• 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%?

UtahBill said:
Seems the dream has become a nightmare to many, perhaps the dream was funded on borrowed money?
Click to expand...

maybe, but still people have a right to spend what they earn.
 
stalin_was_a_nice_being said:
maybe, but still people have a right to spend what they earn.
Click to expand...

and if they over indulge and get in the situation where they are going to LOSE their home? do they have a right to ask for help?

Stupidity is not something we should be subsidizing.
 
UtahBill said:
and if they over indulge and get in the situation where they are going to LOSE their home? do they have a right to ask for help?

Stupidity is not something we should be subsidizing.
Click to expand...

No. They don't have a right to ask for help. It's their life and they do what they want with it. But if they ruin themselves because they spend too much money, it is their fault.
 
stalin_was_a_nice_being said:
maybe, but still people have a right to spend what they earn.
Click to expand...

Of course people should/can spend what they earn. However, going into debt (regardless of income) needs to happen with responsibility in mind. Stating that "the bank wanted to give it to me" does not equate to taking it as a responsible action.
 
stalin_was_a_nice_being said:
No. They don't have a right to ask for help. It's their life and they do what they want with it. But if they ruin themselves because they spend too much money, it is their fault.
Click to expand...

and yet the govt is bailing many of them out ......
 
UtahBill said:
and yet the govt is bailing many of them out ......
Click to expand...

.....two things.
Many of the people being bailed are because they took in the "no interest for a year" deal. Or something that was a bad deal and that no one should have taken.
second, the richest 1% own the government. The government will do in the end what they want to happen.
 
stalin_was_a_nice_being said:
.....two things.
Many of the people being bailed are because they took in the "no interest for a year" deal. Or something that was a bad deal and that no one should have taken.
second, the richest 1% own the government. The government will do in the end what they want to happen.
Click to expand...

the richest 1% CONTROL the govt...they can't own it, as the govt is us. If they control us, it is because we let them....
 
stalin_was_a_nice_being said:
.....two things.
Many of the people being bailed are because they took in the "no interest for a year" deal. Or something that was a bad deal and that no one should have taken.
second, the richest 1% own the government. The government will do in the end what they want to happen.
Click to expand...

This is a common misconception. While low end home purchases were plentiful, they did not possess the nominal properties to build a bubble. Home values going from $50,000 -> $80,000 is equal to $200,000 -> $320,000 only in proportion.
 
obvious Child said:
Uh No. According to Hobbes, man gives up certain freedoms in order for protection and to leave the natural state of man. Nowhere does Hobbes ever argue that man gives up all of his liberties and freedoms to a single ruler.



You appear not to have dug too deep.
Click to expand...
Because I don't give a **** about Hobbes. He is irrelevant.

You do realize that you are calling for extreme inefficiencies within the market no? Imagine the cost of goods when every road is toll road. The way to hamstring the economy it to tack on high costs to individuals. As much as there is a free rider problem, communal goods like roads do increase GDP. Paying $5 in taxes a year for roads and reaping the benefits is far more efficient then toll roads up the butt.
Click to expand...

disneydude said:
How is funding them different than paying taxes. Either the private sector is going to pass on the costs to the consumer or the government is going to do it by taxes.

The alternative is to say that it is based on income. Only rich people can use the roads because they will be toll based. Only rich people can be educated because only they can pay the education.

Yeah....that is the making of a great society.
Click to expand...

LMFAO I'd HAPPILY pay only $5 a year, but you know what? When I worked in DC, and even when I worked in WV, I had to pay $10 a DAY in TOLLS to get to work and back. So don't give me this toll road bull**** when we already have that issue. I would MUCH rather pay the $10 (or more) in tolls if less was taken from me in taxes. But as it is now, they steal money from me via taxes and THEN make me pay tolls on top of that!!!

As for education... if you can't afford to educate your child, then that's a good reason NOT to have one.
 
UtahBill said:
the richest 1% CONTROL the govt...they can't own it, as the govt is us. If they control us, it is because we let them....
Click to expand...

Exactly. There's a level of "rich" which is damned wealthy, but they get taxed out the butt. Then there is the uber rich, the one's in charge, the aristocracy which dominates over us all. They pay practically nothing in taxes.

At least in the old days, you got to kill aristocrats from time to time.
 
Zyphlin said:
No, you hear the loudest cries when they're thinking to tax the upper class (tax the upper class to pay off the debt. tax the upper class for health care. tax the upper class for education. its the default "that's how we'll pay for it" plan) because that's the one that gets talked about the most often, the loudest, and the most blatant because of the hope of playing against class warfare tendancies of the population.
Click to expand...

Typical class envy. Until people grow up a little and realize that life isn't fair, as most people define fair, this will go on. I am far far from being wealthy. I work and pay my bills, and there's not much left over, but I am happy to be myself, and I have no disdain for the rich. When you're all wrapped up in thinking that life and success is based on money, you will never be satisfied, whether you are rich, poor, or in the middle.
 
Ikari said:
Exactly. There's a level of "rich" which is damned wealthy, but they get taxed out the butt. Then there is the uber rich, the one's in charge, the aristocracy which dominates over us all. They pay practically nothing in taxes.

At least in the old days, you got to kill aristocrats from time to time.
Click to expand...

the good old days.....beyond my time, actually...
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Oh, no. The Democrats, especially the Hollyweirders, are the stingiest of all. They give their pennies serial numbers.
Click to expand...

Much as I don't care for the entertainment industry's politics, what you said is a blatant lie. They are some of the most charitable givers in the entire world. One only has to look at their various foundations, support for different causes, and yearly charitable donations to see you are talking out your ass. Again.
 
For anyone interested, ABC 20/20 webpage carried an article about three years ago regarding who gives, and the characteristics of those who do give.
They did find that generally, the middle class gives proportionally less than the poor, and they think it is related to the fact that the poor can relate to the actual need for charity. If I remember correctly, they found that the poor give more proportionally than the rich.

Here's some excerpts:

Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."
Click to expand...

"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.
Click to expand...

The second myth is that the people with the most money are the most generous. You'd think they'd be. After all, the rich should have the most to spare and households with incomes exceeding $1 million (about 7 percent of the population) make 50 percent of all charitable donations.
Click to expand...

Finally, the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.
Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:
"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."
Click to expand...

Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - ABC News
 
Ikari said:
Exactly. There's a level of "rich" which is damned wealthy, but they get taxed out the butt. Then there is the uber rich, the one's in charge, the aristocracy which dominates over us all. They pay practically nothing in taxes.

At least in the old days, you got to kill aristocrats from time to time.
Click to expand...

Which "aristocrats" pay nothing in taxes? I call bull****.
 
Hatuey said:
Which "aristocrats" pay nothing in taxes? I call bull****.
Click to expand...

No of course they are paying taxes, just not their fair share. Warren Buffet earned 3 billion one year but only had to pay 186mil. That's not right he should have payed 2.7 billion.

I think their should be an IRS panel that decides the tax rate for the really rich so we don't have an individual earning 3 billion and paying only 186 million in income taxes.
 
stalin_was_a_nice_being said:
No of course they are paying taxes, just not their fair share. Warren Buffet earned 3 billion one year but only had to pay 186mil. That's not right he should have payed 2.7 billion.

I think their should be an IRS panel that decides the tax rate for the really rich so we don't have an individual earning 3 billion and paying only 186 million in income taxes.
Click to expand...

What the hell......? So 186 million is not enough in your opinion? Oh alright.
 
Hatuey said:
What the hell......? So 186 million is not enough in your opinion? Oh alright.
Click to expand...

It's not for someone who is already a billionaire and who earned more than a billion dollars in one year.
 
stalin_was_a_nice_being said:
No of course they are paying taxes, just not their fair share. Warren Buffet earned 3 billion one year but only had to pay 186mil. That's not right he should have payed 2.7 billion.

I think their should be an IRS panel that decides the tax rate for the really rich so we don't have an individual earning 3 billion and paying only 186 million in income taxes.
Click to expand...

2.7 billion on 3 billion?

WTF is wrong with you?
 
stalin_was_a_nice_being said:
It's not for someone who is already a billionaire and who earned more than a billion dollars in one year.
Click to expand...

But what does being a millionaire or a billionaire have to do with anything? Paying 186 million dollars pays for the housing of thousands of people do you think that's enough? It's one thing to have a socially responsible position. What you're advocating is economic lunacy.
 
Hatuey said:
But what does being a millionaire or a billionaire have to do with anything? Paying 186 million dollars pays for the housing of thousands of people do you think that's enough? It's one thing to have a socially responsible position. What you're advocating is economic lunacy.
Click to expand...

No. He still would be a billionaire. With an ability to spend whatever way he wanted to and tax income goes to more than just housing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom