Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Is it right to raise taxes on the Wealthy ?

Page 6 of 10 [ 157 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

03 Dec 2011, 12:19 am

androbot2084 wrote:
Why should someone be punished for failing?


Because Republicans, while complaining about punishing success, seem to think they have the right and duty to keep sticking it to the underprivileged so they won't forget how lowly they are.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

03 Dec 2011, 12:23 am

Asp-Z wrote:
I could not agree more with this. And it's funny, because if the people who spent all their time bitching about how rich other people are used all that wasted energy to actually try and make some money, they'd probably be wealthier themselves.

I am kind of tired of silly idealists. And by this I talk not about the democrats and their redistribution of wealth thingy or about people who believe in the true altruism that ruveyn hates. But about this naive belief that all rich people won their wealth through effort and that all you need to gain wealth is effort.

Sad reality is, hard work is neither necessary nor sufficient to become wealthy.


_________________
.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

03 Dec 2011, 12:30 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
I could not agree more with this. And it's funny, because if the people who spent all their time bitching about how rich other people are used all that wasted energy to actually try and make some money, they'd probably be wealthier themselves.

I am kind of tired of silly idealists. And by this I talk not about the democrats and their redistribution of wealth thingy or about people who believe in the true altruism that ruveyn hates. But about this naive belief that all rich people won their wealth through effort and that all you need to gain wealth is effort.

Sad reality is, hard work is neither necessary nor sufficient to become wealthy.


Amen, bother Vexcalibur.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



NineTailedFox
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 84

03 Dec 2011, 4:11 am

Quote:
I don't believe it is fair. Think about it this way, if you work hard for your money, save it up, invest it, and you end up wealthy, would you want to pay a higher tax percentage then some one who isn't working hard and doesn't have a lot of money because of it?


Yep, Bill Gates is clearly working millions of times harder than those impoverished schmucks who work three jobs. :roll:



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

03 Dec 2011, 7:48 am

androbot2084 wrote:
Why should someone be punished for failing?


Why should anyone be rewarded for failing?

ruveyn



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

03 Dec 2011, 10:33 am

phil777 wrote:
Ask companies if they think small business owners are wealthy and belong to their club. Go ahead, I dare ya.


It doesn't matter. Any tax hikes on the "wealthy" will end up on the backs of the upper middle class small to medium scale businessmen. Those on the very top will hire squads of lawyers to fob off tax expenses on the Lesser Folk. Justice will not be attained by upping tax rates on the "wealthy". We should have a flat rate tax (with the very bottom tax free) or at most a very gradually graded "progressive" tax.

After the tax rates are hiked on the Big Guys there will be the inevitable push to control top drawer wages such as are paid to bankers and financial manipulators (stock traders, abritragers and the like ). I think this is a thoroughly bad idea even though I dislike top dollar being paid to people who do not invent or construct anything of value. Such laws with be gotten around and government dudes will look forward to being paid by the corporations they "regulate" (ha ha, you bet!).

It will be the same old sh*t over and over again.

ruveyn



phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

03 Dec 2011, 10:39 am

ruveyn wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
Why should someone be punished for failing?


Why should anyone be rewarded for failing?

ruveyn


I'm usually dumbfounded by the amount that important personnel fetch as a "bonus" when they get licensed off. If you're getting fired, that usually means you failed somewhere, no? So why the heck should you be getting paid? -.- Perversion of the "breach" of contract between the employed and the employee? =/



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

03 Dec 2011, 11:28 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
I could not agree more with this. And it's funny, because if the people who spent all their time bitching about how rich other people are used all that wasted energy to actually try and make some money, they'd probably be wealthier themselves.

I am kind of tired of silly idealists. And by this I talk not about the democrats and their redistribution of wealth thingy or about people who believe in the true altruism that ruveyn hates. But about this naive belief that all rich people won their wealth through effort and that all you need to gain wealth is effort.

Sad reality is, hard work is neither necessary nor sufficient to become wealthy.


How so? Can you give me some examples to prove your point? I know that a few rich people were helped along by their rich families, but an increasing number of modern day wealthy people are entrepreneurs who built up businesses from nothing. I suggest you do some research on Felix Dennis - I use him as an example because he's different from the more famous guys, and he's even written a frank honest book about the acquisition of wealth which I personally recommend you educate yourself with.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

04 Dec 2011, 12:10 am

Asp-Z wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
I could not agree more with this. And it's funny, because if the people who spent all their time bitching about how rich other people are used all that wasted energy to actually try and make some money, they'd probably be wealthier themselves.

I am kind of tired of silly idealists. And by this I talk not about the democrats and their redistribution of wealth thingy or about people who believe in the true altruism that ruveyn hates. But about this naive belief that all rich people won their wealth through effort and that all you need to gain wealth is effort.

Sad reality is, hard work is neither necessary nor sufficient to become wealthy.


How so? Can you give me some examples to prove your point? I know that a few rich people were helped along by their rich families, but an increasing number of modern day wealthy people are entrepreneurs who built up businesses from nothing. I suggest you do some research on Felix Dennis - I use him as an example because he's different from the more famous guys, and he's even written a frank honest book about the acquisition of wealth which I personally recommend you educate yourself with.


He's not going to do that because it would totally destroy his leftist world view.

When liberals start screaming tax the rich, they really mean tax small businesses out of business and punishing retirees.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

04 Dec 2011, 1:51 am

Asp-Z wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Why should small business owners and retirees be punished for being successful? That's the real question here. When Democrats use the code word "rich" they mean small business owners and retirees.


Bait and switch shameful.
the top 1% are not small business people and retires.
If you were honest you would stop repeating this lie.


He makes a good point, what the governments define as "rich" is rarely what we think of as "rich". Here in the UK, the government says anyone earning over £150,000 is "rich", and that makes you a certain percentage of highest earning people in the country and whatever, but in the real world, these people have bigger mortgages and more bills, so they still feel financially squeezed.


:o

Oh, what the wealthy must endure!

Just think, their hounds might have to eat sirloin (instead of prime rib) just so some inconsiderate little poor child can have a FREE breakfast of cold cereal before school… :cry:

I say let the hounds eat the poor children. That way, the poor children are fed, and the wealthy have one less thing to worry about! :D


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

04 Dec 2011, 2:06 am

GoonSquad wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Why should small business owners and retirees be punished for being successful? That's the real question here. When Democrats use the code word "rich" they mean small business owners and retirees.


Bait and switch shameful.
the top 1% are not small business people and retires.
If you were honest you would stop repeating this lie.


He makes a good point, what the governments define as "rich" is rarely what we think of as "rich". Here in the UK, the government says anyone earning over £150,000 is "rich", and that makes you a certain percentage of highest earning people in the country and whatever, but in the real world, these people have bigger mortgages and more bills, so they still feel financially squeezed.


:o

Oh, what the wealthy must endure!

Just think, their hounds might have to eat sirloin (instead of prime rib) just so some inconsiderate little poor child can have a FREE breakfast of cold cereal before school… :cry:

I say let the hounds eat the poor children. That way, the poor children are fed, and the wealthy have one less thing to worry about! :D


*Sigh

You guys really have no idea what you are talking about....

Taxing small businesses out of existence is precisely what Democrats want, when Obama starts railing about millionaires and billionaires, he is really talking about small business owners.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

04 Dec 2011, 2:16 am

Inuyasha wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Why should small business owners and retirees be punished for being successful? That's the real question here. When Democrats use the code word "rich" they mean small business owners and retirees.


Bait and switch shameful.
the top 1% are not small business people and retires.
If you were honest you would stop repeating this lie.


He makes a good point, what the governments define as "rich" is rarely what we think of as "rich". Here in the UK, the government says anyone earning over £150,000 is "rich", and that makes you a certain percentage of highest earning people in the country and whatever, but in the real world, these people have bigger mortgages and more bills, so they still feel financially squeezed.


:o

Oh, what the wealthy must endure!

Just think, their hounds might have to eat sirloin (instead of prime rib) just so some inconsiderate little poor child can have a FREE breakfast of cold cereal before school… :cry:

I say let the hounds eat the poor children. That way, the poor children are fed, and the wealthy have one less thing to worry about! :D


*Sigh

You guys really have no idea what you are talking about....

Taxing small businesses out of existence is precisely what Democrats want, when Obama starts railing about millionaires and billionaires, he is really talking about small business owners.


Okay, I'm a little slow. Please explain to me how "taxing small businesses out of existence" fits into the democrat master plan.

How does that help them exactly?


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

04 Dec 2011, 2:34 am

GoonSquad wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Why should small business owners and retirees be punished for being successful? That's the real question here. When Democrats use the code word "rich" they mean small business owners and retirees.


Bait and switch shameful.
the top 1% are not small business people and retires.
If you were honest you would stop repeating this lie.


He makes a good point, what the governments define as "rich" is rarely what we think of as "rich". Here in the UK, the government says anyone earning over £150,000 is "rich", and that makes you a certain percentage of highest earning people in the country and whatever, but in the real world, these people have bigger mortgages and more bills, so they still feel financially squeezed.


:o

Oh, what the wealthy must endure!

Just think, their hounds might have to eat sirloin (instead of prime rib) just so some inconsiderate little poor child can have a FREE breakfast of cold cereal before school… :cry:

I say let the hounds eat the poor children. That way, the poor children are fed, and the wealthy have one less thing to worry about! :D


*Sigh

You guys really have no idea what you are talking about....

Taxing small businesses out of existence is precisely what Democrats want, when Obama starts railing about millionaires and billionaires, he is really talking about small business owners.


Okay, I'm a little slow. Please explain to me how "taxing small businesses out of existence" fits into the democrat master plan.

How does that help them exactly?


Because Democrats rely on the poor to be their voting base, the welfare system leaves people beholden to the government and thus beholden to democrats cause they are dependent on the welfare state. If people were getting jobs and working up out of poverty, then Democrats would lose their voting base.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

04 Dec 2011, 3:13 am

Inuyasha wrote:

Because Democrats rely on the poor to be their voting base, the welfare system leaves people beholden to the government and thus beholden to democrats cause they are dependent on the welfare state. If people were getting jobs and working up out of poverty, then Democrats would lose their voting base.


Ahh…

So…. The democrats want to plunge as many voters as possible into abject poverty, in a desperate bid to hold power. AND, they’re doing this in spite of the fact that such a strategy has never proven successful in the history of…. ever.

You’re saying the democrats plan to “zig” when even the most reptile of intelligence would look at the situation and scream “ZAG!”

Diabolically clever!! !! 8O

Well, you’ve convinced me. How do we stop them?


:P


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

04 Dec 2011, 10:19 am

GoonSquad wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:

Because Democrats rely on the poor to be their voting base, the welfare system leaves people beholden to the government and thus beholden to democrats cause they are dependent on the welfare state. If people were getting jobs and working up out of poverty, then Democrats would lose their voting base.


Ahh…

So…. The democrats want to plunge as many voters as possible into abject poverty, in a desperate bid to hold power. AND, they’re doing this in spite of the fact that such a strategy has never proven successful in the history of…. ever.

You’re saying the democrats plan to “zig” when even the most reptile of intelligence would look at the situation and scream “ZAG!”

Diabolically clever!! !! 8O

Well, you’ve convinced me. How do we stop them?


:P


It is in the interests of the government to make as many people into dependents as is practical.

People who have to tug their forelock to get fed are unlikely to make trouble.

ruveyn



MarsCoban
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 175
Location: Colorado

04 Dec 2011, 11:20 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Taxing small businesses out of existence is precisely what Democrats want, when Obama starts railing about millionaires and billionaires, he is really talking about small business owners.


I doubt that most small business owners are even close to being millionaires, let alone billionaires...


_________________
I try to prevent my ego from obscuring my greatness.