• A majority of americans agree that taxes need to be raised on the corporations and the rich
    190 replies, posted
in other news the ocean is wet
Why can't all republicans be good republicans like Abraham Lincoln?
[QUOTE=Atlascore;31175582]What? Gas and food cheap? What the hell are you smoking? Gas prices have been rising higher and higher every day, and food prices have been going the same way, ten years ago it didn't cost an arm and a leg to buy a tank of gas, a box of cereal, and a gallon of milk.[/QUOTE]$3.75 a gallon? $1.25 for a quart of milk? That's nothing compared to the shit they pay elsewhere. As bad as it looks we're still well off. [editline]17th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=amute;31173914]The defence budget makes up the most spent by the US in total.[/QUOTE] Yeah but it's only a third of the budget and inflated because of our wars, the only way it will come down is ending them and that's going to take time, by cutting it in half it would only be something like 18% of the budget but it all depends on the wars.
Where the fuck are you getting 1.25 a quart for milk? 4 dollars a gallon is fucking ridiculous. You're not well off if it's worse somewhere. You're in shit, but not as much as other places. Terrible fucking logic.
[QUOTE=amute;31177514]Where the fuck are you getting 1.25 a quart for milk? 4 dollars a gallon is fucking ridiculous. You're not well off if it's worse somewhere. You're in shit, but not as much as other places. Terrible fucking logic.[/QUOTE] When you live in a country where you can buy a 4 or 5 bedroomed house with twice to three times the usable floor area as a house of the same price in other western countries then you have it pretty fucking good.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;31176405]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]What the fuck are you talking about? Communism isn't merely an economic theory it's a political ideology. Marx said that the proletariat will revolt against the capitalist leaders and cause a revolution. Then the dictatorship of the proletarat would govern under a period of time where socialism is progressively imposed until the government is no longer needed. Then the government would dissolve because it's obsolete.
[QUOTE=amute;31177514]Where the fuck are you getting 1.25 a quart for milk? 4 dollars a gallon is fucking ridiculous. You're not well off if it's worse somewhere. You're in shit, but not as much as other places. Terrible fucking logic.[/QUOTE]It's the middle of summer and the last time gas was under $3 at all was right in the middle of the recession when the DOW was at 6700, explain to me where in the world it is cheaper than the US. A gallon of whole milk is also around $3 I saw prices abroad that were 2 to 3 times higher than that.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;31176405] The Marxist style of Communism has to have a Democracy to work.[/QUOTE] Didn't Marx write that when the transition to true communism is complete there would be no government because everyone would be equal, and government implies people above others [editline]17th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;31178383]It's the middle of summer and the last time gas was under $3 at all was right in the middle of the recession when the DOW was at 6700, explain to me where in the world it is cheaper than the US. A gallon of whole milk is also around $3 I saw prices abroad that were 2 to 3 times higher than that.[/QUOTE] Venezuela apparently has gas for 6 cents a gallon That's as of last year though
Yeah and Somalia has no government it's a libertarian's wet dream.
[QUOTE=sltungle;31177584]When you live in a country where you can buy a 4 or 5 bedroomed house with twice to three times the usable floor area as a house of the same price in other western countries then you have it pretty fucking good.[/QUOTE] Problem is, alot of people CAN'T afford those houses. It's especially apparant here, where they decided "HURP DURP SPEC OPS ARE MOVING IN MILITARY PEOPLE HAZ MUNNIES" and built a fuck-ton of cookie-cutter 3-4 bedroom homes and thought they would sell for $150,000+. (that's HIGH around here) Spoiler alert: They didn't sell. What the stupid fucks didn't realize is that OFFICERS have money, the more numerous lower ranks don't make dick and usually end up living in the much less ritzy "base housing" or "801 housing". Granted the 801's nice but nowhere near as nice as the shit they built north of town (and it's so cramped! Good luck finding somewhere to park if you go to a buddy's house). So a compartively TINY portion of those homes sold while the majority of the personnel they were banking on are living in roach motels and 2-bedroom rent-houses.
[QUOTE=amute;31173914]Looks like someone doesn't know what communism is. [/QUOTE] My mistake - I mean communism IN REALISTIC PRACTICE. I don't actually subscribe to the view that communism can exist without a government, and there's no point promoting an ideal that can't ever exist. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31176703]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.[/QUOTE] Why tax a business that isn't making money? Because it's receiving the same "government support" for which you believe all of a business is crucially and utterly indebted to. Essentially, you're promoting the idea that people don't have a right to be rich, no matter how hard they work, because it's somehow all credit to the government. Following your argument of indirect debt, I as a business owner should pay taxes to schools, for educating the citizens of my society to work for me and buy my goods. I should pay taxes to hospitals for the place of birthing and healing these people. I should pay taxes to the military, for providing a security buffer around my country that keeps society up and allows me to exist as an argument. I should pay taxes to every single other business in my country for contributing to sustaining an economy that allows me to function as a successful business, and I should also pay taxes to all the institutions in every other country in the world for keeping THEM going, thus ensuring world stability hence my society hence my business. No, this is stupid, and your idea of indirect government ownership is wrong. When I "own more property", and "require more materials", and "employ more people", I already pay for this - to the land salesman, the employee, and the resources salesman. The government does NOT own this, and I refuse to pay them for my hard work. I, as a business owner, already pay enough taxes.While I agree with a sliding scale of taxation based on income, this HAS its limits. I have the right to my success, and will not have that taken from me on the principal of indirectly sustaining my existence.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31185678]My mistake - I mean communism IN REALISTIC PRACTICE. I don't actually subscribe to the view that communism can exist without a government, and there's no point promoting an ideal that can't ever exist. Why tax a business that isn't making money? Because it's receiving the same "government support" for which you believe all of a business is crucially and utterly indebted to. Essentially, you're promoting the idea that people don't have a right to be rich, no matter how hard they work, because it's somehow all credit to the government.[/QUOTE] Wait a sec, what? [QUOTE] I, as a business owner, already pay enough taxes.While I agree with a sliding scale of taxation based on income, this HAS its limits. I have the right to my success, and will not have that taken from me on the principal of indirectly sustaining my existence.[/QUOTE] There it is again. What the heck makes you think getting higher taxes will suddenly make you not rich anymore, or not successful anymore? We're not talking about taxing so that everyone makes the exact same amount of money here. You'll still be rich, you just won't be AS rich.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;31185853]Wait a sec, what? There it is again. What the heck makes you think getting higher taxes will suddenly make you not rich anymore, or not successful anymore? We're not talking about taxing so that everyone makes the exact same amount of money here. You'll still be rich, you just won't be AS rich.[/QUOTE] And the other people that make as much as he does would be taxed the same, so in the overall hierarchy of money taxes have no affect on his standing. The only difference is that he has a smaller number next to his dollar sign. Taxes prevent inflation by keeping the number of dollars floating around low. So while you have fewer dollars you have the same purchasing power. Pretty basic economics right there. You'd have to be pretty greedy to only care about the number of dollars you have when purchasing power is unaffected.
I read this article in the Huffington post, found it quite... fitting for the rich people thing. [quote=Huffington post] The Rich --- that is, the 1.4 million taxpayers who earn more than $1.5 million a year and who are currently saving about $121 billion in taxes thanks to the Bush tax cuts -- have been notably silent of late, leaving their messaging to lobbyists, Congress and the media. Those minions have been worth every dollar. By now, almost all of us understand that these extravagantly well-off Americans refuse to be taxed at levels they paid without vocal protest a decade ago. Do the top one percent of American taxpayers truly believe that the government should shut down if we increase their taxes by what amounts to a rounding error? Are these fortunate few really willing to see Medicare and Social Security reduced for millions just so they can buy one more Mercedes? Are they -- let's put it in moral terms -- honestly that hard-hearted? Their silence suggests they are just that cold. But why? And why now, when they've never been richer? I think I know. And I dare to suggest I can speak for them. Not that I am personally Rich. But back in the Reagan years, by a fluke of marriage, I flew the Concorde almost as often as I now take subways. Later, I spent many hours with Michael Milken, the financier who once made $714 million in a single year. And over a long career writing for glossy magazines I played Nick Carraway to any number of Gatsbys. The first counterintuitive truth I learned about the Republican Rich is that they don't feel it. For them, the Rich are always somebody else. Whether they made their money or inherited it, it's not nearly enough. They're like the family in the D.H. Lawrence short story, "The Rocking Horse Winner" -- no matter how their fortune grows, the walls cry out, "There must be more money." So they don't notice the influx of money, only its outflow. The upkeep of houses, the education of slacker children, the purchase of Birkin bags -- everything costs. A lot. And they can, with stunning accuracy, calculate those costs. This leads to a second counterintuitive truth. Out here in America, we look up at the country's ever-growing income inequality and feel it has become permanent. But the Rich, for their part, don't consider themselves victors. To an astonishing degree, they feel surrounded and threatened -- potential victims of a plot to strip them of everything they have. And how will this happen? Not by Socialists storming their Southampton estates, but by taxes. If the Republican Rich feel overtaxed, it's for a reason you'd never guess -- they believe they work harder and longer than the rest of us. Consider: A hod carrier has only one job, and it ends before sunset. A billionaire has several others. In addition to whatever he does all day, there's exercise. Socializing. Fashion. To the hod carrier, those are extra-curricular activities, completely discretionary. The Rich know better. For them, every public appearance is a kind of performance; everything they do is work. And their work is always on view to other Rich people, who have a personal interest in seeing who's doing better. "If you have less than $750 million," a billionaire told me in 1984, "you have no hedge against inflation." Those who have never considered that problem can't possibly grasp the special burdens of wealth. But for a real understanding of the Rich's resistance to taxes, we must step into the chamber of pathology. For the ultimate shocker about the Rich is that some of them don't want to pay dividend and capital gains taxes at all. Their minions dance right up to this view when they argue that the Rich contribute more to the economy than any other group. What they really want to say is what some of the Rich I know have actually come to believe: They're role models for the rest of us -- proof that discipline and effort, not entitlements and coddling, are the straight path to success. They see themselves, in short, as national treasures. Ever since Leona ("Only the little people pay taxes") Helmsley blabbed her way into a federal prison, the Rich have been as careful in their public speech as Derek Jeter. For an unfettered account of their views, I have to look back to 1933, when Sterling Clark, an heir to the Singer Sewing Machine fortune, became convinced he was paying 80% in taxes on his $3 million a year income. Considering that he liked to buy one art masterpiece almost every day, this tax bite would surely put a crimp in his collecting, so he offered half of his $30 million fortune to finance a Wall Street conspiracy that would overthrow the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The "Business Plot" failed, and he is now remembered as the role model he wasn't --- as the creator of the Sterling & Francine Clark Art Institute in Williamstown, Massachusetts. Today's Rich also like to fund buildings on which their names can be carved. But this year, if we look at the Forbes 400 list, we can extract blunter messages: Inherit your money or, if you must earn it, be the head of a large enterprise. Hire aggressive representatives to advance your interests. And if none of that is possible for you, you should act as The Rich do in old movies and nowhere else. Stiff upper lip. Accept your lot. Respect your betters. Starting with the Rich. [/quote]
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31185678]My mistake - I mean communism IN REALISTIC PRACTICE. I don't actually subscribe to the view that communism can exist without a government, and there's no point promoting an ideal that can't ever exist. Why tax a business that isn't making money? Because it's receiving the same "government support" for which you believe all of a business is crucially and utterly indebted to. Essentially, you're promoting the idea that people don't have a right to be rich, no matter how hard they work, because it's somehow all credit to the government. Following your argument of indirect debt, I as a business owner should pay taxes to schools, for educating the citizens of my society to work for me and buy my goods. I should pay taxes to hospitals for the place of birthing and healing these people. I should pay taxes to the military, for providing a security buffer around my country that keeps society up and allows me to exist as an argument. I should pay taxes to every single other business in my country for contributing to sustaining an economy that allows me to function as a successful business, and I should also pay taxes to all the institutions in every other country in the world for keeping THEM going, thus ensuring world stability hence my society hence my business. No, this is stupid, and your idea of indirect government ownership is wrong. When I "own more property", and "require more materials", and "employ more people", I already pay for this - to the land salesman, the employee, and the resources salesman. The government does NOT own this, and I refuse to pay them for my hard work. I, as a business owner, already pay enough taxes.While I agree with a sliding scale of taxation based on income, this HAS its limits. I have the right to my success, and will not have that taken from me on the principal of indirectly sustaining my existence.[/QUOTE] The issue with your argument is that you see yourself as an island in your world. That you are independent. Truly. You're not. You rely on others in every imaginable way. [QUOTE]Why tax a business that isn't making money?[/QUOTE] Did you even read my post? No, I guess not. Uhm, what's wrong with this? No one is robbing you of your riches or your hard work. It's like conservatives hear taxes and think "OH NO, THEY'RE RIPPING ME OFF". Taxes go towards things that by most peoples reasoning, improves life. They also go towards so much more. It's not indirect government ownership, I really don't see how you get that. Public things like roads are public, but by taxing you on a progressive tax scale, no one's fucking owning anything you own but you. You're simply being taxed for it. So how does a government support itself in your world
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31185678]My mistake - I mean communism IN REALISTIC PRACTICE. I don't actually subscribe to the view that communism can exist without a government, and there's no point promoting an ideal that can't ever exist.[/quote] Okay ducky, here's my issue. When you have a system, and you attempt to implement that system, but don't do anything of the sort, you do not have that system. It's not communism if it, well, isn't fucking communism. Jesus, do we have to hold your hand through everything? [quote]Essentially, you're promoting the idea that people don't have a right to be rich, no matter how hard they work, because it's somehow all credit to the government.[/QUOTE] Boo fucking hoo, who cares about the rich? [editline]18th July 2011[/editline] OH NO, this tax season won't let me buy those 8 new yachts I wanted.
[QUOTE=Neo222;31130649]Its the sad truth with every government based on Democracy.There always was a power struggle between the rich and the average civilian. Sadly the rich seemed to always get the upper hand...[/QUOTE] I don't see how they have the upper hand since they're being abused by taxes
[QUOTE=TheChantzGuy;31190369]I don't see how they have the upper hand since they're being abused by taxes[/QUOTE] I don't think that's entirely accurate.
[QUOTE=amute;31190147]Okay ducky, here's my issue. When you have a system, and you attempt to implement that system, but don't do anything of the sort, you do not have that system. It's not communism if it, well, isn't fucking communism. Jesus, do we have to hold your hand through everything? Boo fucking hoo, who cares about the rich? [editline]18th July 2011[/editline] OH NO, this tax season won't let me buy those 8 new yachts I wanted.[/QUOTE]The "rich" are the ones that own the large companies that we buy goods and services from, and they're also the ones that fix us when we break shit or get sick.
Doctors, EMT's, and nurses, factory workers, inventors, serviceman like plumbers and repairman, gardeners, police, firemen - all of these people, every single last one of them, are the non-rich folk who actually provide services and goods, and yeah, the rich commission it, but the rich also gauge people for every penny for shit. Think before you post, boyo.
[QUOTE=amute;31190563]Doctors, EMT's, and nurses, factory workers, inventors, serviceman like plumbers and repairman, gardeners, police, firemen - all of these people, every single last one of them, are the non-rich folk who actually provide services and goods, and yeah, the rich commission it, but the rich also gauge people for every penny for shit. Think before you post, boyo.[/QUOTE]We get it, you hate the rich. Move to Somalia if you don't want to be near rich people.
[QUOTE=faze;31190592]We get it, you hate the rich. Move to Somalia if you don't want to be near rich people.[/QUOTE] Hahaha, oh wow.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31192300]Hahaha, oh wow.[/QUOTE]Well, he's very vocal regarding his hate for the wealthy.
[QUOTE=faze;31192320]Well, he's very vocal regarding his hate for the wealthy.[/QUOTE] I certainly don't hate the wealthy, I just think they could stand to take a stronger tax burden. They managed with a 90% income tax in the 40s, and 70%~80% in the 70s, I think they can manage a raise from the 35% they have now.
[QUOTE=faze;31190592]We get it, you hate the rich. Move to Somalia if you don't want to be near rich people.[/QUOTE] Somalians have rich people, Faze.
[QUOTE=amute;31192685]Somalians have rich people, Faze.[/QUOTE]Government doesn't count.
Jesus Christ democrats, THIS IS WHY WE NEED OUR GUNS. Lets overthrow shit.
[QUOTE=amute;31190563][b]Doctors[/b], EMT's, and nurses, factory workers, inventors, serviceman like plumbers and repairman, gardeners, police, firemen - all of these people, every single last one of them, are the [n]non-rich[/n] folk who actually provide services and goods, and yeah, the rich commission it, but the rich also gauge people for every penny for shit. Think before you post, boyo.[/QUOTE] I snorted Pepsi out of my nose, for serious. Doctors make shit-tons of money, if anything you mean EMTs and RNs.
[QUOTE=MegaChalupa;31194051]Jesus Christ democrats, THIS IS WHY WE NEED OUR GUNS. Lets overthrow shit.[/QUOTE]We have guns already, 2nd amendment hasn't totally been demolished.
[QUOTE=faze;31192709]Government doesn't count.[/QUOTE] There are others. It was a shitty example, a stupid comment, you embarrassed yourself and now you obviously don't know anything about the country - I'd suggest you stop, deary.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.