- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
11 likes! That's the most I've seen so far :lol:
That shows how silly some are.
11 likes! That's the most I've seen so far :lol:
so you agree with me
the rich fund programs and the rest of Americans use them
cutting taxes is a benefit for the rich
increasing spending is a benefit for everyone else
so all the crap that the reason why the rich should pay more is because they benefit most from the government is nonsense
their duty is to fund everyone else's benefits
psychobabble
sure you do-you are one of the most vocal proponents of more government on this board-guns, taxes etc you want MORE government
The flat tax you are proposing Turtle is not practical. 25% of 100,000 leaves a person with 25,000. 1million leaves a person with 750,000. One is a lifestyle change the other is not.
the wealthy want a weak govt because they know it's the only thing stopping them from taking everything
psychobabble
TurtleDude said:you were doing ok until you started with the envy of Trump nonsense
TurtleDude said:tell us what your proposed solution is
-scratches head at your math-
Whoa.... hold on there... The majority of spending increases have benefited the rich. Some examples for you to chew on...
The bailouts that rewarded disastrously managed houses of finance, instead of letting them fail and fresh blood enter the market. Not only did every damn one of them keep their jobs while issuing pink slips to the rank and file, they kept their wholly undeserved bonuses. How... exactly, did everyone else benefit from that, and the rich did not? To the tune 1.4 trillion...
No bid, cost plus contracts inflated the cost of war by several orders of magnitude, going from a projected cost of $60 billion to $1.3 trillion. Haliburton stock increased over a 1000 percent during this period, while energy companies reaped huge profits. Tell me... how did this war profiteering benefit the working class and not the rich?
The creation of a housing bubble fueled by easy loans and refinancing that fueled one of the only two economies we have left, consumerism accounting for 70% of our GDP. When the bubble burst, who was the first to be protected? The homeowners? Or the companies that pumped money in the form of personal debt into the economy to skew the growth numbers by offering unscrupulous loans, selling essentially junk securities as AAA investments in the form of mortgage bundling, foreclosing on properties and vastly consolidating land holdings as real assets into a few hands (that is, consolidating real wealth, not debt currency), wiping out weaker competitors in a down market only the richest finance manipulators could survive (with taxpayer help).
Federal Environmental Clean-up Fund - cleaning up a century of pollution left behind by corporate behemoths that just walked away from them.
I'm sure others can give you more examples... but these are a few.
Lastly, the very rich in this country, from the founding of the income tax system until 1980, paid no less than 70% of their income in taxes... and still built fabulous mansions, owned private planes, ten stall garages filled with cars, islands... etc. These were arguably the years of maximum prosperity in the united states, with a family of four surviving very well on a single average income.
I dont see Boo starting topic after topic about his one pet issue.
No, envy implies rightful ownership. You don't envy the thief the goods he has stolen or the con artist the money they've bilked from others.
I honestly don't think there is one. The only solution is for as many people as possible to learn the appropriate lessons so that those will be carried into the future. But short of killing a bunch of people, there is no solution any more.
yeah the typical left wing response-rich people stole their wealth
so you agree with me
the rich fund programs and the rest of Americans use them
cutting taxes is a benefit for the rich
increasing spending is a benefit for everyone else
so all the crap that the reason why the rich should pay more is because they benefit most from the government is nonsense
their duty is to fund everyone else's benefits
Whoa.... hold on there... The majority of spending increases have benefited the rich. Some examples for you to chew on...
The bailouts that rewarded disastrously managed houses of finance, instead of letting them fail and fresh blood enter the market. Not only did every damn one of them keep their jobs while issuing pink slips to the rank and file, they kept their wholly undeserved bonuses. How... exactly, did everyone else benefit from that, and the rich did not? To the tune 1.4 trillion...
No bid, cost plus contracts inflated the cost of war by several orders of magnitude, going from a projected cost of $60 billion to $1.3 trillion. Haliburton stock increased over a 1000 percent during this period, while energy companies reaped huge profits. Tell me... how did this war profiteering benefit the working class and not the rich?
The creation of a housing bubble fueled by easy loans and refinancing that fueled one of the only two economies we have left, consumerism accounting for 70% of our GDP. When the bubble burst, who was the first to be protected? The homeowners? Or the companies that pumped money in the form of personal debt into the economy to skew the growth numbers by offering unscrupulous loans, selling essentially junk securities as AAA investments in the form of mortgage bundling, foreclosing on properties and vastly consolidating land holdings as real assets into a few hands (that is, consolidating real wealth, not debt currency), wiping out weaker competitors in a down market only the richest finance manipulators could survive (with taxpayer help).
Federal Environmental Clean-up Fund - cleaning up a century of pollution left behind by corporate behemoths that just walked away from them.
I'm sure others can give you more examples... but these are a few.
Lastly, the very rich in this country, from the founding of the income tax system until 1980, paid no less than 70% of their income in taxes... and still built fabulous mansions, owned private planes, ten stall garages filled with cars, islands... etc. These were arguably the years of maximum prosperity in the united states, with a family of four surviving very well on a single average income.
You sort of lose credibility saying the very rich PAID NO LESS THAN 70% of the income in taxes
You completely do not understand marginal rates with effective rates
Turtledude said:yeah the typical left wing response-rich people stole their wealth
yeah the typical left wing response-rich people stole their wealth
Thank you for blasting you're own point out of the water. As you say cutting taxes is a benefit for the rich, so if they pay higher taxes the gov't gets more revenue and it helps out our debt situation but they make a sacrifice. If increasing spending benefits everyone else, and we cut back the gov't has more money and it helps our debt situation, but they make a sacrifice.
If you really believe what you just said, I don't understand the point of this topic. We all agree everyone should share some the burden, and this seems like both a way to generate more money and from both parties normal base.
Well, I think in most cases, "plundered" or "bilked" is a little more precise. But I've been up close and watched how the process works. I've been party to negotiations with city councils and county supervisors for businesses to receive tax breaks, and in many cases, direct payment of tax dollars in the promise of locating there, which they then never fulfill. You wouldn't believe how much money flows from even the poorest locales up to multi-millionaires that way. And while the poor continue to pay sales tax and property tax, the wealthy then receive much of that money without ever fulfilling their end of the bargain.
The typical rightwing response - the rich earned their bailouts
You described the nonsense perfectly. TD doesn't want the rich to pay more, so he wants to lower their taxes so they end up paying more :roll:
LMAO... this is your response?
Completely ignore the facts listed above and waffle about on some non-sensical hairsplitting between "marginal and effective rates"... what the hell does that even mean and how does it refute any of the points made above?
What a freakin joke!
funny you ignore 100+ years of no income tax and it ignores effective rates. the top marginal rate affects far more people now than those vaunted top rates you socialists want to impose on the rich. You also ignore the fact that there were far many more deductions and evasions available back when the top marginal rates were higher