• 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!

Would the rich miss 5%?

Baralis said:
Well I see a large difference between caring about my fellow man and being asked to help someone that chooses not to help themselves.
Ive never been against helping someone that genuinely cannot help themselves. What I am agaisnt is expecting people who make the right choices pick up the slack for those that made the wrong choices and do not want to live with the consequences.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of that, some of my relatives are in that group....they live on the minimum but for the most part don't complain about it. It is the ones who can but won't who are the problem, excepting the current situation where plenty of people lost their jobs due to the economy. You can live right and still get hurt...
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yes.

They'll miss it.

5% of $250,000 = $12,500

It's theirs and shouldn't be stolen from them.
Click to expand...
And there is my school of thought on this .
They would NOT be rich if they chose not to overcharge for their goods and services.
I'd like to see a 50% tax surcharge on the rich.
 
earthworm said:
And there is my school of thought on this .
They would NOT be rich if they chose not to overcharge for their goods and services.
I'd like to see a 50% tax surcharge on the rich.
Click to expand...

It is wrong to be rich? Sorry i never heard that one before....:roll:
 
Goldenboy219 said:
It is wrong to be rich? Sorry i never heard that one before....:roll:
Click to expand...

It can be very right to be rich, if you use your wealth well. IF you are just looking to make the Forbes 400 list and then spend it all on wine, women, song, etc. , well, at least you are employing the alcohol, sex, and music industries...:2razz:
 
UtahBill said:
It can be very right to be rich, if you use your wealth well. IF you are just looking to make the Forbes 400 list and then spend it all on wine, women, song, etc. , well, at least you are employing the alcohol, sex, and music industries...:2razz:
Click to expand...

I heard a story of a billionaire (or almost) who is suing a Vegas casino for giving him drugs, private tables, women, etc.... to the tune where he lost $120 million this year alone (gambling around $700 million in total).

So if you are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, keep it away from excise. You could probably just employ your own legion of "entertainers" (including dealers, butlers, women, pharmacists, etc...) without filing the coffers of the Vegas excise fund.
 
disneydude said:
No one likes paying taxes but everyone loves the conveniences that we have.

What they don't realize is that they don't get these things for free.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much why I think the "taxation = theft" mantra is stupid.

People tend not to realize the indirect and often direct benefits they get. Furthermore, people have this incredibly odd notion that markets will always lead to the best allocation of resources for society.
 
rivrrat said:
I'm perfectly fine with that.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt you are.

I know they already tack on an extra cost due to the amount of taxes they have to pay to use those same roads. I don't see any difference.
Click to expand...

Except that those costs are relatively minor and subsidized by taxes. You are not looking at the real costs here.
 
obvious Child said:
This is pretty much why I think the "taxation = theft" mantra is stupid.

People tend not to realize the indirect and often direct benefits they get. Furthermore, people have this incredibly odd notion that markets will always lead to the best allocation of resources for society.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if they get indirect and direct benefits. They can benefit themselves thousands of times over with money that they control. And i guess you're right that markets don't always lead to the best allocation of resources for society. Only free markets do that. And i don't know where this allocation thing comes in. Wealth is infinite. Resources are infinite. Everybody can become rich, if they think and act in a certain way. Which is a whole 'nother conversation.
 
When it comes down to it, the rich obviously knew that they would incur some tax increases after Obama assumed office. Obama said all along that he wanted to go back to the tax rates that existed in the 90's so every day is another step in that direction.
 
rivrrat said:
What is it today with people trying to tell me what I think?

Yes. I am.
Click to expand...

Tell me, with an extremely conservative (and exceedingly unrealistic) ROI of 1.5%, how much do you think that the average charge per toll per mile would be?

Note this includes the design, land preparation, land acquisition costs, property taxes and a whole host of other costs including maintenance.

Now redo the math with a far more realistic ROI of 5%.

American shipping is totally ****ed under your proposition.
 
Hypostrategos said:
It doesn't matter if they get indirect and direct benefits.
Click to expand...

Uh...yeah they do. Look another person who has never heard of Hobbes's Social Contract.

They can benefit themselves thousands of times over with money that they control.
Click to expand...

Okay boy genius, tell me, can the average citizen benefit themselves a thousand times over in terms of defense benefits by self funding rather then taxation?

Furthermore boy genius, can the average citizen benefit themselves a thousand times over in terms of safety via cops and firefighting by self funding rather then taxation?

Next question boy genius, can the average citizen benefit themselves a thousand times over in terms of society progression in economic activity by self funding R&D rather how it is done now via the university systems?

And i guess you're right that markets don't always lead to the best allocation of resources for society. Only free markets do that.
Click to expand...

Amusing. Tell me, how does a system that favors profit over all else lead to the best outcomes for society? Under your reasoning, private spending and funding on things like Chia and Rock pets benefits society more then spending on University educations, particularly in science and math fields.

Excuse me while I fall down laughing at your argument's insane logic. :rofl

And there is no such thing as a free market, well for any measurable amount of time as truly free markets are anarchy. And as human history shows, Anarchy always leads to Tyranny.

And i don't know where this allocation thing comes in. Wealth is infinite. Resources are infinite. Everybody can become rich, if they think and act in a certain way. Which is a whole 'nother conversation.
Click to expand...

LOL. Another idealist.

I'm still waiting for someone to argue how completely private toll highways would be more efficient in economic activity then what we have now.

If you people actually believed that free markets always, without exception lead to better allocation of resources, you should be able to argue that.
 
apdst said:
Would you miss 5%?

There's your answer.
Click to expand...

Do you think he will honestly answer that question? It is idiotic to assume that no one would miss 5% of their pay check. Five percent of any 40 hour work week is 2 hours. Basically two hours of government service per 5% the government takes out your check.
 
Hypostrategos said:
It doesn't matter if they get indirect and direct benefits. They can benefit themselves thousands of times over with money that they control. And i guess you're right that markets don't always lead to the best allocation of resources for society. Only free markets do that. And i don't know where this allocation thing comes in. Wealth is infinite. Resources are infinite. Everybody can become rich, if they think and act in a certain way. Which is a whole 'nother conversation.
Click to expand...

No way, only the smart can become rich, and usually at the expense of the rest of us. Most of the time, it works out for all of us, because we need some rich and well off to create the jobs.
Wealth is not infinite, and neither are resources. Every extra dollar that gets printed makes the existing dollars worth less than before. Resources must be replaced as they are used, or eventually, we run out of them. Europeans came to the new world looking for wealth, and part of that wealth was WOOD, because they had pretty much depleted the forests of Europe.
 
UtahBill said:
No way, only the smart can become rich
Click to expand...

I disagree. I presente exhibit A:

daniel-snyder-steve-spurrier-240.jpg


;)
 
Happy Days said:
So what is the alternative? At this point you are just letting the insurance companies get rich. Would you prefer to let people stay sick with no option to see a doctor?
Click to expand...

Insurance companies aren't getting rich. That's madeup baloney from Obama and crew.
 
Marilyn Monroe said:
Insurance companies aren't getting rich. That's madeup baloney from Obama and crew.
Click to expand...

Not really. Insurance companies take profits and invest them in shell companies or securities which keeps those profits off their net income line making it look like they aren't making as much as they really are. Granted, many industries do this as well. If you restate their net incomes by removing a big chunk of those investments from their balance sheet, they are making a sizable chunk of change.

My problem with insurance isn't its profits. It's that they make money by denying service that customers have legally paid for.
 
Would the poor miss 5%?

I mean that's, what, 20 cents? They don't need that, especially since American poor is wealthy compared to the poor of other countries.

I hope all you lefties are thinking this class-warfare though long-term, because from the global perspective, America as a whole, all of us, even the bums on the street, are "the rich".

I can see an African consulate in the UN "yeah, tax those greedy Americans, they don't need all that money anyway".
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Would the poor miss 5%?

I mean that's, what, 20 cents? They don't need that, especially since American poor is wealthy compared to the poor of other countries.

I hope all you lefties are thinking this class-warfare though long-term, because from the global perspective, America as a whole, all of us, even the bums on the street, are "the rich".

I can see an African consulate in the UN "yeah, tax those greedy Americans, they don't need all that money anyway".
Click to expand...

We already pay the most into the UN. So done and done. And when Buffett pays the same marginal tax rate as the rest of us, I'll begin to entertain your arguments. But that 20 cents to the poor is worth well more than 20 cents to the rich. The poor in general have much less disposable income, thus taxing them more cuts into their living money. Food, housing, utilities, etc.
 
obvious Child said:
Tell me, with an extremely conservative (and exceedingly unrealistic) ROI of 1.5%, how much do you think that the average charge per toll per mile would be?

Note this includes the design, land preparation, land acquisition costs, property taxes and a whole host of other costs including maintenance.

Now redo the math with a far more realistic ROI of 5%.

American shipping is totally ****ed under your proposition.
Click to expand...

Are you under the delusion that those costs aren't already paid by us? 10x over?
 
rivrrat said:
I think it's not anyone else's decision to make what someone should do with their money or whether or not they would "miss" it.
Click to expand...

Some will never get that it is not "ok" to take other peoples money no matter how you explain it.
 
Ikari said:
We already pay the most into the UN. So done and done. And when Buffett pays the same marginal tax rate as the rest of us, I'll begin to entertain your arguments. But that 20 cents to the poor is worth well more than 20 cents to the rich. The poor in general have much less disposable income, thus taxing them more cuts into their living money. Food, housing, utilities, etc.
Click to expand...

Only if you change your argument from 5% to an exact amount.

5% is 5% is 5%.

Besides, the rich have jobs to create and employees to pay. Hurting them is hurting yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom