• 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!

Should the incomes of the wealthy be cut down to size?

Robertinfremont

Robertinfremont

Photo of me taken in the Army 1963
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
30,122
Reaction score
3,395
Location
Meridian, Idaho
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
If you think they should be cut down, I have some questions.

1. Cut down for what purpose? ___________________
2. Cut down, how can they hire workers?__________________
3. Does the rising tide, lift all voters (er boats?)__________________
4. What happens to the new rich, such as Jeff Bezos? You do realize he started out poor and advanced his income by making your life easier? So since he is so good at cutting your expenses, do you gain by cutting back, laying off his workers?

This is only the beginning. We have thousands of the rich that bid for your food and sell it you cheap. You can purchase new autos due to the purchasing po:2dance:wer the rich have plus they cut down your costs of owning cars.

So should incomes be severely curtailed?__________________________
 
Robertinfremont said:
If you think they should be cut down, I have some questions.

1. Cut down for what purpose? ___________________
2. Cut down, how can they hire workers?__________________
3. Does the rising tide, lift all voters (er boats?)__________________
4. What happens to the new rich, such as Jeff Bezos? You do realize he started out poor and advanced his income by making your life easier? So since he is so good at cutting your expenses, do you gain by cutting back, laying off his workers?

This is only the beginning. We have thousands of the rich that bid for your food and sell it you cheap. You can purchase new autos due to the purchasing po:2dance:wer the rich have plus they cut down your costs of owning cars.

So should incomes be severely curtailed?__________________________
Click to expand...

I don't think their wealth should be cut down but it should be taxed appropriately. The United States is a country based on capitalism and free enterprise that's controlled by them, not their government. However, the system is slanted to give vast advantages to the wealthy by tax breaks. The top 1% controls the wealth while the bottom 99% or so owns the debt. Just a tiny small faction of the income of the top bracket of wealth would be enough to fund infrastructure revitalization or repair and provide funding for other programs for the benefit of all people.
[h=2][/h]
 
Last edited:
HumblePi said:
I don't think their wealth should be cut down but it should be taxed appropriately. The United States is a country based on capitalism and free enterprise that's controlled by them, not their government. However, the system is slanted to give vast advantages to the wealthy by tax breaks. The top 1% controls the wealth while the bottom 99% or so owns the debt. Just a tiny small faction of the income of the top bracket of wealth would be enough to fund infrastructure revitalization and repair and other programs for the benefit of all people.
[h=2][/h]
Click to expand...

Mixed message. But thanks for the comments.
 
Robertinfremont said:
If you think they should be cut down, I have some questions.

1. Cut down for what purpose? ___________________
2. Cut down, how can they hire workers?__________________
3. Does the rising tide, lift all voters (er boats?)__________________
4. What happens to the new rich, such as Jeff Bezos? You do realize he started out poor and advanced his income by making your life easier? So since he is so good at cutting your expenses, do you gain by cutting back, laying off his workers?

This is only the beginning. We have thousands of the rich that bid for your food and sell it you cheap. You can purchase new autos due to the purchasing po:2dance:wer the rich have plus they cut down your costs of owning cars.

So should incomes be severely curtailed?__________________________
Click to expand...

There are too many questions to address in a reply without seeming to ramble all over the place.
 
Jean-s said:
There are too many questions to address in a reply without seeming to ramble all over the place.
Click to expand...

Do not worry. We shall have plenty of posters who understand how not to confuse or ramble
 
HumblePi said:
I don't think their wealth should be cut down but it should be taxed appropriately. The United States is a country based on capitalism and free enterprise that's controlled by them, not their government. However, the system is slanted to give vast advantages to the wealthy by tax breaks. The top 1% controls the wealth while the bottom 99% or so owns the debt. Just a tiny small faction of the income of the top bracket of wealth would be enough to fund infrastructure revitalization or repair and provide funding for other programs for the benefit of all people.
[h=2][/h]
Click to expand...

The founders never based taxes on hammering the rich -- read it as wealth. A good deal of tax revenue came from taxing others, known as tariffs.

I suggest we quit taxing our people and cleverly tax the foreign sellers.

A shortfall means the congress wants far too much revenue and is so sloppy spending that they treat this as if taxes were personal gifts to the Congress.
 
I think there needs to be balance. Obviously, since Reagan and trickle down, something is very out of balance.

download.jpg

10-21-10inc-f3.jpg

Now that age old right wing argument tax cuts increases GDP just isn't true either

d6fa3a95-de31-43ae-b907-3b5a25fe84b0.jpg

And look where the national debt accelerated and continued to accelerate with all these tax cuts for the rich and borrow the money to pay for it.

history.gif
 
The top 10% already pay 70% of all taxes. How would you tax them even higher? What types of taxes, and how much would you collect? In a global world, how much can you take from them before they move it all offshore?

I just don't see the rich as the problem. They seem to be paying their fair share already. Tax revenues are at an all time high. Our problem is spending; it's also at an all time high. Right now we actually borrow $1.50 for every $1 that comes in.

Historically, every time the government gets more revenues, they simply spend more. They won't use new revenues from the rich to give us a tax cut, they will just spend the money, primarily on their favorite pork projects. It won't help you or I one bit.
 
HumblePi said:
I don't think their wealth should be cut down but it should be taxed appropriately. The United States is a country based on capitalism and free enterprise that's controlled by them, not their government. However, the system is slanted to give vast advantages to the wealthy by tax breaks. The top 1% controls the wealth while the bottom 99% or so owns the debt. Just a tiny small faction of the income of the top bracket of wealth would be enough to fund infrastructure revitalization or repair and provide funding for other programs for the benefit of all people.
[h=2][/h]
Click to expand...

in case u haven't noticed the top 10% also pay most of the taxes

there is something like 49% of Americans who pay no fed taxes at all, while the rich pay nearly all. That said, if there are loopholes that enable them to get away with paying next to nothing, something needs to be done to shut the loopholes down
 
narrowroad said:
in case u haven't noticed the top 10% also pay most of the taxes

there is something like 49% of Americans who pay no fed taxes at all, while the rich pay nearly all. That said, if there are loopholes that enable them to get away with paying next to nothing, something needs to be done to shut the loopholes down
Click to expand...

You're only partially correct, but not quite. Proportionately they do pay more of course because they're billionaires but the fact is, America's 400 richest families pay lower taxes than people in the middle class.
 
Waddy said:
The top 10% already pay 70% of all taxes. How would you tax them even higher? What types of taxes, and how much would you collect? In a global world, how much can you take from them before they move it all offshore?

I just don't see the rich as the problem. They seem to be paying their fair share already. Tax revenues are at an all time high. Our problem is spending; it's also at an all time high. Right now we actually borrow $1.50 for every $1 that comes in.

Historically, every time the government gets more revenues, they simply spend more. They won't use new revenues from the rich to give us a tax cut, they will just spend the money, primarily on their favorite pork projects. It won't help you or I one bit.
Click to expand...

Sounds like typical republican talking.points to me.

A different perspective.

Maybe half of.America isn't paying taxes because they aren't making enough money. Haven't had a raise since reagan

People did really well with the tax rates before reagan. The most.prosperous years for.our middle class.was post WWII till reagan.

The wealthy wont abandon America. It is where all the wealth comes in times of trouble.

Spending problem?
 
Robertinfremont said:
The founders never based taxes on hammering the rich -- read it as wealth. A good deal of tax revenue came from taxing others, known as tariffs.

I suggest we quit taxing our people and cleverly tax the foreign sellers.

A shortfall means the congress wants far too much revenue and is so sloppy spending that they treat this as if taxes were personal gifts to the Congress.
Click to expand...

You must have missed out the whiskey tax that came into existence during the first term of Washington.
 
HumblePi said:
I don't think their wealth should be cut down but it should be taxed appropriately. The United States is a country based on capitalism and free enterprise that's controlled by them, not their government. However, the system is slanted to give vast advantages to the wealthy by tax breaks. The top 1% controls the wealth while the bottom 99% or so owns the debt. Just a tiny small faction of the income of the top bracket of wealth would be enough to fund infrastructure revitalization or repair and provide funding for other programs for the benefit of all people.
[h=2][/h]
Click to expand...

A tiny fraction of the 1% 's wealth would fix everything. Well exactly how much is that? How much would it cost and how much of the riches money would that be? I think you need to get some facts together.
 
Robertinfremont said:
If you think they should be cut down, I have some questions.

1. Cut down for what purpose? ___________________
2. Cut down, how can they hire workers?__________________
3. Does the rising tide, lift all voters (er boats?)__________________
4. What happens to the new rich, such as Jeff Bezos? You do realize he started out poor and advanced his income by making your life easier? So since he is so good at cutting your expenses, do you gain by cutting back, laying off his workers?

This is only the beginning. We have thousands of the rich that bid for your food and sell it you cheap. You can purchase new autos due to the purchasing po:2dance:wer the rich have plus they cut down your costs of owning cars.

So should incomes be severely curtailed?__________________________
Click to expand...
Wealth is the result of living below your means and investing. Virtually anyone can create wealth over time. Most do not.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
rickc said:
Sounds like typical republican talking.points to me.

A different perspective.

Maybe half of.America isn't paying taxes because they aren't making enough money. Haven't had a raise since reagan

People did really well with the tax rates before reagan. The most.prosperous years for.our middle class.was post WWII till reagan.

The wealthy wont abandon America. It is where all the wealth comes in times of trouble.

Spending problem?
Click to expand...

You may be enthralled by the 50's and 60's, but it was an anomaly. We came out of WWII the last man standing. Our manufacturing and agricultural products were in great demand and we had a virtual global monopoly.
Eventually the rest of the world rebuilt, caught up with us and Asia developed as a powerhouse. As a result, we now live in a global economy, with American workers competing with every other worker on the planet. And then along came technology, computer based automation. Another hit to the once special American worker.
We ain't special no more. And semi-skilled labor isn't worth much.
Those who will prosper in this new world are the people who have the skills to keep the technology running. That's about maybe 20% of any population.

That's why people don't get raises. They can be replaced. The people who are getting those raises are tech savvy. They are in high demand.

A good sized machine shop near me used to employ around 30 machinists. Now with CNC machinery (computer guided) there are 4 guys doing more production than they used to with 30. They weren't hired primarily for their machine skills, though they are somewhat skilled machinists; they were hired because they were very comfortable programming computers and feeding in the specs.

Three of my four grown children work in high tech. They all make six figures. Their skills are in demand. It's all about choices.
 
Integrityrespec said:
A tiny fraction of the 1% 's wealth would fix everything. Well exactly how much is that? How much would it cost and how much of the riches money would that be? I think you need to get some facts together.
Click to expand...

If you need the facts then it's incumbent upon you to do the research to get them, not me.
 
rickc said:
Sounds like typical republican talking.points to me.

A different perspective.

Maybe half of.America isn't paying taxes because they aren't making enough money. Haven't had a raise since reagan

People did really well with the tax rates before reagan. The most.prosperous years for.our middle class.was post WWII till reagan.

The wealthy wont abandon America. It is where all the wealth comes in times of trouble.

Spending problem?
Click to expand...

Weaning off of Democratic party ideology is akin to weaning off of Heroin.
 
If the wealthy and rich were real Christians they'd give away their accumulated wealth and follow Jesus...
 
Moonglow said:
You missed out..
Click to expand...

Washington in truth got most revenue from Tariffs.

How Former President Washington Dealt With The First Real Tax Crisis In America

George Washington was unanimously elected our first president and was inaugurated on April 30, 1789. Washington's initial advisors (who would be called his Cabinet) were Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of War Henry Knox, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph. Of the four, Hamilton took office first, besting Knox by just one day.

At the time Hamilton was appointed, the United States didn't have a federal income tax. In the absence of an income tax, the government was largely funded by a series of tariffs (as well as a short-lived version of the estate tax). The tariffs, as initially structured, were often reactionary and used to raise revenue in response to identifiable events. Hamilton was concerned about long-term growth of the country: specifically, he worried how, in the absence of any real tax policy, the United States would continue to pay the bills.
 
Moonglow said:
If the wealthy and rich were real Christians they'd give away their accumulated wealth and follow Jesus...
Click to expand...

Well, clearly Obama, Hillary and bernie, neither follow Jesus but refuse to hand in all their wealth.
 
Well i can assume this is the kind of america righties want. Root hog or die. Get yours and the hell with anyone less.fortunate.than you. You are entitled to the best of everything you can afford.

This is as it should be

10-21-10inc-f3.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom