11 Things The Wealthiest 400 Americans Could Buy Their Country

[sangha]

YOu do claim the rich don't pay enough don't you? Your definition of fair has no objective basis

Yes, I do claim that the rich do not pay their fair share and my definition of fair has an objective basis, but I still do not understand how your response is any way related to the topic under discussion in this thread. Maybe you could explain?

 

[Catawba]

"Those seeking profits," Jefferson wrote, "were they given total freedom, would not be the ones to trust to keep government pure and our rights secure. Indeed, it has always been those seeking wealth who were the source of corruption in government. No other depositories of power have ever yet been found, which did not end in converting to their own profit the earnings of those committed to their charge."

"I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. ... We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. ... [Otherwise], as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, ... and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers." - Thomas Jefferson in an 1816 letter to Samuel Kerchiva

 

[ecofarm]

I'm pretty sure he meant "Those seeking [only] profits..." and not everyone who wants to have something in their pocket.

 

[Catawba]

I'm pretty sure he meant "Those seeking [only] profits..." and not everyone who wants to have something in their pocket.

"Indeed, it has always been those seeking wealth who were the source of corruption in government. No other depositories of power have ever yet been found, which did not end in converting to their own profit the earnings of those committed to their charge."

 

[Moon]

That has been discussed in a different thread devoted to that topic

http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/104659-fair-share.html

You expect me to read 400 posts to try to determine what your answer is? If that's as concise as you can be, then I'd say you haven't really given this much thought beyond the mantra that the rich aren't paying their fair share. If you'd like to boil it down to a few posts, I'd gladly take a look, but I'm not going to read 10 pages of fluff to try to figure out your answer.

 

[Conservative]

Found on FairEconomy.org.

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?
Debate!

According to the IRS, 47% of all income earners in this country most making 50,000 or less are paying zero in Federal Income Taxes. Since we have a workforce today of approximately 139.3 million can you imagine what 65 million Americans paying zero in FIT could buy for Americans by contributing just $100 a year? Think about it? Instead of focusing on 400 why not focus on 65 million?

 

[zimmer]

Maybe the inequality in this country..

There was no inequality in the USSR? There was no inequality between them and the Western nations?

Have you ever heard of the Pareto Principle? It applies across the board in all aspects of business and life. By punishing the wealthy, you punish those who are dependent on the wealthy to create jobs. You make it tougher on the middle and lower classes, not easier by trying to punish the wealthy.

What the wealthy could buy? Yeah, they could buy the parasitic masses who would accept these handouts a lot of things, and then what when the capital is pissed away? You have killed the geese laying the Golden Eggs.

Tell me, if you have an idea for a business, and have no capital, and little collateral... do you go to the bank? LOL... or do you look to sell your idea to someone in an attempt to raise the necessary funds; allowing them to take a part of the company, part of the profit, sell the idea outright? Or do you go to Obama (projectile vomit icon)?

Envy of the wealth of others is destructive... as Obama is proving so beautifully.

I would love to buy each American citizen a round trip ticket to Europe, and have them work there for a year, have them open a business, have them have to deal with the putrid bureaucracy (which makes it tough for upward mobility but protects those who know and can afford to game the system)... so they return understanding how great America was and can be again... if we are free to choose our own path with minimal government intrusion. I would hope those that loved socialism would stay in Europe... I'd give them triple the return airfare in cash as a parting gift.

.

 

[sangha]

You expect me to read 400 posts to try to determine what your answer is? If that's as concise as you can be, then I'd say you haven't really given this much thought beyond the mantra that the rich aren't paying their fair share. If you'd like to boil it down to a few posts, I'd gladly take a look, but I'm not going to read 10 pages of fluff to try to figure out your answer.

Ok, conscise

Everyone should pay taxes proportionate to their disposable income

 

[sangha]

According to the IRS, 47% of all income earners in this country most making 50,000 or less are paying zero in Federal Income Taxes. Since we have a workforce today of approximately 139.3 million can you imagine what 65 million Americans paying zero in FIT could buy for Americans by contributing just $100 a year? Think about it? Instead of focusing on 400 why not focus on 65 million?

Yes, it would be pocket change in proportion

$100 x 65mill = 6.5 billion compared to the $1.37 TRILLION the chart mentions

 

[ecofarm]

"Indeed, it has always been those seeking wealth who were the source of corruption in government. No other depositories of power have ever yet been found, which did not end in converting to their own profit the earnings of those committed to their charge."

Same thing. He was talking about excess or solely focusing on those things, and the need for more important stuff in life, like principles and such. To pretend he's a commie by taking his words as contextless absolutes is ridiculous borderline psycho nonsense of a low order. I guess it's bait.

 

[Alyssa]

Do you think the "playing field" is level? that the games aren't rigged? Wall Street is the new face of organized crime, with a complicit congress participating in the cover-up. The president COULD appoint special prosecutors to go after those guilty of betraying the public trust, but that would create a panic in the market, not something we need right now, but should be done anyway.

And that's the point. So many people are fooled into believing that the super wealthy are somehow better than everyone else, and "earned" their wealth because of their superior skills. But the real truth is that the economy is not, and has never been an equal opportunity game. It is clearly rigged. And those who argue otherwise have been deceived.

 

[ecofarm]

Is this the CT forum? I didn't see McFly around.

 

[Alyssa]

According to the IRS, 47% of all income earners in this country most making 50,000 or less are paying zero in Federal Income Taxes. Since we have a workforce today of approximately 139.3 million can you imagine what 65 million Americans paying zero in FIT could buy for Americans by contributing just $100 a year? Think about it? Instead of focusing on 400 why not focus on 65 million?

Because the 400 make more than the 65 million combined.

Besides, a flat tax makes the most sense to me. Everyone pays the same. Those making below poverty level pay nothing. Afterall, one can't squeeze water from a rock.

 

[sangha]

Same thing. He was talking about excess or solely focusing on those things, and the need for more important stuff in life, like principles and such. To pretend he's a commie by taking his words as contextless absolutes is ridiculous borderline psycho nonsense of a low order. I guess it's bait.

The quote says nothing about excess or solely focusing on those things. Jefferson was known for his talent with words. I don't see why you think YOU can improve his words by adding words and phrases.

"Indeed, it has always been those seeking wealth who were the source of corruption in government. No other depositories of power have ever yet been found, which did not end in converting to their own profit the earnings of those committed to their charge."

He said "those seeking wealth" with no other qualifications.

 

[Catawba]

Same thing. He was talking about excess or solely focusing on those things, and the need for more important stuff in life, like principles and such. To pretend he's a commie by taking his words as contextless absolutes is ridiculous borderline psycho nonsense of a low order. I guess it's bait.

Where did I say he was a commie? I expected better from you. My "communistic tendencies," that you presume, go as far as the principles set in place and supported by our forefathers for the last 80 years under the rule of law in this country under both political parties.

If that is your view of communism, then your viewpoint is skewed. :sun

 

[Conservative]

Yes, it would be pocket change in proportion

$100 x 65mill = 6.5 billion compared to the $1.37 TRILLION the chart mentions

$100 was an example. Why don't you just get it over with and take all the income from the rich? How much is that fair share? Do you think it is their responsibility to pay for what you want?

 

[Conservative]

Because the 400 make more than the 65 million combined.

Besides, a flat tax makes the most sense to me. Everyone pays the same. Those making below poverty level pay nothing. Afterall, one can't squeeze water from a rock.

How do you know that? You hav no idea what those 65 million make but better think again. I support the flat tax as well but more importantly a major downsizing in the Federal Govt.

 

[sangha]

$100 was an example. Why don't you just get it over with and take all the income from the rich? How much is that fair share? Do you think it is their responsibility to pay for what you want?

And I responded to the example YOU gave. It's not my fault your example was so FAIL. Why don't you just discuss the issue instead of making inane accusations?

 

[sangha]

How do you know that?

Because the proof of that has already been posted, several times in this thread.

 

[Conservative]

And I responded to the example YOU gave. It's not my fault your example was so FAIL. Why don't you just discuss the issue instead of making inane accusations?

The insane accusatiion is that someone else should pay for what you want or need. Is that how you were raised?

 

[Conservative]

Because the proof of that has already been posted, several times in this thread.

Wrong, you have no idea what the 65 million americans who don't pay taxes have in total assets. The evil 400 mentioned doesn't have all their assets in cash, it is total holdings.

 

[Catawba]

Ronald Reagan on the dangers of not raising the debt ceiling ~

 

[Mach]

Taxing people is not harrassment

Freedom is slavery, death is life. Amazing stuff.

You do not want people to be free to like, or dislike taxation. That's a double-standard your weak position can't resolve. If you get to say it's not, surely you afford others the same freedom to claim it is. Or as we see here, you don't. Nice system of ethics, authoritarian, anti-freedom, and oblivious to boot.

So? We werent talking about "overall losses" or the mortgage crisis. Stop trying to change the subject.

So then why did you reply with this?

No, by commiting fraud when they lie about the terms of the loan.

Replying to you, then having you claim it was a topic change when you introduced it, is inappropriate.

 

[Mach]

Ronald Reagan on the dangers of not raising the debt ceiling

If it's so dangerous to let slide, I'd use it as a lever to get reform in other areas if I were a politician.
And I'd, you know, stop spending so much next time.

 

[Conservative]

Ronald Reagan on the dangers of not raising the debt ceiling ~

Why go back to Reagan, what did Obama say about raising the Debt ceiling in 2006? Do you realize the current debt is close to our yearly GDP? Obama has added 4 trillion in three years and liberals want to blame Reagan how added 1.7 trillion in 8? Guess it depends on who does the spending and on what, right? National defense really bothers liberals.