It's time - the rich must pay their way!

[Logician Man]

really-can you cite proof for that affirmative claim? and is that due to them being rich or the fact that they can hire better attorneys? (which is not a governmental benefit)?

Like I just stated above, and you just 'proved' me to be correct, "More often than you will ever admit."

 

[TurtleDude]

Like I just stated above, and you just 'proved' me to be correct, "More often than you will ever admit."

you can pretend that all you want. I will continue to laugh at how stupid that claim is

 

[Logician Man]

you can pretend that all you want. I will continue to laugh at how stupid that claim is

Keep laughing. The joke is on you, as usual.

 

[TurtleDude]

Keep laughing. The joke is on you, as usual.

Yeah I am sure you believe that. I am still waiting for what additional benefits high number tax payers get for paying millions in taxes that you don't get

 

[Logician Man]

Yeah I am sure you believe that. I am still waiting for what additional benefits high number tax payers get for paying millions in taxes that you don't get

How do you know I don't pay millions in taxes?

 

[TurtleDude]

How do you know I don't pay millions in taxes?

Educated guess based on all the comments you have made in the past.

 

[Logician Man]

Educated guess based on all the comments you have made in the past.

such as? List a few, if you can. You just stated "all." Certainly, you can cite a 'few.' Smart people know a 'few' is generally a smaller number than 'all.' Correct?

 

[jimbo]

ROFL. I'm supposed to feel bad for them because they're buying million dollar cars? Tell them to buy Cadillacs and Lincolns and Corvettes instead of Bentleys, Ferraris and Lamborghinis. Keep that money home instead of sending our manufacturing jobs overseas.

No matter how you see the tax problem, when 1% of the people own 30% of the wealth the country is failing.

The thread concerns taxes, not whether or not you believe the rich have too money.

 

[vesper]

There are loopholes that need to be closed on corporations that end up not paying a dime come tax time. But after that I am tired of some people on the left claiming the wealthy are not paying their fair share where many pay nothing. I don't care what you make or what group you fall into. If you use roads, federal/state programs and rely on this country for your safety from foreign and national threats, you should be contributing to it including people living on Social Security.

I think people need to focus on why we are having this discussion and that is because the Biden administration and the Democrats in Congress are proposing 3 to 4 TRILLION in spending to ensure Mother Government continue with taking care of people from cradle to grave but while that sounds good to a lot of people who refused to put the effort in to being all they can be and have made really bad choices along the way that now want those who did make the sacrifices to actually be all they could be pay for their wants and needs. This is the same MO the left has used for several decades to create big government and they have been very successful in doing so.

I am all for temporary safety nets of those in need at a state level but where we are at now is far from such a concept.

Now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of their country. Good people don't have their hand out for something they did not earn. But if you forced them to pay into things like Medicare and Social Security all their working life by golly they want a return.

My hope is that a leader comes along that cuts the unconstitutional power the federal government has acquired and put an end to the insanity.

I see that happening by abolishing the Department of Education. If they did so almost overnight seeking higher learning would become affordable And the teachers union would become extinct. Speaking of government employees in general abolished unions also.

I see states rights and their responsibilities being restored,

I see Medicare and Social Security being weaned giving people who have paid into it a refund with interest so they can invest in their own retirement while grandfathering those who are in their fifties to receive what was promised.

Here is hoping.......

 

[nvflash]

what? do they use 90% of the government services?

No they just get 90% of the profits from those that do.

 

[Lafayette]

the rule internationally-meaning politicians all over the world love being able to pander to the many by forcing a minority to bear most of the taxes. I guess you cannot understand that under 2 of the three objectively fair standards, the rich do pay more.

I love the parasite mentality-you shouldn't be able to leave what you paid taxes on to whom you want because the parasites deserve it more!!!

What the rich do is simply fund (by means of wills) their offspring who for the most part never worked a day to build the fortunes that they are "gifted". I call that eminently unfair (to all) and well-worth discontinuing. A taxation of 90% of inheritable wealth would be fine. (And 99% for all wealth above 5 megabucks even better.)

We-Yanks are fascinated by wealth. We seem to think it's like a sport that "ya just gotta win". Or a hallmark of "superior intelligence".

Well it aint either. Wealth is a well-abused condition that allows some to not only live well on their earnings but pass that lifestyle on to their young (who did absolutely nothing to deserve it except exist)!

Moreover, so much wealth going to so few is a denigration of "well-being" to which we all should have access by means of our willingness to work and earn salaries. To much wealth brings on a sense of irresponsibility as in "Well now I can do any damn thing I wanna do". That's "happiness", is it? Methinks not.

We can better employ the funds elsewhere so that there are fewer abject-poor whose lifespan is shortened due to their lack of higher-income status.

We need to focus on the very-poor* - and not the very-rich ...

*Who are poor for a lack of proper-education, which is where we should be focusing our tax-receipt funding.

 

[Loulit01]

The thread concerns taxes, not whether or not you believe the rich have too money

Everytime some people get whipped in an argument they complain the thread went off topic.

 

[Wayne Jr]

.

Instead of raising taxes, lower spending.

 

[Lafayette]

THE ESSENCE OF EXISTENCE IS ONE'S WILL

NB: The word "will' as employed here means the power of control over one's own actions or emotions

But after that I am tired of some people on the left claiming the wealthy are not paying their fair share where many pay nothing. I don't care what you make or what group you fall into. If you use roads, federal/state programs and rely on this country for your safety from foreign and national threats, you should be contributing to it including people living on Social Security.

Taxation is a matter of fairness which depends upon the level of one's compensation that is being taxed.

It is illicit that any taxation that is not progressive should be allowed. It is simply unfair in any supposedly Fair Society where all are responsible for sustaining their existence. But that cannot be done alone, which is why we have governments

The rich benefit manifestly for their riches. They poor eke out a living, and they also have a tendency to a shorter lifespan than the rich because of that poorness.

If one looks at the roots of the Communist movement one finds that the reason communism was so well accepted at first was because the cleavage between the rich and the poor was so very vast (especially in Russia where the first revolution occurred).

Communism proved finally to show that everybody earning the same salary is not the proper solution either.

The underlying economic-solution that is best is a Free Economy that allows all to work-and-earn according to their means (physical and mental). But, also, that government institutions are their to assure their Basic Needs. Namely respect for the law but also life-extending healthcare and a full-education. And that is only the "short-list".

There are other lifestyle necessities but they only require assistance and not full-provision by the state. For instance, the availability of suitable housing. All families should have decent living accommodations - but not all necessarily the same homes. Below a certain income-level living accommodations should be provided by state-governments (at very low rental-rates).

Those who want to better their lives will do so and thus earn the means for better living-accommodations that they will own. Those who will not or cannot should still have access to decent housing that is provided by the state.

It is only by providing the truly-poor the means to sustain themselves decently that some (perhaps even most) will be incentivized to better their existence by their own means.

The essence of anyone's existence is found (or not) in their "will" to better their lives ...

 

[OpportunityCost]

PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES EVEN WHEN BUILDING THE FIRST DEMOCRACY ON EARTH



Unions barely exist in the US nowadays, so this remark is irrelevant. What does exist, since Ronald-RayGun lowered upper-income taxation are huge grants of money to politicians for election purposes. The money is employed in advertising candidates as if they were objects-on-sale.

When what should be happening is a real-debate amongst the candidates, and not the God-forsaken blah-blah-blah of a TV commercial.

And furthermore, on the state level in 1812 the governor of Massachusetts introduced Gerrymandering to manipulate the popular-vote creating voting-precincts that favor one or another party. We-the-sheeple have never dumped that manipulative law either that now affects the popular-vote throughout the nation.


History Lesson (of consequences to the above voting manipulations):
*Five times in the history of the US, the EC has rejected the popular-vote and elected its loser instead of its winner. The latest error being the election of Donald Dork who also lost the popular-vote for the presidency. That is NOT how any real democracy functions.
*Because of a cockamamie law passed in 1803 when there were no trains to get the popular-vote result to Congress in the District of Columbia. Jefferson was PotUS and he mistakenly (my emphasis) signed the law that created the Electoral College.
*From here: Wikipedia - 1803 in the United States

Hint: its not a bug, its a feature.

As for gerrymandering, it cannot occur at the state level, it occurs at district levels because that's what its about. BTW, stop using buzzwords like sheeple, it does the opposite of making your point. If you really were about fairness you wouldn't be stomping the bias button so damned hard.

 

[OpportunityCost]

However, the house of representatives has been stagnant for too long and needs to be expanded. Because of the lack of expansion, the smaller states are OVER-Represented in the electoral college.

LOL over 4 to 1? Every argument that gets trotted out about the Electoral College is eventually about their candidate didn't win. Every time.

 

[skeptic llc]

You can't even get us $15 an hour, because of all the same arguments you are making are being made by those blocking it.

As long as we are just dreaming of living the American dream, then we may as well ask for a wage to count for all the inflation we are going to see from the Federal spending spree we've been on since the pandemic hit, because we know the minimum wage won't be raised for another 15 years, but the cost of living is going though the roof over that same timespan.

There is an old cliché, under promise and over deliver, so along those lines of thinking, we're going to ask for $35 and hour, that way when we settle for $20, businesses will think they got a deal.

I doubt raising the minimum wage helps workers. You make labor more expensive; businesses adapt to rely less on labor; and there are less jobs. This is not good. I'm not saying these are new points, just ones that no one I have seen has successfully rebutted. This is not a political debate -- if you want to help ordinary people, honestly and truly, then you either need to oppose minimum wage laws or come up with a counterargument that is actually accurate in describing real world consequences and points in the direction you advocate.

 

[Lafayette]

Instead of raising taxes, lower spending.

On the DoD, OK! On education - no way!

From here:

Surely one reason so many Americans lack writing skills is that, for decades, most U.S. schools haven’t taught them. In 2011, a nationwide test found that only 24 percent of students in eighth and 12th grades were proficient in writing, and just 3 percent were advanced.

And that was a decade ago.

I can't escape the obvious fact. We-plural are driving America into the pits.

If it's not obesity then its TV. And if not TV, then its alcohol.

And if its none of the above, then most surely it is the national ability to elect a twit by the name of Trump into the presidency!

Will such wonders never cease? Quite likely ...

 

[Lafayette]

LOL over 4 to 1? Every argument that gets trotted out about the Electoral College is eventually about their candidate didn't win. Every time.

My posts here have been about why it should even exist since it is a mockery of Democracy. It was an idea promoted in 1813 when there was no other democratic country on the planet. So, experience whatsoever with the method.

And, as a result, most Americans think that because the nation is the oldest democracy on earth, then it must be the best. Which is quite simply an evident non-sequitur.

Only the popular-vote in most developed nations derives either the Executive Head of government or the winning party that will install its party-leader ...

 

[Loulit01]

My posts here have been about why it should even exist since it is a mockery of Democracy. It was an idea promoted in 1813 when there was no other democratic country on the planet. So, experience whatsoever with the method.

And, as a result, most Americans think that because the nation is the oldest democracy on earth, then it must be the best. Which is quite simply an evident non-sequitur.

Only the popular-vote in most developed nations derives either the Executive Head of government or the winning party that will install its party-leader ...

This country is not a democracy. It's not even close to a true democracy and never has been. If we want to be as accurate as possible, we are a constitutional federal republic.

I agree the electoral college is no longer needed, if it ever was, which is arguable. Two senators for each state regardless of population covers anything the electoral college may have been good for.

 

[Lafayette]

As for gerrymandering, it cannot occur at the state level, it occurs at district levels because that's what its about. BTW, stop using buzzwords like sheeple, it does the opposite of making your point. If you really were about fairness you wouldn't be stomping the bias button so damned hard.

Gerrymandering occurs at the state-level of voting both for state and congressional representatives to office.

From Wikipedia:

Gerrymandering ... is a practice intended to establish an unfair political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating the boundaries of electoral districts, which is most commonly used in first-past-the-post electoral systems.

The words "electoral districts" as employed above mean both state and Federal voting bodies. Last time I looked, the states determined electoral-district boundaries.

Never the less, it is the population of the state that determines the numbers of HofR-members and their districts are evolved accordingly.

From Wikipedia here:

United States congressional apportionment

United States congressional apportionment is the process by which seats in the United States House of Representatives are distributed among the 50 states according to the most recent decennial census mandated by the United States Constitution

That is, according to the population count that is taken every ten years ...

 

[nvflash]

I doubt raising the minimum wage helps workers. You make labor more expensive; businesses adapt to rely less on labor; and there are less jobs. This is not good. I'm not saying these are new points, just ones that no one I have seen has successfully rebutted. This is not a political debate -- if you want to help ordinary people, honestly and truly, then you either need to oppose minimum wage laws or come up with a counterargument that is actually accurate in describing real world consequences and points in the direction you advocate.

What you doubt is not economically relevant, same old tried argument we hear every time about raising the minimum wage, that has never proven to be true.

 

[Luther]

Free ride is over? Does that mean that the half that pays no taxes is finally going to begin paying taxes?

No, the left wants more NOT to pay a Fed income tax through more wealth redistribution

 

[Lafayette]

This country is not a democracy. It's not even close to a true democracy and never has been. If we want to be as accurate as possible, we are a constitutional federal republic.

I agree the electoral college is no longer needed, if it ever was, which is arguable. Two senators for each state regardless of population covers anything the electoral college may have been good for.

Definition of democracy (from Merriam-Webster):

government by the people especially : rule of the majority : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

That's good enough for me since it is what happens in most countries including both the US and the European Union (EU). What worries me most is the "mechanism" employed for voting the presidency, which is antiquated and far too often lately does not work correctly ...

 

[calamity]

really-can you cite proof for that affirmative claim? and is that due to them being rich or the fact that they can hire better attorneys? (which is not a governmental benefit)?

Defense contractors benefit immensely from trillion dollar military budgets. The guy owning an import-export business benefits from the navy keeping the shipping lanes open; the guy owning a freight company benefits from the interstate system; advertisers benefit from subsidized postal delivery of junk mail; store owners benefit when customers can pay with food stamps; Section 8 housing developers benefit from tax credits and landlords from government subsidizing the rent of his tenants....need we go on?