Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
That's because you're a sane, rational man. (no homo)
Keep It In Your Pants Herman!
- Thread starter Carne Seca
- Start date
That's because you're a sane, rational man. (no homo)
RyanTheRhino
Well-Known Member
If you can drive down the same road that's sole purpose was paid for to transport goods are you not benefiting from the infrastructure??
I"m sure you take no notice to the utilities that run to your house..... whaaaaat I have to pay for my water....yet you dont have to pay for the water main to be build down your street.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
yes. But if I'm driving down that road in order to work at a job that barely pays the rent I'm not getting the same benefit out of that road as the CEO of a company who's using that road to make billions of dollars. So yes, it's fair that the billionaire pays more for that road since he's getting the greater benefit out of it.
RyanTheRhino
Well-Known Member
well you could walk & be forced to work less hours resulting in a less fair life.
Does fed ex fly your packages just because they have extra room...... NO.... But since they influenced the building of a huge HUB you can now take a jet to Japan for cheaper
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
RyanTheRhino
Well-Known Member
ok then
yea it would be that same as if the giant company you hated didn't even exist.
Now I Hate big company lobbyists because they control our government, but big business helps us in the end.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
The American workers are what makes the companies what they are, not the people who control them. It's also those same workers taking their paychecks and spending it in our markets that makes are economy what it is, not the wealthy people who harvest that money.
A lot of the time these wealthy folks controlling all our countries wealth are nothing more than parasites extracting wealthy out of our system. That's not always the case, but most of the time it is.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
The wealthy business owner already pays more for the use of that road. If he has a successful business, he pays more through the embedded taxes in the gasoline for his company vehicles and the embedded use taxes in every UPS or FedEx delivery. He pays state and local taxes the same as all of us, but pays extra through those unavoidable embedded taxes that are there SPECIFICALLY for the upkeep of that very infastructure he is using.
If his business is successful, he needs to add telephone lines, company cell phones, high speed internet... all of which have embedded taxes, therefore he once again pays more than an unsuccessful business that doesn't need to add these services.
The point is, as he is more successful, he is already paying more, not to mention generating additional sales tax. Higher property tax as he expands. The government is most certainly getting every bit you could argue they deserve for providing the environment to succeed.
The problem is even though he and people like him pay all these embedded taxes AND enough personal income taxes so that about 50% of his fellow citizens can pay NO federal income taxes, you still want more.
Lets say you get what you want and they raise taxes on the wealthy by 10%, nothing will change, nothing will improve and you'll be back asking for 10% more, naively thinking that this time it will work, this increase will somehow make your lives better and fix our problems. You are just facilitating a mindset that this country was founded to oppose.
If his business is successful, he needs to add telephone lines, company cell phones, high speed internet... all of which have embedded taxes, therefore he once again pays more than an unsuccessful business that doesn't need to add these services.
The point is, as he is more successful, he is already paying more, not to mention generating additional sales tax. Higher property tax as he expands. The government is most certainly getting every bit you could argue they deserve for providing the environment to succeed.
The problem is even though he and people like him pay all these embedded taxes AND enough personal income taxes so that about 50% of his fellow citizens can pay NO federal income taxes, you still want more.
Lets say you get what you want and they raise taxes on the wealthy by 10%, nothing will change, nothing will improve and you'll be back asking for 10% more, naively thinking that this time it will work, this increase will somehow make your lives better and fix our problems. You are just facilitating a mindset that this country was founded to oppose.
RyanTheRhino
Well-Known Member
If Americans don't want the work companies will move else where.... this has already happened with out-sourcing. being ignorant to the fact that america is not # 1 anymore is hard for most. We must do the same work as the Chinese for the same price if we want to create new jobs & HQ fortune 500 companies. Americans are too needy and want the government to fix it when really they have just been pumping air into our life raft until we die.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
So you think American workers should all start working for $1 per day so the 1% can profit even more off their labor?
Why do these wealthy folks deserve to make as much as hundreds or even thousands of workers? Do they do the work of thousands of workers each day? No.
We don't have to turn America into a third world country. We just need laws against these thieves outsourcing our jobs so they can profiteer off America.
Who's going to be able to afford to buy all these products our labor produces when everyone is making $1 per day?
Why is it the middle class that has to accept a lower quality of life in order to prop up the billionaires?
I think you're dead wrong. American workers don't need to start working for less, the wealthy need to stop extracting so much wealth at the expense of American workers. It's not that companies can't afford to hire Americans, it's that their greed has led them to screw over Americans for their own benefit.
The Cryptkeeper
Well-Known Member
That sounds pretty badass.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
The average net worth of the bottom 50% of Americans is $9k total, and have of that is debt. You can't squeeze money from a stone. Want the poor/middle class to pay more taxes? Pay them a real living wage and maybe I'll agree. In the last 30 years the wealthy have increased their income by around 300% while the bottom 80% have had their wages stagnate or in decline. People are having to choose between food and rent and you want them to pay more taxes? GTFO
When the wealthy stop acting like parasites leeching the wealth created by the labor of the 99% then we can talk about them paying more taxes. Do you really think people should choosing between starving and living on the streets while the wealthy enjoy record profits so we can keep their taxes at a historically low rate?
dukeanthony
New Member
Ron JOhnson Tea party Senator from wisconsin
-Successful businesman
-operations pay no state taxes since he became president
-millionaire
Did he bust his ass? And become successful
Well Yea if you count the fact He married his high school sweet heart whose daddy originally owned the company he claims as his
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Dan,
You're a brilliant guy!
The current tax scam is a tier game. Over Xn amount salary and you pay more percent tax. If the tax tiers stay the same, all that's done is everyone shifts tax tiers, but doesn't gain. The result is what economists term, stagflation.
1) all wages go up
If everyone has more money and supply remains constant. One of two thing happen: people rapidly buy the good and supply is gone or price increases to the point of steady state, previous to wage increases. Which is magically the same as the percent wage raise. You think companies will increase supply rather than more profits?
2) That salary has increased by Xn percent inflation, but the tax scam put you in a higher bracket(Yn = percent of salary to buy goods), so your have Yn current becomes less than Yn previous.
3) the richest already can't pay more percent tax. So their after inflation increase minus taxes that proportionally stayed the same, means only the highest tax bracket gained under your new living wage for all plan.
This is why socialism sucks. Under government socialism, the rich get their money stolen to redistribute to the poorer. Under corporate socialism, the US' current economic system, the rich with the government as their strong arm, steal from everyone else.
The only fair system is egalitarian laissez-faire capitalism, with only enough government watchdog action to prevent individuals from forming corporations and/or syndicates. Like no dumping laws. Then it becomes the laws of economics, not biggoted social programs, who becomes better off.
You're a brilliant guy!
The current tax scam is a tier game. Over Xn amount salary and you pay more percent tax. If the tax tiers stay the same, all that's done is everyone shifts tax tiers, but doesn't gain. The result is what economists term, stagflation.
1) all wages go up
If everyone has more money and supply remains constant. One of two thing happen: people rapidly buy the good and supply is gone or price increases to the point of steady state, previous to wage increases. Which is magically the same as the percent wage raise. You think companies will increase supply rather than more profits?
2) That salary has increased by Xn percent inflation, but the tax scam put you in a higher bracket(Yn = percent of salary to buy goods), so your have Yn current becomes less than Yn previous.
3) the richest already can't pay more percent tax. So their after inflation increase minus taxes that proportionally stayed the same, means only the highest tax bracket gained under your new living wage for all plan.
This is why socialism sucks. Under government socialism, the rich get their money stolen to redistribute to the poorer. Under corporate socialism, the US' current economic system, the rich with the government as their strong arm, steal from everyone else.
The only fair system is egalitarian laissez-faire capitalism, with only enough government watchdog action to prevent individuals from forming corporations and/or syndicates. Like no dumping laws. Then it becomes the laws of economics, not biggoted social programs, who becomes better off.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
I don't really think that is what I was advocating. I've stated endlessly that the government is already taking in far more revenue than it actually needs to operate. I think we are all paying an absurd amount of taxes, not just income taxes, but all the embedded taxes in all the products and services we pay for, it's oppressive to everyone.
We don't need to raise taxes on anyone, we need a MASSIVE reduction in the size of the Federal government and that isn't even going back that far, it's budgetary needs have increased by 40% just since 2001 while the population it serves hasn't increased proportionately.
The problem is spending not revenue, if we facilitate this lunacy with more taxes on anyone, they will just spend more and keep coming back for more. The cycle and mindset have to be broken. If the looniest of left wing loons got their way and everyone making over $1 million a year had a 25% increase in their taxes, IT WOULD SOLVE NOTHING, it wouldn't do shit. That's why the argument is so absurd, we need to concentrate on the problem, out of control spending and the progressive mindset behind that spending.
deprave
New Member
I have to agree with both of you in some ways....That IS why its ridiculous....Anyone paying more money will do jack shit...
Obama is advocating that if each person making precisely a million dollars pays 500$ more that its somehow going to save us. The republicans say the bottom 49% need to pay more.....Far from the truth....
and the middle and lower class simply can't afford another dime......Changing the tax code in any way.....even radically changing it...is like trying to put out a building on fire with one mans piss....ITS NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING! What a ridiculous waste of breathe!
Obama is advocating that if each person making precisely a million dollars pays 500$ more that its somehow going to save us. The republicans say the bottom 49% need to pay more.....Far from the truth....
and the middle and lower class simply can't afford another dime......Changing the tax code in any way.....even radically changing it...is like trying to put out a building on fire with one mans piss....ITS NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING! What a ridiculous waste of breathe!
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
george w bush, biggest spender there was...a progressive?
i hear most progressives like the idea of privatizing SS and starting pointless wars
LOL!
partisan hackery, that is all.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
Well you were complaining about the half of Americans who are only living above the poverty line because they are in massive debt not paying enough taxes, so....
Compared to most other industrialized nations our government takes in and spends a below average amount of GDP.
Well you're entitled to your opinion, but other than China and India which have insane poverty levels the US is taxing less than pretty much all major economic world powers.
Our federal government is one of the smallest in the world. As percentage of GDP it's smaller than the Mexican government. It's smaller than many African governments. It's our state and local government spending that makes our government spending even within the range of "below average" up from "one of the smallest governments in the world". Our federal government is basically an insurance company with an army. All other federal spending is insignificant compared to those things. And those things are incredibly popular among the population.
I'd argue that our federal government is insanely small for a country this size. We've lost hold over basic needs like policing over Wall St because the size of our government is too small. We have people losing their homes due to medical bills at a rate higher than any other country in the world because our government is one of the few in the world that doesn't provide everyone with medical insurance.
Stating that our federal government is too big is factually incorrect. If our federal government was any smaller we'd have to copy our federal system after Somalia. If anything, our federal government is too small to serve basic needs of the people.
Just because politicians have been repeating the lie for 30 years that our federal government is too large doesn't make it true. The facts do not back up that statement.
If you think I'm wrong, please show me examples of countries that are successful that have smaller federal governments than we do. (hint: they don't exist)
Taxes are at a modern low. Let's not pretend we have high tax rates here.
Then I'm the looniest of the left wing loons. Raising tax rates on the wealthy to a historically normal level isn't insane.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
I would (and have many times) argued that is EXACTLY what he was. Spending, prescription drug plan, TARP and amnesty... yeah, that's an easy argument to make.
Your little partisan hackery claims are starting to look pathetic. How is it partisan when it's clearly directed at BOTH PARTIES? Explain that genius.
Similar threads
