- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Have you ever considered the possibility that massive wealth accumulation is in fact not "achievement" but a pathology?
Have you ever considered the possibility that massive wealth accumulation is in fact not "achievement" but a pathology?
The problem I have with comments like this makes the assumption that the pie is always the same size and never grows. That simply is false. The pie continues to grow and people need to stop complaining when apparently they don't have the initiative or drive to capture their piece of that growing pie.
It has nothing to do with the size of the pie except to say that there is some point when you have enough pie. If you eat too much, you could get sick. As a matter of fact, some people have so much pie they can't possibly expect to eat it all and are just competing with other pie collectors.
It's also the case that one can have plenty of initiative and drive to do things other than "capture" pie.
and who has the moral authority to make that decision?here is some point when you have enough pie
It has nothing to do with the size of the pie except to say that there is some point when you have enough pie. If you eat too much, you could get sick. As a matter of fact, some people have so much pie they can't possibly expect to eat it all and are just competing with other pie collectors.
It's also the case that one can have plenty of initiative and drive to do things other than "capture" pie.
and who has the moral authority to make that decision?
So I ask, what is your complaint?There is no final arbitor of morality. If a life could be saved with a vaccine that costs 82 cents, it should be done. If the vaccine costs $82 bn a dose, to do so would be ridiculous. I don't claim to know what "enough" is for anyone but myself.
No, the pie is the economy which keeps growing and that is what generates wealth opportunities for individuals. You have to accept the reality that some people just don't have any initiative, drive, or dedication to go after a piece of it whereas others do. Too many want to demonize those that create individual wealth and have sympathy for those that don't.
Is Obama really upset, or is he secretly happy that he's damaged the economy?
So I ask, what is your complaint?
The measurement of "achievement" by the accumulation of material wealth.
so I will return to the originally question, what gives anyone the moral authority on who has enough.The measurement of "achievement" by the accumulation of material wealth.
but it was achievment by some one, then again who has the moral authority to say what was earned and what was not.You mean it is not an achievement to inherit $50 million? I guess there are some who didn't get that memo. :shrug:
so I will return to the originally question, what gives anyone the moral authority on who has enough.
It was a straw man because you complained about an argument that no one is making. And you just did it again. I never suggested that Clinton-era tax cuts on the rich would pay for anything, let alone SS and Medicare. My argument was that all of the Bush tax cuts should expire and that that, in conjunction with responsible spending cuts, would take care of our problem.
It was a straw man because you complained about an argument that no one is making. And you just did it again. I never suggested that Clinton-era tax cuts on the rich would pay for anything, let alone SS and Medicare. My argument was that all of the Bush tax cuts should expire and that that, in conjunction with responsible spending cuts, would take care of our problem.
OK, a inheritances has already been earned and already been taxed by the person who earned it. Taxation was never meant to be a penalty on ones ability of his or hers earnings, taxation is the ability to acquire funds to be able to run our government, and in this country it would be to run the government within is constitutional boundaries. No one has the moral authority to determine who has made enough money or who has received enough gifts, at least not in a free country. Taxation should be applied equally amongst everyone regardless of social status.It has nothing to do with "who has enough"; enough is never enough! It has to do with ones ability to pay a specific amount in taxation that does not cause standard of living to decrease as taxes increase.
How long will you maintain that these are Bush Tax Cuts. The legislation signed by Bush has expired. Obama and the Democrats gave new life to what were once called the Bush Tax Cuts when Obama signed tax relief legislation in December 2010. These are now Obama Tax Cuts.
You see, even Obama can do something right, just like a broken clock gives the correct time twice a day.
Is Obama really upset, or is he secretly happy that he's damaged the economy?
Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now
assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012,
remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority
of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise
revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act
Ironic how the rightwingers are trying to use a report that blames them for the credit going down
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/af2c4fac-bfc2-11e0-90d5-00144feabdc0.pdf (bottom of page 4)
The GOP won the election. They weren't the ones that were in a position to forced into a deal that they didn't agree with.
We need to tax everyone, including the poor. So you have it exactly right. In this way we can step back from the looming "tragedy of the commons."
Does it matter? People who do not have to pay for a thing will want as much of it as they can get. That is what has happened. That is why were are here.
If you are a net provider of tax dollars you get to vote. If you are a net consumer of taxes then you don't.
But we have been told that social security contributions are not taxes. They are contributions toward our retirement. So for this purpose let's buy the lie a bit longer.
It changes a great deal. When the people who pay the taxes vote but the people who consume our taxes cannot we will bring the nation's spending back in line.
If you want to eliminate the farce that the social security taxes are contributions and agree that social security is a welfare program then I would revise my argument. But you are not likely to, are you?
The GOP won the election. They weren't the ones that were in a position to forced into a deal that they didn't agree with.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?