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

Is it right to raise taxes on the Wealthy ?

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

Previous topic | Next topic

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

04 Dec 2011, 12:08 pm

Why is the question of raising taxes on the wealthy even a matter of right or wrong? Shouldn't it be a matter of whether or not it is economically practical? Or a matter of principles rather than morals?

As a person who believes that "For the greater good" is nothing but a cheap excuse and at the same time acknowledges the Government's role in both maintaining order and regulating access to resources (I'm not talking constitutionally, but this is the whole purpose of a hierarchy and that's how it works in the vast majority of social beings), I'd be ok with higher taxes on the rich as long as they aren't ridiculously high.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Dec 2011, 7:35 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
Why is the question of raising taxes on the wealthy even a matter of right or wrong? Shouldn't it be a matter of whether or not it is economically practical? Or a matter of principles rather than morals?

As a person who believes that "For the greater good" is nothing but a cheap excuse and at the same time acknowledges the Government's role in both maintaining order and regulating access to resources (I'm not talking constitutionally, but this is the whole purpose of a hierarchy and that's how it works in the vast majority of social beings), I'd be ok with higher taxes on the rich as long as they aren't ridiculously high.


What Obama and the Democrats want in taxation on the rich isn't "ridiculously high." In fact, the tax hike would hardly be noticeable. But the way the Republicans tell it, the poor, poor rich would would be turned into paupers over night by us envious ingrates, with out social security and social safety net.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

04 Dec 2011, 7:44 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Why is the question of raising taxes on the wealthy even a matter of right or wrong? Shouldn't it be a matter of whether or not it is economically practical? Or a matter of principles rather than morals?

As a person who believes that "For the greater good" is nothing but a cheap excuse and at the same time acknowledges the Government's role in both maintaining order and regulating access to resources (I'm not talking constitutionally, but this is the whole purpose of a hierarchy and that's how it works in the vast majority of social beings), I'd be ok with higher taxes on the rich as long as they aren't ridiculously high.


What Obama and the Democrats want in taxation on the rich isn't "ridiculously high." In fact, the tax hike would hardly be noticeable. But the way the Republicans tell it, the poor, poor rich would would be turned into paupers over night by us envious ingrates, with out social security and social safety net.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
I was speaking generally so I wasn't referring to Obama or the Dems. Besides I'd prefer tax hikes over tax cuts on the rich since the rich don't need welfare. As for the Reps, looks like Eisenhower is rolling in his grave since it isn't just a tiny splinter group anymore that wants to scrap these sort of things...

Quote:
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, l952



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Dec 2011, 7:49 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Why is the question of raising taxes on the wealthy even a matter of right or wrong? Shouldn't it be a matter of whether or not it is economically practical? Or a matter of principles rather than morals?

As a person who believes that "For the greater good" is nothing but a cheap excuse and at the same time acknowledges the Government's role in both maintaining order and regulating access to resources (I'm not talking constitutionally, but this is the whole purpose of a hierarchy and that's how it works in the vast majority of social beings), I'd be ok with higher taxes on the rich as long as they aren't ridiculously high.


What Obama and the Democrats want in taxation on the rich isn't "ridiculously high." In fact, the tax hike would hardly be noticeable. But the way the Republicans tell it, the poor, poor rich would would be turned into paupers over night by us envious ingrates, with out social security and social safety net.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
I was speaking generally so I wasn't referring to Obama or the Dems. Besides I'd prefer tax hikes over tax cuts on the rich since the rich don't need welfare. As for the Reps, looks like Eisenhower is rolling in his grave since it isn't just a tiny splinter group anymore that wants to scrap these sort of things...

Quote:
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, l952


I doubt the likelihood of Ike winning the Republican nomination today.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

04 Dec 2011, 8:02 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Why is the question of raising taxes on the wealthy even a matter of right or wrong? Shouldn't it be a matter of whether or not it is economically practical? Or a matter of principles rather than morals?

As a person who believes that "For the greater good" is nothing but a cheap excuse and at the same time acknowledges the Government's role in both maintaining order and regulating access to resources (I'm not talking constitutionally, but this is the whole purpose of a hierarchy and that's how it works in the vast majority of social beings), I'd be ok with higher taxes on the rich as long as they aren't ridiculously high.


What Obama and the Democrats want in taxation on the rich isn't "ridiculously high." In fact, the tax hike would hardly be noticeable. But the way the Republicans tell it, the poor, poor rich would would be turned into paupers over night by us envious ingrates, with out social security and social safety net.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
I was speaking generally so I wasn't referring to Obama or the Dems. Besides I'd prefer tax hikes over tax cuts on the rich since the rich don't need welfare. As for the Reps, looks like Eisenhower is rolling in his grave since it isn't just a tiny splinter group anymore that wants to scrap these sort of things...

Quote:
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, l952


I doubt the likelihood of Ike winning the Republican nomination today.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
No kidding, he'd be labelled a socialist infiltrator. He didn't even like McCarthy back then so that's a double whammy for him.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Dec 2011, 9:35 pm

ruveyn wrote:
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


Yeah, well, in my experience, people generally resent being impoverished and tend to blame their impoverishment on whoever is in power (i.e. the president).

Setting ideology aside....

To think that Obama or the Democrats would actively attempt to destroy jobs/impoverish people during an election cycle is beyond silly.

If the economy doesn't improve a great deal between now and election day, Obama will be defeated and the Democrats will lose plenty of seats in the House and Senate. That is a simple, political reality.

If any party has an interest in seeing fewer jobs and more people in poverty right now, it's the Republicans. That's a political reality too.


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


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Dec 2011, 9:49 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
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


Yeah, well, in my experience, people generally resent being impoverished and tend to blame their impoverishment on whoever is in power (i.e. the president).

Setting ideology aside....

To think that Obama or the Democrats would actively attempt to destroy jobs/impoverish people during an election cycle is beyond silly.

If the economy doesn't improve a great deal between now and election day, Obama will be defeated and the Democrats will lose plenty of seats in the House and Senate. That is a simple, political reality.

If any party has an interest in seeing fewer jobs and more people in poverty right now, it's the Republicans. That's a political reality too.


That's the only logical reason why the Republicans have been digging in their heels to slow - if not stop - Obama's plans for economic recovery.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

05 Dec 2011, 2:46 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Why is the question of raising taxes on the wealthy even a matter of right or wrong? Shouldn't it be a matter of whether or not it is economically practical? Or a matter of principles rather than morals?

As a person who believes that "For the greater good" is nothing but a cheap excuse and at the same time acknowledges the Government's role in both maintaining order and regulating access to resources (I'm not talking constitutionally, but this is the whole purpose of a hierarchy and that's how it works in the vast majority of social beings), I'd be ok with higher taxes on the rich as long as they aren't ridiculously high.


What Obama and the Democrats want in taxation on the rich isn't "ridiculously high." In fact, the tax hike would hardly be noticeable. But the way the Republicans tell it, the poor, poor rich would would be turned into paupers over night by us envious ingrates, with out social security and social safety net.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


I don't think families that make $250,000 a year make enough to even afford to have a private jet, let alone someone that makes $200,000 a year. Do you think someone making $150,000 a year is rich? How about $120,000 a year.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0pNZ4Cycp4[/youtube]

Face it, Obama is talking about hiking taxes on small business owners, he just uses the "Millionaire and Billionaire" song and dance because he thinks you're stupid enough to fall for it. Question is are you stupid enough to fall for it.

Don't believe me?

Listen to it again:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0pNZ4Cycp4[/youtube]

Listen to what Obama and Biden say.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

05 Dec 2011, 3:44 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Why is the question of raising taxes on the wealthy even a matter of right or wrong? Shouldn't it be a matter of whether or not it is economically practical? Or a matter of principles rather than morals?

As a person who believes that "For the greater good" is nothing but a cheap excuse and at the same time acknowledges the Government's role in both maintaining order and regulating access to resources (I'm not talking constitutionally, but this is the whole purpose of a hierarchy and that's how it works in the vast majority of social beings), I'd be ok with higher taxes on the rich as long as they aren't ridiculously high.


What Obama and the Democrats want in taxation on the rich isn't "ridiculously high." In fact, the tax hike would hardly be noticeable. But the way the Republicans tell it, the poor, poor rich would would be turned into paupers over night by us envious ingrates, with out social security and social safety net.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


I don't think families that make $250,000 a year make enough to even afford to have a private jet, let alone someone that makes $200,000 a year. Do you think someone making $150,000 a year is rich? How about $120,000 a year.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0pNZ4Cycp4[/youtube]

Face it, Obama is talking about hiking taxes on small business owners, he just uses the "Millionaire and Billionaire" song and dance because he thinks you're stupid enough to fall for it. Question is are you stupid enough to fall for it.

Don't believe me?

Listen to it again:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0pNZ4Cycp4[/youtube]

Listen to what Obama and Biden say.


And I'm talking about taxing millionaires and billionaires - something, which I recall, you seem to think is wrong, too.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

05 Dec 2011, 11:32 am

Ahhh, poor Ike, he pretty much foretold what would happen to America, in a way. :(



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

05 Dec 2011, 2:15 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Why is the question of raising taxes on the wealthy even a matter of right or wrong? Shouldn't it be a matter of whether or not it is economically practical? Or a matter of principles rather than morals?

As a person who believes that "For the greater good" is nothing but a cheap excuse and at the same time acknowledges the Government's role in both maintaining order and regulating access to resources (I'm not talking constitutionally, but this is the whole purpose of a hierarchy and that's how it works in the vast majority of social beings), I'd be ok with higher taxes on the rich as long as they aren't ridiculously high.


What Obama and the Democrats want in taxation on the rich isn't "ridiculously high." In fact, the tax hike would hardly be noticeable. But the way the Republicans tell it, the poor, poor rich would would be turned into paupers over night by us envious ingrates, with out social security and social safety net.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


I don't think families that make $250,000 a year make enough to even afford to have a private jet, let alone someone that makes $200,000 a year. Do you think someone making $150,000 a year is rich? How about $120,000 a year.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0pNZ4Cycp4[/youtube]

Face it, Obama is talking about hiking taxes on small business owners, he just uses the "Millionaire and Billionaire" song and dance because he thinks you're stupid enough to fall for it. Question is are you stupid enough to fall for it.

Don't believe me?

Listen to it again:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0pNZ4Cycp4[/youtube]

Listen to what Obama and Biden say.


And I'm talking about taxing millionaires and billionaires - something, which I recall, you seem to think is wrong, too.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Nope, you are talking about taxing small business owners and using poll tested words in an attempt to trick people.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

05 Dec 2011, 2:29 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Why is the question of raising taxes on the wealthy even a matter of right or wrong? Shouldn't it be a matter of whether or not it is economically practical? Or a matter of principles rather than morals?

As a person who believes that "For the greater good" is nothing but a cheap excuse and at the same time acknowledges the Government's role in both maintaining order and regulating access to resources (I'm not talking constitutionally, but this is the whole purpose of a hierarchy and that's how it works in the vast majority of social beings), I'd be ok with higher taxes on the rich as long as they aren't ridiculously high.


What Obama and the Democrats want in taxation on the rich isn't "ridiculously high." In fact, the tax hike would hardly be noticeable. But the way the Republicans tell it, the poor, poor rich would would be turned into paupers over night by us envious ingrates, with out social security and social safety net.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


I don't think families that make $250,000 a year make enough to even afford to have a private jet, let alone someone that makes $200,000 a year. Do you think someone making $150,000 a year is rich? How about $120,000 a year.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0pNZ4Cycp4[/youtube]

Face it, Obama is talking about hiking taxes on small business owners, he just uses the "Millionaire and Billionaire" song and dance because he thinks you're stupid enough to fall for it. Question is are you stupid enough to fall for it.

Don't believe me?

Listen to it again:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0pNZ4Cycp4[/youtube]

Listen to what Obama and Biden say.


And I'm talking about taxing millionaires and billionaires - something, which I recall, you seem to think is wrong, too.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Nope, you are talking about taxing small business owners and using poll tested words in an attempt to trick people.


But do you have a problem with raising payroll taxes on middle and low income people?
Because your Republican friends in congress would like to do just that.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

05 Dec 2011, 2:46 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Why is the question of raising taxes on the wealthy even a matter of right or wrong? Shouldn't it be a matter of whether or not it is economically practical? Or a matter of principles rather than morals?

As a person who believes that "For the greater good" is nothing but a cheap excuse and at the same time acknowledges the Government's role in both maintaining order and regulating access to resources (I'm not talking constitutionally, but this is the whole purpose of a hierarchy and that's how it works in the vast majority of social beings), I'd be ok with higher taxes on the rich as long as they aren't ridiculously high.


What Obama and the Democrats want in taxation on the rich isn't "ridiculously high." In fact, the tax hike would hardly be noticeable. But the way the Republicans tell it, the poor, poor rich would would be turned into paupers over night by us envious ingrates, with out social security and social safety net.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


I don't think families that make $250,000 a year make enough to even afford to have a private jet, let alone someone that makes $200,000 a year. Do you think someone making $150,000 a year is rich? How about $120,000 a year.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0pNZ4Cycp4[/youtube]

Face it, Obama is talking about hiking taxes on small business owners, he just uses the "Millionaire and Billionaire" song and dance because he thinks you're stupid enough to fall for it. Question is are you stupid enough to fall for it.

Don't believe me?

Listen to it again:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0pNZ4Cycp4[/youtube]

Listen to what Obama and Biden say.


And I'm talking about taxing millionaires and billionaires - something, which I recall, you seem to think is wrong, too.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Nope, you are talking about taxing small business owners and using poll tested words in an attempt to trick people.


But do you have a problem with raising payroll taxes on middle and low income people?
Because your Republican friends in congress would like to do just that.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


There you go again...

Republicans want to cut spending to offset keeping the payroll taxes at their current rates, rather than have them increase. The Democrats are trying to say no to cutting spending and instead hike taxes on small business owners to cover it.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

05 Dec 2011, 2:49 pm

Republicans want to cut services people are dependent on.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

05 Dec 2011, 2:52 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Republicans want to cut services people are dependent on.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


That's just a Democrat scare tactic.



MarsCoban
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

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

05 Dec 2011, 2:53 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Republicans want to cut services people are dependent on.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


That's just a Democrat scare tactic.


Whether or not Democrats use it to scare people...I'm pretty sure it's the truth.


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