• A majority of americans agree that taxes need to be raised on the corporations and the rich
    190 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31151747]Except the US, as far as I'm aware, is not a kind of nanny-state, and I think it's rather a theft of credit, amongst other things, to grossly tax the "rich" by claiming that the government helped them get where they were. I'd like to point out that UNSUCCESSFUL businesses, which make poor people, also get these "government aids" - roads, FDIC, etc. However, at some stage, despite this relative equality in government involvement, one business may be grossly richer than another. Why? I'm not a businessman, but it's safe to assume this MUST be attributable to the people running the business - not the government. If the government makes successful business, why aren't all businesses successful? I've said it before, and I'll say it again - self-righteously "taxing the rich" in some sort of blanket manner is not the perfect solution, and will only serve to alienate many people.[/QUOTE] I always find it funny when people say stuff like this. As a succesful member of society, you got there through using US. The REST of the people. You got to where you are because of us, because of society, because of government. You OWE a debt. That debt is paid in taxes that go to aid everything. Without society, your business would NEVER exist. You'd NEVER make a dollar and keep it. Anarchistic business fails. It's so far from being self righteous, that it's asinine to call it so. It's BENEFICIAL. Look at history(Or ignore it, it's common). 1950's, 90% income tax rate. The highest prosperity in american society ever. Guess that had to with everything but taxes. [editline]16th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;31156440]No it makes your opinion on government overly reductionist while ignoring the actual relationships between businesses and government. It doesn't sound like a conspiracy theorist, more like a clueless stoner but I don't know any emotes for that.[/QUOTE] Do you really want to deny the amount of money that passes hands between corporation and government? That there might be some influence there?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31158132]1950's, 90%[/QUOTE] given inflation since then, minimum wage should be well over double what it is now. At that rate, 45% now would leave the same amount of money in your pocket that 90% would have if things adjusted properly with the times. they weren't making much more [equivalent] that didn't go to taxes back then, but they WERE putting a shit ton more into taxes. I wish it was that way again
[QUOTE=Mr. Sun;31153911]ts unconstitutional also.[/QUOTE] Explain. [editline]16th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=mobrockers2;31154254]Anyone sensible can see that big corporations in the USA have way too much to say because of your two-party system and the huge amount of money it costs to get elected for anything. And don't start hurr durr Obama. He's one of the few that get the campaign money from the people instead of the corporations.[/QUOTE] Not to mention how are science is being controlled by businesses. Gas companies are giving millions to universities to make sure there advances in science need gas and its all because we don't give science enough to do its thing.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;31160786]Explain. [/QUOTE] Before he comes back with a stupid response, I'll just say it right here. Tax brackets are not unconstitutional. We even use them right now! Just not effectively.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;31156474]so hey aren't these guys supposed to represent us and our interests, not theirs?[/QUOTE] It hasn't been like that for a while.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;31145297]The system doesn't fail because it hasn't failed because to say that big corporations are the ones controlling everything is to completely ignore how the government and election process functions, and amounts to nothing more than some redneck saying "all politicians they're all the same" like they can actually implement a better idea. Like I said, there are PACs, interests groups, think tanks, constituencies, and so on, on every side of every issue. Even then the most money raised comes from small contributions. Obama's campaign was like the most successful campaign ever and the majority of contributions were very small and I mean $5, $10, $20 small. Companies have a part in it and they should to a degree, as do unions, ethnic groups, anything that you can group people together. I'm not even going to get into how ridiculous it is to say that one party is good and the other is bad beyond the fact that a position would not exist if there wasn't a minority constituency that supported it and wanted it to be included in the platform. The Republican position actually makes sense this time, they don't want to raise taxes in the middle of a recession when people are most reluctant to spend. Their constituents, even if they are a minority in this debate, voted them in on a promise of no tax raises. Meanwhile Democrats are reluctant to make cuts into the things where the cuts actually need to be, I'm not going to call the entire party stupid and out to destroy the country because of that because it's what their constituents want. In other words they are slowly moving towards the deadline, deliberately, as the government was designed to do. Meanwhile every thread made here is either some doomsday bullshit or some dumb thing Rick Perry said and honestly who gives a fuck he's Rick Perry. America is going into the ground huh? Things look pretty fine around here, quality of life seems to be pretty nice, gas and food are relatively cheap, employment could be worse.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say democrats are reluctant to cut into things that need to be. In my opinion, military spending could take a HUGE decrease monetarily, yet that's never even on the table to begin with. You don't see any republicans parading about how much money we're piling into our military.
Wouldn't it be real democratic if they put this to a referendum? Shame democracy is a hopeless and raped ideal.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;31169520]Wouldn't it be real democratic if they put this to a referendum? Shame democracy is a hopeless and raped ideal.[/QUOTE] Having a referendum on such a huge scale as this would lead to tyranny of the majority. I don't see how a divided government shows that a democracy has failed.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31158132]I always find it funny when people say stuff like this. As a succesful member of society, you got there through using US. The REST of the people. You got to where you are because of us, because of society, because of government. You OWE a debt. That debt is paid in taxes that go to aid everything. Without society, your business would NEVER exist. You'd NEVER make a dollar and keep it. Anarchistic business fails. It's so far from being self righteous, that it's asinine to call it so. It's BENEFICIAL. Look at history(Or ignore it, it's common). 1950's, 90% income tax rate. The highest prosperity in american society ever. Guess that had to with everything but taxes. [editline]16th July 2011[/editline] Do you really want to deny the amount of money that passes hands between corporation and government? That there might be some influence there?[/QUOTE] And you failed to answer my question, interestingly. Both companies receive the same government support, including the ridiculously indirect extensions of "roads for their customers to drive on", but one makes millions while another starves. How can one be taxed more than another? You're preaching a communist-style big-government money-grabbing that rips the heart out of the American Dream. F. Scott Fitzgerald would disagree, but... he's dead.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31170086]And you failed to answer my question, interestingly. Both companies receive the same government support, including the ridiculously indirect extensions of "roads for their customers to drive on", but one makes millions while another starves. How can one be taxed more than another? You're preaching a communist-style big-government money-grabbing that rips the heart out of the American Dream. F. Scott Fitzgerald would disagree, but... he's dead.[/QUOTE] Fitzgerald criticised the supposed American Dream by taking the piss out of people like Horatio Alger. And you can't have a communist style big government, you have to be an idiot to mix those two up.
Communism is big government.
How about people need at least a collage degree if they want to be a member of the congress, would solve a lot of problems.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31172692]Communism is big government.[/QUOTE] Oversimplified.
[QUOTE=demoguy08;31133372]Exactly. And two parties can hardly represent the opinions of those 400 million.[/QUOTE] Personally I think it might be better to have lots of smaller parties dedicated to specific issues, which we get multiple votes to put toward (1 per part ofc), rather than 2 Parties that blanket each side of the spectrum, being polar opposites and constantly at each other's throats. Basically allow us to customise our votes some, most things aren't black and white, and out of all things, our system of government shouldn't be either.
[QUOTE=Galago;31168548]I wouldn't say democrats are reluctant to cut into things that need to be. In my opinion, military spending could take a HUGE decrease monetarily, yet that's never even on the table to begin with. You don't see any republicans parading about how much money we're piling into our military.[/QUOTE]You can cut $300 billion tops from defense, most of which will be done by 2014 if the plans to end Iraq and Afghanistan follow through, which is probably why they aren't discussing it, because it's going to happen anyway. That's only a fraction of what we need to cut. In fact you can take away the entire defense budget and it would still only be a fraction. Everything has to be cut back for this to work. [editline]17th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=amute;31157847]You don't need to be a clueless stoner to realise corporate influence and government are in our present time very good buddies and a negative influence.[/QUOTE]Yeah and yet the government has more regulations on it than ever before and their stimulus is having a positive impact on employment.
America's politics are just funny in a really sad way.
[QUOTE=usaokay;31173523]There's a term for increasing taxes on the upper class, but I forgot what it's called.[/QUOTE] its called "Doing something that is actually smart".
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31172692]Communism is big government.[/QUOTE] Communism is no government
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;31134885]Anyone else getting the feeling the Republicans are instinctively working against everything the democrats suggest no matter what just out of spite, being pissed since Obama was elected?[/QUOTE] Actually that's exactly what they do. I remember a radical bill (can't remember what it was) that the Reps all voted For, and the Dems decided to call their bluff and go Neutral, forcing the Reps to change their votes to Against. The sole reason they voted For this bill, which they didn't even truly support, was to spite the Democrats.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31172692]Communism is big government.[/QUOTE] Looks like someone doesn't know what communism is. [editline]17th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;31173309]You can cut $300 billion tops from defense, most of which will be done by 2014 if the plans to end Iraq and Afghanistan follow through, which is probably why they aren't discussing it, because it's going to happen anyway. That's only a fraction of what we need to cut. In fact you can take away the entire defense budget and it would still only be a fraction. Everything has to be cut back for this to work.[/quote] The defence budget makes up the most spent by the US in total. Yeah and yet the government has more regulations on it than ever before and their stimulus is having a positive impact on employment.[/QUOTE] The stimulus helped, yeah, but it's still working. More regulations are being put into place to combat the recession, which is good. Problem is, it's not really enough.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;31173612]Communism is no government[/QUOTE] Wouldn't that be Anarchy?
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;31173978]Wouldn't that be Anarchy?[/QUOTE] Communism has other factors, you cant' simplify it.
These people are right. Amurrica needs to soften up their values and install the western socialism for good social care and entirely progressive taxing.
-snip- TOTALLY forgot I already replied
I don't think the majority of americans are ready to increase their tax to... well 33% like sweden. It would turn into a civil war.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;31131853]That 20% that agrees with Republicans? They hold 80% of the wealth in this country. Therefore, they will be catered to and the rest of us will be ignored.[/QUOTE] Actually, it's more like 5% / 90% :v:
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;31173978]Wouldn't that be Anarchy?[/QUOTE] He's saying that Communism is an economic theory, not a government. If you're thinking of the Soviet style communism that was basically a dictatorship with a Communist economy. The Marxist style of Communism has to have a Democracy to work.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31170086]And you failed to answer my question, interestingly. Both companies receive the same government support, including the ridiculously indirect extensions of "roads for their customers to drive on", but one makes millions while another starves. How can one be taxed more than another? You're preaching a communist-style big-government money-grabbing that rips the heart out of the American Dream. F. Scott Fitzgerald would disagree, but... he's dead.[/QUOTE] Because they're still relying on it, and why tax a business that isn't making money, that's counter productive to good taxing. Good taxing doesn't try and kill small business, it would still have to tax them though. It would make more money letting them survive or become larger for larger tax revenue. Larger companies, you see, being larger, employing more people, more space, owning more property, and selling more things, requiring more materials. It all adds up, it's a large cost in a social sense. And why shouldn't we tax them? They still needed us, they need us to live longer to buy more stuff. No, i'm preaching a realistic and actual successful government known as democratic socialism.
Look at it this way. Since all of the people ruining the country are all old fucks, then they will be dead soon. Younger people will be in charge, and hopefully repairs will be made. Hopefully.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;31177276]Look at it this way. Since all of the people ruining the country are all old fucks, then they will be dead soon. Younger people will be in charge, and hopefully repairs will be made. Hopefully.[/QUOTE] Young people that buy a iphone when they can't pay the rent? :suicide:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.