wealthiest, most powerful organizations in the world are on the public dole. Where is the outrage? Back when I was young, people went into a frenzy at the thought of some unemployed person using food stamps to buy liquor or cigarettes. Ronald Reagan famously campaigned against welfare queens. The right has always been obsessed with moochers. But Boeing receives $13 billion in government handouts and everyone yawns, when conservatives should be grabbing their pitchforks.”

    Grossly inflated subsidies are provided to the oil and gas industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and the agriculture industry, or Big Ag. Corporations garner tax subsidies from state and local governments. And the biggest corporations fund lobbyists — and win hundreds of billions in federal contracts.
    I would suggest reading the article, as it's not long.

    Basically, from what I can gather from this article, our tax dollars go to the wealthy in this country. I personally don't think that that should be the case.

    What do you think?

  2. #2
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    01-25-18 @ 03:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    366

    Re: Should we be paying for the rich?

    Whoops. I accidentally put "No, I'm not" for the second option.

    Just consider the second option to be "No."

  3. #3
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    05-17-18 @ 10:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    30,560

    Re: Should we be paying for the rich?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Lurker View Post
    Whoops. I accidentally put "No, I'm not" for the second option.

    Just consider the second option to be "No."
    I'm sure a nice mod might come by and fix that for you if you ask. They're cool like that.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! SpkOut me!

  4. #4
    Professor Soopairik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-08-18 @ 11:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,428

    Re: Should we be paying for the rich?

    No it should not.

  5. #5
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    01-25-18 @ 03:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    366

    Re: Should we be paying for the rich?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    I'm sure a nice mod might come by and fix that for you if you ask. They're cool like that.
    Thank you. I'll ask a mod to do just that.

    Again, thanks for the advice.

  6. #6
    Teacher of All Things



    Josie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,904

    Re: Should we be paying for the rich?

    No one should have to give their hard-earned money to someone else unless they choose to.


  7. #7
    Sometimes wrong
    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    42,969

    Re: Should we be paying for the rich?

    Most of the problems stem from elevating ever more to a federal power (responsibility?). There are only 535 congress critters, with about 66 not up for a vote (popular reconfirmation?) in each two year election cycle. For 158 very rich folks to buy (rent?) a slight majority of them (two each?) is not very hard to conceive. After all, many (if not most) of these representatives of the people (little guy?) are already among the top 10% and they do expect (and get?) a trickle down from their closest peers at the very top.

    Much of the power that business gives (buys for?) itself is via tinkering with the, ever growing, federal income tax (FIT) code. FIT bracket rates are progressive for wage/salary income only but, of course, the very (uber?) rich receive little via that most highly taxed method of acquiring income - the rich are growing their wealth in "special" ways.

    We are told that the rocket surgeon must pay a higher FIT rate than the fry cook yet, somehow, blindly accept that Walmart should pay exactly the same FIT rate as a mom & pop restaurant (taco truck?). That does not even begin to address how such such mysteries as "carried interest" entered the FIT code.
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 12-31-17 at 07:05 PM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  8. #8
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    46,225

    Re: Should we be paying for the rich?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Lurker View Post
    Shocking Report Shows America's Top 1% Now Richer than Bottom 90% COMBINED

    I would suggest reading the article, as it's not long.

    Basically, from what I can gather from this article, our tax dollars go to the wealthy in this country. I personally don't think that that should be the case.

    What do you think?
    What about Russia, where 111 people control 19% of the country's wealth?

    Three years later, however, inequality remains among the the most stubborn challenges facing the Putin economy. The gulf between between the nation’s ultra-wealthy and everyone else is so extreme, Credit Suisse concluded in a recent report, that “it deserves to be placed in a separate category.” Here is a brief snapshot:

    111 people control 19 percent of all household wealth in Russia

    If there is one statistic that underscores the depth of wealth inequality in Russia, it may be that an estimated 111 billionaires control nearly a fifth of all household wealth in the country. That’s according to the 2014 Credit Suisse analysis, which found that those in the top 10 percent of the population control a staggering 85 percent of wealth in Russia.
    https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/a...e-the-numbers/

  9. #9
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:55 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,681

    Re: Should we be paying for the rich?

    I wouldn't mind if the gov't clearly stated it was "Corporate Welfare" so USA taxpayers would know who the true Welfare Queens are. I'm currently overwhelmed by Militarized local Police Agencies, surveillance, the gov't subsidizing the .01%, MSM progaganda steered by CIA/gov't/etc. instead of true news, USA invasiions of foreign nations)Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.). I think the gov't is worried about going bust and is preparing for a Police State to fend off the protests. They keep getting local police agencies more and more involved with the FBI and National forces instead of local agendas. Make more things illegal to fill Corporate Prisons. Put impediments to slow Renewable Energy to protect the wallets of Big Corporate Energy. MIC, Big Energy, Banks, MSM, and only a few others run the USA. I didn't notice a placecard at the table for me. How about you?
    /

  10. #10
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    05-11-18 @ 08:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    17,688

    Re: Should we be paying for the rich?

    Quote Originally Posted by Josie View Post
    No one should have to give their hard-earned money to someone else unless they choose to.
    Then move somewhere that you don't have to pay any taxes at all...and let us know how life there is.
    “To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

Page 1 of 21 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •